The Athletic Hockey Show - Tim Stutzle signs 8-year contract with Senators, Arpon Basu on expectations for the Canadiens, Jake Oettinger's new deal in Dallas

Episode Date: September 8, 2022

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe discuss Tim Stutzle signing an eight year contract with the Ottawa Senators. Is it a gamble for the team or a smart play? Next, Jake Oettinger's new 3-year deal in Dallas, and how teams approach goalie contracts.Then, Arpon Basu joins the show to share his insights on the Montreal Canadiens, including tanking for Connor Bedard, expectations for Juraj Slafkovsky, Kirby Dach's new contract, and Carey Price on LTIR.To wrap up, a new icing rule proposal is offered up in the mailbag, as well as a listener asking for a comparison of two young defensemen, and learn where the Los Angeles Kings held their first training camp in "This Week in Hockey History".Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail] or leave a VM [phone]! Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back, everybody. It is your Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. It's Ian Mettishon-Mackad do with you for an hour or so. Coming up, Arpan Basu, covers the Montreal Canadiens. He's going to drop by Chad Kerry Price, Kirby Doc, all things, habs. We'll talk about Tim Stutzler's new contract, handed out by the senators this week.

We've got some really fun voicemail questions, a debate about more insider, Kail McCar, some rule change stuff, Some this week in hockey history. So a lot of things to get to as we come back after Labor Day and kind of get back into hockey mode, back into here we go. This season is about to start. And more importantly, I'm in multiple fantasy football leagues here. Head to head with my co-host, Sean.

That's right. It all starts tonight. And we will spend the first part of this podcast reading off our rosters. Here we go. At tight end. No. Nobody cares about your fantasy team. Okay, I do have one question.

But my fantasy team is interesting. Yeah. I do have one of my trade. Let's have we ever negotiated a trade live on the air. Yeah, live on the air. Can I ask you this question? I want to ask this question to the listeners as well. And we're going to be talking about the haves in a second.

Do you ever have to take a millisecond to pause when you're talking about Buffalo Bill's quarterback, Josh Allen, that you don't accidentally say Jake Allen or vice versa? Or am I the only one that? You know what? I haven't done that with Josh Allen, but I feel like there are probably players that would fall into that category. Yeah. Jake Allen? Yeah, no, I haven't done that one yet. I feel like I have to think about it. Every time I'm like, yeah, Buffalo Bill's quarterback,

Josh Allen, because I feel like I'm going to say Jake Allen every time. And same with the Habs. I'm like, yeah, I guess this year they're going to go with Caden, Primo, and Jake Allen. There you go. Yeah. Anyway, so maybe I'm not. So there you go. It's something to listen for us. as we discuss the... Actually... Josh Allen will probably come up more on this podcast and...

We've turned into a fantasy football podcast. But hey, you know what? This is perfect timing. Because on Wednesday, the Ottawa senators surprised a lot of people, myself included. So listen, I'm going to tell you the story. I'm going to paint the picture for our listeners of how this unfolded. Ottawa agrees to an eight-year deal with Timmy Stutzler. And so the senator, Sean, had a huge splash.

In fact, I'm going to give you an... opportunity to drop your joke that you did on Twitter. I'm going to give you the opportunity. So the senators have a full season launch event on Wednesday. They're like, here's your chance to hear from the team president on ticket sales. Marketing department is going to come in and talk about some cool initiatives. Alex DeBrinckett's going to be there. First chance to meet them in person.

They had the concession items for the season. And they had this, and this is also turned into a food podcast. by the way. But they said this season they're going to be having a brand new Putin, which is for the people who don't know, it's fries and gravy and cheese curds, but they have what they're calling the Senator's 30th Putin. And this is because it's the 30th anniversary of the Ottawa Senator's franchise. And this thing includes like some flamen hot Cheetos, dust and some black gravy.

They're trying to create the senator's colors. Anyway, so I tweet out a picture of, hey, here's a look at the Senator's 30th, Putin, to which you said. And I asked why they were naming food items after where they keep finishing in the standings. Yeah. A little fun little joke.

Senators fans thought it was great. They really enjoyed that one. You know what? Yeah, I'm sure they all took it. But if there's anything Senators fans love, it's being made fun of it. up by a Leafs fan. They really get a kick out of that.

So anyway, it is called the 30th Putin, but it's because of the 30th anniversary. Anyway, so we're wrapping up this conference and we think, okay, well, that's the end of that. And all of a sudden, they're like, hey, just hang on. There's going to be one more. We got one more little thing for you. And I'm like, okay, I honestly, I'll be honest here. I thought Claude Jureu was going to come out and they were going to name him like an alternate captain.

I thought, oh, you know what, that would be great, great opportunity. No, instead, all of a sudden, Tim Stutzla comes up. and sits down with Pierre Dorian on kind of this podium with two chairs. I'm thinking, oh, my God, is this going to be what I think of this? And all of a sudden, Pierre Dorian says, you know, there's not too many historic days in the history of the franchise. And you could just feel the room like, what? And Pierre Dorian says to Tim Stoza, how do you feel about sticking around for eight years?

And Tim was like, yeah, let's do it. And it was unbelievable. They even signed the contract inside this venue. Anyway, long story short, I want to ask you this because Ottawa signs Tim Stutzler to an eight-year contract extension out of his entry-level deal. So he's got one more year of the entry level, then this new deal kicks in. It's eight years at a cap hit of $8.3 million. In Ottawa, the fans are doing cartwheels. They're like, damn, we got Tim Stutzel locked up to what we think is a pretty fair deal.

This is awesome. Outside of Ottawa, you're seeing people like, I can't believe you're just. just dishing out money like this, the unproven player. So I need to get your, your read on this. Is this a smart play by Ottawa, too much of a gamble? Like, is this what the template should be for, for young players coming out of ELC, basically eight times eight somewhere in that neighborhood?

All right. So a bunch of things here. Let me start with the announcement itself. That was fantastic. That was just great sense of the moment, the showmanship, everything like that. that was fantastic. This has been, as has been well documented,

there's been a very different summer in Ottawa. The vibe is off the charts. And, you know, this was just, this was more of that. That was a great moment. As far as a contract itself, look, it's a risk, obviously. You're doing eight years on a player who hasn't really fully established what he's going to be. This could go in a lot of different directions. But I will say, I like it as a gamble for this.

the Ottawa senators, because there is, a significant chance that this kid turns into a legitimate superstar. He is not there yet. He's trending in that direction. And that doesn't always mean that it happens, but I like his odds. And if he gets there, especially if he can do it playing center, then he will be a bargain for a long time on this deal. Now, as far as, you know, the way the You asked it, is this the blueprint for players coming out of their entry level deal? Well, I had a tweet yesterday that, you know, some sense fans getting mad at me. And I know I'm not quite sure why. But I basically said, you know, you look at this.

