The Athletic Hockey Show - Nathan MacKinnon's eating habits, John Tortorella joins ESPN, the taboo of gambling allegations and more

Episode Date: August 5, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe kick things off discussing Nathan MacKinnon's fitness and eating habits as revealed by Nikita Zadorov in an interview. What, no pasta for anyone?! Also, John Tortorella will be joining ESPN, but which version of Torts will we really see on TV? Also, Sean discusses trying to find a winner in his preseason prediction contest.Then in "Granger Things", Jesse Granger joins the show to discuss gambling allegations, and why they are so taboo in sports. Then, the guys answer of bunch of listener questions, including who has the worst contract in the NHL, a look back at the trade that sent Dominik Hasek from Chicago to Buffalo in "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.

We're back at it. It's another brand new edition of the Athletic Hockey Show coming your way. Ian Mendez, Sean McIndoo. With you ahead in the next hour, we talk about Nathan McKinnon's legendary work ethic and eating habits that have just come to light this week. John Tortorella has landed at ESPN. We'll discuss his role as an analyst and if we ever expect to see him step behind a bench again. Sean has finally declared a winner in his tricky preseason prediction contest. We'll chat about that. plus Jesse Granger stops by, where we discuss the bigger question about gambling and its influence in pro sports in light of the Evander Cain News this week. We'll take some of your listener questions, including who has the worst contract in the NHL right now this week in hockey history. Looks back in the Buffalo Sabres making what we thought was a minor trade at the time, but landing a Hall of Famer in the process. So lots to get to on this Thursday.

That's right, Sean. I said Thursday. We're back. It's August. This feels weird. What is this? A Thursday show on a Thursday. What is this sorcery? Yeah, it's, it's very strange. And yeah, thanks to, thanks to all the other big shots for letting us have our day back. That's, that was very kind of them. Yeah, yeah. They're all appears, they're all a Pierce cottage right now. So we have any day we want. Exactly. Like, that is the most, like, have you ever had the invite to the Pierre LeBron cottage? No, it got, it must have got lost in the mail again this year. This is crazy. He keeps saying it's on the way and it just never arrives.

I got to tell you, you and I are at most of four-hour drive from that cottage. You know, it's all it takes is one. You know what? I think it must be a mistake. Let's finish doing this show. And then you and I, we just hop in the car and we just go. You know, we just show up, knock on the door, whatever it is. They're probably all out on the dock.

They'd be happy to see us, right? Yeah. There's probably a secret password to get in. I'm thinking it's either like Hartford Whalers or actually, no, it's LeBron. It's Holy Mama. Could be. Isn't that his big catchphrase? Holy mama.

The password is jukebox. We got to get in. Let's do this. Oh, man. Hey, listen, I don't want of the things you wanted to get into this weekend. You got to love August in the news cycle because sometimes you get this story that kind of comes out of nowhere. And for anybody who hasn't been paying attention this week, former member of the Colorado Avalanche. He's now a member of the Calgary Flames via Chicago.

That's Nikita Zedorov. did an interview with a Russian publication in which he kind of peeled back the curtains a little bit on Nate McKinnon of the Colorado Aflain. So I'm just going to give our readers kind of a bullet point rundown of some of the things Zedorov talked about. And he talks about, you know, and some of the stuff isn't that eye popping, right? Like the fact that McKinnon has his own chef and that he, you know, invest in his own body. I think that's what a lot of modern athletes do. But here's a couple of excerpts that have jumped out at people. Number one is this.

Okay, so this is Nikita Zedorov talking to a Russian news outlet on Nate McKinney. He says, quote, he's crazy that way. He eats right. He doesn't drink. He only drinks water. Two years ago in Colorado, he got rid of all the pop ice cream and desserts. He got rid of them from the dressing room and pregame meals. He even got rid of the white sauce for pasta.

He replaced the actual pasta with chickpea pasta that has more protein and so on and so forth. And he says, guys, if you want to eat that crap, you have the offseason for that. When you come here, there will be none of that because we're winning the cup. So everyone's focused on this. You know, Sean, I always think I got a petition for a new nickname for Nathan McKinnon, right? So David Posternak is pasta. I say Nate McKinnon is anti-pasta. I like it.

Yeah. I like it a lot. I think that's got to become the new thing. Yeah. Man, this was a journey. this really was because you're right when you when you start at the top of the list it's it's not bad and in fact it sounds like exactly the sort of guy you'd want to have leading your team you know he's he's fit he's focused on what he puts in his body doesn't drink and and all of this and then just

the further you get into it i feel like the turning point was the white sauce i feel like that's the moment where if this was a movie, like suddenly the, the music would have changed in the background and it would have started getting a little before boating because that felt like the point where he started to wonder about about this guy. Because let's be clear, he's not saying he doesn't eat this stuff. He's saying nobody on the Colorado Avalanche is allowed to eat this stuff when he's around. And yeah, I mean, you know, look, you and me are pretty much the same sort of guy. You know, if I get the, I get the medium order of chicken wings. To me, that's eating healthy for the, for the day.

So I'm pretty proud of myself. So I got to respect what the pro athletes go through. But, yeah, as soon as I hit the white sauce, that's where the first eyebrow went on. Yeah, it's, you know, it's funny, though. So I thought of a couple of stories about, and you tell me what's weird here. I'm going to give you two quick anecdotes about former Ottawa Senators players and their pasta habits. and you tell me which is weirder to you, okay? Chris,

I think the phrase pasta habits on its own is... Pasta habits. It's a new segment here on the Al-a-Chi-Chio. We just talk about people's various pasta habits, okay? So Chris Neal back in the day, Sean, used to... And he might still do this, but he would cook pasta and then he would dump ranch dressing on it.

Okay? So pasta with ranch dressing. But Eric Carlson would also cook pasta and then put straight up ketchup on the pasta. I want to know from you, what's weirder to you putting ranch dressing on pasta or putting ketchup on pasta? Okay, those are both awful.

