The Athletic Hockey Show - Toronto Maple Leafs avoid elimination in Game 4, Alex Pietrangelo to have hearing with Player Safety, Keith Jones named Philadelphia Flyers' Team President

Episode Date: May 11, 2023

With Ian away from his post, Sean is joined by Shayna Goldman to discuss the Maple Leafs' win Wednesday night against the Panthers to avoid the sweep, the Oilers' domination over Vegas and Pietrangelo's slash and date with the Department of Player Safety on Thursday, listener responses about Peter Forsberg from last week's episode, and a wrap up with "This Week in Hockey History".Have a question for the show? Email [e-mail] or leave a VM: [phone]!Subscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowGet a 1-year subscription to The Athletic for just $1 a month when you visit http://theathletic.com/hockeyshowRight now, Nuts.com is offering new customers a free gift with purchase and free shipping on orders of $29 or more at http://Nuts.com/hockey23 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show. Welcome to a new Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. I am not Ian. I'm Sean McAbee. Ian is not with us today. Ian's in Europe. He's gallivanting around a different continent right now, working on various things.

And so, no Ian this week, I am joined instead by Shana Goldman. Hello, Shana. Hi, that was a really smooth intro. Really amazing hosting job. I don't think it was. We've been joking as we got ready to do the show, how Ian is so smooth on the intros and that neither one of us actually ever does hosting duties.

Nor do we ever want to. Or do we ever want to? Yeah, we're just sort of both awkwardly waiting for each other to volunteer to do this one. But I ended up with the duties. So enjoy the show. Enjoy the awkward silences and lack of the. of polished transitions that are to come.

But as far as what to talk about, we've got lots because we're in the middle of the playoffs and we had two big games last night. Let's start with the first game. The Toronto Maple Leafs survive. They live to fight another day. The last time that we did this show a week ago, I believe the Leafs would have been down 1-0.

was me. I'm no big deal. Everything was okay. And then they lose two straight games, including a total no show on Sunday night. It's three nothing. Everybody is writing the autopsies for this team. And last night, they show up and play a pretty good game. I mean, they win the game. And there's no style points at this point. Nobody, I mean, you just got to win to stay in. But not only do they win the game, but they looked pretty good to me. Now, as someone who is, as someone who is, neutral and not a raving Leafs homer. How did you view that game? It was good. I think the first period was a little bit tough.

I think there was definitely a lot of pressure on the Leafs. So I imagine like everybody was a little bit nervous out there and you can kind of see it, I think. Like they tried to make some adjustments, but there were a lot of gaps between shots and then they took a penalty, which wasn't the best call, but nonetheless. They pulled it together in the second and third, though. I was impressed and I think Wool was good in that. So all of that kind of checks out. Was I completely inspired that they're going to win For Street?

No, but I think that they looked pretty fine. I still think that they need to do a better job containing the Kachuk line, though. Like even though they're not like monsters on the score sheet this series, you can see like their minutes are still better. But overall, I think it was solid. It was fine. It's like it's a stepping stone, right? If you can build from here, you're good. If this is the effort you're going to put up the rest of the way, you're probably not.

Yeah, it was in a sense probably a frustrating game, I think, for. a lot of people to watch because with the way it had gone going in part of you is looking for one at two things to happen either the Leafs lay down, they quit,

they prove us all right, everything that everyone's been saying about them for years or they do the big undertaker sit up and you know, here they come and they play a great game and they just go out and they put the boots to the Florida Panthers another one of those happen. You're right. I mean That first period was dull.

I mean, it was, it was, neither team was really making much of a push at all. And the Leaf certainly did get better as the game went on. Second and third period were very good periods for them. But even then, I mean, they get the goal that breaks the scoreless tie on a total fluke play. If people didn't see it, there's a dump in, it hits the official, and basically Ukraine's right in front of the net where William Nealander is standing there and he hacks at it with an ugly looking backhand that doesn't even go in, hits the post and then hits Sergey

Bobrovsky in the back and goes in. Total fluke, total lucky break. By the way, for anyone who's looking at the rulebook on that, nothing wrong with that play. Basically, if the puck hits the official and goes directly into the net, that's no goal. If it goes anywhere else, it's play on. The official is part of the playing service.

Did you Google that? Like, did you search that up? there had happened or you already knew it because like you were very good with the rule. You know what? I knew that one because do you remember a few years ago was it against, was it Roberto Luongo gave up a goal where I think it was the same sort of thing except rather than coming out in front like it actually went off the official in the corner and then directly in like it hit Luwango on the way in.

And that one was no goal. And so I remember seeing that one. But yeah, I mean the, you know, if you're a Panthers fan or. or you're an anti-leafs fan, which is maybe the bigger fan base, you're sitting there going, hey, the refs literally handed the goal to the Toronto Maple Leafs.

And that could have just as easily happened at the other end and who knows. But they go in the third period, they get the second goal. Again, like, Neelander gets the first goal, but a bit of a lucky one. Marner gets the second goal. Hey, great, Mitch Marner's here.

Except it's like a long shot from the blue line. kind of finds its way in, you know, but gets in, Panthers come back, score a goal. And then from there, I thought the Leafs did a really great job of shutting things down, which is not something we're really used to seeing from this team. And not against the Panthers team, right? Like, that's the one thing that we know about the Panthers to be true. Like, they definitely don't allow play to be shut down.

They just keep going throughout the games. They scratch and claw their way back, whatever crap you want. want to put like in but like it really is true like this is a team that with their backs against the wall plays while against pressure um the thing for me that's going to be interesting too is like who continues to play those minutes when they don't control the matchups and when they do again because it felt like they were giving ryan o're Riley's line kuchuk a bit and that line did not do well at all in their minutes like achari and o'rereilly and bunting i don't think that's a third line i roll out the next game especially when like you're back on home ice you can control the matchups a little bit

better. Do you put Nyes in? Do you think, do you change, like, do you change things after a win? Like, I know everyone is so against that. I'm a great, like, proactively, did you not learn in round one, right? Exactly. I mean, if, if Matthew Nyes can play and we don't know, obviously it was, well, maybe not obviously, but we all suspect it was a concussion. You don't want to mess around with that. You certainly, I mean, this kid is a huge chunk of the future. You're not risking anything to get him out there one game early, you got to be careful with him. But if it's a clean bill of health, then yes, absolutely, you get him back in there because it's nice to get a win. But especially right now, like you can't, well, we're going to save him. We're not going to put

them in because we're winning. Well, you're going to either be winning the rest of this series or you're done. There's no, this isn't like the bunting situation where you go, well, if we lose, we'll slide them in there. And Matthew Nyes was great in. before he got hurt. So you absolutely have to get him in there. I don't know. Now we go back. Game 5,

it's in Toronto. I feel like there's got to be so many lead fans out there. Heading into Game 4 that we're like, I'm not getting suckered in again. There's no way. And then they play, like I said, they play well. Not amazing, but they play well. And now you're just kind of sitting here going,

you know, it is the Florida Panthers. They're a good team, but they're not unbeatable. And boy, if the Leafs were to win, game five, and now you go back to home ice, and you know that, oh, geez, we got to finish it here because if we don't, it's game seven. And, you know, like I kind of joked on Twitter last night,

hey, have the Florida Panthers ever been in a series where somebody choked away a 3-1 lead? Feels like that's probably happened. So I don't know. Certainly Paul Murray seemed loose after the game. There wasn't any sense that, this Florida team is, is all that worried. I've always thought when it's 3-0,

you don't get too worried about the first one, but if you lose two, that's when you start to get nervous. Because, hey, man, it's the playoffs. Nobody wants to lose a series, but there are series that you lose and you go in the history books. And nobody wants to be sitting there making the Joe Thornton face after they blow a 3-0 lead.