You look at Jack Hughes. You look at some other guys. I don't understand why young players just coming into their prime are signing these deals, are lining up to do eight-year max-lint contracts in a flat cap environment. certainly if you are looking to maximize your earnings and maximize your value, this doesn't make any sense. You should be signing two or three or four year deals, wait until that cap starts going up again, and then you cash in when you're in your mid-20s, you know, hopefully have a few all-star seasons under your belt, and you go from there.

Now, obviously, hockey's physical sport injuries happen. there are ways to mitigate that risk as far as insurance and that sort of thing. But yes, there is something to be said for long-term security. And it's a huge amount of money. You know, I got people asking me like, well, would you say no to $66 million? No. But you know what? I also wouldn't say no to $60 million or $50 million.

So at some point, why are we negotiating at all if it's just about getting enough money? You know, I think players do want to make sure that they're paid fairly based on the market and all of that. And I think that there's a significant chance of this ends up being one of those bargain deals. Certainly if he develops the way the senators and everyone thinks he's going to and his betting he's going to, it's going to be a great valued deal, all of which is to say it's good news for Ottawa. It's good news for, you know, it's a good gamble for them, high probability that it works out well. And, you know, as far as Tim Stutzel, he'll, you know, he probably will end up leaving money on the table, but he's not, you know, he's not going to be waiting for nickel wing

night anytime soon. So, you know, he'll work out good too. It's a good deal. Makes a lot of sense for both sides and especially from a senator's perspective. The vibe continues to be very good. You know, it's interesting because just last week, prior to all this, I did a contract projection for Ottawa and like, you know, can they fit everybody in under the cap when they've asked? added some, some bigger pieces here. And it's interesting because I ended up using Leon Drysidal as a comparable for Stozel. And a lot of people started getting mad at me saying, like, you can't put Stoetzel in the

same category as Drysadl. But I was looking at them, if you look at their first two seasons in the NHL, Tim Stutzler produced more points per game, had a better shooting percentage, and basically produced at a higher rate than Leon Drysiddle. And remember, it was dry sidle that had a coming out party in the last year of his entry-level deal. He scored 29 goals. I got 77 points. And that year, Edmonton says, we're going to give you an eight-year deal at $8.5 million.

Which a lot of people thought was a huge overpay. We couldn't believe, you know, this guys had one good year. Leander Seidel was, I don't want to say he was considered a bust because I don't think anyone was given up on him. But his first couple years in the league were very disappointing. So people forget that now because obviously he's turned into one of the very best players in the world. But yeah, I mean, we thought that Oilers contract was potentially going to bite them. Shows what we know. Exactly.

And so my point is, look, Ottawa is basically following that template where, but now they're kind of getting out ahead of it because, look, if Tim Stutzler, this season went bananas. And he's playing with Alex De Brinket and Claude Jure, which he's never played with. talent that level. This guy had 31 points in his last 30 games last year. If he produced at a point per game rate this year, I think he's a $9 million, $9.5 million player. I think his camp could make that argument. And so I think Ottawa, to me, this is a gamble,

but I want people to understand. I'm not saying he's going to turn into Tim, to Leon Drysidal, but understand that this is what Leon Drysidal signed for when he had kind of a similar, you know, sample size is, and I'd rather pay guys on what they might do rather than what too many general managers do, which is you pay a guy who's 31 for what he did seven years ago. That's the trend. We're getting away from that finally. And that was part of my point on on players of this age signing these max link deals.

I had a bunch of people say, well, you know, he'll be 29 when the deal ends and he can get another big contract. And I was like, well, if you're 29 today, you can get a big contract. You know, we just saw J.T. Miller. But if you're 29 in eight years or nine years, who knows? Because the trend is much more towards, I would say, correcting the market to say, let's pay these guys early and not late. And, you know, not everyone likes that. We hear the Dallas Stars owner, you know, gone a bit of a rant about that a week or so ago. but I think it's smart.

And look, it was, it was fascinating. If you haven't seen it, Seekout Dom's tweets, I don't know if he wrote a piece maybe about this contract because he always does whenever somebody signs, he does the comparables. And this is based on his statistical model. It's, you know, who has had a similar profile so far and where did that wind up? And it's, it's fascinating, especially for your sense fan, because it's like four or five names of superstars, including Leon Dressidal. Nathan McKinnon might even be there.

And then also four or five guys who just were busts, like Connor Brown. No, not Connor Brown, who Colin White, where, you know, which is a name that nobody wants to hear in Ottawa as a potential comparable. But sometimes guys start strong and they never, you know, they never find that next level. And if that happens, then yes, it's an overpay. And Tim Stozel will look smart because he'll be. sitting there with a guaranteed contract that he doesn't necessarily have to live up to. But it's about risk and it's about making smart bets.

And I think the senators have made a smart bet here. You know, and I spoke with Stozl's agent on Wednesday night, Ben Hankinson. And I asked, like, did you try and push a bridge deal, right? Because that's kind of your take, right? Like, hey, why wouldn't you sign a, you know, three-year, $21 million deal and then revisit this with a bigger cap? and maybe, you know, all that stuff. He said, look, we did. We wanted to.

Ottawa was not interested in a bridge deal at all. It was seven or eight or nothing. And, you know, to Ottawa's credit, they got, again, this is a gamble, but they didn't want to go with a bridge deal. But that's what, you mentioned Dallas here. I just want to talk real quick about Jake Ottinger, because he did get a bridge deal. Starr's signing him last week, Sean, to a basically a three-year, $12 million deal,

4 million AAV. And I was so fascinated by this contract negotiation because I thought, this guy single-handedly, even though they lost, put together one of the greatest individual goal-telling performances I think I've ever seen in a playoff series. And he was lights out against Calgary. I thought, wow, if you're Ottinger,

maybe you can parlay that into something. Is this about right, though, three years at 4 million? would you have gone longer if you were Dallas or would you have tried to do this a little bit longer than a three-year $12 million deal? I think it's probably right. You know, you're looking at a similar track record or maybe a similar, you know, foundation to build on as what you had with Stutthel. But with a goaltender, boy, I mean, we've seen a handful of very long-term goal-tending deals and they almost never work out well. it's just such an unpredictable position. And Jake Ottinger is a guy that has, you know, he's had a lot of, you know, he's had the great pedigree. He's had a solid track record pretty much his whole career.

