The Athletic Hockey Show - Would NHL teams and players benefit from shorter-term max contracts?

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

Max and Laz are back together on a Monday to discuss the potential for shorter-term max contracts in the next CBA, brought up during last week’s NHL general managers meeting, how Connor Bedard can��t score right now, how Martin Necas can’t not score right now, and the guys try to answer the age old question: what is goaltender interference? Plus, The Athletic’s NHL insider Chris Johnston weighs-in on the max contract idea, the coaching carousel spinning faster in Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Detroit, and more.Hosts: Max Bultman and Mark LazerusWith: Chris JohnstonExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris Flannery Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the athletic hockey show. Hey, everybody. Max Boltman here alongside Mark Lazarus for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show. Chris Johnson's going to join us very shortly here. But, Laz, I want to start in your neck of the woods here because I think we've gotten accustomed to with these high first overall picks, these special talents. You know, they have their first year. And then it really comes on like an avalanche here. And I wanted to take your temperature on your thoughts on the start to Connor Bedard's season. far. And if there's anything to kind of be worried about is it's gone a little slower than I think

I expected. Yeah, I mean, offensively, yeah, he hasn't scored in nine games now. He's only got three goals all season. I mean, this is not what we expected. This was the year that we were talking, is he going to score 40 goals or is he going to score 50 goals? And obviously, he's at this rate, he's not going to do either of those things. It's hard to say because he is a much better hockey player right now than he was last year. Like, he was minus, like, infinity last year, as any Minnesota wild, Brock Faber fan will tell you. He is basically playing at even strength at an even scoring rate. Like he's been pretty good defensively.

He's become a much more well-rounded player. But the last four or five games, I think it's starting to get in his head a little bit, but not scoring because we're just not seeing that kind of unerring confidence that he has, that that arrogance almost, that he can take any shot from anywhere. He's deferring to the likes of like Ryan Donato and Nick Falino. He's passing up scoring chances. He's not doing that kind of toe drag shot that he does so well. I think it's starting to get, you know, last night or Saturday night in Vancouver,

his first game in his hometown, and he was just invisible most of the night. I think it's starting to get in his head a little bit. It's hard to get mad at him because, like I said, he's playing better hockey. He's just not scoring. The goals are going to come. We've seen the shot. We know what he can do. You know, I feel like the Crosby and McDavid comparisons have done him no favors because

those guys both scored over 100 points and won the Hart Trophy in their second years. I think Jack Hughes might be a better comp. You know, Jack Hughes popped in his third year And in the second year, people were like, oh, Jack Hughes, he's not scoring. What a bust. And now he's one of the best players in the league. I think that's probably a more accurate comp. But it's tough to get too mad at him.

He's 19 years old. He's still the third youngest player in the entire league. But he's got to score. He's the best player on the team and he's not scoring. The Blackhawks has scored one goal in regulation in five straight games. And some of that falls at his feet. Because if Connor Bredar is not scoring, the Blackhawks aren't scoring. Well, the Jack Hughes thing is funny because,

Bedard had more points last season than Jack Hughes had in his first two seasons combined. Combined, yeah. That's why we have these sky high expectations for this player. It seemed so there. I did a quick look at it in his stats last. The shooting percentage says he should have about twice as many goals as he does. Oh, yeah. He's beating like 5%.

That's why the goals are going to come. It's really these last four or five games where it's been, all right, now he doesn't look like Connor Bredar because the shooting percentage was low and we're like, God, they'll come. He's creating all these. I think he's still second in the league in five-on-five individual scoring chances. Like that's how many chances he was creating earlier

and the puck wasn't going in. But now those chances aren't really coming so much. And that's where you start to get a little bit concerned that this could snowball into something worse. But I mean, Conradar is going to be fine. He's not the issue. I have to say, too, I really believe in the first point that you made, which is, you know, we want to measure guys on points.

It's the most instinctive thing to do when you're watching hockey, when you're following hockey, you look at the points first. And there is a correlation. Obviously, it's the hardest thing to do is put points on the board. But I do think there's something to be said for. If your game is improving, it is better, I think, to work up from a foundation that is this complete game, then get used to scoring 100 points or something and then have to cut into that because

you're kind of cheating the game. You're flying the zone a little bit early. You're leaning, whatever you want to say. I think the Blackhawks would probably be thrilled to know that he's just a better player and maybe he scores five less points. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he scores 10 more points than last year. It's just not the supernova you expect in year two.

And I don't want to make it seem like he's Patrice Bergeron all of a sudden. That's right. No, I get it. But if it's a foundation. There is a significant, noticeable, obvious progression in his all-around game this year. That is, it's just mark a difference from last year. And that is important because, you know, any player would tell you, defense begets offense. That's how you get the puck into the offensive zone is by playing good defense.

