The Athletic Hockey Show - Should the NHL expand video review? Is Tyler Toffoli the best free agent signing this season? Will voters hold a grudge towards Nikita Kucherov in the Conn Smythe race? Jesse Granger on the Montreal Canadiens vs Vegas Golden Knights

Episode Date: June 17, 2021

In light of some controversial, game changing calls in the Islanders/Lightning series, Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss if video review should be expanded in the NHL. The boys ask, is Tyler Toffoli the best free agent pickup in the NHL and what was with Jeff Petry's eyes last night?Jesse Granger joins in another edition of Granger Things as they recap game two between Vegas and Montreal and they take a look at the betting lines in the remaining two series. In this week in hockey history, Ian and Sean take a look back at the 1990 entry draft, and the time Phil Esposito, as GM of the New York Rangers traded a first overall pick for Quebec's head coach.Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail], or leave a VM at [phone]! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back, everybody. It's another edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. Ian Mendez and Sean McAdoe with you. Ahead on this show, we'll take a look at the two conference finals that are all squared up at a game of piece. And we'll discuss whether or not the Montreal Canadiens can avenge those critics of the North Division who are complaining things were pretty weak in Canada as the haves are hanging tough with the Golden Knights.

And speaking of the Golden Knights, Jesse Granger, who covers Vegas Golden Knights. He'll be back for some Granger things. We'll get him to talk about some. betting lines maybe with the final four. We've got some penalty controversies to address as well from that Islanders Tampa Bay series and whether or not it's time for some video review. And this week in hockey history looks back at arguably the best top five draft in NHL history as well as the time the New York Rangers gave up a first round pick to get

the head coach of the Quebec Nordiques. But as we kick off this show, Sean, the thing I got to ask you is I can't help but think all I could think about, I had trouble sleeping last night because of Jeff Petrie's eyes. And I'll tell you, there's been a lot of people, I'm sure, who have had the red eyes in Vegas. You know, that's kind of a thing, right? I don't know that I've ever seen a player in any sport. And like, and you would know, because I mean, you're a fan of virtually all the sports. Like, have you ever seen a player with something as visually distracting as like those eyes from Jeff Petrie on Wednesday night?

You know what? Not too many. I guess the closest maybe you would get is every now and then in some sports. You see it in basketball, sometimes someone will get a nose broken and they go out there and they've got the two black eyes as they're healing up. Other than that, I mean, it's hockey, right? We're used to seeing scars, black eyes, missing teeth.

I mean, that's just part of the deal. That was a different level. And you know what? I got to say, I understand. why in the NHL teams don't like to disclose injuries, they don't like to disclose information about health. We got the upper body, the lower body,

all of this stuff, all this sleight of hand that goes on. But the Montreal Canadians needed to warn us about that before the game. I'm not saying you need to tell us specifically, but you just need to say, okay, you know what? Guys, Jeff Petrie is in the lineup tonight.

He's coming back from the injury. He's going to look weird and you need to mentally prepare yourself for this. and give us some sort of explanation because, I mean, I was like, I'm sure millions of fans are there. I sat down to watch that game. Here we go. This is going to be a good one, big game in the series. And I saw that one shot and I was like, well, I can't think of anything else. Right. And that's, and Petrie's wife was on Instagram and said, hey, look, he looks a lot better than he did a week ago. And this is related to his upper body injury. And I'm like, wait, what? I thought he got his fingers stuck in a camera hole.

How does that make your eyes go red, right? Exactly. And I don't know. That's the thing. So either we've maybe been misdirected here on what the injury was. Or, I mean, I have seen people say that maybe he was on some sort of medication or antibiotics or something because of the finger injury and maybe that led to it. I don't know. I'm no doctor. And, you know, again, everybody's hurt in the playoffs, but you're not supposed to look like a cartoon character. That's a. That's the thing. And you know what? Full credit, Jeff Peter, he had a good game last night. But it was kind of disappointing that he didn't, like, score the overtime winner or something. Because, I mean, boy, you talk about an iconic. That's the only thing that could have knocked Bobby Orr off the list of iconic photos

is having a guy who looks like a vampire scoring an overtime winning goal. That was maybe our one chance. You say that Jeff Petrie kind of looks like a cartoon character. I thought that title went to Mark Bergerivant with the super. Like this guy, it's like he raided the closet of the Dick Tracy, you know, the cast of Dick Tracy. And so Wednesday night, he wears the, like, I wouldn't say lime green, but it's a green suit. Okay. And the old, and what's weird is that I actually have a previous connection to somebody wearing a green suit and the Montreal Canadians.

And that is, Sean, when the Habs won the Stanley Cup in 1993, okay, Denny Savard was. a injured player, couldn't play, but he came out to accept the cup and he was wearing like a green suit because in the early 90s, there was like this little window where guys were wearing like kind of forest dark green suits. And that's the only other time I can think of anybody with the haves wearing a green suit until Wednesday night when Mark Bergevin showed off his green suit in the press box. Okay, who wore it better? Mark Bergevan or those two Canucks fans sitting by the penalty box? Because it's, it's. I, you know what? It's working for them, but you're right. Like any, any GM would look odd,

but Mark Bergevin out of anyone, this guy is, you're right, it's, it's a Dick Tracy henchman look is what's going on. This is some super villain stuff. And, uh, yeah, it's, uh, hey, you know what? You make the moves he made and you get your team into the, uh, in the third round. I guess he can dress however you want, but he's really testing that theory. Well, yeah. And, you know, And I think when you talk about the moves he made, man, Tyler Tofoli, you see the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, he's on. And I got to tell you, as you look back, there's been some swings and misses on free agents over the years. And, and I always think, like, to me, obviously, Artemmy Panarin's the one free agent I look at in the last few years. I'm like, yeah, man, that worked out, right? But usually it goes the Bob Brofsky way, where, like, somebody over. overpays and you're like, wow, that's a mistake.

I got to tell you, this Tyler Toffoli deal is looking like maybe the best free agent signing, like, can you think of another, well, maybe we'll just stick to the Canadian division for a second here. Of a Canadian, of the Canadian teams, has there ever been a better free agent signing for a Canadian team than Tyler Tofoli? I mean, it's up there. When you pose that question of me in the pre-show, I've sort of like, I don't know, best in the last decade.

