The Athletic Hockey Show - Minnesota Wild buy out contracts of Ryan Suter and Zach Parise, Duncan Keith to Edmonton, Stanley Cup odds for next season, and more

Episode Date: July 14, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss the surprising news of the Minnesota Wild buying out the contracts of both Ryan Suter and Zach Parise, their legacy with the Wild, and if Alex Ovechkin is the only player to sign a 10+ year contract that has worked out. Also, Edmonton's trade for Duncan Keith, and Ian asks for Sean's thoughts on the Senators' hire of Pierre McGuire.Then in "Granger Things", Jesse Granger discusses the future odds for next year's Stanley Cup champion, and which teams odds may shift the most as a result of offseason moves. In the mailbag, a pitch on offseason moves for the Buffalo Sabres, and if the 2019 St. Louis Blues could be counted as a Cup-winning Cinderella team, a look back with "This Week in Hockey History" and more.Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back. It's another edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. Ian Mendez, Sean McIndoo with you. The NHL offseason is in full swing. We'll chat about the latest developments, including the seismic news from Minnesota, where both Ryan Suter and Zach Parisi were bought out on the same day. We'll get to Sean's thoughts on Pierre McGuire's hiring in Ottawa. In Granger Things, Jesse Granger. We'll give us the early odds for this daily cup next season. We'll chat about which offseason moves.

could potentially affect those odds. We'll open up the mailbag, answer a couple of questions about the Buffalo Sabres offseason plan, and we'll debate if the 2019 St. Louis Blues actually qualify as a Cinderella team that won the Stanley Cup. And this week in hockey history looks behind the bench as Mike Keenan bolts from the New York Rangers about a month after winning the Stanley Cup. And Pat Quinn adds the title of general manager to his portfolio. But as we kick off this show, Sean, I think we need to point out, no need for you to adjust your phones, double-check your phones, your smart speakers,

however you're listening to us on this Wednesday. That's right. I said it. It's a Wednesday. We've done a little bit of a trade. So again, if you're looking for the two-man advantage edition of the Athletic Hockey Show podcast with Pierre Lebrun, Scott Burton said they're coming on Thursday for the rest of the month. So it's a little bit of a trade here.

And I know I'm a little bit thrown off here. I'm not going to lie to you. But, Sean, it's a Wednesday. addition of the athletic hockey show. Yeah, absolutely. And look, I mean, the great ones can adjust to any situation. So we might be in trouble. But Scotty and Pierre will be fine.

Yeah, exactly. Listen, before we kick this off, I got to tell you how much I enjoyed. I mean, I always enjoy your stuff, but certainly your mailbag this week, the one question that I loved that you tackled was the person who said, Sean, you get three questions, you get to inject Gary. Betman with truth serum. And you could ask him any three questions. Now, what I loved about this is that you, you know, on one hand, you played the serious

journalist role. We're like, listen, there's some legitimate questions to be asked about CTE and concussions, the Chicago Blackhawks. But anybody who knows Sean McIndoo, who knows down goes brown, knows if he could inject Gary Bettman with truth serum, he's not, he's going full, like, you know, maximum chaos. How can I have fun with this? So let's, before we get into the news of the day, we're going to ask Sean, if he, if, for the, the benefit of our listeners, you get three questions to Gary Bedman.

What Sean McAdoo asking. Yeah. And this is, I'm open to suggestions, by the way, on this one. So if, if anybody out there wants to, wants to hit me up, uh, with something that they would like an honest answer from Gary Batman on. But the three that I came up with, the first one is I want to ask. him, do you actually think that the loser point makes the playoff races closer? And this is just because I just want him to have to look me in the eye and say, no, of course we don't actually believe that. That's just marketing thing that we say and we hope that the fans in the media

are too dumb to think about. I just want him to say that. I know the answer to this one already. No person in the NHL actually thinks that giving points to everybody makes the playoff races any closer. Of course it doesn't. It doesn't stand up to five seconds of thinking about it. But they keep saying it. So I want him to admit to me that he's known all along that that was BS. The next thing I came up with is I want a ranking from Gary Bettman of every owner from worse to best as far as who's the biggest pain in the neck to deal with. that's what I want. Who do you like? Who do you tolerate?

And who are you like letting all the calls go to voicemail? Because you're just tired of dealing with them. I want that ranking. I've made more than my share of rankings in my day. I want Garrett Betman to make one for me. And I think that would be fun. And then I think my last one was I just wanted him to, I just want to hear him talk trash about people I know he doesn't like. I want to hear about Bob Good Now. I want to hear about John Scott, Ron McLean, all those guys. Maybe some of them will find out he doesn't actually actually mine, and maybe some of them will get, uh, we'll get some good sound bites out of them because, uh, you know, you, you can't hold the job like Gary Betman's head for all these years and

not make a few enemies along the way. And I want to hear him talk a little, uh, talk a little trash about those guys. Yeah, I'd love, you know what? The owner question would be great too. Again, you get truth serum because I'm sure, right, there's probably some high maintenance owners. There's probably some low maintenance owners. There's probably a whole bunch in between. And to be able to get him to kind of say that. Like you said, you'd love to know, what is he thinking? He looks at his phone and he sees, you know,

T. Pagula or E. Melnick, you know, coming up. You know, or like, does he take, does he hit the option to go right to voice mail? And does Gary Betman have a personalized greeting? Or do you think he has just the standard, you know, you have reached? Yeah. Yeah, I don't feel like he's got like a wacky bit

that he does in his voicemail. He doesn't strike me as that sort of guy. But I bet, yeah, there are probably some times he sees like unknown caller and he answers and it's it's one of those owners. And then he has to fake like it's the voicemail. You know, like he says hello and awkwardly pauses. And then he's like, you've reached Gary's voicemail. And yeah, I could see that for sure.

It's he definitely feels like a guy who screens those calls. And then gives you the like, oh, dude, I thought I texted you back. I'm so sorry. It looks like I didn't hit send on it. That's on me. Sorry, bud. Yeah, my voicemail's been a bit spotty lately. That's always a classic.

