The Athletic Hockey Show - Ridly Greig, Morgan Rielly, and the unwritten rules of hockey

Episode Date: February 12, 2024

First, Ian Mendes and Mark Lazerus let listeners know about some exciting changes to The Athletic Hockey Show lineup before diving into the Ridly Greig-Morgan Rielly empty net goal debacle, the unwritten rules of hockey, what constitutes a dynasty, and the dream of a Stanley Cup Final Game 7 overtime.Plus, the guys are joined by The Athletic’s NHL insiders Chris Johnston and Pierre LeBrun to discuss the potential fallout from Morgan Rielly’s cross-check to the head of Ridly Greig, the NHL trade market, and more.And, to close things out, The Athletic’s own Jesse Granger joins the guys to talk about the goalies that could be moved at this year’s trade deadline, best fits, the upcoming Stadium Series games, and more. Get a 1-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month when you visit http://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the athletic hockey show. Welcome back to it, everybody. It is your Monday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. It's Ian Mendez with you. And I got to tell you, we got a new look and a new format here. It's kind of post, well, I guess post Super Bowl, right? Mark Lazarus, it's like we finally have some oxygen for hockey in the world, right? Super Bowl is in the rear view mirror.

Yeah, we're six weeks away from baseball, really meaning anything. This is hockey in basketball's window, right? This is when we get a chance to actually, like, maybe get on sports talk radio in Chicago for 13 seconds before they go back to talking about the NFL draft. Yeah, exactly. But listen, we want to kind of tell our listeners here to the Athletic Hockey Show that we've got some kind of a new format, new look to our show here for the stretch drive leading into trade deadlines, Stanley Cup playoffs, and all of that. So your Monday edition of the podcast is going to have yours truly, Ian Mendez, and Mark Lazarus, as the co-host here. sitting in Mondays and last, it's going to be great because coming up in a few minutes, we're going to have our insiders, Chris Johnston, Pierre LeBron, on a regular basis every Monday,

it's C.J. and LeBron. And as much as I'd love to push it as the Dallas Cowboys Hour, we're not going to talk football. These guys are super plugged in. And as we lead into the trade deadline, this is going to be fun stuff with them because this is the time of year where we lean on the insiders. every Monday it's Mendez, it's Lazarus, you're going to get some LeBron, you're going to get some Chris Johnston, and you're going to get Jesse Granger. Now, we've always called this segment Granger Things with Jesse Granger. But last, I'm going to give you veto power.

If you don't like Granger Things, you can change the segment title. Oh my God. You can't put me on the spot like that. I'll come up with a terrible pun, but you've got to give me some time there. Granger Things works. I mean, you know, season five is Stranger Things. got pushed back to next year. So, you know, it's not the time, the most timely of names for a segment,

but, you know, it's set in the 80s. It's eternal. Yeah. So that's what your Monday show is going to look like, kind of moving forward here. And we're super excited, Laz and I to tackle the Monday pot. Wednesdays, it's the Sean and Sean Scho, aka Down Goes Brown, Sean Gentilly. And the two of them are going to be joined on a fairly regular basis.

by former M.HL defenseman Frank Corrado. But you know, with Gentile and McIndoo, you just know that this thing is, you know, they got a unique view of the hockey. It'll be off the rails within seven seconds of every podcast. Yeah. Yeah. So we're looking forward to those guys.

And then Thursdays on the Athletic Hockey Show, it's what you've been accustomed to. It's the three-headed monster, Haley, Salvean, Max Boltman, and the aforementioned, Sean Gentilly. So the three of them on Thursdays, as always. And then we will sprinkle in. a prospect show on select Fridays. And that's with Max Boltman,

Corey Pranman, Scott Wheeler, and Chris Peters. So that's kind of how our show is going to go moving forward. We've got a Monday show, got a Wednesday show, got a Thursday show. We'll do some Fridays. And alas, man, I'm super excited to have you on board here. I'm excited too. It's going to be fun.

But I'm going to be very careful to deliver any opinions I have. respectfully, calmly, and quietly, because I don't want you coming at me and cross-checking me in the head. And what a segue that is. This is hockey. This is a gentleman sport, and we shall not be mean. I'm sitting in the press box Saturday night in Ottawa. And I even tweeted out, I made the mistake of tweeting out midway through the game, I'm like, man, neither team's taking a penalty. This could be the first perfect game in Battle of Ontario history, right?

And I'm like, that's really weird. Nobody's ever, and I'm looking up what's the fewest penalty minutes ever, Ottawa, Toronto. And then as time is expiring, Ridley Greg slaps a five foot, he's five feet from the crease. And he goes full slap shot, the kind that you, you know, he's scraping the ceiling of the arena with his wind up. And he fires it in. And then Morgan Riley comes over and cross checks him in the face, side of the head. Now, I don't want to go all Zepruder film with these Toronto fans. You know, if you look at this freeze frame, you'll see that the first point of contact

was Ridley Greg's arm. And I'm like, come on. Like, listen, I was there. I talked to the players. I'm curious to get your view on this before I give a little bit of my perspective and being there. I just want to hear from you on the outside, Laz. And I want to hear from our listeners too.

You can always hit us up, the athletic hockey show, at gmail.com. The code and all of this stuff. What did you read on Ridley, Greg and Morgan Riley? You know, first of all, let's, like, I want to, I want to preface this by saying, this is not Dale Hunter and Pierre Turgeon, which 31 years later I'm still mad about because that ruined my childhood. This is not, you know, he didn't blindside him. Greg saw him coming.

He braced himself a little bit. He knew it was, it was, so it wasn't that egregious a hit. But this was, look, I have zero problem, zero problem with what Ridley Greg did. Nothing. He did nothing wrong. In fact, it was awesome, and I wish that we would see more of that. This is what we're always talking about, right? I wish players would have some personality and have some more fun out there. And then they do it, and everyone, you know, you know, clutches their pearls.

And no, not like that. That's not what I meant. Like this is, he put an exclamation point on a big win over an arch rival in front of a hot crowd. And he got wood in the face for it. I mean, this is ridiculous. We're talking about the code. And it's, it's, I keep seeing the word disrespectful. Disrespectful.

Was it disrespectful that Greg did that? Yes, it was disrespectful. But since when is hockey some kind of respectful sport? You've got guys shoving their sweaty gloves in each other's faces. After every whistle, they're talking unbelievable amounts of crap to each other and to the referees. You should hear what these guys are actually saying on the ice. It's unbelievable. They're violently attacking guys for delivering clean legal hits.

And they celebrate every goal like they won the Stanley Cup. There's fist bumps. They're leaping into the glass. doing the Captain Morgan, these big group hugs, the fist bump line. All Ridley Greg did was take a slap shot. And now he's like the biggest defender. Like how, I don't understand.

The people that are so mad about this are the same ones that say the league's gone soft. And here we are where you can't handle the tiniest bit of taunting, the tiniest bit of hot dogging, the tiniest bit of shoving something in your face, and you lose your mind and attack a guy by cross-checking him in the head. This is just the stupidest stuff. This is the most hockey thing ever, and it's just infuriating to watch. Yeah.

And, you know, so I talked to some Ottawa players after the game on Saturday night. And it was rather remarkable that people took the Claude Juree interview that he did on the hockey night, and they said, you know, Claude Jureau didn't defend Ridley Gregg. Did you notice Clue Jou didn't defend Ridley, Greg? It was kind of crazy. But I'll tell you, I talked to a couple of players. Josh Norris had the best quote of all. He said, I loved it.

