The Athletic Hockey Show - Wild card races coming down to the wire, players working in rival's front offices, NHL Playoffs betting lines

Episode Date: April 6, 2023

Ian kicks off this episode with a travel pitch for Sean, then asks him how he would feel if Mats Sundin ended up working in the Senators' front office. Then, as the regular season nears its conclusion, and the wild card spots come down to the wire, should we be pulling for the Predators to make the playoffs? Next, Jesse Granger joins the show for "Granger Things", discussing the technology used in Bauer's Konekt goalie skates, NHL awards being pulled down from betting sites, and serves up some playoff lines for Ian and Sean. To wrap up, some listener emails, 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/hockeyshowLinkedIn 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. Welcome back to your Thursday edition of The Athletic Hockey Show. It's Ian Mendez, Sean McIndoo, with you. Coming up on the show, we'll kind of preview the final, kind of look at some of the big storylines and playoff races heading into the final weekend, Easter weekend in the NHL. We've got tons of email questions to get to. We want to talk about our Rules Court piece that we had a lot of fun with Gentilly,

Jesse Granger's going to drop by. So look, we got a lot to tackle on the Thursday pod. Something I want to bring up with you, though, that Julian and I discussed on the Monday podcast. So probably unbeknownst to you, Sean, I have volunteered you for some travel. Uh-oh. Yeah.

No, no, I think this will be good. Hear me out. All right. As you probably saw last week, Jeff Merrick, Elliot Friedman, on Hockey N. Canada announcing that the NHL appears to be on the verge of a game in Australia.

Right? Uh-huh. And I said, I got the guy for the job. Like, like, and Julian was blown away, and maybe some of our listeners will be blown away by the fact that you, Sean, were born in Australia. That's right. Yep.

This is a slam. I definitely have to be one of the top 10 Aussieborn hockey media currently working, right? Like top 15? I felt comfortable with top 10. Okay. We go top 15. Like this has to be a slam dunk, right?

Like they can't send anybody else. Like who else do we have that even has a vague connection to Australia? And it's very vague, just for the record. I was there until I was three months old. I have never been back. So. But this would be like a- If you're looking for somebody to do like the guided tours and show you all the good places

to grab a bite to eat. I'm not your guy. I still get asked. Sometimes people will ask me, like I will tell them that story. Was born in Australia, left as a baby, never been back,

and I will still get asked why I don't have an accent. Like, that's not how, you don't like get born and they just stamp your vocal cords and say like, that's how you're going to talk from now on. I don't even do a good Australian accent.

It's pretty sad. So, but anyway, so you're on board with this. If the athletic says, Sean, we're sending you back. Like, it's kind of like a return to your roots type of stuff. Like, see, I said, I think you could, you're the perfect guy for this because it's going to be fun and quirky to have hockey in Australia. Why not have you go down? You can kind of tap into some of that humor, tap into your own kind of backstory.

You know, I, and I pitched the title, Julian didn't like this. I said, but it's, let's workshop it, but it's something like, something like, down goes brown goes down under. you know, something with down under, down goes brown. Yeah, yeah. It's workable, right? I mean, there's something there. Am I getting a return flight, or is this to be determined? Just a one way.

Yeah. One way ticket to Australia. We see how it goes from there. Okay, yeah. I like, I can be the, I've often considered myself the Yahoo series of hockey media. So this can, I can really build that brand. Well, and I was telling you. Julian 2 on Monday, I said there was this weird little window, like in the late 80s in particular,

where we were just fascinated with Aussie culture, right? Like the Crocodile Dundee era. Yeah, like that little window. Yep. Right? And then we had, that was kind of where we peaked, we, you know, the Australian people. We had, was the, was the crocodile hunter? Was that guy Australian?

Steve Irwin? Yeah. Cranky. Yeah, I want to say he was. Okay. So I feel like that may have been the other. And other than that, it's, we haven't had a lot going for us. No.

So anyway, there you go. I'm putting your name out there. You got to be the guy that covers this series. Kings and coyotes or whoever it is. Oh, boy. Can't wait. Can't wait to cover a coyotes game. Oh, my God.

And we're not even going to get into that whole coyotes, whatever the heck is going on in the court system. Yeah, no. I mean. But, you know, I know the downside of this trip would be it's like an 18-hour trip to get there. But, I mean, anyone who's tried to go to a senator's game of the wintertime, am I right? All right. Come on.

Look at that. Come on. Come on. Come on. You guys. You know, actually, okay. You know, I'm going to bring this up with you right now. Because this is something I had heard maybe three months ago.

Okay. And I hadn't heard it from enough people that it was credible for me to put into the public realm. And then, you know, to the credit of my colleague here in Ottawa, Brent Wallace, who has his own podcast, long-time TSN reporter, he did put this out last week. There are some rumblings that Matt Sundin is consulting for one of the groups, that would be the Jeffrey Kimmel group that is potentially eyeing the Ottawa Senators. And the feeling is that maybe if they are the winning bid, Matt Sundin could potentially wind up in the front office of the Ottawa Senators. Now, I want to just get your feeling on that. Like, how, how are you going to feel if that somehow plays out? I mean, it would be a little weird. I assume is this like linked to Daniel Alpherson?

or? Yeah, and I mean, I think that there would be, uh, obviously a connection there, right? Like, I think those two guys would love to collaborate. I mean, I don't think it would, put it this way. I feel like my gut tells me it wouldn't bother me as much as it would bother Sends fans if it went the other way, like Daniel Alpherson going to, you know, getting a job with, with the, the leaves. But I mean, I can't.

I, I, I know that the, you know, the, the hot take would. be to say, you can't go to a rival, you're a trade or all this stuff. I don't know. I mean, A, I don't know if I feel that way. And B, even if I did, I mean, the Maple Leafs hired Ken Dryden to run the team, not just to be, you know, a guy in the front office, but to run the whole team. They got Brandon Shanahan running the whole team right now. He's, you know, that they had a rivalry with the Red Wings for, for years. You know, were Red Wing fans mad when Steve Eiserman went to the lightning? I know that's not a historical rivalry. But they, you know, they certainly had their share of situations over the years.

I mean, if he wants to do it and this is the opportunity and he gets to work with his buddy, yeah, you're good, Matt. So you got my, you have my blessing. You got to be a lesson. I'm sure the rest of the leave fan base will be super reasonable about it too. Like some of the comparables I could think of in my mind, like obviously Ron Hextall going to work for the penguins, right? would be like a great example of a guy who, for the most part, Hextall is known as a flyer.

He's now the general manager of the Penguins. I mean, the difference is he was with the Flyers already. Like he had his flyers stint. So, you know, he's, he's allowed to move on, you would think. Yeah. Flyers fans, of course, would argue that this was the, you know, his job was to go in and implode the penguins. Yes, that's right.

And kind of walk away. Like, as I think back in history, like Brian Trotchey and it was very brief, but like he briefly coached the Rangers, right? And that didn't sit well. Yeah. With Islanders fans, right? Yeah. That was a big one.

Like, is that the biggest one where somebody was like, I can't believe you went to work for those guys? I think it was Trotcheon, right? Like if I had to pick the one that angry people the most? I'm like looking down the list now of, you know, well-known coaches and GMs. that, you know, that might be the one. And Dryden going to the Leafs would be another one. In fact, and he was trying to hire Bob Ganey, I believe, at one point to come in.