And I started running through it in my mind, and you're right. But there's a lot more misses than hits. Milan Luchich didn't work out. Tyler Myers, you know, okay in Vancouver, but not necessarily something you consider a great value deal. I'm sort of going down the list in my head. Like Ottawa doesn't really go in on free agents. Winnipeg rarely does.

Edmonton, the big one, was Luchich, I think. You could maybe point some other guys, Mike Smith kind of worked out in to some extent, but not a lot of success there. Calgary, the big one's probably Markstrom. We don't really know enough about that. First year was not great, but still time on that. You look at the make-beliefs.

Obviously, the biggest free agent in Canada in the last 10 years was John Tavares. He's been good. He's been a productive player. But if you're looking at value on a contract, I don't think you put him all that high on the list, it might be Tyler Tofoli, at least until you get down to the guys who signed real cheap deals and then provide great value for that. You know, the Jason Spetses or the guys who are maybe even lesser names who develop into something. There's always a few guys like that. But in terms of guys who got relatively big dollar deal, I mean, Tyler Tofoli didn't didn't. get a ton of money. It's not a huge cap hit, but I think he was at one point at least,

wasn't he the biggest number for any forward in that weird free agent class last year? It's been a huge success. And boy, they've got to be just kicking themselves in Vancouver for how that all played out to especially watch. I mean, they were during the season when he kept lighten up the Canucks every time he played them. But to watch it continue now, it's been a real good signing. I mean, you know, Mark Bergevin, credit. He kind of waited, saw some value emerge, jumped on it, and it's paid off. Yeah. And he's just been dynamite in the plows. And you think to yourself, like, you know, Josh Anderson has really struggled for them. And if they could ever get that guy going,

you never know. And I think what's interesting, though, is a lot of us thought after game one, ah, here we go. The North Division has come out to play with the rest of the class and they're realizing that they're like two or three grades below everybody else in in in in in gym class. And then game two happens and you're like, well, maybe maybe they can hang tough. So I guess here's the question. Sean, if the habs can hang with Vegas, obviously if they beat them, we're having a different conversation. And by hang, I mean if they can get this to six or seven games.

This end up changing the narrative around the north division. Like are the Montreal Canadians representing the north division here and say, hey, you know what? For all of you that ragged on the North and said this was weak and they were going to get dummied, is there something to be said for the Habs pushing Vegas here? Look, there would be. I'm going to say I don't think it does change the narrative. And here's why I don't think it does. I don't think that narrative was ever coming from a place of good faith.

And when I say the narrative, I'm talking about this idea that the North was some junk division. I understand if you want to say, hey, look, of the four divisions, you could make a case that the North was the weakest of the divisions. Okay, that's one thing. But this thing that I kept hearing, even during the first two rounds of the playoffs, just you wait, just you wait to whoever comes out of the north,

gets into the third round, and they're going to get smoked. It's going to be a sweep. It's not even the same level of hockey. I don't think this ever really came from a place where people were actually rationally looking at the quality of play and the quality of the teams and coming to that conclusion.

I think it came from, honestly, from two places, there were two things going on in the North this year that a lot of hockey fans really don't like. Number one was the Toronto Maple Leafs were having success and people love to find reasons in the rare cases when that happens. They love to find reasons to point to that and say here's why it doesn't count. And the Leafs had one of, if not their best regular seasons ever. And a lot of people were looking for a reason to say, hey, we shouldn't pay any attention to that. And the other thing that was going on was Connor McDavid, having one of the greatest seasons we've ever seen in the modern era.

For some reason, a lot of hockey fans really like to diminish individual accomplishments like that. And they like to look for a reason to say, here's why. No, no, we can't be talking about him in the same breath as Mario or whoever else. Here's why. It's because he's just scoring on a bunch of HL teams. The division is terrible on down the list. I never bought into it.

I never thought it was fair. I never thought anyone making that argument sounded particularly wise. And yeah, you're, I mean, we've already seen it. We're two games in. Montreal has split the series, but it's split the first two games. Montreal's hanging with Vegas. Montreal's not looking like some outmatched team from a minor league. They absolutely deserve to be there. And they're going to give them a tough series.

And they might win the series. So this idea that, you know, it should have been put to bed already long ago. And if it hasn't been yet, then I'm not sure this is now becoming one of those things where I'm not sure actual. evidence playing out right in front of people's faces will change their opinions because they've already dug in on this. Yeah. And, you know, that series tied up at one. The other series, Lightning and Islanders tied up at one. And, you know, I want to talk about that series for a bit. A couple of storylines there. In game two of that series, Tampa Bay with too many men on the ice, certainly drew a lot of people's attention, right? Like, and it was clear too many men on

the ice. It wasn't like one of those, for a split second, they had six skaters. This was like here come the cap jokes because the lightning were able to play, kind of play with the rules all season long. And, you know, it's a legitimate question to ask. If you can see that as plain as day, should that be up for video review? Like, should right away, should there be some sort of ability or mechanism in place that the situation room

where somebody says, hey, hang on here. They had six skaters on the ice. for that goal, we got to call, not only do we have to call that goal off, we got to give them a too many man on the ice penalty. Like, should we be doing that or is that just going to, again, slow down the game? No, we should not be doing it. And the reason we shouldn't is because hopefully we have learned from the offside review debacle, where we thought that we were putting a rule in place to catch the big obvious mistakes. We thought we were putting something in there to catch Matt Douchain being five feet offside.

And instead, we've had a whole bunch, hundreds of tickey tack nitpicky reviews where the guys skate being a quarter of an inch in the wrong spot, taking good goals off the board. In a lot of cases, stuff that had nothing to do with how the goal was actually scored. It's been an awful rule. And also hasn't really caught the next Matt Duchin because it turns out those plays are really,

are relatively rare. I get the frustration. I would be furious if I was an Islanders fan and I saw something like that. But we can't keep overreacting to every bad call by saying, let's put in replay, let's put in replay.