I loved what Ridley did. Now, he said, if somebody did that to us, we're not going to like that. But he said what Morgan Riley did was too much. And I think that's fair. You don't have to like it. You don't have to try to murder someone over it. I mean, give me a break. Exactly.

That's what I think. So I look at this and I think, you know, the Battle of Ontario has been one of the most stale rivalries in the last decade and a half. Ridley, Greg added some spice to it in a, okay, was it a bit whatever word you want to do. It's a little cheeky. Sure, whatever. But to suggest, like, they're acting like he did a windmill celly in front of their bench, like, while, you know. And then did like the DX crotch shop in front of them or something.

He scored a hockey goal. He made sure the puck went in the net. Yeah. And I always think about the Patrick Stephan, like, whatever, 2007. Patrick Stephan kind of is very laxadaisical on the attempt on an empty net and it goes back to the way

the Oilers tie it and everybody always said well that's why you got to finish hard on every play and then Ridley Greg does it they're like no no no not like that that's too much let me let me ask you this is this just a Toronto thing like if this happened in a San Jose Anaheim game does anybody care

I think it becomes a talking point on podcasts like ours but I don't think it becomes this mass. And we'll talk to Chris Johnson about this because I know he's going to kind of shed some light on what the Leaf's reaction is. But I think you're right. I think Toronto is the center of the media universe

in the NHL for better or for worse. And so when something involves them, it's going to get amplified so much more. But I think the discourse over the suspension is going to be fascinating because they've already offered him an in-person hearing, which means they have the right to give him six games or more. Not say that they will, but they have the right to do that.

Now, Hunter and Pierre Turgeon, I'm with you. That was a different time, and it was a playoffs, and Dale got 21 games, and I think rightfully so. And I'm not suggesting. And there was injury involved. I mean, he ended his chairgues. The rest of that playoffs, and the Islanders got bounced in the conference final. And I'm not suggesting Morgan Raleigh, I want to make this very clear.

I'm not suggesting Morgan Raleigh should get what Dale Hunter got. I'm not suggesting that. I do think you have to give him more than a game or two. I do. Because I think if you just give him one game or two games, I think the message is, okay, you can cross-check a guy in the head

when he's quote-unquote defenseless in a non-hockey situation. So if you talk me anywhere into the four to six, seven, eight-game range, I think that's fair, but I don't know how this is going to play on. It feels like a roulette wheel. I just like to imagine if it was Morgan Riley, who took the slap shot into the empty net,

and Ridley Gregg who attacked him, how different the narrative would be right now. Right now everyone's up in arms about the fact that it's going to be a suspension that's going to be, it's going to be a substantial, you don't get an in-person hearing and then get a one or a two gamer. Like, it might not be six or more,

but this is going to be more than two. This is going to be a significant suspension of a very significant player on a team that's fighting for a playoff spot right now. This is a big deal. And the Toronto of it all really does complicate things. But like, he, look, you cannot argue it's a hockey play because it happened after a whistle, you know,

after, you know, while, you know, the horn was blowing or whatever and the music's playing, like, there's no way you can argue. I thought he was still playing. Everybody saw what happened, right? This wasn't like, oh, I didn't see it go in. Like, this was clearly an after the way. whistle non-hockey play. So if you get a couple of games for chopping a guy in the head during play,

you should get a lot more games for doing it after the whistle. This was a clear violation of every hockey norm. You cannot hit guys in the head. You cannot cross-check. You cannot hit a guy when he's celebrating a goal after he scores. Like, this violates, you can tick every box here. The only box that's not ticked is I don't believe that Greg was injured, right? we'll find out a little bit on Monday.

Like he got up, he skated off on his own, and they didn't practice on Sunday. So, yeah, we'll see. But I didn't think he was. Personally, I hate that player safety decides these things based on the result. Right. We should be legislating the intent and not the result. I don't like that the injury factor is played into it.

Oh, you know, no harm, no foul. He wasn't hurt. That doesn't matter. The intent is what matters here. But that is going to be factored in. So that's what's going to prevent this from being a 10 to 15 game suspension. You know, if Ridley Greg is in concussion protocol after this, this is a very different conversation.

But Riley is going to get a bunch of games, and he's going to deserve a bunch of games. You just can't do that. He had no justification whatsoever. You got a problem with it. You go up and you say something to him, and you maybe get a little shoving match, and you ask him to drop the gloves,

and then Greg can decide what he wants to do with that. That's sort of what, that's hockey protocol, right? What Riley did is not hockey protocol in any way, and anyone who justifies it is just blind loyalty to the leagues. Ridley Greg is a rookie. And he went right to, can we agree on this? He went right to the Brad Marchand playbook. Like this is something Brad Marshall would do, okay?

If that's Brad Marchand doing it to the leaves, does Morgan Riley respond in the same way? Or does he have, oh, that's Marshall, let him go. Ridley, Greg, I'm going to send a message. You're a kid. You're probably right. They go into there trying to send a message. You're all sent a more, which is also ridiculous.

But that's true. that if it's okay that Marshan does it or you know roll your eyes at him when Marchand does it then it's okay when a kid does it too it doesn't matter how many years he's been in the league I hate this this kind of like unwritten rule self-policing crap this nonsense the kid this is what we want out of the young players in the league to bring a little personality a little verve a little guts a little you know uh sassiness into the league oxy all those things this is what we want we want more guys that are willing to have fun out there,

that are willing to twist the knife just a little bit and start a real rival. Like you said, this is the Battle of Ontario. This should be a blood feud. And it just hasn't been. And maybe it will be now because Riley Gregg had the balls to take a slap shot. Oh, slap shot.

Oh, my God. Oh, I love the high-pitched voice of, Oh, my stars and garters. Oh, yeah, clutching the pearls. So I want to have a fun conversation here and it will bring the listeners in because you could always hit us up, the athletic hockey show at gmail.

Al.com. Las and I are going to come up in the next few minutes with the unequivocal, undisputed list of unwritten hockey rules. Okay. The code. The stuff they don't put in the rulebook or the CBA, but as we found out on Saturday, no, no, no, it still gets enforced. So clearly, there's a right way to score an empty net goal. You know, score it with class, score it with dignity, act like you've been there before. Don't wind up. This is a gentleman's game, Ian. It's a gentleman's game. I also think, I guess, you can't snow the opposition's goalie, right?

Like, that is kind of poor form. Just like, there's no, I mean, technically a rep could give you unsportsmanlike, right? I mean, it happens like 10 times a game. It's better to snow a goalie than knee him in the head while you're flying towards the net, isn't it? You got to stop. Sometimes you just have to stop. You're going for the puck. The goal is going to get snowed, you know, wah-wah.

Unwritten rule in the NHL, and I don't know what the number is. Maybe you have a four-goal lead or a five-goal lead. You can't, if you have a five-goal lead, you can't send your first unit power play out hungry to score another goal. Can you? You certainly can, but the other team will be, again, deeply offended because this is now the softest sport in the world, yes. Okay, so that's on the list.

Yeah, for sure. Stealing a base when you're up like eight runs, you can't steal the base. Same idea, yeah. You can't do it. It's disrespecting the game. Or on the other hand, you could just not fall behind by five goals. Yeah. It's like bunting to break up in the winner.

That's right. You can't do that. How dare you try to get on base in this professional game? This is just wrong. You can't touch the conference championship trophy. Seems to be an unwritten rule, right? There's a lot of the lightning did, the penguins did. We've seen, I feel like it's less of a test.

