The Hockey PDOcast - Episode 71: Myth Busters

Episode Date: March 23, 2016

Sean McIndoe joins the show to help unpack the Norris Trophy debate, including debunking the myths that Drew Doughty has been snubbed in years past and that Erik Karlsson is a one-dimensional player. We also discuss the direction of the Toronto Maple Leafs, the NHL system incentivizing teams to bottom out, and the playoff races to keep an eye on in the coming weeks. Here’s a quick rundown of the topics covered: 1:55 The Norris Trophy 15:30 Teams bottoming out 25:10 The late run by the Flyers 29:20 Potential 1st round matchups 32:30 The playoff roadblocks for the Sharks *Every episode of this podcast is available on iTunes, Soundcloud, Stitcher 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 a glowing review. *Sponsoring today’s show is SeatGeek, which is making it easier than ever before to buy and sell sports and concert tickets. They’re giving our listeners a $20 rebate off of their first purchase. All you have to do is download the free SeatGeek app and enter the promo code PDO to get started. 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. Before we get started with today's HockeyOcast, I want to give some quick love to a sponsor, Seekek. If you've never used it before, it's as good a time as any to start, considering the playoff season is just around the corner.

C-KKK is a service which makes buying and selling tickets easier than it's ever been before. They pull all the tickets available on other sites into one handy location for you, even going so far as to ensure that you're getting optimal value by alerting you once the prices fall. The best part of it all is that they don't try to sneak in those random fees at the checkout, which means that you know exactly what you're paying for when you're choosing your tickets. Seek's providing my listeners with a $20 rebate off their first purchase today, and all you've got to do is follow a few easy steps. Just download the free C-Kkeek app,

then go to the settings tab and click add a promo code and type in PDO. Once you've done that, Seekek will send you your $20 rebate. Download the free Seek app, enter the promo code PDO, and you could start saving yourself a bunch of time, effort, and money as you get your hands on whichever tickets your heart desires today. Regressing to the mean since 2015, it's the Hockey PDOCast with your host, Dmitri Filippovich. Welcome to the Hockey-Ocast. My name is Dimitri Filippovich, and joining me is my good buddy, Sean McIndoe.

Sean, what's going on, man? Hey, what's up? Nothing, man. It's been a weird day. I woke up this morning. I go on Twitter. I see the attack in Brussels. I see Rob Ford passed away, a Blackhawks prospect being charged for doing some scandalous things. And I don't know, just a reminder that the world can be a really crappy place sometimes. So it's kind of good to lighten the mood a bit.

I know you're probably considered one of hockey's preeminent humorist writers. So it's good to have you on. Yeah, it's good to be on. So, okay, it wouldn't be a day in the hockey world if we weren't arguing. doing about Eric Carlson versus Drew Doughty for the Norris. It seems like we have a quarter to fail, so we're going to do our due diligence here. I know you've written about it recently. Let's start with this.

What's Drew Dowdy's realistic case here for winning the Norris? Well, I mean, I think he's got a good case. The case is he is one of the best defensemen in the league. You can see that the way that he's used in L.A. you can see that the way he's used everywhere that he plays. You know, the fact that when you put this guy in an Olympic team, he's the guy who gets the first pairing, even though he's there with a who's who of the fellow all-star defenseman.

You know, I think that tells you something. I always, you know, the sports fan in me loves these debates, but there's a part of me that hates them because it feels like we always have to take such an extreme position, and you're either, if it's Carlson versus Drew Doughty for the Norris, somehow it becomes either Drew Dowdy's an overrated defenseman or Eric Carlson can't play in his own zone and you know it's got to be one guy's great and the other guy's junk and it's not that these are both two real good players. Drew Dowdy has been a very, very good defenseman in this league for a long time. He is a key part of an LA Kings team that after taking a step back last year

is having a resurgence this year and looks like one of the best teams in the NHL. And he's the key cog in that. And, you know, he's a guy, he can do it all. He plays both ends of the ice, can put up the offense, is certainly trusted in his own zone. The piece of the argument that I don't like, and the one that I wrote about today is, you know, I feel like Drew Dowdy's got a strong enough case

just on his own, just on its merits. What I don't like is when people start talking about the history here and the fact that this guy doesn't have a Norris trophy yet and that maybe he's due, or maybe he's owed, you know, a vote somewhere, along the lines that, you know, it's time to get Drew Doughty his Norris trophy because there's this perception that I've heard in some places, and, you know, from some fans, some in the media, various spots where people say, you know, it's so strange that Drew Doughty doesn't have a North. How is it possible that this guy doesn't have at least one Norris or as, as several people

have said to me today, you know, this guy should have a bunch of time now. He should have a whole trophy case full of Norris. And how is it possible that he doesn't? And so, I wrote a piece today on Sportsnet where I went and I looked at that. And the basic answer is that you can go back every year of his season and up until last year where I think he really did have a strong case to get the edge over Carlson. There has not been a season in which Drew Doughty had any sort of realistic claim on the Norris trophy. There was just always somebody who was significantly better than him. And it's really that simple.

