The Athletic Hockey Show - Mark Scheifele hit overshadows game 1 of Canadiens-Jets, the Avalanche- Golden Knights series, NHL Draft Lottery and more

Episode Date: June 3, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss Mark Scheifele's hit late in the game on Wednesday that overshadowed game one in the Canadiens-Jets series, will anyone be able to stop the Colorado Avalanche, and the NHL Draft Lottery.Also, in the mailbag, one listener asks about the Seth Jones situation in Columbus, and the duo are asked to compare the Toronto Maple Leafs of now to the 90s Red Wings, "This Week in Hockey History" and more.Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail], or leave a VM at [phone]!Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hey everybody, welcome back. It's another playoff edition of The Athletic Hockey Show. Ian Medes, Sean McIndoo with you for this episode of the podcast. Coming up in the next hour, the Habs opening night win over Winnipeg, overshadowed by an ugly hit on Jake Evans. We'll chat about Mark Shifley having a hearing with the Department of Player Safety and what the punishment might be and what the punishment should be. Can anybody stop the Colorado Avalanche?

We'll talk about the most anticipatory. paid-in series of the playoffs, but it's certainly not going the way the Vegas Golden Knights expected. We'll tackle some of your listener questions as well, including what the blue jackets can get for Seth Jones. And if there are any parallels between this year's Maple Leafs and the Red Wings are the early 90s. And yeah, of course, we're going to talk to Sean all about that Maple Leaf collapse. As always, we'll wrap up the show with a little this week in hockey history looking back at the Florida Panthers, improbable playoff upset over the powerhouse Penguins and Jacques de Mares's bold call in the Stanley Cup final.

But, Sean, as we open this podcast here on a Thursday, I think it feels like we got to tackle what is obviously the most newsworthy and significant story, which is the thing I alluded to there, Mark Schifley, with a hit on Jake Evans. It really brought me right back. I don't know if you felt the same way, but watching that hit live and in real time brought me right back to the John Tavares incident where you just, you feel so uncomfortable as a viewer. And all you can think about is, my goodness gracious, I hope this young man is okay. And boy, that was a really frightening incident that, that to me, really overshadowed the main

storylines from game one. Yeah, I think it did. And it's, it's unfortunate because that was a pretty entertaining game. That was, you know, after. after both these teams came off of series where maybe there was not as much entertainment values we thought there might be either because the series was short in the case of the Jets or low scoring in the case of Montreal, this was a fun game right up until the end. And unfortunately, if that last minute plays out differently, we're probably having

different discussions about how the series is going to go and who's going to do what. but, but unfortunately, it's all Mark Schifley and Jake Evans and waiting on news of that because that was just such a ugly moment, whatever you thought of it. It's awful to see something like that and to have it happen in this league for the second time in a couple of weeks was not good. No, and, you know, I see some people, I think it's a minority of people, but you always see some people defend the hit and say, hey, it's playoff hockey.

Evan should have had his head up. I don't agree with that. Listen, I liken that to, you know, when you see in football, a wide receiver goes over the middle and he's defenseless and there's just a reckless hit from his safety, that's what it felt like. It felt predatory. It felt unnecessary.

It felt vicious. And when you track it, this is what I think is really important because I've actually watched the clip, and I like the fact that some people have posted the clip without the hit, but you watch Shifley skate 190 feet up the ice. That's my issue with it. I know there's so much talk, Sean, from people defending the hit. Look, look, his arms were in, head wasn't the principal point of contact. My biggest issue with it was the length of the ice that Shifley traveled to hit Jake Evans. And I think maybe people need to understand that charging is a suspendable offense. It's not just a, hey, he got his elbow up or he hit his shoulder to his head.

It's, guy, you come from 190 feet from the other side of the rink and hit a defenseless player. I'm sorry, but that's got to be a suspendable offense, no? Yeah, it's charging. I mean, that was that was textbook charging. And it's a rule that's not very well understood. I've written about this a couple of times in the past. I think most people haven't read the rule fans and media and broadcasters who comment on it don't seem to realize what the rule says. There's a misconception out there that charging is when you are taking strides to make a hit and that if you glide into it, stop moving your feet, that it's not charging. That's not true. That's not in the rule book. That has never been there.

charge is it's based on the speed and the distance traveled and in this case I mean you almost physically couldn't travel a further distance so it's a charge he got five minutes for charging in the game that was the right call and he's going to get suspended for charging and that will also

be the right call now having said that I don't defend the hit I do think that there's, I disagree with some people who are seeing more intent here than I am. And here I'm talking about, I've seen this described as like a Dale Hunter 2.0 situation where people are looking at this and they're saying Mark Schifley knows that Jake Evans is going to score and the game is going to be over. and so he's going to punish this guy for scoring a goal. He's going to take a cheap shot at a defensive player.

Well, he was a defenseist player, and it was a cheap shot in the sense that, as I said, it's charging. But I don't view this as Mark Schifley saying, oh, this guy's going to score, I'm going to take him out. This to me is Mark Schifley saying, this guy has got a chance to score. If he scores the game's over, I've got to stop that goal from happening. and I think the fact that he goes end to end all the way across the ice, while it makes this absolute textbook charging, that also to me shows me that this wasn't a guy who set out to hurt someone. This is a guy who's setting out to bust his behind on the back check to get back and try to prevent a goal.

And he gets there a fraction of a second late. I know some people have said, well, why didn't he play the puck? That's a tough play to make. Puck's moving. Puck's small. He's got to try to poke it at full speed. Yeah, that's an option. You can do that. Or you can try to play through the body. The way I've described this is I feel like there are so many hits that happen in this league where we end up arguing over whether it's clean or not by the textbook definition of the rules. And we sort of skip over the question of why did this hit even have to happen in the first place? Like, yeah, maybe it's technically clean, but there's three minutes left in a 5-1 game. Why are you even throwing this hit? Or what's even the, you know, what was even the purpose of making a hit like that? And this one's kind of the opposite.

I don't think there's any argument about whether it's clean. It's absolutely a charge. And it was one that had a catastrophic result. And that's going to be a suspension. But when it comes to why was the hit throwing, to my eyes, it's pretty clearly a case of a guy who's trying to break up a scoring play. And that doesn't let him off the hook, but it does take it out of the Dale Hunter category that a lot of people seem to want to put it in. Yeah. You know, I look at it though, like, and you see again, the devastating consequences from the hit, it's tough.

because I think so many times we do look at the letter of the law and we try. And it's almost like, and I took a couple of law classes when we were in journalism school back in the day. And remember, there was always the case. And it's like from the 1960s and Supreme Court in the United States and they're trying to rule on what constitutes an obscene image. And the judge's ruling was basically, look, I just know it when I see it. And that's how I felt about that hit yesterday. Like I just knew that it's wrong. Like I don't want to nitpick it.

It's just wrong. And I'm glad that he's getting a phone hearing. I think what some people are angry about is the fact that it's not an in-person or a Zoom one. So that means this is going to be five games and fewer for Shifley. If I had the guess, and I know that we sometimes spin a roulette wheel, my guess is two games for Mark Shifley. That's my guess. Yeah.