I don't know if it's a Western conference, Eastern Conference, it's a Campbell Bowl, Wales Bowl thing. But we see about, I feel like 50% of the time, you got teams doing that now. That used to be, wasn't Eric Lindros that started that superstition back in the day? Or am I imagining that? You might be right.

Well, they won the, whatever, the Wales trophy in 97. Yeah, and I feel like that was like the first time I remember someone, like, where I was like, no, we only touched the Stanley Cup. What happened? They got swept in the final. They did. So it didn't work out that well for them, did it? Darren McCarty turned into like Peaks, like Dennis Savard from the 80s.

It's almost like these unwritten rules are really stupid. But is there anything else? Am I missing any unwritten rules? Let's see. In warm-ups, you never shoot a puck into the other side of the ice. Oh. That's a good way to start a massive pregame brawl. We've seen that a couple of times.

I think if we've learned anything from this Greg Riley thing, it's that before every face off, you doff your cap and you shake the hand and you say, Joddy Good Show old chap, let's have a fair, clean fight here. Let's make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings. And let's have a good old time. I hope everyone has fun. Gentlemanly. This is a respectful game.

Very gentlemanly and respectful in which we throw F bombs at the referees 300 times a minute. Oh, my God. All right. Hit us up, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. Let us know what else belongs on the list of, Unwritten Rules in the sport. Also let us know what you think of the Greg Riley thing, what the suspension should look like, you know, that type of thing.

Athletic Hockey Show at Gmail. Oh, I got one more unwritten rule. Yes. If in this one, this one works. Like it's silly on its surface, but it works. If you injure an opposing player or take a cheap shot or do something that you have to answer with a fight the next time you see that team, because if you don't answer to the fight,

they will just follow you around the ice forever. But once you fight them, it's over. The beef has been squashed. I always think of Rafi Torres when he almost murdered Marion Hosa in the 2012 playoffs. And then you had the lockout and the Hawks were in Arizona like a couple of games into the season. And Jamal Mayers bought Rafi Torres

in the first period, like on like the third shift of the game. And it was over. And then like the whole like attempted murder thing didn't happen anymore because Torres was back from his suspension. And that's all the time. took. So you have to answer the bell if you do something that injures another player. And that's, that's that weird little self-policing game that hockey plays. Well, it's funny, even with the self-policing, sometimes there's an unwritten rule. If you hit a star player, even if it's a

clean hit, you got to be ready to fight right away. Which is really stupid, like extra stupid. Like, that's like here is a good smart hockey play. How dare you? You must fight me now, good sir. Yeah. I like how you go right into that sort of late 1800s. Well, that's what it feels. This feels like we're talking about like duels and stuff. Like, you know, 10 days and dawn and we hawking or something. It's like, I guess that's more like 1700s, right? Oh, yeah, like the teet.

Like the teed-stack you across the face with the gauntlet and say, I challenge you to a duels. I demand satisfaction. It's just like this is the grittiest, meanest, nastiest, ugliest sport in so many ways. And everyone is like so offended by every single thing. that happens on the ice. Oh, my gosh. I'll tell you what, I'm excited for this

because on Mondays now, we're going to have our insiders with the athletic in Pierre LeBron and Chris Johnson. And I promise, Lazz, we're not going to turn this into Dallas Cowboys' Talk.

As much as the three of us would love that. Anything about that. As a resident Giants fan, I couldn't have. I'd get up and I'd leave run on the first show. I'd just be out of here.

What was a Giants fan been treating you lately? You know what? I got two Super Bowls as a kid, two Super Bowls as a kid, I'm real good. The Giants never make me mad anymore. Certainly two Super Bowls,

two Super Bowls in the high-definition era, unlike our boys. We'll let Loss winning that one. Yeah. All right. When you were watching those Cowboys ones, I think. Tusha. All right. As much as we'd love to talk, NRC East,

there's a ton of NHL stuff to get to. CJ, let's start with you. The story of the weekend, it felt like on the ice, Morgan Riley. Ridley, Greg, what are you hearing about potential fallout there as he's got a hearing with Department of Player Safety in person? Yeah, I mean, this is going to be an interesting one. I mean, we've all sort of heard the, you know, spin the wheel of justice, you know,

not knowing, you know, how many games a certain infraction is going to come up for. But, you know, to put it mildly, the Leafs were shock, stunned, flabbergasted, that this ended up being an in-person hearing, which, you know, doesn't necessarily tell us what the outcome's going to be, but it certainly gives the power to the Department of Player's Safety to suspend Morgan Riley for six games or more. And, you know, I think the Leafs were probably thinking it was a one or two game type of suspension. And, you know, it's maybe a tough one to break down because we don't know what the ruling is going to be. But it does tell us something that the Leafs and Morgan Riley have decided on Tuesday to fly down to New York to actually do the hearing in person.

You know, that's an old saying. It's left over from the CBA. But, you know, by and large, I think a lot of people with today's technology, the way we're having this, conversation now do these hearings via Zoom, but I think that the Leafs, you know, certainly are going in there armed with what they feel as an argument to have this suspension be come in much below, you know, where it seems to be aimed. And I think they're more than willing to appeal it to any court in the land that that might hear it if it ends up being something like the six game suspension, David Prawn got for a crosscheck earlier this season. And so, you know, I just want to point our attention there because you can't, I can't tell you exactly how it's going to play on. Maybe

the Department of Player Safety, here's something compelling in that hearing. It comes in at a two or three game suspension, and it's a crisis averted. But I do think if it ends up somewhere in the six-game region, you're going to see quite a battle waged here between the Leafs and the NHL. There's so many layers of this. And Ian, he did a great job diving into it, although I enjoyed some of the responses to you from that piece. But the Battle of Ontario, but on top of all that, number one, Morgan Riley's agent is

J.B. Berry, who's a lawyer first and agent second. he will get his backup on all this. I mean, he could fight a good fight. And so there's that layer to it. And I don't know officially if he's actually allowed to, because again, it's the NHLPA that technically would appeal any kind of suspension. But certainly, you know, J.P. Barr is Morgan Riley's agent. Number two, you got Brendan Chanahan as a present of the least.

Brendan Chanahan set up the modern player safety. So it's just, I mean, the people that are. that our players say now most of there because of Brendan Janahan. So there's so many permutations to what we'll play out here. It's crazy theater, not the least of which is if there's one team in the NHL that can't lose their top defensemen, it's the Toronto Maple Leafs who need go out for at least two before the trade deadline if they want to go deep in the playoffs. Well, that's exactly what I wanted to ask.

If this were kind of a fringe roster player, if this was a Ryan Reeves type, are the Leafs go into the mattresses for this? or is this because it's Morgan Riley, a player that they cannot afford to lose for six or more games while they're, you know, fighting for a playoff spot right now? Well, I think that's part of the argument, though, right? I mean, if you look at Morgan Riley's career, he's been in the league, I think 12 years now, anyway, long time. The average is about 20 penalty minutes a season.

He has no absolutely no history of sort of losing his mind, of crossing the line. And so I think that they feel that that should be factored into where he clearly did in this case. I don't think that there's any debate that this was a suspendable act. And I think that they're going to argue it was a hockey play, whatever that means. And that, you know, clearly this is, you know, his intent was not as bad as it wound up. And, you know, I think also Ridley Gregg, as far as I know, there's no injury in this circumstance, which can plan to where these things line up.