You know, we head on my other podcast. Somebody asked yesterday, like, is this just another Jonas Corpusallo situation where he has a great playoffs and, you know, signs it gets a bunch of money and doesn't live up to it? I don't think it is. I think Jake Ottinger is, you know, I think he's going to be a very good goaltender. I think he'll be great value in this contract for the first few years. And then you see. But I don't want, I'm willing to bet seven or eight years on a young forward. I'm not willing to do that on a goaltender.

So I think this is the right call for Dallas. And now obviously we've got to see what, if anything, they can do with Jason Robertson. Yeah. And what do you think Robertson is going to end up with here? See, that's the interesting one because when their owner went on this rant about how, you know, geez, players used to, you know, they used to sign smaller deals and, you know, like, Robertson's a guy who could absolutely say, I want eight years. It's going to be a big number. It's going to be a bigger number than Tim Stutzel because Robertson has already had that All-Star level season that the Stucle hasn't had a chance to have yet.

You know, it's going to start with a nine. Maybe even starts with a 10. And it seems like Dallas really doesn't want that to happen. and they really want to go a shorter deal, lower cap hit, and then kind of find their way in a little bit. We'll see. You know, this is, again, you know, if Jason Robertson wants to bet on himself, it would probably make sense to say, you know what, I'll take, you know,

I'll take a short-term deal. But he's also coming off a great season where, you know, he's, he maybe has earned that bigger chunk of money. I don't know how they fit him in. They'll have to figure it out because he's a special player and you make room for the special players. And if that means you've got to squeeze on the middle class, then that's what you do in this league these days.

All right, Sean, tell you what, as we get closer to training camps, it's always fun to bounce around the league and kind of just take the temperature maybe of various teams. The Montreal Canaanians is a fascinating team for me because obviously we all know two years ago went to the Stanley Cup final. It's been quite the tumbled.

since. And now the question is, what do we expect out of these team? Are they going to be the Connor Bedard sweepstakes? Is that what they're gunning for? Are they still thinking they're a playoff team? What's going on there? Arpan Basu does a terrific job covering the habs for us and joins us here on the athletic hockey show on a Thursday. My man, Arpon, how are you doing today? I'm good, man. I'm good. I'm happy to be here. I'm happy you guys joined us. You know, I was waiting in the Zoom forever for you guys. But I mean, you know, it's, yeah. That's embarrassing, guys. Yeah, it is. My Zoom was updating. That's my defense. I'm a Leafs fan. So when

the habs are involved, I always start a little bit late. Hey, there we go. Bringing the jokes. Hey, are you finished poorly? That's, I think that's the other one. Yeah. I'm going to disappear at the end. So yeah, that's it. Yeah. Me, the senator's guy, just awkwardly, not sure how I get into this conversation. So I'm, I'm, really curious, like, what are the, like, what's the feeling? Like, are people embracing the idea of like, let's tank this sucker for Connor Bedard or like, what's the mindset of Habs fans going into training camp here? I think Habs fans are thinking that Connor Bedard is a worthy

target. I don't think management sees it that way. They might, it might turn out that way. Because when you look at the Canadians right now, you know, Ken Hughes and Jeff Gordon quite clearly, almost from the moment Ken Hughes was hired, have just been in kind of asset acquisition mode. I don't think they're too concerned with how the roster is constructed. They're just getting assets any way they can. So if you look at the Canadians right now and you look at their forward group, you're like, hey, you know what? That's not that bad. It's got a lot of depth. There's a lot of forwards.

There's a lot of NHL caliber forwards and even, you know, pretty good NHL forwards. It's not quite clear how they'll all be organized. And then you look at the defense and you're like, well, that's inadequate. That's not a real competitive NHL defense core. And then you look at the goaltending. This one's a bit out of their control. But obviously with the carry price situation, the goaltending is not spectacular. Jake Allen's okay, but not exactly an upper crust number one goaltender.

And Sam Montaubo's backup is kind of in the same boat. So, you know, I think they're kind of getting the best of both worlds in the sense that they're adding, they're adding draft picks, they're adding prospects, they're making moves to try and alleviate their terrible cap situation, which is, you know, sort of the parting gift left behind by Mark Bergevin. So they can have some talent on the team, but the way the team is built, and especially with the division they play in, they're not likely to win that many games, even though they've added some talent and some assets for the future that, that make. things look kind of promising for them. Just on the topic of tanking, like we're seeing it in Chicago very blatantly. And, you know, Arizona too, although that's a little bit of a different situation with that organization. Is there any feeling in Montreal where we all know that Montreal as a market, fan base

and everything, tend to think of themselves as maybe a little bit distinct from the rest of the league, a little bit special? Is there any kind of feeling of, we can't tank? We're the Montreal Canadians. We certainly couldn't do something like that. Or are people sitting there going, you know what? If it goes south, go south hard because Connor Bagard is amazing. And I want them on this team.

Well, you see, here's what's interesting about the Canadians and how they view their own fans. And frankly, I think they're a little bit out of touch with the modern Canadians fan. You know, traditionally Canadians fans had insanely high expectations for their team, as they should. But from the 50s to the 70s, they were winning two out of every three cups or something ridiculous like that or a cup every three years. I forget what the ratio is. But when you go from the run of five in a row to the run of four in a row in the 70s, it was just a ridiculous frequency of Stanley Cup victory. So that's like one generation or maybe even two generations of fans and their expectations. But now we're going on three or four generations of fans who do not have anywhere near those expectations.

So if you go to the athletic today, we're going to have a, we have a fan survey that we conducted with close to 3,000 responses. And we asked this question, should the Canadians have tanked or do you hope that the Canadians will tank for this season? And it was over 50% who thought they should have tanked. And so I think this is going to be news to Canadian's management that there's probably a higher percentage. And I would guess mostly younger fans because athletic subscribers, I think, tend to skew a little younger than the average fan. But that there's a realization that there's some value to adding a superstar player in the draft, which the Canadians haven't really had outside of goalie since Gila Fleur. You know what I mean?

It's really the last top-tier NHL star skater the Canadians have had. And that was, you know, that was in the early 80s that he left. So I think I think that mindset once existed, but I think it's slowly changing. I got. You said that and I was like, that can't be right. Well, think about it. But it is. I mean, Chris Chelyos, a young Chris Chalios was pretty, was on the way to becoming that.

And had they kept him maybe. But really, I mean, they've had very good players over those years, but a superstar. I don't think they have. This is some serious Matt's Nasland erasure here. My favorite player as a kid, honestly. Like I had number 26, Bass, New Jersey. I was all in on Matt's Naslin. Great player.