Yeah, Gary Bettman definitely around CBA time lets his voicemail fill up on purpose. And then let all his calls go there. That seems like a Batman move. Oh, man. Where do you think Chris Chelyos ranks? I know you didn't rank him on that list of the, you know, John Scott, Bob Good Now and Ron McClain. and I'm wondering where Chris Chelyos,

because the younger listeners may not know this because we talk about the collective bargaining stuff, in the mid-1990s during the lockout of 1994 into 1995, then Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Chris Chelyos had one of the most unhinged quotes ever about, in the history of collective bargaining in pro sports, where he essentially threatened the safety of Commissioner Gary Bettman by saying, you know, something, I don't have the exact quote,

but it was something along the lines of, you know, he better watch his back when he's out in public because people don't like the way this is being handled, right? Yeah, and it was, first of all, this is the 94 lockout, which is now like almost the forgotten NHL lockout because he looked back and you're like, what did they even do that for? They lost half a season.

They didn't get a salary cap. They did make any really major changes. And yeah, I've got the quote right here. Chris Chelyos, and this was like in October. So this thing hasn't even started yet. This is early. This is early. Like, you thought like, Chris, like, you know, let's save a little bit of it for, you know,

for a few months in. But you got to remember, the NHL at this point has never had a significant work stoppage. They had a player strike two years ago that lasted like a week. They've never had a lockout. This new guys come in from the NBA. And this is his first impression. And Chris Chelyos says, and this is the quote, if I was Gary Bettman, I'd worry about my family, about my well-being right now. Some crazed fan, or even a player, who knows, might take

it into his own hands and figure if they can get him out of the way, this might get settled. You hate to see something like that happened, but he took the job. That's unbelievable. Unbelievable. I mean, that's, and it keeps, like, it's such a long quote, too. Like, you know, sometimes, we've all been maybe in a situation where something comes out of your mouth and instantly you go, you know what, I shouldn't have said that, but he just keeps doubling down on it, basically threatening Gary Betman, watch your back because some fan or player might come looking for you. And he was, I think he was fined and, you know, a bunch stuff like that. And I think he did apologize.

But yeah, there's bad feelings out there. But that one was an all-timer. And, you know, even at the time, it was, it was hard. even in those early days to drum up a lot of sympathy for this new commissioner who was coming in and shutting the league down. But that might have done it because that was that that was over the line by several miles. Yeah. And that again, like you said, you have to kind of differentiate between the lockouts. There's the 94-95 lockout. Cost half a season. 0405 wiped out the entire season. 1213 took out half the season just before that 1213 lockout though, Sean. And that brings us to some,

something that's very topical today. The Minnesota Wilde in the summer of 2012, just before that collective bargaining agreement, the new one went into place, signed Zach Parise and Ryan Souter to Monster 13-year contracts, which at the time, we were like, oh man, like,

they're not going to see the end of those contracts. I think we all thought, okay, it's a bold, splashy move. These guys wanted to play together, go back home, so we understood it. But this week, and Mike Russo, with some terrific reporting. As part of Mike Russo's reporting in Minnesota, shot it with the athletic.

He says the way this played out, Ryan Suter hung up the phone on wild general manager Bill Garron. When Bill Garron phoned him this week to say, listen, we're cutting ties, we're buying you out. He hung up the phone on the general manager. So this is not, this feels like there's a little, this is an acrimonious departure. Like, I understand a lot of buyouts and that way. There's a little bit of, you know, some bad feelings. But, I mean, how do you look at the Souter and Perise legacy in Minnesota?

Because clearly they were brought in to take this team over the top and they never, if I'm not mistaken, never got as far as the conference final. Yeah. And that's it, right? Because when these contracts were signed back in the height of the super long backdiving contract. there were more than a few of them signed back then, and the deal was that you gave a player a ton of years and a ton of money, but because of all the years, it kept the average value low. So the cap hit would be manageable,

and you signed the deal knowing that on the back end, it was probably going to be bad news, and it was probably going to be either a buyout or you'd have to look at various ways to shake free of it. But a lot of teams, it's strong. short-term thinking, right? You're a GM. You go, I want this guy right now. I want to win right now. And if this doesn't work out 10 years from now, I'm not going to be the GM anyway. So it'll be someone else's problem. And that's what turned out to happen in Minnesota. And look, I don't think even in 2012, when these deals get signed, if you said that by 2021, the wilder are going to be looking to get out of these deals, I don't think anyone would be surprised. The question was always going to be what happens in those early years. Souter and Parisi, I think we're both about 27 years old when the deals were signed. So still a few years left of their prime.

What's going to happen? How far are they going to take us? And as it turned out, they didn't really take them all that far. Not that that's on those two guys. But the wild, they make the playoffs that first year losing the first round. Then back-to-back years where they win a round. And then over the last, geez, what it's six years since. have not won around since.

So, I mean, really no way around it. The signings were a failure in the sense of what they were designed to do, which was to push the wild over the hump from being an okay playoff bubble team to a legitimate Stanley Cup contender. They just never got there. Had a couple of very good regular seasons, but just always one of those stuck in the middle teams. That almost became the wild identity.

So the contracts themselves, you can't say that they worked. And now, boy, this is to buy out both of them. The Parize one, I don't think shocks anyone because Zach Parize had not been an effective player for the wild for the last couple years. They nearly traded them a year ago. And, you know, it had been a healthy scratch, been playing fourth line minutes. that happens sometimes when forwards get to that age. Ryan Souter was still playing reasonably well. I mean, Ryan Suter isn't Norris candidate Ryan Souter anymore,

but he's still a decent enough defenseman. You put him on a second pair, and you can win with that guy. And to buy him out as well, I think that's the part that shocks us. And yeah, I mean, if he hung up on Bill Garen, I can't say I'm all surprised, because I didn't see anything about this. Maybe you did, but I didn't see anything speculating that this bio could be coming. I'm sure it was a shock to him. And look, these guys are human beings first, right?

