The Athletic Hockey Show - The NHL returns to ESPN, trade deadline expectations, and do the Canucks or Sabres have the most tortured fan base?

Episode Date: March 11, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss their expectations for the upcoming trade deadline and the possible lack of significant trades. Also, thoughts on the NHL's return to ESPN, and if the Canucks or the Sabres have the most tortured fanbase in the league.Then, in "Granger Things", Jesse Granger joins to discuss if the books take home-ice advantage into account with some arenas allowing limited fans in attendance, best futures bets to win the Stanley Cup, and his interview with Allan Walsh on Marc-André Fleury's season.To wrap up, Ian and Sean answer some mailbag questions, and dive into "This Week in Hockey History".Have a question? Email [e-mail] or leave a voicemail 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 for another edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. I'm Ian Mendez alongside Sean McIndoo. Head on this podcast. We'll touch on Sean's column, trying to get to the bottom of which fan base has had the most frustrating stretch over the past 50 years. It's the one-year anniversary, of course, of the COVID shutdown of the sports world. We'll look at some of the things we've actually liked about the pandemic NHL world.

We'll also hit on that massive ESPN deal for the league. Jesse Granger will swing by for Granger things. We'll talk about home ice advantage here as fans start to come back into arenas. And we'll also talk about Stanley Cup favorites. And this week in hockey history looks back at the gold standard for trade deadline moves. And Sean, I figured that's probably a good place to start because as we look at the calendar essentially, we're one month away from the trade deadline, April the 12th. So Sean Gentile and I put together this kind of just a broad strokes overview piece this week for,

here's what all 31 teams are looking to do in and around the deadline. And as we submitted this, I'm thinking, you know, usually you're like either you're a buyer or you're a seller. And Sean, it feels like nobody has room to do anything in the flat cap world. My question to you, as we kick off this podcast, are you as pessimistic as a lot of people thinking, this is going to be a dud of a trade deadline with the quarantine rules and the flat cap and all of that. Like, should we just lower our expectations here? I think that's it. I think that's what we should be doing because I'm, yeah, the more I read about this and see and the more I think about it,

I do think we might be headed to one of the less active deadlines. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a dud. doesn't mean it's going to be less interesting. It only takes one or two big deals. You know, I've done in the past, I've gone back and done a ranking of all the trade deadlines. And one of the things that shows up is there are days where you get 30 trades on deadline day. And there's other years that are slower. But it's the big trades that really jump out at you. If we get two or three major names, I mean, if we got a Jack Eichael deal at the deadline, it wouldn't really matter if the rest, if nobody else did anything. That would be a big deadline.

we'd have lots to sink our teeth into, lots to talk about, and we'd remember it as a, as a, as one of the bigger deadlines. So, you know, a dud, not necessarily. We, we could, we could certainly be headed towards at least, at least a few interesting deals. But I think overall, the volume, I think, is certainly going to be smaller. And, and I think some teams that were expecting to do something may not, because, you know, you hit on one of the main issues, which is the flat cap and how few teams. seem to have cap space.

But even the teams that do, we don't know what their internal budget looks like. And most years, we don't think about stuff like that. We just look at the cap. And most years, teams, even teams that are at the cap, can still afford to add something because it's based on what's left of the season and you can still squeeze something in it. You can get creative. You can take a bad contract back, all of these things. These days, there are some teams that I think just don't want to spend any more money, period.

Whether they've got cap space or not, the owner is saying, look, I am losing a fortune with no fans in the stands and the shortened season and everything else. No, you don't have authorization to go spend an extra million to bring somebody in. For what? For a longer playoff run that I'm still not going to be able to sell tickets for? No, you do not have any extra money available to you. And that's going to limit what a lot of teams can do. Even the teams that we're looking on cap friendly going, oh, they've got room to do something. They might not.

Yeah. And like, I look around and I'm thinking. And as you look at the list of potential players that are out there, like a guy like Taylor Hall, I look at Sean, I think like, he's got an $8 million cap hit, which, you know, that's a lot to fit in for teams, even though you might only be fitting them in for the last quarter of the season. So this is going to be fascinating.

I'm with you. Like again, like when Sean Gentilly and I put this thing together, that's the one thing that I notice is like, man, there's just a common thread here of teams that just don't have the space and it's going to be a really weird one. So I'm curious to see how this plays out. I wonder too, do you think as if you're a Canadian team, I don't think you want to just limit yourself to trading within Canada because that seems

silly and short-sighted. If you think you can improve your team with a trade across the border, you're going to do that. Do you think we'll see more than one or two trades where a Toronto and Edmonton, a Montreal, reach over the border? and do something? Because I feel like that might be the maximum we're going to see is maybe one or two of those types of deals.

Yeah, it's tough because there's two categories of teams in Canada that would be looking to add in trades. And the first is the teams like Calgary, Montreal might be in this group where they're fighting for a playoff spot. And in that case, if you're bringing in reinforcements because you're in a situation where your life and death just to make the playoffs, you don't want to bring in guy that you're going to have to wait two weeks for it. Two weeks is a long time. If it's a longer term deal like the Perlouc de Blah deal with Winnipeg, then yeah, you're willing to eat those two weeks.

But if you're in a situation where every game matters, then yeah, you're going to be very hesitant to go and give up future assets for somebody who's not even going to help you. In two weeks from now, you have a bad two weeks this year. You could be out of the race by the time that guy plays his first game for you. So that makes it tough. The other side of it is the teams that are feeling pretty good about where they are in the playoffs and they're looking for reinforcements once they get there. And I think the Leafs would certainly be in that category. Winnipeg's getting close, maybe Edmonton as we get closer to the deadline. And those teams are in better shape because a team like that, you can say, look, if we bring a guy in and we feel like he's going to help us, we're worried

about the playoffs. If we miss a couple of weeks in the regular season, okay, not ideal. Seating matters. We want to finish as high as we can in the standings. But if we have to miss a couple of weeks, but we're going to have them ready to go for the playoffs, then that's okay. I could see those teams being more active, but even in that case, you don't necessarily want to wait to the deadline. The deadline is four weeks before the playoffs. So if a guy can't play for two weeks, that means he comes in. You have at that point, what, five, six, seven games left to figure out where they go in the lineup, let them adjust to a new system, adjust to new teammates, shake off the rust. Are they going to be anywhere near 100% for a for a playoff

run at that point? Which is why you're starting to see a lot of people who are thinking this. through saying that for teams like Toronto, the deadline isn't deadline day. The deadline might be over the next coming days and weeks. This might be the time to make a trade if you're the Maple Leafs or the Jets or whoever else. Do it now so that you get somebody into the lineup and they still have time to help you down the stretch. You're not worried about a playoff spot necessarily, but you want to get them in and get them up to full speed so that when the playoffs start, they're at 100% of what you thought you were getting. You know, one of the things we talked about was the flat cap, right? And that the landscape,

the economic landscape, Sean, next couple of years. It's unknown. But a huge piece of news came out this week, and this is significant for the National Hockey League, and in particular for any franchises that were a little bit worried about where the game was going. And that is ESPN, and the NHL are back to being partners again for the first time in more than 15 years.