Because as we've seen with offside, as we've seen with goaltender interference, a lot of this stuff just doesn't work well in replay. And this wouldn't either. And I know a lot of people even look at too many men and they say,

well, the difference between this and goaltender interference, for example is too many men is objective. It's black and white. You're allowed five skaters. If you can count to six, that's too many men. And here's the problem. The way the rule is written now, I think a lot of people don't understand this, it's actually not black and white the way that people think. There's two scenarios that basically are covered in the Too Many Men rule. The first is if a guy jumps on early and either he or the guy is replacing get involved in the play, which usually means touching the puck. That's an automatic penalty by the rulebook. Rules are very clear there.

In a case like that, a guy touches the puck, or he tries to make a defensive play, throws a body check, anything like that, that's an automatic penalty. When it's a situation like we saw on Tuesday where the guy doesn't actually get directly involved in the play, suddenly the rulebook starts getting a lot of leeway in it. And you start seeing words like may and might and at the official's discretion, it's not actually a clear call. Now, the way that that play is normally called that we're used to seeing, that's a penalty. And that's, I'm not arguing that there's any defense for what we saw on Tuesday. That was a penalty based on how it's typically called.

But by a strict reading of the rulebook, which is what you have to go by as soon as you start bringing replay review into it, it just turns into a, into a bit of a nightmare. And the, the only way to go, if you really wanted to do replay review for too many men, is at this point, you got to put a little line on the. ice five feet from the bench because that's what the rule is. It's five feet is that that in between zone that they're allowed. And now we're right back to offside. We just got a different line on the ice where after a goal we're looking to see if somebody's skate was here or there. And look, if you like offside review and you think it's been great and you really

enjoyed all these hundreds of goals that have come off the board in the last five years, then sure, go ahead and do the sequel. Otherwise, this is one of those things where we have to say, you know what, it's sports. Bad calls happen. Miss calls happen. You hope that they even out. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. But we can't overreact to everything by saying, let's have more and more review when most of us don't even like the review we already have. Yeah. And I think where you make a really good point is if there was a like a rash of these happening, let's say in this year's Stanley Cup playoffs, there was eight or nine goals that were scored with too many skaters on the ice. Well, then yeah,

we need to have that conversation. But it's like the Dushain thing. And then I think there was one other one, right? Tampa and the Habs. Tampa and Montreal, there was one in overtime in 2015. Even that one wasn't super clear, but it wasn't, you know, it was, it was a foot and not an inch. Yeah, but we created, and again, it's the unintended consequences, but we addressed a problem that really didn't exist. It was really an aberration that we looked at. And I think what happened in game two of Lightning and the Islanders is an aberration. We don't have this rash of too many men on the ice. Like, we got to fix the problem. Like, it was. we start seeing something happen over and over again.

And again, that's where to me puck over glass, it's worth a conversation. Because we are seeing that enough where at least there's a conversation to be had, where I would be an advocate of video review. And you tell me if you agree or disagree. Anytime the officials on the ice give a five-minute major and a gay misconduct, I believe that that warrants video review. Because you're judging something so quickly. It's a hit from behind.

it's a high hit. It's something that's done so fast that it can have such a sway on a game. You're giving a team a five-minute power play. You're taking away a skater from one team. I think that that moment in the game is as consequential as a goal and therefore requires as much accuracy as possible. That's what I would love to see. If there's a five-minute major that you're ready to call, make sure you get it right. That's all. And that is, you know, that's what we've got now. And I was hesitant even on that when they brought that in in the wake of the sharp golden nights

Pavelsky scenario and I'll acknowledge it's been better than I thought I was concerned that we would see as an unintended side effect we would see a lot more majors being called because the refs would know hey if I call five I get to have another look at it

we haven't really seen that so I don't mind that one too much it's but even then you know again this is whenever somebody starts talking about replay they always say we just have to get it right and my question is always okay if we put replay in for this are we actually going to feel like we're getting it right most of the time we don't we it certainly hasn't happened in goaltender interference we just argue even more about that rule now I would argue it hasn't really happened with offside we're still having plays where you're sitting there

going, is he offside? I don't really see it that way. When you look at the penalties, right, we saw it in the Islanders Bruins this series. What was the play where, who was it that Barzell was cross-checking and then he turned around and gave him a little. Dave Craichy, right? Yeah, it was Craichy, right? He turns around, he gives him the little pitchfork play. The initial call is five minutes for spearing. They go have a look at it and they change it to two minutes for slashing. Now, did anybody watching that go, oh, I'm glad they got it right? Or did people just go, oh, wait, I'm not even sure that that revised call was any better in the first one. Those are the sorts of things that can happen.

Now, when it comes, I'm not completely against replay. When it comes to was the puck over the line or not, had time expired, I think those are absolutely places where you should have replay. And generally speaking, with maybe the very occasional outlier, we do all agree on that, right? I mean, you're watching, you go, oh, was that puck over the line? Finally, you see that one view, you go, yes, okay, it was over the line. We all agree.

we're glad they got it right. As soon as you get into anything subjective, like goalie interference, and like most of the penalties in the rulebook, that gets very dicey. And, you know, the one thing I'll say is if you can get it right, yes. And sure, if there's a five-minute major for a high stick and it wasn't even that guy's stick, it would be great to have a way to catch that. But as soon as you start doing review and you tell your fans, we're doing this to just get it right, your fans are going to do this weird thing where they take you at your word and expect you to actually get it right. And if your reviews don't make you them feel like you are getting it right, then not only have you not improved the situation, you've made it far worse. Because now you're making everyone stand around for five minutes looking at freeze frames and they're not any happier with the outcome at the end of it.

Yeah. But I'm always a believer like they, I like this. So I like the video review on the on the major penalties. because I think that that's an example of they, I think they're getting it right. Like, and that's why, that's why I want to talk about this one too, that goalie interference call, and it was Braden Point, right, who got cross-checked into Varlamov.

Yep. Like that, that shouldn't be goalie interference, correct? No, I mean, that's, that, that was a bad penalty. He was cross-checked. He was going at high speed. There's, you know,

we've been over some of the, the interference stuff and yeah if you're knocked into the goal you still have to make an effort to avoid and all of this other stuff but there was nothing he could have done it at the speed he was moving that was a blown call flat out and it's and it's the most frustrating type of blown call because it's one where the officials are kind of seeing something that isn't there as opposed to to missing it um so i get the frustration on that but would you want to see that open a replay or are you advocating for that? Again, it's a tough one.