I think it's going to be more than that. You never really know with the Department of Player's Safety. And maybe some of that depends on what news we might get about Jake Evans today because they do look at severity of injury. I think it's going to be higher than that. But yeah, the fact that it's going to be five games or less, I mean, you can do the math, right? We just finish game one. That means there's a chance Mark Schifley comes back in this series.

Yeah, I mean, you're right. You don't have to be a hockey fan. You don't have to be a real book expert to see that hit play out. You don't even need replays. You just see it once and you go, that looked awful. And again, not excusing the hit because this is one of those plays where if you're going to hit like that, it has to be clean. It's on you as the guy delivering the hit. Same thing when you hit a guy in the head.

You can say I didn't mean to. that's all well and good. But the rulebook doesn't say you're not allowed to mean to hit a guy in the head. The rulebook says you can't hit a guy in the head. And the rulebook doesn't say you're not allowed to charge the entire length of the rink and launch into a guy in an attempt to hurt him. It says you can't do that, period. Obviously, if we think it's intentional, that puts it in a whole new category.

And we shouldn't be talking. We should be talking about in-person hearings and guys being done for the rest of the playoffs. if we really think that that's what Mark Shoeh is trying to do. I think the fact that you watch the hit and that he's got the elbow tucked, he's got, you know, everything else about the moment of impact fits some sort of definition of a clean hit, which, again, doesn't excuse it because it's charging. So it's not clean by definition. But again, that tells me this isn't a guy going, I'm going to wreck this dude.

I'm going to try to put this guy out of the series. I'm going to punish him because guys who do that don't usually tuck the elbow down. and hit that way. I think it's just, it's a reckless, careless play that has an awful result, and that's on the player delivering the hit. And, you know, as I say, I'm not going to hang him out to dry and say he was trying to hurt the guy. But I'm also not going to let him off the hook because of that, because it doesn't matter what you're trying to do.

You have to hit clean in this league. and that's not a clean hit. And, you know, as we wrap up this portion of the conversation, one thing I want to talk about just for a moment, and I think, you know, there's a talk about a lack of respect from Shifley and, you know, disregard for his safety. I think we need to point out what Nikolai Yelers did.

In the heart, sorry, the heat of that moment when all of the players were gathered around and they were going after Shifley, the Habs players, your immediate thought, and you could see the linesman trying to hold players back, for Nikolai Eelers, Sean, to have the presence of mind to almost put his body out, put his arms out to sort of create a like a blockade to prevent players from falling on Jake Evans, I thought was such a respectful and thoughtful gesture in the heat of the moment. We can't forget that because I think a lot of people are going to say, look, these players don't respect each other. But Nikolai Eilers showed some respect there.

And I think we can't let that moment pass and understand. that players players do have respect for each other. Sometimes it's when the game is on, they don't have it. But boy, I love seeing that gesture from Nick Eelers on Wednesday night.

Yeah, it's, I mean, it's smart in the moment and credit to the linesmen too, because usually the linesmen are trained when a scrum like that breaks out, you jump in,

start picking guys to, to peel off the pile and he was smart enough to physically get down there and block. We do see this in the NHL. It's not common, but it's every now and then you'll see a hit where somebody gets hurt and everybody comes and piles in.

Meanwhile, the guys lay in there. And, you know, we've seen some near misses where guys are, you know, getting shoved and pushed. And, I mean, obviously the Steve Moore situation comes to mind is a case where everybody jumped on the pile. And meanwhile, this kid's hurt at the bottom of it and not getting the attention he needs. So good on them for being aware of the situation. and making sure to try to protect somebody who obviously in that moment very much needed it. So obviously, look, we got a Winnipeg Montreal series

that not a lot of people saw coming when the Stanley Cup playoff started, right? They're the three and four seeds in the North Division. A lot of people figured Toronto was going to get through, Edmonton would get through, and instead we're getting Winnipeg, Montreal. The reason why we have that, of course, your beloved Toronto Maple Leafs take it out

in a 3-1 series collapse. And before we get your fresh take on this, Sean, okay, I want to give you some credit, because let's go back to let's roll the tape, as they like to say in the industry. Here, folks, is Sean McIndoo. Down goes Brown seven days ago, I want to stress this,

seven days ago when the Maple Leafs had a 3-1 series lead, have a listen to what he had to say. The series isn't over yet. We're four games in to a potential lead. seven game series. So there's a lot of room left for twists and turns. And I know, look, the Leaves have been the better team. There's an expectation that they'll close it out tonight, but it's not very hard to imagine a situation where Kerry Perez is a great game tonight, Canadian Steel Game 5. Now you go back to Montreal. There's going to be a few fans in the

building. That changed the dynamic. Montreal wins game six. Now it's game seven. Oh my goodness. And here we go. And all the storylines and narratives and everything spring to life. All right, man, I got to give you credit. Because even at 3-1, you could hear yourself talking yourself into, ah, it's going to be 3-2, then they get back home, they got the fans, 3-3, game 7. You never know what's going to happen. And that's exactly how it played itself out. Yeah, man, this is not my first day here.

This is, I have been down this path with this team. And it's, look, I'm not going to sit here and say, I thought they were going to lose the series when they're up 3-1. But I certainly wasn't looking ahead to run. round two yet. And it played out, unfortunately, pretty similar to that. And if anything, it was maybe a little bit worse than from a Maple Leafs fan's perspective, because in the scenario I described, I kind of had Kerry Price standing on his head and stealing games. And Carey Price played really well in those last three games, but I'm not convinced that he stole any of them.

the Leaves just really didn't show up in especially games 5 and 6 game 7 I will give Montreal credit game 7 Toronto didn't look good for a lot of it but I felt that like that had more to do with Montreal than it did Toronto they really just played a ferocious committed defensive game and had it pay off but games 5 and 6 the Leaves just just didn't show up

And I think on some level, you can never excuse it in the playoffs, but on some level, maybe you could understand it in game five. But game six, the way it played out is the one that I think above and beyond any of them should be the one that stands out because how do you no-show the first half of a game like that after what had just happened in game five? I don't get it. So what I don't get is, like, you are known for your razor-sharp wit, your hilarious commentary in the hockey world.

But you kind of went Twitter dark on us, man. Like right after the Leafs, I was waiting. I was like, here comes. There's going to be a great. So did you have something in your draft folder? Were you just too upset? Did you just feel like, you know what? I wrote the column on Monday.

I don't need to say anything. Like, take us through after they lost in the hour or two after. Like, what are you thinking? What are you feeling? And you just didn't tweet. I don't think unless I miss something. No, I did. I mean, I wrote my pre-game 7 column, which was also my post-game 7 column. I mean, you didn't have to read super hard between the lines on what I was saying on Monday as far as where I thought that game was going to go.