Yes. And I got to be honest, probably the ranch is worse, but I'm not saying anything about Chris Neal's eating habits. I'm not, if I got to get one of these guys mad at me, it's not going to be Chris Neal. So I'll go with,

the ketchup. But that is terrible. Yeah, they're both bad. Yeah, I, the trade makes sense now. The Carlson deal. You can't have that. You can't have that in the room. No, exactly. I think it's a thing, though, that I think Swedish guys might do that from time to time where they do ketchup on the pasta. And maybe that's a thing somewhere else. But yeah, I mean, listen, the Nate McKinnon thing, like, I don't think it's, do you think it's great? Like, you read some stuff about like LeBron James and what he does. So, like, to me, it's not that crazy that Nate McKinnon has his own personal shaft and takes care of himself. But I guess my question would be, and you brought this up, like, as a player, do you have the right to tell other players what they can and can't eat?

Or would you be okay with it? I mean, I think he's, you know, can he force them? No. Can he create a culture around that team where, hey, we're really focused on fitness. Like he said, we can do what you want in the office. season, but during the year, this is, this is how we're going to play it. And then, you know, we'll see it. And you know that not everyone is on board.

You know there are definitely some guys in that room who are like, yep, we're on it, Nate, good one. And then as soon as he's gone, they're like, get the hot dogs. We're doing this. We're sneaking out. But, no, I don't, I don't mind that. It's a little extreme. But then you get further into the piece and you find out what he's like at practice.

And for me, at least, this is where it went off the rails. Yeah. So again, and now this is in the words of Nikita Zedorov, former teammate of his, and basically says he's a lot like what Michael Jordan used to be like. And for anybody who watched the last dance or is kind of an MJ fanatic, you know Michael Jordan was driven. He demanded perfection from those around him, right? Like he didn't ask for perfection. He demanded it. And so was Zedorov is saying on Nate McKinnon is, again, this is from the article, quote, he can be a jerk to his teammates and linemates. You need to accept that and that it would improve you as a player. And if you can't accept it, you're off the team. If you miss a

pass in practice, he would skate over and literally scream at you. Yeah. Is that the part that? Yes, that's the part. Because the part, he says something about how like McKinnon's the first guy on the ice, the last guy off. That's great. That's exactly what you want from your best player. That sets the bar for everybody. But now when it's, you know, if you make a pass and it's not perfectly on his stick that he's going to stop practice and go scream at you, that seems weird to me. Because you're one of the best players in the league. You should be able to adjust to a pass not being exactly where you want it.

Now, yes, you want everybody to be on the mark with everything they're doing. But to stop practice and scream at somebody because they didn't put the puck exactly. exactly on your stick. Dude, you're like a 90 point player. You can probably move your stick a little bit and accept a pass. Am I wrong on that? Like, does that, did that not strike you as a little bit over?

Like, the whole thing to me feels a bit like, remember when you were, you were a kid and maybe even, maybe even after that, you'd watch a movie and you'd be like, I like the character in that movie. That's my new personality. That's it.

That's how I dress. That's how I talk. That's going to be me for the next little while. It feels like Nathan McKin, and watched the last dance and got a little too into it. And now he's, he's doing this, uh,

this sort of Michael Jordan impression at practical. Like, dude, move your stick, man. It's, it's, it's, it's okay. If somebody was a little bit off,

uh, by a couple of, a couple of centimeters, uh, we, we, we probably don't have to slam the brakes on the entire practice so that, uh,

so that you can go and do your, uh, your Michael Jordan cosplay performance for them. Oh, Michael Jordan cosplay. I like that. Uh, Now, McKinnon is probably going to get put in that same area.

Like, when you think of Gary Roberts, that's the first thing you think of, right? Like, Roberts was the guy who was, like, eating ostrich meat and chicken breast and nothing else back in the day. Who would you rather see, like, just go and wolf down, like, a blizzard from Dairy Queen and maybe like a, you know, chalupa from Taco Bell? Like, would you rather see Nate McKinnon do this or Gary Roberts? Yeah. Just let it go and have cheat day. That's the thing with Gary Roberts is he's not playing anymore. Like he's still doing this stuff after he played.

I get it when you're playing. But it's one of my favorite things to see in all of sports is when you see some athlete and they're in great shape, of course, they're a professional athlete, they're the top of their game. And then they retire. And like six months later you see them. They have a ceremony or something. And they come up and they've gained like 100 pounds. And you're just like, yes, that good for you because you finally after 20 years

of chickpea pasta with no white sauce, you're like, I can eat whatever I want, and I'm doing it. I love that when I see it. So, I mean, Nathan McKinnon, he's, yeah, he's the best player on a cup contender. I kind of get it. Gary Roberts, man, it's over. You're retired. You can work in a chocolate bar every now and then. It's fine. You know, we're going to go from demanding players to a demanding coach and John Tortoella Torts hired by ESPN this week is kind of one of their studio analysts. And, you know, Sean, the last time John Tottorella did this between jobs, he was kind of, I don't know what the word would be, vanilla or I guess when you think of John Tottorella,

you think of one of the most outspoken, animated, kind of critical voices in the game. And then when he was on TSN and the bright lights of the studio were on, Torts kind of, he just went into coach mode and didn't quite get to that outspoken place. Do you think now that he's with ESPN, we see a different John Totorella? Do we see the real John Totorella here come out and be outspoken? Or does he play it safe because he thinks, you know what, somebody might want to hire me as a coach,

so I don't want to rip on anybody, I don't want to rip on a player because I might have to coach him. I don't want to rip on a GM because I might have to get hired by him. How do you think this plays out with Hortzint at ESPN? Yeah, I think it plays out the way you describe. I think he'll play it safe. and honestly he should. That from a career perspective, that's the right move.

You don't want to be out there burning any bridges that you don't have to, especially for a guy like him where, I mean, this isn't just a guy where you're like, oh, he might hope to get back in at some point. He is going to coach again in this league at some point. You know, if it's not this year, then okay. But at some point, there's going to be openings. And then he's going to be near the front of the line for them. And you don't want to go in.

Unfortunately, in the hockey world, people have long memories, people have thin skin. They will remember things that got said. And I just, as much as a viewer, I'd love to have that kind of classic John Tortorella experience. I just don't see it's going to happen. Similar to Mike Babcock, right? Mike Babcock was on NBC, and he kind of did it the same way. He had one eye on the camera and one eye on what his future might be. So I don't think we're going to get a real great John Torturell experience unless, here's my idea.