So we'll see. It'll be interesting. I mean, you could imagine, right, Like the Panthers coming out and just having a 3-0 lead after one period in game five. And we're all sitting there going, ah, they suckered us in one more time. Like that feels very plausible, doesn't it?

Yeah, and it feels like in round one, it was kind of the opposite, right? Like the Leafs were the better team and they would win games. Down 4 to 1, they had that comeback ability. That all of a sudden you went, maybe this team is different. Maybe it's not just the amazing team on paper that they have that extra bit of oomph that they've been missing all this time.

And, like, that's really important. But, like, can you feel that way this round? It's, like, a totally different ballgame because everyone went in so, like, so hyped and rightfully so. Manifesting their opponent, which is such a cursed action. Every Leafs fan right now should be kicking themselves, rightfully so. Like, I don't care who the opponent is. You cannot manifest it, though. Can I just point out, though?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Fans chanted, we want the Bruins to. Everybody's pulling that, we want the Panthers chant. They're like, you guys did this. It's like, they chanted for both.

So you manifested both so you were bound to lose either way. Maybe that's it. Maybe that's a way to look at it. It's a curse. I'm telling you, it's a curse. But no, like, it just feels like if they're down three nothing, like everyone's going to lose all hope and like if they come back, that is, I think, the series breaker right there, right? All of a sudden, if they can manage to come back.

But it's just, I think everyone needs to go into game five if they want the leaves to win super hopeless, be like, this is over and just become resigned to it. So then your expectations can only go up from there. I think that's the important thing. Manage expectations on the bench, in the stands, out there. Outside the arena, everything, just think you're going to lose because that's how it felt going into this. I think everybody felt so hopeless going into game four. I don't think I saw anyone optimistic.

Like, you know what, they could pull this off. It was like, we're here again. And you should feel like shit. Like the Panthers are the prime example of it last year, right? Don't be too hyped about your series win. It doesn't matter how you do it. You might get your ass kicked a week later. Well, I have good news for you then about how the typical Lee fan approaches things.

But it's, see, here's the thing. Like, I wrote a piece that ran yesterday, so the day of game four. And I basically said, this is it. Finally, this version of the Toronto Maple Leafs is dead. Now, I had some Leaf fans get mad at me, and clearly the ones who got mad at me didn't read even the first few paragraphs of that. People do that. They should get mad after headlines.

They just get mad. Somebody on Reddit somewhere tells people to get mad at me. And then, like, all these Leaf fans, like, show up in my mentions at the same time. but if they had actually read even a few paragraphs, they would have seen that what I was saying was this version of the Leafs, the Leafs that can't win in the playoffs, is dead because they're either going to lose to the Florida Panthers,

lose a short series, and change will have to come. I'm not saying you blow the whole thing up, but something has to happen as far as making a change from the core, the coach management, whatever it is. something big finally changes or they're going to pull off a historic comeback here which is still in play the door is open and if they do then finally this whole like they can't win when it matters thing dies i mean the winning in the first round yes that put a little bit of it to bed um but if

they can pull this off down three nothing then say whatever you want about them you'll never be able to go oh the matthews team they know they they could never win when it mattered. So what if they get swept in round three, do we erase it again? You see, that's the, I hope you said that. It's a never-ending cycle of it. If they come back from this, what has to happen in round three for it to come back? And it probably would happen.

Literally hit five games, right? It's got to be hit five games and just look okay. Just look okay. Don't look like you're playing on your heels. Don't let the media see how many cases of bud light you bring in. That was a thing. That was, okay, hold on. What is your take on the sell?

I have to round one because like I didn't think it was a big deal that they were like enjoy right in baseball we see every round everyone's just like party yeah and hockey fans get mad about that yeah I and it was like well it's round one like is it just that teams generally don't celebrate like that or is it that the media just doesn't see it I don't know which is the answer but it feels like there was like a little bit of like it was round one let's not get too hyped yet I mean don't don't get too hype but I also feel like I mean have a beer sure you know especially when it's like like it's like it's like Like, you know, everyone's like, hey, just so you guys know, this series is a referendum on you, not just as a hockey team, but your character is people. You will be bad people if you lose to the Tampa Bay Lightning again. I don't mind somebody breaking up. And if you don't celebrate, then you don't care, right? Exactly. You don't care you made a matter. Exactly.

We can twist it either way. Yeah. So it's, look, it's, it's either way they're going to, they're going to get. criticize because of the Leafs. That's what you signed up for. But the thing that I keep coming back to, and I have, man, I have written some version of this so many times with this team over the years is that because of the lack of success, a lot of people default to what we usually say about teams that don't win. And they say, well, they can't handle adversity. When the going gets tough, they fold. And what the point that I have made over and over again is that that's not.

true for this version of the Maple Leafs. When the going gets tough, when everybody is counting them out, this Leaf team plays pretty well. They did it way back when against the Bruins. They were down 3-1 in that first series, I think, against Boston. They came back, forced to game 7, against Columbus. They're losing the series. They're down 3-0. Five minutes left. Series is over. Season's over. They pull off the miracle comeback. Even against the, like, the infamous Zamboni game that if you remember happened right before the trade deadline everyone's like you got to blow it up you got to start over this team stinks their next game is in tampa the best team in the league and they go in and they win that game they anytime things are going

bad and everybody's telling them how much they sink they tend to respond really well the problem is as soon as things are going even a little bit okay they just it feels like they just pat themselves on the back, they hang the big mission accomplished banner, and they take their foot off the gas. And so now, I even said in this piece that I wrote yesterday, the most likely result feels like they play great in game four, win that game, and then come back home and lay in eight. Now, I don't know that they play great in game four, but they play pretty well. Man, the pattern is that they show up tomorrow night, just kind of coasting around. We got this.

It's all under control. And I mean, Sheldon Keith, man, this is your job is to spend the next 48 hours. I don't want to hear anybody say anything good about this team for 48 hours. I want him to just be right on them, show them every mistake they make, keep them in that underdog mindset. Because we know that this can go really, really bad. And of course, they're down 3-1 in the series. They could dominate from here on out and still lose because that's hockey. It's a leafs.

And it's the leaps. Yeah. It's the leaps. It's hockey. Tell me what you think and then we'll move on to the Oilers Golden Knights. The goal tending in this series. Obviously, huge story.

Ilius Monson goes out. We don't know his status. In theory, who knows, maybe he is an option for game five. But Joseph Walcom goes in. First start as a rookie. It plays great. I don't think. Stood on his head, certainly didn't steal the game, but plays very well.

Sergei Brabroski did play well, had some bigger saves, but, you know, again, on both the goals, you know, not necessarily ones that looked unstoppable. And there's been talk about he, in this phase of his career, as soon as he gets five or six or seven or eight games in a row, the numbers kind of die. So as bizarre as this sounds to say when we're talking about a guy with one playoff start versus a two-time Vezina winner, has the goaltending tilted to the Maple Leafs in this series? I don't think yet. Like, here's the thing. His start was very good last night. He had, I think it was 1.4 goal saved to have expected.

