The Athletic Hockey Show - Tampa Bay Lightning are back-to-back Stanley Cup champions, Nikita Kucherov's postgame press conference, Vladimir Tarasenko requests a trade, and more

Episode Date: July 8, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss the Tampa Bay Lightning winning back-to-back championships, Nikita Kucherov's legendary post-game press conference, and let it rip about that whole salary cap thing. Plus, Patrick Maroon wins his third championship in a row, and is it time now to name Jon Cooper the best coach in the game? Also, the offseason could be more interesting as Vladimir Tarasenko requests a trade from St. Louis, and Duncan Keith from Chicago.Then, Ian and Sean answer listener questions including an idea about higher seeded teams being able to chose their opponent in the offseason, and as always, a look back with "This Week in Hockey History."Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail], or leave a VM at [phone]!Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We're back. It's another brand new edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. Ian Mendez-Shawn McIndoo with you for the ride in this episode ahead of the next hour or so. We'll wrap up the Stanley Cup final, breaking down the Keita Kuturov's epic shirtless press conference, the decision to give the Kansmite award to Andre Vazolevsky, and maybe we'll chat about where Patrick Maroon fits on the all-time list of role players in the NHL. Plus, with the off-season, now officially underwerews. way the trade winds are blowing from St. Louis, where Vlad Teresenko apparently wants out, and from Chicago for future Hall of Famer,

Duncan Keith could also be on the move. And listen, we're going to give Jesse Granger the week off from Granger things, but that'll leave us with plenty of time to answer some of your questions, including a fun one from one of our listeners over in Denmark with an idea about the playoff format for the NHL. And as always, we'll wrap up with a little of this week in hockey history, looking at the time the Bruins fired Don Cherry and the anniversary of David Poil being hired in Nashville. But as I mentioned, Sean, I guess the offseason is officially here. Stanley Cup wraps up on Wednesday with a five-game series win for Tampa, a 1-0-0-0.

Now that we have a little bit of hindsight, I mean, where do we rank the Stanley Cup final? Was it a dud? Was it boring? what's your general feel as we look back at Montreal versus Tamlin? Yeah, I mean, I don't think I would say it was a dud. I don't think I would say it was boring. It wasn't a great final. I mean, this isn't one that we're going to be talking about for years and years and years.

And in fact, when we go back and we talk about the 2021, we're going to talk about two things. We're going to be talking about the lightning going back to back. and we're going to be talking about the miracle run that got Montreal there in the first place. I don't think we're going to be talking a ton about the series itself. I mean, there was not super competitive for the first three games. We got the one overtime in Game 4, but that ends up not really mattering. It was just Montreal prolonging the series by one extra game. Game 5, great tension knowing the Cups in the building, and it's a 1-0 game,

and you're watching the team's fighting claw back and forth. But as far as producing a highlight reel, not much there. So you know what? This series probably did the one thing that you never want a Stanley Cup final to do, which is play out pretty much the way we thought it would. And, hey, full credit to the Lightning. They showed that they can win any way you want to play. They're a great team.

And at the end of the day, full credit to Montreal. but this was the right result. Yeah, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you say Tampa, they can, and I think they kind of showed it throughout the course of the playoffs too, right? However, you want to play it, you want to play run and gun up tempo like Florida did in round one? Yeah, we can do that.

You want to kind of play some lock it down, airtight defensive hockey like the Islanders did in round three. Yeah, you can. And even in this series, game three got a little bit kind of scurly, and Tampa won that game. Game five was a classic 1-0 lockdown. So, yeah, I'm with you. I think Tampa winning that series was probably the right outcome.

Now, why is it? Look, the Habs are your classic Cinderella team, right? They're 18th overall. Get to the cup. Why is it, Sean? And you're such a, you know, you're such a hockey historian. Why is it? Cinderella never wins the Cup.

North Stars in 91, Oilers in 06, you know, go through. I know some people will say the L.A.K. in 2012. I feel like they were a fake Cinderella team. They just, I mean, they won a cup a couple years later. But like, what is it about the NHL that like Cinderella gets to the cup, but it always strikes midnight in the final? Yeah. It's a great question. I've actually got a piece probably on Friday where I go back and I look at 10 Cinderella's in the last 30 years that had runs that were at least somewhat similar to what Montreal just did. and they all lost every single one of them.

And why is that? You know, some of it's just the luck of the draw. Some of it's just the way it plays out. I think there's maybe an argument to be made that sometimes when a team like Montreal, for example, goes on a run, along the way they expose a few teams that were thought of as stronger teams, but maybe weren't certainly with Toronto in the first round. you can make the argument that with Vegas and Montreal maybe showed that the knights aren't quite what we thought they were. But by the time you get to a final, you're playing a team that's also gone through three rounds to get there.

That team has had plenty of opportunity to show us that they're not what we think they are. And they haven't yet. And they usually don't do it in round four. Now, look, there have been some Cinderella teams that have come real, real close to a Stanley Cup. It's not like they're all going out in four or five games. You think of the 94 Canucks. You think of the flames and the Oilers right around the lockout, both going to a game seven, both having near misses. Calgary would claim that they actually scored the winning goal in the Stanley Cup final and it didn't count.

So there have been some real near misses. I don't think we should read too much into it. But yeah, it is an interesting thing that when you look at NHL history, this happens every few years with the Cinderella team. and I don't even know when what would you say would be the last Stanley Cup champion that was really a shocking upset start to finish. I mean, I think you have to go back. I know some people might say the 95 Devils, but the 95 Devils had the second best record in the league one year earlier.

They were a much better team than people remember. Like you said, the Kings were a secret good team, and the Kings were actually the favorite by the time they got to the final. So, I mean, that wasn't a huge upset. Is it the 1990 Oilers? Is that even an upset when you're winning the fifth cup in seven years? Do you got to go back even further than that? I mean, you could make an argument that you've got to go back decades and decades

to find a true underdog Cinderella miracle Stanley Cup champion. And that's strange in a league where we see so many Cinderella runs that fall just short. maybe the 86 habs, you know, they were kind of, but they were a pretty good team, but they had a 20-year-old unknown goalie in Patrick Waugh, a bunch of rookies, right? And so, I mean, maybe, maybe they're the, but you're right. Like, it's the, it's a strange phenomenon in hockey where these, these Cinderella teams, they get right there to the precipice of a cup and they can, they can never close it up. But like you said, look, I think when we look back, we'll remember 2021 for Tampa going back to back,

The HABs coming back from 3-1 against Toronto and then shocking Vegas. You know, certainly these are memorable moments. But I think arguably the most memorable moment of the Stanley Cup final of Sean happened after this series. Have a listen. This is Lightning Forward Nikita Kutjurov. In fact, it's our colleague, Joe Smith, who covers the Lightning for the Athletic. Leading off the post-series celebratory press conference with Nikita Kuturov. This thing's a pretty wild ride.