And then you get rolling from there. he's going to be fine. Again, third youngest player in the league. This is like the first slump of his life. Like, you think Connor Bardard's ever gone nine games without a goal in his entire life? So he's going to have to learn to handle things like this. This happens. The best players in the world have slumps. They have scoring droughts. He's going to have to learn to handle it because he's so driven and so obsessed and expect so much of himself that I think that's why he's getting in his own head because he's like, well, if I'm not scoring, what am I? I'm Connor Bedard. I need to score. So he's going to have to work his way through this and he'll come out a better player on the other. their end. He's not, you know, I get a lot of comments from people now that're like, oh, I guess he's not generational. He's just going to be pretty good. It's like, all right, up the brakes a little

bit. Again, third youngest player in the league, just turned 19 years old. Let's cut him a little bit of slack here. Well, that's kind of what I mean, though, is it's not even about being a great defender. It's about not resorting to the kinds of cheap offense that you can find, right? If Connor Bedard got really desperate right now and decided he wanted to start really leaning, really start flying the zone early and hunting points, he could do that, right? Like, I don't think his coaches would be very happy with the movie did it, but he could do it. And the fact that, you know, you've watched him more than me, more than me, maybe that is starting to become a risk. I don't know. But I think they'll be happier with him if he doesn't resort to that and if he just lets the

honest offense come as it should. And the Blackhawks aren't really doing the many favors here. Luke Richardson has changed his linemates almost every single game. Like he is, Richardson's kind of flailing a little bit. This is his third year behind the bench. It's the first year there were any real expectations. You know, Kyle Davins went out and all these veterans, Tyler Bertuzi and Tavo Terra Vinen and T.J. Brody and Alec Martinez and Craig Smith and Pat Maroon. And we were supposed to see a better team. And they are better. They've been more competitive. They're in the game in the third period, almost every game. But they're losing just as much as they lost last year. They still have twice as many losses as they have wins. And I think Richardson's kind of flailing a bit.

He just scrash, he's benching Taylor Hall for the week for some reason. That makes no sense to me at all. He said he needs more practice time. He's Taylor Hall. And that doesn't make any sense to me at all. So I feel like, you know, if they just gave Connor a couple of linemates and said, go play for a month, I think you'd see him come out of this a lot faster. Well, that's a really good segue into, I think, what's going to be one of our main topics on today's show, which is we're getting to the point where it's getting loud around quite a few coaches in the NHL. And you know my feelings on this. I think we go to this option way too soon in hockey.

Probably in every sport right now. Honestly, it's just the quickest thing to do. But Richardson is one of the guys who I think people are going to start to live. look at, even though I don't think it was fair to expect really much more than this from Chicago, but this is the way it goes right now. Well, this is his third season. And if you look at it, he has one of the worst records, like, in the history of coaching. Now, again, the last two years were tank seasons.

It's hard to put that at his feet when, you know, he didn't get to cook. He didn't get to pick the groceries. He was just doing the cooking. But this year, it's supposed to be. This is the first time that there's real expectations on him. And I think he's starting to feel it a little bit. You know, the first two years were just about vines. He just had to keep the mood upbeat and keep guys trying hard in an obvious losing situation.

And he did a really good job of that. This year there's some expectations. And I think the way he's kind of flailing with the lines a little bit, it feels like he might be feeling that pressure to perform. And it might be kind of undercutting his own ability to do that by just tinkering so much. All right. Well, that feels like a perfect opportunity here to bring in our NHL insider, Chris Johnston. and C.J., we're just talking right before you popped in about Luke Richardson, and this is kind of the start to the time of year where I think it gets loud around a lot of coaches in the NHL here.

I wonder if you're hearing anything, I know that the bloodlust can get kind of to a boiling point pretty early here. If anything, we're late, I mean, if we're being honest, seriously, to get to mid-November and no coaches have been fired as of the time we're recording this, it actually is late. And Max, I appreciate your idea that we go a little too far, maybe like this is where we veer naturally, but we're just, we're actually following what happens.

I mean, when you look at the number of coaches that are actually changed, I mean, you know, in our jobs, obviously we're watching things. We're looking to figure out what's going on.

We're observing. We're getting information. But we're also just following the lead of the people who make the decisions. And as I, like I think at least the last 10 years, but maybe longer, this has been a real trend in the NHL. I mean, I think two to two and a half years,

if your name isn't John Cooper, if you don't go to four cup finals in a pretty short amount of time, you're not going to last, you know, there's no Scotty Bowman's in this age. It's John Cooper and then almost nobody else. And so, um,

yes, I mean, it's, it's maybe a bit of a trope. It's, it's a easy way for us to go like, oh, wow, that team's lost a lot of games.

What happens next? But the truth is, what happens next is dictated by the people making those decisions. And coaches get fired with like, alarming frequency hasn't happened yet this year, but whatever your next question is is going to be fair because, you know, there's obviously a few places where I think it could happen. The only reason that nobody's been fired yet is because everyone's been hired in the last year and a half. Right. And everyone's being like the people, like people are being paid.

Like there's a whole thing that we don't need to necessarily bore everyone with for the purposes of the pod. But if you hire someone and you're paying someone not to work for you, like some of it is just math. But I think the instincts in a few places are the inclinations are to fire. And, you know, I am sympathetic in the sense that when you're trying to change something, you know, first of all, it's worked in a few cases and it's the easiest thing to do. And all those things, like, it's true. I don't think for a second anyone, like we're beyond, I guess we're like,

it's like postmodernism for NHL coaches. I don't think anyone believes that coaches are the one reason a team is failing. But it is the one thing perhaps you can do. most easily to try to shake things up in the short term. So, you know, I do believe, it's almost like we're on the other side of the Matrix looking back. And like, no one believes, like, you know, the Boston Bruins aren't winning enough.

It's just only Jim Montgomery. Like that's the only reason. But it is clearly the easiest thing probably that that organization can do if they decide to get there. They haven't decided to get there. I'm not trying to fire Jim in this moment. But I get where the conversation comes from because, you know, he's on an expiring contract.

and the Bruins are a team I look at that are underperforming to this point in the season. And I mean, at a certain point, you're like, whoa, does A plus B equal C in this case? It's funny because you mentioned Cooper. And there is one other guy like that in the league right now. And he's one of the guys that I think this is going to heat up around. It's Mike Sullivan, right? And I was in Pittsburgh this week. And none of the writers there.