We give him his own segment, you know, call it, call it Coach's Corner or something like that. That name's available these days. But it's all about the co-host, okay? Yeah. We put Larry Brooks in the other seat. Oh, yes. Now you're watching, right? I'm watching that because they wouldn't even get to the.

issue, right? It would just be seven minutes of them arguing over like who is sitting too close to the other one or whatever else. That would be fun to watch. And I don't think, I think John Tororella is as smart a guy as he is and as much as he knows that he's got to watch himself, you put him in there with his kryptonite Larry Brooks and I don't, I don't think he's going to be able to resist letting the, letting the real guy come out. Oh man. Now I'm thinking that we need to get Adrian Dater to ask Nate McKinnon about eating some food. food and be like, you know what, Nate, some point, are you just like bleep it? I'm just going to eat the taco? Yeah, could be. It could be. We need to come up with their best combos. Yeah. We got, yeah, we

absolutely, ESPN, if you guys are looking for consultants, it's not too late. We can put a, we can put a show together for you. 100%. Like, okay, so it's funny that you bring up the coach's corner thing, because do you think that there's still room for that or is there room for that voice in the game? Because if you do think about it in the last couple of years, you know, Don Cherry is out. Mike Milbury is out. And when you watch the TNT broadcast of the NBA, one of the things you see is that kind of outspoken,

very opinionated take that comes out of the mouths of the analysts there. Do we need that in hockey? Like, do we do we have that voice right now? Do we need that voice? Like I personally am a huge Ray Ferraro guy. And I think Ray does it. And he does it in a really good way. Like Ray will be critical,

but he doesn't go over the top. Does hockey need another voice, like another big cherry Milbury voice? Or is that, Sean, is that kind of like the way of the dinosaur? And people say, yeah, we don't need that. We're looking for more intelligent takes and less passion. Here's the thing. We do need passion. We need guys who are willing to say something that's going to raise eyebrows.

We need occasional controversy. I think the problem is Don Cherry, whatever you think of him, was so influential and just loomed over everything in the Canadian broadcasting scene for so many years. And by extension, right into North America, he was the most influential figure in hockey media in the last 50 years. I don't even think it's, I don't even think it's close. and because of that, we started to associate what a opinionated TV voice sounded like, and it had to sound like Cherry. And the guys who have followed all feel like they're kind of doing a Don Cherry impression. Mike Milbury was one of them. Roanick very often started to go down that path and sound like that.

Brian Burke, when he was up here in Canada, who I thought did a real good job, but almost just kind of inescapable that he, he sort of felt like, especially given that he was moving into the same segment on the same show, felt like he was the next Don Cherry. Opinionated doesn't have to mean conservative old school hockey mindset. And I think that's what we need to get away with. You can get on there and say, this was a terrible trait. This was a terrible move. This player is, you know, needs to be criticized without it all coming back to. And this is how we used to do it in the 60s.

And that's the only way. And I think that's what we need to move away from. Ray Ferrar was really good. Another guy I like a lot is Mike Johnson. Yeah. I watched him on Free Agency Day on TSN. And there were quite a few times where he was very critical of certain signings or certain fits. But always did it in a way.

You never felt like this guy's just spouting off to get attention or to make somebody angry. There was always a reason behind it. It always felt fair. But he's another guy where I think could potentially be a really good voice in that area. And there's other guys, too. And again, that's not to say there isn't even room for the old school view. But I just feel like because Cherry was so overwhelming, hockey broadcasting has just been inundated with these very similar old school views. And at some point, we equated that with the only way that you can be interesting.

It's either that or you're boring in vanilla. And there isn't. There's all these other areas where you can be interesting and controversial. and say challenging things that doesn't make you sound like your secondary character out of slap shot. Yeah. And, you know, I think what Mike Johnson does really well, he's one of the rare analysts who has really embraced analytics and really embraced the underlying numbers. But he doesn't overwhelm you with them. He just works them into his analysis. And I'm not sure that there's been a broadcaster. I'm having a hard time thinking of a broadcaster who has progressed as much. much as Mike Johnson in the last five years because I think it's clear he does the work. He puts in the work and he's really opinionated.

And it's funny like he would be one of those guys when you think back to him as a player. And I know he played a little bit in Toronto and Tampa and Montreal. Like it's so funny to think like you never would have thought that guy is going to be an analyst, right? Like there was nothing about Mike John. He was never opinionated. He was never outspoken. He was just kind of this quiet guy. and you just wonder like who like what player in the NHL is just skating around today like 15 years from now is just going to be you know like a random and and we talk about it right it's yeah that's probably who it's going to be because hockey is the one sport where it's not the stars who go on to the great broadcasting careers right like we don't really have like a Terry Bradshaw like a you know guy who's who was a big time star in the league it's it's usually the guy it's first of all half of them are backup

goalies. And the other half are like middle six, bottom six forward types. Now, we got Gretzky Messia coming in. That's the other thing. Maybe one of those guys. Who knows? But I don't think anyone's, I don't think anyone's expecting Wayne Gretzky to be rattling any cages. Messiae will see. But again, I don't think so. But maybe we'll be, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. Who knows? Okay. I want to get to your column this week because at the start of the season, and you put out a kind of a, we'll call it a fun prediction contest, where you asked a handful of questions where people had to pick, which team's going to make the, which five teams are you sure going to make the playoffs,

which five teams you sure are going to miss the playoffs, what coaches on the hot seat and, you know, all the things that, you know, you think about before the season. And I want to know, how long did it take you to calculate or tabulate the results of this thing? because it's insane to be that you would have gone through all of these submissions from readers and declared a winner. Yeah, I didn't think this through is what happened. When I came up with the idea for the contest, I thought, I'll get 100 entries. That'll be all right.