I mean, you get a phone call out of nowhere saying, hey, your whole family is going to have to leave where you're from. You're going to have to move somewhere. You don't know where. But your whole life has just been disrupted. I can see why he's ticked off. It is a business. You knew this was a possibility when you signed that big contract. But the question now is what the hell?

hecker the Minnesota while going to do going forward with a salary cap situation that's just going to be completely mangled by these buyouts being on the books. Yeah. And in a couple of years, I mean, it's what, $14 million and change that accounts against the cap. That's a lot of money in a flat cap world to have $14 million tied up in dead money. That's going to be prohibitive. And I think, look, there's a lot of people say they did this to clear.

clear the deck for Jack Eichael, which maybe there's some truth to it. But you're also, man, it's, it's, I think they're going to be handcuffed here. But I think they must have felt they were going to be handcuffed the other way too. And that's it. That's it. Right. I mean, the thinking here is if you're Bill Guerin and the way that he described it in Rousseau's article is basically, I mean, again, we know Zach Parise didn't feel like that was a long-term fit anymore for the while. And maybe they felt like Ryan Suter was getting close to that point. And because of the way the contract is structured, if they waited one more year and bought them out a year later, the savings don't really work in the same way. And, you know, there is that old saying that you have to

ignore sunk costs, right? If you've signed bad contracts and you've got bad contracts on the books and you don't feel like these players are going to be useful, if you feel like they're going to be replacement level or below, then that contract's going to be on your books anyways. You might as well do what you can to minimize it. And then if you have to eat the rest of it while you were going to anyways. And yeah, I mean, maybe Zach Carriese was going to be replacement level. And maybe he already is. Ryan Suter wasn't there yet.

So unless they feel like they saw something that really worried them, that's the part again that doesn't make a ton of sense. But yeah, it frees up about 10 million in cap space this year, but only this year. That's it. So yeah, you've got enough space. now you could go out and get Jack Eichael for one year and then what do you do? I mean, now a year from now, you're sitting there when these cap hits really kick back in. It gets you a one year vacation and that's it.

And I don't know how much you can really do with that as far as going out signing a big free agents. No big free agents are going to be looking to sign one year deals. So they're just kicking the can down the road. And next offseason, boy, they're going to be in a real tough spot, especially assuming that they're able to resign Caprizov and get him under it a reasonable number. He doesn't, I mean, if he goes back to the KHL, then I guess that's a different deal altogether, but that's a disaster. If you're a wild fan, you're not to, you're praying, that doesn't happen.

I don't know. I'm just looking at all these different scenarios. And again, if they really believe that Parizane Souter were just not good players anymore, then I guess this is slightly better than nothing. But I just don't see how you look at Ryan Suter's game over the last few years and come to that conclusion. So here's my, here's my hypothesis. In light of Souter and Preezy getting bought out,

I'm going to, I'm going to say this, you tell me if I'm right or wrong. Alex Ovechkin is the only player in NHL history to sign a contract north of, you know, we'll call it nine years, 10 years, whatever you want to say, that actually was worth it, that every other long-term deal,

whether obviously Rick D. Petro is going to come front of mind, Prizzi and Souter, I guess Marian Hosa falls into that category. Honestly, am I right on that, Sean? Is Alex Ovechkin the only guy to sign a contract of that length and actually have it work out? I feel he and Crosby, I think, because Crosby's the other one.

He's on a, his deal right now is, I want to say a 12-year deal. And it's still got a few years to go. So, you know, who knows. but that one also looks good. I would say those are the only two guys where you could say the contract looks good for the entire life of the contract. Now, I think if you're a Blackhawks fan, you could look at the Duncan Keith deal and the Marion Hose deal and say, you know what? Both of those weren't looking great by the end.

And in Hose's case, if he hadn't had the early retirement, it would have been a real issue. But you look at that and say, like we said, you know, when you did these long, deals you were looking for the first few years and for the first few years at work. They got two really good players, Hall of Fame players, at a low-cap hit, won championships. That's what they were looking to do. And the pain that was going to come at the end was baked into the process. That was part of the design. So you're okay with those deals.

I don't think any Chicago fan goes back in a time machine and undoes either of those contracts, knowing how they worked out. But that's pretty much it. I mean, Shea Weber is, we've all kind of been waiting for the Shea Weber contract to look bad. And it's, it's still hasn't yet. Still got a long way to go on that one. But, you know, that one is, is maybe one that could push across the finish line and actually look okay. Other than that, though, I mean, you go down the list and it's, it's a lot of contracts that either ended, where the relationship ended badly, or where the play just really fell off a map or, you know, in.

in some cases, these, Alexei Ashen and Rick DiPietro and guys like that, just really disastrous for the teams involved. So, yeah,

there's not a ton. Nicholas Baxter, I guess, might be the other one. That was 10 years on the nose and that one, but he was 22 years old when he signed it.

So they weren't buying a bunch of late 30 years, which is unusual for these. But it's a short list. It's a really, really short list. And, you know,

you bring up Duncan Keats name, there and Duncan Keith in the news cycle this week as he's on his way to Edmonton. And this one is an interesting deal, right? Because I think there's a lot of people that are saying Duncan Keith is not Duncan Keith anymore. He is maybe a bottom pairing defenseman, if that. Edmonton obviously believes that he can come in there and help, you know, bring some championship pedigree and experience. I mean, I, boy, I love the idea of, look, Duncan Keith obviously wanted to move closer to Western Canada because he's got his son there, hasn't seen him. So you know what? From that human interest perspective, I'm very happy

for it. You know what? This last 18 months or so has been very challenging for a lot of people. So if we can remove the player element for a second, this is a great story. Okay. But now as we're in the discussion of talking about this as a player, there's a lot of people say in the Edmonton Oilers should not have paid the full ticket on Duncan Keith, that he basically wanted out of Chicago, hand-picked the Oilers, Edmonton was sitting in a position of strength, they should have made Chicago eat 30, 40, 50 percent of the salary. Did Edmonton mishit on this one, Sean, from that perspective? Yeah, I think they did. Given the circumstances that they really, there were a limited number of teams in play here

based on what Duncan Keith was looking for. There were maybe only the Oilers. It's possible they were only bidding against themselves. And it's a situation where, you know, look, I said last week that I thought Duncan Keith to the Oilers, that's not a terrible fit. I kind of like the idea of Connor McDavid and Leander Seidel having a guy in the room who has won cups as a superstar,

not as a depth guy, not as a backup goalie, but as somebody who was right in that bright spotlight and has been through that and handled it, I don't mind that. You know, Duncan Keith isn't anywhere near the player he used to be, but that doesn't mean that he can't still bring some value to a team like the Oilers. So I don't hate them going out and getting him. But when I said that last week,