Everyone I asked didn't seem to think like that was like a pressing thing. And that obviously speaks to the credibility that Sullivan has built up in Pittsburgh, the legacy there. And that's probably not a team that I would say is his fault either. But he is, there's these different flavors of the fire of the coach conversations. And his is definitely in the flavor of as it just, it's run its course. The message has run its course there. And that's kind of the, he's one of the most interesting ones for me for that reason. He's accomplished so much, but it seems like it's hit a wall. Well, he's also one of the most unique. I mean, his last contract extension was done directly with ownership. It was before Kyle Dubas had taken over as

the president and GM of the team. They gave him. him a lot of money. I don't know the exact dollars, but he's among the best paid in the league. He's got a couple more years left on his deal. He's got legitimate leverage, whereas actually the truth is, most coaches don't have a ton of leverage just because, again, they're hired and fired before they get a chance to even gain those types of things. But, you know, the same way that the Crosby's and Melkins and Latang's are afforded a certain amount of whatever we call it in this, whatever the season is in Pittsburgh, it's kind of a strange time, right? Because it's about doing right by those players.

I mean, he was there for the 16 and 17 Stanley Cup wins, and he has lots of money owed, and the ownership likes him. He's a Boston guy. Fenway Sports Group bought the Penguins. I don't know how that all plays out. I mean, the truth is, I don't believe he is on the hot seat. I think the entire organization of the Penguins,

something has to give. This is a very strange time. I think because they have those franchise cornerstone players that I'm talking about, and they're not maybe sure how to say, say goodbye to them or how those breakups are going to look just yet, assuming they're going to happen at all. And then you have this coach with the money and the ties to ownership. I mean, the whole thing is, it's just a little bit more murky than I'd say most situations

are. And so, Max, you're 100% right. Normally a team in that situation, they, their pitchforks would be out. You'd be like, well, the coach, like, he's just been here too long. The message has gone south. But, you know, I don't actually think Mike Sullivan's in any trouble, but I do think the Penguins organization big picture. I mean, they've got a big project here ahead of themselves. They're just starting what the Red Wings have done or the Blackhawks or the Sabres. I mean, go around the league. They're just at the beginning stages of the rebuild.

And as we know, if we want to get into any of those teams, doesn't always turn around as quickly as people would like. But, I mean, are they in the beginning stages of a rebuild? I mean, what are the Pittsburgh Penguins right now? Are they going to be trying? Is Dubas going to be trying to, like, tinker enough to get this team in as an eight seed and then losing the first round because they owe it to Sydney Cross. be to go for it. At what point do they owe it to their fans

to not just be pointless? Like what do they go? How do you fix this in Pittsburgh right now? It's the question, Mark. I mean, the way I look at it is they don't want to say out loud what a lot of teams do say out loud. I think

internally they understand the rebuild is sort of starting. I mean, even, it's just a very small trade. They trade Lars Zeller to Washington the start of the week. You know, it's I'm not saying that signals anything. They trade a Jay Gensel last year, right? They didn't even try to, for all intents and purposes, they didn't try to extend Jake Gensel or keep them around. I mean, I think it's a rebuild without anybody

saying it out loud. I think the players are smart enough the veteran guys to get the sense. Like, oh, yeah, like, they're keeping us here because it's sort of a respect thing. I mean, plus they all have no movement clauses, but I think they really want to do as well by those players as they can, but I think it is the start of a rebuild. It's just no one's come out and set it. And by the time we get to March 7th was the trade deadline. this year. I think it's going to be more and more apparent. And then the question will be common. This will be an off-season question, but how does it go to do Latang and Malkin and Crosby finished their careers in Pittsburgh? Are they in for being part of this? You know, I don't

see that as being an in-season question for Pittsburgh, but I think the moves that you're going to continue to see, you know, up to March 7th and then into the summer are going to lead us all to conclude. Yeah, like that obviously the music stopped here. And it's just about how did what do those players want to do? Where are they at? And then, Mike Sullivan will be wrapped into it, but it's not, again, it's not a typical coach GM relationship or, you know, this isn't a fire Mike Sullivan to get a turnaround. I just, I don't think they're good enough. It's similar to what the Blackhawks did, obviously, with Kane and Taves and Keith. You traded Keith because he wanted to be closer to home. And then Kane and Taves, they basically didn't even invite them back. They said they basically made it clear. They didn't offer any contracts. But those guys were at the end of their deals. Like, it was doable to, like, we could all see the writing on the wall. They just extended some of these guys. It's just a wild position. for them to be in as a franchise where they're just, they completely painted themselves in their corner here.

And it could be, it could literally be years before they're able to get themselves out of it. I mean, I don't like predictions because it's a really good opportunity for me to look wrong. I believe the next time the Pittsburgh 10 wins play a playoff game, it's unlikely any of Melkin or Latang or Crosby are in the league anywhere. Like I think that they're at that point. They've already tipped in the wrong direction.

They've missed it two straight years. They're at the bottom of the league standings. we're talking today. And I just think by the time they can get it back to a place for their competitive team, which will happen in time. Those players are probably well under retirement. They're working in front offices. Maybe they're working in the Penguins front office.

I don't know how that's all going to look. But I mean, the truth is, is often players are the last to know, right? The players themselves are not the ones who want to make that call. And so, yeah, I think they've been in like the high school dance phase for like the last two years. Like everything is kind of awkward. no one's really saying out loud what they should be saying out loud.

