The Hockey PDOcast - Episode 62: Pushing All of Your Chips In

Episode Date: February 18, 2016

We had Mike Johnson back on the show to discuss the trade deadline from the angles of why teams can't have their cake and eat it too by trading away rental players they expect to re-sign, whether the Hurricanes need to be especially cold and calculating by cutting the cord with Eric Staal, and if the Ducks need to swing for the fences while they still can. We also chat about how extended shooting slumps are perpetuated, and if a goalie's stature can affect the way a shooter approaches attacking him. *Every episode of this podcast is available on iTunes, Soundcloud, and can also be streamed from our website. Make sure to not only subscribe so that you don’t miss out on any new shows as they’re released, but also take a minute to leave us a glowing review. *This episode is brought to you by Freshbooks, an online accounting service designed to save time and help avoid all of the stresses that come with running a small business. They’re currently offering a free 30-day trial to listeners of our show at Freshbooks.com/PDOcast (just remember to enter “Hockey PDOcast” in the ‘How You Heard About Us’ section). Thanks for listening! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

Are you ready for the most ridiculous internet sports show you have ever seen? Welcome to React, home of the most outrageous and hilarious videos the web has to offer. So join me, Rocky Theos, and my co-host, Raiders Pro Bowl defensive end, Max Crosby, as we invite your favorite athletes, celebrities, influencers, entertainers in for an episode of games, laughs, and, of course, the funniest reactions to the wildest web clips out there. Catch React on YouTube, and that is React, R-E-A-X-X. Don't miss it. This podcast episode is brought to you by Coors Light.

These days, everything is go, go, go. It's non-stop hustle all the time. Work, friends, family. Expect you to be on 24-7? Well, sometimes you just need to reach for a Coors Light because it's made to chill. Coors Light is cold-loggered, cold-filtered, and cold-packaged. It's as crisp and refreshing as the Colorado Rockies. It is literally made to chill.

Coors Light is the one I choose when I need to unwind. So when you want to hit reset, reach for the beer that's made to chill. Get Coors Light and the new look delivered straight to your door with Drizzly or Instacart. Celebrate responsibly. Coors Brewing Company, Golden Colorado. Regressing to the mean since 2015, it's the Hockey Pediocast with your host, Travis Yost and Dimitri Filipovich. Welcome to the Hockey Pediocat. My name is Dimitri Filipovich, and joining us as a guy we've been lucky enough to have on the show, I think, twice so far.

This is a third appearance. It's Mike Johnson. Mike, how's it going, man? I'm doing very well. Three times a charm. What do I get for my third appearance? Nothing? Nothing? What do you got? Hopefully we'll get some softball questions that I'll make your life a little easier. Perfect. Perfect. So I thought we'd get started with some trade deadline discussion because obviously it's a few weeks away now, and it's kind of, there's nothing else really going on. I mean, obviously there's some playoff races and whatnot, and we'll get to those. But I thought an interesting thing that I keep coming back to this year is this idea of teams that have older rental players that are expiring and will be free agents this summer.

Why wouldn't they try to trade them to a contender, see if those guys can try and win a cup or make a long playoff run, and then potentially bring them back and sign them to a whatever longer term contract? Like we saw it with the Coyotes last year, for example, where they moved Vermet and Zabendick McCollock and wound up getting a couple picks and prospects. And Vermet himself won a cup and then came back gladly to Arizona where he was clearly comfortable. And I guess the answer might just be that you don't really want to uproot these people with families. Like there's obviously that dynamic to it. But at the same time, I would have thought it would happen more frequently in history. You make a really good point. And it's a fair question because I've wondered that myself several times.

and, of course, uproating the family's situation. But if you could talk, and as you would talk to a pending unrestricted for agent, yes, we want to have you back, and you talk numbers, and you talk term, and maybe you just leave it. Now, you can't tell them, we will sign you in the summer for sure, because I think that would be some sort of violations of the CBA. You can't have a future contract agreement while he goes to play for a different team. But I think we're honest enough to know that with the right wording

and the right wink-wink-wink-nudge, you could be like, yes, we really want you. back, but we're going to have to trade you. If you were to have you back, this is what we'd give you, but we need to move you on for that very reason. And it makes so much sense to me. Even if you want the guy back, if you're not going to make the playoff, you can tell him, yeah, we want you back and we're going to try to sign you in the summer, and this is what we try to sign you for, so hopefully that work. The only reason not to do it is if that player is so valuable that you don't want to risk him having a great experience elsewhere or playing. so well or going on a deep run

that his value goes way higher than what it would be if you were to keep him on your own team. That would be bad business, but I think that doesn't happen that often. Even Antoine Bermatt, who ended up winning a cup, which is rare that a rental goes and wins a cup. He didn't have a great run in Chicago, and I

think in many ways he got less of a deal back in Arizona than he probably could have signed before the deadline. So, it makes a lot of sense, and you can pitch it to the players like, hey, you don't have to uproot your family, it's like an extra six-week road trip. Yeah.