I stayed off Twitter during game 7 and, you know, without going to go. without going too far down a path, frankly, I don't need to sit there for three hours and have every random stranger who has decided they hate the Leafs and all their fans popping into my mentions to let me know that. I, like everyone else here, I watch sports for fun, and I don't feel obligated to do it in ways that aren't going to be fun.

So apologies, if anyone was disappointed by that, but yeah, Twitter, Twitter was closed for me for most of that evening and remains closed to a lot of people going forward. Yeah. And you know what? And I see the way that Mitch Warner has kind of ducked out of social media. And I don't blame them. Listen, I'm all for, I think, like, I remember Daniel Alpherson told me this years ago.

And this was when Ottawa was really struggling. You remember the early 2000s, senators couldn't get over the hump. And I remember Daniel Alpherson telling me, and this was right around the time there was trade rumors around him. I remember him telling me specifically, saying, listen, I'll never, just, you know, if you criticize me on the ice, I'll never have a problem with you. Just don't ever, don't ever take a shot at my personality, my family, or anything off the ice. He's like, everything I do on the ice, I want you to know that's fair game. And I always remembered that. And I feel like Mitch Martner in particular has been the target of some stuff that kind of goes beyond just on the ice.

And I see Mitch Martin like dropping all of his social media accounts. And I don't necessarily blame him, to be honest with you. No, it's, I mean, look, some of this criticism is fair, which doesn't mean it's it's right. but it's fair in the sense that, you know, if you're getting down to guys' commitment or that sort of thing, it's kind of a gray area. And but it does matter. And look, I always try not to go too far down this path of lecturing fans about some of this stuff. Because at the end of the day, virtually everyone cares too much about this league, this sport.

the results of what we see on the ice. If we all cared a rational amount, we'd barely even be talking about this stuff. It's a bunch of guys out there bat in a puck around. We care about it more than we should. And as part of that, that's why this league gets to be a billion-dollar league. That's why these players get to make millions of dollars. That's why guys like you and me get to do this as our job.

So I don't want to sit here. and act like the passion from fans, both positive and negative, is, is a problem. I don't want to say that it's something that they should be able to flip on and off, like a switch. Some of this is, it kind of goes with the territory, but some of it doesn't. Some of it goes too far. And, yeah, obviously when we know what it can be like on social media, you can imagine if you're front and center in the middle of it, with millions of followers, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to imagine how it can go.

And yeah, absolutely. Get off of that stuff. And there's, you can be mad at Mitch Marner. You get a bad series. Go ahead and be disappointed. Go ahead and be mad. He's not obligated to listen to you on that. He's not obligated to sit there and take it.

He's got to take it from his coaches and his teammates and whoever else. He doesn't have to take it from you as a fan. and if he's making a decision to not engage with that, that's probably the right call. You know, I think a lot of people are probably like, oh, man, it's the two Canadian guys talking about all the Canadian series and storyline. So let's, Sean, talk about the series that I think we were probably the most excited about. Probably this is the series we had circled for weeks, if not months,

and that was the Colorado Avalanche and the Vegas Golden Knights. And boy, Colorado does it again, Miko Rantedinton. I know Pete DeBore in the Vegas Golden. The Knights not happy that, you know, you give Colorado a power play at overtime. But the avalanche are six for six in the Stanley Cup playoffs this year? Sean, is there anybody stopping them? I mean, Tampa Bay, I guess, maybe. But like, are we on a collision course for Tampa, Colorado right now?

I mean, that'd be cool if we were because that would be a hell of a series. Yeah. But we're two games in to the second round. You know, again, kind of like last week, let's not get ahead of ourselves on this. Vegas is still in this. Hurricanes are still in this. And as somebody pointed out to me, and I'd forgotten about this, but they pointed to the 99 Red Wings. Now, if you don't remember that team, they had just won the Stanley Cup two years in a row.

They're going for number three. At the 99 deadline, they load up. I mean, they just go in a shopping spreeing bring in all sorts of big name veterans. They look unbeatable, and they go into the first round, and they sweep, just like Colorado did. And they go into the second round, and they win the first two games. And so it's six straight wins to start the playoffs, and people are going, it's over, man. Like this, just put their name on the Stanley Cup now. Go ahead and get a head start.

And what happens after that? They lose four straight and end up exiting the second round in six games. Now, the interesting thing there is who was the team that knocked him out? was Colorado avalanche. So Colorado fans who have been around long enough know that this stuff can turn pretty quickly. And same thing in Tampa and Carolina. This 2-0 is two-nothing is a big lead, but it's not four. And there's still a ways to go.

That haven't been said. Man, Colorado looks good. That first game, okay, maybe we give Vegas a mulligan on that. You've just come off a hard fought series. There was that sort of somewhat strange decision to go with Robin Lainer. It just wasn't their night. And if you're a Vegas fan or Vegas player, you kind of at the end of game one, go, you know what, just burn the tapes.

We're not learning anything from this. They're going to get a real game from us, game two. They didn't get it tonight. We didn't show up, but we'll show up for game two. And they did show up for game two, and Colorado's still won. And that's the frustrating part. that's where you're sitting there going, okay, you know what, we weren't ready for game one, but we threw our best punch in game two, and we still lost that one.

So it's tough. It's, you know, obviously Colorado at this point has to be the prohibitive favorite for that series, and to win the Stanley Cup. And if we get them against Tampa in the final, that would be just a fantastic one for the ages. But there's six other teams still in this that are going to say, hey, wait a second. We're in the mix, too. That 99, I can't believe the Red Wigs of the Aves met in the second round of the playoffs. I have no recollection of that.

And was that the year, you would know this, was that the year Detroit got Wendell Clark? Yep. They got Wendell Clark. They got Bill Ranford. It was just, I think the Ovei Kroop was one of it. Like, they were just airlifting in guys from NHL 94 and just drop them in as support pieces. and you're sitting there going, man, these guys are already the best team in the league. They're adding all this support.

It's over, but it's, you know, it's never over in the NFL, even back then in 99, let alone today, where there's so much parity and so little to choose from between the very best teams. It's, you know, there's, I will predict that at least, I think, one of those two series, the Colorado, Vegas or the Carolina, Tampa has still got some serious twists and turns left as far as not being done as quickly as it looks like they might be. Yeah, it's not unlike Toronto, Montreal, where after four games, we were like, man, this is a dudd series. No one's going to remember it.

And then, sure enough, the back half of it played out in a much different way. And maybe that's what we're going to get in those other series. Now, I want to ask you this, too, because I think it's interesting. I feel like a few years ago, Sean, there is a feeling in the hockey world that, you know, you don't have to have a stud goalie to win the cup. And like if you go back, there was a time where like if you didn't have Hachick, Brodur, Wa, or Belfor, I'm sorry, you're not winning the cup, right? It was like, those are the guys.

But then like post-lockout, like Cam Ward won a cup. And then, you know, even Chicago with Corey Crawford got a couple of cups. They got, you know, anti-the-M-A-M-A-W-A-Cup. Like, so, like, even Matt Murray kind of came in out of nowhere. So there's kind of this feeling like, you know, it's better to build a good team. And you can win with a pretty good goalie. You don't have to have one of these kind of elite blue chip, Hall of Fame-style goalies.