But a superstar player, especially in that era when people were piling up points like crazy. I mean, I can't say, honestly, that he was a superstar. You know, he had that one great all-star game with Mario. But I mean, otherwise, he was just a really good player. I mean, I do have to say, as somebody who, has made the mistake of expressing some reluctance to buy into Nick Suzuki, clearly we're excluding him, right? I mean, he counts as a genuine superstar elite player. I just don't want us to get yelled in. I'm just trying to, I'm trying to protect it. I mean, he could be.

He's not right now. I don't want to, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but, you know, He's a very good play. There's a lot of things that I like a lot about Nick Suzuki's game. I don't think he's going to be an elite NHL player. He's not going to be. And just so we're clear, like we're talking about superstars. It's a tight group. You know, there's not a ton of them.

There's, you know, a handful, maybe a half dozen or 10 tops in the NHL that exists. So, you know, I don't think anyone who has a rational bone in their body would say Nick Suzuki is a top 10 player in the NHL right now. You know, it's interesting. We're talking about, you know, them potentially landing a generational player. And we're like, wait a minute. But they just had the first overall pick in July. And so I'm curious, what are the expectations on the Slavkovsky kid?

Because obviously you were in the building. We were all three of us were in the building. Certainly a surprising pick. Like, what are the expectations for him this season? Where do you, like, how do you see this playing out this year for the kid? You know, I think he'll be given every opportunity to play. I think there's a recognition that this was not, there was no generational talent in this draft year. And so the Canadians kind of made a calculated decision on that.

You know, I think Cooley and Shane Wright were all in the mix, you know, the positional advantage of taking a center. But they really did look at this, the 2, 20203 draft and saw not only Connor Bedard, but saw a number of high-end centers, several, of which would have gone number one in 2022. And so, you know, they think that they can get, if they get a top five pick, which is quite realistic as possible, they'll wind up with a center that is potentially better than both Cooley and right.

So I think they went with the player that they saw as a bit of a rarer commodity in the combination of size and scale and power and just, you know, the whole package of Uriislavkowski is rare. You know, they see him sort of in the mold of a Rick Nash and that kind of player, you know. And so that's something that they feel is just as rare as a number one center and it's just as hard to acquire outside of the draft as a number one center. So I think the expectations are going to be tempered on him. Like I think most people understand that he did kind of was a late riser, you know, similar to Jesperi Kokanyam in his draft. here and we see how that worked out. But it's, it's, you know, his performance in the Olympics,

his performance at the world, his general personality. There are a lot of sort of intangibles that the Canadians really liked about him. And he seems to have the makeup of someone who can handle sort of the pressure in Montreal, but that's obviously no one, a lot of people can say they can handle it. Until they do, you don't really know. Jonathan Drew and is the last guy. I remember who embraced the pressure he was going to feel in Montreal and ultimately got to him. The Canadians did get a young center at the draft in Kirby Duck and he signs an extension that I find fascinating. Four years, basically a $3.3 million cap hit.

I just feel like the only thing I know for sure about this contract is that in four years, he is not going to be a $3.3 million player. I just don't know which direction it's going to go, but he's going to be nowhere close to that. either going to be one of the great bargains or he's going to be, you know, maybe not dead weight on the cap, but he'll be somebody that they're looking to offload. Help me figure this out. Like, what should I be looking at with? Well, I think you have it. I think you have it. I mean, that's, that's it. Four years from now, he will not be a $3.3 million player is the best way to put it.

I think a lot of what the Canadians have done is, you know, the Canadians historically have had a very poor track record in player development. It's not something the Mark Bergerivain regime did very well. Jeff Gorton, as soon as he was hired, that was one of the two areas that he immediately identified that they needed to bolster their staff and really work on improving. the other being analytics. So they've made a series of moves that are kind of based on their belief that they have put in place a player development system that will allow them to kind of go pick up a couple of reclamation projects, if you will. And this one's the biggest one. I mean, they traded a guy in Alexander Romanov who, you know, is probably never going to be a top pairing defenseman, but is a legitimate top four defensemen. and has actually developed well in the Canadian system and specifically since Martin

San Luis took over as coach. And the Kirby Doc acquisition is just another endorsement of Martin St. Louis' player development aptitude, I guess, because we haven't really had a lot of sample size to prove what impact he can have from a player development standpoint. But this is the gamble. And so, and Ken Hughes openly admitted it in announcing the signing that this is they don't know how he's going to turn out, but they're willing to bet on him. And when you look at the assets that have already been devoted to this player, namely Romanov,

and then shipping the number 13 pick to Chicago to get him where they could have just kept the number 13 pick and taken Frank Naser, who got taken by Chicago, they're already pot committed on this player. It's really, so this is just kind of doubling down on everything they've committed to him and sort of expressing their belief that they're going to wind up with a bargain here,

four years from him. You know, and when they signed Kirby Doc, they were very briefly over the salary cap ceiling, and then they quickly rectified that, placing Kerry Price on long-term injured reserve. And I think a lot of people are wondering here, let's start the conversation this way. Does Kerry Price play another game for the Montreal Canadiens?

I know it's a very open-ended question, and there's a lot of unknown, but let's start there. Well, that's a pretty simple one. Is Carey-Price willing to have surgery and do everything involved with having surgery, having just turned 35 last month? That's the real question,

because if he's willing to try that, then the answer to that question is maybe. Like, that's the reality, is that he's got to be willing to go through another surgical procedure on his knee and all the rehab that that entails, essentially spending this entire season doing that, And the only assurance he has is a maybe.

So at his age, with a young family, like, it's just, it's really, Carey Price is the only one who has the answer to that question. But that's the condition attached to Carey Price playing another game. Kent Hughes has been pretty clear that the Canadians don't feel without surgery that Carrie Price will be able to play again. So and that's unfortunate, but that's the reality because we're, we're a year, or more than a year after the surgery he had after the Stanley Cup playoff run when they made the final. And he still hasn't recovered from that surgery, despite numerous different methods of rehab that they've attempted on the knee.