I put the caveat on it where I said, you know, of course we assume Chicago is going to have to retain 50% of the salary. Because it seemed like, I mean, that was that was just going to be a requirement. You're certainly not going to take on the full value. And Edmonton did. And that concerns me because, you know, if I'm an Oilers fan, I'm sitting there going, you know, we see it all around the league. These deals, man, it gets tight with a flat cap. And suddenly, you know, who knows what situation might. present itself at some point down the line where you're saying, boy, if we only had a

couple of extra million, we could make something happen here. And you don't have it because you're paying a lot of money to Duncan Keith. Now, a couple of caveats on that, it's not a lot of money in terms of real dollars. And that does matter. As fans, we care about the cap hit. But, you know, these teams have to have to live in the real world too. It is possible because it's not a lot of money. If Duncan Keith goes to Edmonton, he's just a total disaster. I mean, he's just awful. there's a good chance he could retire at the end of the year and forego that last season and Edmonton's off the hook at that point. So there's a few different ways where this might not be as significant burden on the cap hit as it could be.

But I'm just, man, if I'm an Edmonton fan, I'm listening to Ken Hall and talk about, well, you know, when I went and got Chris Chilios in 99, people thought he was too old. And first of all, Chris Chiloges was coming off Norris caliber seasons. So it's not really a comparison to where Duncan Keith is at right now. But also, that was 20 years ago. That was a completely different league. And if Ken Holland's plan for building the Oilers into a champion involves repeating stuff that he did with the Red Wings 20 years ago, when there was no cap and when it was a very different league and aging curves and everything were very different,

I'm concerned if I'm an Edmonton fan that we're actually in the right hands here and that we've got a plan going forward that's going to work. Sometimes moves like this, maybe the actual move, maybe we overreact to how good or bad an individual move is, but it reveals something about the process and the thinking of an organization. And if I'm an Oilers fan, I'm a little nervous right now based on not only how it played out, but someone can't haul its comments afterwards. I'm liking these random Chris Chelyos references that keep popping into.

Yeah, he's like the star of this podcast all of a sudden. Yeah. Hey, listen, speaking of getting. a window into kind of an organization's thinking. I think a lot of people got a window into what the Ottawa senators are thinking. That's the team I cover. I've already talked about this on one podcast earlier this week with Haley-Salvian. I've written a column on it.

So I think people are probably pretty familiar with my take on the Ottawa Senator signing Pierre McGuire as the senior VP of player personnel. I'd like to get your view on this. Sean, as you saw the news coming out on Monday, and then you've seen some of either Pierre's comments, Pierre Dorian's comments too. We're sitting here now 48 hours after the fact. What do you think of Pierre McGuire in Ottawa? Yeah, I mean, I guess I would say I have mixed feelings on it. This is a guy who has not worked in the NHL in terms of working for an NHL

team in, what, 20 years now. And, you know, his big selling point, this encyclopedic knowledge of every player in the league, that's great when you're on live television and you need to be able to pull stuff. I don't know how much that really helps in NHL front office. They've got all the resources in the world to find out about players. I don't think the fact that Pierre can do it in three seconds necessarily adds all that much of their thought process. Now, that haven't been said.

He's clearly a smart guy. He's clearly a guy who has spent most of his life thinking about the NHL and how to build winners in the NHL. He probably does have some inside information that wouldn't be available to other people. That could help Ottawa. And as I think you pointed out in your column, having a guy who can do some PR for this team will help. This is a team, as you know well. Even when things are good, they just have this way of putting their foot in their mouth. And then, you know, whether it's a comment here or a sound bite there, and having a guy in Pierre who is very well respected in the media, very well liked in this market, as best I can tell, he's on the radio here in Ottawa all the time, usually very, very positive.

Fans seem to like him. He'll buy them some credibility. And if he's the guy who's in front of the camera, he'd probably be really good at that. And this team could use that. And there's value in that. The thing that fascinates me is just the internal politics of this and how it's going to work. The fact that, you know, what was it? Two years ago, and the senators made this big announcement, we were going to hire a big name president.

And then it never happened. They just never brought anyone in. They said in the president, we are an attractive destination for big, names and then nobody either wanted the job or was offered whatever happened. And Pierre McGuire's coming in, not as a president of hockey ops or something like that, he's coming in reporting into Pierre Dorian in what sounds like, essentially from what they were describing, an assistant GM rule. And yet he's not the assistant GM either. It feels like there's already been like a bunch of, what's whose title is going to be what? What's the org chart going to look like? And look,

it could work. Dorian and McGuire might find that they work great together. They might be a really good pair. Pierre Dorian's done a lot of good things as GM of the senators, and maybe, you know, Pierre McGuire can come in and fill in a couple of additional areas, and it all works beautifully. It might all fall apart real quickly. And, you know, when you ask Pierre Dorian, are you concerned that you just hired your replacement,

I think that's an absolutely fair question. Pierre McGuire has very, very, very publicly been going after front office jobs for a long time. And I don't think he took this job thinking he's going to be essentially a glorified assistant GM for the foreseeable future now, whether that's in Ottawa or it's just a stepping stone to somewhere else or who knows. But I'm really interested to see how that plays out. We're not obviously, that'll be behind the scenes. We're not going to be, we're not going to see most of it. but that's what really interests me. A year, two years, three years from now,

are these guys still working together well? If so, great. This could really work out well for the senators. Or does it become one of those cloak and dagger things where they're positioning for the next job already, in which case, obviously, it won't work, but it'll probably be a lot more entertaining for the rest of us. Yeah, and as we wrap up this portion of the conversation,

Pierre Dorian, one year left on his contract, too. So that is certainly part of the equation. And for anybody who thinks Ottawa is this dull, sleepy, boring government town, I introduce you to the Ottawa Senators. And we're bringing them back after giving them a much-needed week off from Granger. Thanks, it's her pal. Jesse Granger joining us, courtesy of BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner with us here with the Athletic.

Welcome back to the show. Great to have you back, Jesse. Hopefully you had a little bit of downtime here before the off-season cycle kicks up again. Thanks, Ian. Yeah, it's been fun. It's obviously a long playoff run came to an end. It's become a regular thing in Vegas. And also they're in on every free agent, apparently.