I think he saved 7 out of 8 high danger shots. Technically, that's one equality start to a stolen win because what he saved is more than the goal differential of 1 versus 1.4. I don't think it look like a save, but I see, like, that's why, like, you know, there's the context of the data. You can get away with average goaltending, below average goaltending even in the playoffs if the rest of your team is firing on all cylinders, which they're not. So I think you're getting slightly above average on both ends, which can work. But with Bobrovsky, like, the second you count him in, he counts himself out, it feels like, right? Like, every time we see him, it's like, here's this incredible regular season, then he shits the bed on the playoffs. Here's this, you know, great playoff run and then it's going to come to a halt.

I don't know if everyone's counting him out enough this whole postseason that he still has it in him if it's a mental aspect thing. Technically, he looks very good though. Like he's someone that the last few years in Florida, especially in the playoffs when like he hasn't held on to the crease at all, I feel like I watch him. And it's someone, he like gives me anxiety sometimes with some of his saves. I'm like this is like I would not be able to manage with him as my goalie if I were like a fan of this team. because there's a lack of confidence sometimes in the saves, but like this postseason since he started, it was a rough go at first, I think against Boston,

but in this series, like, he looks really strong technically, and we're seeing every great thing about Brodowski that we know all culminate into the series. Can he keep that up, though? That's a huge question, especially for someone that, like, he's a little bit more rested because he missed time from being sick and then obviously not having the starting net. That might work to him.

But I also feel like that's got to build up a little bit. So I really don't know how. how it's going to go. I think it's going to take more support than what he's gotten. And the team's been very good in front of him. Better than the regular season when we knew, like, there's the defensive flaws, there's this and that. Like, I think that there's a good chance

he can keep up an above average level. I just don't know if he has to be a game changer as the series goes on. Like, I wouldn't count on him to be that despite what he's done so far. Like, that's what would make me a little bit nervous, but the goaltending is so weird. We know the least about it, right?

You literally never know. You literally never No one knows how to evaluate goalies. No one knows how to deploy them, especially this postseason. No one knows how to pay them. Like, there's a lot there. And we should also say, I guess, if the concern is the fatigue, which has been an issue as he's been older, and you're right. First of all, he did have that chunk of time off.

And the other thing is there's been the extra padding in the series, right? There was the extra day both before and after the game three. so maybe this maybe we're making too big an issue out of it anyways shout out to everybody in the future after sergey bravsky's 45 safe shutout in game five sending this clip back to us going oh that aged well thank you very much we we do take full credit for we inspired him and we'll take a little bit of that 10 million dollar salary he has enough to give i mean we we know that most of these players are a loyalist so they're yeah of course they're listening they're definitely Um, okay, so the Toronto Maple Leafs down 3-1 in a series. The other Canadian team, the Edmonton Oilers, could have come out of last night facing that same sort of deficit, especially coming off a tough loss in game three. They're on home ice. Uh, they needed to deliver.

And it's fair to say that they did. Because we had a game last night where not only do the Edmonton Oilers, uh, win to tie that series, they put that game to bed. early. What were your thoughts just watching? Like at what point when you're watching the game do you go, all right, this is, this is tilted? Like was it

you know, is it when it's three nothing? Is it like, you know, right away? Do you sense it like? Because I mean, it just looked like the, sometimes you can get three goals. And it's like, you know, hey, the bounces, whatever happened. This one, that Euler team

came out firing, winning battles, throwing hits. everything and scoring goals. Is that one where, I don't know, if you're the Oilers, I guess to start with them, how do you bottle that and make sure you've got that again in future games of the series? You watch your five-on-five play from that first period

and go, this is what we need to do. Super simple, I know, right? Yep. Hire me as a coach right now. I show some tape of their five-on-five play and go, this is how you actually play when you don't have a power play. You pretend that you're not going to get power plays,

and you try to score goals without them. Just in case you don't get that opportunity because in game three we saw they had two power plays and didn't score on either one and they lost the game. So the thing with the series is the Oilers have been the worst five-on-five team in every game up until game four. Even the game that they won, I think they only had like 49% of the expected goal share

and score effects say that like the trailing team is going to push back and things like that. But even when the Oilers were ahead, they just weren't as good at five-on-five. They actually were, in that first period, they had two five-on-five goals. That's so different from the team that we've seen to this point in the series. You know, it's a totally different challenge, the Golden Knights from the Kings. Stylistically, they're two totally different teams, so you have to be ready for that.

And the Oilers post-deadline were a good five-on-five team. Before that, it was the little hit or miss. But I just think that right there is like the key. That's when you watch the game and go, okay, it might be out of hand. If you can keep up this level, and they did, the third period was a little bit more slinted towards the Golden Knights, but like the trailing team tends to do. do that and the leading team tends to go into a little bit more of a shell and then everything broke out. But like it's it's encouraging if you're the oilers that you actually won handedly

two periods without just the power play. Yeah. And you know, it's it's always tough, right? Because if you're talking about a team that does well on the power play and the oilers are exhibit A of that and you go to that, well, you know, five on five and they only do this on the power play and a lot of people, a lot of fans will say, well, wait a second, power plays are part of the game. That counts too. And yes, obviously it does. But especially in a series like this, we've seen the numbers, right? As the series goes on, those whistles get put away. There's fewer and fewer power plays. And I'd be willing to bet. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I would be willing to bet that when you're a team like the Oilers and your power play is so deadly, that effect is

probably even more produced. Because the officials are like, hey, man, if I call that hooking penalty, I'm basically handing you half a goal because your power play is running at 50%. And I don't want to do that because I don't want to affect the game and all of that nonsense. So it becomes harder and harder. I mean, they might get one or two power plays a game the rest of the way. Most of it's going to be five on five. And man, they did they did look good. I mean, did you detect, I'm terrible at this, but did you, watching the game,

Did you see anything different, either tactically or anything that made you that we could say, okay, they've done something here at five on five to get better. Because, again, it didn't feel like this was just, hey, a bounce here or a bounce there. It did feel like something was like we were watching a bit of a different team. Yeah. So before that, the power play thing you noted, so I've been looking at the data for this the whole postseason because the power play was so effective in round one and I was curious. and there's smarter people than me who can compile this stuff.

Cam Charan does tracking, and he has found that around game five is when you see the penalties called drop-off, and the teams that have a more ineffective power player are the ones that tend to maintain some edge in getting those calls versus the teams with good power plays. Like you said, they don't want to control the game. And throughout this postseason, even past post seasons, back through 2007, you can see it every single series. As a series goes on, that curve kind of.

kind of drops for penalties called and power play opportunities. So that's definitely a thing. For last night, the biggest thing for me was that McDavid and Drysidle only played one minute of five on five ice time together. Okay. And Drysidle was really good in his minutes. He got, and so was McDavid. McDavid got the Patrangelo matchup and dominated play in that in that time. We saw it, you know, he at times just makes people look stupid because I can't anticipate what he's going to do because he has so many different moves. There was that one deke that he didn't score on. it's just such smart play. So trying to contain him.