And, you know, again, I don't have a, I have that prediction in terms of I don't think they're going to get it back competitive. Although those are still active NHL players, but I don't know how this breaks up if those guys just want to retire his lifelong penguins. I mean,

there's lots of ways this can go. But at the same time, you know, Patrick Keynes in Detroit, I remember, I'm old enough to remember Joe Montana as a Kansas City chief. Yeah, lots of players move on in their times, you know, legacy players for one franchise. can play games for other teams.

And, you know, we're a light, slightly ahead of that point. I don't think those, again, I don't see Sidney Crosby even talking, thinking about this until the summer. But yeah, they're in that weird stage. Like, I just, they're not one move away, one coach firing away. They're, they're two years away from being two years away from maybe being two years away. When you say, when you say that, like, you're sure they'll be back at some point. I could hear Max's Red Wings readers going.

You sure about that, buddy? Yeah. Yeah. It's a hard league. When you go to the bottom, like, that's, that's the trouble. I mean, that hangs over everything, I feel like, nowadays. And that's the next one I wanted to go to because it is getting a little spicy here in Detroit. They lost a couple of games to start this West Coast swing.

They got San Jose tomorrow night. I know where the fans heads at. I look at the situation and I say I don't see a roster that really should have been a playoff team anyway, but it's still gone worse than I certainly expected. I don't know what you think about the situation in Detroit right now. Well, I agree. You know, Montreal feels the same way. Montreal is behind Detroit in terms of where it's been at,

but the Canadians started this year thinking, okay, we're not maybe a playoff team. I think Detroit was hoping to be a playoff team, but they're both behind where they wanted to be. Buffalo's kind of like swimming in the abyss. I don't have good answers. Like I don't, I guess it's like these things where you're staring at the same problem every year

and you're like, why don't these teams just move forward? But it's so hard to let it go. And it's funny because I do remember, I'm old enough to be around for the end of Ken Hunter, Holland's time in Detroit when they were sort of making the playoffs and losing around one more or less every year. And he was saying, you don't want to let go of that winning culture because once you do, it's hard to get back. And for all that people might want to, you know, chastise Ken Holland about, he was definitely right about that point, is that, you know, even if you get great young players,

which I don't think anyone would dispute the Red Wings have, even Sabers, even Sabres, a lot of teams in the same spot. I mean, Connor Bedard, I heard Mark's talk earlier. Like, I, like, yes, you love, you want to have these guys, but it's just hard to have. a great team around them. And so, you know, I don't know where to try goes because it's certainly there at the point where, I mean, there's no patience. I mean, the expectations were low for a while now. It's like there has to be delivery. I mean, it's hard not to, if we're talking about the coaching question. And Derek Colon, that has to be, if not Jim Montgomery, those would be one, two in some order of coaches on the hottest seat in my view in this

moment. And, you know, again, not because I think it's definitely a coaching problem, but it's almost like you've got to do something and, you know, the savers have been in that, I mean, they've been in the, like to turn it over so many times. GMs, coaches, you know, obviously they had Jack Eichael for a time. They couldn't get done with him. Then he goes in Vegas. He's one of the top players in the league.

So anyway, it's just a long way of saying that the rebuilds can be difficult. And I can understand where the patience is running thin with the Red Wings. And, you know, it might be a coach that has to be changed there. But, you know, the truth is they've got to keep built out to rock. And in a league, too, I mean, well, I'll say this for those teams. We've come to this time where the cap didn't move. It has moved now these last two years. But, you know, maybe that was the factors.

We just didn't season up player movement for teams in general to shake things up. And that could work in your favor if you're at the top of the league and maybe worked against the teams that were at the bottom trying to build themselves up. At least that's going to change. I think in the new CBA that's to come here. But, man, it's a tough spot to be in. That's what I kind of want to ask is, do we have enough evidence now about how incredibly impossible it is to just tear it down to the studs and build it back up with Chicago and with Detroit and with Buffalo for the last 150 years and how long it took Edmonton? Unless you get McDavid, unless you get Crosby, you're guaranteed nothing.

Do we maybe, with the cap going up, do we start seeing it more like other sports where teams spend their way out of the cellar instead of just completely relying on high draftics? Does that ever happen in the NHL? No, it used to be. Neil Smith would just buy a team with the Rangers and like, hey, we won the cup. For sure, it's been that way historically. Like, you're right, if you go back 30 years, that was a way that happened. I think there's hope after this next CBA. I mean, this is a bit of guessing on our part to have this conversation.

But, you know, the current CBA expires in 2026. Some of the things that are being talked about, I think are going to promote player movement, are going to promote in a world where there's maybe more trades and just even maybe a more robust free agency period where you're not just on your third line left winger, but maybe your first line left winger and in more than one city each year, it's not the, there's only one of that player available. You know, I do think that will happen. It should happen because it's, it's almost a little too static. And I would say we're right right now. Look at all available evidence. You shouldn't tear down to the studs. Right. Because even Edmonton, they had three number one

overall picks before they got McDavid and they were totally lost until they got McDavid. And I mean, give credit, Dry Settle, I think was a number three overall pick that, you know, blossom at the same time. And obviously they're not the only two players in the team. But like they had Yakupov and Taylor Hall. All this thing was happening and they still weren't getting any better. And they were getting more frustrated there for their fans. I think that that's to come mark two in Chicago. Like it's a tough spot.