So it was sort of a Montreal takeover of the Leafs, although I don't remember Habs fans being that upset about that. But maybe they were. Yeah, I'm looking at the list now. Team GM. Hmm. That might be the one is Trotche. I'm not off the top of my head seeing anyone else here where you would think, oh yeah, they definitely, they would have wanted them in that original team.

Most of these guys do start with, you know, with their new, Bobby Clark, Joe Sackick, Ron Francis, guys like that. I mean, Brett Hall went to Dallas, but I don't think anyone in St. Louis, let's say, was begging for Brett Hall to come be the gym of that team. Nobody ever in the Battle of Alberta kind of went the other way and worked in the front officer or coach. Did they? Or am I, that would be the other one I was thinking. No, there have been some, there have been players who have done it. Yeah, players obviously. It's weird to see.

But I don't, don't remember anyway. Certainly nobody who went became a GM or something like that. I'm sure NHL teams, I mean, you look at their front offices and there's like 20 guys and 19 of them are always former players. But I, yeah, I don't think so. Yeah, no, no. And the other thing, too, with the, with the Ottawa, Toronto thing, and, you know, if Sundeen ever did come and consult or work a little bit with Ottawa, I mean, Jason Spetso works for the Leafs, right?

Like, he's there next to the point. Kyle do this. Yeah, absolutely. Here's my question to you. From an Ottawa, what makes, what would make people matter? Matt Sundeen getting a job with the Senators, making the Leaf fans mad, or Sends fans being Matt if Darcy Tucker was hired to work for the senators in the front office. Oh, Tucker would be the one, because Tucker's a more polarizing player, right?

Yeah. Like, Sundeen is it like, but he'd be working for you, right? He's not abandoned, you know, Sundeen would be abandoning the Leafs if you wanted to look at it that way and go into the enemy. You know, don't you embrace Darcy, you know, Darcy Tucker comes up. Maybe he brings Tide Omi, you know, toughen up the front office. We can work on everyone's balanced skills. Travis Green is head coach.

Travis Green could come in as the coach. there's lots of ways you could do this. I mean, I feel like this is, we could make this happen, right? Oh, man. Tideomi gets there day one, you're looking up at the rafters. What happened to the Chris Neal banner? Don't worry about it. Don't ask any questions.

Can you imagine? Anyway, so that was out there. I just wanted to pick your brain and see if you'd be really upset. Yeah, I feel like I should be madder about that then. But when I first, you know, when I first heard that, I was like, you know what? Yeah, good for him. I've never heard anything about Matzani wanting to go work his way into a front. an office. But maybe he does or maybe he just wants to work with his buddy. And that sounds

sounds like it'd be a pretty, pretty fun post-retirement gig to have. Okay. So when you go back and you think about, you know, Sundeen obviously when he left Toronto and then he signed in Vancouver, is that the thing, like that's the thing that would make you more mad than him? The way that whole thing went down, and I was, you know, I was more ticked off at Matt Sundeen than I think a lot of leave fans were at the time. And in hindsight, it's all been kind of like memory hold. And, you know, they did. They repaired the bridges.

But you got to remember how that played out, right? Toronto Maple Leafs are a terrible team. Matt Sundeen's in the last year of his contract. They basically, it's basically what the Blackhawks went through with Patrick Kane this year, except Matt Sundeen says, no, I'm not waving. Not going to wave my no-dray clause. I don't want to go to a contender. Even though I've never won a Stanley Cup, I'm not interested in going somewhere and chasing one.

and because he does it, all the other guys, there were a bunch of other guys on the team with no trades, they all have to fall in line and say, okay, we're not going to wave either. Matt's isn't going. And the explanation he gives at the time is he says, I'm not going to go because I don't believe in rentals. You have to be, I don't want to win a championship

unless I'm there from October till June. That was his quote, October till June. And then the offseason comes along, and he does not resign with the Maple Leafs, maybe because the Leafs don't really even want him at that point, make him an offer. But then he does this whole sitting out and he goes to Vancouver halfway through the season. He signs to them in like January and you're all sitting there going, what happened until October till June? What happened to that whole big dramatic ethical stance that you were taking?

You don't believe in rentals, but you air drop into a team in January and, you know, because of that, you know, we don't get to trade you to the, you know, for kick off the rebuild and all that. So there were some, I do think there were some bad feelings. And I certainly, I had, you know, you go back to my writing around that time, I had an issue with it. But him going to be a, you know, whatever the role would be, associate GM. Yeah, go ahead. I mean, hey, if you're going to build a Stanley Cup winning culture, the two guys you want to build it around are Daniel Alpherson and Matt Sundyne. That's, that's who you need.

And then if you could get like a Hollywood actor in the mix, then I think by, by, you want to, you've got all the bases covered. See, I knew. I knew there would be some side swipe. You were going to take a while to get there, but you got there. Okay. Yep. So the action on the ice and Wednesday night. Yeah. I mean, look, the Calgary Flames, they lose to Chicago on Monday. And you're on Tuesday. And you're like, well, that's that. And then they turn around and they do exactly what you thought they would do, which is they would beat Winnipeg because it's pure chaos. Now, I want to ask you something here because I think I'm generally in favor of, a play-in format.

Not unlike what you see in the NBA, where I'm like, you know what, get some more teams in there, make it more interesting. But let's look at the Western Conference. It's a three-team race, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Nashville. Let's look at the Eastern Conference.

It's essentially a three-team race, Islanders, Panthers, penguins. If we had a play-in, do you feel like maybe it would lessen the importance of these games? You'd be like, you know what? It's okay.

They're going to make it. it doesn't really matter until they get to the play-in. Like, is it okay that this is kind of organically coming to be? And should we open our minds of the fact that, yeah, you know what, maybe you don't need the play-in. Maybe Gary was right. Well, let's, hold on. Let's slow down on maybe Gary was right.

Here's the thing. First of all, let's talk about when we talk about a play-in. Here's what we're talking about. Okay, or at least here's what I'm proposing, is that we basically, steal the NBA system. Teams 1 through 6 in the conference, they make it. No questions asked. You're good. You're in the playoffs. Team 7 through 10 going to the play end. And the way it works is 7 plays 8 and 9 plays 10. Winner of 7 and 8, you're in the playoffs. Winner of 9 versus 10, you play the loser of that 7 versus 8 game. So in other words, if you're 7 and 8,

you got two chances to win your way in. If you're 9 and 10, you've got to win twice to get your way in. So the odds are pretty stacked. So the idea that, you know, would that Calgary Winnipeg game have been as important? Would it have felt as life or death? No, it wouldn't have. But it still would have been crucially important because the difference between finishing eighth and finishing ninth in a play-in system is still very significant. It's, it's, you know, the difference between one win and two wins. It is a big deal. And by the way, in my play-in world, if you lose in the play-in, you did not make the play-in. So when people say, hey, the playoffs is great with 16 teams, I agree with you.