And they sign a seven-year $2.8 billion, that's billion with a B, broadcasting deal. look, I know that Gary Betman takes a lot of heat and Gary takes a lot of criticism. Let's take a moment here, in my opinion anyway. They're going to get $400 million a year. He's basically been able to in a pandemic environment, Sean. He's doubled the TV revenue here. And this is only one of the packages, right?

They're calling it like the A package. There's going to be another carrier here that could bring in a couple hundred million more per season. This is significant financial increase over what they're. had before with NBC. So this to me is a huge step in the right direction. And I think it brings a little bit of peace to the owners who might be concerned about filling the stands with fans here in the next 18 to 24 months. It does. And it's certainly a positive. I mean, this is, you go from 200 million a year on your US TV deal to 400 plus. I mean, it's probably going to be

somewhere in the $6 to $800 million range by the time we're done. So you're talking tripling or even quadrupling your US TV revenue. Of course that's a positive. Of course it's a big deal. We got to also remember the context, though, which is that 10 years ago, the NHL made the decision to sign for a full decade on a TV deal that at the time was played up as being a big win, but turned out to be, in hindsight, a bit of a disaster because, TV, live sports TV rights fees shot through the roof over the next decade. It was just this rocket ship that other leagues rode to enormous deals. And the NHL was stuck with this relatively in hindsight, meager $200 million a year.

Now, that's not Gary Bettman's fault necessarily. He didn't have a crystal ball. He didn't know that live sports was going to go crazy because of streaming, because of people not watching other TV live, and this is the only sports is almost the only property you can sell ads for and know that people are going to have their TVs on to watch them. I'm not expecting him to be able to see the future. But the point of it is, for the last 10 years,

you've been sitting around watching the NBA sign these crazy deals, and obviously the NFL and Major League Baseball has their whole economics just turned upside down by these deals. And the NHL has been on the sidelines. we knew that when this deal finally came up, that it was going to be a big increase. This isn't a surprise. Obviously, with COVID and everything, it was more difficult than we thought it was going to be. But anyone who is caught off guard by the fact that this number is much higher than what it used to be probably hasn't been paying attention. And I suspect that the owners are not viewing this as some sort of unexpected windfall. They're sitting there going, okay, finally, this is the money that we were banking on getting and that we probably should have been getting over the last few years if we hadn't gone overboard. done this 10-year deal at a time where it would have served us a lot better to do something different. Yeah.

And the other thing, too, is like, I think it's going to help the owners, but it's not going to necessarily help the players in that, that flat cap, I think it's going to be there. Gary Bettman said, what, four more years? That's what he said. He sort of, you know, tamped down any expectations that with this big money coming in, that suddenly, okay, well, maybe the cap's going to go back up. And it sounds like they're from a cap and an escrow and everything point of view, they're taking on so much debt this year that it's going to take them the four years to pay it off

even with all this new revenue coming in. But what I like about this deal, and I always think that they should have done this in Canada years ago, Sean. I like when leagues split it up. You think of the NFL, right? You get games on NBC and ESPN and CBS and Fox. and you basically, you share the wealth, right? And I think, like, I look back.

I think the NHL made a huge mistake. And I say this is the guy who used to work for Sportsnet, used to work for TSN. I got friends on both sides, executives, everything. They made a huge mistake there. They should never have given everything to one entity. They should have figured out a way to split it up. It's, I think it's better for the consumer.

I think it's better for the bottom line. I like that they did that here because now you've opened the door to Look, NBC, if they're still interested in maintaining a partnership with the NHL, doors open for that. Fox is sitting there, according to some people. They could be sitting there. There's some options here. And that's the thing I like is that I've never been a fan of soul sourcing your broadcasting to one entity unless you're going to give you such as, and I guess that's what sports. That did.

They gave you what it's stupid amount of money. It was such an enormous amount of money. And we've seen over the years how that's impacted. that organization and that may have been a situation where it was just too much, too big an offer for the NHL to say no to. But you're right, from a consumer point of view, this is better. And also just especially in the United States, get on as many properties as you can because the NHL, we know this is a niche league, a niche sport in the United States. And for the most part, when it comes to the sports entities down there, if they don't have your rights, they don't

talk about you. We saw that on ESPN. For the last 15 years, hockey has largely disappeared from ESPN. They cover it and they obviously have some good people who cover the sport. But, you know, if you're down in the States and you turn on Sports Center, it takes a long time before you get to anything about the NHL. And a part of that is because they didn't have the rights. Now they do. You're going to see this huge increase in the amount of airtime and attention. that ESPN pays to the NHL, and that's going to be very, very good for the league. ESPN, whatever you think of them, still is the organization that drives so much of the conversation around sports in the United States, and the NHL has been absent from that for so many

years. It's great news that they're going to be part of it. Get some other, whether it's NBC. NBC's been a good partner or Fox or whoever it is, somebody else who's going to be there, and that means they're going to promote you, and they're going to, you want as many partners as you can if the dollars add up. That's less of a concern in Canada where the game's just everywhere anyways. But certainly in the U.S., yeah, break it up, get as many bidding wars as you can, drive that price up, and it makes a lot of sense. And look, I'm not, I don't think

Gary Bettman and the NHL have done anything here that's all that creative, that they've done anything that's all that worthy of over-the-top praise. All they've done is looked at what all the other leagues were doing and said, okay, we'll follow along with that. But, But it's still the right play. And it is going to help the league. And it's good news, period. You know, so obviously the, and we've kind of touched on this, the fact that COVID has, and as we hit the kind of one-year anniversary of the NHL shutting down, of the NBA shutting down,

we look back at the last 12 months, Sean, and look, there's obviously been a terrible impact from COVID on the sports world. But there's also been some positives, if I can use that phrase, about, about, about what COVID is done to the NHL. So I'm going to throw out a few things that we've seen from the NHL in the COVID world. And we're going to discuss what we like, okay? Maybe what we like, what we don't like. And if you could keep one of these things in the post-pandemic world, what's it going to be? So let me throw out a few things that have kind of come into the hockey world in the last 12 months.