You know, that they'll come visit you a little bit, but, you know, they don't have to move. They don't have to switch schools. They don't have to pull them out because you're very likely coming back here anyway. So considerate the start of a really long playoff run, hopefully. And if you can deal with an extra six or eight weeks apart or travel them around to see you, you can maybe have a great playoff experience. And we can also make the team you're going to come back to better. When you get back here by acquiring players picks projects, whatever it might be, it makes sense.

It's maybe a little callous, a little cutthroat, but that's the nature of the business. And if I was a GM, I would absolutely do it. Yeah. I mean, I'm surprised that it honestly hasn't happened more frequently. I was trying to think of past examples, and the Leafs did it with Winnic recently, and I remember the Blues years ago did it with Keith Kachuk and Doug Wade, and I always thought it was just like a brilliant piece of strategy. Obviously, kind of everything needs to come together.

and you need to have a certain relationship with that player, a certain level of trust, where you can kind of talk about this stuff and it won't either leak or, you know, you can reach an agreement without necessarily reaching an agreement, as you said. But yeah, it feels like it's kind of having your cake and eating it too. It is. And in some ways it is for the player as well. I mean, you know, the contract's not done until the contract is done. But for players, the players generally are competitive guys.

And while there may be light circumstances that make you hesitant to move along, if you're on a team that's not going to make the playoffs and you have an opportunity to go to a team that will, I think most guys are like, you know what, I'll take the three months, and I know it'll be hard being apart from my family and my kids and living out of the hotel. But I get to play in the Stanley Cup playoffs,

and I get a chance to win the cup, and maybe if you're Antoine Vermet, you get a chance to win a cup, and then it's, of course, so worth it. So I don't think that many guys would be against the idea of it to have a goal chance to play, be competitive, play where it matters most, and then come back into the contract you're going to get anyway.

Yeah. Well, okay, so sort of related to that, one of the teams that's kind of captured my eye the most in terms of what they'll do and how they'll approach this trade line is the Carolina Hurricanes, where they're sort of in this weird little spot where they've played so well lately that they've jumped right into the race in the metro. I think them, the devils, the penguins, and the islanders are all sort of those four teams and quite possible only one of them could get one of those wild card spots. But at the same time, they have a guy like Eric Stahl who's been there his entire career, been team captain. probably, you know, one of the best players in franchise history, if not the best one. And it's kind of a tricky spot because I'm sure that they would like, they have the league worst attendance, right? So they'd clearly like to play some competitive hockey and possibly rejuvenate the sort of appreciation and love for the Carolina Hurricanes in that area. But at the same time, they're almost certainly not going to win the Stanley Cup this year.

And I feel like Eric Stahl would be a type of player that would recoup quite a few nice little assets for them in return from a contender that's kind of definitely. desperate come late February. So I don't know, what do you do if you're running the hurricanes in that regard? Yeah, you know what? If you're Ron Francis, now, I don't understand their finances, so I don't know how important a couple home dates are worth. I don't know what their sponsorship situation is, corporate, and otherwise, their season

ticket renewal. I don't know how important it is to get two home gates guaranteed. Two home playoff dates guaranteed. But if I'm Ron Francis, you have to keep building, I think. I think you have to just say, as you mentioned, we're fighting on the outside, we may make it, we may not, and you want to be respectful and do right by the owner, the fans, and maybe Ron Francis Pauli feels great affinity to the players. Right. The guys who played hard and kind of have overachieved a little bit and find themselves in a pretty interesting position

with just a couple weeks before the deadline, only two points out, although they've played a couple extra games over top of Pittsburgh and Tampa. I think you have to look into it. You have to trade Eric Stahl, if you can. Certainly Chris Verstieg, John Michael Liles,

who is an underrated good defenseant on this year's potential trade market, I think. And you see what you get back from because you can get first rounders, second rounders, high-end prospect, certainly for Eric Stahl. And even Chris Steege had a pretty nice year as well.

And then as you mentioned, maybe there's a situation where he can come back in the summer. And Cam Ward, I mean, you might forget about mentioning him. Who knows if a team needs some goaltender help as well. But I think you've got to do it. I think you got to do it without, I understand that there's other factors in play. I don't know what the owner thinks. I don't know what marketing needs.