Have a listen. Joe, let's hear you. Just how would you describe your, congratulations. How would you describe your emotions right now after doing what you guys did? I don't know what to say. Back to back and I couldn't sleep for three nights. To be able to win this game is huge. Wyssie was outstanding.

MVP, I was telling him every day. Wisi, you're MVP. You're the best player. And then they gave it to whatever the guy in Vegas division. And then last year, they gave Wiesna to somebody else, number one bull-h-no. Why is he took both cups? You know, he took MVP, and I was kept telling me, he's MVP. He's the guy that, he's the best.

You know, he was on his head today, and, you know, he kept us in the game. And another shout-out by him, remarkable. Can't even tell more. I'm so happy we, I didn't want to go back to Montreal, but they acted the fans in Montreal. Come on. They acted like they won the Stanley Cup last game. You kidding me? Are you kidding me?

John Romano, Tampa Bay Times. Their final was last serious. Okay. Okay, Sean. There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, for listeners who couldn't see that, Nikita Kutrov is shirtless at the podium. That's number one.

Number two, he takes a run at Mark Andre Fleury and a whole bunch of other goalies saying, I can't believe Vasilevsky was overlooked for the Vezner, Sophie, but maybe the thing that sticks out at the end of that clip, it's like he wanted to twist the knife into Habs fans, mocking them for celebrating a win on home ice. So let's unpack Nikita Kutjav's post-game press conference, because I think this is one for the ages.

Yeah, and you know what? Good for him. We're always, always complaining about NHL players, no personality, never say anything interesting. It's just pucks in deep and a bunch of cliches. So here's a guy who's decidedly not doing that. He's up there shirtless. He's, I think, had a couple of bud lights in him.

And he's letting it rip a little bit. And look, he didn't say anything crazy. He didn't say anything that was really out of bounds. It was just a moment of personality from a guy on a team that had earned that moment. They just won a championship. If we can't let these guys cut loose a little bit in that moment, What are we even doing here? So I liked it.

I like having some personality. I will say, I think he's wrong about Montreal fans. I, you know, to say, well, they shouldn't be celebrating. You get to the Stanley Cup final. You win a Stanley Cup final game first time in 28 years. You've seen your team win a Stanley Cup final game. Of course you're going to be happy. Of course you should celebrate.

Let's, you know, go ahead. So I disagree with him about what he said about Montreal fans. but I don't have a problem with him saying it. It was entertaining. It was fun. It was a fun moment. And, you know, like I say, there's a time and a place for some personality. And this was the time.

And this was the place. You just won a championship. Get up there. Say whatever you got to say. Okay. So here's a couple of questions for you. Question number one. Who gets booed louder at the bell center next year when they're touching the puck?

Nikita Kutcherov or Mark Shifley? Oh, boy. You know what? That's a good one. I mean, it probably should be Kuturap because Mark Shifley helped the Montreal Canadians. I mean, it was an awful, awful moment, obviously, you know, terrible for Jake Evans. But that's some good villain stuff. But he also helped you win that series.

Whereas Nikita Kuturov was the guy who you just couldn't find an answer for on too many nights in that series. Yeah, you know what? Give it to both of them. Give it to both of them. That's great. We need a little bit more of this in the league. We need guys. I'm tired to seeing guys get booed because they used to play for the team why and they left as a free agent or something dumb like that.

You got an actual reason to boo these guys. Yeah, let them have it. You know, don't get dumb with it. But that's part of the fun of sports. Go ahead. Give it with both barrels to both of the guys. Yeah. And, you know, like you said, I love that Kutrov went up there, showed some personality.

I'm thinking now there should be a two drink minimum before all press conferences. Let's do it. Let's do it. Right? Yeah. For players and media. Let's spread it around. Yeah.

Some would argue that maybe a question that was asked to Nathan McKinnon this year might have had a two drink minimum on the other side of it. Possibly. We won't go there, even though I just did go there. Okay. So Nikita Kutrov becomes, I believe, Sean, the first player. I mean, you look at the next. numbers that he put up, back-to-back years of 30 points in the playoffs and doesn't win the

Kahn-Smite again this year. And there was an argument to be had. You're talking about he's in rarefied air, right, with Gretzky and Lemieux, back-to-back years leading the playoffs and scoring and going north of 30 points. He doesn't win the Khan-Smith. Did the voters get this one right with giving that award to Vazolevsky or should it have gone to Nikita Kutrov? Yeah, you know, it's, it was a tough one. This is not one of those situations where, I think you can pound the table and say the voters messed it up. I might have gone Nikita Kuturov if I had a vote, only because I think it was,

I think it was Dom who pointed out that when you look at guys who have led their team by scoring by this much, especially when the next guy on the list for Tampa Bay is their linemate. So it's somebody who's benefiting from their play. It's basically Gretzky and Lemieux territory, and that's pretty much it. I think as soon as you start putting anyone in the same sentence as those two guys, they should probably be getting some hardware.

But look, Andre Vazelowski was great. Start to finish in the playoffs. This wasn't just a guy playing well in the final or getting the shutout in the last game. He was fantastic. Start to finish. Had the best numbers of any goalie, even when we were all singing the praises of Kerry Price, Andre Vazelowski was somewhat quietly going along and putting up even better numbers for Tampa and certainly outplayed Kerry Price in the final.

I don't have an issue with it. It's one of those where, I mean, you kind of wish you could give the award to both guys. But you've got to pick one. I don't know that there was a wrong answer, even if I probably would have gone with Nikita Kucharov if I had had a ballot. What I think is really remarkable, too, imagine going back two weeks ago when Braden Point scored his, what, a goal in his ninth straight game. And imagine saying at that point, hey, just a heads up, when they're debating the Kansmythe trophy

winner in two weeks, Brighton points not even in the conversation. Isn't that crazy? Yeah. And you know what? It just speaks to how good this lightning team is and how, you know, not just how much talent they have and how many good players and say that about pretty much any Stanley Cup winner, but how their best players really were their best players. And it's a cliche, and I usually, usually it doesn't mean much when we say it.