So that's also become a thing in Vegas. Yeah. Well, hey, listen, the reason why we've got to get you in here is we're already thinking about next season. And there's a lot of fan bases wondering, what are my team's odds to win the Stanley Cup? So maybe walk us through some notable teams here and project out to the 2022 Stanley Cup champion. Yeah. So I was just looking at the future odds, looking at where they have teams currently at bet MGM to win next year Stanley Cup.

And a couple teams that popped out to me, the first one's Colorado. And they are the favorites to win the Stanley Cup next year. Surprisingly, Tampa Bay, who has won the last two Stanley Cups, they're only third in the odds. I think that's partially, the odds are created based on what they expect betters to bet. And betters are sick of the Tampa Bay Lightning winning. I think that happens in every sport. Teams win a few in a row. they start to look for maybe who could be that next team and Colorado's above them and so is Vegas.

But the avalanche at only 5 to 1, you are not getting very good odds betting on them. And I don't think now is the time to bet the Colorado Avalanche if you are going to just because of there are so many UFAs on this team. Gabriel Landiscag obviously is the big one. He's probably the biggest UFA of this class, him and Dougie Hamilton. But they also have Brandon Sodd, Pierre-Eward Belmar, and both goalies, Philip Grubauer and Devin Dubnick. and they do have some cap space, but at the same time, you also have restricted free agent Kail McCar, who was on an entry-level contract making next to nothing and is now going to be probably one of the highest paid defenders in the league. At least he deserves to be.

So that's going to take up a massive portion of that. And I just don't see how they bring all these guys back. So to me, if I'm bet in Colorado, I'm waiting at least until the dust settles, maybe a week after July 28th when free agency opens to just see what direction they're going, at least. It's not that Colorado can't be good, but there are so many different directions this could go with all the moving pieces. So that one sticks out to me as a weight on. Don't bet Colorado at plus 500 just quite yet.

Another team is the Rangers, and for opposite reasons. I think you can look at the Rangers right now. They're 25 to 1 to win the Stanley Cup. That's the 12th best odds, which is kind of, that seems a little high for me. And I think that's partially the odds makers and the market kind of already accounting for what could happen. They were the 16th best team last year.

They missed the playoffs. They weren't great. but they already are in the top 15 in odds to win next year of Stanley Cup, partially because they've got $22 million in cap space. They have no real UFAs on their roster other than maybe Brendan Smith, if you consider him. And I think everyone's kind of wondering if they're going to be the team to land Jack Eichel. Wherever he goes is going to have a big impact.

The NHL is not the NBA. The NBA, a single player, LeBron James, whoever that free agent is, that offseason, will completely change the odds table with one move. that doesn't happen in the NHL. Even if it was Connor McDavid, one player just does not impact the game enough in hockey for it to have that kind of swing. But I do think Ikel is probably the closest thing you could have to that.

And then I think if you combine everything else with the Rangers where I think there's some momentum with some younger players there, they get Gerard Gallant, who I know covering him in Vegas is a very good coach. If they could add Jack Eichol and they have room to add more, I think if you could get the Rangers at 25 to 1 right now, you'd be feeling a lot better than if you bet them at whatever it was if you wait for them to make these moves. Another team, Edmonton, they are plus 2,800. So 28 to 1 to win.

They're right in the middle. I think Edmonton's a team that prior to the move that they made the other day, I was thinking, okay, they're in a weak Pacific Division. I just wrote a story on how weak the Pacific Division is going to be from a Vegas perspective. They lost Colorado, Minnesota, St. Louis, and Arizona. and they're adding three Canadian teams that struggled. Edmonton obviously did make the playoffs. The other two didn't in Vancouver and Calgary.

And you're adding Seattle, which is an unknown. So I think there's one team that made the playoffs last year in the Pacific division, or sorry, that won a playoff game in the Pacific Division. That's Vegas. So if you're Edmonton, it's wide open. There's not a whole lot to compete with. You're going to get a playoff spot there.

And they had 12 million in cap space, and they spent half of it on Duncan Keith. So I was a little more optimistic about Edmonton before, but they still have moves to make. I think if you could get Edmonton at 28 to 1, if they find a way to make some moves to give McDavid and Drys Idol some help, I think that could be a team that goes down in odds. If you bet them at 28 to 1 right now, you could be feeling really good about yourself at the end of free agency.

And finally, the Cracken, I think this is fascinating to me. Just from Vegas, I watched how it all unfolded for the Golden Knights. And before the Golden Knights ever had a player, they were 500. to one to win the Stanley Cup. And because they were Vegas' hometown team, there were quite a bit of people that put money on that team at 500 to 1. And I can remember talking to odds makers leading into the Stanley Cup final that year. And they were saying, yeah, this is the most liability we've ever had,

especially on a hockey team because hockey is just not as heavily bet as football and basketball. And I remember them saying, like, we're going to be out of business, but we'll still be at the parade having fun because that's our team too. Like the odds makers, that's our favorite team. But we're going to be unemployed by the time we get to the parade because we're all going to lose all of our jobs. Well, I think they've learned their lesson. The Cracken are not 500 to 1. They are only 50 to 1 right now, which is an insane adjustment from, I mean, you have to

account Vegas's cup run into it. But the fact that they are not only 500 to 1, the teams with the highest odds are actually the Sabres and Red Wings. they're both 200 to 1. The Cracken are tied for 21st in odds with the Kings and the Vancouver Canucks at 50 to 1. So you go from the last expansion team just four years ago with the same exact rules. And I think after what the Golden Knights have done, these odds makers are terrified of what Seattle is going to be. So before they even have a single player on their roster, they have better odds than 10 teams in the NHL. That hurts.

That hurts for those teams. A team that has literally nobody on the roster is better than you. But I do want to highlight what you said about Vegas and how long their odds were and everything. Let's just keep that in mind because I still have people telling me, oh, everybody knew Vegas was going to be good because the draft was rigged and Gary Bettman made sure they were going to be good. Everybody knew this team was going to be good. No, they didn't. And that's why they almost broke the books, literally, based on those odds. It was it was not something that anyone saw coming, which made it even more amazing,

even in hindsight. And it's that 500 to 1 remained. It was that way for, I think, a couple games into the season now. Yeah. They started like five and one. It's not like they drafted players. And then everyone went, oh, they got William Carlson. Okay.

