The Athletic Hockey Show - Toronto Maple Leafs: will this series be a tipping point?, Minnesota Wild Game 2 goalie decision backfires

Episode Date: April 20, 2023

Ahead of Thursday night's game, Sean shares his thoughts about the Maple Leafs' loss to the Lightning in Game 1, and if this playoff round could be a major tipping point for this team and their future. Also, the Minnesota Wild's decision to play Fleury in Game 2 despite Filip Gustavsson's fantastic performance in Game 1 backfires with a 7-3 loss to the Stars. Then, in Granger Things, Jesse Granger joins the show to discuss the goalie situation for the Golden Knights heading into their second game against the Jets, and if odds for the favorites have shifted after the first games have been played. Then to wrap up, a dive into the listener mailbag, and a look back with "This Week in Hockey History".Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail] or leave a VM: 845-445-8459!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/hockeyshowUpgrade your closet with Rhone and use code NHLSHOW to save 20% at https://www.rhone.com/nhlshowLinkedIn Jobs helps you find the qualified candidates you want to talk to, faster. Post your job for free at http://linkedin.com/nhlshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show. It is your Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. It's Ian Mendez, Sean McIndoo, with you. And we're going to talk all things hockey here and the Stanley Cup playoffs and round one. And, okay, I'm going to give you an opportunity here, Sean. We can move this topic to later in the show, or you can rip the Band-Aid off,

and we can just get into it and then move on. But obviously, I think a lot of people look, they read your column from the other night, which was written with passion, but also possibly written before the game even started. I feel like this could happen. Anyway. It wasn't, but it was written halfway through the game, put it that way.

I give you a sense of how the game went for the Leafs. At 3-2, though, there was some thought like, hey, maybe they're coming back and then didn't happen. It is a complete, there's no other way to put this. That was an unmitigated disaster in game one. You almost couldn't have drawn up a worst game one. So where's your mind at? We're recording this Thursday morning about, you know, whatever it is,

10 hours, 12 hours before game two. Like, like, walk me through. Like, are you just like, this is stupid? Like, why are we doing this again? Or like, like, has all of the optimism been beaten out of you again? I mean, going into this series, I was less optimistic than probably a lot of Leaf fans, although there's a range there, and less optimistic than a lot of the experts, a lot of the media. I mean, this was pretty overwhelmingly picked as a series that the Leafs were going to win. And I wasn't so sure.

In fact, when I put my picks out there, I had Tampa winning in a shorter series and got a lot of pushback on that as he was. might imagine from from leaf fans um that said it's one game uh you know we we don't have to look very hard to find many examples of a series where game one was lopsided and it didn't end up meaning anything to the final result including last year with the lightning and the leaps right the leaps go out played their best playoff game uh of of the cap era absolutely smoked the lightning 5-0 and ended up losing the series.

So, you know, it is one game. And like I said, in the piece that I wrote, sometimes a game like this can be the turning point. Sometimes a game like this is the one that you look back on,

you say, okay, finally the light bulb went off. You know, for whatever reason, that game was so awful that maybe the players in that room look around and go, guys, we thought we were ready. We're not.

We clearly weren't. There's a different level we've got to get to. And now we finally got it. Now, that's pretty optimistic thinking. I mean, the reality is twofold going into the night. Number one is the Leafs just need to win, period. You can't against a team as good as Tampa go back into their building down to nothing. Your odds of winning the series are extraordinarily low if that's what happens.

So you've got to find a way to win. It doesn't matter whether you'll play them, you out shoot them, whether it's, you know, you get a few bounces, the power plays, whatever it is, you've got to find a way to win. That's the main thing. But beyond that, how they come out tonight, especially the start of the game, is going to really tell us something about this team. Because, man, the way they started game one was inexcusable. inexplicable, it was stunning. And I say this as a Leaf fan who, you know, I've been accused to being the pessimist. And yet I was sitting there going, man, it's been 12 months since this team played hockey that matter, right? We all said all year, regular season doesn't matter. They got to get back to the playoffs. From the moment they skated off the ice last year after game seven, after the Tampa Bay Lightning, beat you on your whole.

Mice, knock you out of the playoffs, and yet another do-or-die game. The only thought on your mind should have been next year's playoffs. Game one. Get me back to game one. If I had a time machine, I want to go ahead in time and get to game one. And you find out basically in November that you're going to be playing the lightning again. We all knew that. You know it's going to be ever since February or March.

You've known it was going to be out home ice. Like you've had all the time in the world to set up for this. and yet they look completely lost to start the game. And I don't know if that's coaching, if it's leadership, if it's some combination of a bunch of different things. But there's, I mean, that was stunning to me to see that. It's one thing to lose the game. Lightning are a great team.

There are knights that you're going to play great and you're still going to lose to the Tampa Bay Lightning because that's just how good they are. But to go out there to be down three nothing after one period, to look lost, to have nothing going, you're taking bad penalties, and it really, it's a pattern with this team.

They don't start on time, an awful lot. And a lot of times they get away with it because we get what we saw in the second period, which is suddenly the offense clicks, and they get a couple of goals, and they're right back in it. And they can erase their mistakes because they've got the skill to do it.

Didn't add up for game one, because Tampa got that big fourth goal, and then obviously the stupid penalty with Michael bunting, and that pretty much puts an end of the game. You know, they need to win tonight. There are no moral victories or anything like that at this stage in the playoffs. But if they go out and play a great game tonight, and Andre Vasilowski stands on his head, that's one thing.

If they have another start especially, like in game one, then there's no other conclusion than that something is fundamentally broken. about this team in a really serious and significant way. So I think you explained it so well, and it does feel like this could be the night where Vasil, look, Andre Vasilovsky is going to steal one game in this series. At some point he's going to steal a game. He didn't have to steal game one, but he's going to steal a game.

And you could absolutely see the scenario in which Toronto out shoots Tampa 45-25, Vasselowski stops 44 of them, Tampa gets an empty net, or they win. in 3-1. You can see it. I can see it. You can see it. But here's the one thing I'd like to say to Leaves fans on this. And I understand, look, you've been through it. I always think about the column you wrote in the spring of 2020. That was the bubble year when the Habs beat them. When did they all bleed together, don't they? Yeah. 2020. No, no, no. Sorry, 2021. And that was the one, I remember reading that. And I'm like, man, this this guy just nailed it with the column of,

that's it. This is it. This felt like a definitive breaking point. and yet we know what it's like being a fan. You can't quite quit them. You can't. I know it. You know it. But here's the thing, okay? But here's the thing.

If Toronto had won game one, seven to two, seven to three, none of you would be feeling comfortable anyway. Sure. Like there was, there's no scenario where a Toronto Maple Leafs fan will feel comfortable until the final buzzer sounds in a clinching game and they're congratulating their goalie. That's it.

Absolutely. And even there. What has happened. Even then, we'll be waiting on, like, is there going to be a review or are we going to hear the other? Yeah, absolutely. And look, that's, that is, that has been earned. This team has, there is no more benefit of the doubt. There is no.