I mean, it was great they won Baderd, the lottery that got Baderd when they did. But I'm not sure if they were fully ready to have the right team around them, which, you know, showed last year. It kind of course correct in the summer that hasn't worked in the short term anyway now. I mean, it's even when you get the superstar, you might need more than that in hockey. So let's hope I like I personally think it would be better for everybody. There's more trades. If it's more robust for agency, if teams that are bad can do more in a short term to get better. And maybe the other way around if teams that are like in the penguin situation look at it and go like,

do you know what, we can make a few moves now and get quickly back to where we want to be. Right now it just feels like everything takes. It takes too long to build up and too long to break down. And there's a lot of risks in the middle of those two decisions. Let's take a quick break right there. We're going to keep CJ for the start of this next segment. And we're going to hit something that he just touched on at the end of that topic. All right, we are back.

And CJ, in the last segment, you talked about the 2026 CBA and the possibility that some of the wrinkles in there could lead to more player movement. And the first thing that jumped into my head was something that I know Pierre LeBrunn mentioned in his rubblings column last week out of the GM meetings. and that's the idea of shortening the max term contract length in the NHL. And that really jumped out to me because if anyone was going to propose that, I kind of wondered if it might have been the players after we saw Austin Matthews kind of make that move in his own negotiation. Right.

But I mean, Matthews is almost the outlier in terms of players with maximum leverage at his age that chooses to take a, you took a five-year deal in a second contract, a four-year deal on his third. I mean, he's sort of chosen to go that path, not because the team wanted to go there, Whereas, you know, you see even dry-sidal last summer, didn't eight-year extension. Now, I get why he's at his age. That bought him a lot of money,

made him the highest-played player in the league and takes him right till the end of his 30s. I'm not second-guessing his choice. But, you know, generally speaking, I think when players have had the leverage, they've largely gone to that eight-year deal. But I'm with you in the sense that I don't think this will be bad for players broadly.

I mean, look, there's going to be some individuals. I mean, when you have these eight-year deals, you end up having, you know, a player like Shea Weber, just went in the Hall of Fame, last week, still getting paid by Utah on the way into the Hall of Fame. I don't mean to make light of that because Shea's injuries in his career, you know, prevented him for playing at those final years.

But that's kind of what those deals were designed for, the idea that obviously most players can't play until their early 40s or late 30s because of health. But, you know, having shorter deals is going to change the marketplace. You might even then have marketable free agents. If five years the max, who might say, I'll do a two-year deal here. And you start to see a little bit more of like what we have in the marketplace. the NBA now. You know, the other thing that makes me sort of predict this is the league and the players

definitely are entering the CBA. It's a totally different world than the one I've grown up in as a reporter. And that like 12, 13, when they did the lockout, obviously they miss half a season, you know, finally get that deal done. It was a little different because of pandemic when they did the extension. But it's always been sort of a caustic environment. I think right now everybody looks around and goes like, okay, not a perfect system, but everything is, you know, everyone is kind of winning in their own way. And so my expectation

for this CBA negotiation is it won't even be a full CBA. That's just going to be a tweet to some of the existing rules. And it could be, you know, if the GMs get their way in the league, that it's five-year term limits. Maybe players carve out something like a franchise tag or, you know, again, I don't know how this is exactly going to work. But there's some talk that there's maybe ways to at least reward the top players in the league a little bit more, maybe slightly outside the cap, Again, I don't know how this is going to work, but I do think because there's not a war brewing here, I think it's more about how can we work creatively together. And I think there's even an understanding that, look, you have an 82 game season.

It might go to an 84 game season in the CBA. Not every game matters, but player movement matters. Discussions around this stuff helps drive interest in the sport. We've seen that across all the North American sports, I believe. And I think the NHL is going to benefit from more of it. And quite honestly, for what we're talking about just before the break there, I think there's a lot of teams that have been through the grind of trying to rebuild and how difficult it can be. And so just even understanding a little more movement in the system, a little bit more flexibility is probably going to give you at least a chance to, you know, you don't have to draft five times in the top 10 before your team can be competitive.

Maybe there's a way back that's a little quicker than that. And that's what I think intrigues me about that this term shortening thing is you talk about it's kind of a friendlier, we'll call it, negotiation this time around tweaks, right? This is our top. I should say to start because, I mean, lots of negotiations start friendly and turn ugly, but we're not even there yet. But I think, you know, you used the point of dry settle earlier. He takes eight-year deal, but he's a guy who spent the last five or six years being one of the best bargains. I'm sure he would have loved a hit free agency after four years on that eight and a half million dollar Aavie that he's been on. Same with like a Nathan McKinnon, you know, who I'm sure probably got sick of being told he was the best value in the NHL for a while. Exactly. And, you know, that's the thing. And I don't blame him when he took the eight years times eight and nine. half. I mean, that was, that felt like a reach in the day he signed it. It was, it was a projection

contract, right? It was a contract where he wasn't worth the day he signed it, but the oilers were confident he would be worth more than that during their term. And you know what? Peter Schrelli didn't make a lot of good bets in Edmonton, but that was one of the ones he made. So, um, you know, some, some of those contracts go the other way. But I, I'm with you. I think it's, I mean, the, the nature of hockey is the hard part is, is players that are otherwise healthy, do routinely just have their career completely interrupted by something you can. can't predict other than to say it's obviously a physical, aggressive game. And so it probably does benefit them to get the guaranteed money, the guaranteed years.