James Neal. It doesn't. didn't change at all. Yeah. Yeah. And then they won a couple games and the money started pouring in. And as, as people know, the odds are based exactly on the market and what people are doing. So once the money started pouring in, those started shifted. I'm curious to see what will happen with the crack. And I would definitely not bet them at 50 to 1 just because I think, like I said, that's a massive correction. And I think it might be an overcorrection. I think the Golden Knights have set the bar for what these expansion rules lead to incredibly high, almost unreachably high for Seattle.

So it's going to be interesting to see the expectation difference between what Vegas was going to be and what Seattle's going to be. I almost feel bad for management in Seattle because people, I don't think they're expecting what Vegas did, but the expectations of the floor for an expansion team are a lot higher now. In closing here, let me ask you guys this question. I know we kind of hit on Jack Eichel, maybe playing a little bit. bit with the odds. Do either of you think Seth Jones can have that kind of impact? And I'll use Colorado as an example. If Seth Jones goes to Colorado, does that somehow make them more of a,

even though at the top of the chart? Does that enhance their odds? And is there any other place that you guys think that, you know what? If Seth Jones ends up here, that team will be significantly better. I think, yes, I do. But I think it has to be a really good team, right? Like I was saying earlier. In basketball, a free agent, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, whoever it is, they can pick literally any bottom feeder in the league and they're suddenly the second favorite to win the title, the moment they make that decision. Ikele and Jones, that just can't happen in hockey. You put obviously Buffalo's 200 to 1 with Jack Eichael. So that kind of, but like I do think you, you mentioned a great one, Colorado. I mentioned to them because there's so much

uncertainty there and why I wouldn't bet them at 500 to 1 because it's like he may not have Landisog, Brandon Sade, Belmar was a big important piece to that team. But like you said, if they get Seth Jones and they re-sign Kail McCarr and it's like, oh my gosh, 500 to 1 is not even good enough on them. You've got to take that odds even higher. So I do think that Jones could have an impact, but it's got to be on a team that's already has a chance to win it without him, if that makes sense. Perfect stuff. Hey, listen, Jesse, we'll leave it there. Great to have you back this week. Listen, enjoy the week. I know this is going to be pretty fun for you watching from afar with the expansion draft. No, Vegas isn't involved, but I'm sure you're going to be watching with a lot of

interest. Thanks for this, and we'll get you again next week. Thanks for having me, guys. All right, always great to get to Jesse Granger back in the saddle. And look, we were just talking about Jack Eichel, Sean, with Jesse. And as we open up the mailbag here, a reminder, you can hit us up with an email to the athletic hockey. show at gmail.com, the athletic hockey show at gmail.com, or if you want to drop us an old school voicemail, we would love to hear from you, 845-4-4-5-8459. Nick is writing in here with a, I guess, a little bit of an off-season plan, Sean, for the Buffalo Sabres. And Nick says, listen, I like to start with a buyout of Kyle Ok Pozo, but after that, if the Sabres are able to

move Jack Eichel and get a first round pick back, let's say they send Eichael to Anaheim and get the number three pick back along with prospects. What do you think the odds would be that they turn around and use that number three pick overall, send it to Seattle as an incentive for them to take Jeff Skinner? I understand Skinner's got a full no movement clause. A fresh start though at 29 might be good for him. If I'm Buffalo, I'm doing anything in my power to move that contract, even if it means giving up the number three pick overall.

I got to tell you, I don't love that idea. Like, you could count me in on, hey, if you want to try and dump Jeff Skinner, dump Jeff Skinner. But if you're getting the prime piece you're getting back for Jack Eichol, you can't turn around and attach that to Jeff Skinner, can you? It's a tough sell. Boy, it would be a tough sell, especially if it went down with a Jack Eichael trade and you get the pick and Sabers fans are talking themselves into it and then you pull the rug out from

under them and send the pick somewhere else. Look, here's the thing. I'll give that listener credit. I'll give Nick credit because he's, he understands something that a lot of fans don't seem to understand very well, which is that it takes a lot to get a contract like that, Jeff Skinner contract off the books. That might be at this point the worst contract in the league. I think you could make a case given how many years are left, given how it's structured. It's, you know, it doesn't even backdive all that much. So it's going to be hard to trade. It's obviously way underwater as far as the value that the player is currently bringing.

And it's got six years left. So you're not going to get a team to take that deal by throwing them a third round pick. You're not going to be able to get them to take that deal by tossing them a prospect or somebody like that. It's going to cost you a lot. And I'm not even sure Seattle does it. Even for a pick that high, given what the draft looks like this year, given how much is still on the books for Jeff Skinner, I'm not even sure the Seattle doesn't. So it's, you know, I give him credit because he's being realistic about what it would take.

And obviously a fresh start here really does feel like something that. that both sides need. I'm just not sure how you can do it. And so at that point, you know, unless it's a buyout at some point, you're probably maybe in a situation where you say, you know, let's see what Jeff Skinner does with a full year of Don Granado. It obviously wasn't working with Rothruder. That felt like a relationship that was just completely broken beyond repair.

Maybe give this guy a whole, you know, give him an off season, a training camp, everything to adjust, come in, fresh set of eyes, have John Granato sit him down and say, look, the past is the past. I'm not worried about whatever happened here before. And you go from there. And maybe he doesn't come back as a 40-goal guy. But if he can become a 20-goal guy, then suddenly, okay, maybe there's some value there.

Some other team can see if we retain salary, whatever it is. But, yeah, if you're looking to just wash your hands of the whole thing, it's going to cost you that much to get another team to do it. Even a team with no-cap commitments and all the space in the world like Seattle, I don't even know if they would do it. it for that high of a pick. One other email question here comes in from Chris, and we talked about this last week with the Montreal Canadiens

lost the Stanley Cup final, Sean, too, Tampa. We said it's the classic NHL story. Cinderella gets to the Stanley Cup, and then the clock strikes midnight, and the old carriage turns into a pumpkin, and they never win the Stanley Cup. But Chris says, listening to you guys last episode,

would you not consider the 2019 St. Louis Blues a Cinderella story? They were in last place overall in the league on January 3rd that year, then scratched their way into the Stanley Cup playoffs and won the whole thing on the back of a rookie goal tender in Jordan Pittington. So where do we come down on the 2019 St. Louis Blues? Because you know what?