We're going to have 16 teams in the playoffs. This is just a way to figure out who gets in there. Now, when you look at the West, the way it's playing out this year, maybe that's an argument against the play in. Because you're looking at Seattle and Winnipeg holding down spots, Calgary, Nashville, chasing them. And then there's a pretty big drop off. St. Louis, Vancouver, not very good teams, not not playoff worthy, not really. in any kind of race haven't been in a long time. So you could argue that if we had a play in,

Calgary and Nashville would already be like, you know, they'd already know that they were going to play past game 82. Would some of that urgency go away? You know, you could make that case, I think. You look at the east. I feel like the east is the opposite case. Because in the east, yeah,

we've got a pretty good race right now with Pittsburgh, New York, Florida, three teams going for two spots. But again, remember, those two spots would be crucially important in a play in world. Because you'd be trying to get that, I got to win once, and I get two tries instead of I got to go two for two. If we had a plan, suddenly that door swings back open. Buffalo is back in this.

Ottawa is back in this. Detroit is back in this. Washington is back in this. And they're all fighting for that last spot to be that number 10, those four teams that are all either out and have been, you know, let's be honest. Those teams have all been out for the most part for a very long time. You know, they've, they're not technically eliminated. Yeah, they could sit there and go, yeah, if we run off eight wins in a row or something. But they've all been out.

They would all be still playing for something. Very meaningful games down the stretch. Reasons for those fan bases to stay engaged. And one of them would get to play at least one playoff style, playoff atmosphere game in a play in a play in against Pittsburgh or Florida, New York. And maybe a second one. And maybe have a chance to win their way into the actual. real playoffs. So I still think it's a good idea. I think it keeps more fan bases interested. I think if you if you're very clear that the play-in is not the playoffs, then you know, you don't get

teams saying, oh, when we made the playoffs last year because they lost a play-in game. You still keep the 16, the sanctity of the 16 team playoff. I'm in favor of it. I know some people feel like it cheapens it. I know you sometimes you get situations like last year in the East where there were just eight teams that were head and shoulders above all the rest. And you go, oh, you know, should it really have worked that way. I just love the extra pressure it puts on finishing eighth, finishing sixth to avoid that, you know, you don't want to be a wild card because you don't want to be in that play in. So you really want to finish six. There aren't really great races for that this year, but most years there are.

You want to finish first or second. You want to get to play against a tired team. I like the way all of that works together. I still think it's a good idea. I think the East is great evidence for it this year. The West, if you're somebody who doesn't like the idea, maybe the West is, is. your counter argument that we would have lost the do or die importance of that great game last night. I think I tend to agree with you. And it's interesting when you say, and I think I agree

with you too on the premise that play-in games are not playoff games. They're not, they're not, Stanley come playoff games. Because that's everyone's argument, right? Even Gary Bettman, they say it's 16-T, we don't, do not expand the playoffs. I agree with you. We are not expanding the playoffs. The playoffs is 16 teams. What we're doing, if anything, we're expanding the regular season by one or two games for a select number of teams to get them into the playoffs. So let me throw this scenario at you, and I'm wondering where you would think the statistics, what bucket they would fall in. Okay, so here's the scenario.

The Buffalo Sabres end up being the number 10 seed, and they're in a playoff, sorry, in a play-in. Okay, 7-10, they're playing the Panthers. Tage Thompson has 49 goals. In the play-in game, he scores. Does Tage Thompson have a 50-goal season? Yes or no? You know, I've bounced around on that.

I think he does. And I think we can borrow a little bit in baseball. They do have the possibility or, you know, it was more common before where you could get that game 163 to break a tie and that count it in the regular season. My argument would be we're talking a maximum of two games. And we have had, we historically, we have had 84 game seasons in the NHL. That used to be how big the season was. So we're not, you know, we're already two games past the 80 game threshold that, that, that, that, was a big chunk of hockey history, a couple of teams a year get to 84.

That's okay. We're not, nobody's playing a longer season than ever played before. We have 50 goal seasons that happened in an 84 game year. They count. I'm okay with counting that as, as an extra season of, uh, or sorry, an extra game of regular season stats. Yeah. Yeah, I think so too, because otherwise then you're going to have like a third bucket of play

in stats that really don't carry much weight, you know, in, in, they're just kind of floating out there. and they don't really mean much, right? Now, look, that's a great race to me, both those wild card races. And I'll give the NHL some credit. We have some amazing races this year, right? Whether it's receding, wildcard.

And that's central division right now. As we sit here and have this conversation going into Easter weekend, Colorado 98 points, Dallas 98 points, Minnesota 98 points. And the a game in hand. So by a points percentage perspective, they are at the leaderboard. But this is going to be a lot of fun in the final week of the season because I think you want nothing to do with that two, three matchup in the central. As much as we talk about, ooh, Toronto, Tampa, or Rangers Islanders or sorry, Rangers Devils, that first round, two, three matchup in the central is not going to be a walk in the park because one of Dallas, Minnesota, Colorado is going to go home.

Yep. And that's the key. That is what makes that race so great is that a lot of times this time of year, you might be looking at it and you say, wow, the division is still up for grabs. Or we don't know who's going to get this. You know, there's still seeding up for grabs. And it's like, yeah, there is. But really does it matter all that much? Because we know in this parody era where there are so many upsets and so much randomness and chaos in the playoffs, you know, Home Ice doesn't really help you all that much.

Having the top seed doesn't really help you all that much. It feels like once the playoffs start, a lot of the matchups just kind of feel the same. Like, all right, so we're going to play this team instead of that team. Does it really matter? You look at this, and it feels like it matters. And I don't say this, look, no disrespect at Seattle Cracken. But if I'm Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, I want to play the Seattle Cracken instead of playing one of those other three teams. I mean, that just feels like a night and day matchup.

It does feel like, again, I'm setting myself up to have this turn into a clip that gets played back at me in a few weeks. But it feels like, you know, you're playing Seattle. That could be a series that you can get out of a four or five games, rest up, be ready for round two. Whereas, boy, Dallas, Minnesota, Colorado, pick two of those teams. That feels like a seven-game war. And that's, I think if I'm one of those teams, I'm coaching, I'm playing on it. It's pedal to the floor to try to get that number one. one seed and avoid getting stuck in in that two versus three matchup.

And same with that Pacific Division too. Like if you're Vegas, you want to hang on to that top seed and either get the crack in or in more likelihood you're going to end up with the Winnipeg, Calgary, Nashville because I sure don't want Edmonton. I don't want Edmonton. I don't even think I want L.A. Yep. I don't think I want L.A.

I think they're going to be a really tough out. Yeah. I mean, look, if you're the Oilers, you're sitting there going, man, we played L.A. last year, we beat them. It took seven games. They gave us everything we can handle. And LA is, you know, Edmonton, I think, is better than they were last year, but so is L.A. So, yeah, there is that. And, you know, even, you know, we don't have as good a race in the metro, but again, it's sort of the drop off between, if you're the devils, between playing the Rangers in round one versus catching Carolina and then you end up getting Florida or the

islanders or somebody. Or just stumbling penguins. Yeah. So, you know, we do, it's a lot of years the divisions don't really seem to matter. But like I said, you know, I said before that the gap from six to seven in the kind, like, there isn't really a race this year. It's because both of the conferences feel like they've got six teams that, to varying degrees, feel like real contenders. And then the wild cards really do feel like they're a step down. And that's going to add an interesting dynamic to the first round.