And now all of your focus is on him if he's not on the ice with Drysidal. That I think is so important because even if all the emphasis on McDavid trying to contain him, he still has the moves and can anticipate defenders to just make everyone look dumb. Dry Seidel was up against Shea Theodore, who is better at containing him in his minutes, but we just see the level from him that he can carry his own line, which he couldn't do in the regular season until about, like, mid-February. It's just built up from there. that is the biggest edge that you can have is if you can split up those lines because we've seen

especially without hymen you don't have the depth right like beukstad hyman nukin hopkins were they good and bad games as a second line but consistently enough like i don't think that you could keep mac david and dry saddle together if that's how the second line looks so it was like a smart adjustment there because now you have a one-two punch and then you can try to spread out everything below them that was the biggest noticeable difference maker i think that you're watching those to for double the time instead of just altogether. Yep. And good news in a sense for the Oilers because as great as McDavid and Drusidel especially

have been in the playoffs, Ryan Nugent Hopkins had been kind of quiet. And, you know, after having what a few of us have referred to as the quietest hundred point season, maybe in the history of the NHL, he's been quiet period in the playoffs. He gets his first goal of the postseason last night. So you're kind of sitting there going, oh, boy. If this, not that they've been a two-man team in the playoffs so far, but if, if, if the reinforcements are arriving, that could be trouble. You mentioned Alex Petrangelo. Let's talk about the slash late in the game.

He comes over the top with a just, I mean, it's, even call it a slash sound weird. Yeah, now I think it's a little more dramatic. overhand chop to the glove of Leondresidal who then drops down but is okay, is not injured. Petrangelo gets five in a game. Where are you on that? Where are you on the potential for a suspension? We've sort of kept one eye on Twitter as we're recording this Thursday morning because we assume at some point we will get a note about he's got a hearing, he doesn't have a hearing, whatever. whatever might be going on.

Should we expect that the Goldenites are potentially going to be without him for a game or more after that slash last night? Yeah, if that was a slush that happened in maybe the first five minutes of the game, it would be a different conversation because they'd view getting a game misconduct as if one game suspension right wrong or sideways, we know that's like the logic. The thing for me with that entire play is I agree with the idea that there should have been a penalty called before that so it didn't get to that. that point, right? The Kane hit on Petrangelo. Evander King kind of comes in and fills them in

from behind. Yeah. Should have been a call. Yep. Yeah. The way Kane's been playing this entire series, the lack of discipline from him, I get the frustration 110%. And if you're the reps, even if it's like something borderline, you call it to settle the game down because you've seen how this game has gone every each each game in the series, right? We see how everyone gets frustrated by the end of the game and maybe they try to get themselves a boost ahead of the next game, because, you know, the score is so lopsided. I get that. I'm, you know, if I'm the refs, I'm settling things down.

It didn't happen. It doesn't mean that you can take matters into your own hands. And that's what it feels like there. It was a total, you know, boiling over of frustration. And you can't do that. It's just super simple. Like, I get it. You're mad, but like you're playing at the highest level.

You know the rules. You literally can't do that. And if you're thinking, well, no one else is getting calls on things I am. For that, it's so intentional. And to do it to Leon. What did Leon do to? If you're going to do it to someone, you did it to Kane and it's retaliatory, it's going to have more, like, malice behind it. But I think the refs would be like, well, it's both of you.

And there's like a higher chance. You're just going to do it to poor old Leon, who's just trying to, you know, come out here and crush everybody. He's lucky it wasn't, it didn't catch him on the right spot on the wrist where he doesn't have as much protection that, you know, if he broke his wrist, that's, that's a way bigger suspension. I don't think it matters that he didn't get hurt, though. Yeah, and that's the thing. Like there's so many pieces of this. You're right. They should have called the cane hit.

But if you're Alex Petrangelo, you can't really use that as your defense. Certainly if you're, if you do get hauled in front of the Department of Player Safety, you can't say, well, I was mad. So I was out there trying to slash somebody because I was angry and I was looking for for payback. Or maybe you can't. I don't know. With this group, maybe that would be effective.

This happens. If people didn't see it, the context is it's two minutes left. Literally in the game, it's four to one. So games pretty much over. And they gave him five in a game. Now you said, hey, if they given him five in a game earlier, then that might have mitigated. Even two, even just two to just try to settle it, right? Yeah.

Yeah. But if that play had happened earlier in the game and they give him five and they kick him out of the game, that maybe mitigates a suspension. But also that maybe mitigates them giving him five in a game. It's very easy to kick out a good player from a game when there's. There's two minutes left and the game's over. But they gave them five in a game. They did not give them a match penalty. And that means that the officials determined it wasn't intent to injure.

A match penalty is intent to injure. A major is basically just a reckless, severe slash, but one where they don't feel like there's intent. I don't know how you get there on that play, that that wasn't intent to injure when a guy comes over the top on a slash like that. But that's what the call is. a few seconds later in game time, the next shift, Darnell Nurse gets in a fight

and gets assessed an instigator penalty. And at this point, there's a minute left in the game. And according to the rulebook, you get an instigator in the final five minutes of a game. That is an automatic one-game suspension. Now, the rulebook gets a little weird here. Because what happens is the rulebook makes it clear, instigator in the final five minutes, automatic one game suspension.

Automatic, not an option for a one game suspension. It's automatic. And this is because they don't want guys jumping guys in, you know, at the end of a game. Rightfully so. Rightfully so. It is a good rule. But the rule book also makes very clear that there is an option to rescind that automatic one game suspension. If the director, I think somebody said it's Stephen Walkman in this.

case. So this isn't a George Parrissing. This is the officiating director feels like it wasn't a case of score settling or targeting a player or whatever. And I think in this case, you could make the case that Darnal Nurse was looking for a fight, but he wasn't, you know, this wasn't payback. He didn't jump somebody. This didn't feel like the sort of situation that the rule is intended for. And so it can be, it's automatic, but it can be rescinded, which maybe means it's not automatic. after all. Those two plays, Darnel Nurse, Alex Petrangelo, in theory, have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact they happen in the same game that's getting out of control.

I can't help but feel like, though, this maybe gives the Department of Player's Safety cover that if Darnel Nurse does get the automatics suspension, they can then turn around and get Petrangelo a game. And it's like game management for the Department of Player's Safety, right? Like nobody calls penalties in overtime, but if you can give coincidental minors, then you'll do it because you're not really, you know, both teams are losing a guy. You know, am I overthinking this or could you see it be? No, no, you're not. You're not at all.

Yeah. It's the way it is. Petrangela gets his game. You both lost your, you know, in theory top defensemen. He has, Fratrangelo will have a hearing for slashing today. Okay. Just got it. Just came in.

All right. Now, so having a hearing does not necessarily mean. a suspension. I can't see it not though in this case. Yeah, it almost always does. And we have seen guys, you know, the classic $5,000 fine. Yeah. Right? That the maximum allowable under the CBA, those typically don't come with hearings. So like you don't see, hey, this guy has a hearing and then find out you just, they just say we find them. It's possible for them to have, we have seen hearings where guys don't get suspended. But I'm not really sure what, I mean, I mean, what's he going to say at this hearing on this overhand slash and then be like, you know, oh, I saw it.