Like you said, though, you open up a Pandora's box and now you're like, where do you, and you've talked about this before. Like, do you go to every look, do you nitpick every face off and say, ah, that guy? Every face off, every line change. Every, I mean, it's, it's a cliche, right? But there's a penalty on every single shift in the NHL by the strict letter of the rulebook if you want to find it. So, you know, and look, I get that you look at that brain point play and you go, this one's

obvious. There's no, even the most diehard, uh, Islander fan is looking at that going, we got away with one there. So yeah, I mean, should that be replay? Who could argue with that? Okay. But if we're going to review that, what do we do with the play that's a little bit tougher than that one? And then what do we do with the play that's a little bit tougher than that? And I know people go, oh, slippery slopes that, well, some slopes are actually slippery. You know, we, we, I wish we had seen the slippery slope coming when we brought in offside review. We didn't, or at least I didn't. I'm sure some people out there didn't. We didn't listen to them. Here's what I would like, rather than putting in review that's

just going to open up a can of worms and create all sorts of unforeseen circumstances in a league that hasn't shown that it can do replay review, right? I don't want to do replay review for penalties. Here's what I would like to see on a play like that, Braden Point situation. And it's something that you see a lot in the NFL, right? You and I are both NFL fans. How many times? How many times? do you see a flag comes out, the officials huddle up, and then they pick up the flag, right? And the official will get on the microphone and say there's no foul on the plate. And sometimes they'll even explain what the foul would have been and why they're not calling it. That concept doesn't really exist in the NHL. You see it every once in a great while. But generally speaking,

in the NHL, once a hand goes up, it's a penalty. It's, and it's maybe a discussion of what the penalty is or how it works out. But once the referee's arm goes up, it's a penalty. I would like to see the ability on a play like that Braiden Point play where, you know, maybe the official who called that just didn't see the cross chip, maybe, you know, sometimes you're at a weird angle. This stuff happens really, really fast. Officials are human.

Maybe they don't see it. That's the time where the other three guys come over and go, hey, actually, he got crotch choked into him. This can't be a pen. Maybe it should be a penalty on the Islanders, but even if we're not going to call that, we can't give this guy a penalty. Get together. Huddle up.

get it right, and then just announce it. We, you know, after discussion, we decided there's no penalty for goalie interference on the play. Yes, it would be frustrating sometimes, especially, you know, when it's your team and you think you're getting a power play and then you're not. You're going to be mad about that because you're a fan. But I think generally speaking, you could get most of the obvious stuff that way. And I don't think it would be that frustrating for fans.

I think we understand that it's a hard job, mistakes happen. Huddle up, get it right. You don't have to stand around squinting at an iPad for fans. five minutes, just sit there. What did you see? What did you see? Okay, I got it wrong. We're not going to call it a penalty. Put the face off outside the zone and let's keep playing hockey. I still think I would be an advocate too of take one official off the ice and have an eye in the sky official. You know, give them a different vantage point and an ability to see some things in real time. What does that look like? How does that guy call a penalty? How does

you know, that's the thing, because I've heard a couple of versions of this and they're very rarely get into the details of how it would work. And maybe there's a way. Maybe somebody can- It's just a guy. It's a guy in this guy. It's just guy in this guy. He's hanging Mission of Possible style over the ice spinning around. No, I mean, S.J. Sharky. Exactly. Yes, exactly that. Exactly that. You know, I've heard people say, you know, have a guy up there and he's got a headset and he's talking to the official on the, man, I don't know, I'm sure you've done it. I don't know if people out there, have ever done like TV or something where you've got an earpiece in and somebody's talking

it. It's impossible to concentrate. So I'm, I don't want the referee having a guy yammered in his ear going, oh, look over there. What about there? No, not my left, not your left. And it's that would be a mess. Could you do it during breaks? Yeah, maybe you could. And again, there's always, there's a saying in, in the legal world that says like hard cases make bad laws. And in the NHL, I think it's the opposite. I think the NHL, easy cases make bad rules. Because you see the easy one, you go, well, let's put a rule in for that. And then it's all the other stuff that isn't easy that blows up. I don't know.

I'm just, as a fan, I get mad at the refs all the time. I see them blow calls. That's part of the fan experience. But I don't know if I want a situation where every time there's a whistle, I then have to sit there and go, well, I guess we're going to find out if there's any penalties on that shift. I guess we're going to find out, you know, this and that. This is part of the problem with all the reviews we have now. Even when a goal gets scored, a lot of fans are being trained to go,

okay, that's, I think I'm excited, but let's hold on. Let's wait a minute and see if this one actually counts. Same thing with penalties. You know, again, yeah, I would love to get the obvious ones. But here's the thing, the really obvious ones, the ones that everyone thinks is obvious, not just you because it was your team and you're a fan and you think that they've never committed a penalty, but the really obvious missed calls are pretty rare. At some point, you know what, man, it's sports. Calls are going to get missed. It's just part of it. And, We can't grind the game to a halt and start looking at replays every time it happens because it's going to happen all the time and people still are going to complain about the results

anyways. So at some point, you just got to say, let's just play on. If we can come up with a system that only ever catches the obvious ones, sure, but now we're going to argue about what's obvious and what's not. And here we go again. You know, I want to stick with that Islanders Tampa Series 2 for a second, Sean, and ask you about Nikita Kutrov's leading the last. league in playoff scoring. And I think if you were to vote for a consmite winner now as playoff

MVP, I think Kuch would certainly be in the conversation. And I'm wondering, do you think that because he missed the regular season and there was a little bit of a controversy around him, that voters might be a little reluctant to vote Nikita Kutrov as playoff MVP? Or does that not enter the mind of the voter here? Because there is. There's a little bit of controversy around Kuturov in these playoffs. I think there's more than a little bit based on some of the fan reactions I see out there. I don't know how much that permeates into the people that are going to vote on Kahn Smythe. Look, Kahn Smyth is a weird award. I think most people know by now that the things like the Hart Trophy and the Norris, they're voted on by the Hockey Writers Association. And it's,

it's usually a few hundred. This year, they've narrowed it down to 100 for the voting. Konsmite isn't like that. Konsmite is the media. but it's a small group. It's like a couple of dozen, and it's for that reason, and it's a lot of guys that are hanging out together on the road. They're working together. So a lot of this stuff people have been talking about

as the playoffs go on. And so sometimes there's kind of a consensus forming already when you get towards that end of the final. So it's always a bit of a hard one to project, unless you've actually been sitting there and listening to the discussions happen. Nikita Kuturov, I think the problem with him is going to be the whole salary cap controversy. The fact that he missed the season won't be an issue. I mean, Ken Dryden won the consmite when he had barely played in a season.