So last year in the bubble, we had a play-in format. Never had that before in the NHL. We had a bunch of teams basically in a play-in round for the playoffs. I would love to know, would people like to see that in the future. We've also seen this season a truncated 56-game regular season. There's been a lot of people for years, banging the drum sand, 82 games is too long. Let's shorten the season. So maybe a shorter regular season is the way to go.

We've also seen, speaking of the schedule, a baseball-style schedule. Would people like to see that? You play the same team two, three, maybe even four times in a row. We've seen some divisional realignment. I know that's a source of contention for a lot of fans, the way things are going. And then you can even get a little bit, not trivial, but you look at it and like, man, I don't think I really miss the All-Star game.

There's no All-Star game this year. We're not seeing the All-Star game. And guess what? We got rid of exhibition games. There was no preseason. And there's some people who are a big fan of that. So, Sean, as we look at if we can, and again, I use the word positive with a little bit of context here.

But there have been some beneficial things, I think, to the way that we look at the NHL, the way we consume the NHL during the pandemic. If I told you out of that list of things that I mentioned, you get to keep one of them in the post-pandemic world. What are you going with? I only get one. Yeah. You only get one. It makes it tough. Okay.

You want to power rank a couple of them? Well, I want to give you two is what I want to do. I want to give you one that I want to keep as is and one that I want to use as a jumping off point. And the one I want to keep as is is no preseason. Get rid of it. Nobody likes the preseason. No, if you're a season ticket holder, you hate that you get charged for those extra four games that you don't want to go to. You know, the players don't seem to like it very much.

I shouldn't say nobody likes it. Obviously, if you're a kid trying to make a team, you probably like having a few games to show your stuff. I know there are some younger fans and maybe that's the only game that you get to go to in some market. So let's at least shorten it down. Two games is enough. That's all we need. We could start the season earlier. Pierre LeBron will be happy to hear me say this.

We could start the season in September instead of October. We could maybe get it done by the end of May. That's what he always wants us to see. I'm on board with that. So that would be my number one is let's just forget that the pre-season, these eight game, two, three-week preseason schedules, get rid of them, don't need them. The one that I want to take, but I want to tweak is the idea of the play and format. I don't want to go to 24 teams like we saw last year.

That was too many. I understand why they did it. It was fine under the circumstances. That's obviously way too much. But I've said for years now, I would like to see basically this equivalent of the wild card. The way I would do it, I would have the top six teams in a conference, make the playoffs, and then teams seven and eight play teams nine and ten in a little short miniseries.

Maybe it's one game. Maybe it's a two out of three, whatever it is. And then those are the teams that go into the playoffs. I really think that would add a lot of excitement. It would create more quote-unquote playoff spots, at least more spots for people to aim for during the regular season. Even some of these bad teams, and Lord knows, this whole league is designed to benefit the bad team.

So we might as well. Let's put some 10th place teams in there. But I think the real benefit here is think of what this does as, far as the different races. Right now, the playoff race, seeding doesn't really matter in the NHL these days. Home ice doesn't matter very much in the NHL these days because there's so much parity. There's so little difference between playing the sixth seed or the eighth seat or whatever. But imagine if we had this system in place. Obviously, the race for 10th becomes huge. That's your, that's your cutoff point to get into the playoffs. But also the race to finish 6th instead of 7th

is a very big deal because you don't want to play that little mini play. Anything can happen in a short series, you don't want any part of that. So you really want to, you want to finish sixth. So now we've got two races to watch, but also the top two seeds, one and two, if you know that if you finish third, you're going to be playing the sixth seed and they're going to be rested like you are, but if you finish or seven, or first or second, you're going to be playing one of those wildcard teams that just finished a series. They're not rested. They're tired. You're fresh and ready to go. That becomes an advantage. Suddenly you've got all these different inflection points where you're looking at the standings and everything seems to matter and the games start to matter more.

Geez, you mix that in with the goal plan and now even the bad teams are playing games that matter. You'd have down the stretch everything, every night, all the games would matter for something. I think that'd be a lot of fun. I know Gary Bettman, for whatever reason, has said he basically wants no part of this. And I know some people say there's already, oh, there's already too many playoff teams, but we're going to have a 32 team league. 16 teams make the playoffs. I'm still talking 16 teams make the playoffs. If you finish 10th and you lose your playing series, We won't count that as the playoffs. But it gives you something to play for.

It gives us all something to watch during the couple of days before the real thing starts. I don't see the downside here other than just, well, this isn't how we've done it before. So we can't do it that way going forward. Yeah. See, I'm with you 100%. If I had to pick one thing, like, I love that play in format last year. I know Edmonton Oilers fans didn't like it because Chicago beat them or Pittsburgh fans didn't like it because the Habs beat them. But there was an element of I didn't know what was going to happen.

And I like that. And if you want to even do simple math and say, you know, when we were, you know, really young and this was a 21 team league and 16 of them made the playoffs, that percentage was probably too high, right? Like, you probably shouldn't have 80 some odd percent of your league making the playoffs. But 16 of 32 seems a touch low. So what if we found a happy medium? I like this. You know what I liked is what the NBA did with their playoff format for the return to play in Orlando last year? Remember, the way that they had it, Sean, was essentially, depending on how you finished, it was a best of three.

But the onus was on the lower seed team to win the two games, right? So let's just use this as an example in your scenario where it's a seven and ten. Okay. And I'm going to say it's the Pittsburgh Penguins are the seven seed. And I'm going to say, we'll pick a team from that. New Jersey is 10th. Okay. So if New Jersey and Pittsburgh meet in a 7-10, all Pittsburgh has to do is win game one. If Pittsburgh wins game one, it's over. Like, the series is done. But if, you know,

if it goes the other way, then we got ourselves a little bit of a series here. Like, I like that. I mean, that's creative. That's, that's at least something to think about. And that because, I mean, that is the objection that you hear when you float this is people say, well, wait a second, what if my team finishes seventh? And then we got to play a play in? And what if we lose? And we were the seventh best team. And my answer to that is always, well, then don't finish seventh. Finish in the top six. You're not supposed to aim for seventh in this league.

You're supposed to try to be better than that. And most years, the difference between the seventh team and the 10th team is so small anyways that it's not really worth worrying about. But yeah, that could be a way to do it. Or maybe you say, you know what, it's going to be a three-game series. But that higher seed, it's all in their buildings. We're going to play, you know, there's no road games. You've got home ice every single game.