But they got contributions from all across the lineup. Obviously, that third line was fantastic in a lot of moments up to it, including you talk about guys who you're not expecting to come through. You look at the winning goal last night, but their best players were their very best players. And we can look down the list of teams that didn't make it as far as they wanted to in the playoffs. And a lot of them, yeah, it's the star players don't perform the way you're hoping. this time of year. Tampa, clearly they did because, you know, those are arguably, they're three best players and then you throw Victor Headman in the mix. And Victor Headman was, was very, very good in the

playoffs as well. And, you know, maybe, maybe should have got a little more consideration for the cons might than he did. So this is what happens. When you build a great team and then you sit back and go, I hope our best players are our best and they are, this is the result you get. Yeah. And they can afford for Stephen Stamco's to be like their fifth or six, best player. And, you know, I didn't even think Stamco has had a huge impact on the finals. And yet, yeah, they're Stanley Cup champions. So I know that the elephant in the room, Sean, is the fact that I know people are probably listening and saying, like, you guys better mention the fact that Tampa skirted the rules here. And I, listen, I get it. It's a, it's a valid point. They did

play in the gray area. But my thinking on this has always been, if you have built a team that's so good, that's so deep that you can legit, afford to sit out a heart trophy caliber player and not only make the playoffs, but still be a legitimate powerhouse, man, more power to you. Like Edmonton can't do this with, like, they can't just sit Leon Dryside alone for the year and be like, okay, when the playoffs come around, you're healthy. So I know that that's a problem. But to me, until they close that loophole firmly, I don't really know what you can do to the Tampa Bay Lightning. Yeah, okay.

So a couple things on this. First of all, as you mentioned, this loophole has been open forever. This has been, we have known this certainly since the 2015 Blackhawks had a similar situation with Patrick Kane. He didn't miss the whole season, but that was another case where a guy got injured. And then miraculously, he comes back right in time for the playoffs. And there were people at the time who said, we got to fix this. According to some reports, Tampa Bay was the team. Remember that Tampa Bay was the team that lost.

to Chicago in the final that year and that they put their hands up and said, we should close this loophole. And the rest of the GMs in the league said, no, we're fine with it. Okay, the rules are the same for everybody. You know, if you, I've said it, I feel like a dozen times now. If you're mad about the Lightning Cap situation, be mad at the NHL. Be mad at Gary Bettman, be mad at the GMs on down the list. Don't be mad at the Tampa Bay Lightning for saying this is what the rules say we can do and then doing it. but I've got a bigger question on this.

And here's the thing. Because last night, I put out a tweet and I said, you know what? I'm glad Tampa won. They're the best team. I thought when I tweeted that, I would get some pushback from Habs fans because they're Habs fans. And that was fine. I didn't actually get that much.

What I got was a whole bunch of responses from other fan bases going, oh, well, you know, the lightning, yeah, they were 16 over the cap. They're 18 million over the cap. They're 20 million over the cap. And it's very clear to me that this has become a thing that other fan bases are going to point to and try to put a big asterisk on what the lightning did. And it's, here's my question. Okay. First of all, can we please agree on the number?

Because the number is going up by a million bucks every few days. I swear, like it was 16 million last week. Now it's 18, 19, 20. Like by the time free agency starts, the lightning are going to have bid $50 million over the cap. all their players are nine feet tall. It's become this ridiculous thing. But here's my question, okay? Whatever you think the number is.

First of all, they weren't over the cap in terms of the spending on their roster by $18 million. Because that number includes Marion Gabburick's dead contract. It includes Anders Nielsen. It includes all these guys they went and acquired specifically to get themselves up to the limit. So if you close this loophole, none of those contracts are on this roster in the first place. So take those aside. What we're really talking about, it's not some inflated number in the teens. We're talking about Nikita Kuturov's cap hit.

That's basically what we're saying is that they managed to avoid being charged for Nikita Kuturov's cap hit and then they got to use them in the playoffs. Fine. That's $9.5 million. Okay. Now, Nikita Kuturov was hurt. He did have surgery. That's not in dispute.

So even if you think it was conveniently timed that he came back when he did, even if you think he could have come back sooner, it wouldn't have been his full salary. He would have been on long-term injured reserve for most of the season. So it's actually a fraction of that that were even upset about. But even if you're upset about that, okay, what do you think if the salary cap worked the way we've all apparently retroactively decided it should and this loophole was closed? What do you think the lightning have to do? Do we think that? They don't put Nikita Kutrov in the lineup? Do you think they trade Nikita Kutrov to get under the cap? Do you think they trade Victor Hedman or Andre Vazolevsky? No. What they would have had to do if this loophole didn't exist is what we all thought they were going to do in the offseason before we found out about the surgery, which is they would have had to have found a taker for Tyler Johnson in his $5 million

cap. That's what would have got them out of the cap situation they were in. They probably would have had to kick in a draft pick to make that happen. but it costs them Tyler Johnson. If you want to go even further, maybe they also don't have the room to go out and get David Savard at the deadline. Fine. I'll even grant you that. Okay?

Tyler Johnson and David Savard are good players. Real good players. Tyler Johnson had one big game in the final. They're important pieces of what the Lightning do. But are we really trying to argue that if you take away Tyler Johnson and his seven points in the playoffs, or that if you take away David Savard and his 14 minutes a night on the third pairing, that now the lightning aren't good enough to win the Stanley Cup? They still have Basilevsky, they still have headmen, Stamcoast, Kuturov,

they still have Braden Point, go on down the list. All of those guys, in your magical world where the cap rules are different than the rules that the Lightning were playing under, they still have all those guys. Could you win a Stanley Cup with those guys? Yeah, actually you could, because we saw them do it last year. It's completely ridiculous that anybody is trying to put an asterisk on what the Lightning just did, the roster they built, how good this team was. You want to be mad at the rule. Go ahead and be mad at the league for not fixing it if it even needed to be fixed. But this nonsense where the lightning

only won because they were X dollars over the cap, it just doesn't hold up to even a few minutes of thought. I'm tired of hearing it to all the other fan bases out there that are throwing this at this great, beautifully constructed team that just won back-to-back cups. Knock it off. Be better than that, be smarter than that, because I'm tired of hearing it. Yeah, I'm with you. And man, that was a full out rant. I like it. I'm a little winded now.

Yeah. I couldn't agree with you more because I think what you should also be mad at, be mad at your own team's general manager, right? Like, be mad at your own team's hockey operations department that you didn't construct a team in a similar manner. Be mad that your team absolutely passed on Braden Point. Be mad that your team absolutely passed on Nikita Kutrov, right? Like these are guys that you could have had.