And when you look at that run to the final, basically there are two cornerstone players quite possibly in the case of Carrie Price and quite literally in the case of Shea Weber put their careers on the line to try and win that one Stanley Cup. that neither of them have. So it's really, this is a real added context to that whole improbable run that I think a lot of people around the league resented. But when you think of these two players, that was, when you talk about putting it all on the line for one shot at a Stanley Cup, that's what these two guys quite literally did two years ago. So given that, is it too early to start talking about Kerry Price's legacy in Montreal,

where he fits in among the great, is he a Hall of Famer? Is he going to see his number up in the rafters, all of that sort of thing? Well, if it's too early, then Montreal is early. This has been the chatter. I mean, basically, ever since the Canadian's acquired Sean Monaghan, this eventuality that Carrey Price was going to be on LTIR was known. Ken Hughes said that we don't believe Carrey Price is going to be ready to start. We believe it's very unlikely he'll play at all this year.

So we were able to use that cap space to acquire Sean Monaghan. Kirby Doc was just sort of the last. piece because that literally put them over the offseason salary cap and they had to put him on LTR at that time. But it's been clear for weeks that that that that this was going to happen. And so so no, I don't think it's too early because I think of there's there's a big possibility that he won't play again. And even if he does play again, it's not going to happen until he's probably 37 years old or 36. I should say, won't happen for another year. And who knows to what extent. So yeah, I think I think it's a legitimate conversation.

I'm of the mind that he's going to be elected to the Hall of Fame. And my reasoning for that, and I'd be interested to hear you guys' thoughts on that. But there was a period of time for maybe two or three years, so not very long, but there was a period of time where Kerry Price was not only in the conversation, but a very strong argument could be made that he was the best player in the National Hockey. He was the most impactful best player in the National Hockey League. and the only reason he doesn't have more team accolades is that he never had a team built around him

to achieve those things. And there was a stat that came out that after Carrie Price's rookie year where Alice Kovalev was a better than point per game player, Carrie Pace never played with another point per game player in his entire career. Wow. That is, that's something. I'll jump in on this just because, you know,

As people know, I love Hall of Fame debates. I love looking at this stuff. To me, the argument against Kerry Price is he played 15 years in the NHL. He had that MVP season where he won the heart, won the Vesina first team all-star. Other than that, he did not win anything at all. And I'm not talking about Stanley Cups. I'm talking about individual awards. He had one other season as a Vezna finalist.

He never was a first or second team all-star. He won the Masterton. He was on the all-rucky team. I'm not counting those as major awards. 15 years, he had one great year. And it was an MVP year, which is very rare for goalies. But Jose Teador had an MVP year, too, and nobody's trying to put Jose Teodor in the Hall of Fame. And that if you look at Kerry Price, not that you can remove that MVP year, but if you look at the rest of his career, he was a good goaltender.

potentially coasting off a great reputation. I agree with you. I do think he gets in. I would have been a little bit more hesitant, maybe even a couple years ago, because I've written this a bunch. The Hall of Fame is weird about goalies. There was a time before Roberto Longo,

if you had started watching hockey 50 years ago, you started watching the NHL in 1972. You only saw the debut of, I want to say, six Hall of Fame goaltenders. in 50 years, which is to say they're two, they're not putting enough goalies in. But I think Luongo is going to open the door, Henrik Lunkwis, you know, the whole, oh, he didn't win a cup thing is nonsense. He won a gold medal.

And I just think as the Hall of Fame process for hockey, you know, it's 18 old-timers sitting in a room. And Kerry Price, the numbers say this. The awards can say this. Kerry Price had an aura to him, especially after that MVP season. We saw it in the playoffs. In that run, I mean, it was, oh, playoff Kerry Price is going to show up. And once he does, you're done.

You can't beat this guy. I really feel like that reputation will be what gets him in. And, you know, you can kind of roll your eyes at reputation, but it's the Hall of Fame. It should be based on reputation largely. And he just seems like a guy that the old-timers who, make these decisions are going to look at him and go, that guy was, that guy was money. Okay. Well, let me just, like, let me just, this is the argument actually. We had, we actually talked about this on our podcast, the Mark Montaun-Gadain, last week in French.

So maybe a lot of your listeners didn't hear it. But first of all, it is the hockey Hall of Fame and not the NHL Hall of Fame. So there are, his international resume does get included in the mix. And in that sense, World Cup of Hockey, Olympics, World Junior Championships. Anyone who says Kerry Price never won anything is talking out of their hat. And anyone who says that anyone could have played behind that team in Sochi is not being fair either because I was at that tournament in Sochi. And Kerry Price would go minutes, several minutes at a time where he had to do nothing. I remember that Latvia game where the Canadian Canada was in the Latvia end forever.

And all of a sudden Latvia gets a breakaway. And it's like it's a tie game. And like all of a sudden, Carrie Price has to stop a breakway and he did. You know, it's like it's just, it was, yes,

there was like, it was an insane possession team. You know, everyone who says that that Canadian team was like this defensive juggernaut or whatever. No, they were an offensive juggernaut. They had the puck the whole time.

And that's how they played. They just played, they played keep away in the offensive zone. That's how they played defense. On a goaltender, that's very tough. You know, that's very difficult where you have long stretches of inaction,

then all of a sudden you have to be like really sharp and on top of it. So that's one thing. The other thing that I actually did mention on the podcast is, so if you look at NHL goaltenders from 2013-14 to 2016-17, so the span of four seasons. Now, the caveat in here is that one of those seasons, Kerry Price only played 12 games. He got injured after 12 games, missed the rest of the season, but still has a sample of 199 games played in that span, which isn't far off. Tuka Rass played 257. That was the most for any goalie in that four-year span.

So in that span, Carey Price's a save percentage is 920 feet. The second save percentage in that span is Cam Talbot at 922. Now, if you take that span of six percentage points or six whatever points, the six save percentage points and go down from Cam Talbot at number two, I should say John Gibson and Sergey Babowski are tied. If you go down six, you get to what, 916, right? The 916 save percentage in that span is tied for 22nd in the NHL. So there are 20 goalies more, actually, there are 22 goalies who fit in that same gap that price has with number two over those years, which just goes to show how difficult it is to have a gap of six points in save percentage over that period of time.

There's no bigger gap than one between any other. It just goes down the list, 922, 921, 920, 919, 918. So it just shows the level of dominance he had over a pretty significant sample size. It's not huge. But that's kind of why I say that for a period of time, the argument could be made, and it's the argument I'm making, that the Canadians had the best or, well, the best and most impactful player in the NHL. Because over that same span, Sidney Crosby led the league in scoring by a decent margin.

But his margin over, I believe it was Joe Pavelski in second, came nowhere close to matching the margin that Carrie Price has over Cam Talbot, John Gibson, and Sergey Barboski from a safe percentage standpoint. It's a good argument. Yeah, it is a great argument. It's a great argument.