So, you know, I don't think you should be giving somebody a vote or moving somebody up to your ballot based on the history and based on whether they've won the award or not in the first place. But if you're going to do that when it comes to Drew Doughty, I hope people are doing it based on a narrative that I think is based on some revisionist history, that he's somehow been this bridesmaid who's been snubbed over and over again for the award. Because the reality is, with the exceptional last year, it really hasn't happened. Well, yeah, and there's a couple other wrinkles to it that don't really pass the sniff test. First of all, I mean, as you mentioned, he's like 26 years old, so it seems weird to be kind of, you know, oh, we got to give this guy a career achievement award here. We've got to make sure he gets one before he retires. It's like, Drew Dowdy is a few years ahead of him.

Nicholas Winstrum had not won a Norris by this age, and he went on to Winston. So, you know, we can slow down a little bit. It's, you know, it's not like Drew Dowdy is just, you know, on the way out here, and we got to get them one before the end. Right, and the second thing is, like, you mentioned how you have to take the sides, and I don't, I think people can sometimes lose a view of this. For example, I think Eric Carlson is pretty clearly been the best defenseman the league this year, but I think Drew Dowdy's been the second or third best

defenseman. Like, there's a relative thing here. It's not saying Drew Dowdy shouldn't win the Norris because he sucks. It's, like, he's going to be competing for the Stanley Cup final, and he's always, as you mentioned, played a big role on Olympic old medal teams, and he's a great defenseman. No one's arguing that. But the thing is, is like, Carlson is any way you slice it,

sort of having a generational season here where pretty much no defenseman has produced as much as he has since I think that you have to go back to the early 90s, even before you adjust for era differences in scoring. And I don't know, we can discuss this a little bit. But the thing that kind of grinds my gears about this debate is that if you're taking the anti-Carlson side, and it's not just for Carlson, it's other guys, like a P.K. Suben or a Keith Yandel or all these guys that have put up big point totals over their careers, it's like there's this mutually exclusive belief amongst a certain segment of fans

that if you're a guy whose strong suits are producing points, that all of a sudden it necessarily means you're some sort of defensive liability that instantly kind of takes you out of the discussion for being the best quote-unquote defenseman. Yeah, which, I mean, first of all, we can argue over what the Norris should be. We can do this with all the awards, and certainly it comes up every year for the heart when you talk about what is most valuable mean. We can do it for any of them.

But there's a long history here. We know what the Norris trophy is, and for the most part, it does tend to go to offensive players. So if you're going to say that, you know, Eric Carlson or P.K. Suban, they don't deserve the Norse trophy. Well, you know what? Tell that to Paul Coffey. Tell us to Al McKinnis.

Tell it to guys like that, because there's a long history here virtually year in and year out with the, as I point out in the post today, with that weird exception of those years in the mid-80s where Rod Langway got the award. And I mean, boy, you talk about Eric Carlson maybe not winning this year despite outscoring everyone else at the position by 30 points. Paul Coffey lost the Norris to a guy that he outscored by 90 points, which to me is just one of the most insane. In a very insane decade, the fact that a guy, a defenseman had 100, 25 points or whatever and lost to a stay-at-home guy with 30 in a league where you or I could have got 30 points is amazing to me. But yeah, I mean, the thing with Eric Carlson, with this whole, you know, one-way player and this and that, I got to tell you, you know, I'm here in Ottawa, so I see this guy quite a bit.

And in 2012, when he won his first Norris trophy, I really did feel like that was a valid criticism. of that vote. Right. That people were getting a little, a little too caught up in the offensive numbers, and, you know, I wasn't watching them night in and night out,

but I felt fairly often. And I felt like in 2012, this guy really did seem like a defensive liability on a lot of nights. There was just a lot of careless play didn't really seem to have adapted to the NHL game quite yet. He was a young guy at the time.

I mean, it wasn't like that was a huge red flag, but, you know, a lot of, a lot of giveaways and, And, you know, not just a lot of guy. I know we don't pay much attention of that as a stat, but just bad giveaways.

It seems like every night there would be at least one play that would lead directly to a scoring chance. What is this guy doing? And I think when he won in 2012, there was this kind of backlash saying this guy's a lousy defensive player, which is probably a little to get too strong. But, you know, it got the point across. But I feel like since that people have latched onto that, and they assume that he's still the same player. And I can tell you, he's not. He's come a long way defensively.