But strictly on the ice, if you want to make your team better and continue to build to win a Stanley top, then you move them. You move them all. Well, it's fascinating. And then bring them back if you can. Yeah. Well, it's fascinating you bring up the ownership. situation because I can't speak to what it's like in Carolina either but here in Vancouver there's been a

lot of talk recently about how the front office with Jim Benning and Trevor Lyndon want to kind of move guys like burrows and and ham use and some of these older players and fully embrace this rebuild which has sort of started in the past year or two whereas the ownership desperately wants those two home playoff games for revenue and it's obviously kind of a tug of war and I think I know who's going to win based on who's signing the checks. but it is interesting in the sense that it's something as kind of fans and analysts of the sport. We sometimes take that stuff for granted where you just assume that everyone is on the same page and pushing and pulling in the same direction,

but sometimes there are those kind of inner working dynamics that affect these things. There are, and every time I offer up analysis on the team, I always do it as though my owner has unlimited money and none of it matters to him. Right. But that's not the case. I mean, it's not my five or $8 million or whatever two home playoff dates at Vancouver are worth. Because that's a lot of money. I don't care if you're wealthy.

I don't care how much money you have. That's a lot of money. And if you want to operate your team as a business and try not to lose money, so many teams need the playoff revenue to break even or create a profit. So I get on the business side of things that there need to consider all those factors. but if you own the team because you're financially solvent enough, you don't necessarily have to worry about that, and many owners own these teams as a luxury item,

as ego, as a passion play, not as a money play, then the greatest reward for any is to win them Stanley Cup. I think that's what owners, many of them, are involved for it. So they can say, I won a Stanley Cup. I was at the top of that pile. and to create the best team to do that, whether you're Carolina or Vancouver, you absolutely have to look into trading those guys. And to me, Dan Hammers should bring him up.

I thought John Michael Lyles is an underrated defense. I think the best defenseant available this year is Dan Hammers, has a potential unrestricted free agent. Now with Bufflin's on, I think Hanhus, I know he missed a lot of time with that brutal jaw injury. Fractored in 20 places or whatever it is. That's a lot of work to get your face back together. But a guy who can still play. You know, he doesn't produce a ton of offense,

but you have the puck more often than not when he's on the ice. You create more chances than they do. And he's a pretty reliable stay-at-home guy that should fit into whatever team you're playing him on. And he doesn't make too, too much money that you could probably absorb. A lot of teams could absorb a $4.5 million cap hit at the deadline. I think he probably, if you're a team, I would be, be weary of Chris Russell or of Radical Goudis or some of the other names. I would not be turning my attention to them.

I would be looking much more closely at Dan Hamous. Well, I mean, it's a good example of why it's kind of silly to evaluate the market so far in advance. Like I remember two months ago, let's say, where you looked ahead and you were like, okay, like a guy like Keith Yandel or even Kevin Shaddenkirk who's still under contract, where Brian Campbell before the Panthers won on that big winning streak, it's like, there's some really interesting defensemen that could. could potentially be available if things fall right. And now two weeks, two weeks in advance of the trade deadline,

pretty much none of those guys are on the table. So it kind of was a reminder to how things change in this industry. And in terms of Hamus, I agree. I still think he has a little bit of hockey left in him. But I do think it's kind of damning with faint praise when you say he's the best defensemen available just because they're really, the crop seems especially thin this season. It does. That doesn't mean they're not NHL players.

They're not good players. and they're all not going to get paid, but if you're looking to get an impact guy who's really going to help you go win a Stanley Cup as a prominent piece, then, yeah, I mean, those guys are always rare. There's a reason why they don't become available very often because they're too valuable

and teams don't let them get there. So maybe the message is really, if you want an impact player, you've got to get a guy who's got caramel. You've got to go pay a deeper price and get a Shatton Kirk or a Campbell or something like that who's still on a contract, but still has a little bit more game left,

or to offer up to a new team. Right. When they are available, and if you can afford to move earlier than later, then that's it. I mean, KT. Anil is an interesting case to me. I mean, he was so highly thought of, and he made the All-Star team, and he puts up a ton of points when he was traded out of Arizona to New York, and it seems like everyone kind of soured on his game a little bit, even though if the Rangers trade him on, he makes almost no money,

given that Arizona's picking up, I think, half of his salary. for him to play for the Rangers. So he certainly is very affordable in the twos as far as it's capped it, being absorbed by the new team. But, yeah, I just, again, and you don't know if his kind of style, he likes to slow it down. He's a bit of a high-risk, high-reward guy, not great in his own end, but can be pretty proficient with the puck.

Is that what playoff-bound Stanley Cup champion teams are looking for? Generally not. Usually they have those guys. They're looking for something a little bit more stable. Maybe not the same kind of puck. upside, but much less mistake downside than what Keith Yandel can offer up. Yeah, that's a good point. I feel like that's something they get swept into the rug where a lot of these really,

really good teams that would be in the market for one more piece of the deadline, probably already have their version of Keith Yandel and probably even a couple of them, right? Yeah. There's a reason why they're good. They have good players as well. I mean, you know, probably got Duncan Keith. They have them. The Blues have Petrangelo.