And in fact, you know, you're right. When, when I wrote that piece after the Montreal series, I kind of said, like, this, this feels like the end of something with this team. And it wasn't. The next day or whatever it was, Kyle Dubas, Brennan, Shan get up. They give the same press conference. You know, we're going to stay the course. We're going to run it back. No changes.

Nobody even has to think about getting traded or anything like that. We're going to keep everything. All the key players, all the core, everything, no changes. And they came back. And look, they had a fantastic regular season last year. And the playoffs last year were different in the sense that they were playing a much better team than they had against Montreal. They played better. The stars did show up.

and, you know, a goal here or there, bounce here or there, it would have gone differently. And you saw it. There were a lot of people after that series. They wrote the column, right? Like, this time felt different. And maybe they do run it back yet again. And sure enough, Dubes and Shan get up there and they give the whole,

yep, no changes, don't worry about anything, speech again. And here we are again. And it's, you know, as I wrote, that game won, if it did anything, to me, it has to finally take those excuses and moral victories and all that stuff off the table. And, you know, Sheldon Keefe with the, well, we got more respect than the handshake line. Nobody cares about the handshake line this year. Win or don't. And maybe there was a scenario before game one where the Leafs go out and they just play fantastic.

They dominate the series and Andre Vasselowski steals it. Or those crooked refs steal it or, you know, the bounces or there's injuries or whatever it is. It's hockey. We know this stuff happens. But maybe there is a scenario where that happens. The Leas play fantastic. They don't get the result they deserve. And you go, okay, well, maybe we stick with it.

That has to be gone now because you mailed in game one. You handed game one on a silver platter to the lightning. So it doesn't matter the rest of the way. That is now off the table. You win or you don't win. and as I said in the column, you deserve whatever comes next. And I think we know that it's not going to be pretty. No.

And so here we go. Well, I can't wait to do this next week at this time because, boy, oh boy, the series, who knows where it could be a week from now. And I got to say, though, like, it does feel like with this. And this is where I'm putting on my very leaf-centric hat, right? And this isn't necessarily the optimist or the pessimist or anything, but this is the, you know, this is my typical Lee fan. The whole hockey world revolts around this team. But it does really feel like this story that's being written here, it almost feels like anything can happen.

I mean, we could be talking next week. This series could be over. Tampa could have swept this series for nothing. And it's done, I think. Yeah, game four would be, yeah, game four would have already been in the books. Yeah, Monday is game four. And we could be talking about a sweep and we could be talking about, you know, by that point, Dubis and Keith and everyone are probably already fired.

Yeah, absolutely. And that wouldn't shock anyone. We could be talking about the Leafs being up 3-1 because they flipped it back and we're all having a laugh. Hey, remember, we all panicked after game one. Wasn't that silly. I will tell you right now, there is a part of me. It's a very small part of me, but there is a part of me that goes,

you know what, I can see Tampa winning tonight. I can see Tampa winning game three. And it's 3-0, and we're all really. righting or everyone's getting fired. And then the Leafs claw their way back from down three nothing. You could see that happening too. Now, Sox.

Check with me, check with me after it's 3-0 and let me and check if I still feel that way. But there is a part of me that goes, hey, you know what? I mean, you said it, the 2004 Red Sox,

right? If people aren't baseball fans, the Red Sox were the Maple Leafs. They had the long drought. They're playing a great Yankees team. They're down 3-0 in the series. Do you remember game three of that series? Oh, it was like 19 to 7 or something.

They gave up 19 runs. Yeah, 19. Everybody, not every baseball play. Everyone in the sports world is making their same old Red Sox jokes. And then they have a bottom of the ninth comeback, they're winning it, you know, and off it go. And then they've won four World Series since then in the 15 years or whatever it's been. You never know what the tipping point's going to be. I will say this now feels like after game one, this series is going to be a tipping point.

one way or enough. It's going to tip to the good finally or it's going to tip real, real bad. And, you know, I feel like we've said that every year since at least the Columbus series, but there's always a way to, you know, find that middle ground and go, well, you know, maybe it was a little. I feel like that has to be off the table for sure now. Yeah. And look, and I do think that that brings us a real quick segue I want to do here on Ottawa, because I wrote a piece this week on, you know, I talk about being kind of stuck in a perpetual rut. I wrote a piece this week on kind of looking at Pierre Dorian's six-year rebuild here.

And I think for the most part the column landed, but boy, oh boy, did I take some heat from a handful of Ottawa fans who said, you know, A, I didn't like the timing of that, or B, Ian, you were unnecessarily harsh and cruel. And I just want to take a moment here to address that because, look, I can't, I think as a journalist, if I'm going to lob criticism at others, then I have to be able to take some criticism too. So this isn't me being thin skin. But like, what are we doing here? Like, like, folks, the Ottawa senators have missed the playoffs in six consecutive years.

This is now one of the longest playoff droughts of the salary cap era. the general manager did a season-ending press conference in which there are a lot of questions about whether or not he stays beyond this season. I think a column looking at his, you know, kind of his actions and words at previous season-ending availabilities is on point and is timely. Like, I don't understand the people that said,

I just don't agree with your timing. I'm stunned to hear that. When did they want us to write about the Ottawa senators? I mean... This is my point. When is the right time to write a column about a guy? Like, I don't know. Like, I don't know what it is.

And I don't know, you read the column. You tell me, if you thought it was unfair. And I suggest people go and read it because it was, I read, you know, without giving it away, I read the first eight to ten paragraphs of that. And I was sort of nodding along. And then when you hit us with the twist, I mean, my jaw dropped. And it's, you're right. I mean, this team has been declared.

the rebuild over for years now. They have been talking about the playoffs for years now, and then every year at the end of the season, they move the goalposts. And they say, well, yeah, but we won eight of our last 12. Or yeah, well, but, you know, we get, I think there's a lot of good, obviously there's a lot of reason for optimism in Ottawa,

not just the ownership, the way the young players are developing. Everybody can see that. But to point out that, as I say, that the goalposts keep moving on, on what success looks like for this franchise is, is completely fair, especially when you don't even have to use your own words to do it. You just have to point to what they've pulled us over and over and over again.

Yeah, exactly. Anyway, so look, if people didn't like it, fine, but that's my explanation. My explanation is, like, we can't sit here and be satisfied with covering a team that has missed the playoff six years or not. Are they making strike? Yeah, absolutely. I'm not, no one's denying that.

And at no point in the column did I suggest Pierre Dorian should be out. My only point was, if he's going to be back, he'd damn well better say this is a playoff team next year. Like, there's no more, gee, I hope we take another step. What's the next step? You miss the playoffs by a hair. There is no more steps. The step is make the playoffs.

And isn't this crazy? Next year is Brady Kachuk's sixth year in the NHL. Like stop saying that, you know, he's got an endless amount of time. Colch Rue is going to be like this is your window. Yep. Thomas Shabbat is now becoming like an older defenseman. He's reaching that lot. What's that?