But as I look at the final eight, is there anything to be said for it? Man, maybe you do need to draft a goalie in the first round. the eight teams that are left, Sean, five of them, which I think is a high number. Five of them have goalies that were drafted in the first round. The Islanders have Semy and Varlamov, who was taken in the first round. The Golden Knights have Mark Andre Fleury who was taken in the first round. Kerry Price was taken in the first round. Tuka Rask was taken in the first round.

And Vazelowski. Now, granted, Vaselowski and Price, I think, are the only ones that were actually drafted by the team that they're with. But is there something to be said for, hey, you know what? Like maybe we need to think about drafting goalies in the first round again because team seems so reluctant to do it. Yeah, I will admit when you showed me that stat, I kind of did a double take because you're right. That's been the conventional wisdom for a few years now. You don't take goalies in the first round.

And the reason for that is they just take so much longer to develop than defensemen. and defensemen take longer to develop than forwards. So, you know, if you draft a forward high in the NHL, there's a good chance he's in your lineup from day one. Defenseman, less common, but some guys do it. Usually with the defensemen, you're going to wait a year or two. With a goaltender, you might be waiting three, four, five plus years. We see a lot of goalies don't even debut in the NHL

or at least as anything approaching starters until they're 25 years old. And part of this, I think, is GM's not wanting to have that patience. I mean, the general manager in the NHL, it's a what have you done for me lately job? And if I'm sitting there drafted an 18-year-olds and you're telling me this goal is going to be great seven years from now, hey, I'm probably not the GM of this team seven years from now. So I want a guy who's going to help me right now. I don't want, I'm not drafting guys for the next guy who's going to come in and replace me. So I think there's some of that.

But there's also just the idea that, hey, there's so much. uncertainty. Who knows what you're getting? And Henrik Lunkwis was drafted in, what, like the sixth or seventh round? Dominic Hasick was drafted so late that that round doesn't even exist anymore. Sometimes you can find guys late, so why would you use a top pick on a goaltender? It's just not something that you're supposed to do. And yet, here we have all of these guys, you know, five out of eight. And it would have been five out of eight, even if the, if the Leifes had gone through because Jack Campbell was another first round goal tender, although he's been one that's bounced around the league before he started playing like it. But maybe this starts to shift

that thinking. And maybe we see teams start to say, you know what? Maybe not at the very top of the draft, although Mark Andre Fleury was a one and Kerry Price was a five. But at the time I get to late in the first round, do I want to pick a guy who projects as a middle six option? Do I want to pick a guy who maybe projects as my starting goaltender who's going to be the guy leading me out on the ice for playoff games for a decade? It could be a shift. And I think it would be kind of neat if it happened, see how it played out. Yeah.

And, you know, this conversation about drafting goalies is a natural segue for us to chat about the NHL draft lottery that unfolded on Wednesday night. And I got to ask you, like, it really, and it probably because the first whatever, 13 picks, 12, whatever, all went in order, it really felt like it lacked any drama, tension. I'll give them credit, like that background music was pretty, it was almost like from unsolved mysteries or something,

you know, you have that kind of eerie background music. That's the only thing that added a touch of drama. Otherwise, boy, it felt. like a pretty, I don't know, like drama-free evening. Is that a fair way to describe it? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it was a letdown. And that's fine.

It's sometimes the lottery is going to play out in a crazy way. We've seen that in the past where a bunch of teams move up. And there's always people then saying, well, wait a second, a bunch of teams shouldn't be able to move up. And you're going, well, that's one of the things that's possible when you set your system up this way. this was the opposite of that. I mean, you know, the way it's structured, if people don't know, is it's not like they don't just put all the team logos in and pull out a ping pong ball.

If they did that, you could just show us the drawing and it'd be probably more fun that way. There's this whole complicated system where they're drawing numbers and there's this chart they have to cross reference. And so it all gets done beforehand. And then they just come out with the cards and they start revealing it. And because of the way it works, basically you know what team is supposed to show up in a given spot. And if they do show up, that means they didn't win the lottery. They didn't move. And if they don't show up, it means they moved up to the top and you've got to find out when.

And from a pure drama perspective, you want to have a couple of those teams make the move and then you get to the end and you try to figure out who won. And this one didn't happen. The lottery was won by teams one and three. There was only two spots. Remember this year, usually there's been three, but the NHL decided to change that. We didn't get any of those big moves. And look, I mean, I know I've heard from a lot of fans in recent years who that's how they think it should work. They don't want to see teams making big moves up.

They want the bad teams to be the ones who benefit. And we've got one team that was dead last and one team that doesn't have a single player. So those are the two teams that need it the most, I guess. The other thing I think that was playing into this maybe feeling like a bit of a dud is it's one of those drafts where there's a half dozen guys that are not quite interchangeable, but at a pretty similar tier at the top of the draft. There's not a Connor McDavid sitting there where you're going, man, whoever has that number one, it changes everything. Owen Power, whoever's first round pick is probably going to be a very good player. but it doesn't feel like one of those years where, oh man, if we drop from three to four, that changes everything.

It probably for a lot of those teams doesn't change all that much at all. I'm thinking Jim Nill pulling out the earbuds might be one of those giffable moments in draft lottery history, right? Like McDavid's face when he found out he was going to Edmonton is one of those moments in the draft lottery. People remember, I'm feeling like Jim Nill pulling out the earbuds is going to end up being a pretty icon. moment here. We did between that and remember the weird Patrick Lainey interview where he's like sprawled out. Like we need an earbud sponsorship on the NHL draft lottery because that that seems to be what

provides most of the most memorable moments. You know, I know that you kind of wrote a column leading into the draft lottery with looking at, hey, what would be the most chaotic result? What would be the, you know, one of the franchises that deserve it the most. Look, I feel terrible for Buffalo Sabres fans. I really do. Like I think that's one of the, I always think about that guy who phoned into the, I think his name was Duane from Buffalo who phoned it and just gave one of the most passionate, authentic pleas and frustrating rants in the history of sports talk radio in North America. So I got a lot of time for Sabers fans.

So I felt like, you know what, I'm okay with the Sabers winning the draft lottery. Now I know a lot of people feel like they're kind of like the mini Oilers where they're always at the top of the draft. They don't deserve it. The team that I wouldn't have mind, I'll be honest with you, I kind of feel for the Columbus Blue Jacket, Sean. I kind of wouldn't have minded seeing John Tortorella, oh, sorry, not John Davidson and Yarmelkekeleinen, who is sitting side by side win the draft lottery. That would have been, to me, that would have been a pretty cool story.

Yeah, it's, I always struggle with this because you're sitting there watching the lottery and you're going, okay, who deserves it? Well, what does that even mean? And we end up getting in these arguments where it's like, you know, well, the Sabres deserve it. They're the worst team. But so do they deserve it then? If you're that bad, should you really be rewarded for it or should it go to a team that's a little bit better? Yeah, but that team that's a little bit better, they don't really need it.