That'll be successful. And it ended up being over 800. And it was that where this idea came from is I just got frustrated. It felt like every year there would be multiple things would happen during NHL season

that I'd look at and go wow, that was a real surprise. I never saw that coming and inevitably I would hear from a bunch of people going, oh, sure, we did. Everybody knew the Golden Knights

were going to be good. Everybody knew the sharks were going to be terrible. Everybody knew this or that. And so I kind of said, all right, let's do a contest where you put your money where your mouth is. I'm going to give you eight,

quote-unquote, easy questions. And you just, give me as many answers as you can come up with that you're sure are going to be, are going to be right answers to these questions like who's making the playoffs, who isn't making the playoffs, which coaches are definitely going to keep their jobs, which GMs are definitely going to keep their jobs, and on down the list. And you can give me as many answers as you want up to five. You get more points for the more answers you get, but you get even one wrong and you take a zero on the question. And that was the twist, of course. You had to be real

confident because if you picked even one team to make the playoffs and they didn't make it, you took a zero on that. And it was, it was really interesting. We had 800 entries. There was only one that I found that got points on all eight questions. So only one entry in the entire contest that didn't have a single wrong answer. And that guy ended up not winning because part of the reason he didn't have any wrong answers is he didn't have many answers to to the tougher questions. He played it smart, but he played it safe, and he didn't end up getting enough points. The guy who did win ended up having a couple of wrong answers. But it was, you know, there was one of the questions was, give me some rookies this year who are definitely

going to finish in the top 10 and Calder voting. That's it. Just the top 10. That's not a real high bar. You get even a couple of votes. You're into the top 10. But, of course, almost everybody who entered the contest head Alexis LaFranier, right? How would you not? He's a number one overall pick. He's going to be playing on the Rangers. He's getting big minutes. He's a can't miss kid. Didn't have a very good season. Not terrible, but didn't have a very good season. Didn't finish in the top 10, didn't get any votes at all. That wipes out almost everybody on that question. And there were some other examples like that. Carter Hart was a guy that took out a ton of entries. And I had a question about heart voting and a lot of people had our Temi Panera or Jack Eichol and guys like

that. And there were a lot of zeros to be found and it was, it ended up being not too, too bad to go through because what I ended up doing is I had a list of all the answers and every couple of weeks. I would just go through and go, okay, this guy's got a couple wrong. He's not going to win. She's got a couple wrong. She's not going to win. I would just take them out and the list just got shorter and shorter and shorter as the year went on until there was only the one guy left with perfection and one other guy who beat him in points. You know, I've thought about this and, you know, I've taught a little bit of journalism here at college in Ottawa.

You and I went to school here. This city, Sean, that we live in is teeming with journalism students and kids trying to get into the industry. Have you ever thought about the Down Goes Brown internship program where these young and aspiring hockey reporters specifically work for you? And all they do is things. like go through the submissions and they tabulate votes. They go through rosters of teams for the 1970s.

Like, I think you need to create the Downgoes Brown internship program. Why would you do that? Why would you do that to some poor kid? And I got to sit them down and be like, look, by tomorrow, I need a list of the top 100 scorers whose first and last name both begin with a vowel. Go. Yeah. I quit.

That would be every, email. It'd be like the drummer from Spinal Tap. I would just go through so many of these poor people. But I will say I had a bunch of people because initially when the contest sort of launched and there were so many entries and I sort of in a couple places when like I may have bit off more than I can chew. I did have a bunch of people approach me and say, you know, I can help you out or, you know, and it almost took some of them up on it. And I got a bunch of people who've got plans for it. They say, if you do it next year, here's how you do it. You got to have a Google form. I mean, you got to have everything. And I'm not sure if that's going to be how we'll do it or not. But there were a lot of people that have offered help.

And that's very cool to them. And we'll see I may come up with a better plan next year. Or I may just wait until the day before the season and throw it out there without much thought and not learn from my mistakes. Yeah. I love how when I first ask you about this, I think your answer was something like, well, I thought it was a good idea. And I feel like that's like the tagline for like 80% of. your pieces is like, I thought it was a good idea.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. It doesn't feel like that anymore, but I'm already too far in, so we're going to do it. Yeah, that's pretty much, I mean, that's going to be pretty much everyone, everything I write in August is going to fall into that category. So be ready.

Now, is part of the reason why you're reluctant to hire an intern is you don't trust them to like do the research that there'd be some stuff missing? No, I think they'd probably be fine with it. There's a lot of little tricks and stuff. I'd have to show them how to some of the backdoor hacks and that sort of thing that you can use on some of these sites to pull this stuff. But I'm not very technical.

That's the other thing that worries me is because I've had people come up to me occasionally where I, you know, they'll say, how did you do this? How did you pull this information? I had like, I had 700 tabs open and I just went through all of them. And they'll be like, you know, you could just scrape the data and drop it into a C. And I'm like, don't start talking to me about sequel tables and that sort of stuff. I don't want to hear that because the last thing I need is. to spend a week on something and then have somebody show me it could have been done in 10 minutes. That would be even, that's the worst case scenario for me.

I don't want to. I just plug my ears and I don't. That's what would scare me. The intern who comes in and is like, dude, you know, this is, look, let me, I'll write six lines of code and you're, you're golden. I just, I feel like that would bother me too much. All right, Sean, as always, great to connect with our, our pal, Jesse Granger for a little Granger thing.

Jesse, you know, every time we bring in, we often talk about Stanley Cup, odds. and futures and awards and, you know, things of that nature. But today I think that the three of us would love to have a little bit more of an in-depth discussion about kind of the role of gambling in sports. We've certainly seen it as, you know, gambling becomes legalized in North America. I think its influence is only going to become larger. I think the Evander Kane story is kind of the leaping off point for this. And again, we want to make this very clear.

The allegations against Evander Kane are just that. They're allegations. So to sit here and try and analyze what happened, I think it's far too early for that. The National Hockey League is conducting their own investigation into that. And I think once we get some more information, we'll be able to make a better analysis of the situation. But it does open up the door, I think, guys,

for a bigger conversation about the role of gambling and kind of the influence of gambling. And I guess maybe I'll start with this. I think when you go into major league baseball clubhouses, you know, baseball's had a real game. gambling problem from the Black Sox days in the 1919 to Pete Rose. You walk into any major league baseball clubhouse and you see it posted on the door. No gambling.

The National Hockey League has it in their collective bargaining agreement. It's not as, you know, as overt as as Major League Baseball's. But I'd like to ask you guys about, you know, we give second chances in sports for people who have, you know, been guilty of crimes off the field or off the ice. we give them second chances if they've abused drugs, performance enhancing, recreational or otherwise, but we draw the line at gambling. Why is that, guys?