And again, nobody disputes that Nikita Kutra had surgery. He didn't do that just to run a scan. Like I have seen, I say nobody disputes, but maybe not. Maybe people don't understand this because I have seen people who are implying like the guy was never heard at all. And the Tampa just said, you know, you know what, just go sit at home. And the league just went, okay, we'll just take your word for it. That's not how it works. The league has access to medical records, all of that.

Nikita Kutraub had surgery. He wasn't going to play on opening night. Could he have played a few weeks before the playoffs started? Yeah, probably. He probably could have. And would that have caused some cap headaches? Yeah, it would have. But people make it sound like they just magically found $20 million in extra cap space

because one of the very best players in the league needed surgery, which is going to make him unavailable for almost the entire year. Look, sometimes circumstances just line up in a certain way. You know, this wouldn't even have worked if it had been a full season. In fact, it was a short season. The fact that the lightning were playing until September last year, so they only had a couple of months worth of offseason before they were right back in there again. At some point, you just got to throw your hands up and say, you know what?

They took advantage of the rules as they were. They took advantage of a situation where a lot of things had to line up in a certain way. I'm not even going to say in the right way because I'm sure Nikita Kutrov didn't enjoy having to rehab from surgery for months at a time. And then it worked out for them. But the idea that that's why they won, that's why they've got this packed roster, when it's mostly all the same guys they had last year, when none of this applied, it's just nonsense. And I'm tired of pretending like there's any sort of logic or coherence behind it.

Yeah. And I think, look, other sports have had controversy. Think of the Patriots and people accuse them of cheating. Think of the Houston Astros. people accuse them of cheating. I don't think the lightning deserved that same sort of to be painted with that brush. They took advantage of a loophole that, like you said, existed for a long time. But what I think is really important to note about the lightning is the way that they supplemented that core, Sean,

is that a couple of years ago, they had swept out by Columbus. They didn't fire John Cooper. They didn't get rid of Stamco's headman, Kutcherov, point, Vaseleski. No, no. They went out and they said, we need to supplement this core with some people. right? They got Barclay Gujarotro. You got Blake Coleman. And then the guy that I think certainly has become like the rabbit's foot,

the lucky charm has been Patrick Maroon, who has now won a Stanley Cup in three consecutive years, the first guy in the cap era to do that. First guy since the islanders of the 80s to be on three straight cup winning teams. And that brings me to my next question here on this podcast. Where does Patrick Maroon fit, Sean, on the all-time list of role players,

guys that obviously weren't star players, top six forwards, top 4D, but obviously played a role in winning. I'm starting to think Patrick Maroon is near the top of that list, right? Yeah, he's got to be, he's got to be way up there because this is, it's an amazing story. And, I mean, it's, it's, it's been fantastic to watch it. And yeah, as a history nerd, when I saw that number, this is the first guy to win cups in three straight years. since that Islander's dynasty, that's amazing. And good on Pat Maroon for making it happen. And obviously, yeah, right place, right time.

But he's a piece of it. And that's, you know, that's great. I don't even know where you rank him in terms of pure role players. I mean, he's right now kind of in that territory where previously we might have talked about guys like Chris Kunitz winning four cups, even though he was never really considered a superstar. But Chris Kunitz was a real good player. Chris goodness made an Olympic team one year.

Claude Lemieux is another guy. Not a Hall of Famer, but a guy who won Cups pretty much wherever he went, three different teams, four different stints, all ending in Stanley Cups. But, you know, Claude Lemieux was certainly a top six guy. I don't know that there's, I'm sure if we were to go down and look at probably those 80s Oilers, you know, there were probably some role players that were around for most of those championships that you might point at as well. But, you know, the great thing with Maroon is the fact that he even switched teams in the

middle of it, you know, it's like, and boy, I tell you, the next time he hits free agency, there should be teams lining up for this guy because he's, he's clearly got some sort of, some sort of secret mojo going here. And you want to ride that as long as he can. Okay, so here's my guy that I think fits the bill of the Patrick Maroon. I'm a role player. It's Mike Keene. Okay.

Mike Keene won a Stanley Cup with Montreal in 93, with Colorado in 96, and Dallas in 99. Like in a pretty tight window, you win three Stanley Cups with three different teams and essentially a six years span, right? Yeah. And you're never a top six player on any of those teams, but you're a classic bottom six,

role guy, knows what it takes. So that's my vote. I think Mike Kean is on this Mount Rushmore of role players, and Patrick Maroon is there. Like you said, there's probably some 80s Oilers guys that are on there, but I think Mike Keen is the guy. That's a good one. That's a good pick. Former Montreal Canadiens captain and slash throw in the Patrick Watt Blockbuster. That's, yeah, that's pretty good.

So listen, John Cooper wins the Stanley Cup in back-to-back. years. All signs seem to point that he's going to coach team Canada. In fact, when he was having that conversation with Kerry Price at the handshake line, all I could think of was I have a feeling that maybe John Cooper is saying to him, we'll see you in February and in the Olympics. But I know in last series when Tampa played the Islanders, the feeling was Barry Trots is the best head coach in the game. As we sit here now in the first week of July, has your opinion on that change, Sean? If I had a lot of you. asked you, who is unequivocally the best head coach of the NHL?

Is it Barry Trots? Is it John Cooper or, heck, maybe it's somebody else? I mean, I don't have an unequivocally answer for you because I think it's, yeah, it is close. I think it's Trots and Cooper. I still put Trots at the top of my list because of what he's been able to do with an islanders team that not a lot of people expected to be very good, especially in that first year where they just lost John DeVaris and everybody was thinking, oh, they're going to finish last

and he turns them around. But maybe that's not so much. Barry Trott said, maybe that's just the rest of us getting it wrong and not seeing what the Islanders had built. I don't know. But, you know, to me, that's kind of the mark of a great coach is what can you do with a great team and what can you do with a team that's maybe not expected to be great? And I don't know that we've really seen John Cooper have to coach a team that we thought was going to struggle.

But you know what? There's a talent to that. Being somebody who can get the most out of a good team is something that in all of pro sports, we see some guys can do that and some guys can't. And you can only coach the roster in front of you. And these days in the NHL, even if you've got an All-Star team, which the Lightning are close to, you're still going to face a ton of adversity. there's going to be a ton of issues along the ways, a ton of times where things aren't going to be clicking and do you panic, do you overreact?

John Cooper's been that steady hand on the wheel. And I know you mentioned it earlier. In 2019, there were a lot of people saying you've got to fire John Cooper. This lightning team has gotten close to the finish line, but they can't get over it. They need a new voice. They didn't do it. And clearly, the right decision in hindsight. And it's going to be fascinating.