So they don't deserve it. And we kind of go around and around. And usually I find in 90% of cases, people's view of who should win the lottery happens to line up exactly with whatever team they happen to like. But yeah, Columbus would have been up there for me. You know, they're clearly about to go down the road of a rebuild. I will always respect what they did a couple years ago as far as kind of pushing all their chips in to try to win in the playoffs.

And clearly, if you're a Blue Jacks fan, it's been a tough week finding out about Seth Jones, probably not coming back. It would have been cool to see them get some good news. The other team that I had listed as a team, that I would have liked to have seen win was the Vancouver Canucks. Because the season they went through, forget about on the ice. Just all the off-ice stuff was such a nightmare. With the COVID, with the long delay, with then that schedule crunch and being, you know,

having to play out that full schedule, even after the playoffs started, I think it was a brutal season. But the thing is they still played hard down the stretch. And I always kind of look at this. And at the end of every draft lottery, you can look at it. And based on the way that they hand out the numbers, you can sit there and go, okay, who won? The team moved up from eight to one? Well, that was the spot that was going to win the draft. Draft lottery is that eight spot.

So you can actually look back some years and say, this team was in that spot by one point. If they had won or lost one extra game, they would have moved out of that spot and somebody else would have moved in. And I think the Vancouver Canucks, we all would have understood if they had just gone, oh, for the rest of the season once they came back. And some of their fans probably would have been okay with that, get the better lottery odds. I think it would have been cool to see them win knowing that, hey, they won because they kept playing, because they put in that effort and won a couple of games down the stretch, that's what put them over the top. Plus the fact that they've never had the top pick and all this other stuff. But as any Canucks fan would tell you, the draft lottery is not their friend.

And I guess there was no reason for that to change this year. Okay, one final question for you on this topic of the draft and the lottery. So the way they do the lottery, right, they reveal starting from pick 15 down or sort of up to one, right? Like it's reverse order. So I had somebody reach out to me on Twitter and say, would you guys ever be on board if one year that's how they announced the actual draft for the first. round. So imagine, let's take this year, let's say, let's say the avalanche win the cup, okay? So they pick 32nd and then it's a made for TV event and Joe Sackett gets up. He's the first guy with the 32nd pick, the aval, and then you go down. Tampa's next and then whoever, you know,

Final 4. And you're counting up to one. Is there any merit to that? You know what? I've never thought of that. Neither at I. I don't hate it. I think especially in a year like this where there's some question around how the top of the draft is going to play out. I mean, if you do it in the Connor McDavid year, there's not a lot of suspense as things go on. But it's, you know, it's, I don't mind the way they do it now. But I'm up for some creativity. I appreciate the effort at least. Yeah.

Again, it's outside of the box, which means it probably will never come to fruition. But I thought, you know what, I never, it never even crossed my mind that that is a, a way you could unveil the picks. All right, Sean. Now, usually we have Jesse Granger in this spot for a little Granger things, but our pal is currently traveling today. He's doing that avalanche and Golden Night Series,

and I know he's traveling back to Vegas from Denver. So he is unavailable to join us for Granger things, but we look forward to having Jesse back in his usual spot next week. But that means we can open up the mailbag here a little bit early, Sean. And a reminder for listeners, you can always hit us up. The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. The athletic hockey show at gmail.com.

And that is how Chris Jenkins found us. Chris has an email here saying, look, with the recent grumbling that Seth Jones is wanting to test free agency next summer and Columbus possibly looking to trade him, what kind of return do you think the blue jackets could look at and what kind of teams would be interested in him. As a Blue Jackets fan, this is tough to swallow after years of losing players. That comes in from Chris. So let's, yeah, let's chat about, I think maybe the biggest story, Sean,

that's come out of the last week in the hockey world, has nothing to do with the playoffs and everything to do with one of the premier defensemen saying he wants out of Columbus. Yes, it's certainly the biggest offseason story for the chunk of the league that has already started the offseason. And yeah, this is tough. If you're a Columbus fan, I mean, this is, we remember the exodus of free agents in 2019, and each one of those was kind of a unique case.

And, you know, maybe you just, you kind of chalk that up to guys wanting to pursue different situations. But between the pair looked at the beginning of this year and now Seth Jones, it's demoralizing as a fan. That's almost the one place you never want to be as a fan is to sit there and go, we're a team that people don't want to play for. And why is that? What is it about the team or the city or whatever it is?

Because you can have a bad team, you can have a bad coach, bad GM. But if you're just a place that star players don't want to be, where do you get any optimism from at that point? So this is a tough one to swallow for your Columbus fan. I guess the good news would be as far as the question of who wants this guy and how much, what can they expect to get in return? I think the answer is a ton of teams are going to want them. And I think you're going to get a lot in return.

The question that I have, and I think I know the answer to it, but I can't say I do for sure, when Seth Jones says, hey, I'm going to test free agency, just so you don't. No, Columbus, I'm not signing anything. I'm hitting free agency next year. Does he mean I'm not coming back to Columbus? Or does he actually mean, no, I want to hit free agency. There are some players that will say, I only get a chance to do this once. I want to go through the whole process.

I want to hear from as many teams as possible. And that's the question that GMs and people around the league are going to be asking, when they call up Columbus and say, yeah, I want to make an offer for Seth Jones, but I need to know, do I have a chance to sign this guy before free agency, or is he really actually set on hitting the market? And I know I'm only getting him for a year, because if I'm only getting him for a year, then my offer becomes a lot lower than it would be if I think I can lock him in. I said, I suspect I know the answer. I think the answer is that he'd be willing to sign long term in a different situation than Columbus. But that's the part you've got to find out if you're a

GM getting ready to make an offer because if he does have his mindset on testing the market and having that experience, suddenly now, I mean, you're maybe renting the guy for a year. He's still a good player. He's still a guy a lot of GMs would take even for one year, but you're going to give up a lot more if you feel like you're getting a piece for the next decade. Yeah, and it's exactly it. I think if you can pull off essentially like a sign and trade, right, where this summer you get Jones to a six-year extension, seven-year extension, whatever it is, and then you

acquire him, that's a game changer, right? It completely alters it. So let me throw this scenario out at you. We'll kind of do it like as a who says no. Seth Jones for Mitch Marner. On the condition, on the condition of Toronto is able to sign Seth Jones to a reasonable contract extension. Who says no? Mitch Marter for Seth Jones. Well, I mean, from from the sounds of it, the Leafs say no because they went and did their availability yesterday. And it sounds like the plan going forward is same old, same old. But yeah, you're going to hear the Leafs mentioned when it comes to Seth Jones because it's the Leafs and they have to be in on every player.

And that's what it would have to look like, right? I mean, you can't do, teams like Toronto can't be given up, oh, we'll give you a first and some prospects. They don't have any first. They've traded them all away. In fact, Columbus has got their first already. And they don't have the cap room to do it with prospects. So it's got to be a big player for a big player.