I was stretching. I was stretching my arms. I saw like there's like this big spider like crawling up his arm. I was helping him. Yeah, I was. There's a rut in the ice. I was trying, you know, like, you know, when you're driving and like the automatic arm comes out to the passenger, see it like, you know, like parent to a kid. There it is.

I was doing that. There was a rut in the ice. So there, okay. So, so, so, Adriangelo has an excuse. He's, he's. going to get suspended. I feel safe saying, knowing this now.

And I wouldn't be surprised if, again, I realize it has nothing to do with the darn-all nurse thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if now Nurse gets a game as well and they balance it out. Coincidental suspensions.

Do you think, is there any chance? This is more than a game? If he got two games, I think it all but guarantees Nurse is going to keep that one game, right? Like, that's the balancing the scales. I think that we'll see.

Um, that's a tough one. I feel like my logical brain would say it should be maybe two or three because of the intent, especially for someone who wasn't involved in anything either. Like I just, I don't know if that does matter, but then the no injury thing is what might knock it down. It's going to be a game, I feel like. It's like this is the NHL. And it does feel like it's really funny because like you mentioned like the no penalties and overtimes.

Like that's changed this year. It's the highest rate of penalties we've seen cold in three-on-three overtimes, which is leading to the highest rate of power play goals and overtime to try to end games earlier. We're also seeing more calls at the end of regulation this year, which we weren't before in the regular season. But that directive feels very different from the Department of Player Safety Directive

because everyone wants to keep the scales as like bounced as possible. It feels like with a lot of the calls that were getting... I don't know how else to explain some of the decisions by player safety. So I don't know if they're going to look at that and go, this is our opportunity to suspend someone and not feel as bad about it because we know that Keene is like, which comes first? Which suspension is going to be announced first?

Because this is this afternoon. So today. He's having a hearing today. Yeah. The next game's tomorrow. So they've got their time. So whose announcement comes out first? And does it matter?

Like, could it matter? I don't know. Especially since it is, in theory, two different groups making the decision. Right. So, I mean, do they pick up the phone and talk to each other? I'm willing to bet that they do. Who goes first is probably the easier one too Because whoever goes second is the lasting impression you're going to get

I mean I'll tell you right now if I mean it won't happen now that he's having the hearing But if if Petra Angelo didn't get a suspension And Nurse did Oilers fans would lose their minds They would lose their minds for less So yeah that would be something I'll say one last thing on this

And again I hate that I think this way as a hockey fan But I don't think I'm wrong I think he gets one game I think that if that exact scenario plays out in the exact same way last night, but the score is flipped and the Golden Knights are winning, and the Golden Knights now lead this series through to one, then I think he gets two games. Yeah, no, no, you're 100% right, because you're trying to do something.

And you wouldn't be risking that he's sitting out as his team gets eliminated. You'd say even if they lose two games, series is still going on, whereas now you don't, if you suspend him twice and they lose both the games and they go, well, you know, it's the part to play. Again, I hate even having to think through this stuff, but you do, right? There's like different levels of it and how can they- Because no one wants to be responsible. No one wants to change the results of the game.

And the other part of it too is with like the score in the game itself versus the series. Like, you know what you're doing at that point in the game. If you're behind, you're the one that's frustrated. It's the same thing with like the trouba conversation. He made a hit when his team was down to nothing to try to change his momentum because it was like a desperate play. This wasn't that per se because it's like, we're just mad. And at the end of every game, we're just going to kick the crap out of each other because

we're mad. Like, that's how this series is going. I think there's a little bit of a difference between it as I'm trying to make a big statement to my team to wake them up versus, which I still don't think what he did was right. But I think there's like a different in that messaging versus this, which is we're down in the game. There was no call on me a second before. So now I'm going to be mad about it.

And I'm going to be reactive. And it feels like that's the whole idea of player safety is to, ensure that players aren't too reactive and aren't doing things that are borderline or dangerous or whatever because they're mad, right? Like, that's what we're trying to manage to a point unless everyone's like, keep the emotion in it. It's fascinating. We should try it sometime. We should, in theory, once, twice.

Yeah, just to see. Speaking of getting mad and kicking the crap out of people, the Philadelphia Flyers have made some news. I wasn't sure where you were going with that, but that was a nice transition. Very smooth. I mean, look, I'm not Mendez. People know that, but I'm trying. I'm trying. Philadelphia Flyers have found their new GM, who is the same as their old interim GM,

I think to no one's surprise, Danny Breyer. And they found their new president of hockey operations, who is Keith Jones, a longtime player, a former flyer, a very well-known personality from the media, but also somebody with zero front office experience in the NHL. What were your thoughts when, well, what were your thoughts when you heard about those two hires, as well as what were your thoughts when you saw this bright orange statement that the flyers put out, that outlined apparently their news slash old philosophy of how they're going to move forward? So I'm not surprised because it feels like a been.

organization likes to go the former player route, it is a flyers. It feels like that is essential to them. For Keith Jones, it's interesting because this is someone too who like was his own agent at points and did things like that. It's someone who I think has some sort of a brain from a business perspective. But it's a choice to go, if you're separating president and GM to have that checks and balances in your organization, which isn't a bad idea, right? So no one has too much power. To go to former players that are inexperienced, I think is a little interesting. Like, I would have expected someone with a little more maybe clout in the front, you know, front office perspective as president to manage that GM.

Right wrong or sideways is just what I would guess. Like I have no problem with new people getting chances, right? Especially like if Breyer, he was there for a bit. He was the assistant GM and then he had time as the interim GM. There's faith in him to move forward. Why not usher in someone new? I'm just surprised then you'd go for an experience at the top, but it feels very flyery because the experience is being a former player and that's all that matters.

The statement, that was a choice. It's a choice. Wouldn't you pay $100 to know exactly how that all played out? Who wrote what? You know, which, I mean, I want the word document with like the little editing. I want to know like which ones are John Tortorella and which was Keith Jones and all of this. Like, like whose decision was it to work the phrase, show up and work your ass off into an official team statement? I personally like that one line.

That is one line that I'm going to get behind because it brings a human element that we need in this game. We need human elements everywhere to have mistakes, to have wrong things, right? That's the excuse for everything. Penalty is called PowerPlay Opportunities. Well, there's a human element to officiating. We need a human element in team statements. I want to know when they were editing it in the word doc.

You know how normally it's like a red pen? Did they switch it to an orange pen? You had to. To keep the theme, right? They had to, right? Yeah, yeah. It's a new error of orange. This is, it sounds a lot to me like the old era.

Because you're right, former players. This was obviously the team of Bobby Clark and Paul Holmgrim and Bill Barber and guys like that always being in important roles. Danny Breyer is a guy with not a lot of NHL experience in the front office, but he has, you know, the phrase I use sometimes is he's not just walking in off the golf course here. Like he has been doing the work since he retired. Both of these guys, everybody says both of them are bright guys. And, you know, maybe the team president role, you never know, certain teams are different. Sometimes the team president is the guy running the show. And sometimes he's more of a figurehead and more of the guy who does media.

And if you're looking for somebody to be the media guy, Keith Jones might be your best option. but the fact that they're both former flyers yeah that I don't know I mean look it it can work as much as I know I personally I roll my eyes every time a team hires some former player it's always like really like you scoured the whole hockey world and the guy that you came up with just happened to be a popular former star player

for your team how many times has it worked out besides Iserman and Sacky in recent years like yeah are you trying to recreate and look if That's what you're saying, right? Sacken's been great. Yeah. You know, Eiserman started, you know, he was great in Tampa. Yeah.