There's always like the, I know, we talk about it for regular people. The, uh, the cocoon, uh, what's his name? Wilford Brinley. Yeah, we had the Wendell line, which is what, yeah, I think he's past that. He's, he's probably well past that. So, wait, you're telling me Thomas Shabbat is older than Wendell Clark in the Marty McSorley fight? He may have been, yeah.

Let me, I'd have to. So Thomas Shabbat is, how old to see? Thomas Shabbat turned 27, this year, in January? He's 26. He just turned 26. All right. I think he's, I think he's, I think he's, I think he's, I feel like he was 20,

I feel like Wendell was 26, but 26 and something when he had the bald spot in the beard and he was the grizzled, grisled old man. He's a grizzled guy. Let's bounce around some other series because I think, listen, the most interesting, I guess, delicious storyline is what played out in Minnesota, where Dean Eveson, after a sparkling, scintillating 51 saved performance and overtime from Phil Gustafson in game one, decides to come back with Mark Andre Fleury in game two. Now, if you read Mike Russo and you read Joe Smith, you get the sense that, okay, this was their, it didn't matter. Clearly it didn't matter what Gustafs did in game one. The plan was to rotate the starts. But what happens?

Flurry struggles. Wild get pumped in game two. Now there's all sorts of questions. So let's start here. Like how stunning was it to you that Minnesota decided to go away from a red hot goalie in the Stanley Cup playoffs? Like for no, this was an injury related. This was a pre-conceived decision, right?

I was very surprised. And yes, we shouldn't have been surprised because they were. told us all along that this is what they're going to do. But still, and look, if it were, it's like anything, right? If it, if it had worked, we'd be going, hey, what a smart move by Dean Evesant. Now he's got both guys. They're fresh. Dallas doesn't know what's going to hit him. But this is really, I don't think unprecedented necessarily, but it's extraordinarily unusual in the playoffs. I mean, we absolutely do see teams that have multiple goalies. you know, they have the one and one A situation.

And they go into the playoffs, maybe not sure who's going to be the guy for game one, maybe going in intending saying that, look, if we go in a long run, both guys are going to get to play. That's one thing. I can't remember off the top of my head seeing cases where they start one guy, haven't played great, get a win, and then go to the other guy. It's almost always win and you're in. but not this time.

And obviously the fact that Mark Andre Fleur goes out gives up seven goals, that is, you know, that now becomes the talking point. But, you know, even if Mark Andre Fleury gone out and had a shutout, it still would have been a bit head scratching. And I guess the defense of it is you say, all right, if I'm Dean Everson, I'm looking at this saying, I don't think either guy, you know, Gustavson getting his experience, Flurry given his age.

I need both guys playing. I need both guys going back and forth. And we're planning to have a long run here. We're not planning to lose. We expect to go deep into the playoffs. And so for me to just stick with one guy the whole way, you know, until we run into trouble and then drop another guy in and expect him to bail us out. I don't want to do that.

I want them both in early. And yeah, I mean, it probably makes sense on that level. But again, has to work. and, you know, now you assume you go back to Gibson in game three and what do you do in game four? I mean, I can't imagine that we see this going back and forth again, but it's rare. You and I were talking like, you know, before we came on here, could we think of other examples of this? Not sure that we can, right? Yeah, like, if we ask the question to the listeners, like, what's the most controversial?

Clearly now for the Minnesota Wilde in their fan base, I would imagine, starting Mark Andre Fleury over Phil Gustafin in Game 2 has now become the number one kind of head-scratching goalie decision in franchise history. And maybe, I mean, maybe during that Manny Fernandez, Duane Rawlison era, was there some, uh, maybe, maybe, who knows? Yeah, like we've seen lots of cases where a team has two guys and they, you're surprised by who they go with in game one, right? We've seen that. Or they're coming off a loss and they're sort of, you know, and then the coach makes a decision and it doesn't work and we all go, how you pick the wrong guy? You know, that is not unusual. But to have a guy play great and win and then not get the net is, that's a strange one. Yeah.

So I threw this out on Twitter earlier and I asked, hey, what's the most controversial goalie decision in your franchise's history? So we got a couple of them here. Again, I don't know that it kind of exactly matches up with what Minnesota did. but Eric, who's a big Pittsburgh fan, says Penguin's decision to go with Matt Murray over Tristan Jari repeatedly in the playoff bubble in 2020. Remember that? And then finally, I think for game five, they went to Jari, right? Finally, in the game that they had to have. Which they lost.

So that was one. Now, I have no recollection of this, and maybe you do. Back in the 94 playoffs, this is from Jason, who's tweeted at. me. 94 Devils Bruins first round. Marty Broder lost games one and two. They decided to start Chris Terreri. He wins games three and four.

Then Jacques Lamar. After Terreri wins two in a row, goes to Broder for game five and a win, but then goes back to Terrarian game six. And anyway, and they won that game. So there's, I guess there's an example of they went from Terere who won two to Broder. I guess that happened?

I have no recollection of that. How weird does that sound, to be talking about, like, Marta, there being any question around Martaio Bruder, but yeah, that was his sort of, uh,

almost coming out party as a, as a season, but, uh, yeah, I'm looking back at that one. Because that, that does seem pretty,

pretty stunning that you would, uh, go back and forth like that. Wow. And was there not, like, way back in the day, did, and I think it might have been the Stanley Cup final. This is like late 70s. Did Scotty Bowman not start Bunny LaRocke for like game one of a Stanley Cup over Ken Dryden? Is that, did that happen?

Like, the last year, who they, they beat the Rangers, I think, the last year that they. The last one, yeah, that was after they beat the Bruins. Were they about to start Bunny LaRoc And then like did Bunny LaRoc get hurt in warm up? Oh wow Does that make does that ring a bell? Again, that's before our time But I feel like Bunny LaRoc was like slated to start game one of the cup

And it was like some message to Ken Dryden And then LaRoc got hurt is that Does that happen? Or is that a fever dream of mind? It could be that that isn't ringing bells for me. I'm looking at the stats. Dryden did uh did start. all the games.

The Rock only had the one appearance, but I don't know. Maybe they did, maybe they did swap them in there. The other one that we were talking about a bit was the capitals, the year that they won the Cup, where they didn't start Braden Holpey for the first two games against Columbus. They went with Philip Grubauer, lost both of those games in overtime, and then went to Holpey, and of course, he takes him the rest of the way. But again, there are cases like that where you go, oh, yeah, that was the wrong call to start a series. You know, game one, not you went with the wrong guy. Or you're coming off a loss

and it's, okay, do we go back to the guy who just lost? Do we go to the other guy? You know, maybe even you pull the starter, the backup comes in, he looks great. Well, do we maybe go to the backup? But to do it after a win. The strangest one, you talk about near misses, and I don't know if this qualifies completely, but this is always my favorite example of how fickle fans can be and the whole thing about why sometimes you don't listen to the fans. Montreal Canadians, when they, 93, you probably remember this, they lose the first two games to Quebec. Yeah.