Why is there a different stigma? Because you can argue performance, we will hear integrity of the game. Well, if someone's using performance enhancing drugs, you're messing with the integrity of the game, right? You're cheating. So why is it, guys, that gambling has a different stigma than some of the other vices that I've mentioned?

to me the difference is you mentioned integrity and I think that's at the at its core that's the most important thing in for for everyone who likes sports everyone who's watching sports for it for sports to be what everyone who likes sports wants it to be integrity is the most important part and you mentioned steroids and and performance enhanced in drugs and to me the difference between that and and gambling allegations is at least you're still trying to to win. Even if you're cheating and it's wrong and it's clearly wrong, you're still trying to win. And I think people view that differently. Whereas gambling, if you're gambling on specifically your own games, the chance of throwing a game, the chance of or the perception of this player

isn't trying his best to win, could tear down a sport like at its fabric. To me, in my opinion, And that's why gambling has the stigma that it does. The thought that there's someone out there who would would rather lose this game than win it really, really bothers people and bothers their ability to care about the sport. Their emotional swings on wins and losses. They need to know that all those players want to win this game. And I think with steroids, as wrong as they are and then clearly don't belong in the game, I think people can view that as, well, he's trying to win. Maybe he shouldn't have gone over that line, but at least I know he's out there trying to win.

To me, that's the difference between like PEDs and gambling and the way people view them and just the penalties that come from them. Yeah, I think Jesse nails the thinking here. And we could have a bigger conversation about whether that thinking is the right way to approach it, whether it is, whether it still holds up. is very, this is, this, this, this, this dates back a century in pro sports, longer than I mean, the Black Sox scandal was, was what, 1918, something like that. The NHL itself had its own, uh, gambling episodes in the 1940s. So I mean, this is in something where, okay, now that the league is in bed with the gambling, uh, and now that they're working with, uh, sports books and that sort of thing, now it's a focus. It was always a focus. And it's always been,

red line that could not be crossed, even if you're betting on your sport or betting on your team to win, because that's some people say, well, what if you're betting on your team to win? Doesn't that mean you're trying harder? And then it becomes, yeah, but if you bet on your team to win tonight, but not tomorrow, what does that say about what your effort's going to be like then? I don't know. I get the theory. I get the philosophy here.

and I get where this would have felt very, very important to leagues decades ago. I do wonder about it now. I feel like it's been so long that this has been the scarlet letter of pro sports that it's just so baked into the way we think about it and that these leagues think about it. But I think there is a real argument to be made that first of all, a lot of this used to be back in the 40s, you can't bet because we don't want you associating with these gamblers. Because even if you're betting just on the sport, not even on your own team, eventually, what if you lose a little bit? And then somebody comes up to you and says, hey, you know what?

I know a way you could wipe out those debts. You could help us out on this game tomorrow. And then you're potentially trapped. Well, that just doesn't hold anymore when the leagues themselves are doing business and doing business, not with these shady bookmakers on a corner somewhere, but with these big, you know, multi-million dollar companies. I'm not sure that that works anymore. and I'm not sure that it works anymore just from a perception standpoint where you've got all of these other stories, especially right now with the NHL. I mean, you look at what's happening with the Blackhawks and it just felt like the league dragged its feet for so long on that. And then this happens, and these allegations come out and within an hour we have a statement from the league.

That really rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And that's not to say that if Andrew, if Evander Kane has done what he's been accused of, that it's okay. but man, it's, it's, I know for a lot of fans, this, the way this all played out just really didn't sit right with them, taken in the broader context of everything else that's going on in the hockey world that doesn't seem to rate the same sort of response from this league. I agree with everything, Sean said, yeah. Yeah, I think what's interesting too, when you go back to the Black Sox scandal in 1919 or whatever it was, you know, like at that point, I think part of the inspiration or the, the catalyst for the Chicago players doing that is they felt that they were. were like criminally underpaid, right? And there was the feeling of like, hey, these gamblers can improve our payday. You look at the way that athletes are compensated now. I guess this is the question, again, broader question. The way that athletes are compensated now versus where they were

100 years ago, does that not make them somewhat, you know, I guess impervious or like, there's no way you would think, in theory, if you're making three or four million a year, that gamblers should be able to influence you, right? Is that fair, unfair? Well, I mean, again, we don't, I don't want to paint this as saying Evander Cain is guilty, like you said before. We don't know enough anywhere near enough. But the same guy who's in this discussion, Evander Cain, there were, there were, he was

in the news earlier, about a year ago about huge gambling debts owed to casinos in Vegas. and Sean has mentioned the perception of sports gambling nationwide. We've made a lot of progress. As someone in Vegas who loves sports gambling, and I think that it's great for sports. I think it's great for attention in all sports. I think the NHL should embrace it. It's been normalized to me living in this city

and just seeing it up close. I think we're starting to get there as a country, and it's starting to pass, but there's still that stigma. And I don't know if I've told this story on this podcast, you're not, but it wasn't that long ago, four or five years ago, I was covering fantasy football conventions in Vegas and like one was run by Tony Romo and the NFL told him like, you are not allowed to be in the building simply because it's in a casino. It's fantasy football. It's perfectly

legal. The NFL runs its own fantasy football sites. That's not, there's no problem there. But if it's in a casino, you can't be in there. And I remember covering it, they photoshopped the logos off of the helmets because they didn't want an. NFL logo to be inside the walls of a casino. And we've gone a long way towards getting that stigma out. And I think it's a lot better now. And people are starting to realize that the more it's legalized, the more it's regulated and the less chances there are.

I think illegalizing it and trying to push it away is the wrong thing to do. Legalizing and making like in Vegas, that's where the least amount of criminal gambling activity happens because it's so regulated by the state, whereas it wasn't that way around the country. So getting back to the point, I think you can't assume because the players make more money that that's not a possibility just because people who make more money lose more money. As someone in Vegas, I know this. It's for me to get into debt, it's just as easy for an NHL player to get into debt because they're gambling 20 times per hand. What I'm gambling when I'm at the casino. So, like, I don't, I don't necessarily know if salary precludes you from being into,

like, those type of issues. I don't think those type of issues exist, but I don't think we can assume that they don't because of their salary. Yeah, the golden rule of gambling is always in. This is whether you're betting on sports or penny slots or whatever else, gamble what you can afford to lose. And as soon as you cross that line, it doesn't matter if you're making minimum wage or you're making $10 million a year. As soon as you cross over that line, that's where the trouble can start. And unfortunately, a lot of these athletes, they have the mindset. They've been successful at everything they've done in their lives.