And as we wrap this up, you know, I think we kind of agree, look, the bar to get in to the Hall of Fame, funny enough, is lower than it is to get your number retired by the Montreal Canadians. It's significantly lower, yes. Significantly lower. And I want to ask this question to you guys.

And maybe this is a future down goes brown column idea. But like how many guys are in the Hockey Hall of Fame but don't have their number retired by the team that they like were most identified with in their playing career? So I'm not thinking of like, you know, the Brendan Chanahan's and the Mark Reckies. The guys that bounce around like they don't really count. But like Kerry Price, there's a chance he's in the Hall of Fame but won't get his number retired by the haves. We talked about Guy Carbono. He would be one that is in the Hall of Fame but doesn't have his number retired.

How many guys are like that that exist in the world? Is there more than I think? Yeah, there's a few and a lot of it has to do with teams being either weird about their retired numbers, which is a category I'd put the HABs in. Or also just in some cases holding grudges like Sergey Federov is a guy that comes to mind. The flames are all over the place. They've got Mike Vernon's number retired, but I feel like guys like Al McKinness are honored but not retired, and it's this strange thing.

The one that always gets me is Brad Park. Arguably the second best defenseman of a generation, and yet he's not retired in either New York or Boston. And it's kind of one of those things where it's like he should probably be retired in both, but they almost feel like they're waiting for each other. So, you know, there are a fair number, but it is, it's always. strange because you would think that the highest honor that you can get is to go into the Hall of

Fame. And yet that doesn't seem to be enough for some of these teams. Well, I would imagine many people on that list, once you put it together, will have played for the Montreal Canadians. I mean, the fact is, is that the Canadians have a ring of honor at the Bell Center. So it's up in the nosebleeds around the last row of seats. There are players with their, their name is there. They have a picture of them. And that's for Hall of Famers. And it literally, literally, they're running out of room. Like it goes around the entire building at the widest part of the building and they're going to run out of room soon. Now,

the way things look right now, the Canadians are probably not going to have more names to add to that other than Carrie Price for a while. But they are running out of room. Their dressing room has portraits of every player who ever played for the Canadians, not necessarily for a long enough period of time, but anyone who ever wore the uniform who is in the Hall of Fame has their portrait in a very long dressing room wall. And they ran out of room. And they had to create a second row of portraits because they have too many. So, you know, they have 18 players whose numbers are retired. And so the bar is clearly higher for that. Steve Shutt's number is not retired,

tow Blake's number is not retired. There's, there's a lot of, there's Jacques LaMere. There's, the list goes, the list is quite long of players who have a lot of, legitimate argument that they should have their number retirement. But the reality of the situation to me is that the Canadians need to, you know, the bar for everyone else was not only that you won a Stanley Cup, it's how many Stanley Cups did you win? That's no longer the Canadian's reality.

Since 1979, they've won two cups. So it's not as if they can look down at all these players who have played over the last 40 odd years and say, well, you're not good enough because you didn't win any Stanley Cups as if it's their fault. So I think Carrie Price falls into that category. Franchise Leader in Games played by a goaltender, wins by a goaltender, second and shutouts,

if I'm not mistaken. I mean, he pretty much owns the Canadian franchise record book when he comes to goaltending. And as I mentioned, it's one of the few Canadians players that you could make a legitimate argument that he was the best player in the NHL for a given period of time in a Canadian's uniform. Actually, I would say aside from maybe Patrick Guad, but even Patrick Guas at his height, There were just superstars galore across the NHL. And I don't think you could make a legitimate argument that he was the best player in the NHL.

And to me, that means something. It's when you have the best player in the league and it's such a rare occurrence, I think that checks a box for carry price that not many other players can check. I'll tell you what, Arpun, we'll leave it there. If any of our listeners, though, are looking for more Habs talk and coverage and even a full conversation on Kirby Docs contract, Arpan and Mark Antoine have a brand new episode of the Athletic Support podcast out. So check that out.

Arpin, thanks so much for dropping by. Always great to have you on chat and habs. Thanks for this and I'm sure we'll get you again down the road. All right, thanks, guys. Thanks, Arpun. All right. Always great to connect with Arpin and, you know, always something going on with the Montreal Canadian.

Hey, we want to open up our voicemail, the answering machine, and the emails here, because we got a bunch of stuff to get into. Love the feedback, as always. You can get us on a voicemail. 845-4-4-5-8-4-55. That's where we're going to start. 845-4-5-8459. Let's start there with Leo from Cincinnati with a proposal for a tweak to the icing rule.

What is up the athletic hockey show? I have what I believe to be one hell of a rule tweak idea. Imagine a world where icing was legal if the puck crosses the goal line within the trapezoe. There is no whistle and play continues. The benefits of this are fewer whistles, potential costly line changes, and board bank passes, and lead to goaltenders playing more pucks, which I believe is a skill that should be more beneficial or detrimental. Most importantly, however, is commercial breaks. Many people's desire to alter or eliminate off-side likely is not feasible due to commercial breaks for the league and networks.

and as you know, there are no commercials following an icing. A common counter argument I get is that it may lead to similar collisions to what we saw prior to the days of hybrid icing. I believe that with no incentive of an icing call and a potential opportunity to play the puck up ice, goaltenders would in many situations cut these pucks down ahead of the goal line. And if not, players would be jockeying for position rather than racing toward the end boards, abruptly coming to a stop and creating those collisions the league sought to get rid of. Thanks so much, fellas, keep up the good work.

All right. So this is unorthodox, but basically what Leo is saying, Sean, is that if you ice the puck from your own zone all the way down to the other end of the ice, but the puck ends up in the trapezoid area, there's no icing. It's negated. I don't know. I don't know how I feel about this. Okay. Help me. Let me start with a question here. Because I need you to help me out. We're around the same age. We've been fans for around the the same amount of time. And I'm having one of those things where I don't know if I'm having like a Mandela moment where I am remembering something that didn't exist. But I remember that there was a time where if the puck went through the crease on an icing, it was waved off. And because the crease that stands past the net, it was possible on a shot, you know, if you were taking a shot at the empty net or just dumping it down, that it would clip through that crease and that would wave off the icing. Now, am I crazy? Am I, am I misremembering, mistaking it for something else?

I think you're right. Like, I suddenly have this, suddenly you've just unlocked a deep memory of where I think was like a linesman would be skating and if it just kind of went through the crease. And the goalie would be kind of crouched down and watching it and it would go through and they would wave it off. And then at some point in recent years, they got rid of that. And basically now as long as it's not on net, it's, uh, so. So, you know, this feels like it would be kind of like that in the sense that you would just have this larger area. And if you hit that area, it's not icing. It's an interesting proposal because I think, you know, I agree with all of the benefits that our listener is laying out here.