And it's going to add an interesting dynamic to the last 10 days or so of the season when we see. who wins those divisions. Okay, and just to close the loop on this and all the races, I'm going to stick in the Western Conference for a second. Like I said, this is all, it's down to three teams, Winnipeg, Calgary, Nashville. If we can strip aside our obvious Canadian bias that we have, should we not all be kind of pulling for the National Predators

to make the playoffs? Like, if you were just looking at this from a, like, a fans perspective, like, who's the team we should all kind of be pulling for? Should it not be the team? team that gave away a bunch of guys at the deadline and kind of rallied together? Or how do you feel about Nashville? Should it be? Like, I mean, it's, it does make them a great underdog and it has that sort of major

league vibe of, you know, in this case, the GM didn't think we were good enough, but, you know, we're going to prove everyone wrong. But there's also a part of me that goes like, man, doesn't, does that make this league feel even more random than it already is that a team can stand up and say, okay, we are waving the weight flag, we are done. we are not good enough to make the playoffs and then go ahead and make it anyways. To me, again, here's the Canadian bias, but I feel like a Calgary Flames team that is a cup contender last year, and they go into the offseason, and their best player says, I'm leaving as a free agent.

Not because I want to go somewhere to win, not because I want to go even to my hometown. I'm leaving you guys to go to the Columbus Blue Jackets. and then oh by the way the next day your other best player says I'm out too I want a trade you're being abandoned by everyone everyone's saying that's it let's hold the funeral for the Calgary Flames

they're done and yet you go out there you pull off a big trade you don't quit you don't say hey guys sorry fans we got to rebuild you say we're going we're doubling down you pull off the big trade some people think you do real well some people think you win the trade you sign another free agent.

I like that. There's a part of that, you know, the fact that they sort of said, no, we're not done. We're doing our little undertaker sit up in the offseason and we're going to get back at it. Obviously, the season hasn't worked out that way. But I kind of like the idea of the flames getting back in. And also, you know, if they get in there, does leave open the possibility of a rematch with the Oilers. Just throwing that out there.

Yeah. And the thing I'll throw out before we bring in our palel Granger, Can you imagine the hilarity of David Poyle's like, I'm packing it in, I'm retiring, I'm selling off all these, but this is the year they win the cup. Like you imagine at the end of it. It's been a GM for like 40 years. Yeah, 40 years and this, it turns out this was the strategy he should have been pursuing. That was his fault. That was his problem for the first 39 years. He kept trying to get good players instead of giving them all the way. You know, no for next time. All right. Let's bring in our pal, Jesse Granger, for. little Thursday segment we like to call

Granger Things, brought to you by BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner with the athletic. And Jesse, we do have some some fun things to bat around in terms of odds and even some NHL award stuff. Before we get to that, though, want to allow you the plug,

because we always talk about this. You're the goalie nerd. Our producer, Danielle, a goalie nerd. And you've got an article out that drop that, hey, this is right down the alley, up the alley for those types. And it's all about ski boot technology and how it's helping out goalies in the NHL. Yeah, this was a fun one to work on. I've gotten to talk to goalies around the league that have tried it a bunch.

I think 14 goalies are currently using this new skate by Bauer called the Bauer Connects. And they are drastically different than any other skate. I started the story off by kind of painting a picture of Andre Vasselowski trying on the first pair and his Tampa Bay teammates were chirping him relentlessly. These things do not have skates. They have buckles like a ski boot. They're designed with ski boots in mind. They're using a lot of technology that's used in Premier ski boots.

And aside from not having laces, the big selling point is that they hinge. So most hockey skates, anyone who's put on a pair of hockey skates knows they're rigid. They hold your ankle in a fixed hand. angle that you really can't move your ankle at all when you're wearing hockey skates. Whereas with these new Bauer connects, it's two separate pieces, the ankle piece and the boot. So your ankle can bend forward. And for a goalie, you look at a goalie in his goalie stance, you can see how that would be very beneficial. And a lot of the goalies, some of the goleys are hesitant. You know how hockey players can be with their stuff. They're like, no, no, no, I had been using this since I was

five, I'm not changing. I joked, I last Linus Olmark at the All-Star weekend, and he joked, I threw him in the trash. And I was like, what? And he's like, no, I'm just kidding. I would never throw them in the trash, but they're not for me. I can't do that. But a lot of the goleys have said it is like completely changing the way they can skate. They think it's going, Vaselowski was saying he thinks it can lead to him being able to play longer because that hinge, not only does it allow you to get deeper in your stance and maybe the reason they call it the connect is because they tried to get you more connected to the ice and I think it's easier to get your full skate blade on the ice to push across but the added benefit is that because that

ankle is no longer held there, Rousseau and Vasselowski and a few other goleys were telling me that it takes pressure off the knee joints and it takes pressure off the hip joints because that tension isn't riding up the leg. It's being relieved when your ankle bends there. And Vaselowski said, I think I'll be able to play longer. I think I'll be able to play for better longer. So this is brand new. They just came out last, they just, the prototypes were last year.

Charlie Lindgren was wearing it in St. Louis. And Vaselowski's been wearing it since the beginning in Tampa Bay. But now it's kind of spreading across the NHL. There are a bunch of goalies wearing them. They're really cool. Every goalie I asked about it, they could not wait to like grab their skate off. the stall and show me it comes apart. There's like a removable boot. They, they're all super into it. They're a pretty cool skate. And I don't know if it's going to make its way.

I asked them, like, do you think it'll make its way to the skaters? Like, do you think skaters in the NHL will have no laces on their skates soon? They're not quite sure. The reaction of how they look. See, the goalies, it doesn't really matter how they look, because obviously you can't see them. The pads are covering them with the skaters. You can see the skates. They think that they may be a little more hesitant to go to that, but they do love the time it saves them in the dressing room. Vasilevsky's always joking that he's the first one undressed in the room, which is not usual for goalies with all their gear. So they're pretty pumped about it. I got to say, I don't know anything about the goaltending world, but as a parent, hearing you say

no laces perk me right up. I was like, all right, I'm in on no laces. They get off easy. Perfect. Have you had a chance to try these yet? They hooked you up with the pair? I have not. I have not. So the bad thing about the Bauer connects is they're $900. These are a premium NHL ice skate. So they are priced as such. But the good news is talking to the people of Bauer, they are going to release an intermediate price point, which, as we all know, for hockey equipment, intermediate, still means very expensive, but not as expensive. This summer. So they may dip into the Jesse Granger Beer League price range here this summer when these new ones come out.

But no, I haven't tried them. I have seen them. Like I said, every goalie that I talked to, they could not wait to grab it and show like show me how it flexes. Show me how the boot comes out, how it molds to your foot, all this stuff. But I have not put them on my feet yet. Bauer. Hook them up. Hook our boy up.

I know this is an audio podcast. I just want people to understand how Sean. how Sean's face dropped when Granger said, you know, Andre Vasselowski now feels like he could play for years. That's all we need. Great. The rest of the NHL is like, what have you done? I'm thrilled.

Sean's like seven more first round playoff matchups with Tampa. Exactly. Sounds great. Hey, you know, it's interesting. And look, this is a segment that we always talk about, sponsored by BetMGM. And there are a number of sports books now, it looks like guys, that are taking an...

NHL awards off the books right now because they're like, you know, why bother putting Connor McDavid for the Hart Trophy? There's not going to be anybody else who wins it. Okay, I understand the Hart Trophy, but I personally kind of felt like maybe there would have been compelling races for certainly I think the Norris. I think maybe you can make a couple of arguments on Jack Adams. I think there's a couple of rookie of the year where I think there's a couple of things that are at least up for grabs.