I mean, I think Columbus takes that deal from the bargaining position therein. I'm not completely sure that Toronto does. But there'd be a lot of people who'd like to see it. And that's what's going to be interesting to me from the Columbus perspective is what kind of deal do they want? Do they want picks and prospects and we're going to rebuild? Or do they want a Seth Jones level star to come in and replace him? That's how this stuff used to work. we used to call them hockey trades.

Now it's always we want to pick a player and a prospect. It seems like that's kind of the cut and paste answer. But I'm curious. I'm curious to see if Columbus wants to use this to signal the full-scale long-term rebuilder, if they're saying, no, we want some other real good young player who can slide into the lineup. And I think just to wrap up the, again, the question from Chris and saying, look, as a Jackets fan, this is tough to swallow. You know, I think you could almost in the past, you could explain it a way. At least it certainly felt there was undercurrents of that.

When they traded Pierre-Luc Dubois, it was like, oh, man, it's got to be tough to play for Tortarella. Yeah. That guy's going to grind you and grind you. Torrance is out of the picture, right? We don't even know who's coming in to replace them. Well, it can't even be that. Yeah. And that's the thing that I find interesting is that I think a lot of people are like, man,

it would be hard to play for John Tortorella for years and years. Well, he's not there. You can't draw a direct line between Seth Jones wanting out and the head coach, which you could have done. with Dubois, you could have done on, you know, Panarin, Duchenne, Brovsky, whoever else you want to say, it might have been a factor, but not now. And that's what's really troubling. What's so tough about it, like we used to see this before the cap. There were certain teams, the Oilers were one of them. For a while, after the glory years into the 90s, they developed

some good players, but as soon as the players got good, they were on the way out because they couldn't afford to keep them. And part of the whole rationale behind putting a hard cap in place was to make sure those situations didn't happen anymore. You know, nobody, nobody ever wants to be the Montreal Expos. Remember the last few years of the Expos where it was just great players, amazing players coming in, and then they were gone.

As soon as it was time to get paid, they were gone. There's no, you can't find any hope. There's no optimism there as a fan if that happens. And I'm not saying that's happening in Columbus, because like I said, some of these, Panarin and Brodsky and guys like that, there were some unique things in each of those situations. So, but you really hope that's not happening in Columbus because it's great, you know, it's a great town.

It's a great, great fans. And you really hope that they're not suddenly just running straight up the treadmill all the time trying to develop guys so they're not going to be able to hold on to. You know, as you talk about star players leaving and the expos and the blue jackets, I got to tell you, as the guy who covers the auto with senators, I feel seen right now. Okay. I'm here. I feel your pain, Columbus. it's it's exactly the same thing. It's exactly the same thing.

And at some point you say to yourself, when is the, when is it going to stop, right? Like in Ottawa, it was Yashin and Heatley and Alfredson and Spetsa and Carlson and Duchen and Duchen and Stone and Pajou and Taurus. And you're like, okay, well, now it's going to stop.

And it's like, man, I hope they could get Brady Cachuck locked up long term. But until it happens, you don't believe it. And that's the problem I think for Columbus fans. And it's a great analogy with the Expos, because even at the end, it's like they had Vladdi Guerrero and they had Pedro and they had some really nice piece. They couldn't hang on to them. Couldn't hang on to them. All right. To the voicemail, we go. Believe it or not, yes, the voicemail. It's back up and running. You want to drop us a voicemail. We'd love to hear your voice.

Leave us a voicemail. 845-4-4-5-845-4-45-8-4-5-4-8-4-5-8-4-5-8-4-5-5-8-4-5-5-4-5-5-4-5. Let's have a listen to Eric from Detroit. Hey, I see a lot of similarities between the Detroit Red Wings of the 90s and today's Toronto Maple Leafle East. The Red Wings underachieved through the early and mid-90s, a lot of first round exits. And then finally in 97, race the cup, when they were kind of singled out as not going to be able to make it. So I was wondering what your thoughts are and if the Maple Leaf Lees were really just going to take some time to get there and learn the hard way. Thanks a lot. Righty, Eric from Detroit, trying to draw the analogy between the current edition of the Toronto Maple Leafs and the pre-Standley Cup winning addition of the Red Wings in the early 90s.

This will fit our obligatory once a month mention of Nick Borshefschevsky for you. Yeah, and I appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, people are looking for comparisons for the Leafs. I've heard a few, the 2000. 10 capitals being an obvious one, especially since they kind of went into crisis mode after blowing a 3-1 lead against who else put the Montreal Canadians. The Bruins around that same era had a lot of playoff meltdowns and they stuck with it and won a Stanley Cup.

The Red Wing comparison isn't a bad one. Different era, obviously, different situation. But, yeah, the thing that people forget about that Red Wings team, And if people don't remember, the Red Wings were bad for a lot of years, they started to get good with Steve Eisenman, had Sergey Federer. We're building that core, a young Nicholas Liddstrom. I think they win one round in the early 90s, but then they go into 93, they play the Leafs. People remember that as being a huge upset. It really wasn't that the two teams are pretty similar in the standings, but it was a series the Red Wings should have won and they were up to nothing early in the series and it looked like they were going to cruise.

They lose that series. That's bad. the next year they lose to the San Jose Sharks, which is far worse. That was one of the all-time stunning upsets because the sharks had just been a joke of a franchise their first few years in the league. And then they come in and they beat the Red Wings. There was a lot of talk that, you know what, this team, there's something wrong with this Red Wings team.

They're not built to get over the hump in. And there was people who said, you can't win with Steve Eiserman. But you want to, this is the one I always come back to whenever I hear somebody making a take about it. You can't win with this guy or that guy. there were people who wanted to trade Steve Eisenman in Detroit. And in fact, there's talk that there was a deal on the table, depending on who you talk to, may even have been agreed to, which was Steve Eisenman was going to go to the Ottawa Senators. And the player Detroit was going to get back was Alexey Ashen.

Now, think about Steve Iserman and how he is viewed today. Just this legendary leader, this legendary winner in the league. a time when people said, yeah, you can't win with Steve Eisenman, but you know who I bet you could win with, Alexei Ashen. And I just, I think that every time somebody's in on, you know, Joe Thornton or whoever, whoever the guy is at a given moment, Ovechkin went through it, that you just can't win with. I always think back to the time where there were Detroit fans going, get this Isman bomb out of here. I want this Yashin guy to be leading the way. Now, that haven't been said. The Red Wing.

went to the final in 95. And they didn't win, but that was part of that narrative. So they at least were winning rounds. The Red Wings team in 96 was one of the best regular season teams of all time. Leif's been a pretty good regular season team. They haven't been that good. They haven't found that level. So I don't think the comparison completely holds.