But, you know, the stars for sure. I mean, why, even if you're dry-settled coming off game seven of the cup final with Edmonton, I mean, there's uncertainty. What's going to happen with Connor McDavid? The team was, you know, a little bit older than some of the teams. You know, maybe it would have been made more sense for him in a different world to sign a three-year deal just to leave his options open because, you know, at age 31 or 32, whatever you'd be at the end of that three years, there could still be some wiggle room to

move on. And so, you know, he's, he's making decisions. It's almost like a product of the system it's been, in my opinion. I think when they went to those term limits of eight years for your own player, seven years for another player in 2012, 13 lockout, that became a magnet. Basically, all the top players that had the leverage signed eight and seven year deals in that system. You know, if it gets reduced to five, and that's still a huge effort, I mean, we're, we're sort of, just because the league wants, it doesn't mean the players will embrace it. But I do think that there could be some benefits in there for everyone involved. And I mean, heck, take it down to three year max length contracts. I mean, we even more chaos and under that system.

Let's get crazy. Well, because if you had three year max length contracts, the best players might only sign two year deals in free agency just to keep renewing themselves. And I know, obviously, you know, guys like LeBron James have done that in the NBA. And, you know, it's worked to his favor. He's been paid at the top of the league, basically. Most of the years he's been in there. And he's danced around teams and won championships all over the place. Awesome stuff from our NHL insider Chris Johnson. CJ, thanks so much for coming on as always. Cheers, boys.

It is a fascinating topic, lads. Because when I read it, I was like, are GM sick of having Jack Hughes on an $8 million bargain deal? I mean, most of the value in these things is coming years like five to eight. Well, yeah, I remember Nathan McKinnon was making like $6.4 million for forever. And he was already one of the best players in the league. I mean, these contracts are way better for the teams than they are for the players. I did a story on this about a year and a half ago, like during the summer of 2020, right before free agency. I talked to McDavid, McCar, Autumn Fox, all these guys that had just signed these mega contracts.

And to a man, I said, why don't you guys do what the NBA does? Why don't you maximize your value? Why don't you sign two or three year deals at a time? And the cap keeps going up and you make more money every time. Why don't you bet on yourselves? And they all said, hockey's a rough sport. You want to have stability. We don't like to move around.

But more than everything, they talked about the risk of injury. And here's what's interesting about that. I talked to one of the capologists from a team, and he basically told me that the players are just completely dead wrong about this. Because hockey injuries, more than almost any other sport, are broken bones. They're things that you recover 100% from. Like if you're a baseball pitcher and you blow out your elbow,

you might never pitch again. If you're a hockey player and you break your leg, you're going to play next year. And there's obviously exceptions. There's guys with blood clots or, concussions and things like that. But the majority of hockey injuries are straightforward injuries which you recover from, even if you blow out your knee.

You can come back from that now. It happens all the time. And so the capologist I was talking is like, these players are, they're so afraid of getting hurt. They don't realize that these contracts, you know, they'll still get signed. If you're a top tier guy and you blow out your knee, you're still going to get signed by somebody that following year because people know you'll come back at very near full strength. And by mid-season, you'll probably be at full strength. I think the players underestimate their value.

They underestimate the power that they can have. I feel like the NHL is always, like, you look at the NBA, and that is a player-run league. The players have all the power in that league. And it's made the players incredibly wealthy. And that doesn't mean that hockey's going to go to that same extreme, because it's just not as popular as sport. But a lot of the reason the NBA is this popular now is because of all the off-season drama, because of the player move, because you know that your team can go from a terrible team to a playoff contender within one offseason. That does not happen in hockey. It can, but it's incumbent on the players to start taking shorter deals.

I was excited when I saw Matthews do that, but I want him taking a two-year deal. I don't want him taking five-year deals. I want him taking two-year deals. Yeah, now obviously, the other thing about the NBA is I think one player impacts your team way more, right? like they're playing a way bigger share and that's there is that but i do agree that that part of the reason is you know the the woge bomb is is an ever looming threat right that you know oh there's there's way more guys who are pending free agents when they're shorter contracts there's more reasons to try to trade and get ahead of it and then obviously the free agent um splashes i i guess the one drawback if i'm thinking about this right like the reason that the numbers are what they are on these long term deals now is because they're locking in lawn right like a a

player, I'm thinking Mort's Sider signed for like $8.5 million on a seven year deal this summer. If he signed for three, that number is more like six, six and a half, maybe seven. Yeah, but then the next one's like 11. I agree. And that's what happened with Dahlene. And that's what the incentive is for the team right now. And as long as the cap keeps going up, that's all good. But there will be some tradeoff a little bit on the players. But I feel like the flat cap of these last four or five seasons because of COVID has almost warped our sense of what future contracts can be. The top guys have made, you know, every defenseman gets $9.5 million now, it feels like. And every forward gets like 11, 11.5.

And, you know, I feel like the flat cap has made us forget that normally it's going to go way up. It's going to be cap percentage. And the cap's $92 million next year, $93 million. And then $98 million a year after that, $103 million year after that, $9 million is going to be middle class in the hockey world. And these guys are, they're not seeing that big picture. Yeah, I mean, if you figure that the cap goes up, let's say, five million years, that's a little ambitious. It may be a little less than that, maybe four, right? But on an eight-year deal, you're going to add $20 million to the cap in four or five years.

And that's massive, right? That's almost 25%, 22%, from wherever we're at right now. Yeah. So, I mean, that's, you got to these players need to think more about cap percentage as opposed to the number itself. I feel like these guys have like a number in mind instead of a percentage in mind. And it's, you know, the agents got to get in their heads. I'm sure the agents would love for these guys to take shorter term deals and embed on themselves more. It's just, it's, there's something about hockey players.