Do you guys surprise that some books are saying, you know what, NHL awards this year? Not happening. I'm very surprised. I think it's kind of, Shady's not the right word, but it's, that doesn't feel right to me. I feel like just put the prices at what you think they should be. And if you don't think anyone can beat Connor McDavid for the heart, which I think we all agree, put Panarin or sorry, Pastornak or whoever anyone wants to vote for. at 100 to 1 or whatever you want. And if people want to bet that, let them bet that.

And if they win it, then you got to pay them out. And if not, like I, and I agree with you, the Norris. I think there are a few arguments to be made that Eric Carlson, despite having the most amazing offensive season ever, that there are some defensemen that have had as good of an overall season. I think taking them off the board is the easy way out for these sports. But I think you should, I think they should be letting people place bets if they want to. Just make the prices whatever you want.

If you, like, if, and if, and if you lower them enough to where people don't want to bet them, you're essentially taking them off the board. So I, yeah, I don't, I don't think I agree with that. Yeah, it's, it's a weird one. One of the books, they sent an email out and they said that they had Connor McDavid at one to a hundred for the heart, which it means you have to bet $100 for every $1 you're going to win and that people were still betting them. So I could see taking the heart up before, but I'm with you on the Norris. And the Calder as well. I mean, there is, you know, Maddie Baneers is the guy that everyone assumes is going to win. But like, I feel like the Stewart Skinner bandwagon is, as we come down the stretch, it's not empty.

And, you know, if, put it this way, if you wanted to put, let's say, Eric Carlson as your one to 100 favor and put a bunch of long shots on there, I'd throw money on the long shots. So I don't know. It's strange to me because, and I say this as someone where I don't ever bet individual games. I like the long stuff. I like the prop bets, the, you know, picking awards and that sort of stuff. So it's kind of disappointing to see them going off the board. And I don't feel like there's a few of these are as locked up as people seem to think

they are. Yeah. No, I think it's fascinating. Like, a rookie of the year, I think there's a compelling argument too. I think Owen Power in Buffalo, Jake Sanderson and Ottawa, I've had. had really good seasons for for rookies that that are just maybe under the radar. So I'm with you guys. I think it's weird.

If you want to just take a heart trophy off the board, sure, take it off the board. But even like Jack Adams, like, okay, Jim Montgomery's done a fantastic job. Let's not, let's, there's no two ways about that. But wouldn't there be some love for like a guy like Lindy Ruff? Like it devils with like a 45 point year over year improvement. You know, Dave Haxdale in Seattle. Like, like I'm just saying, I think. I think there's some compelling cases for Jack Adams.

I think the only two that I would say are done right now is Connor McDavid. And for the last, since the midway mark of the season, the only thing that was going to stop Connerick David was an injury. And we're at the point now where even if he did get injured, it wouldn't matter. That one's done. I'm fine with saying that. The other one would be the Selky. Bergeron's going to win that.

Right. There's no question there. Other than that, you know, again, heavy favorites for sure. I don't feel like they're done. Put it this way. If I was going to sit down and do an awards ballot right now, I wouldn't, I wouldn't just, you know, it wouldn't take me three seconds to drop in the rest of the awards. I agree. I agree. Especially to Norris. I've been making arguments for other goalies for Vezna. O'Mark's going to win it in all likelihood. But I think UC Soros has had a ridiculously good season. I think Ilya Syroken in New York has been awesome. I think there's arguments for other guys in that award, too. Yeah, no, absolutely. Now, I know you want to kind of turn the tables on us.

Usually we bring in here, we pepper you with questions, and now you say, you know what, enough. I'm going to pepper you, enough. I'm going to pepper you guys with some questions. So what do you got for us? So over at bed MGM, one of the things I like about the futures is they give you interesting ways to bet on the Stanley Cup. And as the playoffs are getting closer,

and we pretty much have our playoff fields other than a few teams decided, I want to ask you guys a few different ways. So this is basically you're buying groups of teams to win the Stanley Cup. So I'll give you the odds. We'll start with the most simplistic one, which is the division. So the Atlantic Division is the clear favorite at plus 175. So $100 bet wins you $175. The Central Division is 300 plus 300, 3 to 1.

Metropolitan Division plus 275. and the Pacific Division is last plus 350. If you, which, which of those odds do you guys like and why? See, I look at that and I say, so you're telling me Edmonton would be in that grouping, right? Right, right? Edmonton, Vegas, yep. Ah, man, like the way that they're rolling right now

and the way that everything seems to be clicking for the Oilers, I really like them in the West. So if you're telling me that odds-wise, they're the longest shot in this grouping. Boy, I might be, now, I don't love L.A. and Vegas as much, but, boy, I don't know. I might be, I might be nudged to go Pacific Division just based on those odds. Yeah, that's, first of all, I always perk up when I get the offer these and then you look at the actual odds, right? I mean, you've got four divisions and we're not getting four to one odds on a single one of these, single one of these groups.

So, you know, but I agree with what Ian was just saying about the, man, I've got, I've had, I've had several smart people kind of whispered to me over the last couple weeks that like people are sleeping on the Oilers, how dangerous that team is. So I'm definitely looking at them. But the other one is, you know, the metro. And I get where I get where it's coming from that if the Atlantic's the strongest and the metro's got to go through the Atlantic, but you got three cupworthy teams absolutely in there. And, you know, it's always that thing. When you look at the playoffs, we tend to say it for the Stanley Cup final very often, right? If one conference is better, you know, the Eastern Conference is better this year. It's going to be an Eastern Conference team that wins the Stanley Cup.

And then you go, yeah, but by the time you get to the final, you've got to have a Western team. Maybe they're not as good on paper, but look at what that Eastern team is going to have been through to get there. I mean, there's going to be anything left of them. I might be tempted if I had to go Metro on that, even though, I mean, it's a tough path past the, landing. But you only got to get past one of those teams. And that team is going to have been through, you know, at least one tough series, if not two, to get to get there for you. Yeah. To your point, I won't quiz you guys on this one, but Eastern Conference minus 150 to win the Cup, Western Conference plus 120. So Eastern Conference, pretty big favorite. Which is what we'd expect. All right, I like this one.

Will there be a new champion or a team that's already won the Stanley Cup? So new champion is plus 450, and you're getting, of the teams that are actually in contention, you've got Golden Knights, you've got Winnipeg Jets, Cracking, Florida Panthers, Nashville Predators, and Minnesota Wild. Those are pretty much the teams, and you can get plus 450, or you can take any other team, basically every team that's won one at minus 750. I wouldn't go to the minus 750. you know, those those odds are just, I mean, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're,

betting 750 bucks to win a hundred there. Right. That's, uh, that's not worth my time. But I, I, man, I, I, I, I'd love that concept when you said it, but then when you read the list of teams that hadn't won, I was kind of like, woof, uninspiring. I almost wonder if they did one that was like, had they won in the last even 20 years. Right. To, to move Toronto, move the Rangers, uh, you know, you could almost, you could balance it out a little

but better get the islanders in there. Right. Right now, I don't, other than Minnesota, I don't, I don't love that group of non-cup winners. No, not at all. I was with you. I thought, okay, well, these are going to be some pretty good teams. And then it's like, man, those are, that's not a, that's not a murderers row of, of,

of teams there. Or even, imagine if you did one where it was teams that have never won, teams that have won in the last 20 years, and then the teams in between. Right. Because that would get you both the New York teams, Toronto and Edmonton. that starts to get a little interesting, doesn't it? It definitely does. Where does New Jersey fit?