They think maybe that they're bulletproof or that things will always work out. And sometimes it doesn't. And I think no matter how many zeros you got on your paycheck, you're susceptible to that. Having said that, though, I don't think the, like I mentioned Van der Kaine had some debts that he owed to. because I do not in any way think that that that could lead to someone at one of those casinos going to a event. This isn't 1925 where they're like, we're going to break your kneecaps if you don't throw this game tonight. That's not happening in Vegas. Those casinos are like, just pay us our money.

Like we'll get lawyers. We'll do whatever we have to do. Just pay us our money. I don't think that those gambling debts are then leading to casinos. The way that you can go down that path is the illegal path, right? the bookie, the guy you know who's betting for this, if you're losing money to actual casinos, that isn't turning into,

we're going to need you to do this for us type of thing. Final thought here as we wrap up, and I want to stress, this is hypothetical, okay? For our listeners, again, nothing against Evander King has been proven, it's all allegations. So this is a hypothetical conversation that the three of us are having. Can a forward in the National Hockey League

actually influence the game enough to result in something happening for the gambling community. And I'll say this because I look at pro sports and I do think that there are a handful of positions of maybe a goalie in hockey, a pitcher in baseball, maybe a quarterback in the NFL that's touching the ball in every play. Like, yeah, you know what, I could see it. You guys watch enough NHL. We all probably listen to this podcast, watch enough NHL to know that a positional player and a forward might have the puck on his stick for like 40 seconds in a game.

Maybe. That's even might be high. Just again, hypothetically, in theory, do you guys believe one singular forward out of 18 skaters could influence the outcome of a hockey game of the National Hockey League? Not with the impact to be certain about the outcome, if that makes sense. A goal like a goalie could be confident. I can lose this game today. A forward?

I don't think you can say that with anywhere near as much confidence. Yeah. I mean, can these guys influence? Yes, of course. That's why they get paid millions of dollars a year because they're expected to influence the results. I think it would be very difficult for any position player other than a goaltender to say, yes, my team will lose tonight. But that's not necessarily what the league is concerned about. Remember, it's not, you know, it doesn't necessarily have to be that big dramatic.

you guys have to lose tonight or else sort of thing. It could just be a case of saying like, hey, if I'm, if I'm somebody and I'm in those gray areas of the gambling world and I know that this team's best forward is going to have a real bad game tonight. Well, you know what? That doesn't assure me anything as far as the results, but that's useful information to have now that I have that nobody else has. And that could be something where, you know, that could still be useful to me,

even though it's not guaranteed. So I think that's the sort of thing the league is concerned about. In addition to, as Jesse said, that perception where even if there is no influence whatsoever, all those people who paid hundreds of dollars to sit in the seats that night, are they sitting there feeling like I saw a real product or I saw something maybe that I didn't bargain for? Hey, listen, Jesse, we'll leave it there. I appreciate you dropping by and helping us kind of navigate that conversation. Because again, I think it's a topic that we're certainly going to be dipping our toes into in the weeks and months ahead.

and appreciate you doing this, Jesse. Thanks for this, and we'll get you again next time. Yeah, thanks for having me, guys. All right, great conversation there with Jesse Granger. Sean, let's open up the mailbag and answer some questions that were thrown to us on social media this week. A reminder, you can always get us at The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. The athletic hockey show at gmail.com. Or you can leave us a voicemail at 845.

445-845-85. Let's take some Twitter questions here. This one, again, some of these usernames are, you know, they make me chuckle. And maybe we need to be running these through Urban Dictionary because I don't know what the Allmodern Beast is. And maybe I've just said something wrong, but the Allmodern Beast wants to know. Guys, what's the worst contract in the league right now? Eric Carlson, Drew Dowdy, Oliver Ekman-Larsin, what do you got? So Al-Modin Beast wants to know, Sean.

What's the worst contract in the league right now? I love that he gave us three examples. Yeah. And one of them just got traded. Like that's, that's probably not the list that Canucks fans. I can picture Vancouver fans listening to that going, oh, don't say, Larson, don't say the other it is. Okay. Yeah, all three of those are in the running for sure.

Carlson and Doughty are fascinating to me because when those guys both signed their deals and it was both around the $11 million mark, that was supposed to be the reset for the defenseman market. That was now the bar of, okay, a truly elite defenseman. And we could argue about whether either of those guys are close to that territory, but that's what it was going to cost. And it just hasn't happened. I mean, we've seen in the last week, a flurry of signing Seth Joe and Zach Wrenski, these guys, where it seems like it's in that $9 million range now. And that's for guys that still have a big chunk of their prime left.

So those deals don't look great, even if Eric Carlson was still Eric Carlson, I think you could look and say it's still $2 million too much because all the other elite defensemen and league are getting a number that starts with the nine. So absolutely those are in the running. Ekman Larson, yeah, you know, if we're factoring in the retained salary for Arizona, it looks a little bit better. I'll throw one more at you, though. And this is the one that I still think is on the top of the heat. And that's the Jeff Skinner deal in Buffalo, because that one is $9 million a year for,

a very long time. It runs through, I'm looking at it now, 2007, I believe. So, I mean, there's no end in sight on that one. Yeah, 2007, no movement clause, $9 million cap hit a year. We're just entering year three of an eight year extension that he signed in 2019. Boy, that's a ton of money. And Eric Carlson, Drew Doughty, hey, hey, those guys aren't winning Norris trophies anymore, but when they're on, still pretty good players. Drew Doughty had a good season this year. Eric Carlson, you know, the injuries and that sort of thing,

but he still has some of those Eric Carlson games. Jeff Skinner just doesn't look like a top six player in this league anymore. And a lot of that obviously is the Buffalo situation, and you got to figure out either, does he need to get out of there? Yeah, probably, but how can you possibly even make that happen? I don't know how that gets resolved, but boy, to be carrying that sort of cap hit on your books for a guy who over the last two years has just not contributed really anything to your team winning, to me, I mean, to pay $9 million for nothing is a lot worse than to pay $11 million for pretty good when you were expecting excellent. I think Jeff Skinner is the worst deal in the league. You know what, I'm going to throw one in there too.

I'm going to go Sergey Babrovsky. And, you know, Bobrovsky signed his seven years, $70 million deal. Two years have expired, but he's got five more years left. And the way I look at it, Sean, like, you look at them last year, the Panthers. Obviously, Chris Griger is not in the equation anymore. But like Chris Drieger outplayed Sergey Barbrovsky. And then when they had their season on the line, they went to untested, unproven Spencer Knight against Tampa Bay. So what does that say about Sergey Barbarowski?