There's different ways you could do it and get creative with it. And I wouldn't mind seeing that. Again, you're still coming to a 16-team playoff. We're not reinventing the wheel once it gets down to the real thing in the best-to-seven series start. It's just a way to get teams in there. Keep more teams in the race. Put more pressure on teams to finish as high in the standings as possible. Instead of just saying, ah, well, you know what, we're seventh.

We're home and cooled out. Who cares? I think it would really make the end of the season a lot more fun. Yeah. You know, one thing that I really want to hit on in this episode of the podcast was your article that dropped on Thursday morning, Sean. And the two questions I have for you on this are, number one, I need to know what your email or your text was to Thomas Drance and John Vogel to pitch the idea of which fan base has had a

harder time the last 50 years, Buffalo and Vancouver. And number two, how long have you been sitting on a Princess Bride reference to drop into a column? Yeah, that one, that one just seemed to fit a little bit too well. This was an idea I came up with a couple weeks ago. And it's just, it strikes me as very interesting how the sabers and the Canucks just seem to be forever-length. You know, these were the expansion cousins that came in 1970. when the league went from 12 to 14 teams, these were the two teams that come in together.

They start off with that ridiculous whole thing with the roulette wheel to figure out who gets Jolbert Perot. Similar histories, obviously, they've gone down different paths. Buffalo gets good much quicker, but they both lost in the Stanley Cup final multiple times. Neither team has ever won a Stanley Cup. Some big controversies, some big star players who have left under unfortunate circumstances.

You go on down the list. And just the fact that this is now the 50th season for both of those teams. And 50 seasons in, they both wound up at almost the same place. Again, another disappointing season. And to take the symmetry to the extreme, last Friday, there is Jim Benning and Kevin Adams standing in front of the media on the same day doing basically the same thing, which is apologizing for another lost season.

and asking for more time and more patience from the fans. And so the question that that led to in my mind is, of these two fan bases, and I'm not saying these are the only two fan bases that have suffered or have had to watch bad hockey, but of these two fan bases, which one has headed worse? And I pitched it to John and Thomas. I got an instant yes from both of them

because they were both like, yeah, let me at it. I'm going to make the case. And it was, I got to say, it was fascinating to me because, you know, as a Leaf fan, I know I know bad hockey and I know being miserable as a fan. But I'm familiar with what Sabres fans and Canucks fans have dealt with. But until you've actually seen it in detail, you just kind of sit there and go, wow, I totally forgot about that. Geez, I didn't even know about that.

And, you know, they both, John and Thomas both went to town making the case for their team and were very thorough. And yet in the comments of the article already, there are fans going, I can't believe he didn't mention this. I can't believe you didn't talk about that. there's a lot of scars in both of these fan bases. And I will tell you, if you're a fan of a team like the Leafs and several others that have had more downs than ups, you will probably commiserate. If you're a fan of a good team, it'll probably make you feel good about the fact that you that you haven't had to live through quite as much of this.

But it's, I don't know, I find the ups and downs of sports are great, and the downs very often are just as interesting to me as the ups. and this was an interesting exercise to watch two writers who know these franchises very, very well in the whole history make their case as to why they have it worse. And I think what really works in this column is that those are such great hockey markets, right? Like it isn't non-traditional market. They love their teams. They live and die and they live and breathe with the Sabres and the Canucks.

And I look at this and I think, man, like I don't know which is more painful to get to Vancouver where you were twice you had a game seven. In fact, the 2011 one should probably sting more because you had two kicks at the cup, so to speak. But then you talked to Buffalo fans who were like, if we just got a game seven against Dallas with Hachik, we would have liked our odds. To lose the Stanley Cup on quite possibly the most controversial call

or non-call in the history of the league, how do you rank that versus going into a series as overwe? Favits as clear. I mean, the 2011 Canucks were the best team in the league. Apologies to the Bruins and whoever else. They were head and shoulders above everyone else, but you still got to win. And they, to not only lose at home, but lose for nothing. And then there's a riot. I mean, is that worse than losing on the skate and the crease? Or is it even worse to have a Cinderella underdog team in 94 that that everybody gets behind? Just one of the great feel good stories get all the way to game seven. against this, you know, the big U.S. market and all of this, and to come so close and not heaven. I mean, you were in Vancouver at the time. You, you mentioned Nathan Lafayette's name to a Canucks fan and they can still see the puck hitting the post. Yeah. In the final minutes, is that worse? Like, what is, you know, what does it mean to lose in, in a horrible way? And, uh, uh, you, you, you sort of, you, you, you only need these two teams to cover most of the bingo

squares on that, that, that really sad card. Yeah, and it's funny because the 94 Canucks team, I think, is much more revered in that market than the 2011 team, even though the 2011 team won a president's trophy. And like I said, had two chances to win the Stanley Cup. The 94 team kind of has carte blanche there. I think I think Jeff Cortnell can go into any place and just, you know, I don't think anyone from that team is paying for a dinner. The photo of Kirk McLean and Trevor Linden after game six just exhausted, they've just won to force game seven. and you can just see on their face that just the it's one of the great sports photos

of all time, hockey or otherwise, and the fact that they were down 3-1 in that series and, you know, everybody, game 5, Madison Square Gardens and this is it, the Rangers are going to snap, 1940 is going to be over, and the Canucks go ahead, not so fast, and then win that game 6, go into game 7, and again,

just to be so close, it's agonizing, and it's, it's like I said, it's very interesting. Because a lot of times if you say, hey, who's worse? Hockey fans will come out and go, my team's not the worst. My team's great. Why are you saying anything bad about my team?

But when you get down to this level, Canucks and Sabres fans, I haven't seen anyone yet say, no, my team's not the worst. It's the other guys. They're all fighting for the crown. Nobody has no one suffering like we have. Yeah. And I think Toronto fans, again, if we're only talking essentially about post-expansion, Leafs fans would be like, hey, hold my beer because we've had some.

There's a few, yeah. A few of these teams, right? And I think, like, I always think, too, like, in the NFL, you'd have a great argument amongst Detroit Lions fans, Cleveland Browns fans, and Buffalo Bills fans. And I think in the NHL, you would have Vancouver, Buffalo, and Toronto kind of filling those spots in those three. I would also make a case. And I know that they've won Stanley Cups in this window.