And in a normal year, a guy being hurt all year long and coming back for the playoffs and having a great playoffs would be a great story. That sort of stuff is catnip to the media folks who usually vote on this. stuff. They would, they would love that. But the question is going to be, well, how hurt was he and should he have been playing and is this a thing? Look, I've said it a dozen times, I think, at this point in various places. If you're mad about Nikita Krujav, be mad at the NHL. Don't be mad at him. Don't be mad at the Tampa Bay Lightning. They followed the rules that are in place and have been in place for years. We saw this with Patrick Kane years ago. We all know how it works by this point.

the lightning followed the rules. And the NHL at any point could have said, no, you're not following the rules and here's what you have to do differently, and they never did. So I've got zero issue with the lightning. I've got zero issue with Nikita Kutjurov, and I don't think anyone who's voting on Khan-Smith

should have an issue with it. If you're mad about it, be mad at the NHL, and be mad that they haven't fixed what seems like an obvious loophole in the many years that they've had to fix it. Don't be mad at the team that just followed the rules

that are in the rule book. All right, Sean, as always time to bring back our pal jessie granger for a little granger things presented by bet mgm the exclusive betting partner with the athletic and jesse first of all thanks for doing this i know it's an early morning for you fresh off a game two that went to kind of deep into the night on wednesday so listen what what is that atmosphere like because guys like sean and i are watching these games on on television and it looks like an electric atmosphere. It looks unbelievable.

And when the Golden Knights cut that lead to 3-2, it felt like that joint was jumping on Wednesday. What was it like being inside the arena? Yeah, it definitely was. It's been a lot of fun. These playoffs, it's kind of gotten progressively louder and louder. They've allowed more and more people into the building. And obviously now it's at full capacity.

And, yeah, when Alex Petrangelo scored that goal late to go up, or to cut the deficit to one goal, It was pretty crazy in there. And for the last five minutes of the game, I don't think anybody in the building sat down. It was pretty loud. And the Golden Knights, I think they had 15 shot attempts in that last five minutes. Trying their best to come back. It's a story that they've kind of gone through quite a bit this season,

where they fall behind early and have to try to storm back at the end. Sean and I were talking about this earlier in the show that I think a lot of people figured, here comes the North Division champion Montreal Canadians, and they're just going to get smacked around by the heavyweight Vegas golden nights. And that certainly hasn't been the way the two games have played out. In fact, I think if you look at the first period of both games, you could argue the Habs were the better team. Is there a feeling that, hey, listen, this is going to be a tougher series

than a lot of experts would have predicted going into it. Because I think a few days ago, everyone would have probably said maybe Vegas in six or fewer games or even five games or fewer. Yeah, I mean, I think the golden ice of the better team, but at the same time, this is hockey, which it's difficult. This isn't basketball where the favorite wins every time because the game is decided by so many outcomes. In hockey, a couple bounces here or there can change a game, and Montreal starts certainly, I think the way these two teams play lead to closer games.

One, Montreal is a good starting team. Pete DeBore mentioned it last night. they felt that coming into this series that they were going to be a strong starting team. And the Golden Knights have been a slow starting team, particularly in these playoffs. So you combine that with the fact that Montreal is good defensively. They stay structured. And when they have a lead, it's even easier for them to do that. I think we saw that in those first two rounds.

We talked a lot about their streak of minutes without trailing coming into this series. And that obviously was broken in game one. But at the same time, Montreal has shown an ability to. protect leads. And obviously, Carrie Price is a big part of that. But also that team, once they get a lead, they don't have to push for offense. They can sit back. They can create that defensive shell around Kerry Price, keep the shots to the outside, make his job a little easier. They have big defensemen that make it tough to get inside positioning. I think the Golden Knights have actually done an exceptional job for the first two games of getting traffic in front of Carrie Price and

giving him problems there because it's not easy against those tough defensemen, especially with Petrie back. So I think that while the Golden Knights, to me, me are clearly a better hockey team than Montreal. This isn't going to be an easy series because I think stylistically, everything leads to Montreal being able to keep these games close. And even if the Golden Knights can dominate possession like they have for some stretches over the first two games, it's not going to necessarily lead to dominant scores. You know, I know you're our resident, you know, betting expert and we do this segment bet on based on bet MGM. But I feel like we need Sean to to kind of talk about his betting strategy, which involves a coin and flipping it.

Because he talked about this last week, that, listen, we can sit here and analyze heavyweight underdog analytics. And so much of this, Sean, right, comes down to literally, it feels like a coin flip sometimes. I mean, it's not quite a coin flip, but it's, it's a lot closer to that than we think. And then, yeah, Jesse said it. I mean, there's a hockey game is 60 minutes and it's going to be decided entirely based on, in most case in the playoffs, three or four or five events, which are the goals that are scored. There's just, there's nothing else that happens ultimately matters as far as winning and losing. It's just the scoreboard.

And when it's basketball and there's, I mean, dozens and dozens and dozens of scoring events, it typically the better team wins. In hockey, it doesn't always play out that way, especially when you get the crazy bounces going around and all the things that can happen there. Ideally, you want to convince yourself that over a long enough amount of time, the better team's going to win. And during a season, that's usually true. You hope that during a seven-game playoff series, that's enough because we all want to feel like the best team won the series. Even if it wasn't the best team on paper in the standings, you want to feel like,

okay, if it was an upset, it's because that team deserved it. They didn't fluke it. they played better for those seven games. Is that the case? I don't know. I think some of us have our doubts, but that, you know what? It's more fun to say that it is. So let's go with that.

And I'll tell you right now, this series, five games, it's, it's, I, we didn't get a chance to talk about it because it was yesterday, but I saw some odds going around. And Jesse, maybe you can confirm on after game one. So the knights are up one-nothing in the series. and the odds for Vegas to win that series were just astronomical. I mean, I would see an 8 to 1, 9 to 1, 10 to 1 for Montreal to come back. That's crazy to me. That's crazy in a series that still has, it's only one game in.