So I think it's all of those factors boiled into one. And ultimately, look, David Perron was in the same boat. I mean, we might judge the acts differently. you know, the one thing that player safety video highlighted when Prawn was suspended six games for crush checking Artem Zub was how forceful the upward movement was. And, you know, it sort of really got into all that. But David Pront at that point in time had never been suspended in his career either. It doesn't have the kind of history like Morgan Riley does. So, you know, I don't know how all these factors go in. I know the player safety tries. They put out the videos, they explain the

rulings. They're trying to be as transparent as they can be. But I have to, you know, be honest. I don't sometimes know how they ended up with the rulings they do. It's clear from what we heard. I don't know that everyone in that group of player safety saw the play the same way. They won't admit that publicly. Which, by the way, is good. I want that kind of debate internally in their safety. I don't want everyone to have the same

in New York reaction, so that's a good thing. But, you know, you mentioned David Braun, CJ. He also has a lawyer that will defend his client and Alan Walsh. And some of Walsh's tweets throughout that process because, of course, David Braun appealed to both Gary Bedman

and then to the neutral arbitrator. And all for not because the suspension was not changed. You know, I'm curious, Pierre, as we get closer to the trade deadline now, does this, and maybe Riley gets two games, maybe it gets six games, whatever, but does this heighten the need for Toronto to go out and do something on the blue line? You know, you want to say yes, because, again, because of the stated need to begin with, but you guys have heard this, all of you from GMs over the years, they hate making trades with a gun to their head, right?

GMs hate the leverage play. And the reality is this is the ultimate anti-leverage play. I mean, of course, the Leafs are desperate. I mean, every game matters. The Leafs are not assured of making the playoffs. And their blue line needs help. But is that a great time to go out and spend assets to try and win the Chris Tann of Derby or Sean Walker,

or whomever else? And CJ and I debated this offline last week. I think CJ won me over with his argument, but there's a sense of because the lease have given up so many assets the last few years being all in, really start to go out and spend that first round pick right now, out of desperation. And CJ made the point you can pick it up if you want CJ,

but you shouldn't sit on your hands, given that Austin Matthews is having a magical year and you're still a team that wants to win, but maybe there's something more measured you should be doing suppose that, you know, spent the first round pick, right, CJ, that was, that was your response to me. I just don't think you can be in a position. You can't choose which year it's all going to be perfect, right? And this has actually been as imperfect of a regular season as we've had in Toronto probably since the year where the pandemic hit.

I mean, this has been a team that has absolutely walked into the playoffs comfortably the last couple years. They haven't been, I mean, every team goes through injuries. I mean, there's been ups and downs within those seasons, but it's been much smoother of a ride than this one. And I just think when you have the core you have, when they're signed of the contracts there, I mean, we don't need to debate all that again. You have to do absolutely everything you can to give them a chance to pull it together at the right time and have a, have a playoff run. You know, the one thing, and this is hardly a novel thought on my hand, but I would be trying in Brad True Living shoes to get players that are going to be around for a couple of years if you can.

I wouldn't be necessarily prioritizing the rental players. You know, we've seen Kyle Dubis before Tree Living do that to some effect. You know, they got Jake Muzin at a time when he still had two years on a deal. And I think that that might be the best way to spend the assets. But, you know, sometimes those trades are harder to make than just the straight rental deals we see at the deadline. What's the perception of this trade? I look at, you know, CJ, I look at your trade board. And it's awfully underwhelming.

I mean, this is not a lot of sexy names at the top of this. Come on, CJ. Make up some more names. Come on. The names are the names. No, I'm not saying. It's just, it's an underwhelming group. These are nice players.

These are depth additions. a lot of situations. It's not like a Mark Stone available or someone of that, you know, super high caliber that's on the table. Are GMs looking at Chris Tanev and Sean Walker and Noah Haniffin as difference makers or is this just we got to get somebody? Because it feels like these guys wouldn't fetch first rounders in other years. But this year, they're the top names on the board. Laz, I agree with you. I mean, I don't want to spend the time I do compiling that board and tell you not to read it. But it's it really is not a list that's full of sort of eye-catching names, headline grabbing potential trades that we can sell. And you're right. You go back the last five

years at deadlines you've had Eric Carlson available. I know he wasn't ultimately moved then. Mark Stone, even last year, Timu Meyer. I mean, that's a player that can change the course of your franchise and can be, you know, someone that slots right into your top six. You don't have a lot of that. I mean, two of the biggest names that moved are Lice Lindholm and Sean Monaghan and both were right up at the top of the previous version of the board. I mean, Monahan's probably a third line center. I know the Jets are going to try them at second line center here after acquiring him.

But I mean, you're just not, there's not necessarily the needle movers. And, you know, the one caveat I'll always put out there is there could be a team, even right now. I mean,

we're 25 days from the deadline that we're not anticipating selling. And maybe it gets to the last week and they decide to, you know, sell some players and those names aren't currently on the board. And maybe we get one or two of those bigger names. But, you know, the reality, is the teams at the bottom of the standings, like the one you covered on daily basis,

Chicago, San Jose, Anaheim, Montreal, those teams have all been selling for years, right? I mean, there was a time when Anaheim was trading Hamas, Lindholm and Josh Manson. Well, now they're further down their cycle. They don't have necessarily those kind of impact players. I mean, Adam Henrique, I think, is going to be, you know, in pretty decent demand because of what's available to supply in this case. But, you know, Montreal has traded a lot of good guys over the years. You know, San Jose traded Meyer and Brett Burns.

And, you know, so we're just, we almost need a refresh of the league, I think. We need some teams that were, that's kind of what Calgary is, I guess, a team that was pretty good. And they're now selling off. They're pretty good players as they kind of do a reboot. But we need more of that. I mean, we need Pittsburgh's and some of these other teams to go that direction to, I think, spice up the board a little bit. Calgary's won four in a row here. And there only a couple of points out of a playoff spot.

Does that change that at all? Is there any way that Calgary decides, you know, screw it, let's go for it? Is that it all feasible? I don't think it changes the fact that. You know, Craig Conroy is pretty, in this, and I know in his conversations with other GMs, that they can't lose big time UFAs for nothing after what happened, Johnny Gujaro, which is why Linom was dealt, which is why if Chris Hannan is not signed, Chris Hannan will be dealt, which is why if Noah Anapen's not signed,

they're trying to sign him, he'll be dealt too, because they just, they feel like they're, they suffered a lot by getting zero assets for Johnny Gujarro. But Craig Conroy is also telling other teams, we're not rebuilding. we want to retool quick here on the fly. They want to be competitive in a hurry here on the flip side of this. So that's what they're trying to do. And everyone wants to be Winnipeg now. And one of the great miraculous off-season that the Jets had, it was amazing work.

But not everyone can pull that off. Everything I would say, just to Jay's point about the tradeboard. I don't get too caught up in the names on that list because every single year there are guys traded that we didn't even know we're on the market. And I freely admit that because those guys are guys that are on under, contract rentals, that teams aren't shopping, but are having very private conversations with a very small, tight group about often Steve Eisenman's in the middle of those things. He likes to shock people with some of his trades. Think about Veronica last year and a couple of years ago, the Manta deal. I could see that happening. It's what we call hockey trades, not the rental deals.

And those are two different markets to me. But I absolutely believe we'll see one or two of those before March 8, where it's something that could happen in June, but just happened to happen before March 8. You know, what if Anaheim shocks us with the Trevor Ziegist trade. Not saying they're going to do that. He's on the board, Pierre. He's on the board.