The Philadelphia Flyers, man. Like, I would argue that Philly, I know they want a couple of cups, but a lot of people weren't alive for those cups or don't remember those cups. If you put the cutoff at 40 years instead of 50. I say Philadelphia has been tantalizingly close. They lose a couple of times to the Oilers, but then, you know, they have some other runs and they've had the goaltending issues. And like, I would put Philly, like, if you're power ranking this year, like, who are the five, which five fan bases have suffered through the most heartache on the condition that they've kind of. have been around at least four decades or five decades. I'm going to throw Philly in there and say this has been a terrible four decades, even though they've been good. It's been painful at times

to be a Flyers fan. Yeah, that's a good call. They'd be right up there. I think, you know, if we combine the two versions of the Winnipeg Jets, they certainly would have a strong case for you. And then, yeah, I mean, if you get more recent, the senators have to be in the mix for that. I know a lot of people would say that the San Jose sharks should be in the mix. And that sounds a little weird because the sharks were good for almost 20 straight years, but they never got over the hump. Like, is that worse? Is it better to be the Leafs over the last 20 years where you were good a couple of times,

but most of the times you're not even close so you don't get your hopes up? Or to be a sharks fan, and every year you're going, okay, this has to be the year. This has to be it. And then it just never happens. And the one comment that made me laugh was, I saw somebody in today's saying like I'm a blue jackets fan and I feel like I'm just looking 30 years in the future when I read about this. And it's kind of like, yeah, the blue jackets are like that next generation. It's only been 20 years for them. No, you know, no big deal. But it's up there. There's a lot of

teams. And St. Louis would have been up until they won the cup last year, they would have been right there too. So it's, there's a long list. Yeah, St. Louis and Washington, I always feel like they would have been on that list if they didn't get those cups in 2018. And, 2019. All right, Sean, time for a little Granger things with Jesse Granger. And I got to tell you, Jesse, as we kind of open up our apps today and we look at the athletic, one of the stories that's jumping out is your interview with Alan Walsh. Sean and I both want to know, was there any artwork submitted by Alan Walsh for this piece?

No artwork submitted this time. Thankfully, probably for the Golden Knights Organization. But Alan was great. I was super pumped to be able to talk to him. guy that a lot of people in Vegas have wanted to talk to for a while ever since last year's playoffs with kind of the controversy between Mark Andre Fleury and Robin Leonard and net. And obviously, Mark Andre Fleury is playing the best hockey of his career right now at 36. And I figured who better to ask why he's playing this well, how he's playing this well,

that Alan Walsh, who's known him since he was 15 years old. He's probably watched more Mark Andre Fleury hockey than anyone. And his answer was pretty simple. And I was kind of surprised by how he basically said, when Flurry plays a lot of. lot, he plays well. And he went back to Pittsburgh. And when he was the guy in Pittsburgh, Alan Walsh thought Flurry played a lot better. And obviously, the scenarios in Pittsburgh and Vegas were totally different. Matt Murray was a homegrown guy in Pittsburgh. And Flurry was injured. And that was how Murray ended up taking that job. But when those two split starts in Pittsburgh,

you could see Flurry's play start to decline a little bit. And Walsh feels like, even though, and like, I did have some pushback on it because I feel like Flurry played really well early in the year when he was splitting starts with Lennar, he was 4-0, and he gave up five total goals in his first four games when they were splitting. But since Lennar has gone out of the lineup and Flurry has really had to take the lion's share of the starts in Vegas, he's played 13 in the last 14 games. And Flurry leads the league in save percentage. He leads the league in goals against average, and he's second behind only Andre Vasselowski and goals saved above average. He's playing at his best right now in Walsh believes that the heavy playing time that maybe some goalies

wouldn't be looking for is what Flurry likes. and that's a huge reason why he's playing so well. And, you know, another question, though, here is, like, it felt like anybody who wanted Mark Andre Fleury last summer in the off season could have had him. I mean, there was a no trade clause too, but it felt like anyone could have him. What's the status there? Right. And that was another thing that I wanted to talk to Alan about.

And I basically asked him, from the outside, it seemed like it was a formality that Mark Andre Fleury would be traded. The team had signed Robin Leonard to a five-year, 25 million. contract. It gave the team close to $13 million in goaltending cap space. And it's a team that is so tightly pressed against the cap. I mean, at one point in the off season, they were well over the cap. And they had to trade Nate Schmidt and Paul Stasney to get under the cap. So from the outside, it seemed like it was going to happen. Mark Andre Fleury was going to be traded. So I asked him, from you and Mark Andre Fleury's perspective, was that the case? And he said, no, not really. He said

GMs have a lot of conversations every season about a lot of players. And he's sure that Flurry was in those conversations. But he said 99% those conversations go nowhere. No one ever hears about them. The trades never end up happening. So I think nothing, like you mentioned, someone could have had Flurry. I'm sure if someone would have came in and blown George McPhee and Kelly McCrimman away, I'm sure they could have had Flurry.

But at the same time, I don't think the Golden Knights were trying to give him away the same way that maybe we thought at that point in the off season. Walsh actually said he never had a feeling Flery was going to be traded unless he outright asked for it. And he clearly didn't. He spoke to me right before all that happened saying, my goal is to stay in Vegas. I want to retire in Vegas. So I think from the outside, because I remember talking like, are they going to have to give up a first round pick to someone to take Mark Andre Fleury's salary? And from what Walsh said, that clearly was not going to be the case.

And like we've seen Rutherford come out and say, I tried to bring him back to Pittsburgh and they didn't, I couldn't get him, basically. So the Golden Knights, while they did commit to Robin Leonard clearly with the contract, I don't think they were quite as cut and dry. Let's get rid of Mark Andre Fleury as we thought. And clearly that's paying off now because Robin Lenners missed all these games and Flurry's been the best goalie in hockey this season. I don't know if the Golden Knights necessarily this was the exact plan, but it's certainly working to this point. You know, I want to, Sean and I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the fact that we're starting to see, Jesse, some fans come back into arenas in the United States. Probably not going to happen in Canada in this regular season or postseason, but we're starting to see it in the United States. And the question we had for you was, is there some correlation between fans in the building and home ice success? Because I think, like, oh, you're going to get some fans behind you, cheering you on.

Maybe it might help you out to create an atmosphere. inside your rink that you're used to. Early on, as arena doors are opening up, are we starting to see any connection between fans in the stands and success on the ice for home teams? Yeah, so I've been lucky enough to cover a couple games at T-Mobile Arena since they started letting fans in, and I was blown away by the difference that 2,600 people can make.

I honestly, going into those games, I figured, well, it'll be nice for the fans to get in there. I mean, obviously, those 2,600 people, they haven't seen a live sporting event in over a year. It'll be cool for them. But I didn't think it would make that much of a difference in the atmosphere as opposed to just the, I mean, because they have loud fake crowd noise at Team Mobile Arena. I didn't think it would make that big of a difference. But it really does. I was blown away by when a team scores a goal and there's an instant reaction, even if it's only 2,600 people, just the fact that they're standing up and making a little bit of noise, it really gets the team pumped up.