They have them. And these teams that want to win, Drew Dowdy, they have them. They have players like that. And if you're missing that, then you're probably not feeling like you're a real cup contender anyway. So maybe that explains it as simple as that. Right. Okay. So there's one other team that I really want to talk to you about because they're in a fascinating spot, in my opinion.

It's the Ducks where they've been playing really, really good hockey lately after that wretched start. And they actually, I think in the past 10 days or so, they have impressed. road wins in both Chicago and L.A. And I don't know. I don't really know what to make of them because I think they're a really good hockey team. And they could very conceivably win the Cup just because they're on that short list of teams that, whether it's a hot goalie or an injury or a couple bounces and suddenly they're lifting the Stanley Cup, you know, and there's very few teams that can say that.

But at the same time, it's tough to see them beating both Chicago and L.A. And I don't know, it's something that haunts a team like the Blues as well, right? Like, you're really good, but you might not necessarily be the best. And I don't know, it's such a weird spot to be in as a team, I'm sure. It is. It is. You're exactly right. But let's not forget.

They were at home in game seven last year of the Western Conference Final. Right. And I know they got blown out. It didn't end well on the Getslas, Hayes, Boudreau thing. I called the game. I was well aware of what was going on there. And the fallout of that was not pretty. And I think it probably did linger over and maybe forget.

guess left it and lingered for three months in the season as he was trying to get his head wrapped around what happened last year. Right. But, and I agree with you that they probably aren't quite as good as Chicago or L.A. have not been. But they're really, really close. They're not miles behind. They're really, really close.

So I do think that they are contenders again, and they may end up right where everyone thought they would in August, and that's winning the Pacific. They're not going to win the conference, but they may win their division after all that, think is significant because I think the two wildcard teams in the west will be far easier matchups than the top three teams in the division. So if you can get out of even a San Jose matchup and you get a Colorado or a Nashville, I think that's much more beneficial to give yourself one roundoff before you have to get into an L.A. and then maybe on down the road into a St. Louis or Chicago or Dallas.

The one thing that is strange about Anaheim, an unusual for a team with as much, success as they have had is they've changed so much of their roster all the time. Every year, it's six, eight, nine, ten guys that are different from the year before where they had 110 points. Most teams, when you have the kind of years they have in their regular

season, even if they come up short in the playoffs, they keep coming back with the same look. Anna time has not done that, and I would probably be inclined. Everyone loves death and Lord knows Anaheim as much as anyone. I'd be inclined not to do very much. Maybe

give her chance in Anaheim, but just saying unless injuries crop up, we're going to go with the group we have. I just like where we finally have gotten it together, we're on the same page with the best team in the league the last month, two months, and we're right there to win the division.

Let's not go and get someone who's going to disrupt our top four or five defensemen and not going to jump into our top six forward. Let's not do that. Let's just see what this team can do with this group. Now, if they can do that, I'd like to see what can happen. The one chip they have to play, though, and I do find as interesting, is they have Freddie Anderson. John Gibson's your goalie of the future.

Right. You have a really good goalie in Freddie Anderson's sitting there. Right. And there's no point in having two of those guys, right? You only need one goalie to play. Yep. So if it's going to be John Gibson, and I know if, well, what if he gets hurt? Well, you know what?

I can't live my life, hope, my starting goal. He doesn't get hurt because it doesn't happen that often. And Freddie Anderson is going to be an RFA next year after this year. So he'll be under control for whatever team acquires him. And you know there's a market. He only makes a million dollars, 26 years old. He's had a historically good start to his career. I know it started when he was 24, but his first 100 games,

I think he won the greatest percentage of his first 100 games in the history of the league. I mean, he's been that good. He's played for a good team, but he's been really good. So you don't think that there's a market. What would Calgary give up for a goalie that can finally trust, a young guy that's time in his career that could grow with those guys? What's he worked to them? I mean, it's got to be a lot.

What about Toronto? Is he the answer in Toronto? I think he's probably an upgrade on both of the guys there. That's the one chip that you could play here, Anaheim, and get a pretty good player back. And I don't want to dismiss what goaltenders bring to a team, but it would not upset the apple cart of the 18 skaters to change the backup goalie if Gibson's your guy going forward.

And so that's the one guy. That's the wild card moves. Even Houdobin is there as well. But I really think Freddie Anderson is a high-end guy and would be desirable to more than a few teams if you decide to move them. Right. Well, I should clarify, when I said earlier, they're in a weird spot. Like there's 20 other teams in the league that would do anything

to be in the position the ducks are in. I mean, weird in the sense that it just must be so tantalizing, because you mentioned that last year they sort of fell apart in that game seven, but don't forget even the year before that, where they blew that series with the Kings, right? They were so close, and then the game seven just completely fell apart. And I don't know, like, you mentioned all the roster turnover, and I don't know whether it's going to be at this deadline or in the summer,

but they're once again next year probably going to wind up looking different, right? Because I have a hard time believing they're going to pay Linholm, Vatnin, Anderson, and Raquel, considering all those guys are on their ELCs right now, and all those guys are going to be due for pretty steep pay raises, especially in the sense that Lindholm and Vatnan are going to wind up being paid, like pretty much top-paring defensemen.