I know. But, you know, or, you know, I can make the argument for a few guys that you're like, really? Yeah, because, you know, GMs start thinking ahead sometimes to the offseason and say, well, why don't we get this done now? And so those are the, those are the exciting. trains. You know, last mentioned not too many big names on the list, but a guy

that's a big name, maybe not necessarily a big producer, Vlad Teresenko is on there. And I want to ask you, Pierre, about this because you reported last week, he switched agents. You suggested maybe Edmonton's a landing spot. Can you update our listeners a little bit on where you see Teresenko and landing and how that all plays out? Well, I don't think that the Oilers have him as near near the top of their wish list, but

I do believe that he's on their radar because the Oilers have looked around at all the potential for top six editions for their top six, and he is on there. But, you know, CJ's mentioned this before. I think Jordan Eberley is a guy that the Oilers like a lot. Obviously, let's see what happens with Pittsburgh and

Jake Gensel and so on. You know, the tough thing for Ottawa with Tarisenko is that the player and his new agent, Craig Oster of Newport Sports, controlled the entire process. I mean, he's got a full no trade, which means you're not really throwing him out there to everyone. You're asking the player and his agent where he'd be willing to go to.

And so in Emmington's case, I do believe that that's a place where Tarasenko might wait to go, but probably a couple other places too. The issue for Ottawa is how do you maximize return there? Although I will say, like one trade that was really panned a couple of years ago was what a lot of people perceived was Chuck Fletcher's inability at the time to get a closed-a-rooos or ending UFA and controlled the process the same way at a full-no-tray. and really just wanted to go to Florida, which was his right, of course.

But when Tippett's turned out, so we're quick to judge these things in the moment, but sometimes we look back at sight, as well, that was still a pretty good deal. So who knows, maybe Ottawa gets lucky that way if the prospect's part of it. But I just don't anticipate because of the lack of control Steve Steyos has on the tarusungle process, that it's going to be a bonanza for Ottawa on that deal. In your guys' experience, when a player changes agents, like that. What does that tend to signify? I mean, you know, an agent, like you said,

he's got a no move close. So he's got some control there. But what does an agent really control in a trade market? Is he out there trying to wheel and deal and make things happen? Or is it just an advisory situation? I mean, there's different things. I mean, in this case, he was previously with CAA and he's gone to Newport Sports. So those are two of the biggest agencies in the game. So that, you know, sometimes you'll see a player, say, leave a smaller agent to go to one of those big agencies because they perceive that the agency has the ability maybe to get something done, whether that's a trade or, you know, grease the wheels. You know, obviously in Teresanko's case, too, he's looking forward to his next contract.

He's going to be a free agent on July 1st. And so, you know, I don't know exactly what went down in this specific circumstance because he's a player that changes his agent a lot. But, you know, those are the types of reasons. And, you know, I think ultimately agents, well, maybe not always officially out there with the exact permission to shop their players around. I think agents are obviously having conversations every day with people work for teams and maybe back channeling information and those types of things. And so, you know, Teresanko has some big business, whether it's this trade or his next contract to worry about and, you know, obviously elected to switch his representative.

Yeah. And I think it's been a frustrating time for Teresenko and you could agree or disagree with the way that he sees the world. I, you know, I've not talked to him about this, but he's on his fourth agent in three years. so clearly he's not seen in the same light as he once was right when he was a big time star in st louis so you know signing a one year deal in ottawa probably wasn't the number one item on his list

when he was heading into july first last year and i'm not saying that as a but teresenko probably wanted to go to a contender right no i mean it's and not to mention the fact he only got one year which is less an ideal although some teams or some agents were doing that the dip back in next year when the cap finally goes up. But, you know, I think when someone changes agents that often, it's, it's, it's, experiences.

It's often because he wants to keep changing agents and Billy hears what he wants, which may or may not be realistic. So we'll see how it goes. Hey, listen, guys, this is great to, this is going to be a lot of fun having you both jump in on the Monday edition of the podcast. Before I let you go, though, this is just the curiosity in me. were out just under a month, right, until deadline day. You guys are two of the most plugged in insiders in the industry.

Do you sleep with your phones on? Like, is the ringer on at night? Take us through what happens here with the phone for an insider leading up to the deadline. Weekends aren't as comfortable as they are earlier in the season, put it that way. I don't know why. It seems like a lot of these trades happen on like at weird times. I remember last year I was out to dinner and the Leafs trade. for Ryan O'Reilly at like 11 p.m. on Friday night. And so, you know, I find that like,

you know, during the season like anyone, you have to unplug, you got to see your friends and family, things like that. And so sometimes you can sneak a Saturday night where you're not thinking about hockey too much. But when we get this close to deadline, obviously every game you're wondering is a player going to be held out? If all of a sudden someone who isn't on the ice who you think should be, you're checking in on that. And so, I mean, it's a fun time of year. But, you know, Kira's got kids. I don't. But I'm basically living and breathing. this stuff every day until we get through March 8th from this point on. I have been caught.

I haven't caught with my daughter. I'm an assistant coach on her hockey team. I've been caught once in a while staring at my phone in middle of a line change. I operate the door. So it's, you know, you can't be, then to answer your question you.

And I, no, I, I turn my phone off when it's actually time to sleep. The sleep's important, too, this time of year. You can't,

you know, you can't go 24-7. That's not realistic, you know, but you try to stay in as plugged in as you can. And, you know, CJ and I are in a group message chat with Aaron Dregor

because of our work at TSNN. And, you know, we stay in touch all day and just try to stay out of it, no question about it. Amazing stuff. Well, listen, like I said, we're super excited to have you dropping by on a regular basis on the Monday pod.

Have a great week. We look forward to your coverage on the athletic and TSN this week, and we'll hit you up again next Monday. Sounds good, guys. Right on, right on. All right. So I'm looking forward to having Chris Johnson, Pierre LeBron,

on all the time. And since this is an audio deal, we should have pointed out, Pierre Lebrun, and if you see it around DSN, you've seen this, but he's got the big giant Hartford Whalers logo. Does it bother you when the hurricanes wear the whalers stuff?

It bothers me when the hurricane. They did it on the weekend, right? Yeah, they do it a few times a year. I don't like it. It feels like it's, you know, they stole someone's team. And then they're rubbing it in their faces. Like, if you're a Hartford person and you see that,

Doesn't that just piss you off? So I grew up, last, I grew up a huge Montreal Expos fan. And the Nationals played one game, right, in an Expos jersey. And I wasn't sure how I was going to feel. And it really hurt. It's insane. It's it. I was like, they're making money off a team that doesn't, that your team that

doesn't exist anymore. Like you go to a Hurricanes game, I'll be there next week. When you go to PNC Arena, there is Whalers Gear everywhere, because it's popular, because it's a great uniform. It's a great logo. I don't know. Something about that has always rubbed me. Even when they did the retro reverse and it was the whalers,

something about that's always bothered me. Just the idea of like you're capitalizing on someone else. Like, isn't it bad enough that you took their team? Do you have to twist the knife there? I don't know. And take their merch. Did the avalanche do a game where they wore a Nordiques jersey? That was their retro reverse jersey was a Nordiques logo.

Yeah. Yeah. And those were the two best redder reverse jerseys other than the Kings Lakers one. They were beautiful. But there's just something a little icky about it. I don't know. You know, it's weird. Is anybody pining for the Winnipeg Jets to do a reverse or a retro thrashers night?