Like I think it was Jeffler on Twitter made the point that this offseason, it's going to be bad teams looking at the Montreal Canadians saying we're close. We should go for it. And it's going to be potentially good teams looking at the lightning saying, don't panic, trust the process, stick to the plan. And that sets up a really fascinating dynamic for what we might get to see over the next few months. Yeah. And I mean, listen, the offseason is officially here, right?

And if you're one of those teams, like you said, that is like the Montreal Canadians that thinks, okay, we're kind of a meaty middle team. Maybe we need to go out there and make some sort of aggressive move. There's not going to be a shortage of big names on the list. We've known for a while. Jack Eichel is available. Seth Jones is available. But, Sean, in the last few days, a couple of new names have emerged on the list of players who could be available.

Let's start with what Jeremy Rutherford, our colleague in St. Louis reported late on Wednesday evening. and that is that Vladimir Teresenko has requested a trade out of St. Louis. Now, here's my question for you on Teresenko. This guy has only played 34 games in the last two years. Now, granted, it's been pandemic short in seasons, but 34 games in the last two years, numerous shoulder issues. He's about to turn 30. He'll turn 30 later this year.

Just, what's the concern here? If you were trying to trade for Terresenko, would his age, be the concern? Would it be the injury history? He's got two more years at seven and a half million. That's a pretty big cap hit. Would you have concerns about bringing Vlad Teresenko on board right now? I would. Yeah. And I think it's all of those things, probably less so the age factor, just given that, you know, he's he's about to turn 30. we see guys be very productive into their 30s, not as much as they did a generation ago. But, you know, I think if he was still humming along

as a consistent 30-goal guy, then I think you can absolutely talk yourself into him continuing that. The contract, the cap hit is big, which will be a problem. But he's got, I think, two years left. So, you know, if you're going to gamble on a guy who's about to hit 30, you want a guy with a couple of years left, not a guy who's still got five years to go.

So, you know, I think you can get your, your head around that. It's, it's the production. I mean, you look at this guy, you know, here's the goal totals since 2015, 37 goals, 40 goals, 39 goals, 33 goals, 33 goals again, three goals, four goals in the last two seasons. I mean, you almost never see something that start. And yes, obviously the injury is the factor there. He's not playing anywhere near full seasons. But even when he is playing, he doesn't look like himself.

And, you know, sometimes a guy gets hurt. Maybe you need surgery. Maybe you come back. And you're just, you don't have your legs yet. Or you just don't have the speed of the game. It hasn't quite clicked back for you. But then it does. And you're fine.

Teresanko is a guy where I really start to worry and think, okay, what does that? shoulder look like. And I think certainly any team that's going to trade for them is going to want to see medical records. They're going to want to have as much information as they can. And then we see how much the Blues are willing to accommodate that. But it is a tough one because

I don't know. I mean, if the player wants to go, you would think normally you move them on and St. Louis is probably ready to do that. But is there a team out there that's going to take anywhere near the full cap hit? And if I'm the Blues, if I'm sitting there, if I got to retain half the salary anyways,

geez, is it better to just retain the whole thing and hope that I can get this guy back on track on my team? It's a tough situation all around. I don't feel like there's going to be a real long line for this guy, especially with some of the other players who will be available, both in free agency and third trade. But once some of those names start to come off the board,

could some team talk themselves into rolling the dice here? Yeah, maybe they could. High risk, high reward. I mean, if he rediscoveres his game, he goes back to being a 40 goal guy. There's very, very few guys in the league that can do that. If you get one of them and assuming that the cost to acquire him in trade isn't all that high, it could be worth the gamble.

I just don't see a lot of teams looking to take that chance, at least until we've seen other names come off the board. Yeah, and now another name, as we've talked about here, that has kind of emerged onto the scene as Duncan Keith. And later this month, Duncan Keith will turn 38 years old. Sean, 38-year-old Duncan Keith appears to be on the market in Chicago. I love when they kind of threw out the blanket statement of, he's looking to go to the Pacific Northwest.

And then people in Edmonton are like, I think we're kind of part of the Pacific Northwest. I think we'll sell ourselves on the fact that we're part of the Pacific Northwest. So I'm looking at Chicago, and I'm wondering, how much does Duncan Keith have left in the tank? I mean, this guy, he's a lock-it-in slam-dunk first ballot Hall of Fame. Nobody's questioning that. The question is, what does he have left right now if he goes to Edmonton?

If he goes, I know the Cracken have been thrown out there. The one name, and I think one team that we can, I think, fairly easily dismiss is Vancouver. And that's, we had Mark Lazarus on the Monday show. And Mark said, I just don't see his scenario with Duncan Keith. You think of all those playoff battles between Vancouver and Chicago. go back in the day. He's like, I just don't see. Imagine, I mean, I think it's more likely that the Canucks take Chelsea Dagger as their goal song than bring Duncan Keith in there. But I think it's down to like, it sounds like

Edmonton, Seattle. Let's look at Edmonton for a second because that feels like a place where they might want them. Does Duncan Keith help the Edmonton Oilers at the age of 38? I mean, you got to go in with your eyes wide open, right? You got to know what you're getting, and you got to not be blinded by the name value. I mean, yes, this is Duncan Keith, but this isn't capital letters, Duncan Keith, like it was five, six, seven, eight years ago where he was winning the consmite

and legitimately one of the best defensemen in the league. He hasn't been that for a while, and at his age, he's not going to be that again. Now, yeah, sometimes a change of scenery, Sometimes you get a little short-term burst out of it. That's fine. You can be hoping for that. If you're Edmonton, maybe you look at how he was used in Chicago and you think, you know, maybe under a different scenario, although it's not like you look at this Oilers team and say, oh, yeah, he wouldn't be asked to do too much.

They've got a hole on that blue line that he would be asked to fill. So they're not getting him to play third-paring minutes. You wouldn't think. part of this is the off-eye stuff. What would he be like in the room? What's it like to bring in a guy who's won to a team that has some real good players who have never won? And I will say this. I don't hate the idea if you're going to bring in somebody and say, well, you know, he's got those rings.