I guess New Jersey would have been, yeah, they were 2003. 2003 was their last one. So they would be right. Exactly. How you phrased it, Dallas would be in there as well for you in that group. So here's one that's a little closer. This is plus 200 on one side, minus 275 on the other. Will the cup winner be an original six?

So original six, you've got ruins, Maple Leafs, Rangers. and that's plus 200 or all the other teams for minus 275. Boy. I like all the others there, to be honest with you. I think I'd go all the others. But at the same time, Hmm. Bruins, Leafs, and Rangers.

I mean, that's three teams that can absolutely win the Stanley Cup. And the thing is, I'm wondering, like, you know, part of me is wondering, what are the straight up odds on just the Bruins to win the Cup? Because they're obviously going to go in as the favorite, but we all know that being the favorite in the NHL playoffs, it gives you maybe like 20, 25%. They're plus 375, the Bruins. And the next closest team is the abs at plus 650.

If that was my pick to win the Stanley Cup, I'd be really tempted rather than betting them straight out at 375 to take the lower odds and hedge a little bit with the Leafs and the Rangers in my back pocket. That might tempt me a little bit. Does it matter to you guys on this one that all three of those teams are in one conference? Like, would it have altered it a little bit if, like, it would have to use Chicago, I guess. But if that was, does that factor into it at all? It, I mean, it helps and it hurts, right?

Because you're only looking for one of them to win. So you're looking at that, for example, and saying, okay, I got Toronto and Boston, the odds of one of them coming out of the Atlantic are pretty good now. You know, Tampa's won the conference three years in a row, so we're not writing them off. But I like my odds coming out of there. And then maybe I get the Rangers in the, as the other team in the, And then I'm booked. I booked my ticket to the final or maybe not.

I don't know if I'd want them spread out or if I'd want them all together and knowing that that makes it more likely that one of them is going to get to a certain, at least get to the final. All right. Last one I've got for you guys, and this one's the most fun. The nation of the winning Stanley Cup team. United States, spoiler alert. Minus 600.

Canada plus 400. So you can get four to one odds to get Toronto. Edmonton, Winnipeg, and possibly Calgary, if they sneak in. Oh, boy. It's been a long time. It's been 30 years. That Edm, what's the, like, I will tell you now, we haven't done our playoff picks. I'm actually, I'm more, I'm more down on the Leafs chances this year than I was going into

last year. So I'm not, I'm not super big on betting the Leafs, but the Oilers are just, you know, I, I'm getting really close to the oilers just being my Western conference pick. What are the odds of the, what if I wanted to just bet straight up on the oilers? What am I looking? To win the, to win the cup? Yeah. They are 11 to 1. And so plus 1100. The maple leaves are plus 900, nine to one. So they're both, they're right next to each other. So I was thinking, you know, again, if this was like Boston where I, you know, do I, if it was close to that 400, do I hedge down, you know, have, have the Leafs as a backup plan. But I think on that one, I would just go. Oilers.

You know, I would, Oilers at 11 to 1 right now, that might be worth, that might be worth looking at if you're the sort of person who, who likes this sort of thing. But yeah,

I don't, I'm, I'm not betting Team USA. I, I almost, I'll tell you something right now. I don't know about you guys. I,

I don't do a ton of betting. I never bet on anything that starts with the minus. I just, I want, especially if it's a long term. You got to, you got to give me like something to make the payoff worth it.

But, yeah, team Canada, it's going to have, happened some year, you'd think eventually. Probably would have said that 20 years ago, too. Right. Man, it's tricky because I think that, I think Edmund, like if you're asking, I think, to

me personally, I feel like Edmonton has the best chance of a Canadian team to win, even though, like you said, Toronto's odds are a little bit better. But, man, no, I don't think I'd touch that one because I just, yeah, or I'd probably lean towards the American side just because, you know, I don't think that Winnipeg or Calgary is legitimate, right? I just don't think that they're a legitimate cup contender, whereas I think the entire Central Division is cup worthy. I think probably Vegas is cupworthy.

I think the two New York teams are worth, yeah, you know what? I wouldn't, yeah. Now that I talk about, I don't. And Boston, that's like, yeah, you're getting all, yeah. Yeah, I leave Boston to the end. Yeah, I think that that pretty much sums it up. All right. Hey, Jesse, man, this was great.

as always. Thanks for dropping by. And I guess next week we'll be ready to, we should pretty much know, well, although it's going on the final weekend, maybe there will still be a playoff spot up for grabs, but we'll maybe have a better idea of the playoff picture and maybe who even Vegas is playing. So look forward to that. Have a great weekend.

We'll talk to you on Thursday. Awesome. Thanks for having me, guys. Thank you. All right, always fun chatting with Jesse Granger, and I'm sure once we get into the Stanley Cup playoffs, there's going to be those odds are going to move and, you know, picking who's going to lead the playoffs and scoring and all that fun stuff is going to be fun fodder for discussion.

I want to chat about our piece that we did with Sean Gentilly this week. It is up. It dropped on Thursday morning and it's the Rules Court where the three of us get together and we basically act like judges and we decree whether or not a rule idea from readers and hockey fans like it, don't like it. We always have a lot of fun with it. We try not to take ourselves too seriously, but we also try and actually say like, would this make the game better, which I think is everybody's end game? Was there one of the submissions that now when you look back at the peach, you're like, man,

that one was legitimately my favorite one. I wish the NHL would adopt it? The one that jumps out to me as an easy, yes. And I say this easy in the sense that I think all three of us agreed on it. But also it doesn't take, you know, it's not a radical change to the, to the to the whole game. It was the overtime power plays. We had somebody right in and I loved it because it was an old time.

He said, I've been watching hockey since the 50s. And my suggestion for overtime and I kind of thought when I saw that like, oh, here we go. It's going to be, you know, go back to the old way, go back to the old days. No, no. This guy wants to instead of, as we all know, overtime now three on three, but if there's a power play, it goes to four on three. No, no, three on two. He says, we keep the same concept, right? you taking a guy off the ice, three on two.

I'm assuming if there were two, maybe we go to three on one. I don't know. But yeah, let's do it. Let's see what a three on two looks like. It's, you know, is it silly? Yeah, overtime's already ridiculous. So let's just, let's embrace it. That was my favorite one because it was the easiest one.

I didn't even really have to think about it all that long. You know what? And I thought about this too. If you're the defending team on a three on two, are you going like two defensemen is probably going to be your best chance of breaking things up but then I don't like you're not going to have anybody for the face off so like what like what do you do? Like do you go one center and a D but then just I don't I don't anyway it's really fun and think about the team at some point someone's going to score a two on three short handed.

Yeah. Goal and that's just going to be unbelievable. Yeah. Absolutely. You know, it's it would be fun to see and and you know, why not? I know people, well, you know, it's not three on two. That's not hockey. Well, three on three for five minutes isn't hockey either.

But it is. It's close enough and it's fun. Yeah. So anyway, and look, we love to hear your suggestions for, if there's anything that was, like, kind of piqued your interest in that column, by all means, hit us up, the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. You know, as we kind of slowly, slowly move towards the spring in the summer, these are, these are great topics that we'll handle more in the off season.