And I don't know, it'd be fascinating to see whether they decide to kind of push all their chips in and trade one of those guys, or even keep those guys and trade, you know, a guy like Shea Theodore, for example, or Brandon Montour. They have all these other prospects in the H.L. system right now that are doing really good things. And I don't know, it still feels like they're

as good as they are. They're one bad playoff beat away from panic firing Bruce Boudreau and doing something crazy this summer. And if I was one of the other teams that had uncertainty at the coaching position, like I would be paying close attention to what happens in Anaheim this summer. Yeah, you're right. And I mean, and I think that Bruce had a, despite Bruce being an incredible season coach, both in Washington and in Anaheim, we've got a tenuous relationship with the GM there, Murray and, you know, they've replaced a couple of his assistants without his real permission slash blessing. And so when changes like that, you know, he's got Paul McLean, a former coach of the year

sitting right beside him. That's not his guy as an assistant coach. That's not to say Paul McClain and him don't get along great, but it wasn't his choice. It wasn't going to be his choice to bring him in. That's telling you something about where you stand and how much authority you have over the team. But you're right. It's great to have all these good young defense, but at some point they have to get paid.

And I always find it funny when you look at the ducks especially. So they have Votman's going to be an RFA, Linholm as well. And they got Cam Fowler signed for a couple more years after this, but just $4 million. And they keep talking about Cam Fowler, the trademarker, trade market, trade market. I think in Camp Fowler, $4 million is pretty good value. I don't know why you'd want to get rid of guy. Maybe that's why you trade them because he's so viable.

But when you're not a KAP team and Anaheim is not, they're a budget team, like you'd want to keep your really good players that are on really good contract. I always find a funny that Fowler is always banning about. And if it's Botman or Linholm, I mean, I always thought the sense would be Linholm because he's a little bit more well-rounded. Batman may be a bit better offensively, but not quite as defensively as Lin-home. But I've heard kind of rumblings like they're negotiating with them both, and it's whichever one they can't quite afford.

It's like they're kind of playing them off against each other. We're only going to be able to re-sign one of you guys, for the five and a half you want. Right. Not both of you. And whoever gets there first, gets the deal on the other guy who doesn't, gets dealt along. I don't know if that's a great way to do business,

but that's the reality when you don't have as much money as you can spend. And again, tells you why that Frederick Anderson, whether it's now or at the draft, we'll get traded. Because you can't pay them $5 million to be your backup. No. No, you can't. So you trade them to a team that can to be a starter and you clear out some space. Yeah.

No. It'll be fascinating to see. Yeah, there's a few moves there for them to make, and I think it'll be telling a bit like how they view themselves against Chicago and L.A., for example, depending on whether they do go all in or whether they kind of play it safe. And so we'll see what goes on there. Let's move on. I have a few kind of, I guess, philosophical or methodology questions in terms of how NHL shooters approach their craft and attacking goalies. I hope you'd provide some insight on. So the first one is with a team like Minnesota, we just recently saw them.

they fired their coach and it was understandable considering I think they had like three wins in their past 20 games and at some point in time something's really got to give especially for a team that had reasonably high expectations heading into the season but at the same time for someone like myself I'm sitting here at home looking at their numbers and being like hmm they've been shooting around 5% as a team over these 20 games and I don't know what more mike yo could have done like sometimes this stuff just happens in the hockey world where a team just goes through this remarkably uncharacteristic dry spell in terms of getting bounces and the puck going into the net for them and the coach

pays usually but I don't know like do you think there's what do you think when you see something like that happen where are you like viewing it as something was eventually going to have to give or do you think kind of feel bad for the coach because you just know that there's ultimately so much you could have done yeah I mean that's a multi-layered question I mean you make a very good point I mean I think when I take it back to when I was a player, both individually and on a team that was struggling,

you can, my mom, my mom used to tell me, listen, don't worry about not scoring, just worry about when you don't get chances. Right. And there's an incredible amount of logic to that.

There really is, because I lose, I get in these discussions, debates around the office, around the rinks all the time, and guys don't want to buy it. I'm like, listen, everybody's a streaky score.

Yeah, everyone. And that's how it works. If you weren't, you'd get 65 goals. You don't. If you score 20, that means you're going to get four and five games, and you're going to go 15 games with one. But you're still going to get six and 20. That's what 25 goals scored to do.