He's going to teach them how to win, all of this stuff. People who've listened to me for a while know that I'm not really big on that narrative. I think we overplay it. I think we oversell it. But there is some truth to the idea that, yes, people can learn from others. And I like the idea of bringing in a guy in Duncan Keith, who even though he's not a star now, has won Cops as a star. I do think to some extent that would probably help Connor McDavid-Ley undercidal more than bringing in some fourth-line guy or some backup goalie who sat on the bench and got Stanley Cup rings out of it. You know, Duncan Keith is one of the very few players who can say,

I've had that big spotlight on me. I've been a superstar on a team where I knew I was going to be the guy who was going to lead the team in minutes. I was going to be the guy to be counted on. If I played well, we were probably going to win. If I didn't play well, we were going to lose. That might help Connor McDavid and Leundercicidal to be able to sit down and pick this guy's brain and sort of see what they can learn from him. But how much do you pay for that? And both in terms of what's going to do your cap and what is.

it's going to do as far as what it's going to take to acquire him because I think a lot of us when we first heard Duncan Keyes would be available thought, okay, Chicago's going to have to retain, maybe Chicago's going to have to give something up to get someone to take the hit off their books. And that sounds like maybe Edmonton might be willing to actually give up some assets. I don't know. We will see. One thing to keep in mind is Duncan Keith is one of those guys. He's got one of those weird backdiving contracts and Cap Recapture kicks in and stuff.

So he's got two years left if for some reason he were to retire after one. year, things get very weird for both Chicago and the team that acquires them. And it's confusing, but keep that in mind. That could be a factor because there are even some scenarios where if Edmonton would require him and it didn't work out and he retired after one year, where Edmonton would actually benefit from that in terms of the cap and Chicago would get slammed because of that stupid, awful rule. So that's worth looking at as well.

But I think as far as a player, you're not getting anything close to what you once had, but as far as some experience and some leadership and some things that we do seem to think Edmonton needs, I mean, there's worse guys you could go after. If you're Edmonton, too, do you ever think, you're looking at Patrick Maroon now, raising the cup three times? You're like, we had that guy.

He was here. Yep. Like, they had him for like three seasons. And, man, that's just, yeah, it's one of those things. But, yeah, I'm so curious to see what Edmonton does in the off season to try to supplement that core. and it feels like maybe Duncan Keith is a potential. All right, Sean, as I mentioned off the top,

we're giving Jesse Granger the week off here for Granger things. And we always appreciate Jesse's contributions to the show with kind of look at it some lines and future odds, but obviously with the offseason now here, there's not really too much to sink or teeth into that way. So we'll open up the inbox here. Got some tweets, got some emails here to get to. let's start with this one comes in from Denmark.

Sean, this comes in from Patrick and Denmark who says, hey guys, a Danish fan here with a question for you. On the playoff formats that Ian and Sean discussed in the last episode, a lot of people are talking about the need for a new system just to avoid the perpetual Boston-Toronto matchup that we see every year. Now, here in Denmark, until this season, we had eight teams making the playoffs, and the seating is basically decided in a playground format.

The top four teams take turns picking their opponents out of the lowest four seeds, and the next round you do it again. Now, it's a weird format, but maybe it opens up a little bit more of a battle for first so you could pick your opponent throughout the playoffs instead of just fighting for home ice. Would love to hear your thoughts on what is a very different format. Comes in from Patrick and Denmark, and I say yes, Sean, I'm all in. If you told me in the Eastern Conference next year, Tampa is the one C, let's say Carolina is the two seed, whatever, whoever, like,

and they get to pick their opponent in the first round. Like, you could turn this into, if you're ESPN, TNT, Sportsnet, you could turn this into a made-free TV. Like, imagine the drama of, like, I wonder what card Julian Breezebaugh is going to flip over. Like, oh, man, he picked whoever, right? Like, he picked Philadelphia. Like, I'm in. Like, I'm all in.

I think it would add a spicy element. If you're the flyers and you're the sixth seed, but you got picked by Tampa, you're like, they wanted us, we'll show them. So I'm all in. I know it feels gimmicky, like it might be out of the XFL bag of tricks, but count me in for this. What about you? You know what? This idea comes up every now and then, and I love the idea for all the reasons you just said. Oh, no, I feel there's a butt coming here.

There absolutely is. Oh, come on. Here's the butt. it would never happen in the NHL. And the reason it would never happen is because what is my first rule of NHL general managers? Their priority list is number one, their own job security and reputation, a distant number two, the success of their own team. And then a distant number three from that is what's good for the actual week, which is why we shouldn't be having these guys be the ones who decide what the rules are. but that's a debate for another day.

There is zero chance that NHLGMs want any part of this because it would be more scrutiny on them and it would be a situation where they couldn't win. I mean, if they, you know, Julian Breezebar, whoever, flips over the card and they beat that team, well, yeah, you were supposed to beat them. It's a good team, good job by the players, good job by the coach. They lose. Now it's all on the GM.

Oh, my goodness. You picked the wrong team. We battled all season and the GM scum. screwed it up for us. I mean, imagine, imagine if we head this system and in the North Division this year, the Leafs finish first and they get to pick their opponent. Kyle Dubas says, we want the Montreal Canadians and they lose to the Montreal Canadians in seven games. Kyle Dubas would be fired within a few days for making that choice. There's no way any GMs want part of it. And even if we did have in this league actual leadership and Gary Bettman and

friends actually led instead of just sitting back and letting the GMs control how the league was going to run. Let's say Gary Bettman came in and said, no, we're doing this, whether you guys want to or not. This is the new rule. It still wouldn't work. I'll tell you what's going to happen. Virtually every GM would stand up and say, you know what, we are going to make it club policy that we will always choose whatever the lowest seed is. We won't pick any other team because they'll give you some nonsense, respect for the game, blah, blah, blah. They'll just say, we're going to wash your hands, we're not even going to make the choice, we're always going to pick the lowest seat of team because these GMs are going to be more interested in covering their own behinds than

in doing what would, in theory, give them a competitive advantage. I love the idea. I love the idea of like some team being higher up, but they've had some injuries and you go, we're going to try to take advantage of them now, take them out early. It's great. It would be phenomenal. There's zero chance that it would ever work in the NHL. with just the culture and the mindset. And that's why I refuse to let myself get excited about it because it is such a great idea that it just bums me out that we would never see anything like it.

I know. But I do think that, yeah, there's some merit. Imagine if some team got decimated by injuries the last week or two of the season and you looked at them and you're like, you know what, we'd rather play them. Like, yeah, there's some benefit to it, but you're probably right.

There's probably too much chaos on the line there for that to happen. But I think it would be a great spectacle. It would be great, great for television. And you know what? There would be like one or two GMs that would do it. Like Lou Lamarillo wouldn't care. Lou Lamarillo would be like, yeah, you know what? We're taking these guys.

Let's go. We want the Rangers. Let's do this. And people would lose their minds. But then the other 28 or 29 GMs would just sit there, sit on their hands and get all timid and risk averse. And they'd say, oh, no, we'll just pick whoever the standing say we're supposed to play. So, yeah, let's let's let Lou do it and we'll skip it for everyone else. Oh, that's what I would want Tim Murray back in the league.