And it adds to the atmosphere. and one of the games that I covered with fans was a perfect example. The Golden Knights were down three goals at one point, three nothing, and they were down four to late in the third period, and they ended up rallying and winning, and all the players credited the fans now. We all know how that is, but in their minds, it did affect them. So I asked a really well-respected odds maker out here in Vegas,

are you guys accounting for fans being in the building? And he said no. What he told me was, right now, the way the sports books and the odds-makers, are operating is whatever a normal home ice advantage would be for a team, because each team in the league has different home ice advantages. Some teams play better at home. Some teams don't have as big of an advantage. The odds makers sort of have a number on each team. When this team's at home, this is how much we adjust the price. They're subtracting 10 cents off of that this year because there are no fans.

So what that means is if the team was going to be a minus 150 favorite, they're only a minus 140 favorite because the fans aren't in the building. And what he told me was, they're not going to adjust from that number when there are some fans in the building until it's closer to capacity. He wouldn't say what number if it's 50%, if it's 75%, but he said basically, right now we're treating those games without fans the same as the ones with a limited number of fans. And if they do end up allowing more, at some point they're going to go back to their normal odds. I looked up the numbers and it's a little, it's a small sample size, but the teams have been winning more at home with fans in the building. So far, in the NHL, without fans in the building, the home teams have a 0.570

percentage, which is solid, winning more than half the time. But in the 96 games that teams have played, and that's Dallas, Florida, Arizona, New York, Pittsburgh, Vegas, New Jersey, Tampa, and Columbus, in those games, the home team has a 0.615 points percentage. So it has gone up. So maybe if you're a better out there, maybe these odds makers not adjusting for the fans, Maybe that's a way for you to get a tiny little bit of an advantage. And that's what we're always looking for. That's interesting. I mean, tell me if I'm right.

That seems low to me that that 10 cent adjustment for fans. I think I would have assumed it was higher that heaven. And obviously, when you have home ice, it's not just the fans in the building. You've got the last change. You're at home. You're more comfortable. All of those things. But I would have thought that the fans would have factored more into that.

That's a smaller edge than I would have imagined. Yeah, I agree. I was a little bit surprised when he told me that too. Yeah, it's right. And 615 is a pretty good winning percentage or points percentage. Right, up from 0.570. I mean, it doesn't sound big, but that's a pretty big difference, especially if it continues. And again, like some of these teams like the devils, they've played a couple games at home. So we'll see if that, like, you win one game at home with fans and all of a sudden your points percentage goes. So we'll see how that continues out as the season goes. And like we're going to have teams like you said in Canada that probably don't have fans. the entire season. So we're going to have a really good, by the end of the year, we'll have a really good idea of if the fans make a difference in the building, I think. Yeah. And a final question for you here, Jesse, today is you dropped another column this week about, you know, kind of future bets, value bets for the Stanley Cup. My one takeaway from

your column was stay away from the East Division. That's the one with the Islanders and the capitals and the Bruins and the Penguins. It feels like right now, if you're trying to put down some smart money on a Stanley Cup champion, stay away from that east because, quite frankly, nobody knows who's going to come out of that thing right now. Right. I mean, there's two different ways of thinking about it. So you're right. That division is clearly the most competitive in the NHL. And I don't even think it's close. You look at the north. Toronto is the runaway favorite in that division right now. And the odds show that. I mean, they are currently minus 500 favorite to win the division in the regular season. So you'd have to bet 500 bucks just to win $100 back. Not getting any value.

In the central, Tampa Bay, now, Florida and Carolina are playing really well, and in the standings, they're right there. But when you look at the metrics and, like, I love looking at Dom's projections, Tampa Bay should have control of that division. So you're not getting, I mean, you can bet Tampa Bay, but you're not going to get great odds there. They're currently minus 175. So they're favored against the field to win that division. So if you're looking for a team, a good team, not just some underdog that may have a run. If you're looking for a good team to bet to win a division or to make it to the final four or to win the Stanley Cup, that East Division at least gives you some options with some actual value to where you can win money on a future and you're not betting $500 to win $100.

And I look at the Pittsburgh Penguins, they're plus $700 to win that division right now. They don't even have to win the Cup, just to win the division plus $700. And there are a couple points behind the Islanders. And you look at Dom's models, the implied odds on a plus 700 underdog is 12%. According to Dom's odds, they have a 15% chance of winning the division. It's hard to find a team that the model shows you a better percentage than the odds do because the casinos obviously shade towards. They're not going to give you great odds.

That's why these casinos are as fancy as they are. So I think finding something like that where the penguins are good value bet. And then in those, go ahead. Sorry, let me just jump in here because I agree. You just said about the penguins, I'm going to throw a fact out there that some people may not be aware of. The Pittsburgh Penguins, starting tonight, eight games left. against the Buffalo Sabres. They have not played the Buffalo Sabres, the easy pickings in that group,

and they're going to get them tonight starting for a two-game series with no Jack Eichol, any of that. Boston, too, has also not played the Sabres yet this year, and I know we're picking on Buffalo these days, but that seems like worth keeping an eye on. Some teams have the Islanders have beaten the Buffalo Sabres up a lot. Some of these teams haven't played them at all. And if you're just looking at regular season standings, that's going to have an impact. That's a great point. And I think we've kind of ignored strength of schedule this year because it's like, well, they're all stuck in their divisions. They're going to end up playing the same teams anyways. It doesn't matter. But you're right. The strength of schedule will be different depending on where you are in the season. They'll all

end up averaging out. But a team like Pittsburgh, who's a couple points back, if they, if they've got some easy points coming up, that that's a good idea. And then like the other, advice I would say out of that column is don't be afraid to bet those favorites to win the cup. Like I said, Tampa Bay, you're not going to want them to win the division unless you're laying a lot of money to win a little. But the implied odds and how close these teams are to winning the cup, I think hasn't quite caught up with how good they've actually been. And I think another example is that is out in the West, Colorado and Vegas. And Colorado's record isn't great right now. They've been banged up. But I think if you watch the games in the West and you look at those

rosters, Vegas and Colorado have clearly kind of established themselves as the teams to beat, they're both eight to one to win the final. I said in the piece, maybe maybe take both. You, you don't want to bet to where you're playing against yourself, but the chances of, I mean, like St. Louis is is banged up too, and they've been kind of staying above water. And Minnesota has surprised some people. But I think if you have either Colorado or Vegas, you're going to get one of those teams to come out of that division. And all of a sudden, you're in the final four. And you've got a team at eight to one odds to win the Stanley Cup. That's not bad at all. So I think there are different ways to play it. But we're seeing as this season goes, I'm, I haven't focused

this closely on hockey gambling in previous season. So I'm, I, I'm enjoying comparing the models from Dom and other guys out there to what the odds, the implied odds from the sports books are. It's really fun for me. Hey, this is always fun for us too, Jesse. So listen, thanks for joining us again for Granger Things. Have yourself a terrific week, and we'll hit you up again for the next episode. Thanks, guys.