But look, if you've got rule ideas that you want us to discuss, on the pod or in print, let us know, the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. Speaking of which, we will open up the email. Actually, I have one question for you, okay? And I don't want to see you Googling it. I almost want to ask you to put your hands where I can see them because I don't want you cheating on this.

Unless you saw this story. All right. Okay. So yesterday, the Toronto Maple Leafs on their social media account was asking players, Did you see this about the chicken nuggets? You know what? I saw it on TikTok, but I scroll past it.

So I did see them being asked that question. They do this thing where the, as the players are coming on the ice for practice, they, I saw it, but I didn't stick around to see the answer. Okay. So I want you to get, and I want the listeners to guess too. So the question that was posed to Austin Matthews, Mitch Marner, etc., is how many chicken nuggets would it take to fill up an NHL-sized goal? So think of a net in the NHL and you've got, you know, standard-sized chicken nuggets.

Think chicken McNugget, Wendy's nugget, whatever. We all know what a chicken nugget looks like. How many of those would it take to fill up a net? So the answers were obviously all over the map. What's your best guess? How many chicken nuggets would it take to fill up an NHL night? Boy, it's going to be a big number. I'm thinking, okay, so we're a little more than six feet across.

How many nuggets are you going to get for an inch and a half? half per nugget maybe that eight per foot I get to let's just say oh let's say 60 across oh boy now I'm going to just a semicircle so I'm going to pile them on I'm going to say I think you get to about let's say 2000 am I in the ballpark to you know what you kind of are in the book look it's a wild guess no yeah and I'd love it if listeners if you've come layer, right? Like we're talking. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Yeah. So according to the experts, it would require 3,105. Okay. So you're not that far. And I feel like that. And I want to say it might have been Michael Bunting, but there was one Leafs player that guessed about 24, 2,500. They were the

closest. Okay. So. All right. Anyway, I just thought that was a lot of fun. I figured I'd ask the listener to ask you the question that nobody would know the answer to. But at least, you know, I like, you actually tried to like to workshop this. You're like, okay. Oh, yeah. It was almost like a beautiful mind. I started doing like the math and then, uh, yeah, I quick, you know what? You could, you could actually hear the moment when I realized, oh, I'm not dealing with a square here. If this was the, the, the old style creases, I would have been in better shape. But as soon as it was a semicircle and I realized I had to get pie involved, I was like, I'm out. Oh, man. Uh, I love it. Okay.

You know what? Let's open up that mailbag, though. Like I said, The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com. Maybe people have weird questions like that for us, and I'm sure maybe we could get the answer. You could also leave as a voice. I want to know who this expert was, by the way. Imagine that's your job. Somebody tells you you just need to,

although these scientists, these scientists, they'd figure that out in about 45 seconds, right? Yeah. Just figured out the surface area. I mean, back in the day, they probably did have chicken nuggets in the gold. increase. I mean, that was, you know, just a little something to keep you, keep you a little something to gnaw on during the, during the game. John Garrett was probably eating chicken nuggets.

Yeah, exactly. Back in the day. You can leave us a voicemail as well at 845, 445, 845, 8459. Okay, let's open up the email. We were talking about this earlier. I asked you, like, would it kind of get you a little bit if Matt Sundin was working kind of in some capacity for the senators? You know what? I like this. I like this. I like. this particular question from Greg in Vancouver. Greg says on last week's episode, Sean joked about being a bidder for the Ottawa senators himself. So that raises the following question.

Would Sean rather win the Stanley Cup as owner of the Ottawa Senators or just as a random fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs? Hmm. Boy, that's a tough one. That's a good question. Because of course, win the Stanley Cup as a fan, I'm not winning anything. And now is the implication here, wait, if I own the senators, is the implication that I'm a billionaire or like a beloved movie star or something? Or am I believe, I believe that is the implication.

Unless you John Spanowed this thing and you're like a phone. I mean, now you're, now you're, it's not about the Stanley Cup. It's, you know, how, at what point does Sean sell out the Maple Leafs? And I don't know what the number is, but I feel like if it's a billion, we're probably in good shape. But I know, you know, I've been doing this fan thing for decades. I've got to see it through. Let's stick with the fan perspective. Wow.

You have a chance to win a Stanley Cup and you're like Scrooge McDuck. You've got pools of money you could dive into it. You're like, no, no, no. I would rather just keep on, keep it on. And just for the record, I would be, I'm always talking about the worst thing in sports as a hands-on owner. I would absolutely be hands-on. So I would actually feel responsible. I mean, I've, you've, you've been on the receiving end of my fantasy football trade proposals.

Imagine poor Kyle Dubas getting that, the text for me in the middle of the A, man. What are you thinking? We could, we can work something out, right? That would be, uh, it's tempting. I might, I don't know. I feel like I gave, I gave the ethically correct answer, but now, um, now I'm sort of doubting myself. Adam in Chicago writes in, was that a game with my friend of the weekend? We had a, uh, conversation going, discussing some strange things.

with people's stat lines. He was wondering, what do you guys think is the worst plus minus a player ever had in a game that is team won? We all know that Greg Jolly has the record for the worst ever

plus minus a single game at minus nine, but since obviously those terrible plus minus numbers are found in losses, we tried doing some research, couldn't find the answer. Perhaps this would be a good one

for the Down Goes Brown internship program to take a crack at. So, here we go. And they're also wondering on the flip side, do we know what the best plus minus in a losing game would be? So I don't even think you needed the interns. You were able to get an answer here yourself. No, this is, you don't, you just need hockey reference because the nice thing is you can search for game stats based on, among other things, whether a team won or lost. So I can answer this question.

The record for the worst plus minus in a win is minus five. and it was accomplished by two players, Dave Babbage and Kent Nielsen. Both, you know, two pretty good players. And a little bit weirdly, they did it three weeks apart in 1983. It was Dave Babbage did it November 29th. Kent Nielsen did it December the 19th, both in 1983. And in fact, Kent Nielsen did it against Dave Babich's Winnipeg Jets.

Now, Nilsson was minus five in a game that his team won 70. to six. But I'm going to give the crown here to Dave Babbage because he went minus five in a game that his team won six to five. So his team scored six goals. They gave up five. He was on the ice for all five of those that are all even strength. And he still got the win.

I feel like you need to get a bonus for being not just heaven the minus, but actually being on the ice for all the goals. It's the Brett Leibda thing, right? Every Leaf fan when they heard this question was thinking of Brett Lebeda famously going minus three in a game that the Leifes won nine to three. This is not quite as extreme, but the minus five for Dave Babbage. Now I'm going to check the loss one. I hadn't seen that, but I'm going to call that up the worst plus minus in a game. Sorry, the best plus minus.

The best plus minus, oh my gosh. Best plus minus in the game that your team lost. Sorry. The best plus minus in a loss. It is plus six, and it was done by three defensemen. All right. Okay. Paul Coffey.

Yeah. Boreas Salming. And you want to take a guess at the third one? Who's sitting there with coffee and Boris Salming? Same era? A couple years after. Coffee did it in 85. Salming did it in 89.