I think Chris makes an excellent point. Certainly they fit the mold of a Cinderella team. So did Cinderella win the Stanley Cup in 2019? Yeah, it's a fair question. And I think that if you're looking at the season as a whole, yes, the Blues would qualify as a Cinderella. the team. Last place, overall in the league, halfway through the season, goes on to win the Stanley Cup. That's a Cinderella story. The reason I exclude them is because I'm just looking at playoff runs. And by the time the playoffs arrived, the blues have been so good in the second half that a lot of us had already caught on that this was a real good team and that this was a legitimate contender. And when I was writing the piece that we were referring to last week, I actually went back to check this. Because, you know, hindsight's a weird thing and sometimes, you know, maybe the reason there's no Cinderella's winning the cup is that as soon as the team wins the cup, we just don't think of them as Cinderella anymore.

And we've got a blind spot to it. And I went back and looked. And if you look at the odds when the playoffs began in 2019, the blues were fairly high up the list. I think they were seventh or eighth best odds in the league out of the 16th playoff team. So not a favorite, but not an underdog either. And not a team that was in the same circumstance. as Montreal this year, where nobody gave them a shot even, even as they were, even after they won in the first round, or the Minnesota's or some of the other teams where it was, it really did feel shocking all the way along. I think by the time the playoffs started, if that's where you start your snapshot, I don't think the blues were Cinderella anymore, because we'd already figured out they were good. But yeah, if you go back to January, absolutely, they would, they would qualify. What, yeah, boy, one other thing about that, that team, though, like, that St.

Lewis team in 2019, like I'd love to know exactly, like you said, like if you could go right at the, like the HABs this year, when you went into the playoffs, you're like, that's a classic Cinderella team. They probably would have been out of the 16 playoffs teams, I don't know, 14th or 15th, whatever, like in the odds, right? But like, you're right, like the blues going into that run. I think a lot of people are like, I don't want to see the blues. Whereas, like, if you're a team, you're like, I don't want to face St. Louis, they're red hot. Whereas the habs, you're, I think a lot of teams are like, oh yeah, bring them on. Right?

Like that's probably the only way, but it's a good point by Chris. That's the thing, right? Like even after Montreal, they beat Toronto and everyone went at Toronto. They always check. They beat Winnipeg and, okay, it's Winnipeg. Even then, Montreal was sitting home and cooled out, two rounds deep into the playoffs, waiting to see who they were going to play. And people are saying they're going to get swept in the next round.

They've got no chance. And it was, I mean, people who listen to the show, remember, we were tearing our hair out going, no, this is a real team. You've got to pay attention to these guys. To me, that's a. playoff Cinderella run. But other people might look at it differently. Yeah, all right. Let's wrap up the show, as we always do with a little this week in

hockey history. And, you know, middle of July is not a time where you would think there would be a lot of juicy stories in the hockey world. But we got, well, one of them that's really juicy. So we're going to take our listeners back once again to the summer of 1994, although this one won't involve Chris Chelyos, I don't think. July 15th, 1994. 31 days after the New York Rangers win the Stanley.

cop, Mike Keenan abruptly leaves his job. He cites a, quote, breach of contract obligations. And then 48 hours later, he's unveiled as the new head coach. And I believe general manager too, right, with the St. Louis Blues. He's given dual authority. We'll get to that kind of dual hats thing in our next item. But let's get, let's dive into this because this would be equivalent. Just again, for our younger listeners, imagine two weeks from now, John Cooper leaves the Tampa Bay Lightning, and you're like, what? And he's like, and then like two days later, he just surfaces as the head coach in St. Louis or Nashville or some totally random city. The NHL had to get involved in this too, Sean, right?

Like Gary Betman is involved. There ended up being like a compensation package involving Peter Nedved and Essentikin in. Like, what happened here? Like, it's been almost 30 years. What happened? It's another one of these classic, just bizarre NHL stories that if you weren't around as a fan, you probably wouldn't believe how it went down. And let me start with this, because you talk about, well, what if it was John Cooper?

We kind of saw this a few years ago with Barry Trots. Remember, he wins the cup in Washington. And then suddenly you hear this whisper that, oh, he's actually got an out in his contract. And he's exercising that. And next thing, he winds up with the Islander. So I'm sure some fans today are going, oh, it's the Barry Trots. Trots thing. We saw that. But it's not. Because here's the thing. The difference is with Barry Trots, he did have an out in his contract. Everybody agreed to that. Washington wanted to keep him,

presumably, but everybody agreed and acknowledged that the contract said what it said, and he had the right to pursue it. Mike Keenan did not have an out in his contract. What Mike Keenan had, in addition to having the devious mind of Mike Keenan, he had some bonuses in his contract, and what happened is one of those bonuses, according to him, was one day late. That's it. And based on that, he stood up and declared his own contract null and void and declared himself a free agent. And the Rangers are sitting there going, no, you're not a free agent.

You don't have the right to talk to any other teams. But Mike Keenan said, because of this one day delay in this bonus that I say I didn't get in time, I'm now a free agent. I can negotiate with anyone I want. And as this is happening, 48 hours later, he's already got to deal with the Blues. And it was an enormous mess. He's signing a contract to be the coaching GM of the Blues. The Rangers still think Mike Keenan works for them.

Gary Betman has to come in and get involved. There's all these negotiations. The Red Wings are involved too because the Red Wings were negotiating with Mike Keenan at the same time. And there was a lot of talk of, you know, wait a second. How much negotiating can you do in 48 hours? or were these teams maybe knocking on the door before then? And there was some tampering going on and should it have been tampering anyways because the Rangers thought that this guy was their property the whole time.

It ended up being a big mess. Gary Batman eventually stepped in. He suspended Mike Keenan for two months. He couldn't start as coach or GM at the Blues until whatever it was September. He fined pretty much everyone involved, including the Rangers, because the Rangers, as part of this, sued Mike Keenan. And Gary Bettman didn't like that. He wanted this handled in-house.