And I'm assuming those odds look a lot different now that Montreal is even again. Yeah, the odds have been pretty lopside. Even just for the individual games, last night's game, the Golden Knights were minus 270, which is a pretty massive favorite for a individual playoff game. especially in a conference final or semi-final, whatever you want to call this, it definitely won't be that drastic in Montreal. We'll see a little shift. I'm looking right now.

Vegas is minus 170. Well, Montreal's plus 150. So it is a 100-point shift in those odds. Do you happen to have for the series outcome in front of you? Because I'd be curious to see that because I don't, I do think Vegas is a better team. and I don't think it's 50-50, but Montreal is at home for three of the remaining five. If it's significantly away from that 50-50 zone, I would raise an eyebrow at that. Well, the Golden Knights, like I said, I think styles, I mean, you hear it a lot in like UFC or boxing,

styles make fights, and just because one fighter is better than another fighter is sometimes guys match up well. And I think the Canadians are a team that the Golden Knights have shown a weakness in that they can control possession, they can control shots, they can have the puck the entire game. And they just, that doesn't always translate to goals for them. And we saw in last year's postseason, especially, against Vancouver, that game, that series went seven games, despite Vegas out shooting the Canucks like three to one almost every night. And then Dallas, they outshot Dallas almost two to one every night and lost in five games. And I think the Canadians are kind of built to. sort of do the same thing. They don't need the puck a lot. They're not like the avalanche who have the puck the whole game. And when the Golden Knights take it away from it, frustrates them.

Montreal is perfectly fine with Vegas controlling the puck on the outsides all night long and not getting super, super high danger chances. And then they take their opportunities when they get them. So in the series right now, the Golden Knights are still minus 350 to win the series. Canadians plus 240. So if you like Montreal, obviously it would have been a better time to bet them before last night's game, but still a decent price on them. Because if they can even split in Montreal 1-1, I think you're feeling probably pretty good

if you got plus 240. Plus 240. That means you bet $100 you're getting back. Your 100 plus 240 that you're good. So, I mean, that implies, geez, help me do the math. But that would imply Vegas winning more than two out of three times of the series. I'm not much of a betting man, but that's pretty enticing at any point this deep into the playoffs. And is any of that, when you see odds like that, because I know people mention this sometimes,

how much of that do we attribute to the fact that this is Vegas and maybe Vegas is just driving more action than another team would and the odds are reflecting that? Yes, that's 100%. That has an influence. It's not a lot. but it influences every number that comes out on the Golden Knights. I talk to sports book directors here in Vegas quite a bit, not as much this year, but especially in their first couple seasons because I would kind of, they won't give you actual numbers. It's private company. They don't have to tell us this is how many dollars were bet on one team.

But what they will do is they'll give me like comparisons. They'll say, yeah, this was the Golden Knights games are usually five times the the handle, the amount of money bet than a normal NHL game. Vegas playoff, Golden Knights playoff games are usually on par with NFL games in terms of money bet, which most hockey games do not come close to NFL games in amount of money bet. So because just the sheer amount that is being bet on Golden Knights games and compared to other hockey games, they have to shade a little bit towards the Golden Knights. And it's more for future odds. Like you see the Golden Knights are always one or two in terms of winning the cup from the very beginning of the year. And that's because the first year, they were 500 to 1, and everyone in this town bet the Golden Knights to win.

And then the casinos almost lost tens of millions of dollars. That ended up not happening thanks to Alex Ovechkin. But I think the casinos ever since then, the sports books have kind of, they hedge their bets. They shade in favor of Vegas to try to protect themselves against that a little bit. By the way, the implied odds on this series right now, you're asking like what do those numbers mean? Help me with the math here. 77.8% chance of Vegas winning the series, according to the implied odds right now,

which I agree. That is way high. To be honest, I think Dom's projection, I think his model might actually have Vegas with a higher than 77% chance of winning a series. It was 86 prior to last night's game. I haven't looked at it since the Golden Knights lost.

Obviously, that makes a big difference. But it was 86% chance of advancing prior to last night's game. So I agree with you, Sean. I don't think it's quite a coin toss, but I do agree that this is hockey. It's not the same as football and basketball. Baseball is a little closer to hockey, I think, in terms of some random things happening and changing games. But yeah, it's these slam dunk series rarely go the way we expect them to.

Yeah. And as you mentioned, I think, you know, with Vegas and Montreal being an iconic franchise, this might be the most heavily bet on series in NHL. history, right, just in terms of kind of dollars and, you know, coming in. Rapping up this segment with you, Jesse, quick thought on the other conference final, which is also scored up at a game of piece. What are we seeing in terms of some lines and trends with the Tampa Bay Lightning and the New York House?

Yeah, I just looked up some quick trends. I found it interesting. So they're obviously going on the road now. Tampa Bay is up to the Coliseum, which should be fun. We talked about the atmosphere in Vegas. I'm excited to watch that on TV and see how cool that is. But Tampa Bay has actually been considerably better on the road in these playoffs. They're only four and three at home, but they're five and one on the road.

And they had to start both of those first two series on the road, which is kind of weird. When I was looking at it, it almost surprised me. Oh, yeah, I forgot Tampa was the Rhodes team in both of those series. It just seems because they're the defending champs and because they're so good, you just kind of assume that they're the home team. But that wasn't the case. They went five and one on the road in those two series. So they're probably not too unhappy with that split looking at that.

And in fact, their first game on the road of each series. So each series starts their first game in the opposing building, they're 2 and O. Whereas the Islanders, their first game at home at the Coliseum in each series so far, they are 0 and 2. They have not won the opening game at the Coliseum in either series. And also, both teams, this doesn't really help anyone if they're betting on it, but I just found it interesting. Both teams are 0 and 2 in game 3s so far.

Neither Tampa or New York Islanders have won a game three in the postseason. So I think these trends sort of shade towards Tampa Bay in this game. They are minus 140 despite being on the road. I kind of was expecting. I was interested in seeing what that line came out as because the islanders, I think for some reason, maybe this is just me from the outside watching it. But I feel like people are giving the islanders a lot better chance than people are Montreal. And I think after watching those first two games, a lot more people are thinking the islanders can give Tampa Bay trouble and can actually pull this upset off.