This guy did it in 94. Is it like a leech? Well, no, Leach wouldn't have done it. 94. No, it's, I mean, I think all of us, when you hear coffee, salming, the next name that comes to mind is Kevin Holler of the Montreal or Buffalo. Of the Montreal Canadians at the time. Yeah.

They lost, coffee did, coffee and Holler both did it in eight to seven losses. Salming did it in a nine to seven loss. So it's never been done in a game where your team only scored six. There's a bunch of guys who have scored. five, including quite a few who did it in a six to five wins. So that's the case where you're on the ice for everything, including Rob Blake did a Gary Galley and Richie Dunn. I don't even know who Richie Dunn is, but he pulled it off.

So, yeah, Dylan DeMello actually did it just a month ago. He did it on February 28, 2003. Winnipeg lost to the Kings in a shootout. So, you know, 5-5, and then they lose 6-5 in the shootout. And Dylan DeMello was a plus 5 in that game. I don't even remember hearing about that. Wow. What was Murat doing?

There was a huge story brewing, and he just passed it over. Just missed it completely. Yeah. Wow. You know, it's weird. That's the second, for people who listen to the Monday pod, you've probably had enough of Dave Babbage for a week. Because earlier this week, I brought up Dave Babbage with Julian.

So I'm like, okay, we've certainly. reached our Dave Babbage quota. No way. There's no such thing as too much, too much Dave Babbage. Too much Dave Babbage. I'm looking at that box score in that same game that DJ Dave Babbage was a minus five.

The leader for the Jets as a plus four, John Gibson. Not that John Gibson. There was a defenseman named John Gibson who kicked around the NHL for a few games back then. Okay, but you didn't know about this other John Gibson until just now, right? Till just now, no.

Okay. I don't remember another job. I guess it. But no, not that one. You know what? I'm going to read one more email here from the inbox. And I thought you did a really nice job earlier this week with the column on fighting.

And, you know, what have we lost and, you know, kind of try to reconcile a little bit of, you know, our childhood and how much we enjoyed that aspect of the game to what we know and all that. Grant writes in via email. I've really enjoyed the athletic series on fighting recently. I think it's an important thing to have these sorts of thoughtful conversations about the less savory parts of the game. So much of the conversation around fighting and whether it's necessary seems to assume that hockey is special and unique and needs to have a pressure valve as a means to police the rats.

But no other sport allows fighting. Football is full contact. Basketball gets rough. What is it do you guys think that makes hockey so special that we quote unquote, need fighting while the other sports get along, just fine without it. That's from Grant. Yeah, I mean, this is, it's a tough question because I don't, I don't buy the idea that hockey needs fighting. I've, I did at a time maybe, but I've rejected that.

I, my, my argument in the piece that I wrote this week was, you know, more from, from, from just as an entertainment value and, and all of that stuff and have we lost something and is the game as fun as it used to be as a fan. not advocating for fighting to come back, not saying we go back to how it was. But as far as it needing it, I don't buy it. Now, I know from the piece that I worked with Robin Joe on last week, a bunch of the players do think that. They absolutely do believe this. A lot of executives do. A lot of people in the game believe that the game is safer with fighting. I don't buy it. So I'm the wrong person to ask his question to. I think, as you say, every other sport seems to

demonstrate that, you know, you can, you can have big hits and aggression and physicality without needing this sort of policing. Now, I guess if I put myself in their shoes, they would say, hey, hockey is a different, it's faster, the hits can be harder, the danger can be different, there's no out of bounds, there's no, you know, you're out there's nowhere to go. We don't stop the play after every hit. like we do in football, we don't stop every few seconds like we do in basketball. It's continuous out there and the emotions can build up and the possibility if somebody wants to do something dirty, they're moving at high speed, they're holding a stick in their

hand, they got blades on their feet, there's all sorts of dirty things and awful things that could happen on a hockey rink that can't happen in any other sport. And that's what makes us special and distinct. That would probably be the argument, but I'm telling you, I don't buy it anymore. Yeah, no, it's well said. Like I said, I hope people had a chance to read your column earlier this weekend and listen to the podcast you guys did and last weekend because it's, it's, these are good conversations to have, thoughtful conversations to have. And there's a reconciliation that has to go on, right? For people like us that grew up watching the game.

And I know you've talked about this too with just the idea that your, you're kind of Twitter handle and everything, right, is down goes brown. You're like, that's, you know, it's. How do you reconcile the fact that, you know, look, like I say, I don't want to go back. I've seen, we know too much about concussions, injuries, the psychological impact. You know, the names that we've lost, the impact that it's had, you'd have to be a monster to say, I wish fighting was back in the NHL the way it used to be. So given that, can you say, but it was more fun to be a fan back then? the game was more entertaining. The Rockham Sockham Arrow was more interesting,

had an element to it that we don't have today. I don't know. There's an argument to be made that says, no, you shouldn't say that. You're being an idiot. You're being nostalgic for something we know was terrible. And yeah, maybe that's the right answer. We're going to wrap up with a little this week in hockey history.

We want to take our listeners back to one of the wildest final days in the history of the NHL in terms of the regular season. Okay? take our listeners back to the final day of the regular season in 1970. This week in 1970, here's the scenario. The New York Rangers and the Montreal Canadiens are battling for the final playoff spot in the East Division. The scenario is a little bit convoluted because not only do the Rangers need to win their

game, but they also have to score five more goals than Montreal who's playing later that day. Okay? So they have to win, and because the tiebreaker rules are goal. scored, the Rangers like, damn, we got to score five more goals than Montreal as well. So the Rangers empty the chambers against the red wings, and they score nine goals. So they're like, hey, we took care of business. We scored nine goals.

Boy, now the habs are like, not only do we have to win, but we got to score five goals against Chicago that night. So the game starts and it's a close game until the third period. Chicago actually goes up five, two, and the haves are like, oh, no. this season's slipping away, we got to pull the goalie. So, Sean, they pull Rogy Vash on, a young Rogi Vash on,

and instead of scoring a bunch of goals, they end up giving up five empty netters and lose 10 to 2 and miss the playoffs for the only time in about a 50 years span. To me, it's one of the wildest final days of the regular season we've ever seen. Yep, absolutely wild.

And it all comes down to that distinction where you said the tiebreaker was goals scored, not goal differential. Just how many goals he got in the goals for column? And that, if you're wondering like, hey, how come we don't have that anymore? This is why, because at least of the situation where you can be in a, where it doesn't matter how many you give up, it's just how many you get. And if people, a year or two ago, I wrote a piece about like some of the weird trivia

around empty net goals, and a lot of it goes to this game. The record for most empty net goals in a game, five by one team, you never, going to see that. The most empty net goals scored by a team in a game they lost, two by the Detroit, never going to see that again, unlikely. Just a lot of serious weirdness. And the only time, I believe, I mean, you were a Montreal fan, that was the only time Montreal missed the playoffs in what, like a 50 plus year span? Yeah, because they had had had like 20 or 30 year streak before and they didn't miss again until the mid-90s. A very, very wild day that we will. not see the likes of again because we learned a lesson, I think.

Yeah. All right. We'll leave it there. I want to wish all the listeners, hope you have a great holiday weekend. I know for a lot of people that hopefully get the Friday off work at the very least. So thanks everybody for tuning in to this Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. Again, we love hearing your comments. So email us, the Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com of voicemails 8454-484-59.

And right now you get a one-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month for 12 months when you visit the athletic.com slash hockey show.