I think they're down to nothing in round one. And there were people out there going. Red Light Rastik. Got to switch it up, man. Andre Rassico, in for Patrick Watt. That's the guy, you know, that'll wake him up. You know, Patrick's, Patrick was great in 86, but he doesn't have it this year. And, yeah, we got to go to Red Light.

Didn't happen, fair to say. Jacques Demairs. did not listen to the fans and good for him because he would have been sitting with them probably if he had. And of course, Patrick Wah has one of the greatest playoffs of all time and almost single-handedly wins his team the Cup. Okay, I found, I looked it up.

So here's what happened in the Stanley Cup final, 1979. So remember, the Habs had won three straight cups going into this fourth year of trying to win a fourth straight cup and Dryden had won all of them. But they lose game one of the series against the Rangers 4 to 1. Dryden got pulled in that game. Bunny LaRoc replaced them.

Okay? And then Bunny LaRoc was tabbed as the starter for game two. Then in pregame warmup, Doug Rizebrow accidentally hit Bunny LaRoc with a puck, knocking LaRoc out, forcing Dryden back in. The Canadians would win the next four games. And that was that. They won the stand the cup.

don't ever say Doug Rysborough doesn't know how to win a Stanley Cup. That might be his greatest move. Oh my gosh. Yes. Well, and that takes us by. Was he not the wild general manager during those Rollison,

Mani Fernandez? He was, yeah. I think so, right? For the longest time, then got replaced by Chuck Fletcher. He doesn't do very well with the Fletcher family. All right. Sean, as always, time for our pal.

Jesse Granger. to drop by for a little Granger things, brought to you by BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner. With us at the athletic, Jesse, getting set to cover game two of the Vegas Golden Knights, Winnipeg Jets, and boy, I mean, they didn't have to make Connor Hellebuck work hard. He faced fewer than 20 shots in game one, but Sean and I are just talking goaltending. We've been talking about goaltending all year with you with Vegas. Laurent Brassois gives up whatever it is, four goals there in the opener. paint us a picture of what's going to happen here in the crease for Vegas as they face kind of what feels like a must-win game in game two.

Yeah, I mean, it definitely feels like a must-win game, not just because they lost the first one, but how they lost it. You mentioned you don't get to Connor Hellebuck. Like, if you would have told me the Jets are going to come in here and still game one, I wouldn't have been that surprised. I would have said Hellebuck was probably awesome and goalied them. the fact that he faced only 17 shots and only two in the third period, Golden Knights are down 3-1 chasing goals and could not get even anything resembling offense against that team. What that tells you is they don't just have to be better in order to win these next games. They've got to be a lot better because you're going to have to be good enough to overcome that goalie deficit.

Obviously, Connor Hellebuck's world class. It's going to be interesting to see what they do in that. I expect Lorenzois to play again in game two. He's been their best goalie this year. It's not a huge sample size. He only played 10 games in the regular season because he had off-season surgery and then he had another injury. So he didn't get in the net a lot.

But I don't think anybody that's watched this team all year would argue that Lorenzois is not their best goal. Hasn't been their best goalie this season. If he were to, and to be honest, I don't think he was all that bad in game one. I think that the one, I think it was Wheeler, who, who backhanded it and it kind of just slid underneath him. That one, he'd probably want back. But for the most part, the Golden Knights just got beat as a team.

If they were to go away from him, which I don't think Bruce Cassidy is totally against, but I also don't think he's like looking for a way out either. I think his leashes is decently long. But if he were to go away from him, I don't think it's Jonathan Quick that they go to. Quick was the backup in game one. He may be the backup in game two. We're going to find out here at morning skate in a second. but Aiden Hill has been getting closer and closer to playing.

He's been a full participant in practice for a good two weeks now. I'm not sure why they haven't made him the backup. Maybe it's just because Quick is the veteran. He's got the playoff experience. Maybe he's better to have on the bench to talk to Bresla and during intermissions and stuff. So that would make sense. But I think if they were to go away from Bresla, Aden Hill was playing some really, really good hockey before he got hurt.

And his peak is certainly very high. I don't think he's quite as calm and collected as as Brasua is in the crease, but his peak is very high. And to be honest, just quick just hasn't been very good. He's a great presence on the bench. He's a good guy in the locker room. He has more Stanley Cup playoff experience than all these five goalies combined. But he wasn't good in L.A. That was why they traded him.

And he hasn't been all that good in Vegas. He's been statistically their worst of the five goalies that played this year. So I don't expect Quick to get in if they do make a goalie change at any point in this series. You said, Jesse, that you don't think the leashes is that short. And yet the fact that we're talking about it suggests that there's, you know, there's at least something there to it. And we see that in other places. Toronto game tonight is an obvious example.

You're the goalie. Help us get in that mindset. Like, are you, if you're a goaltender, especially, you know, put yourself in the mindset of an NHL guy and you know that that leash is a bit short. Does that affect you at all? I mean, is it something that a goalie can just, with their weird little brains could just shut out? Or are you sitting there going,

does it change your game to know, man, if I get beat in the first five minutes, I've got to be looking over at the bench and seeing if, you know, I've got probably two goals tonight before, you know, the camera's going to be on my backup. Does that affect how you play?

I think it does. And obviously it depends on, I think this is a player by player basis. I would say that it probably affects some guys more than others. I have always said I don't like having goalie decisions in the playoffs. Like Vegas, the last few playoffs, they missed it last year, but the two before that, it was literally a night-to-night basis. Is Robin Leonard going to play?

Is Mark Andre Fleur going to play? I do not like that at all. I don't like it. And they're not alone. There's teams all around the league doing it. I prefer, even if you've had a rotation, because I think the rotation is the new NHL. You don't want to use one goalie 60-something games. They want to play them evenly to keep them fresh.

Even if you do that, I think heading into the playoffs, it's better for the mentality of your starting goalie to tell him he's the guy and give him a reasonably long leash. Because like you said, if you're going into a game thinking, man, if I give up two early ones, I may lose this job. Goalie is such a mental game. And this is the case for every position in hockey. Confidence is everything, right? Like when you're confident as a shooter, the puck's going in, you're not thinking,

you're not overthinking things, you're not squeezing your stick. Golly, it's the same thing. When you're playing to make saves, you play so much better than when you're playing not to give up a goal. You always hear like people saying like, oh, don't say shut out. Don't say shut out. Like I'm not superstitious. But at the same time, I've had plenty of beer league games that mean nothing coming down

the stretch where the second I start thinking, oh, wow, there's only five minutes left. All right. I can't give up a goal for this. Just don't give up a goal. Don't give up a goal. The very next shot, it's going in. It happens every single time.

I'm very experienced in that world. But yeah, I do think having a guy looking over your shoulder can be bad. I think it's probably worse for some than others, but I definitely am a fan of giving the net to a guy and giving him all the confidence that this is your net, no matter what happens. Go out there, be aggressive, play aggressively. Don't worry about the other guy because you're our goalie for this series.