You know, as far as it would get the goalies out of the net, more play in the pocket. The downside is you would see more icing, not more icing calls, but you would see more of what icing is supposed. to discourage, which is teams just shooting the puck down the length of the ice. We don't want teams, especially in the defensive zone, to just fire the puck down, to relieve the pressure. We're trying to dissuade that. The icing rules being what they are are meant to do that. And here, you're essentially making it easier for them to get away with it because if they can just get it close to the net, the icing is going to be waved off. So I don't know that people would like that ultimately, even though I think all of those benefits that he's describing would come to pass,

I do think you would see more and more teams firing the puck down there. You would see more icings being waved off, which means more guys going back, getting it and having to circle back. And not to mention late game situations where teams are shooting at the empty net, now you don't even have to come all that close to the net to not have to worry about icing, which maybe creates more empty net goals, but also creates more situations where teams, instead of getting an icing call and another chance in the offensive zone, they end up having to go back and get it

and time just ticks off the clock. Okay, by the way, I looked it up while you're chatting there. I was like, man, there's got to be an answer to this. And yes, found a Reddit thread with the exact same conversation. Hey, didn't it used to be no icing if the puck crossed the crease? And yeah, and it looks like in 1998-99, when the league kind of altered the goal line was moved 13 feet from the endboards, And then the goal crease was altered to extend one foot beyond each goal post.

And then the top of the crease was rounded and the rest, the sides were kind of squared off. That's when it looks like it ended. Okay. But yeah, for sure, I feel like that was depressing. I'm glad that I'm right, but it's also depressing that it was like 25 years ago. Because I'm like, wasn't it a couple years ago? No. No, I wasn't.

Yeah. Okay. We got one more voicemail to get to. We got a Detroit fan who lives out in. in the state of Washington. And it's Ben, and he's got a question for us regarding a couple of terrific young defensemen in the NHL. Who do you think we'll have the better career when it's all said and done?

Moritz Cider or Cale McCar from Colorado? I know a lot of people may say Cale McCar because the kids are already a beast, but part of me thinks that most Cider can go down in history is one of the best defensemen, certainly on Detroit. and I just want to see what you guys thought of that. Thanks. All right, Sean, listen, on the surface, this one feels like it's a slam dunk for Kail McCar, because you look at McCar and you hear the comparables to like this is this generation's Bobby Orr

or Paul Coffey or whatever offensive defenseman you want to pick. Like, it feels like it's a slam dunk for McCar, but is there an argument to be made here that Moore Cider could close the gap? I mean, I think there's an argument to me that he could. There is a gap now, you know, right now. outsider looks like a very good young defenseman, a potential All-Star, a potential Norris candidate. Kail McCar is already all of those things. And Kail McCarer looks like his ceiling could be into the conversation with the Ray Borks and Brian Leach's and, you know, those all-time, you know,

legendary offensive defensemen. So there's some ground to be made up now. They're both young. Injuries happen. Ageing curves happen. Coaching and development happen. And so I'm not going to say it couldn't, you know, that, you know, Mo Seider couldn't catch up in the, in the way that, you know, a lot of players are so far behind that it's, it's out of the question. I wouldn't quite put him there. But he's got a big gap to make up. Kelmachar is, is the head and shoulders above right now. And I say that with no disrespect to Morris Sider because he's, he's a fantastic young player. Now let's open up, let's open up the emails here.

We've got a bunch of emails to get. In fact, we're going to get to this. We're talking about quirky rules. How about this one from Jeff, who writes into us again, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com, the way to get us. Wanted to get your take on a discussion

I had with my wife last week. I'm a believer that NHL coaches do everything in their power to suck the entertainment out of the games. My solution, kick the head coaches off the bench for the game. They can do whatever they want to instill their systems on other players, but once the puck is dropped,

it's up to the players on the bench. The captain and the alternate captains can handle the conversation to the officials, it's up to the players to determine line changes. Then here's the interesting part, Sean. Jeff says, my wife wants to take this one step further. She wants NHL coaches to be treated like NHL officials,

meaning they get assigned to games and teams throughout the season and their pay is structured so that the coaches make more money with each win. Then for the playoffs, the team with the top seed gets the top coach, the top seed then sticks with them for the entire playoffs. I know it'll never happen, but the more. I think about it, the more I like this idea because it's an entertainment product at the end of the day. It comes in from Jeff. That is outside the box. It is an entertainment product, man. You think you get mad when a referee doesn't like get, gets aside to the game. Imagine when you

flip it that that crucial late season playoff game and you find out that the other team got John Cooper and you've got Dave Haxstall. He would be, you would be furious. Look, that's not happening. You know, not that I would ever suggest that the, you know, that the wife may have gone too far in a husband-wife conversation. But I'm on team husband here. What he's suggesting is just a more extreme version of something that I have legitimately suggested because I agree with his premise, which is that coaches suck the life and the fun and the entertainment out of this sport. Absolutely. They do.

I've suggested that the head coach be the only coach who's allowed back there. there's no assistance, there's no headphones, there's no earpiece to link you up to the booth. Yeah. You're on your own down there. You can have assistance, you know, to work with in practice and everything like that. But when it comes to game time, you got one guy down there and, you know, he's got to be in charge of everything. So, you know, not just the line changes, but the strategy and everything. And he doesn't have anyone sitting there looking at replays and getting in his ear saying you've got to challenge.

this. None of that. He's got to do it all himself. And I'm just trying to make their jobs harder because frankly, coaches these days are too good at their job. And being good at their job, unfortunately, means dulling the game down. So, you know, he's suggesting a more extreme version of that. Again, none of these three ideas would ever happen. But, you know, I'm, I'm with them. Down with coaches. All right. Let's move along in the mailbag. I got another one here from Robert. And we've had some spirited conversation, Sean, about ginger players, redheaded players. A couple of weeks ago, we said, what if we made an all-time red-headed team? Robert says, you know, we're talking about nicknames and whatever. Maybe we should start referring

to Owen Tippett as Red Tippett. Love the show. Thanks for recording yourselves chatting hockey. That's from Robert. Yeah. Okay. So sure, that would work. But we've got to address this red conversation that we had because we've had some people come tweet at us and email and that sort of thing and suggest this player could maybe take the red moniker Owen Tippett is a great one

we've had other ones tell us that you know this player in the minors or that guy has that nickname already so maybe it'll come back I'm just asking please stop especially Red Winks fans stop tweeting us about Red Savage. I don't know if you, did you get any of these? I did.