It's not in their nature. They want security. They want long term. They don't want to think about this again in two years. They want the longest term contract possible because they don't like dealing with this contract stuff. Whereas instead of looking at a contract negotiator as an opportunity, they're looking at it as a burden. It's like, oh, God, I got to deal with this. distracting me from my morning skate.

You know, people are asking me about it. Oh, no. Like, it's an opportunity. When you are a fabulous world-class athlete, a contract year is a great thing because you're about to get paid. And I feel like these guys aren't betting on themselves. I don't think it's some like, oh, I want to be, you know, it's a team first thing.

I don't think it's that. I think it's these guys just like, you know what? If I've signed this one contract, I never have to worry about anything again forever here. I think it's that simple. I don't think it's like this, you know, we before me kind of hockey mentality. I think it's just guys are not that aggressive.

And hopefully guys like Matthews can change that. I mean, hey, I don't begrudge anyone taking $64 million. No, no. If that's what you want, take your bag. But like, you can do better. Yeah. No, for sure. Every other sport has shown us that.

It'll be very interesting to follow this one. This one really caught my eye in a big way. I'm glad CJ was able to kind of shed a little light on it. And we'll probably take a quick break right there. but this is one of the most interesting things I'll be following during the CPA negotiations. All right, we're back. We're going to spend most of this segment talking about goalie interference last, everyone's favorite topic.

But there was one other guy. We talked about Connor Bedard on the top, having a little bit of a quieter start than I expected. There is a guy on the opposite end of that spectrum here that I did want to get your thoughts on. And that's Martin Natchez. As we're recording this on Sunday night, he was in on all four Carolina goals and a four-win-win-over-over-the-blue. That's going to bring him to 30 points. in the first 17 games of this season. And honestly, I'm floored by this early season performance from him

because there was a lot of talk about him at the start of last off season. Is he a guy who's going to move and what's his value? And I poo-poohed this harder than I've ever poo-poohed something. I was like, he has scored more than 53 points once in his career. Why are we talking about this guy is some premium premium score? And I am just eating the most crow imaginable with his start. Yeah, he's not even on a line with Aho and Svechnikov. Like, he's driving his own line, basically, with this.

It's kind of incredible. He's a legitimate heart trophy candidate right now. This is a guy who's like, what's it? His dad was complaining about his usage on the power player or something last year, and it was like a given that he was not going to be a hurricane after last season. And then he signs a two-year deal at like a modest, I think he's making like $5.5, 6 million dollars. He's a legitimate heart candidate right now. He's almost at two points a game.

He's had two four-point games this year. the hurricanes as a whole we were like up they're going to finally take a step back and you know the Tulski machine just keeps rolling they're in first place they're 13 and 4 it's just it's incredible how they just kind of plug and play down there and Marty Nageus man nobody saw this coming this was a

disgruntled middle tier winger and now he is a legitimate arcand it's crazy if I if I wanted to be a scrooge and double down on my my offseason take I would say he's got the worst expected goal share on the hurricanes and most that's coming with like some defensive underlying numbers that I truly didn't even think were possible in the Carolina hurricane system. And yet I don't even think they care because what they've needed for so long is a guy who breaks that mold.

They know that they're going to drive play. They know they're going to have the puck like 60% of the time in your zone all night. They needed a guy who could just say screw it and score. This is why they went out and got Jake Gensel last year and it didn't really work. He just kind of like melded into the I'm another Carolina hurricane guy. He didn't take over games. Marty Nachis has taken over games right now. Yes, it is really impressive.

I'm happy for him. He's a guy, by the way, signed a short-term deal this summer. Probably going to be really, really happy about it. He's going to be a $9 million guy in a couple of years at this rate, or maybe even more. It's impressive. All right, so there's my Mayaculp on Marty Natchez early in the season. But I know you want to talk about goalie interference this time of year. And I think we're going to disagree pretty strongly on this one.

Does anybody ever want to talk about goalie interference? You did. You brought it up. Let's hear it. It's probably, you know, Patrick Wall was losing his mind, you know, in a game in Seattle the other night where he thought his guy got bumped and, you know, it got, we, you know, we do our player poll every year. And, you know, you and I, we go around just like everybody else on staff and we ask players all these questions. And without giving too much away, one of the things we asked was, what's a rule you would change? And I spent a few days ago, I spent time going through 13,000 words of player comments for this entire project that we do.

And let's just say the words goalie interference came up a lot. And what the players want is almost universal from the players I mentioned is they want black and white. They want it to be clear cut. And I guess my question to you is, is there a way to do that short of going back to the no foot in the crease rule? How do you make goalie interference less nebulous, less indefinable? How do you make it so that we see it and we go, we know what that is? How do you do that? Well, I am in lockstep with Sean McIndoo on this issue,

down goes brown on our website The Athletic, which is that, A, I think that's the worst option is going back to skate and crease. And B, I don't even think it's that hard to discern right now anymore. Like, there is some calls that I'm like, eh, that surprises me. But there is a little bit of a pattern that is formed that I think generally, they're getting it pretty right here on whether the goalie had the chance to make the save

and was impeded. in doing so. Well, what's your definition then? Like, what, what, I know that, I know that, uh, McEnose thing about like, if you touch the goalie in the blue paint, it's interference. If you touch them outside the blue paint, it's not. That's generally is rule, right? Yeah.