But the one other piece of this that I will mention is, yeah, it's true. The Red Wings, they didn't trade Eisenman, they didn't trade Federer. trade Nicolidstrom. They didn't panic. But they also didn't stand pat. And in fact, after they lost in 96 to the avalanche, which was considered an upset because that Detroit team had been so good and spurred all sorts of more talk about, you know, there's something wrong with this team. They can't get over the hump. They can't win. They made a real big trade at the start of the next season that a lot of people look back on and say, that's the move that put them over the top. That's what changed the culture. That's what changed everything. And what's interesting, of

course is that guy that they went out and got to change the culture was Brendan Chanahan. And now he's the guy all these years later who's got to make the decision for the Maple Leafs. So as much as we heard Brennan and the rest of them yesterday saying, stay the course, we believe in this core. If anybody would know that sometimes a team really does need something to change, you think it would be Brendan Chanahan, because he's He was that change for a team that went on to win two Stanley Cups because of it. Yeah, and I think, too, when you look at Toronto's window here, their window is very much open. And look, Washington, they made the playoffs for the first time with Ovechkin in 07-08,

and it took them 10 years to win a Stanley Cup, 10 years in the Ovechkin era, where people were saying, you'll never win with Ovee and Baxter. And guess what? They did. I even think back, Sean, and this is a little bit before our time, But like the New York Islanders were a super dominant team in the late 70s. And they couldn't get over the hump. Like Lanny McDonald and the Leafs beat them one year in a shocking upset.

The Rangers take them out. Like there's people that wondered Ben, maybe the Islanders will never get over the hump. And then they did. And I think it's really important that you understand that the Pittsburghs of the worlds and the Chicago's of the worlds, there's no one set formula, right? Like there's not one.

Hey, we're going to tear it down and then within three to five years, you're going to win a cup. There's no guarantees. There's no, there's no linear, perfect line that happens. It's an up and down thing. Ask San Jose Sharks fans how long they had to wait. They got to a cup. They didn't win, but look how long it took. Ottawa fans know the feeling was eight years of not getting to a cup and people,

you'll never win with Daniel Alpherson. And then one year he was just great. And you're like, actually, you probably could win with that guy. And I think my favorite example, do you brought up Eisenman with people say you can't win with that guy. I always think of the Philadelphia Flyers cut and bait on Jeff Carter and Mike Richards. And people say, you'll never win with Carter and Richards. And then guess what? You can win with anybody in this league.

You really can. Just got to find the right mix. You do have to do it. The only other thing I'd say, because you're right, there's, there have been lots of real good teams that, I mean, the Mario Lemieux Penguins didn't even make the playoffs for years. and people were wondering what's wrong with them. We always talk about those. We talk about the Islanders, the Penguins, the Red Wings. You know what other team everybody thought was going to win a cup?

Was the Canucks 10 years ago. And it never happened. That Senators team that you mentioned, a lot of people were saying, you know, someday it's all going to come together. And they went to the final, but they never won. The Sabres are in that same era. Real good teams kept waiting for it to happen. It never did.

those teams are getting out of the first round, obviously, but nothing is guaranteed. And for every team that you can point to and say people thought they weren't going to do it and they did, there's another team where you say, you know what, people said be patient, it's going to happen someday and it never did. And then maybe the sharks are kind of the prime example of that. You never know in this league. Nothing's promised. And I don't think there should be panic in Toronto because nobody ever makes good decisions. and you're panicking.

But there should be some urgency. Leave fans don't want to hear this. There's only three years left before Austin Matthews an unrestrictive free agent. There's four years before Mitch Martyrs, an unrestrictive free agent. The window is not closing, but I don't think it's necessarily open

for the next decade either, depending on how things go the next few years. As we always do, Sean, I'm going to wrap up our show, even though we're just kind of talking about a little bit of hockey history here, with answering that question from Eric in Detroit. Let's wrap it up with a little this week in hockey history.

And let's go back to June 1st, 1996. June 1st, 1996. The Florida Panthers are playing the Pittsburgh Penguins in game seven of the conference final. Winter gets a date with the Colorado Avalanche in the final. And the Florida Panthers shocked the hockey world with their kind of lock-it-down style of hockey. They beat the penguins two to one. in game seven. And I know when people think of the penguins era, Sean,

they always think about, man, the David Volick goal that did them in in 93. Is there any argument to be made that this one in 96 was actually almost as painful because maybe if they get to the cop, hey, we would have seen the Mario against Patrick Juan the final and maybe they win and maybe Mario's love of the game is reestablished. But is there any argument to be made that the Panthers

beating the Penguins in 96 was just as damaging to the penguins, and maybe arguably it's even more damaging to the game of hockey? Yeah, from a Penguins perspective, this one's got to hurt because this really was the last great Penguins team of that era. They had some good teams after, but this is around the time where we didn't know it at the time, but Mary Lou Amu doesn't have much longer left, at least on the first chapter of his career.

The finances are going to really start to catch. up with them pretty soon. We're going to see players moving out. And yeah, it is a, you know, 93, you looked at that team. And that was stunning and painful because that was your chance to win three cups in a row. You were getting into dynasty territory and it all disappeared. But at least then you could say, you know what? Can't wait till next year.

Let's bring these guys back. 96. By that point, you could almost start to see it fraying around the edges. but I agree with you and people who have listened to me for a while know where I'm going to go on this. I to this day think that was one of the most damaging results for the NHL

in its history. And I hate to say that because I mean, obviously, Jesus, last time the Panthers won a series, I don't want to pick on them and try to take away the one great playoff run that they've ever had. But first of all,

I mean, just the final that that would have cost us. Colorado, Pittsburgh, my goodness, Meryl Lemieux against Patrick Waugh, Sackick, against Yeager, Foresburg, Francis, who was injured for the Panthers series, but could have come back. I mean, that just would have been

absolute, amazing star power, and instead we got this awful final that was a four-game sweep and just no entertainment value. But bigger picture, and I've said this before, if you say the words dead puck era to a typical fan,

and you say, who started that? Virtually every fan gives you the same answer. The 95 devils. They blame the 95 devils, the neutral zone trap and all of this, and they beat that high-powered Detroit team. And there's some truth to that. But those 95 devils had Scott Stevens on defense,

Scott Niedermeyer on defense, Martaam Broder Engel. Yeah, you can shut teams down when you have three Hall of Famers on your back end. And Broder and Niedermeyer weren't. we're young at the time, but they were already established stars. The Devils showed us that if you have a commitment to team defense and you've got superstars back there that you can shut down a high-powered team that has superstars up front,

the Florida Panthers showed us that you didn't even need the stars. You just needed the commitment to the defense and the clutch and grab and all of that stuff, and you could do it with Scott Mellonby. And that, I think, is the moment where a lot of teams around the league went, wait a second. A lot of owners say, why am I paying all these guys? Why am I paying these 50 goal guys? Give me some 20 goal guys who can clutch and grab.

I can win with them too. And I really feel like that's the series. That's the result in the season that really pushed us down that path into the dead puck era that I would argue is still going on to this day. This idea that everything is about defense, everything is about stopping the other team from scoring and trying to win two one. I really feel like that all started with that Panthers team because that was not a good team on paper.