The guy that you're paying, you have another 50-some-odd million dollars left to pay him. He's not your guy in year two? Like, I don't know. That's a bad one too. And look, that was, I didn't hate that when it was signed. I mean, there's a school of thought that you don't pay big money for goaltending in this league, period. But if you're going to, a guy who's got a couple of hesitant trophies is certainly going to be someone you'll look at. But even at the time, when they signed that deal, a lot of people went, oh, geez, I don't know.

They got this Spencer Knight kid. He's going to be real good someday. Yeah, someday. But someday is a few years down the line. So at the very least, Sergit Barovsky will come in the first couple years, he'll give be all-star goal-tending. And, you know, yeah, if the contract doesn't look great after that, so many of these deals, that's what we say, right?

It's the first few years. That's where you're going to get the value. Well, the first two years have been terrible for Sergei Bavrovsky. And I was even willing to write off year one and say, okay, year two, let's see what he does. He's settled in, you know, it might be better. And it wasn't. So now, two years have gone by, Spencer Knight seems ready. If not ready to take over as a starter, at least ready to be, you know, a real good player

in this league. thing has happened in the last two years. It makes you think any less of him as a prospect. He's going to be, should be a really good goaltender. What are you going to do with 10 million on the line? All those for five more years. Boy, that's a lot of money to be paying a backup goalie and it's starting to look like that might be what it is. All right, a couple of other questions here in the inbox for us. Brandon Mackey writes in, for which teams do you guys think this is a make or break off season. So we look at, you know, maybe a couple of teams that we think, yeah, you know what,

it's a make or break, do or die, whatever, you know, phrase you want to use. What teams do you think are under the pressure to get something done this offseason? Yeah, I think a lot of the usual suspects, Edmonton, it seems, every year. We say this is the year they had to do something. And they did. You know, I didn't love a lot of what they did. But, you know, I'd like the Zach Heim in addition. and, you know, they, they have done some things.

Toronto probably should have been on that list, although they came out pretty much right as soon as the playoffs ended and said, and said, we're sticking with the plan. So, you know, I guess that shifts the pressure to the season. The team that I probably would have pointed to at the start of the offseason was the Rangers because it was clear there that there was pressure not just in terms of being a better team, but pressure from the market, pressure from up top from the owner. We know the changes that happened there with Jeff Gordon going,

Chris Drury coming in. It was very clear that they felt like, hey, we got to do some things here. We got to change the look of this team. And they have, for better or for worse, I guess we'll find out. But that certainly felt like one. Because it's one thing to have pressure from the fans in the media. It's another thing when the boss is looking over your shoulders saying, how's it going on reworking that lineup?

And that's the situation Chris Durie was in as a rookie G. am, no less. Yeah. And, you know, I'll throw the Buffalo Sabres in the mix there, only because I feel like the Jack Eichel trade has the ability to maybe alter the trajectory of that franchise. And if they can land a couple of good pieces, okay. But if, boy, if they swing and miss on Jack Eichel in the weeks ahead, it could set this franchise back and certainly leave a bitter taste in the mouths of fans, right?

I think there's a big stretch for Kevin Adams. And I do like what Kevin Adams has done so far on the trade front. But this is the big one that's hanging over everything. And it's been fascinating to watch it because you can see the messaging very clearly coming out of the different markets around the league. Where in Buffalo, the message is we're happy to wait. And if, you know, we've got this guy under contract, we'll go into the season with him. And nobody believes that. But that's the messaging because that's to counter what we're hearing from other markets where it's, oh, Kevin Adams is asking too much.

And it's just crazy. And oh, my goodness, they, the packages that he's asking for are. or unreasonable. I don't know. To me, that's when you know your GM's doing a good job when you start hearing from all these other markets about how unreasonable he's being. And yeah, they shouldn't be trading Jack Eichel

for some team's fourth best prospect. But they do have to find a trade partner at some point. And it only has to be one, but you got to find somebody. And so far they haven't been able to. And that situation might go off the rails if we get into September. And we're close to training camp.

and we're still waiting for a resolution. By the way, you mentioned Chris Drury and the Rangers. Skinny Pete wants to know, hey, for all the hype surrounding Chris Drury as general manager, I kind of feel like he's made the Rangers worse. What do you think of his tenure so far? Now, granted, Sean, he's only been on the job for a few months. So it's not like Chris Drury has this, you know,

huge sample size where we can analyze things. But if we're looking at what Chris Drury is done with the Rangers, how do we feel? I mean, I think what he's done is he's done. done what we all expected him to do. I mean, that the Tom Wilson situation got in the heads of that entire organization to a degree that I'm frankly kind of stunned by. But we knew going into the offseason that this was the direction that they were headed. So given that and given that that was his mandate potentially straight from the owner's mouth, I think he's done okay

if we accept that this is a team that needed to get tougher, needed to have more of that grit and personnel and all that stuff that needed to be able to shift their entire focus to how do we beat Tom Wilson? Personally, I'd be more worried about Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin, but if you're going to worry about Tom Wilson, then you're going to have an offseason that probably looks a lot like what the Rangers have done and they've done okay in that sense.

we'll see. The grade on Chris Drury, I mean, we can't grade anybody's offseason moves until we see them play out. But his grade is very much incomplete because we all assume that the Rangers are still a potential landing spot for Jack Eichel. And until we see how that situation plays out, there's really no way to say because the rest of this is going to be small potatoes. If he gets Jack Eichael, nobody's going to be talking about what he paid for Ryan Reeves. Real quick, too, Brandon Hartley wants to know. do you guys think next season is the wildcard division, meaning the outcome of the division is so up in the air, you don't know who's going to be the winner. So that's from Brandon.