He didn't like that they went outside and started their own lawsuit. So he finds the Rangers, even though they're the supposed victims here, he finds Mike Keenan, he finds the blues, he finds the Red Wings, who didn't even get the guy. And also, he forces the teams to make this trade, St. Louis and New York, where basically St. Louis gives Peter Nedved to the Rangers for a couple of veterans. Peter Nevaet was a good, good young player back then. So it's a lopsided trade where basically the blues are given up Peter Nedved in exchange for the rights to Mike Keenan. A total mess, absolute, you know, tons of thousands of dollars and fines and everything.

But the key is they did allow Mike Keenan to go to St. Louis and become the coach in the GM there, which of course paid off in all sorts of bizarre and ridiculous things that he did. in terms of managing that team, and that's how you get Wayne Gretzky in St. Louis and all these other big name veterans who follow Mike Keenan around. Mike Keenan was absolutely and honestly one of the most entertaining

and just as long as he wasn't running your team, oh my goodness, was the NHL ever more fun when Mike Keenan was making decisions because you never knew what he was going to do. And that was true in St. Louis. It was true in New York. It was true in Vancouver. everywhere he went, Philadelphia,

as well as Chicago in the early 90s when he feuded with Chris Chelyos. Had to bring it all back for you. There we go. It all comes back to Chalios. By the way, you mentioned Detroit was kicking the tires on Mike Keenan in that little window,

but Scotty Bowman was their coach at the time. Like Scotty had already, it's sort of one season, 93, 94, because I double-checked this. Are you telling me the Detroit Red Wings would have punted Scotty Bowman for Mike. Even? That's a great question. I didn't even think of that angle. Would they have or was this? I mean, I know at the time when Scotty took over, there had been some talk that whether he really wanted to be the coach, whether this was something he was going to do long term.

Maybe he was in on it and was thinking about, but oh, geez, you talk about a what if scenario. That Detroit team that is three years away from a Cup dynasty, what if they bring in Mike Keenan? I mean, that Mike, Mike, Keenan as a GM at Detroit, we're talking at this point. It's not, does he trade Steve Eiserman? Who does he get for Steve Eiserman? Who did I, and there were, I mean, geez, there were rumors. There was talk at the time, just to give you a sense of how crazy NHL offseasons used to be. As we're all sitting around talking, we're on day three of talking down that 38-year-old Duncan Keith trade. Back then, one of the rumors was that at the same time this was going on, the Rangers were having trouble getting Mark Messia.

under contract. He was not an unrestricted free agent, but he needed a new deal or wanted a new deal, and he was holding out. And there was a rumor that was fairly well reported that they were going to trade Mark Messier to the St. Louis Blues for Brett Hall, and that Messier was going to go with Keenan to St. Louis, and Brett Hall was going to come to New York. Now, Neil Smith and other people have said that never happened. That was never a discussion. I suspect that what may have been happening was Mike Keenan may have been planting that story just to mess with his former team. But that was the level of rumor we used to be dealing with. These days, is Alex Kerfoot going to go to Seattle?

Back then it was like, yeah, Messiafer Hall. Who says no? And we just rolled with it. All right. One other one. And I mentioned kind of wear the dual hats, a general manager and a head coach, July 14th, 1999, this week in hockey history. Pat Quinn, who's already the head coach of the Toronto,

may believe, Sean, adds the title of general manager. to his portfolio, essentially making Pat the last true head coach GM combo. And I guess is the salary cap the thing that really killed the idea of this happening? Or do you think it's possible that somebody could be head coach and GM still in the year 2021? I mean, it seems unlikely, which is surprising because, you know, Pat Quinn had a lot of success in Toronto in that role. You know, Daryl Sutter was another guy who did.

both jobs in Calgary for a bit and took them almost to a Stanley Cup. They're, you know, other guys, not so much. Doug McLean comes to mind. Mike Keenan in a lot of places didn't necessarily have a ton of success. But I think it's not even so much the cap. It's just everything is so specialized right now. The GM jobs, we're told, is so much more complicated. Again, I don't necessarily buy that.

But I've said before, I think part of the reason we don't get cool trades like Brett Hall for Mark Messier anymore is because. every front office is a dozen guys now. You've got to get everybody in the room and everyone gets a vote and everybody gets to agree. It used to just be two GMs could sit down, have a couple of beers and shake hands and that was a deal. And now it's so specialized and the coaching staffs as well. And it's just possible that, yeah, we can't have two guys or one guy doing two jobs anymore because it's just too much. We've seen it for the short term.

You know, we've seen GMs fire a coach and step in behind the bench. Bob Murray did it recently. Lula Marello does it every few years. But as far as doing it for the long term, I don't know. But guys have had success with it. And boy, if you want your GM to know what's going on with the team and really know who's doing what and who's pulling their weight and who maybe isn't, having a coach GM would be a pretty good way to do it,

it just doesn't feel like it's something that's going to be on the table for teams anymore. No, yeah, you're right. And it's just like the idea of, like, there used to be player coaches, too, which is even more mind-boiled, right? That's crazy that that used to have. You just get to the bench. Hold on, boy, I'm a little winded, so I'll tell you who's up. Just give me a few seconds.

And yeah, that was, that we won't ever see again. But Coach GM, I don't know, we only need one team to try it and have some success. And then knowing this league, everybody, you know, every cheap owner would be going, And why am I paying two guys if I could just pay one guy to do both jobs for me? Exactly, two for the price of one. All right. So as we wrap up this show, again, I want to remind you the two-man advantage of the athletic hockey show. They're coming your way Thursdays for the rest of this month.

Pierre LeBron, Scott Burnside. They're going to have Arizona Coyote's new head coach Andre Tourney with them as well as former NHLGM, Dean Lombardi. So that comes your way on Thursday. And a reminder, we've got the Friday podcast show, too, with the prospects with Corey Bronman and Max Bolton. So that does it for us. Thanks for joining us. We'll get you again on Wednesday of next week. As always, email us to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com.

And if you're not a subscriber, you can join us, theathletic.com slash hockey show, and you'll get a subscription for just $3.99. A month.