Well, I'll tell you what guy. Why don't we bounce around a couple of other series here? Speaking of goalies that are playing with some confidence, let's give a little shout out here to Alex Lyon, the unheralded Florida goalie. They go to TD Garden on Wednesday night and a pretty definitive victory over the Bruins, scoring five goals.

For the two of you, has your feelings changed on any series? And maybe it's that one. Maybe it's Seattle pulling off a surprising win over Colorado. whatever it is, Tampa, Toronto. Like, is there any series that after, you know, a couple of games, you're like, wow, my impression has changed a little bit. And for me, maybe it's, maybe it's Florida Boston,

but I've said this for weeks, guys. And Boston's not getting to the cup. Like I've said to you so many times, history shows you that teams that are that statistically dominant, just don't, and it's the stupidest thing. But I'm thinking, here we go again. That's how I'm feeling. What are you guys thinking right now after a couple of games?

I don't have the same level of doubt for Boston that you do. I mean, the fact that they're probably not winning the cup or maybe him getting to the final, that's just kind of how the math works. But impressive game by Florida, don't know that it's changed my view that much. Remember, this is, you know, Boston, they still got this illness going through. They didn't have Patrice Bergeron. I think they're still in good shape. The Vegas series, yeah, I did not expect Winnipeg. to, you know, a lot like Jesse said.

Like, you know, you tell me Winnipeg wins a game, Connor Hellebuk steals it. Okay, I can see that. But the fact that they, I wouldn't say dominate it, but the fact that they were the better team, surprised me.

And then the other one obviously is Colorado, Seattle. I mean, I'm, look, I make a point every year when I'm doing my playoff bracket and I'm doing my predictions, got to have a sweep or two in there. None of this pick in every series in six games. You got to have some short series in there. And the beauty of that is I can be one of the few people one night into the playoffs to say my brackets already busted.

Because I had Colorado and four. Done. I've already got one wrong prediction locked in. I again, I don't feel like I was surprised by what Seattle was. I just didn't think that at their best they could measure up with Colorado. Hey, why stop now? I've been wrong about the cracking all year. Why change it up now? It's interesting because of all, so the four, you get four games playing tonight. Obviously, the home team is down 01 in all four. The only home team that remained the favorite in terms of the betting odds are the abs. I mean, it's not a heavy favorite. I mean, the abs are minus 140, Seattle's plus 115 to win that series. So it's gotten pretty close, but they are still the favorite. Whereas the Golden Knights, Rangers,

and Maple Leafs all are now underdogs to win their series going down 01. I think so I picked the Rangers in terms of which series has maybe changed my mind. I picked the Rangers to win the series before, but I was kind of like, this is a coin toss. I'll go with the goalie. That was the pick. Like I'll just take Schisturkin. After watching game one, I think the Rangers are the better team. And I do think part of it is the devils. Like, the devils are kind of where the Rangers were last year, where they've got a bunch of young guys that haven't played in the playoffs where the Rangers, they had, their young guys gained the experience last season. Plus, they added some guys who have been to Stanley Cups in, in Tarasenko and

Kane. And I think the Rangers are just in a, they're both super talented teams. The Rangers are just in a better spot in their development as a team. I think they might roll the devils, like in a, like, maybe five or six games. Whereas before, I did pick the Rangers, but it was mostly just a, yeah, I'll just take them. I think these teams are both good. I'll like the goalie. Um, So I would say, like, in terms of my perception, my team that I picked hasn't changed, but that series feels very different to me than it did before the first game.

So as we, let's wrap it up and move from perception to, you know, maybe what the odds makers are saying. And just based on a couple of these games early, has there been a shift, Jesse, that you've seen in the books in terms of favorites just after one game or I guess maybe in some cases two games? Yeah, yeah. Like I mentioned, the abs are the only home team to lose

and keep their favorite status. But when you look at which one switched the most, I mean, I just mentioned the Rangers. They are the road team. They're the lower seed in this. And they are already minus 200 to win this series. You've got to bet $200 to win $100. The Devils plus $165.

So if you're a Rangers fan or sorry, if you're a Devils fan or a Devils or you just think the devils are good. And you're listening to this, that's the team right now. If you're, if you're, we overreact in the playoffs. time, right? Because every game matters so much, it's like, how many times do we do this every postseason where it's like every game, it's like, wow, this is the greatest team ever. This other team sucks. Tampa, Toronto is a perfect example because Toronto will probably smoke them tonight and it'll swing back the other way. But if you're a believer that the devils are the better team

and they just maybe weren't ready for the big stage on game one, it kind of got to them, the Rangers had got an early lead and just kind of kicked back, this is the time to bet the devils at, at plus 165, and you're only down one-nothing. I mean, we still got six games left in this series, so it's still a lot of hockey to be played. Yeah, and we should point out, when you see those odds shift so much, that's not necessarily reaction to what happened in the game

of the odds makers suddenly going, wow, oh, the Rangers are so much better than the Devils, or gosh, you know, the lightning are better than the Leafs now. It's just the fact that they've got that one game in the bank. And, you know, we tend to look at this and just go, like, you know, we're trying to find information. What team is better? What have we learned?

But just having that one game in the bank really does change everything. But the flip side is, obviously, that team goes out and wins game too. We're right back to even. And now you're sitting there going, oh, I should have, I should have bet on the Oilers. Of course they were going to win game two and even it up. And I could have got those better odds. That's the tricky part. The way I like to look at odds is rather than looking at them to like, who did

the sports books think is the better team. Odds are the best, betting odds are the best representation of public perception. Yeah. Because that's what the books are doing. They're saying, where are people going to put their money? We want, like the, the sports books, when they put these odds out, their number one priority is, can we get 50% of the bets on each side of this? Because if we do, we win no matter what. They don't want a bet. They don't want to have a result in the game that's better for them. If they can get half the bets on one side and half the bets on the other, they make money no matter what. That's the ideal situation. So these odds makers aren't really putting, like making these to say, this team's better, this team's worse. It's what do people think right now? And like you said,

they are reacting to the overreaction of people when one team wins a game. They're like, if we don't make New York minus 200 favorites, everyone that bets on this series is going to pile on the Rangers after that game one win. So we've got to do that in order to get some devil's bets. They're just trying to even it out. Like I said, I like it as a gauge of public perception. And that's why the Avs, the Stanley Cup, the defending champs, they're the only ones that remain the favorites.

It makes total sense. Yeah. No, pick your sport, right? Toronto Maple Leafs, Dallas, Cowboys, L.A. Lakers. The money gets put on them because they're such popular teams, right? It's not necessarily always reflective of their actual odds of winning. Jesse, as always, appreciate this. Looking forward to your coverage of this series.

It's going to be a really interesting weekend coming up for the Vegas Golden Knights. So look forward to your coverage of Jets and Golden Knights, and we'll hit you up again next week. Yeah, I've got the late game tonight and then an early flight to Winnipeg. And I got to say, I was just looking at the weather report up in Winnipeg. And I mean, I wasn't expecting it to be 90 like it is here in Vegas. but when I saw that it's going to snow four to eight inches on Saturday, I was like, what in the hell am I getting into? Is it snowing where you guys are right now? Like, when does spring start?