Whereas Montreal, I think a lot of people are more thinking it was like, oh, that was one game. We'll see. This series certainly feels more even. And the odds show that Tampa Bay only minus 140, but still a road favorite. Well, listen, Jesse, great to have you back. And we'll look forward to connecting with you. Maybe by the time we do this again next week, we'll have our Stanley Cup finalists. maybe we'll be deep into the final four.

Appreciate this. Have a great week and we'll talk to again next Thursday. Sounds good. Thanks for having you guys. See you, Jesus. Okay, Sean, as always, we wrap up our show with a little this week in hockey history as we take you back looking at some things that happened on this date or on this week in NHL history. Let's go back to June 16, 1990, Sean. June 16th, 1990, the NHL draft is held at BC Place in Vancouver, Owen Nolan goes first overall to the Quebec Nordiques.

And I'm going to ask you this question. The top five that year was Owen Nolan won to Vancouver. Peter Nedved two, sorry, Owen Nolan won to Quebec. Peter Nedved two to Vancouver, Keith, Primo three to Detroit. Mike Ritchie went four, Yarmir Yager goes five. Is that the best top five in NHL draft history? Or is there anything even remotely close? One to five, Nolan, Nedved, Primo, Ritchie, Yager.

You know what? It depends. First of all, apologies to Scott Sissons for capping it at the top five. He was famously the six overall pick played two NHL games. You know, it depends how you define it, right? I mean, out of those five guys, there's only one Hall of Famer, and that's Yeager. There's only one, you know, real generational player. but it's five real solid NHL players.

I mean, you're happy to have any of those guys. So it's rare to be able to find a top five where all five guys were slam dunk, very good NHLers. They all played, I'm just looking at it, they all played over 900 games in their career. So, I mean, I think that would be pretty rare. There's definitely some other ones that are more top-heavy. You know, we talked about that, that, that brink.

Ryan Lawton draft last week. You know, Lawton was kind of a bus, but you got Eisenman, Lafontein, Tom Barrasso. Maybe you say that's a higher, higher ceiling than this one. But man,

it's a good one. And I remember this draft well because I, you're probably in the same boat. I was into the, collecting the hockey cards back then. Boy, we thought we were going to,

we were just banking these rookie cards. And I remember one of the sets had the top four guys in one photo and on one card. And I thought I was, man, I'm going to load up on these, put them in the nice plastic case. This is going to be worth a lot of money someday. This top four. This draft's going to be remembered for this big top four. And then, you know, meanwhile, lurking around in the background, there's Yarr-Mari Jagger,

the guy who's going to almost shatter every offensive record in the league. You just made me think of a childhood memory that was deep in my brain is, is you remember getting the Beckett magazine? and then like every month you'd go to check your let me check my pro set and Mike Ricci it's up 10 cents yeah and there would be a little arrow yeah you're looking for that arrow yeah it's up two cents okay that's good that was I think everyone in our generate that's when we learn the basics of investing where you're sitting there going hey man Mickey Mantle cards are worth $10,000 so this Ken Griffey Jr. That's the one that we all bought and I don't know about you but I remember my dad at one point going like You know, there's like 30 million of those things that they printed.

There's like six Mickey Mantle cards. What do you think everyone is doing with those cards? No, no, this is going to be good, Dad. You're going to be, you'll see when I'm laughing my way. I'm retired at 20 because of Ken Griffey Jr. Yeah, Ken Griffey. He was the first card ever, right, from Upper Deck. Was that the number one?

He was the number one. He was Junior Griffey. Okay, one other question about that 1990 draft. Because Marty Broder went later in the draft. If you had the redraft right now, who goes number one overall for you? Yarmir Yager or Martin Broder? Who would you take first overall if you had the redraft in 1990? Boy, that is a tough one because, I mean, if you assume that we're getting the same career out of these guys, I mean, I don't know.

Yager is in the conversation among the very best wingers of all time. But the thing is, if we're doing this draft in 1990, and I'm trying to build a team that's going to win in 90s and the 2000s, give me Martambrot D'R. This is, it was sort of a weird error in NHL history where the goaltenders were taking over the sport to a degree that they never really had before, but it was still the elite goalies.

It's not like today where, I mean, who even knows who an elite goalie is going to be in any given week. Back then, I mean, we were about to enter the era of Patrick Waddon Nick Hasick, Martan Broder. And if you had one of those three guys, there was a real, you were going to be contending for the cup. And there's a good chance you're going to be winning it. I think I take Broder, which sounds ridiculous to say when there's a guy who nearly got

2,000 points sitting there. But I think you got to take the goal. Don't you? Yeah. No, but it is a great argument because they are first ballot Hall of Famers. And like you said, Yager, one of the greatest wingers of all time. Marty, one of the best. Goleys of all time.

We'll wrap up with another this week in hockey history. We'll take you back to June 17, 1987. June 17, 1987, and this is right in Sean's wheelhouse. This is the type of thing he loves. The New York Rangers with, I believe, Phil Esposito as their general manager. Crazy Phil. One of my favorite GMs of all time. Yeah.

Him and Milbury would probably be near the top of Liz for you, right? Like just kind of making bold, splashy, deals. Esposito, general manager of the New York Rangers, says, you know what, we need a head coach. And I like Michelle Bergeron. Head coach to the Quebec Nordiques. Hey, Quebec, we're going to give you our first round pick fifth overall. You give us your head coach. They engineer the trade. It is a first round pick from the Rangers, fifth overall to Quebec in exchange for head coach Michelle Bergeron. And I just want to know why we don't see this. anymore. Because I would love this.

It is. It's one of my favorite trades of all time. The trade goes down in 87. The Rangers send their 88 first round pick. So they don't know what pick it is. This is kind of Esposito falling into the old Brian Burke trap of going this pick couldn't end up being that high.

And yeah, Michelle Bergeron at the time was considered one of the very best coaches in the league. It had a lot of success in Quebec. Hadn't won a cup, but had got them at least deep-ish into the playoffs a couple of times. And that was back when it was, I mean, that division was supposed to be Montreal and Boston.