They had a good goalie, John Van Biesbrook, but no stars anywhere else in the lineup. And they were able to take out this offensive juggernaut by just clutching and grabbing and tackling their way, which was how the game was played back then. I'm not saying they did anything wrong. But boy, I wish Gary Betman had watched that series and said, you know what, we got to do something. We got to change how this game's called and how it's supposed. played because I can't have a league full of teams trying to play like the Florida

Panthers. And he didn't do that. And now we got a league full of teams trying to play like the 96 Florida Panthers every single season. Yeah. Do you remember the Panthers defense that year? I remember Ed Giovannowski was there. He was a teenager.

Like the guy that probably logged the most minutes for them, Roberts Phala. Former Leaf great Roberts Phala. And he got, yeah, he was, it was a good player. I'm not saying this was a bad team. But, you know, it is very different to be able to win with stars who play defense, which has always been part of hockey, versus to say, we got Scott Mellonby and Brian Scroodland, and we're going to shut down Merrillomew and Yammer Yeager. That was the moment where I think the light bulb went off on a lot of people around the league that, hey, there's a new way to build a winning team. and the NHL could have put a stop to it. They could have said this isn't the game that we want,

and they didn't. Here we are. Last one on this week in hockey history, June 3rd, 1993. A lot of Montreal-Canadians fans will remember this fondly. LA Kings fans, not so much. Kings are up in game two of the Stanley Cup finalists, Sean, about to take a two-nothing strangle hold on that series,

haves you down by a goal. They've decided to pull Patrick Waugh, and then Jacques de Mares famously calls for his stick measurement of Marty McSorley's stick. McSorley gets the penalty and the Canadians go on a six on four. Eric Desjardin scores to tie it. Eric Desjardin scores to win it in overtime to complete the hat trick. I think about this all the time. And I think of, like, if you think of the boldest in-game decisions ever made by a coach,

like, hockey's a little bit different, isn't it? Like, if you think about baseball, you can think about, like, you know, Grady Little or like there's so much more room for in-game decision-making. It feels like in some of the other sports. Baseball in particular, probably football too with some play calling. Hockey not so much. But Jacques de Maire's decision to call for a stick measurement I think might be the boldest and certainly the one that worked out the best.

But like, has there ever been anything in game as bold as this in the hockey world? Yeah, it's a good question because you're right. the nature of the sport. It doesn't really lend itself all that. I mean, in-game stuff, you're talking about shuffling the lines, maybe pulling a goalie, but it's not like the NFL

where you can be fourth in goal and call the Philly Special at the goal line and either succeed or fail and live in infamy. This one might be up there. And here's my thing when it comes to this moment.

Explain to a non-hockey fan. why this is such a remarkable moment. It's a tough thing to explain to say, yeah, well, you know, there's this rule in the rule book. Most teams are violating the rules pretty constantly. And if you, as a coach, say, I think they're violating the rule, you can get a power play out of it. But nobody ever does it. Nobody ever makes this call. We just went through, I mean, was there a single one this season?

I don't think so. I can't even remember the last time anybody called for a stick measurement. Imagine explaining that to a fan and they'd say, okay, does it never happen because nobody uses illegal sticks? And you say, no, no, lots of guys do all the time. And people know about it. But you just, it's this weird thing that we just don't do. And I know to this day, there's a lot of people who are angry at jock demurs or they think that that Canadians wins tainted somehow because they used the rulebook. And even these days, when coaches are allowed to challenge, I think that was offside. I think that's goalie interference. No problem. Nobody has any issue with that. They're well within their rights. But to say, I think that guy's using an illegal stick because I can see from here that it's clearly illegal, that's somehow this, like remember if Ron Wilson did it to Jason Spitzer.

Yeah. In a Leaf Senators game. And it was front page news for days. Like this, can you believe that Ron Wilson did that? How desperate. What a, I mean, the stick was illegal. He got his team of power play. Like I've had this conversation before where I say like, what if Bill?

Belichick was an NHL coach. Can you imagine explaining to him that we don't use this rule? You can get a power play, but we don't use it. It's just not something that's done. Do you think he would have any time for that? Or do you think he'd go, no way, man, I'm using every advantage that I have. And yet this is this weird thing that it's just developed as yet another piece of the hockey code of conduct that you're just not ever supposed to do this sort of thing. It's the in-game equivalent of the offer sheet. Like it's there. Exactly.

But you know, you shouldn't really use it. It's the offer sheet except at least with the offer sheet, you could say the office sheet's probably not going to work. This will work. It pretty much is guaranteed. And, you know, it's fine. And just the fact, all you need to know about how rare this is is the fact that you say game two of the 93 final to anyone, including Habs fans.

And they're going to say that's the Barty McSorley game. It's not the Eric Desjardang game, which is what it should. should be because that was the all time. I mean, my God, that might have been the greatest game. Any Canadian player, like Canadian team-based player head during that entire decade when you consider the stakes. And it's a footnote to this, this weird rule invocation that happened that is apparently not ever supposed to. Okay. And last thing, and I'd love to hear from listeners too on this, because that, again, like I said, that's one of the boldest in-game decisions by a coach. and it worked out.

The only other ones I can think of, Sean, in-game decisions, and they didn't work out in the hockey world. One would be the infamous Mark Crawford leaving Wayne Gretzky and the bench for the shootout, right? That's an in-game decision, right? And it backfired. And the other, also international hockey, the miracle on ice game,

Victor Tietoff pulls Trecciac, right? Trechia, yeah, Trechiac's not in net for... The miracle on ice. Like, what was that? We've seen like some bizarre decisions that like in terms of setting the lineup or whatever have you. But yeah, as far as like the bold, in meaningful moments, we've seen coaches do weird things. I remember Scotty Bowman switching goalies on the fly once with the Penguins, which I thought was awesome. But that was in like a meaningless end of the regular season game.

They were just kind of goofing around. I'm, there's got to be some. So yeah, I would. I'd love to hear from people as far as in-game. decisions. Yeah, what are the ones that that coach pulled off that worked or also the ones that didn't

that may be backfired. Yeah. And again, you know, fire us a tweet or you can drop us to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. The athletic hockey show at gmail.com. Look at that. The hour just flew by. Sean, as always. Listen, I think last week I said,

hey, when we talk again next week, it'll be round two with the leaves. And so, you know what, now I'm just going to just tell you. I hope you have a great weekend and we'll do this again next Thursday. That sounds good. There we go. We'll leave it there. Hey, at a reminder, we got a new addition to the roster coming up with the athletic hockey show for the next few weeks

because we got the prospect series of the athletic hockey show. Our prospect expert, Corey, Corey Prondman is going to be doing a show with Max Boltman. Max does a terrific job covering the Detroit Red Wings. Corey Prondman, Max Boltman, the prospect edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. We'll start on Friday. We'll run every week until July 30th. So that's right after the NHL draft. So prospect series of The Athletic Hockey Show comes your way on Friday.

And a reminder, if you're not a subscriber to The Athletic, you can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show.