Hey, listen, I'm going to stick with that Rangers division, Sean. I think that the Metro Division, again, we've got to go back to the old division formats and, you know, remember what it was like two years ago. But I look at that division and you see Carolina, Pittsburgh, Washington. You know, they're kind of the playoff teams that you think about. But, I mean, there's a bunch of teams there are like the Rangers and the Flyers and maybe you, you know, even the aforementioned Rangers, I don't know where they're going to end up. Like, I kind of look at that division and I think,

man, I'm having a hard time picking who's going to end up winning that division right now. Yep, yeah, absolutely. I think that's the answer. I think I had to look up what the old divisions were, try to remember. But, I mean, I think each of the other divisions has a pretty clear cut favorite. I think you look in the Atlantic, it's Tampa Bay, no disrespect to Boston or Toronto or Florida or Montreal.

but that's Tampa's division to lose in the Pacific. I think it's definitely Vegas and the central Colorado. That metro division, there are six teams that all expect to make the playoffs. I mean, Washington and Pittsburgh are in a similar zone. Cup winners who are trying to keep that window open. Carolina, I think most of us would maybe think is the best team in division. But they, I mean, what they've done in the offseason, they change their goaltending, they lose Dougie Hamilton, who knows how that's going to play out.

the Rangers clearly under pressure to make the playoffs. The Flyers thought they were going to make the playoffs last year. That was the team in my contest that wiped out a bunch of teams. People thought, yeah, the Flyers are going to make the playoffs for sure. It didn't happen. And then, oh, yeah, the Islanders, the team we always forget. We always kind of gloss over. And then always at the end of the year, they're sitting there.

Yeah, here we are. We got home ice again. We're going to make noise in the playoffs. And that's six teams. There are maybe five spots. And that's five spots. if they get both wild cards, which would mean two of those Atlantic teams don't make it, there might be three or four spots in that division.

And there's six teams that are going to absolutely feel like their season is a failure if they don't get one of them. And oh, by the way, also the New Jersey Devils, who just went out and spent more money on big free agents than pretty much anybody, I'm guessing they're not expecting to finish dead last again, so they might want to be in the mix. That is going to be the one where that, That could go in any number of direction.

Take those top six teams, shake them up, give me any order. And I would probably believe it was plausible. Yeah. And you know what? Just to wrap that up, too, the Philadelphia Flyers, I believe, Sean, that they've alternated in and out of the playoffs in nine straight years. So they would do to miss it last year on that pattern. There you go.

To make it this year. And here's a fun. The Brett Saberhagen. Yeah, exactly. The Stefan Rischet, Brett Saberhagen. Here's a fun project for you. How many teams have ever done that in 10 over the, I think the flyers, if they make the playoffs this year, Sean,

this is a down goes brown future project. How many teams have done that? Over 10 years in a row, you would alternate in and out for 10 straight years. That's weird, isn't it? I'm going to get the intern on that one because I don't know the answer. Exactly. Get them their first project. Okay, to wrap up the show, as we always do,

little this week in hockey history, not surprising. You get to August. The pickings are a little bit slim. There's no games, really. I mean, I guess we can go back to last year. There was games in August, but usually we're talking about trades. How about this one?

Wrap up the show with this August 7, 1992. Chicago Blackhawks and the Buffalo Sabres make what we think is a rather inconsequential trade at the time. The Blackhawks acquire goaltendery, Stefan Beauregard, and a fourth round pick. That pick, by the way, turns out to be Eric Daze. So that's pretty good. They get Eric Daze and Stefan Boregarde.

Going the other way to Buffalo is a skinny, you know, kind of slight Czech goalie name, Dominic Hachik. And the rest, as they'd like to say, is history. August 7th, Shaw, 1992, Chicago trades away, Dominic Hachick. Yeah, and I can't think of too many trades in sports history, let alone NHL history, that like this one, where a guy just flies completely under the radar.

This wouldn't even have made the headlines on the day that it happened. and yet ends up being arguably the most consequential trade of that era. And the thing about this is, look, we've seen trades in the past where a team will throw in a prospect, maybe not that highly regarded. But then they hit fast forward on their development. That prospect turns into a star. That happens fairly often. People need to remember when this trade happened, Dominic Hasick was like 27 or 28 years old already. He was a season pro, had played in Europe, had played a couple years of.

the backup in Chicago, there was just no indication at all that this guy was going to be what he would be and he went to Buffalo. And, you know, remember that 92, 93 season, Dominic Hasek's first year in Buffalo, they've got Dominic Hasek on the roster halfway through the season. They go, we got to go trade for Grant Fier. And they give up a ton to the Toronto Maple Leafs to get Grant Fier because they need a goaltender. Dominic Hac Hacic is sitting right there. They need a goaltender.

And they play that out. And he didn't. he wasn't great that first year of Buffalo. And then that second year, that's when suddenly he becomes Dominic Hasick that we all know. And he dominates the league for the next decade. It's just a crazy story because he just there had been little to no indication from anybody that this guy was going to be what he was. Chicago, I mean, they had Eddie Belfort. Made perfect sense for them to move on from him.

There was a lot of maneuvering with goalies that year because of expansion. They figured, yeah, let's go and get something for this guy because we might lose him in expansion next summer. And they end up getting not very much for arguably the single greatest goalie of all time, who at the time was a 27-year-old backup that nobody had ever heard of. Like you said, Hachik and Belfour were on the same team. Has there ever been two goalies of that caliber on the same team at the same time? Like, I mean, it's, boy, it's, it's pretty hard to think of like, Hachick and Balfour both. They're both Hall of Famers. If, I mean, yeah, there's, if you're going to say at their peak, I mean, geez, Bauer and Satchuk on the 67 Leafs, I mean, that's two Hall of Famers, but they were both pushing 40 by that point.

There's probably some other ones. But yeah, I mean, Patrick Wahn never played with anyone great. Broder didn't. Yeah, it's, it's. I'm not sure that we've ever seen that. I'd be fascinated to know. I'd love somebody to ask Eddie Belfort. Did you ever look over at the guy,

your backup goalie and go, this guy might be something. Or were you just like, he's this crazy guy, flops around in the crease, nobody can understand a word he's saying. Every now and then he flips out and throws his blocker at somebody. There's no way this guy's going to even be in the NHL in a couple of years. And then suddenly out of nowhere just becomes a legend. Yeah, no, it's awesome.

Hey, listen, we'll leave it there. As always, this was a full. fun hour of the podcast. We'll get you again, folks, next week. We'll leave it there. Like I said, thanks so much for joining us. And you can always email us, any questions, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. Or like I said, we'd love to hear your voice. Leave us a voicemail at 845, 445, 845, 859. And if you're not a subscriber with us, on the print side of things, you can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show and get a subscription for 33% off.