I would, that would, it would be similarly mean. But like, I feel like with the thrashers, they've just been like washed out of existence. Like they don't exist. Like nobody talks about the thrashers. That was a relatively recent team. Like 12, 13 years ago, the Atlanta Thrashers existed. You know, like Chris Chelyos, Marion Hosa. Ilio, Kovych, obviously.

I feel like the thrashers have been like, no, that never happened. We don't talk about the thrashers. Yeah, just like a 12-year window where they had a team. I want to say that I watched the Super Bowl on Sunday, Las, with our good friend, Sean McIndoo, down goes Brown. And the two of us have watched, we went to journalism school together. So we've been watching Super Bowls together since the 90s. Now, McIndoo's favorite team, if you didn't know, is San Francisco 49ers.

So I'm sitting next to him on Sunday night watching him watch his favorite team. Have a lead in the Super Bowl and let it slip through his fingers. So I'd like to know because I didn't chirp him. I didn't mock him. I don't think that's right because it's the Super Bowl. Now, how do you feel like how should I have handled this as a friend when you're there and your team's not playing but your buddy's team is. in the championship game or in a big game.

Can you mock them? What happens here? Take me through the protocol. I mean, of course you can mock them. I mean, that's what sports fandom is all about, right? I guess I should have. Like, I don't know, because, you know, you're a Cowboys fan, right? For some of course, I never understand how you Canadians pick your NFL teams.

It's the bizarre. It's just absolutely, it's like, like Arp and Basu is a diehard dolphins. How does that even happen? I don't even know. But you can, I mean, the nice thing to do, if you're like a nice, good friend, if you're a sensitive person, is you're going to cheer with your friend. But there is something fun when your team's already been eliminated.

You want everyone to be as miserable as you are, right? So it's kind of a, it's not, you're not crossing any lines by mocking a buddy whose team has been as blown a lead in the Super Bowl. There's just different kinds of friendships, you know? Yeah. Are you like, are you brothers?

If your brothers, you're going to mock each other. Yes. If your acquaintances, you're going to support each other. If you're somewhere in between, you can kind of do whatever you want. Yeah. So I didn't mock them, but partially because I feel like I'm a Cowboys fan. I don't have license to mock.

Yes, it's exactly right. That's a self-awareness than most Cowboys fans do not have. So congratulations on that. Yes, but we did get, you know, but I'm watching overtime of the Super Bowl. And I'm thinking to myself, can you imagine if we ever get a game seven of the Stanley Cup final that goes to overtime? Can you imagine? It's kind of incredible that we haven't. Isn't that weird?

A percentage of hockey. games in the playoffs that go to overtime is pretty high. The fact that we've never, there's been a lot of game sevens too over the years. It's kind of amazing. We've seen the Stanley Cup won in overtime, obviously, you know, from Bobby Nystrom and Uveh Krupp and Patrick Kane, but it's kind of incredible that we've never had a game seven go to overtime for the Stanley Cup final. We've had, I mean, you look at 2013.

I always point to the 17 seconds that when the Blackhawks beat the Bruins, that was my first year on the beat. That's the greatest ending in hockey history. because what we always see in hockey is a loss becomes a tie, which then becomes a win later, right? You score the tying goal with five seconds left, and then there's an intermission, and then you score the overtime winner.

In that Blackhawks Bruins game, I lost became a win. It was like hitting a three-pointer at the buzzer down too. We don't see that in hockey, where you go from trailing by a goal to leading by a goal in the final minute of the decisive Stanley Cup final game. To me, that's the closest we've come to a sudden ending like that.

Yeah. And I'm not even sure a game seven overtime can be more dramatic than that because, again, it'll be, it won't be a tie going to a win or a loss, not a loss going to a win. But it is kind of incredible that we've never seen. Like, imagine how the tension in a game one of the first round of the playoffs over time is excruciatingly agized. What would it be like for game seven of a Stanley Cup final? I think the closest thing that we have, and some would argue it was even more pressure,

would have been Vancouver Olympics, gold medal game. Canada, USA went to overtime, and then you get the Crosby Golden Goal. In Canada, which just made it that much more pressure on Team Canada. Yeah, but that's kind of what it would be like, holy smokes, the next goal is going to be immortalized.

Because you know who I think doesn't get enough credit? Can we just take a moment to tip our cat to Alec Martinez of the L.A. King? You're killing a story idea I have for a few months from now. which is the 10 year anniversary of the greatest playoff series. He had the greatest two weeks of any player in the history of the sport. Yeah, I feel like he doesn't get recognition. Guy scores a game seven conference final winner and arguably the most entertaining

best highly competitive series, whatever you want to say, of the salary cap era. And then turns around and like 13 days later, he's like, I'm going to end the cup. And nobody, like you were talking about. about all these great overtime goals, right? You think of Nystrom, you think of, you know, even Uve Krupe and who else, Brett Hall, obviously. Oh, yeah. I feel like Alec Martinez, he hasn't get his flowers.

I've been harping on this, you're preaching to the choir. I've been harping on the Martinez thing. And I was at both those series. So it's kind of steered into my brain. But he had, like, there's never been a player in the history of hockey, who's had a better two weeks than Alec Martinez did in the spring of 2014. It's impossible. I don't care how many goals you scored.

Kahn Smythe, you won, whatever. The money you made, nobody has ever had a better Fortnite than Alec Martinez did in the spring of 2014. Man, does he have those pucks? I'd love to know. I'm telling you, you're just giving my story idea out to all of our competitors here, Ian.

Exactly. By the way, our producer, Chris Flannery, has chimed in and said, can you imagine if game seven of the Stanley Cup final goes to overtime, and then the goal is called back on an offside challenge? Toe in the crease. the crease. Yeah, they're not doing that. Oh, can you, can you imagine? Okay. Before we bring our pal jessie Granger in to wrap up the Monday pot, I'm going to give you a platform here,

Las, because the word dynasty has re-entered the lexicon of sport in North America after the Kansas City Chiefs picked up their third Super Bowl in four years. All the postgame chatter was about a dynasty. Patrick Mahomes, we have a dynasty. I want to know in the hockey, world, I mean, Chicago, Tampa, Pittsburgh, all these teams have won some cups, multiple cups. What constitutes a dynasty in sports in the modern era? Do we have one? Is anybody a dynasty?

No. No. And Blackhawks fans hate me because I've been making this argument forever. This is the hill I die on. When I was a kid, my dad had the covers of Newsday from all four Islanders Stanley Cups in the early 80s. He had them like, you know, framed on the wall. and in my brain, I could see it.

I tweeted the picture of it last night because we were having this discussion. When they won their third cup, the Newsday headline was, now they're a dynasty, and there were three Stanley Cups in that headline. And so that's been like, that's just the word dynasty means

a ruling power that does not yield power for consecutive years, right? Like the Hatsbergs and the tutors and the mings, they didn't like say, here, for a year, you can have it. But then I want it back next year. So three and six, like the Blackhawks, not a dynasty. Three and five, like the chiefs, not a dynasty.

The Oilers in the 1980s, not a dynasty. They won four and five. That is not a dynasty. Words have meaning, Ian. We need to come up with a new word to describe in the cap era. Look, what the Chiefs are doing, what the Blackhawks did, what the Oilers did, what the Lightning did, the Lightning, not a dynasty. They came really close.