And I, I think that's right. Like, I, I have yet to see a great example where that fails, like, off the top of my head, at least, right? Like, I don't know if there, you know, maybe that is the black and white, right? Like, maybe that is as, as black and white as you can get. Maybe they need to define it. Like, they need to actually, like, Mark, Mark, write it into the rulebook that way, that if the contact occurs outside the blue paint,

it's fair a game. Because right now, the players don't seem to know. When you talk to a player about goalie interference, they talk about it like it's like, you know, the NFL with a catch, we don't know what it is. And the coaches don't seem to know what it is. And we're seeing a lot of challenges that, you know, off-sides challenges, when there's an off-side challenge, it's almost always successful. These guys, these video teams are so good. They know exactly what is off-side know what isn't. There's a couple of those weird kind of carryover examples, and sometimes when you're trailing late in the game, they just throw it against

the wall to see if they get lucky. But more often than not, these guys know exactly what offside is. These coaching staffs don't seem to know what goalie interferences. Maybe you and I and McInto know. Nobody in the league seems to know because they're challenging plays that shouldn't be challenged, or they're challenging plays

that they know are correct and they're getting overturned or vice versa. The players don't know, the coaches don't know, the video teams don't know. So At the very least, the NHL has to kind of, you know, what was the Marotte had a story about how, like, Connor Hellebuck, didn't you have, like, a whole, like, goalie interference, like, PowerPoint presentation to show the Jets?

They still don't know what it is. So something needs to be defined more clearly. It needs to be delineated better because, trust me, I went through these comments and the players don't know what the hell goalie interference is. Well, I will say, you brought up the catch thing. After about 10 years of everyone saying that, I think we kind of got to a consensus on what a catch was, right?

Right? Nobody's confused about... How many years into this goalie interference are we that we have to wait for? Probably enough. I will grant that. I did think it was interesting. Magny did a story on this, on the overall history. This highly recommend that article of people that came out this week.

And his proposed solution is one step further than I would go. He wants to just scrap replay for goalie interference and say, get it right on the ice. If it's not obvious on the ice, then whatever. I don't think I like that. I don't think I like you. It's a step farther than I would go. There's a lot of times there's a subtle little stick in the skate or something like that.

that you're not going to pick up when there's five bodies in the crease. I don't know. I'm not in favor of more and more reviews, but I think that is something that is. I'd much rather see the goal of interference reviews than the offside reviews when someone scores 45 seconds later and your toenail is offside. Yeah, the offside ones are the ones that actually drive me the craziest.

But I have to say, I know we as a society hate. I know it when I see it as a, you know, a method. It is kind of where we're at with it. And I don't think we're getting it egregiously wrong, particularly often at all in the NHL. So that's probably a super unsatisfactory answer. We'll tell that to Paddy Wah right now. I don't think we have a goalie interference crisis.

Doesn't mean there's never a blown call on it. But blown calls happen even when we define it black and white and we go to replay. That's the most frustrating thing about it. And sit replays it hasn't cured us from the controversy. I'm not trying to move on from the conversation. I'm not trying to move on. I just don't want to have the conversation. conversation anymore. Like, I don't care what we do. I just don't want to have the conversation

anymore. I'm so sick of people freaking out about it. I'm so sick of coaches whining about it. I'm sick of players feigning ignorance about it. I don't want to have the conversation that you and I are having right now anymore. And I feel like every podcast in the world and every writer in the world has written this story a thousand times. I am sick of debating goalie interference. And if there's a way to make it so I don't have to do that anymore, I'm in favor of it. I'll have to go back and check the record who wanted to talk about this on the show. I brought it up. I think I proposed it because it seemed like there was a bunch of them this week where people were up in arms about it.

Because everyone's always up in arms about it. Nobody's ever, there's never a uniform. You know what? You're right. My guy did interfere with your guy. I'm sorry. There is no more black and white rule in the NHL rule book than off sides. And we debate it constantly with the full assistance of replay.

So I just don't think that a more cut and. dry kind of thing actually solves anything. We're still going to argue over whether it meets the definition of that cut and dry thing, right? It's the truth of replay is that we haven't actually cured any of these. It's funny. I've come all the way around to this. I used to be one of those people that's like, you absolutely have, all that matters is you get it right. You can't have, you know, in game seven of the Stanley Cup final, if a play is offside and it gets scored, it's an absolute Travis Schumachery. I don't care how long it takes and how boring the replays, you have to get it Right. Well, 9,000 replays into my career, I'm kind of over it.

I'm with it. Just get it close enough. I don't think, I don't think we solve that problem with replay. I'm not saying we have to pull replay out of the game. I'm just saying let's learn from that experience. It's tough because like in baseball, I want robot bumps because that's instantaneous, right? It's like in tennis. The Hawkeye thing is instantaneous. There's no weight. You just know you don't need the person there to call. You don't need it to be a judgment call because it's not.

It's a little trick. You can't have like sensors detect. goal the interference. And you can't necessarily, like, I feel like we could do better with the tracking data we have. We should be able to figure out if the puck preceded the player. But, like, you know, what, what, there's no way to do that instantaneously because there's all these skates on the ice and some of them belong to the other team.

And I don't know how you make that work, but I just want it to be immediate now. Like, I, this is, it's the year 2024, man. Give it to me faster. I hate this. I don't want to hear the sound system at the United Center say, play, tell me something good for the 9,000th time. I'm over it. The waiting is the hardest part. I think we're all over it.

But that is going to do it for us. Thanks for listening to this episode of the F. F. F. F. F. F. Faticaki show, please, if you're enjoying the show, leave us a rating, preferably a five-star rating and a review. We'll be back on Wednesday, the two shawns and Frankie Carrado for the next episode. Talk to you then.