That's how the math works out. You don't get one every three games and score 27. That's just not how it works. Now, you'd like that straight line production, but that's not how it works. So my mom was right. You don't worry about, or you should not worry about not scoring, but you worry about when you don't.

don't get chances. Unfortunately, when you see the entire team like Minnesota or Montreal has gone through it, go through incredible hot swings and cold swings at the same time, it reinforces how much confidence and psychology, the mental part of the game plays into hockey, into all sports. Right. And so much of these protracted long runs, they start out as, you know, tough breaks, caught goalies,

post, bounce, deflection, things that aren't going in that used to to, and that happens, that's the rub of the green, and then as you go longer

without scoring both as an individual and as a team, then it starts to become mental, and it's no longer it's about, well, I'm shooting well,

the goal's making a good save, eventually they go in, you think you would know that intuitively, you'd look at the numbers, I can't shoot three goals for my last hundred shots for much longer,

that just won't play. Right. But it doesn't feel that way. It doesn't feel that way. it feels like you'll never score again. Your confidence starts to erode and you don't

you don't look at it kind of logically and impartially. You look at it through the prism of my God, I'm panicky and I'm rattle and I don't feel good and I hate life because I can't put the puck down a goalie no matter what. And then it perpetuates itself

until going longer and longer and longer. And so, well, I'm not sure what coaches can do about that. I mean, you can put guys in different situations, power play, formation, get them on the ice. Certainly recognize when someone would need an empty netter. Now, unfortunately, for Minnesota, they were ever winning any games, so you can't get any empty netters. But, like, stuff like that matters.

Like, you know, you've got a guy, it's, I say you're winning a game, 6-1. But your exact three has not gotten a goal at. And it's a five-on-three late. I know the polite thing to do is not put him out there. I put him out there every single time, and I'm, like, just passing the puck. And just let him keep shooting because it's more important for me as a coach to make him feel good, then the other coach feel good.

You're not having my five best guys out there. There's things like that you can do systems-wise, how you break, you know, all the different X and O's. But unless you're a staff psychologist as well, I think it's tough for coaches to really help guys navigate prolonged slumps, and you can be in their ear and be positive, but it's a confident thing more than an X&O thing. And while it's the coach's job to help boost confidence

and make guys feel good and get them in positions to succeed. There's only so much they can do. And I think Mike Yo is a good coach. I think Minnesota has been a really good team. I know this year it's been disappointing. Governor of guys are taking a step back, but I covered them against when they played Colorado, they played Chicago, when Chicago beat them against six.

Patrick Kane scored an overtime goal in Minnesota to win the series. And Minnesota was by far the better team. Especially in that game six. They didn't have, yeah, but they didn't have, Crawford and they didn't have Cain and they didn't have Cays. And Cays had an overtime goal, so did Cain, and Crawford was outrageous and he got to keep. They don't have the star, star, stars, but they were so much better than Chicago.

So I think Yoh did a really good job and I would be inclined to think that he should be able to land on his feet sooner or rather later despite the way it ended. Well, the weird thing, I mean, you mentioned the lack of star power and the weird thing for me by looking at this drought for them is that I would have thought that the way they assembled their team would have been they would have been one of the least likely teams to go through a team wide drought like this because with a team

like Montreal like if a guy like Patcheretti isn't scoring they're probably going to struggle to put bucks in the net right like he carries so much of their offense in that regard whereas Parize obviously does a lot for the wild but they basically roll three four lines of guys that could score 15 to 20 goals

if it's given the right kind of situation and pretty much everyone in that team has just gone through a remarkable drought in terms of how frequently they're converting their shots into goals. And I don't know, maybe that does speak to some sort of internal thing that's manifested itself. And maybe Mike Yo was to blame. Who knows? But I remember when the Canadians were kind of in the middle of that drought, you tweeted about, like, if you're in that room, what could you possibly hear at this point that would sort of be new and that would help

shake you out of this funk? And I just don't really know what the answer to that is. Yeah, I don't know it either. The only thing I would say, if you're in Minnesota, and you're Right, because that's how they're designed, not necessarily be built around like Patrick Kane, but to have two, three lines of solid offensive players that can all play and all get 15 to 20 goals and all get you at 35 to 45, 50 points. But they invested some of those spots in guys who've gotten older quickly. And Thomas Manick, who, you know, is only 32, but he's had his moments where he's getting older. He's already a slow player.

and it's amazing how sometimes how quickly it can happen for really good players. He's a really good player. He's had a really a nice career and maybe you'll have another good year next year, but how quickly you can kind of fall off when you get a step slower and injuries start to pile up and your body doesn't feel quite the same and nobody knows about that

shoulder injury that happened three years ago but now it kind of bugs you every day and you're keeping your wrist and you got a knee brace and it just it happened. Unfortunately the wear and tear and Jason Pommonville is another guy, and he makes 5.6 for three more years after this. He's not getting any faster.