We're far away from Winnipeg. We got a little bit of snow, uh, following up on a heat wave last week, but yeah, uh, yeah, Winnipeg, I can't say, but man, are there any more depressing words in the English language than truly flight to Winnipeg? You know what? I'm so I've old. I think that was, wasn't that a cut on downward spiral? Wasn't that the, uh, they took it off because it was just much of a bummer for the album? I've only been to Winnipeg one time, well, twice, and it was the two trips up there for the conference finals in Vegas' first year. So I saw Peak Winnipeg. I mean, it was the city was, was just electric during that. I expected to be similar. Getting to Winnipeg, not easy. It's

not fun. It's not easy. It's difficult. Once you're there, I've got to say, underrated city. We'll see what I say after eight inches of snow this, this trip up there. But for now, I'm sticking with Winnipeg underrated city, especially during the playoffs. I'm very much looking forward to the whiteout up there and all the energy. I had a great time last time. They're taking the white out a little too far, it sounds like. Yeah, exactly. There you go.

Eight inches of snow is not the whiteout you thought? Hey, and before we say goodbye, I was listening to your pod, the Wednesday pod last week with Piso and Russo. And you guys brought up the fact that Jesse Granger's been to Canada multiple times, Sean, but these guys were trying to lure him. They're like, you've got to go eat at Boston pizza. Yep. Now, listen, I've lived in Canada all my life, most of my life. I've been to Boston pizza, whatever.

I don't put it on the list of like, you've got to hit a Boston pizza when you come to our country. That's just me. Now, I don't know. Sean, maybe you're different. Yeah, that's a weird one. I would not, I wouldn't go there. But I hope he did get Swiss Allay at least. I mean, that's.

Yeah. If you're not smuggling on a batch of the Swiss Al-A. sauce home in your luggage. You're not, you're doing it wrong. I don't even know what that is. What is Swiss chalet sauce? It's, uh, uh, Swiss chalet is a, uh, it's like a chicken place. Rotisserie chicken. Rotisserie chicken. And the sauce is, it's, it's, it's not a gravy. It's like this tangy so. Oh, it's, it's, I see. It's the greatest thing. Yeah. If I was going to recommend one Canadian chain restaurant to you, I, I think I might go Swiss chalet as the thing Granger has to have,

right? I mean, it'd be, it'd be pretty cool if they heard this and they like hooked us up with, uh, you know, some sort of endorsement deal. like maybe a keg of sauce that I could just keep on the dining room table. Yeah. So I'll have to look and see if there's one close to my hotel in Winnipeg. Yeah. See what you can do there. Yeah.

All right. Listen, safe travels and we'll hit you up on Thursday. All right. Thanks for having me, guys. All right. Great stuff with Granger. And yeah, you know what? We are fishing for a Swiss chalet sponsorship here.

Let's be honest. Right? Yeah. That's what I mean, that's what I'm hoping for. And it doesn't even have to be the show. if it just, they want to send me like, you know, just I'll wear the t-shirt around. Well, my rights are very reasonable. It comes to selling out.

In the eastern part of Canada, there is a great battle that rages between Swiss chalet, which is one rotiss street chicken restaurant and St. Hubert. That's another. Even here in Ottawa, man, like you get over a, so you get to a certain play close enough to Orleans. And you're just suddenly like, I wouldn't. I can't wear the t-shirt there. You know, I'd suddenly come around the corner and there'd be, hey, you're not from around here, are you?

That would be bad news. I do like St. Hubert's Wall. It's pretty good. Yeah, exactly. You can like both. It's okay. All right. Yeah.

So we're going to open up the mailbag here. Reminders, you can reach us at the athletic hockey show at gmail. com or leave us a voicemail at any time. The number there is 845-4-4-45-8-49. All right. Last week we were talking about, I don't even remember how we got on this topic, but we were saying people with unfortunate last names, right? What was, was there something about, was it about a goalie? What was the, Frank McCool?

It was Frank McCool. It was the great name, and then it got us to the, uh, the, uh, the nodsum. You don't want to have, like, your starting goalie. You don't want to be Steve, Steve shaky is her goalie or whatever. Okay. So we did get some responses from people saying, here's some other, Tim and Cabbage Town writes in. And now, Cabbage Town, that's the district near Toronto.

Am I right on that? I, yeah. It should be. It's like a neighborhood in Toronto? Is there like a real Cabbage Town somewhere? That's what I'm wondering. Or like, that's not a nickname. That's not like slang for some like some other city or something, right?

Like Cleveland is Cabbage Town. I don't think. You know what? It is now. Congratulations, Cleveland. Yeah, you've done it. Yeah. Cabbage Town.

Never grown a cabbage, but it's yours. Yeah, Tim writes in, I love the show, guys, keep up the great work. Maybe the funniest goalie name of all time should be Carrey Lettnan. Say his name out loud a couple of times, and you'll understand why. Carrey Lettinen. Lettinen, yeah, that works. Lettnam. I like that one.

Yeah. Now, did we get, somebody tweeted a great one at us, right, last week? The best one I saw was people were going outside the sport, and the, you know, The great one was that there is currently an NFL kicker named Chris Blewett. Yeah, Chris Blewett. I mean, that's fantastic. That's, you know, you can't. And it's like spelled like B-L-U, or B-L-E-W-I-T.

Like there might be an extra T on the end, but it's not even a pronunciation thing. It's just, yeah, Chris, Chris Blewett. There you go. Chris Blewett. Yeah. You know, and I was also thinking about this today is April 20th, 420. is there a better name on this date in hockey history than Clayton Stoner? Yeah.

Can you top Clayton Stoner? For that particular, for this particular day. Yeah, for 420? No, I think it's. Is there any other? I think it's got to be him. Yeah, I'm going through in my mind. But yeah, I don't know that we're going to top him.

No. There's no, nobody else says like a blaze or a smoke or a weed or a pot in their name, Not I can remember. No. Tom Potty? Was it Tom Potty or Tom Potty? Yeah, it was Potty. Yeah, that's right. We didn't have him. But yeah, no, that's, you did.

I mean, you're opening up the pun names. That turns into all. You know, that's an off-season episode. It'll just be 55 minutes of you and I just naming guys and then giggling to ourselves. Ron Tugnut. Just moving on to the next. guy. It'll be our highest rated episode ever. Yeah, we're going to do a specific show just targeted at middle school kids.

Like, just for that line of humor. There you go. It'll be our best show. Philip writes in via email. I got a question for you guys about the bigger implications of the Connor Bedard lottery, specifically as it pertains to the balance of power in international hockey. Prior to the 1988 win-Gretzky trade, I think you could argue L.A. was dead last in attendance, wasn't another NHL franchise that was sort of in the West Coast.