I think I got the shrapnel that you were part of it. I got, so many people want to tell me that the Red Wings have a prospect name Red Savage. And for those who maybe are familiar with the name, actually he's the son of Brian Savage, former Montreal Canadian's player. His name is Red Savage because his name is Red Savage because his son. first name is Redmond. He doesn't have red hair. So no, he's not an example of what we're talking about. And please stop sending him to us as if this is the future. If anything, we are going backwards. We're now going to have Reds in the league who aren't even redheads. This is going

the wrong direction. Okay. So please, I'm begging you. No more Red Savage. It's an awesome name. It's a cool as hell name. But it's not what we're looking for. It's not what we're trying. going to make happen here. Okay, two more things. One, do you remember what Brian Savage's nickname was? No, I don't. Okay. They would refer to him as Mr. October.

Oh, I do remember that. He was the guy that would come out of the gates, like with eight goals in the first 10 games. And then obviously that was, you know, that was Reggie Jackson's nickname in baseball for being a clutch October guy. But Brian Savage was Mr. October back in the day. That's cool. Yeah, I do remember that.

That's a great one. And the other one is now I've been. thinking about this. What if, okay, we talked about Claude Giroux being redhead, right? Redhead to play with Ottawa. What if I just started calling him Claude Jerouge? Jourge. I had somebody suggests Rue Juru. Yeah. Roo Jureuru is a great name. I just, you know. But what about just Jules? Jeroosh. Like I said, the brother, he's an established player. Like it's tough to drop a new nickname on an established guy. But I feel like the, the children are our future. when it comes to this important issue.

But just not Red Savage. Stop it with that, Red Wings fans. Okay, one more email here from Ershad, who writes into the show and says, hey, I started recently listening to your podcast. It's really great. Thank you, keep it up. A recent podcast, you guys,

were talking about players who played their entire career without ever missing the playoffs. And I believe we were talking about Larry Robinson, right? Yes. Basically going wire to wire, never missing the playoffs in his career. And Ershad says, look, I hope I'm right. I believe the current streakholder would be Evgadi Malkin and Chris Lutang.

Neither have missed the playoffs since the beginning of their career. And I think Jake Gensel and Brian Russ are also on that list. And yes, I'm a Penguins fan, says Urshad. So that's, uh, is that, is he right on that? Is that the longest streak? Okay. So he's, he's right in the sense that the Penguins have made the playoffs every single year of both those players' careers.

However, both Malkin and Latang have had seasons in which. which they were injured and did not play in the playoffs. So it kind of gets into the technicality sense. And, you know, we didn't really go into detail. But I think the way we were describing it, yes, he's right. They would fall into the category. But as far as players who have been in the playoffs every year of their career, neither one of those guys would count because they both had seasons where they missed the playoffs due to injury.

Let's wrap up the show as we always do with a little this week in hockey history. Okay, I'm going to take you back. to this week in 1967. Okay, September 6th, 1967, a brand new hockey team, the Los Angeles Kings, open up and have training camp for the very first time. And the reason why I'm bringing this up, Sean, I had no idea until I did a little research on this,

this week. Where do you think the L.A. Kings held training camp? The very first time, brand new team, we're launching, we're in Los Angeles. Where did the L.A. Kings hold their first training camp? I'm going to say the only place they could, which would be Los Angeles or somewhere nearby. Build up that fan base, get some excitement. Got to be L.A.

Nope. Guelph, Ontario. The Los Angeles Kings held their first practice in Guelph, Ontario, and held training camp in Guelph, Ontario for two seasons before moving to Victoria, British Columbia. They only started holding training camp in L.A. in 1974. So for the first seven years of their existence,

the L.A. Kings were not in L.A. They were in Canada, but oddly in Guelph, Ontario. Anyway, I felt like this needed to be brought up because I had no idea about this until yesterday. I feel like you didn't have a clue and I feel like most of our listeners had. And just, you know, for people who maybe are down to the States

are not familiar with Ontario. You could have told me that it was in Canada or even in Ontario and I still wouldn't have gotten to Guelph as any time soon. That is pretty wild. Yeah. Like, again, I'd love to get, there's probably a funny, weird backstory as to why. I wonder, do you think part of it was there just simply wasn't ice in Los Angeles at the time? Yeah, I'd be willing to bet part of it was just, it was cheaper and, yeah, that's, I mean,

that's probably, there probably wasn't an end. It was cheaper. I'm going to go ahead and say. Okay, there we go. One other one here. September 4th, 1979, the Montreal Canadiens had to find a new head coach to replace Scotty Bowman.

Bowman had won four consecutive Stanley Cups left to go join the Buffalo Sabres organization. They named Bernie Boom Boom, Boom, Jeffri on, as his replacement. Just a couple of questions here, okay? First of all, they waited until the first week of September. Like, does that seem weird? Like, I was trying to find this.

Like, when did Scotty Bowman leave? Yeah, I don't know the exact. I know there was like some conflict with the new GM as well. I mean, Scotty Bowman had conflict with everybody back then and probably wanted to a new challenge. But I don't remember exactly what it was. But yeah, that's, I mean, we saw with the with the Avalanche with the Patrick Wah, Jared Bender transition. That's a tough time to do it, man. You don't want to be switching coaches in September.

Okay. And the other question I have is, is that the hardest act? to follow in NHL history. Bernie, like, you're taking over for Scotty Bowman, who's won four Stanley Cups. Has there ever been a tougher act to follow?

I can't, I can't imagine. And that's why, I mean, I always kind of roll my eyes at when teams bring in former stars as the coach, but that might have been the only way to do it

is to bring in somebody like that. Because you can't win. There's absolutely no, I mean, if you won four Stanley Cups in a row, congratulations, you finally lived up to the old guy. And they certainly didn't do that.

They went out early in the playoffs that year. But that was a tough one because they had also lost, what, Ken Dryden left? I feel like there were other guys that they lost off that roster as well. So that was the end of the dynasty for sure. And boy, what an impossible situation to come into. Yeah. All right.

Hey, we'll leave it there. This was a lot of fun. The hour, as always flew by. I want to invite people. We had some great voicemails, great e-mail. you can always hit us up. We love getting your feedback here. Again, voicemail.

It's 8454-4-5-8459. Email, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. Not a subscriber with us. You can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show. Get an annual subscription for a dollar a month for the first six months. You can also subscribe to the Athletic Audio Plus on Apple Podcasts. Get all of our bonus content from the entire network. They'll start with a 30-day free trial.

And then it's just 99 cents a month after that. Thank you.