He's now gone to Detroit. But he, you know, he was one of the few that, like, he didn't just walk into that job in Detroit. Brendan Shanhan, I would say, has done a good job in Toronto as well. Another case of going to not a former team. I do think Rob Blake's been good in L.A. Yeah. And the other one that you could, you could point to is Kevin Adams in Buffalo, who a lot of us at the time just said, oh, okay. He supported himself better than I think anyone else.

This is me being biased because I'm a nerd, but he hired San Ventura. He invested in their data. And it feels like it's trickling down the whole organization, which is what you want to just have more information. Yeah. But I mean, remember when he was hired, right? Like a lot of us went, oh, the Pagoola just hired their yes man. He was, you know, in some other piece of the organization, no experience. He's just, he was the only guy who would take the job.

And he's done a good job. I mean, he's made a lot of us kind of eat our words on that a little bit. So, you know, sometimes it works. And sometimes you get Ron Hextel coming back to Philadelphia or, you know, you go down to this. Well, Ron Hextel had a bad, bad rap before that, though, right? Like, it's not like that was his first time being bad. That's what's so impressive. Like, I rather you go for someone with no experience who you don't necessarily know is bad,

but there's a chance of badness to come with it. Like, that's the, that look at coach. Bednar, Cooper, guys like that, Rod Brindamore, little experience beforehand. So that we're bringing different people in. We're expanding the carousel just by like one inch, only a little bit. And like that's a good thing. Question for you though, did you happen to go, when you saw the message, right, the tweet, did you simply open up the tweet or did you go to the Flyers actual Twitter page?

Oh, I just opened it in front of me. Why do I need to go? You should go look at their header. The new Arab Orange, the way it's written with their logo on their official Twitter is a choice. I'm very excited now. They clearly didn't invest too much in this, I guess. Or this is the simple approach, which maybe fits with the statement of everyone, work hard and work your asses off. And no excuses, no shortcuts.

Keep it super simple. I need a shirt. They got to sell shirts, a new era of orange. It's literally just the word. A new era of orange. Add that on an orange background. Well, I mean, no shortcuts. It feels to me like this was done pretty shortcutty.

But, okay, I, boy, I tell you, I, as somebody who used to live in the marketing world, and I've seen consultants come in and take over. hit us with a bunch of nonsense about what our new brand is. Somebody even pointed out that it looks like the circle in the flyer logo has gotten a little bit darker. It feels a little bit. It looks a little darker than the background. Times are getting darker in Philadelphia. Oh, well, good luck to them.

We have no Jesse Granger. He is traveling this morning. So we will close the show by going to, let's go to the mailbag. and let's start with a voicemail that we've got. And I'm stalling here because I'm supposed to read the little thing that Mendes always does so smoothly. Remember, you can reach us at the athletic hockey show at gmail.com or you can leave us a voicemail at 845, 445, 8459. And then Ian always says, we'd love to hear your voice. He never discussed that with me.

I never told him that, but he's speaking on my behalf. You did get a voicemail this week. I'm going to say it. You would love to hear their voices. Please, please send voicemails directly for you. Everyone wants to hear your voices. I can't wait to hear. I'm not going to be here to listen to them.

Well, let's listen. You get to listen to Andre's voice because Andre has a voicemail on a discussion that we had last week where we got sidetracked trying to figure out the best player whose initials matched the initials of his team. And Andre weighed in on that right here. I was thinking about the players with the same initials as their team. I'm not sure it totally counts, but the best I could come up with was Ray Whitney did play one season for the Red Wings.

I don't know how much better anybody else can do than that. Thanks. All right. So Andre is saying Ray Whitney should count for the Detroit Red Wings, which is a little bit different than where we had been going. But, yeah, Red Wings RW. I call bullshit on that. No.

No. No, you're not allowing it? Nope, got to be DR. Okay. All right. Because everyone else has to have city team name. Just like Toronto Maple Leafs, that should be TM. Okay, so this is our first email was Chris in Vegas.

He wants to know the ground rules for the three-letter teams and he says, are we doing, is Detroit Red W-D-W or is it DW? You're saying it's DR. And I think that's what we said too, right? Toronto Maple Leafs, TM. What about Tampa Bay Lightning? TL. T-L. Yeah.

I agree. So we, if we're going to cut off, if we're talking about Tampa, if we're talking about Tampa, what do we cut off the Bay? Yep. Yep. Bonus points if they're middle names with the B. I'm with you. First letter of the city category.

First letter of the name category. Those are your initials. I'm with you on that one. Two other things that were interesting about this. We managed, we were all kicking ourselves because we realized after the fact that we managed to have this whole discussion without pointing out that Connor Baderd could go to either Columbus or Chicago, and of course he does end up going to Chicago. So Connor Bedard might be the one.

And then the other thing that happened was, well, yeah, I mean, we're all still a little pumped out about that one. But the other thing that happened was we got, it's funny, our producer Danielle was telling me that she got a bunch of messages from people. I know I got a bunch of messages on Twitter as well as a few emails from people going, Peter Forsberg, Peter Forsberg, Philadelphia Flyers, that's your guy, you got to do that. And if you listen to the episode, at the very end of the episode, that one occurred to me. And I jumped in.

In fact, I interrupted Ian as he was doing his clothes. And I said, it's Peter Forsberg for the Philadelphia Flyers, Hall of Famer, that's our guy. And so the number of people who reached out to give us, it must have been yelling at their devices, and then had to write back and go, sorry, I hadn't listened to the whole episode yet. I apologize. It's the same as you getting yelled at for the headline thing in the first paragraph. This is the podcast version of it. Except these people actually did come back and say, okay, I'm sorry.

I made a mistake. The angry people on Twitter almost never do that. Let's do a couple of more emails. Let's see. I know there were a few good ones here. This one is from Sean, not me, but he does spell it correctly. He says on May the 2nd, 1986, the city of Hartford threw a parade. for the Whalers for having finished fourth and winning one round in the playoffs against the Quebec

Nordiques. And Sean says that he was there for the clincher in game three. This was back when the first round was only five games. He says, I realized that would technically be the previous week in hockey history, but I thought this event was important enough to make an exception. Where are you on that? having a parade for winning one round. Yes or no?

Toronto didn't do it and they had the drought. Why would anybody else do it? We haven't done it yet. We haven't done it yet to give us some time. Unless, wait a sec, the parade of Budlights to the locker room. There's a mini parade.

I mean, I guess we can't say no Budlights and allow a parade. I do have to say in 93 when the Leafs went to the conference final loss in Game 7, it wasn't a parade, but they did have like a city hall kind of thing for that team. So I think there has to be a difference, right? Parade versus just a party. I feel like you can celebrate.

If you're the Whalers too, and was that the first time, like, if they go that far, like, and you're like a small market. I believe that would have been their first playoff win. And certainly one of their only ones. Yeah. I'd say party, no parade. There's a difference.

I'm looking at this and, uh, because Sean linked to a, a blog post and boy, there's some nice photos here. There's, they got like some sort of, they got floats. They got Ron Francis with hockey hair. This is, this is pretty good. People know where I'm at on this. I'm all in favor of it.