U.S. hockey-born players all came from the northeast to the Midwest. But now you're seeing players born and developed in non-traditional markets. Shout out to Scottsdale's own Red Savage on the 2023 World Junior team. So here's my question for you guys. Anaheim has the best odds of landing Carter Bedard, and there's an almost 50% chance, if you add it up, that Badaard will end up in either Anaheim, San Jose, or Columbus. My question to you is, if Conor Bidard lands in one of those non-traditional U.S. markets,

does he have the star power that kind of can create that additional interest in the youth programs in those regions? And how will this maybe affect international play down the road? Is Canada's dominance in the sport all at risk if Conor Bidard ends up in one of these places? That comes in from Philip. Interesting question. It's an interesting way to think about it. I mean, the Gretzky situation was a perfect storm of, you know, as he describes it, you know, the fact that it was just the one team. There was really nothing else around there.

And also the fact that Gretzky was arguably the only hockey player who's ever like really transcended the NHL and become just a worldwide and certainly North American wide mega star. You know, the fact that Wayne Gretzky. hosted Saturday Night Live. I mean, imagine, you know, imagine Connor McDavid getting invited to go on Saturday Live or Sydney Crosser. Like, it would, it would never happen. That's how big a start Gretzky was. So I don't think anything, we'll see anything comparable in, in our lifetimes. That said, hey, it could absolutely help if he goes down there to California. California is already producing hockey players. They've got systems there, and obviously

they've had success with the Kings with the two cups. But, Yeah, every little bit could help. I don't think it necessarily shifts the balance of power. I don't think 20 years from now we're looking back on like, oh, it's the Connor Bader generation is coming up and winning gold medals for the U.S. But yeah, it'll be a big deal to whatever market gets them, especially if it's a market that either is, you know, what you would call non-traditional or just hasn't had that success, you know, like a Columbus. I mean, this, this lottery is going to be huge. It's absolutely, you know, future determining for a lot of franchises, depending on how those ping pong balls bounce around. Yeah. David in Chicago writes in, hello Eminem boys. Not sure if you're made aware of the recent interview on NPR, National Public Radio, that occurred recently with our good friend Gary Bettman.

One of your guys' thoughts on his comments. To me, it sounds like Gary is doing the usual. How smart of a lawyer can I sound like, while also showing an incredible lack of leadership on involving diversity in the game and issues involving the LGBT Q Plus community. As a Hispanic guy from the United States, hearing this from Gary really highlights why this game is not trying to appeal to people like me, despite the mantra of hockey is for everyone. P.S. I'm also an attorney. Gary is not as smart as he thinks. I love you guys. Keep up. The good work comes in from David in Chicago. So Gary Batman does the interview with NPR, Sean, and it certainly gained a lot of traction in which he is once again

sort of denying the link that exists between CTE and playing hockey. Now, I think part of the reason why he's doing that, look, there's an outstanding lawsuit going on right now, correct? Yeah, I mean, the big class action one was dealt with, but, you know,

I'm sure the lawyer in him knows that He doesn't want to say anything that's going to open a can of worms. Exactly. So I understand that he's going to go into these conversations, basically in full lawyer speak, right? Like full lawyers speak. But look, the NFL, I think it was in either 2016, I believe, the NFL finally admitted that, yes, there is a link between, you know,

repeated head trauma that is caused in our sport and the development of CTE. The NHL has been reluctant to say that. And in this interview with the NPR, Gary Bettman was like, hey, you're trying to put hockey on the same level as football, and it's completely different. So I don't know where this goes, but this interview that he did with NPR is certainly seemingly drawing the ire of a lot of people, right?

Yeah. I mean, it was a frustrating listen on a number of topics. It was also a pretty typical Gary Bettman interview. We're kind of used to the style by now. He does, you know, it is that kind of lawyer speak. He is a very, very smart guy who maybe sometimes thinks he's, he thinks that he's the smartest guy in the room and he's probably right most of the time. Maybe thinks he's a little bit smarter than he is. Sometimes the answers get a little too cute, a little too clever.

But also, yeah, I mean, there's certain times where he's just going to get up and say things that, hey, we know are not necessarily. true. He probably knows aren't true, but he's, he's doing his job to, to say them. And, uh, I, you know, I think the, the listener nailed it. I mean, it's, uh, you know, that, that's sort of lawyer speak, uh, when you would like to hear more, you know, something that sounded more like a hockey fan, something that sounded more like a leader. We don't get a lot of leadership. Yeah. Uh, out of this. And, you know, I've talked about that in various ways on various topics for decades now when it comes to Gary Batman that there are times where you'd like to see him lead and instead he just seems to you know kind of get behind the crowd and then and then justify as he goes. I will give him credit

for doing the interview in the sense that you know sometimes he he doesn't put himself in situations where the questioning is going to be touching on topics that he doesn't like talking about. He did that this time. But yeah, like I said, it was a frustrating listen. as a hockey fan. Patrick, one more email here, I'll read from Patrick, who says, Hey guys, listen to your episode a few weeks ago. You were talking about how people become fans of certain teams. I thought you missed an important point here. And that is the perspective of fans outside of North America. Personally, I'm from Denmark. I have family in the New York area, but I ended up a San Jose fan, mostly because I liked their logo and I seemed to play well

with them in NHL-06 on my Wii. My friend ended up a Red Wing fan because they had a lot of Swedes on their team at the time. We don't become Leifes fans or Canadians fans because in a European's eyes, they may believe for a weird version of a CH makes no sense to us. However, a shark biting a hockey stick, it's cool. Side note, the sharks turned out to be a horrible pick for me because the time difference means they play at 4.30 a.m. local time and once you're not in your early 20s anymore, it's not usually the best time to wake up or be awake on a weekday. But if you're lucky, maybe they're still playing when you're wake up at 6.30.

Anyway, just a different perspective. Thanks for a great show. That's from Patrick in Denmark. Yeah, that's a fair perspective to remember. That would actually be kind of cool. You wake up and you just flip on the TV and catch the third period of your team's game as you're getting ready for work. That's not too bad. Yeah, it's amazing how many fans will tell you that, you know, hey, what got you into the game?

Was it, was it Wayne Gretzky? Was it Mario? Was it, you know, all the, and they'll tell you it was the video games. That NHL. So many times. Plus, you know, some of the other ones, you don't really get the alternatives anymore, but the, you know, the hits and some of the other stuff out there, that gets a lot of fans interested because it starts off as this fun video game. Totally. I'll watch the TV show that this game was based on, and you find out, yeah, oh, you're right, I know that guy.

That's the character from my video game. Oh, this guy's actually pretty good. I kind of like this sport. Oh, man. If you can pick an ideal time that your favorite sports team, I mean, in this case for you, the Maple Leafs, You could pick a perfect time that every time that they were playing, it was like at that particular time. What, like, what time are you going with? Boy, as I'm getting older, that time's getting earlier and earlier.

Yeah. Even, even the, these 730 playoffs starts, I'm like, oh, come on, man, I got to be engaged past 10 o'clock. What do you want for me? Yeah, the earlier, the better. By the way, every fan of every West Coast team that I've ever written about right now is like, there it is. I knew it. I knew he went to bed. at 9.30 every night. We got them.