Thanks, Jesse. All right, a reminder, if you ever want to reach out to us, we're here, we want to hear from you, and we want to answer some of your questions. You can reach us via email. at The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com, the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. Or you can leave us a voicemail. The phone number is 845, 445, 845, 845, 845-5-5-4-59.

And that is what Billy has done. Let's have a listen, Sean, to Billy's question to us here. Hi, this is Billy Vic from Crabtown, USA. You hear teams described as heavy or fast all the time. So what are the five heaviest teams in the league and five fastest teams in the league? And are there any teams that are both? Thanks a lot. Love the show.

All right. Billy, thank you for that to voicemail. Again, 845-4-4-5-845-845-59 is the number where you can drop its voicemail. Billy's asking, hey, who are the heaviest teams, who are the fastest teams? You know, Sean, what I think about this, the one team that comes to mind in terms of speed for me is Carol. line. I always watch, if I watch a Carolina Hurricanes game, I'm like, man, that's a fast team. And maybe it's, maybe it's a function. They're so deep defensively, but, like, with their blue line. But that's a fast team. And I still feel like every time Toronto and Montreal play, it's a fast hockey game. And it goes back to opening night. Like, so as I look at fast teams for me, like Carolina comes to my mind right away. Toronto and Montreal come to mind for me. So to kind of answer Billy's question for you is you're talking heavy teams. teams, fast teams, who jumps out for you? Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because this is the sort of question that years ago,

there would have been really clear categories that you could put teams in. There was a time where it felt like you kind of had to choose, were you going to be the big boy team or were you going to be the speed and skill team? And these days, there's differences, but those two circles seem to overlap a lot more. And when I saw this question, one of the things I did is I went back and I looked at James Myrtle every year does a piece where he takes every team and he does average age, height, weight. And what was interesting to me is the two heading into this season, the two heaviest teams. And there was a pretty good gap between these two and the ones below them.

So the two teams that are the heavy teams just purely as far as the average size of the players, Vegas and Tampa, who I think you could make a case are also the two most skilled teams in the entire league. Those are the two teams a lot of people are picking to play for the Stanley Cup. And neither one are, you know, these aren't teams where you sit there and go, oh, yeah, they're a bunch of knuckle-draggers who are trying to do the Bratsteen bullies routine. These are really skilled teams, but they're skilled teams that have supplemented with some of those bigger pieces. I also would look at, if you're talking teams that play more of a traditional heavy style, the Islanders would be up there as a team that has some skill.

We saw what Matthew Barzell did on the weekend with his goal, but that's a team that they sort of play a more traditional big style. And then the other one, even though they don't rank that high on James's list, but the blues still, you know, that was a team a couple years ago when they had their playoff run. There was a lot of size involved in making that happen, and they lost a little bit of it with certain guys leaving. that that is still a team where I feel like that's part of the identity.

But I'm not sure that there's anyone that I look at now and I go, this is a skating team, this is a size team. You've got to have both in today's league. Yeah, it's true. Like it's totally different. And maybe that's just like you said, like the function of parody or whatever it is. But man, like it just doesn't feel like there's a ton of difference in terms of style amongst the teams.

The days of the Legion of Doom sort of. of coming into town where you're just like, holy smokes, these guys are all six foot five. This is crazy. You just don't see that anymore. No. Ryan from Buffalo wants to know from us, and I'm sure like a lot of Buffalo fans, Sean, curious about potential landing spots for Jack Eichael, and that being, of course, if the Sabres in fact decide to trade them.

Now, Ryan from Buffalo has written in via email asking us, if we are under the assumption that LA and New York, the Rangers and the Kings, are the top teams in terms of targets for Jack and the price is some top prospects and those organizations have a ton of them, what teams would you maybe consider are in the mix as one be with the necessary resources? So what Ryan is saying is, look, we all know L.A. and New York are at the top list. Are there some other dark horse teams? Like for me, I think of New Jersey. I don't know what you think.

But I think New Jersey, maybe it's a function of them having some recent first picks and high picks. Like I think of the devils and I think that they have, you know, the potential to engineer this type of trade because they have some really nice pieces. And I guess maybe part of me always thinks about Sean the idea of Jack Eichael being told, hey, Jack, how would you like to play in the shadow of the Empire State Building? And he's all exciting. Wow, it's not what you think. You're going to the devils. But if you look at this, Ryan is wondering, whether the teams might have the depth in the prospect pool. to engineer a Jack Eichael trade.

Yeah, and this is all happening against the backdrop of Bichael's recent injury, and we don't know how long he's going to be out, and there's some rumblings that it could be a longer-term situation. But I don't think that necessarily changes the discussion all that much, because if, you know, even if Jack Eichael were to miss the rest of the season, you're still going to be having this conversation in the offseason. And as we've said before, that's when a deal is most likely to happen. I have a few teams come to mind.

The Devils are one. the thing with the Devils is two first overall picks recently used them on Jack Hughes and Nico Heeshire and you assume that one of those guys would be going back the other way Hesha's probably the guy that you'd like to move if you're the Devils based on how this season's gone but you just named him captain so I don't know if that works maybe that that's a situation where it's a tough deal to do I'll give you two other teams that jump out of me one is Detroit because as we know there are frustration with the way the draft lottery is gone and all this, they don't have that number

one center to build around. They certainly do have some prospects. Steve Eiserman of anybody would know the value of an elite franchise center. I don't know that Buffalo would want that, given that these two teams are presumably back in the same division going forward, but that is an option. But the one team that really jumps out at me, and I put them just a tier below New York and L.A. is the Anaheim Ducks. Great system. Tons of great prospects available. Lots that they could do there.

You're going to have a high pick this year. And it feels like that's a team where there is some desire to say, like, hey, we want to win now. And I don't mean that they expect to contend for a Stanley Cup next year. There's clearly a reset, if not a full rebuild going on. But I don't get the sense from Bob Murray that there's a lot of patience to just go hibernate for five years and then come back. I think there's an element there where it's. It's like, you know what, we've got some pieces. We can maybe do something now and fast forward this a little bit.