They went, they won two and a, row and then almost got that third. They were in the final. That would have been a dynasty. We need to come up with a new word because dynasty does not mean a really good run or a dominant era, like team of the

decade or something. We need to come up with a new term for it. Like the last dynasty would have been what, the Lakers in the early 2000s, the Bulls before that. So the Patriots aren't a dynasty in football. The Patriots aren't a dynasty because they won three and four. They were the dominant team in the league for 15,

20 years, whatever, but they are not a dynasty. Words have meaning. But I love how your opinion on this is guided from a newspaper headline from your childhood. Like that's, well, it's funny too because like the reason I got triggered by this last night was Newsday. I follow the guy who does the back pages. Joe Mannello. He's great. He's one of the great pun artists of all time. And he tweeted out Newsdays and the headline was Dynasty. And I'm like, no, your paper is the one who defy. this for me 40 years ago. It's not a dynasty.

It's just not. Man, yeah. So we got to think of that, but I would argue that Edmonton winning five cups in seven years. Like, if that's not a dynasty, then I don't know what to tell you. Look, I want our listeners to come up with a word for this. We need to come up with a term. Era? Like the Oilers era?

Yeah, see, that's better. That's better. Because they were the dominant team for that era, but they didn't rule. the entire era. Whoever is the defending champion is your ruler, right? And they did not rule for that entire time. So we need to come up with a new word for this. If you're out there, if you've got a cool word for this, because I've been struggling for years to come up with a word to describe it. I always called the Blackhawks, the team of the decade for the 2010. That's one way to put it, but they sucked for the second half of the decade. So that's not really a good word.

So I don't, if you got it, if you have an idea, I'm all ears because I wish I had something to come back at these people with, with a good word for it is they're not dynasties. Have you just punched in Dynasty into like an online Thesaurus? I have not. I'm trying to do it more organically than that. Okay. Well, I'm actually going to do that for you right now.

Okay? Well, it's probably going to come up with other like nonstop consecutive rules because dynasties, this is what I always say. Dynasties do not yield power. That's what makes them a dynasty. Okay. So here we got lineage. No.

That doesn't work. Bloodline. It's definitely doesn't work. Succession? No. Typically what we're talking about is the same core players too, right? It's not like there's very rarely you go from like Lemieux to Yager to Crosby like the Penguins have. Oh, here we go.

The dominant Chicago regime. The Blackhawks regime. I don't know. Because dominance doing all the heavy lifting there. Empire. Chicago's empire. that's not that that's empire that's a little bit of empire empire empire still kind of connotates ruling but you can also talk about like a business empire that's not necessarily the most lucrative business in the world every year but it's in the four 500 or whatever so that's that's we're getting closer i don't think we're there yet but we're getting closer yeah i think i think era might be the one might be the one yeah i think whoever the dominant team of the era is like that's their era i like we're clearly in the chief's era right now and that's coming on the heels of clearly what was the patriots era So I could go along with that one, I think.

All right, last time to bring in our pal, Jesse Granger, for a little segment we are still going to call Granger Things. Brought to you by BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner with the athletic. And we're going to peel back the curtains here, though, for the listeners. Just so they know that the guy who lives in Vegas, the morning after the Super Bowl, we were frantically texting him called, he's not awake, he's still sleeping. Jesse Granger, how is Super Bowl weekend in Vegas?

It was fun. It was a cool week. I did not go to the game, but it was a fun game to watch. And all the festivities all week have been cool. I think it was you guys, actually, last week. How crazy is Super Bowl week been? And at that point, it didn't feel any different. The last few days leading in the Super Bowl, it did get a little bit different.

It was not just every other Friday, Saturday in Vegas. It was pretty cool. One of the craziest things is you're watching the Super Bowl and the flyover happens and then you hear it outside and it was the weirdest thing ever. I've never been in the city that the Super Bowl has played and it was just very strange hearing the flyover as it happened on TV. I love when they do a flyover over a dome stadium. That's always my favorite thing. Right. It was cooler for me than it was for anyone in the stadium, I think.

Oh, man. It was a little of fact. Jesse is actually podcasted right now from the floor of the Bellagio where he has. had fallen asleep. That's right. We're excited to have you on there, Jesse, on the Monday pod because we love talking goal-tending with you. And, you know, I want to just look at the, like, if we were to look at the goalie market

here and Jesse Granger was to sort of, you know, look at the odds of who might get moved. And Chris Johnson has his latest trade list out. And guess what? There's a handful of goalies on it. Jacob Markstrom's on there. Mark Andre Fleury's on. there, Jake Allen's on there, John Gibson tucked in at the bottom. I mean, do you,

goalies are kind of weird with the trade market. Do you anticipate any of those guys moving? And like, who could actually help, who could help a team? And what teams might actually need some help in the crease? Yeah. I mean, I think as is the case with like the top forwards and defensemen, it's cap space is the biggest issue because everyone that's a contender basically has no cap space. So you're going to have to find a way to make those work, especially someone like Gibson, who makes $6 million. But I still, my gut tells me one of these teams is going to make a move. And whether it's New Jersey, who clearly needs help goaltending, they're, I think New Jersey

and Carolina are very similar to me. They're both pretty much elite everywhere you look in terms of stats. And then their safe percentage and their goaltending has been so bad. That's clearly what's letting them down. And then to me, Colorado is the other team that's interesting because I've been saying all year that they needed to win when Fransus went out for the season before the season was announced, they announced he was going to be out for the year. I thought they need to upgrade their backup because Giorgiv's good. But if they're just relying on Anunin or the other young guys in there, they're going to eventually burn Giorgiv out. Well, Giorgiv hasn't been playing that well lately.

I've gone from thinking the abs need a veteran backup to maybe the abs need someone that can challenge Georgiev a little bit. And to me, that sounds like Mark Andre Fleury, because he's a veteran backup who you trust more than a Noonan or pro, the young kids that they've got in there. And he can, he's not going to guarantee you're not, if you trade for Flurry, Georgiev doesn't lose his job, but there's some competition. And suddenly we've got a guy who's won cups, who's played in the playoffs, who is very used to sharing the net in the playoffs. Like how many times has Flurry been in a situation where there's two goalies fighting for the net in the playoffs?

He's done it in Pittsburgh. He's done it in Vegas. He did it in Minnesota. So to me, Flurry to Colorado makes a lot of sense if the wild we're going to move him. And then I think Gibson and Markstrom are the bigger fish, I guess. And to me, New Jersey and Carolina make sense for those. I doubt they both end up in those two. It just seems like a lot of movement for goalies and a team in Carolina that hasn't really invested a lot into that.

They've proven that they think they can win it without going and spending a bunch on a goalie. So I don't know. I do you think there's good fits for each of them, but I don't expect them all to get traded. What do you think, Ian? Well, I don't know. Like, I, the goalie, like, last, like, the goalie market's so weird. Like, you never feel like you're getting fair value, right? Well, Flurry will be interesting just because he has to decide if he wants to be traded, right?

Right. You know, he has full control over that and he's a family guy who doesn't like moving his family around. And he's had to do it a bunch now these last few years. Does he want to do it again or is he just content riding it out in Minnesota? He's got a few cups, but he's also a hyper competitive guy who probably wants another. So I'll be curious to see how that plays out. The thing about the goalies, though, is we always talk about goalies getting traded at the deadline. It doesn't really happen all that often.