We got them, everyone. We got them. The games that's turned at 9.30 or 10 o'clock local time. I would love it. And I think they do this in Europe. But like a game that starts at 6 o'clock local time would be amazing. Be amazing. Yeah. A lot of people are done work at 5. 5.30. It's great to watch. It kind of depends like, you know, if you're going to try to get there,

you know, I don't have time to eat dinner before I get to the game. I don't, I mean, geez, here in Ottawa, it's, I don't know, an hour to get from downtown to the rink is enough. And then obviously there are fans in, especially if you're in that central time zone, you sort of feel like, oh, yeah, we got to start at six half the time. And the other times we're starting at nine. So that because we're the West Coast game and it's just a mess. Yeah, it's sort of all over the map.

All right. Let's wrap up with a little this week in hockey history. And we go back, we got a couple of dates here. I'm going to run by you here. the first is April 20th, 1997. Sean, on this date in 1997, Craig McTavish. Then with the St. Louis Blues, played his final game in the NHL,

marking the final time a player without a helmet suited up in the NHL. You know what I thought was, and it's important to note this for fans, but they basically made a rule in 1979, right? That everybody had to wear a helmet moving forward. Now, if you started your career before 1979, 80, and you'd played in the NHL,

you were allowed to continue helmetless. But if you join the NHL at any point after that 1970-80 season, you had to wear a helmet, which you know what, and I know we were just talking about the CTE stuff, but it does seem incredibly, I don't know, like there's a bit of foresight there, right? Maybe.

I don't know. Or not. Maybe not. It's very foresight, right? I mean, the fact that it's 18 years. And doesn't that just sound so bizarre right now? I mean, 1997. Isn't that long ago?

I mean, you know, especially... In 25, 26 years, though. But somebody playing hockey without a helmet. I mean, that's... Yeah. That would be like finding out that, like, it was only in 1997 that cars had to have seatbelts. Like, you're just, you're, like, to anybody now who's, you know, you're looking at it going, this is crazy.

And it makes you wonder, like, what is it going to be 20 years from now, right? And, you know, obviously, as soon as you talk about the helmets, people say, like, well, who's going to be the last guy without a visor? And what is that going to look like when, you know, 10 years from now, you're going, you know, when Jamie Ben or Ryan O'Reilly or whoever it is as retiring is the last guy without a visor. And then you'll have a whole generation of fans going, why would you not have protected your eyes? And I don't know, the game evolves. But yeah, it was always, even by then, even by the late 90s, it was always weird when you'd see McTavish out there. And, you know, you should be like, oh, right, I forgot about that guy.

Do you remember the very, very brief time under Gilstein when they revoked that helmet rule? And they made it so that they put it back to the players that you had the option to go without a helmet. What? I don't remember this. This was early 90s. It was Gilstein, I'm pretty sure. And it was a marketing thing. It was this idea that it's hard to market players when they all look the same out there because they're all wearing helmets.

and versus the NBA where the players are wrong. I don't have any recollection. Well, here's why you don't have any recollection. Basically, they changed the rule and said it's now optional again. If you don't want to wear a helmet, you don't have to wear one. And nobody, nobody took it off. One guy, Greg Smith, Smith or Smite, he was a tough guy. I think back then, Florida, he played for a few teams, took it off for a little while. But nobody else did. And it was short term and he put it back on. but it's one of those forgotten things, one of those Gilstein like suspensions where you didn't miss any games

and that sort of thing. He had all these, these interesting ideas, I guess. And yeah, that was it. A few players took him off during the All-Star game. I think Brett Hull maybe was one of them where he didn't wear a helmet during the All-Star game because there's no contact anyways,

but there was a brief window. So if you ever really want to win a bar bet and you ask, when did the NHL permanently make helmets mandatory? And somebody will say, well, 79. No, it was actually early 90s because there was a brief window where they brought it back. Man. And you're talking about, like, you know, imagine telling somebody that, like, when did they make seatbelts mandatory?

Like, around that same time, McTavish played his last game in the NHL 97. Remember, there was a great debate going and where we lived in Ottawa at the time about whether or not, Remember they, just in Ontario, that was the year they started banning smoking in restaurants. And there was this great debate. My goodness, you're going to kill the restaurant industry. Yeah. Remember? Oh, I remember, yeah.

Yeah. Absolutely. And now, like, you just, I mean, yeah, you have somebody now and they go, wow, what are you talking about? I don't get to, because you go into these little tiny bars and where's the non-smoking section? It's right there. You're sitting next to somebody who's smoking, like, through an entire pack. like right next to you and you're, but this is the non-smoking.

There's a little barrier here. Yeah, I mean, it takes time. I think we'll get there with visors. My prediction is, you know, 20 years from now, we're going to look back at the cut protection the same way. They'll be guide, there will be, everyone will have the protective socks. They'll probably have something on the wrist,

maybe even on the neck, and we'll look back and go, you guys were playing a game where everyone had razor-sharp blades on their feet and you weren't wearing cut protection? Are you nuts? And hopefully, I really hope that we get there just through the natural evolution

and not through something awful happening that forces it. Okay, one other this week in hockey history, we're taking our listeners back to the same week, April 21st, but in 2008, the Montreal Canadiens defeat the Boston Bruins 5-0 in the game 7, and in the process, Andre and Sergey Kastitzen, each scored a goal in that game, Sean, becoming the first brothers to score a goal in the same game. game seven. Now, if I had said to you on a random trivia question, name the first pair of brothers

in NHL history to each score a goal in a game seven, how long would it have taken you to get to the Kastitzen boys? It would have taken a long time. I would have been going through all the different combinations of Sutter's, which, I mean, that on its own would take a while. I would have been my first catch, though. Stasnys would have been absolutely there. It would have taken me a long time to get there. Yeah, I mean, we've had some real good family, but, boy, that would not have been there. The Siddins, the stalls, all on down the list. But, yep, I guess that's when you know a game seven is not going well for you when both those guys are putting it in. The Kastitzen boys do it. All right, that does it. Listen, good luck. And I know this is going to sound very facetious.

But good luck to the Navy. I don't like seeing friends suffer. Thanks, Senators, guy. I'm sure that that's, you're really speaking for the entire fan base when you wish us the best. Thanks, the lifelong Dallas Cowboys fan. Yeah, exactly. Listen, I understand your pain. But anyway, well, I'm excited to do the show next week because Lord only knows.

Maybe the Leafs are ahead in the series. Maybe, heck, is there a scenario where they could have won the series by then? I don't think so because they're, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because it doesn't, isn't there a two? It's Wednesday, no? I thought there's a gap at some point. an extra day. I think they may go back to Thursday next year. Okay. We'll see. Never say never. Never. Never. Never. Never. All right. We'll leave it there. I want to thank everybody for listening

to the Thursday edition of the pod. As always, you can email us any question to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com or leave us a voicemail at 845, 44584459. Right now, a terrific deal to get a one year subscription to the athletic for $2 a month for 12 months. You visit theathletic.com slash hockey show.