He's going to slow down. Miko Kovu even as well. I've got some guys. Their top four high-paid forwards are all well into, you know, 30 plus. And that's not, I think we've shown enough with the numbers that you're not hitting your stride at 29 anymore. No. You're hitting it at 25.

Yeah. And I think at 27, 28, your numbers, your body, the game, start to make things tougher for you. And they got a lot of their high-end guys are 30-plus, and that's the reality. So you're right, they're built that way, but if all those guys, and I think certainly with Vanek and Palmonville, maybe even a little bit in Nico Coybu,

have taken a step back because of age, then now you're thinking, well, wait a second, it's Charlie Coyle, who I think is a good player, and it will be a good player. You know, Nino Nieder Rider has taken big steps, but I still don't know if you're consistent guys, We can count on every year to bump out 25. And Michael Granlin or Mikhail Granlin might be one of the strangest ones to meet.

He's a very skilled guy. And I understand past first. We've seen Joe Thornton pile up assist his whole career. But he can't score. He scores like five goals and gets 40 assists. It's crazy. Now, I was a pastor, too. I always got way more assists than goals, so maybe I do understand it.

But just the disparity or the ratio of his assist to goals is wild. I mean, he's, you know, 8 and 33, 8 and 31. If you're 5 and 24, you know, one goal for every 4 assist. Right. You like it as a winger, maybe that he's passed first, but counting on him to score is probably not a great idea either. So each guy, you know, throughout their lineup, you can probably point two different reasons,

and they all kind of culminated in whatever it was, a four or six-week stretch where it all came apart and cost to coast their job. But I think they might have missed their window because I don't think those top four guys Therese, Coribu, Vanek, Pauvinville, they're, of course, not getting younger. They're not going better.

And I don't think Minnesota can challenge the big boys in the West with those guys anymore. Yeah, no, and they're obviously committed to all those guys. It's going to be kind of tough to get out of it and change it in any tangible way. And every one of them, every one of them's got a no move. Yeah. I mean, Palmaville, Vanek, Koi Bu, for every one of them,

it's got a no move. So, you know, and I guess Vanek's the guy who expires first after next year, but, yeah. They're going to be in a tough spot. We know that you can trade guys who don't want to get traded. You can get around no moves, but I don't know if there's a market for Jason Pommonville. I don't. I don't.

I don't think so. Probably not. You know, Thomas Bannick, not for another full year, maybe at the deadline next year. Miko Kovu, maybe two more years. But, yeah, so it's tough. It's a tough time there in Minnesota. But, yeah, their best players got old. and I think it's taking a toll this year on their production.

Yep. All right. A second question. Do you think there's something to the idea that you'd approach the way you attack a goalie as a shooter depending on his rep or stature in the league or how he's been playing recently? So for example, like, let's say you're a shooter and you're going up against Petter and Razik or Braden Holpey and you know that they're stopping like 93% of the shots they face and they're playing remarkably well. Are you, even if it's like slightly subconsciously thinking to yourself, all right, I need to pick the perfect spot here

if I want to get it by them. Otherwise, they're just going to make easy work of it. Or do you think that you are approaching it from the way of, let's just get as many pucks as we possibly can on them, hoping that there's going to be a tip-in or a weird bounce or potentially a rebound that will help us get a few by-um here because if they see the shot cleanly, regardless of where I put it,

they're probably going to wind up saving it. You know, I think you do both. And I think, you know, what, the chalk talk, and before the game is, let's get pucks, let's get fuck, let's get bodies, he's playing really well, let's see if you can get a tip, a rebound, a bounce,

because that's the reality. They see it, they stop it. But I know, having been in those situations that when you know you're going up against a really good goalie, whether they're hot or just they are excellent always,

on the shots that you have a little time to really pick a corner, which is not all the time in the NHL, a lot of your shots are just reactionary, I'm getting it toward the net, but when you have time to really spot it and try to get it away, those goalies, the ones you mentioned.

Dominant Haship was one of those guys. Marty Burture was one of those guys. They really make you feel like you got to pick the corner. So I'm not just trying to go top glove. I'm trying to connect the crossbar and the post. And you find yourself you push some wide, you push some high, because you are absolutely on a conscious and subconscious level knowing that you've got to be so fine to get it past them.

So it's a bit of both. And you'll see that. see an intimidation factor, you know, when you have the top end goalie there where guys carry price because it's a big guy, you know you have to be perfect with your shot to get it around them. And then when you miss wide, it's going to miss the net versus shooting, you know, kind of to the corner, but if you miss Wadi or target, it might still go inside the post. So both cases exist in the same game, and that's an advantage those guys have over most shooters. Now, I was never a prolific goal score.