So the fact that they had this scrappy Nordiques team pushing those guys was, had really moved him up the rankings of coaches. And Phil Esposito, who, I mean, I called him Crazy Phil. Go to his trade page. If you ever see it on, you know, NHL trade tracker, or one of those sites, he was GM for three years. He was making a trade every week. It was, we've never seen anything like that, how much this guy was trading.

And apparently he was trading so much that he ran out of players to trade. And he decides, there's nothing in the rulebook says, I can't trade for a coach. And he works it out with the Nordiques. As far as why we don't see it anymore, I believe, and I'm not 100% on this. And if somebody knows for sure, they can reach out and let me know. I believe this is no longer allowed. I think there at some point was a rule that was put in there that said you can't have trades involving coaches and in fact was put in relatively soon after this. But it's too bad because how much fun would that be if you could trade, you know, trade picks for coaches or trade coaches for each other?

It would, you know, it would be a lot of fun and add a new, you know, kind of a new element to it but didn't not to be. And just in case people are wondering how it all worked out, Michelle Bergeron did not have a lot of success in New York. In fact, he only lasted a couple years before Esposito fired him. As I said, that first round pick that Esposito was probably thinking this guy's going to get us into the playoffs, it's going to be in the teens, maybe towards the end of the first round, ends up being fifth overall in that 1988 draft. And you talk about drafts that had a good top five. That was the draft that started with Mike Madano, Trevor Linden, Jeremy Ronek goes eighth, Rod Brindamore 9th, Timoselani, 10th.

It was a real good draft. Ended up being the fifth overall pick. Who did Quebec Nordiques take? Daniel Dorei, a winger who played 17 NHL games, scored two goals. That's what they got with that fifth overall pick. So a big-time bullet dodge by Phil Esposito and the Rangers, because imagine if the Nordiques had picked Jeremy Roanick or Timuselani, what kind of conversation we're having about this trade now.

Well, I also think, imagine that early 90s Nordik's team with Sackic and Sundin, and now you're adding Salani to the mix? Like, it's insane. Like, it's a good thing for the hockey world that they whiffed on that one. What I forgot about this deal is, so Michelle Bergeron, as you mentioned, he lasts two years with the Rangers. And in his second year, Esposito fires him like a week before the playoffs, right? but then Bergeron goes back to the Nordiques for one season.

Right after he's the head coach. Yeah. And that was right in the middle of that horrible stretch where the Nordiques were, I mean, they had finished dead last in 89. They make the coaching change. They break Michelle Bergeron back and doesn't go great. They finished that season with 31 points, finished dead last again, end up getting that first overall pick from that 1990 draft that we just talked about. And that's it for, for Michelle Bergeron.

And that's it. He's done at that point as a coach. Because the other interesting thing about Michelle Bergeron, that, that success he had in Quebec, he was in his 30s as a coach. He was younger than some of his players. So when Philips Spasito goes and gets him, he might reasonably think, if I'm getting a great coach, this guy can be our coach for the next two decades. Instead, it ends up being two years, has the one year in Quebec, and then ends up, that ends up being the end up being the end of the end of his coaching career. Yeah, you're right. Michelle Berger, I always thought he was older.

He was like 35 when he was coaching the Nordiques. Yeah, he was a very successful coach very early on and it just never, never had another chance at it. Now, he, if I remember right, had some health problems, I think, during that season. So that may have contributed to it. He may have, I think he had some heart issues. So it may have been a case where he just said, I'm not. going to do this anymore.

And then, of course, also, as anyone in Quebec would know, went on to a broadcasting career. It was very popular and occasionally controversial there. So it worked out okay for him. But a very interesting coaching career. And I believe the only guy in NHL history, you can say that he was a coach who was traded certainly for that high a price. Yeah. And as we wrap up, like I think like Vancouver and the Rangers basically traded

coaches a few years ago. Remember, Tortorella goes to Vancouver and Alainville went to the Rangers. I always thought it would have been cool if they were just traded for each other, right? Like, that would have been great. Here's my question. And we've talked about this and you've said unequivocally, Barry Trots is the best coach in the NHL, right? And we saw this couple years ago. Barry Trots walked away from the capitals. Let's say Barry Trots and the Islanders, for whatever reason, Sean, it's not working out. He needs to move on the rain. And the Islanders are like, man, we don't want to lose this guy for nothing. What's Barry Trots worth on the open market today in terms of like draft picks? Because, you know, the classic, you look at Jack Eichel and you see, you know,

the rumors of, hey, the Sabres want a first round pick, they want a ready made player and a prospect, right? It's the classic trio of things that they want. What would Barry Trots be worth on the open market if you could do this and trade coaches for assets? He would be worth a lot, I would think. I mean, we don't know what the market would be because the market doesn't exist and has never existed and who knows how teams would value guys. But I think certainly for the right team, a team that felt like they were maybe getting close but didn't, you know, we're missing that piece. Absolutely.

I mean, I'd give up a first round pick. If I knew I was getting a guy with this kind of track record, I wouldn't hesitate to move something like that. And there's, I think, a lot of teams that would be a significant. an upgrade for this guy because like I say, I think he's the very best in the business. Yeah, I mean, if you're willing to give up, if we've got teams giving up first round picks to rent middle six wingers for a few weeks at the end of the season, boy, what would you give up for a coach that's probably going to be behind your bench for the next five years, maybe a lot more?

Yeah, no, it's exactly. It's fun to think about and it's, listen, always fun to do the show. Have yourself a great weekend and we'll get you again next week. Sounds good. Talk to you then. All righty. So we want to remind some people of some pretty cool athletic podcasts that have dropped here over the last few days. A brand new Vancast dropped if you're a Canucks fan.

Newell Brown, former longtime assistant coach at Vancouver Canucks. He joined Patterson and Drans. Check that out. That's the VanCast. Former NHHLer Matt Cook was with Mike Russo on the straight from the source podcast as well. I can get that at the Athletic. Thanks for joining us for this edition of The Athletic Hockey Show. A reminder on Friday as well.

We've got the Prospect edition with Corey Prondman, Max Boltman. Check that out. It drops on Friday's up to draft time. Thanks for joining us. We'll get you again next week. A reminder, you can email us. Any question to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. That's the athletic hockey show at gmail.com.

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