Celebrate anything you want. You don't have to win a Stanley Cup to have a parade and especially the Hartford Whalers, Hartford Whalers are cool. They never won anything. They are cool. All right. This one's interesting. This is from Phil.

We get to be GMs here. Okay. It's draft date, 2003. You're both the new co-GMs of the Winnipeg Jets. Your first order of business is you have to blow up the core, move out Pierre-Luc Dubois, Mark Schifley on draft date. Who do you move them to and for what? And the two hitches are they have to be realistic trades

that the other team might accept. And also, Connor Hellebuck has told you he will re-sign at five years at $8.5 million, but you have to prove to him that you are at least semi-competitive. So you can't just trade both of those guys for picks. So it sounds like what Phil is asking for here are some hockey trades. I've got an answer for Phil that's got a bit of a twist on it, but I'll defer to you as my co-GM.

What are you doing with either of those Jet Stars or anyone else on the team? are you accepting Phil's premise that you're going to make hockey trades or are you in blow it up, get draft picks and start all over again mode? If you're trading hell about you're one legitimately good, consistent player, and it does feel like you're tearing it down. And I'm not opposed to that for Winnipeg because it feels like the core that they have, not only are they like flawed players, which can be okay, it feels like the vibes you're off, the accountability is off that I think that if you're going to start changing things,

you might really need to like ramp it up. But if you're getting rid of Hellenbuck, like at that point, just blow it up. Why not? Go off. Phil is saying it sounds like here, Connor Hellebuck is willing to resign. Hellebuck's a free agent after next season, if people don't know. Is he willing to resign with his new team? Says, he's told you, sounds like he's telling you, I'm good to stay in Winnipeg.

Five years times 8.5. But I don't want to do a rebuild. Okay. I want to stick around. I'm here to win, so don't trade anybody just for draft picks and futures. Okay, so Dubois, the problem is you have no leverage. You have no leverage. First of all, everyone knows he wants out.

Second of all, everyone knows he might want to go to unrestrictive free agency. And third of all, everyone knows he wants Montreal. So if you give Montreal, Dubois, they can shortchange you, as they should. I would be looking for a defenseman if I'm Winnipeg, first and foremost, if I'm trading someone because Josh Morrissey is a very good top pair defenseman. Yes, he trailed off in the second half of this season. I think that with a better defensive core, he can maintain that top pair caliber that, like, we know his peak to be.

And that's not guys like Neil Pionk. Like, that's not your number two. So good luck finding someone. I would be trying to find, like, the young 21, 22-year-old who's just breaking through. You might have to add more to the Dubois package then. and I probably am getting rid of Shifley too and trying to just find another center. Like I'm probably looking for like another center,

which is like not easy, obviously. Look at Columbus and they're centered up like in Minnesota. Like there's a lot of teams who want centers. But I think that there's a way to do it and stay semi-competitive if Hallenbach's staying on. And that cost is not bad for someone of his caliber. But it just feels like they have to be really smart and aggressive elsewhere. And this was kind of the year to get that going and they didn't.

So if not, you trade Helenvuck for every single penny you can get back and try to use, you know, like teams are so scared to go for that big trade, right? Like for the sharks, it was Tim O'Meer, like, go for the big trade and get as much back or last year if you had the conversation with like hurdle. You get the most back for that kind of player. Yes, it hurts you in the interim. But now you have all these pieces to work with instead of trading all these fringe guys and only getting a little bit back. Like, that's your game changer for your rebuild. Yeah. My answer here and my twist on it is, and I agree with everything you just said on the forwards,

I do trade Connor Hallibuck if I'm the Jets. I think that's my potentially most attractive piece. It's a situation where there's, you know, there's always a couple teams looking for a goaltender. Every year. And there's always lots of goalies out there. And we see, you know, last summer was the big musical chairs of goaltenders, but there's always something like this. And what does everybody always say at that time of year? You know, when the Leafs go and get Matt Murray and people like me go, this is a terrible trade, they go, yeah, but who's out there that's better?

Vasilewski's not getting traded. Shisterkin's not getting traded. Hellebuck's not getting traded. Well, wait a second. Connor Hallibook. If he's available. If he gets traded, John Gibson's becoming available, though. Like, I would plant might be right there.

I feel like John Gibson has been available for a while now and maybe the market isn't there. but there certainly would be one. And yet, I mean, it's goaltending. We've said a few times on the show. Goaltending's weird. I don't know that you take a huge step back without him. He's my first guy. In this scenario, he says I'll do five times 8.5 for a contender.

I say, good, keep that in mind. Tell that to the team that we're going to trade you to because then we're not just trading one year of this guy. We're team knows they're going to be able to lock him in. That would actually be my starting point. And then, you know, whether it's a full tear it down rebuild or not, I'm happy to roll with, roll the dice on some goaltenders. So that's right. I feel like the leaves and devils all dive at him and offer up a lot like Pittsburgh. You would think.

Pittsburgh would be a really intriguing one. You know, it's always. And the other thing is I do it in the off season. Yeah. Because you don't do it during the season because if you wait and, you know, there's always that argument that, well, at the deadline, this or that. You don't give them enough time to practice with their new goalie coach and acclety to a new system and everything. Yeah, you can't do that. And then the other thing, though, is by the time you get even halfway through a season, all the teams that are good probably have good goaltending.

That's why they're good. All the teams that are bad have bad goaltending, but they're not going to trade for a guy with one year left, you know, except for every now and then you get a team like that. But generally speaking, I think there'd be a lot of teams out there that would be interested. one more real quick one. This is just an interesting one. This is from Sid. He says, put the entire early 90s NHL into a time machine, bring it to 2023, including today's rules, coaching strategies, equipment, styles, etc.

How do the results change? What players and teams improve the most and the least? What would the standings and leaderboards look like? I'm not as interested in the standings, but who are the players from that era that you drop into today? and they see significantly different results one way or another. You know, like the third liner is in the 90s. Like, I could tell you, like, growing up, even now, like, we did the NHL 99, and I was, like, talking to my parents about it, my dad would be like,

this guy in 1990 was a 150 point score and he's on your second line on any team today. No one can stack up to that. Those guys, super mid. And that's going to be so fucking fun. Like, all these guys around noses, these, like, heroes become so mid. and that, like, it would be funny to see it, but, like, now scoring's back on the rise, so it brings some intrigue. Like, how does, we get the answer of, like, how does Brian Leach stack up to Adam Fox?

Yes, I'm a homer and I'm biased. But, like, that's, like, a fun storyline. But for me, it's how do we see guys, like, Lemieux and Gretzky go up against Crosby and McDavid? Like, those are the big questions for me. Imagine, like, Lemieux and Crosby on the same team right now. I feel like LeMew is the guy that always jumps out to me, even more than Gretzky. as the guy that would just be

unstoppable today. Because, I mean, you go back and he wasn't, Maril Lemieux wasn't necessarily a speed guy. And there are some guys like Pavobur, I think, would tear this current league apart with his speed. Young Timo, probably the same. Mario wasn't a speed guy, but you go and watch

those highlights. He's wearing two guys on his back at all times, like a backpack. They're just open field tackling him, slashing him, hacking him. You put in his prime Mario out there and guys basically can't, you know, they can't slash it his gloves, they can't, you know, water ski behind him. I feel like he would just absolutely tear this leak to shreds. Yeah.