And I bet... Hey, you scored 20 goals a couple times? Yeah, I did, but still far from prolific. And, plus, I couldn't shoot. And, I mean, I was part of it, too. I mean, my approach to how I talk... How I attack goalies is because I know I couldn't shoot well. I didn't have a hard shot.

So I had to... I had to get close to score. I couldn't score from outside the top of the circles unless it's a slap run at one time. I can't score on a wrist, or I couldn't shoot hard enough. But I bet if you're not... Ovechkin or Stamcoast or any of those high... Patrick Kane, I watched some of his shots go in.

I bet there's a confidence for those. guys are saying, no, I just need to shoot. Right. I trust my shot more than I trust his ability to stop it. And history will have proven them correct. More often, then, would have proven me correct. And so we probably would approach each game differently, given that mindset. Yeah. Well, I always wonder if there's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy or kind of a feedback loop

there that we don't necessarily account for sometimes where, like, these guys that have obviously earned it based on their performance, kind of get an extra little bump there just because of how they make guys think differently when they're shooting on them. So that's kind of an interesting psychology thing. Yeah, well, it's almost like you've got to equate the other sports. It's like why a wicked fastball pitcher changeup is better because you have to respect the fastball. It's why when you have a shot blocker in the lane, some guys botched layups, even when the guy's not there to block the shot, because they're feeling his presence,

knowing that he's around. And I think it works in hockey as well. I think it works in hockey as well, where the goaltender is the best one. Yeah, they do get a bit of a, not in your head. You're not thinking about, oh, my God, I can never score, but you're like, you know, okay, I got in the slot, I got one stick handle here, I'm looking, I see top glove. I got to go really top glove as opposed to just kind of make sure I get it up there. Right.

And that's what their history and reputation has earned them. Yeah. All right, one final thing, and then we'll let you go. Last time we had you on it, I don't want to put you on the spot, but you dropped a little nugget about how you were doing a star's game, and Lindy Ruff used his video sessions in a fascinating way where he was basically kind of going away from the norm in the sense that he was praising creativity and pushing the envelope rather than kind of doing the overly conservative approach.

And we got a lot of run on that. I mean, our listeners seem to enjoy getting inside info like that from you. So is there a game you've done recently, or whether it's a team or a player you talk to or something you heard where it was kind of stuck out to you like that? Wow, well, not putting me on the spot at all. Well, third time's the char, man. You know what? Yeah, exactly.

You know what one thing I picked up? I did actually a Buffalo Montreal game. And Buffalo is a fascinating team, Dan Bilesma, despite not just because we went to the same school, he's an interesting guy to talk to, but how much Ryan O'Reilly has made an impact on that team in all their players. and they talked about Sam Reinhart,

who's a really good player on his own, has become like his little puppy dog. He just follows him everywhere and does everything he does and just lifts and watches and like fists beside him and meetings and just like his little protege. And they all think, it was amazing to hear them talk about

how Sam Reinhardt has gone from a guy that they didn't even think could maybe play in the NHL this year to being a really good player on the wing in large part because of Ryan O'Reilly and not even what he does on the ice, but just what he does off the ice.

And the fact that Ryan O'Reilly has these interesting post-practice stick handling drills he does, and little skill development drills. And if you, there's a beat writer in Buffalo that has tweeted some of them out, and you could Google them. They are wild stuff. I mean, I watch them and think, yeah, if I don't sprain my wrist doing that, I think I've done it pretty well. And he's got what started out as hit is just his own little tricks that he does

to kind of sharpen his own skill. then became, of course, Ryan Harden behind him, every two of them doing it. And now it's like the entire team out there trying to do these impossibly tricky stick handling formations on pylons and cones

and stationary objects because Ryan O'Reilly has started it. And so I just, it's weird when you talk about, cultures are weird a word that people band you about all the time. Right. And in some ways,

I think it can be overrated, be a bit of a crutch. But I think Buffalo, who had lost a lot, needed a cultural change. And Ryan O'Reilly, you weren't sure what you're going to get with him coming out of Colorado. He'd be that good of a player to deserve that big contract, all that. Apparently, from everyone in Buffalo, including the players, he's been worth every single cent because he's really become the father figure of the young guys

and a real driving force in the locker room is trying to get that to where they're going. But, yeah, check out that stuff on Google. The Ryan O'Reilly stick handling wild stuff he did. does and he's got the favors trying to follow suit. That's a good nugget. I think that'll do. You fulfilled your obligation. Mike, man. Thanks for taking the time again to chat. It was a lot of fun

and people can check you out, of course, you doing the games on Sportsnet and hopefully back on the HockeyPedioCast soon enough. Anytime, bud, you know I'm always around. Cool. The Hockey PEDEOCast online at HockeyPedocast.com.

Subscribe on iTunes, SoundCloud, or follow on Twitter at Dimm-Fillil and at Travis Yost.