You just walk up to the podium and just be like, Ottawa. Yeah. And he'd walk away. I'm like, oh, yeah, they want Ottawa. All right, let's answer a couple of tweets that we got here too on this Thursday morning, Sean. I thought this was an interesting one here comes in from Stewie. And again, you're so good with hockey history. Stewie wants to know the Atlantic Division will likely come back next year,

meaning we'll see a lot of Montreal Tampa games. What's the historical precedence, guys, for five? finalists playing each other that much the following season. So that's from Stewie. And it is going to be an interesting kind of sidebar. We don't get a Stanley Cup final rematch as often as we're likely going to see next year, right? Yeah, no, it's, I mean, almost by definition for most of the last 40 years, it wouldn't have been possible. We've had a couple of teams switch conferences, but other than that, you have to go back to the seven,

In the early 80s, there was that brief period where the seating was, for a couple years, it was just one through 16 with no regard to divisions. And there were a couple other formats where it was possible for teams who had played in the final to be in the same division, happened a few times in the early 70s. And then they would play each other a bunch. But, I mean, as far as historical precedent, I mean, the 70s and early 80s might as well be 100 years ago as far as how the NHLs evolved. the only other example that we have is this season, right? Because Tampa and Dallas, of course, ending up in the same division. But again, how much can you read into that, especially with everything Dallas had to go through? But it is interesting.

It's, you know, it is something where typically you see two teams play in the final and hopefully it's a hard fought, you know, battle with lots of good storylines. And then maybe next year, maybe two or three times. And it's a real special thing. it's like, okay, it's the rematch. We're going to, we're going to see it. Yeah, presumably next year we'll get eight of those matchups. And it's going to be fun to see. And I'm sure Montreal for sure will be ready to go for those games

because they'll have a little something to prove. Yeah, and like I said, boy, just wait until Nikita Kutrov touches the puck the first time in the bell center. That's going to be some next level stuff. Well, I mean, unless he has fake surgery again to sit up in both season, right? You know, like, like, another tweet here comes in from Hallie Hockey, wants to know, hey, guys, what NFL team needs to sign Tom Brady to help improve their city's hockey team's chances of winning the Stanley Cup?

Brady, of course, played a long time in New England and the Boston area. The Bruins win the Cup in 2011. He goes to Tampa. They not only win a Super Bowl, they win a couple of, they win a couple of Stanley Cups. I'm thinking the Denver Broncos need to look at Tom Brady. here, right? Help out the avalanche a little bit? Yeah, I think, I think that might be the best fit in terms of

teams that actually need a quarterback. Yeah, the avalanche could use a little bit of a boost. I think that's good. I just, I have one question. How does Tom Brady feel about the CFL? Oh, the Argos. Three downs, you know, a little wider field, Tom, and anything we could do to work with it? He's mobile, right?

Like, he can run. Taylor made, just watch. that clip of him in the in the combine. Exactly. Has CFL scouts drooling. He would be fantastic. You know, there's probably a way. I don't know what the CFL's rules are in terms of inflation, but we can work around it.

There's got to be a way to do that. Come come to Toronto, Tom. We'll make this work. Okay. And just to wrap up this thought here, you know, like Tampa's on a pretty good heater here as a sports city, right? Boxer the defending Super Bowl champion, lightning two-time Stanley Cup champion.

The Reyes get to the World Series last year, ultimately lose to the Dodgers, but they, you know, they've been a pretty good team here. Is there like a disdain for the city of Tampa like we had for Boston? Remember that run where it's like the Celtics won the title, I want to say, well, that was 08, and then the Bruins won the Cup.

The Red Sox, of course, won that World Series in 2004, 07, and 13. the Patriots, we don't need to go through it. But like, there's a window where like, man, I hate Boston sports fan. I hate Boston. How can we don't, is Tampa just too, like, I guess we just don't hate warm weather cities?

You know what I mean? Like, I always think of like San Diego is like this friendly city. I feel like we can't have rage towards, like if the Padres and, I mean, back of the Chargers, like if they were winning, I feel like, wow, we couldn't hate them. Do we feel that way about Tampa?

I think, yeah, I think you got it. I think it's twofold. First of all, I mean, Tampa hasn't won enough yet to really generate that. So maybe we'll get there. I mean, I think we all had the experience to see in that like some Boston parade and, you know, you see this little kid holding up a poster. Like, this is my eighth championship parade. And you're like, okay, that's, I'm done. I don't, it's, it's not okay to hate a random kid, but I'm pretty close on this guy because there's, there's no way that he should be seeing this, this many championship. but the other piece of it is, yeah, I think it's the city. I think, because here's the thing, if I say to you Boston sports fan, you can picture a guy. And it's not a real guy, but it's the same guy I pictured and the same guy everybody else is pictured. We all have that. And, you know, whereas I don't really have that for Tampa or some other places. But yeah, I mean, they got a ways to go to get to Boston territory.

but they're they're taking some steps, man. It's got to be fun to be a fan down there right now. Okay, as always, Sean, going to wrap up our show with a little this week in hockey history. And hey, speaking of Boston, that's where we'll start off with. We'll go back to Boston. July 5, 1979. July 5th, 1979, the Boston Bruins fire Don Cherry as their head coach. Don Cherry had taken them to five straight 40 plus win seasons.

They were an elite team. Earlier that spring, of course, there was the infamous too many men on the ice call. They lose to Montreal in the semifinals. But here's my question for you, Sean. Okay? And this actually, this makes me feel old because I just realize, as I'm speaking out loud here, I am now the same age that Don Cherry was when he got fired from Boston. Okay?

Don Cherry was 44. I'm 44. Oh, wow. Yeah, again, these are the things that make us feel old. Okay. So Don Cherry has five unbelievable seasons in Boston. I mean, they're a powerhouse, okay? He gets fired from Boston.

He goes to Colorado coaches one more year. Then he goes into network TV. Here's my question. At any point in the 80s or into the 90s, did any NHL teams kick the tie? on Don Cherry as a head coach. Because you would think some team would be like, oh man, that guy was really good

and he's only in his 40s and his 50s. How come nobody took a run at Don Cherry as their head coach in the 80s or 90s, Sean? Yeah, and I don't know that anyone ever seriously pushed for it. I know that his name did come up in the rumor mill back then, even if it probably was legitimately. just rumors. I remember his name coming up with the Leafs on a few occasions.