Right. Everyone I talked to always says it's really difficult for a goalie to adapt to a new team in the really short amount of time you have with the deadline being basically a month before the season. Why is that, Jesse? Why does a goalie have a tougher time adapting to a team system than maybe a forward or a defenseman might? Well, probably just because you're reacting to the play rather than like if you're a forwarder your defenseman, you're kind of you're making the play. You're controlling the puck. It's as a goalie. It's just reading things.

And I think when you go to a new team suddenly, like, the difference between a goal and a save is a millisecond. And you're not thinking at all when you've played behind a team so long because you're seeing the same type of chances. Like you've played behind the same defensive scheme. You know where the weaknesses in that scheme are. You know where, okay, if there's going to be a guy open, it's almost always going to be from this angle. And you're just so used to seeing that that you're not even thinking about it. You're always on top of the play. You go to another team suddenly those chances you're used to facing.

You're not. They're taking away that. they're giving away something else. And you're just a little bit behind the play. And I feel like you feel like you're chasing the play the whole time. And that usually ends up being the difference. It's not easy. I watched here in Vegas.

I watched Robin Leonard come in from Chicago and be phenomenal right off the bat here in Vegas. I do think there are really there are certain stylistic fits between goalies and teams. Like I think whoever goes into New Jersey is going to have a hard time because that is a run and gun team where you're going to face high danger chances. I think John Gibson could do it. I think he's an amazing goalie. I think if you put Gibson. behind the devils, everybody in the east should be seriously worried, but there is a chance that doesn't work. I could see a path where that takes some time. Whereas Markstrom, to me,

he's more like a Robin Leonard. He's a positional big. He's always on angle. He makes things look easy. I think a goalie like that behind that Carolina team that gives up the fewest chances, the fewest shots in the league, you put a big guy back there that's always in the right spot. The puck just seems to hit him. He doesn't need to make all these acrobatic saves. I don't know. To me, Markstrom and Carolina seems like a perfect fit that would take no time to get used to. But I don't know. These things are hard to get. So we'll see.

Yeah. Don't you guys feel like Carolina every year. They're like a perennial 100 point team. But you don't quite put them in the Colorado, Boston, Vegas stratosphere. Like if they got Markstrom or Gibson or anybody, like Jake Allen even, I'll throw in there. If they got anybody in there that you suddenly felt like that's a legitimate. guy that could play the past. Do we put them in that

level, in that stratosphere? Yeah. Still a little bit not sure about Carolina. Well, it's funny because Carolina, when you look at them, they're such a well-structured team. They play such a good game. They're so reliable. But they've never had a goalie,

and they've never really had a true sniper up front either. You've got guys like Svetichikov and, you know, a Terra Vinen, and they've got so many good players, but that's what happened to them in the playoffs the last couple of years, is they just couldn't score enough goals. They didn't have the, big weapons that carry you through a postseason. If you give them a goalie, they need that just a little bit less.

If it's not Freddie Anderson or or Auntie Ranto or Kavachkev, I always get that one. I always remember pronounce them. If you give them like a real stable goalie, they need that sniper just a little bit less because they're not going to find a sniper. You know, Vlad Tarasenko is not going to come in and score at a 50-goal pace all of a sudden the way he's been playing. So the best thing they can do is just shore up that amazing team defense they have just a little

bit more. And a guy like Marchner would make them, I think, the team to beat in the East. You know who's another interesting guy that I think would do well in Carolina is Capo Cacanan. He's putting together in like the most impressive bad season in the history of like his stats are not good. His stats are not good. But man, playing behind that San Jose team. He has a- Peter Morazic would like a word. Yeah. Yeah. Positive goals saved above expect. Morazick's doing it in Chicago too, but positive goals saved above expected behind the Sharks team, is the last time I checked a week ago, they're giving up more high danger chances per 60 minutes than any team since natural stat tricks started tracking stats. It has been a long time since

anyone's been as bad as San Jose. And Kakinan, he's finished. I feel like that fits in with Carolina. Like, they've got all the fins. That's a good spot for him. I think if, if Carolina doesn't want to spend a lot of draft capital and go out and get Markstrom or, because that just doesn't feel like the type of move that they would make. I think Kackinen would be a cheaper option, a more under the radar guy who could play really well behind a good team. He's played well behind a bad team. That's why I think one of those guys would be a good fit in New Jersey, right?

Because they play run and gun. Right. Hackinen and the Marazic, right? There's guys that I sometimes I think like, you're a bad team goalie, meaning like you're, you play better when you play in front of a or behind a bad team, right? Like, just certain guys like seeing a lot of rugby. cover. Yeah. And I kind of look at New Jersey. I think they're a high event theme. That would be, that might be. Gibson. Gibson has so used to playing behind, like, he's so used to

getting 50 shots against with New Jersey. It'd be nice because it's like, well, I'm still going to get 50 shots, but I can give up four and still win. I'm used to, usually if I give up one, it's the game's over. I know. Hey, listen, we got to run real quick, though. Do you guys realize we got a stadium series this weekend back-to-back games that met life speaking of the devils it's devils flyers on saturday islanders rangers on sunday like is this is this on everyone's radar i feel like the outdoor games uh even the winter classic now they're they're they're for the local audience they really are like they're not national events anymore like we've seen enough outdoor games that it's not that they've lost their charm but a football stadiums a football stadiums a baseball stadiums a baseball

stadiums they're for the locals like i'm sure in new york in jersey and philly they're stoked for this. It's a really cool event when it comes to your backyard. But, and I think the TV ratings back this up, the rest of the country doesn't care. Like, these are, these are for the locals. They're going to make a lot of money for the teams and for the league and they'll sell a lot of merch, but nobody in Denver is going to really care about an Islanders Rangers game at MetLife Stadium. I covered just the most recent one, the Winter Classic. And I remember seeing like so much negativity on Twitter. Oh, see, nobody cares about this Winter Classic. And like, as someone who is there, I was like, I don't know, man. It seemed awesome. Like everyone there loved it. I've

covered like six of them. Yeah. So they're cool. Right. So what you're saying is 100% true. In Seattle, everyone loved it. It was great. I didn't run into a person that thought it wasn't the coolest thing ever.

I had a blast. And then like you said, you go on social media. It's like, okay, outside of this bubble doesn't seem like it's the success that it does inside it. So they are what they are. I'm sure the people there are going to have a blast. Yeah. All right. So that's the kind of the big event on the week on the schedule this week, stadium series,

MetLife. Devils, Flyers, Rangers Islanders, Jesse Granger, thanks for dropping by the Monday pod. We're looking forward to having you with us on a regular basis here. Yeah, can't wait. After I go cash all my Super Bowl prop bet tickets. There you go.

All right, and last man, this has been a lot of fun. We're looking forward to hanging out on a regular basis. I feel like this hour and change, whatever, it just flew by here. Yeah, no, it's going to be fun. And then you're doing the Monday show is extra good because it seems like all the nonsense in the NHL happens over the weekend. So there's always going to be something to yell and scream and rant about. Yeah, we love it.

And we love to hear from you. Hit us up, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. Thanks for listening to the Monday edition of the pod. Leave us a five-star rating and review. You know, we would certainly appreciate that. As I mentioned off the top, your next edition of the Athletic Hockey Show comes up in the middle of the week. It's the Wednesday show, Sean McAdoo, Sean Gentilly. That will come your way on Wednesday.

And right now I want to remind our listeners, you get a subscription to the Athletic a one-year subscription for $2 a month when you visit Theathletic.com slash hockey show.