And certainly if they decided they wanted to, when you look at the prospects, they're right up there with L.A. and maybe even above New York as far as what they could offer. Sean, as always, we wrap up our podcast by tapping in to your expertise. And that is a little this week in hockey history. So, Sean, let's do it here in the early part of March. a couple of things for you, March 9th, 1991. Theo Fleury scores a short-handed hat trick. That's right, all three of Theo Fleury's goals against St. Louis,

short-handed. Now, a couple of weeks ago, you may remember on the podcast, we brought up the fact that Flurry also had a game where he was plus nine for Calgary, right? And remember I asked you, I was like, what do you think is more impressive, being plus nine in a game or having a short-handed hat-trick? And I thought, you know what? I should reach out to Theo Fleury and ask him.

So I shot him a text right after that short, and I forgot to bring this up. I said, though, what are you more proud of being plus nine in a game or a shorthanded hat trick? He's like, not even close. Shorthanded hat trick. Okay. That's it for me. He's like, shorthanded hat trick. So in case you're wondering, I look at that and think, that's a record that I just, you know, first

of all, they'll never be broken because the odds of somebody's scoring four shorthanded goals in the game is impossible. I just don't even know that we're going to see somebody match it at any point. Yeah, it's, it is hard to imagine. And yeah, that's yet another weird record for Theo Fleury. But that's, it's a great one. One of my favorite things, I'm looking at the box score just at that game. He scores the third goal at the 1725 mark of the third period and then immediately gets

kicked out of the game. I don't know what happens. Something happened with him and Dan Quinn and he gets tossed out of the game. Like what more Theo Fleury moment is that than scoring a hatrick, short-handed, setting a record, doing some amazing offensive thing, and then getting yourself tossed out of the game. That's the, this may be the platonic Theo Fleury game if we're looking for one. Yeah. And so the other thing I want to bring up on this week in hockey history is this week, Sean, March the 10th, 1980. So 41 years ago, March 10th, 1980, the New York Islanders acquire Butch Goring at the NHL trade deadline from the L.A. Kings.

And Goring is seen as the missing link. The Islanders would go on to win the Stanley Cup. I believe they went on, and you're an expert on this. I believe they ran the table in the regular season. They were just dominant after they got Goring. They go on, they beat Philly in the Cup, and then they go on and win three more after that. it is always, it's the gold standard, right? Even 40 some odd years later, people always point back and say,

when you look at the birth and kind of what truly spawned the trade deadline into becoming a thing, it was the Islanders picking up Butch Goring this week in 1980. That's the one. That's the deal that every team that's considered themselves a contender at the deadline has been chasing ever since. And you're right, they went undefeated the rest of the way. And part of the reason for this is that, it wasn't just a case of a really good team

adding at the deadline and then having that guy go on and be a big piece of their future. Boch scoring helped them that year, and then in 1981, the year after when they won their second cup, he was the Kahn-Smite winner. So you can't ask a guy to do any more when you bring them over.

But the thing that a lot of people forget about the 7980 Islanders, they were not that good during the regular season. And in fact, when they made the trade to get him, they were just barely over 500. They had been real good a couple of years in the late 70s, and it just hadn't clicked, it hadn't come together. And then this 7980 season starts, and that was the year the Flyers had the crazy undefeated streak. And nobody was really thinking about the Islanders.

And then they go and make this deal, they go on a run to end the season. And then, of course, they start that amazing run of four cups, 19 straight playoff wins. And this is the one. And you know what? I'm glad for it. I'm sure you could do a contrarian take and look at it and go, you know, Butch Gore, we've exactly. I exaggerated the impact that this guy had. He was a good second-line center.

That's what he was. But I'm not going to do that because I love the trade deadline and I love this idea of teams loading up and saying, let's go find that piece and make our playoff run. And the fact that you've got all these years ago to look at Butch Goring as not just a guy who came in for one year, but became a part of a dynasty as that final piece of the puzzle. It's perfect. And it's a great part of hockey lore.

And I hope that GMs are thinking about it over the next month as they're trying to figure out how to not let this trade deadline be a dud. Yeah. And, you know, it's amazing. You're right. Like that Islanders team in 1980, the four years before that, they were a perennial 100-point team and they just were always shocked in the platter. There's a Lanny McDonald goal with Game 7 overtime and they get taken out.

That year, where they get Butch scoring, they only had 91 points in the regular season, which is remarkable when you think they ran the table at the end. So they were basically like a 500 team before they got Bich-Gor. The day they made that trade, they lost to the Washington Capitals. And that was back when nobody lost to the Washington Capitals. Nobody who was a good team lost to the Washington Capitals. And yeah, and that was their last loss of the regular season because Butch Goring coming in. And look, it's one of these things where hockey players are humans.

And, you know, sometimes if a thing is, you know, is a thing true or not? Well, if they believe it's true, then it's true. And if they see Butch Goring come in and suddenly things turn around and they decide in their head that, hey, this guy is the reason that happened. Okay, that can be really powerful, even if it's, it may be maybe a little bit more narrative than reality. Butch Gorman was a real good player and he fit in just about perfectly with that team. And that's what every GM should be looking for, right? Like, what is the one spot on this roster that I need to address and who's the best guy out there that I can go and get? And the interesting thing is, you know, back then, the team.

weren't trading draft picks and futures and cap space and all that stuff. It was a hockey trade where they just gave up two players off the roster, brought another guy in, and it was a perfect fit. And to this day, that's the gold standard that every GM is shooting for this time of year. Yeah, and speaking of perfect fit, Sean, as we wrap up, was there a more perfect fit than Butch Goring in his helmet? Like, if you're doing, one day you've got to do a column on, like, you're going to outfit one NHL player with like a certain piece of equipment from everybody. Butch Goring's helmet might be number one on the list, right? There's a power ranking there of all time.

All time good and bad helmets. And you know what? At some point, it just kind of becomes the same thing. You've got to get the Gretzky Jofa. Peter Clem has got to be in there. Mike Folino with the salad bowl. There's a lot out there. But yeah, Butch Goring was, maybe that was it.

Maybe it was the helmet to turn things around for the islanders. Yeah, exactly. All right. Hey, listen. Enjoy the week. Sean, should be a fun weekend of hockey coming up. Have a great week. and we'll get you again on next week's show.

Sounds good. Talk to you then. All righty. And thank you, everybody, for joining us for this edition of The Athletic Hockey Show. We'll talk to you again, like I said, next week. You can always email us any question you have, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com, or you can do what to Billy did this week and drop us a voicemail at 845-4-45-845-49.

And if you're not a subscriber with us at The Athletic, join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show I'll be back on Monday to wrap up the weekend I was with Haley Self.