I remember there were a couple of times where, I mean, geez, the Harold Ballard Leafs needed a new coach every 18 months, and Cherry's name would come up, and Harold Ballard would grumble out some quote about it. And I do remember in 92 when the Leafs had an opening. When Cliff Ledger had come aboard, they fired Tom Watt. I remember there being a fair amount of speculation that Don Cherry could be in the running for that job.

Dave King was considered the favorite, but Cherry's name kept coming up. I don't know if he ever actually interviewed, if he even ever talked to them. But I do remember that being a name that started to come up, and people were starting to say, gee, I don't know, is he yesterday's guy already? Can he, boy, it would be all sorts of fun, wouldn't it?

And then, of course, out of nowhere, they hire Pat Burns, and that was the end of that. You know, an honest answer is probably once he found his feet on hockey night in Canada, and certainly once Coach's Corner took off, most of the late probably couldn't have afforded him. He probably couldn't have taken the pay cut, you know,

and he's, you know, Don Chari was a hardworking guy, but I'm sure he's sitting there going, wait a second, I can work seven minutes a night on Saturdays and make more money than I would do an 18-hour days as an NHL coach.

Yeah, I think I'll stay where I am. Probably just couldn't have afforded him, but yeah, that's one of the great what-ifs. I have a question in one of my mailbags that I don't think I've published yet, but somebody asked, what was the most historically consequential conference final ever? And that was my answer. I said that the Habs beating the Bruins, the way that they did, leads to Don Cherry being fired,

leads somewhat indirectly to him going to Hockey Night Canada and say whatever you want about Don Cherry on Hockey Night Canada, but easily the most influential media personality of the the last half century in hockey. The hockey is a very different sport today if Don Cherry isn't in that chair year after year for so many Canadians. And if they get the line change right and they win and they go and they beat the Rangers, Don Cherry probably coaches the Bruins for the next five years and maybe never gets into TV. And it's the hockey world is completely different right now.

You know, I know Don Cherry takes a ton of heat for the too many men on the ice. How come the Bruins goalie that night, Jil, Jilbert doesn't take more heat for allowing that slap shot from like 60 feet out from Gila Fleur? Like, it's not screened, it's not tipped. And the goalie for the Bruins, Jil Jolbert, he goes down like he was shot. Like what, like, how come that guy doesn't take? That guy should be up there with Bill Buckner. Oh, because this is, this was the 70s and 80s.

I know younger fans don't know this. There was a time where when a Hall of Famer came down and unleashed a slap shot, that was considered a scoring chance. That was considered something that might go in. And it was a hard save for a goalie to make. It wasn't like today where literally, you know, She wherever can get a slap shot from three feet in front of the net. And if it's not screened, you still have to stop it.

Back then, you saw, you know, I mean, even for younger fans, even seeing a winger come down and take a slap shot. probably feels weird. Like, why would you do that? You're just wasting your chance. No, back then it was a real scoring chance. And Gila Fleur was a hell of a player. He could really, he could really bomb it.

And also the fact that the reaction just looks so cool, the slow motion fall and then he sits up shaking his head. It's just such a great look that I don't even know how you can be mad at him. No, exactly. Okay, one other this week in hockey history, July 9th, 1997. Nashville had already secured its team in the NHL, Sean, in the summer of 1997, they did not have their team nickname yet. That would come later, but they did hire their general manager.

David Poyle, July 9th, 1997 is named general manager of the National Predators, a title he still holds now nearly a quarter century later, which is remarkable to me because he doesn't have a Stanley Cup. Like, I mean, they got to the Cup final in 2017, but that's it. I'm always fascinated by this. Like, in what other markets, in one other sport, could a general manager hold a title for two plus decades without a title? I know Lou Lamarillo ended up being in New Jersey.

I think it was 28 years. But Lou obviously took him to the Cup in the early 90s and then created a great dynasty there. Boy, this, it's an interesting one because he's 24 years as general manager and no titles, No rings. Yeah. And was longtime GM the Capitals before that with no rings. So, I mean, you're talking about one of the longest careers ever, the winningest general

manager in terms of regular season wins, but no rings. You're right. It's unusual in pro sports. Obviously, the fact that they're an expansion team is part of it. He comes in in the pre-gold in night days. Nobody expect an expansion team to have any chance. at contending early on. So it took a few years.

But that's only a few years. And since then, you kind of wonder, sometimes guys just get so associated with the franchise that it's, it's really hard to make that move. The only guy I can think of off the top of my head in NHL history that went that long with one team without a cup was Harry Sindon in Boston, where I think his run was about 28 years, gotten the playoffs almost every year.

In fact, at one point, they had, I think, the longest streak for making the playoffs and just couldn't get over the hump. A couple of losses in the final and never got that Stanley Cup ring. But there's an asterisk on that because he did win a Stanley Cup ring as the coach of the Bruins in 1970. So he did have a – that was before he was the GM, but he did have a ring that he could look at and hold up. And obviously he was very tightly entwined with ownership. So other than that, yeah, it's hard to imagine. You look around at guys in the NHL today, even in a 32 team league where it's going to be really hard to win a cup. And you look at the list of GMs and you say any one of these guys, 25 years from now, no championships, are they still around?

I can't imagine it. But sometimes situation just lines up for you. Yeah. And it all comes full circle because Harry Sinton was the guy who fired Donald. on Cherry, right? So there it is. There you go. Full circle.

Okay, that's a perfect place to leave it. Sean, we actually have to alert our listeners. I feel like we need one of those Gary Bettman. We have a trade to announce, you know, getting up to the podium. That's a good impression, by the way. Yeah, that was pretty good. I don't know what it is about being on a podcast with me that makes people think they can do Gary Bedman impression.

Yeah. That was not bad. Exactly. In fact, LeBrund is the guy who breaks all the trades. He should be tweeting this out. It's a little bit of a trade. for the rest of the month. So myself and Sean, we obviously host a Thursday show, we're going to move to Wednesdays for the rest of July. Just, it works out better for Burnside

and LeBron. So starting next week, and for the last couple of weeks of July, you're going to hear the two-man advantage of the athletic hockey show with Pierre LeBron and Scott Burnside on Thursdays. Sean McAdoe and myself will be in the spot on Wednesday. So you've been warned. And we come right off the heels of those two American clouds. Yeah. So we'll have to. We'll have to balance it out. Trade is one for one. Yeah, the trade is one for one.

Thanks, everybody, for joining us. We'll get you again, like I said, Wednesday next week. You can always drop your emails to us, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. The athletic hockey show at gmail.com. And if you're not a subscriber with us at The Athletic, you can join us right now, Theathletic.com slash hockey show,

and you'll get a subscription for just $3.99 a month.