And then as far as guys who wouldn't do as well, obviously. Scott Stevens, maybe not with all the penalties. Yeah, Scott Stevens loses his superpower. He would not last. He'd be suspended all the time. Obviously, the enforcers are gone and you're right. I think any from that era, almost any. death player and almost any

goaltender. Oh my God, the goaltenders. I know. It's right. If people don't know, Shane is younger than I am significantly. So, I mean,

it hurts me a little bit to say this, but yeah, some of those goaltenders who could barely even go side to side. They don't need to make the trip. They don't even need to get in the time machine. It's all good. Yeah, just stay.

Just stay home. Speaking of the age difference, I want to do this. We always wrap up with a look back at this week in hockey history. And I'm fascinated to hear your view on this as somebody who is, you know, not so young that you don't know this story, but young enough that you didn't live it. May 8th, 1988.

Oh, no, I didn't live it. Yellow Sunday. You don't have to say it that one. I'm sorry. Yellow Sunday. Let me, okay, when I say yellow Sunday, do you know what I'm referring to? No, I don't actually. And I read a lot of hockey history stuff.

This one is, I don't know. Unless, unless, let's see the description. You'll know it. You'll know it when you hear me describe it. I was just wondering if the name rang about it. This is the day that amateur referees work the devil's Bruins playoff game after NHL referees walk out, do a wildcat strike. This is the aftermath of the have another donut incident.

Okay. Okay. This I know. Yes. Okay. So game, I don't remember what game it was, maybe game four or five. Anyways, the previous game, the devils have been mad about the officiating. Referee Don Koharski comes off the ice.

Devils coach Jim Schoenfeld confronts him in the hallway off the ice, starts screaming at him. There is at some point, Don Koharski loses his balance and or gets bumped. And he says to Jim Schoenfeld, you just, you just bump me. You just knocked me over. You're done. You're out of here. You're gone. You're going to be suspended.

And rightfully so, if a coach physically assaulted an official after the game, Jim Schoenfeld starts yelling, I didn't touch you, you fell, calls him a fat pig, tells him to have another donut. This is all caught on camera, by the way. The NHL suspends Jim Schoenfeld for the next game. The New Jersey Devils choose to, they want to appeal that suspension. in Lula Amarillo. This young, new, new fresh-faced executive named Lou La Marello says, I want to appeal this. Now, this is where, believe it or not, this is where the story gets weird.

The part about assaulting referees and fat pigs and donuts. Yeah, that's nothing. That was fine. The appeal process is very clearly laid out in the NHL's rules. It says you've got to appeal to the president of the NHL. John Ziegler. Back then, it was president, not commissioner, but he was, John Ziegler was basically the Gary Bettman at that time. Here's the problem. Nobody knows where John Ziegler is. He's gone. He's AWOL. Nobody knows, nobody has a phone number. Nobody knows where he is. There's, you know,

there's no Zoom. There's nothing. Nobody knows where John Ziegler is, and therefore the devils cannot appeal because they don't have a president to appeal to. So instead, Lamarrow, and the devils go to court, they get a restraining order that says Jim Schoenfeld is allowed to coach. It comes down just hours before the game. The referees for that game show up, including, and I can't remember who the lead ref was, but he was like also the head of the officials association. They show up, they're told, yeah, Jim Schoenfeld's coaching the game. And they say, nope, they turn around and they walk out.

So the NHL, this is the conference finals, by the way. The NHL has no referees, and they have to find three amateur referees, put them in. It's called Yellow Sunday because two of them were wearing yellow raincoats, and they go out and they officiate the game. I know that people get mad these days when somebody gets suspended or doesn't get suspended or, you know, there's an extra day between games. What is it like as a younger fan, younger person, to hear this story. and be like, this is how the NHL war. This is 1928, by the way. This is 1988.

It's not that long ago. And an AWOL commissioner, guys in raincoats officiating a conference final game, coaches accused of assaulting referees, restraining orders. Does it make you long for the old days? Does it make you appreciate what we have now? No, I don't appreciate what we have now. I want chaos. That's a right answer.

I absolutely won't chaos. think the commissioner going a wall would never happen in today's game because of cell phones and tracking and things like that. And also like I feel like there's probably a system in place of like if I disappear for whatever reason, this is how you handle it and this is who's in charge. And I think there'd be a bit stronger of a system in place for that, which is boring. But also not. Actually, that will be kind of funny because then fans have a new person to target like Bill Daley, we hate you now for allowing this to happen. Like now we have a true villain. And everybody needs a heel. Everyone needs someone to be mad at. So I'm okay with that. The yellow raincoats

would be hysterical. I would love that. But I feel like the game would get delayed today versus that. But then against the NHL, we could so like- Tickets, man. You're telling me if the SPN's like, not oh man, we got three hours of time blocked off for you. This game's got to happen. There's a very famous and funny clip of the officials coming out of the ice and two of them like almost collide right away. Like they bump in the-y. That's what I need. And then, see, the difference is today like, I'm that idiot. like jiffing it and posting it like look at what happened like that would be funny and the other part that would be funny too is like the coaching and the drama we get we're getting excited now at keith and

cooper going back and forth and the evison debor drama we're eating that shit up because we don't get enough of it coaches and refs getting into it like and not just here's your $20,000 fine here is like legit drama i'm all for it we need that can someone can someone step up to the plate and handle this who's the next coaching hire that's going to come in. If you want to be a coach, be willing to throw it down with the ref. And I will support you no matter how bad or recycled of a coach you are. It was honestly one of the craziest things. The game was delayed by like an hour.

They weren't even telling the fans. They're just like the game will start later. Soon. And the last thing I'll say on this, you know, you talk about, well, cell phones and all of this. Part of the reason that nobody knew where it was, that was kind of intentional. And to this day, we don't know exactly where John Ziegler was, but the story that you hear is that it was a personal family situation, and I won't go into a ton of details.

There literally may have been a cult involved. Oh, my God. And I'll leave it there. And that's as far as I'll go, I recommend anyone if you're, if you are younger and you don't know this whole story. I'm going to do more digging. I know a lot of the story, but now I want to. I feel like I have left, even I have left out details.

And there's great YouTube clips of not just the donut thing, but like the broadcasts having to stall and having to figure out. And then these guys come out and bright yellow and you're like, what is even going on? All right. Everybody, thank you for listening to the athletic hockey show. Thank you to Shana for joining us for filling in for Ian. It was fantastic, I'm giving you a nine out of ten. It would have been a ten out of ten, except at the very end then I found out that you're one of the people that pronounces it Jif. Oh my God.

I didn't know. I thought you were going to make fun of me, be like, ah, you made fun of like, because I said I was not around for 1988. I thought that was going to be my. That was also. That was my minus, but because I say Jif, that one hurt, but I can't hold that against you. I don't like GIF at all. Like, it's Jif.

Okay. Well, Shana, Shana may not be back, but for the rest of you, thank you for listening. Again, you can always email us your questions at the athletic hockey show at gmail.com or leave a voicemail at 845-4-4-5-8-459. And right now, get a one-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month for 12 months when you visit theathletic.com slash hockey shoot.