This guy, you know, put aside the argument that, you know, look, if you spend the whole shift in the offensive zone, you've had a good defensive shift. You know, the other team can't score if you've got the puck the whole time and you're trying to, you're trying to score. Even putting that aside, you know, this guy, no one's ever going to confuse him for Scott Steven. No one's ever going to confuse this guy for Chris Pronger. That's not who he is. You know, he doesn't have the body type to play that game. But this guy is no longer that defensive liability. that he seemed like in 2012.

And, you know, is he the guy I'm going to put out there if I have my pick of any defenseman and there's one minute left in a game and I got a one goal lead, the other team's got their goalie out, that the face-offs in my zone, is Eric Carlson the guy put out there? No, I probably put Drew Dowdy out there instead of Eric Carlson. But you know what? Part of that, part of defending that one goal lead is you've got to get the lead in the first place. That means you've got to have some offense at some point.

And, you know, Eric Carlson is the guy I would want on my team to make, make sure that I have that one goal lead to defend at the end of the game. Yeah, especially with the direction the league's headed in with scoring being down across the board and just what the physical demands, you mentioned, of playing the position, right? Like, I think Carlson definitely has taken leaps and bounds as a well-rounded player since that 2012 campaign, and it kind of not, not everyone can be like Drew Doughty where they come into the league as a teenager and all of a sudden play this well-rounded game in every facet of it, right? Like, it takes time for certain guys, especially playing that position.

and he's gotten so much better sort of just with his awareness and his positioning and using his skating, not just when he has the puck or when he's jumping in on the rush, but actually kind of, you know, retrieving the puck in his own zone and making plays with it to get it out of there. So I think, I think this entire sort of thinly veiled smear campaign on players like Carlson is just sort of need to stop because it shows a lack of understanding of where the game's headed to in 2016. Yeah, and the other thing that I'd say for Krelson, because it's another argument that comes up fairly often, and, you know, because I waded into it this morning.

With the posts that I wrote, I've been sort of had my memory refreshed on all the various talking points to get on both sides because getting hammered with it on Twitter and comment sections and all those places. But something that does come up that I do think is a somewhat valid point against Eric Carlson is the penalty-kill situation. The fact that he really doesn't play that much on the penalty kill. I've had people tell me, Eric Carlson doesn't kill penalties.

That's not true. Eric Carlson does kill penalties. He plays about a minute and a half a game on the penalty kill. But that's far less than Drew Doughty. It's far less than other guys that typically come up in these conversations do. And I do think that is worth at least considering the fact that this guy's own coach doesn't see fit to use him as his top guy when it comes time to killing penalties. which is, you know, the most defensive situation

that a defenseman in theory is going to face in a typical game. But I would say a couple of things there to people who are kind of nodding their heads as they hear that and thinking that that is a strike against Eric Carlson. Number one, the fact is Eric Carlson is playing an insane amount of ice time. Yes, yeah. He's only 29 minutes a game. Like, he's in Ryan Suter, Terry. He's in Duncan Keith in the playoffs territory.

So it's not like this guy's being shielded. It's not like they're picking their spots. with him. And in fact, it seems much more to be the case where they're using him so much that, you know what, you've got to get the guy arrested at some point. And maybe the senators are looking at their roster going, you know, we've got a couple of defensemen here that we can, we feel comfortable using on the penalty kill that maybe we don't want to use him a ton in other situations, but they can go out there and kill penalties. Give Eric a bit of a breather, because he's out there almost all the time on the power play and almost all the time on five on five. So it makes a little bit

of sense to say, you know, let's, we got to give the guy a breather at some point. point. The other thing I point out, and you know, this is a little bit of an apples and oranges thing, but penalty killing ice time is a weird thing. And you've got to kind of look at, you know, the bigger picture at how teams are using guys. And one guy that jumps out of me when you look at the minutes is, you know, and like I say, it's apples and oranges because we're comparing a defense and to a forward, but Jonathan Tate does not do a lot of penalty killing. Jonathan Tates plays about the same amount of short-handed time that Eric Carlson does. And, and yet Jonathan Taves consistently is considered, you know, not only does he not have that held against him when it comes to

Hart Trophy discussions or, you know, who's the best player. This is the guy who gets a lot of Selky votes every year, which is unlike the Norris, the Selke is an award that specifically is for the defensive side of the game. And yet you never hear anyone say, well, Jonathan Taze doesn't kill penalties, so he can't win the Selke. And, you know, frankly, I would say rightfully so, because Jonathan Tate is so good five-on-five. I don't really care whether they decide to give him a rest when the team short-handed or not. I want to know most of the games still play five-on-five. How does a guy do there? Jonathan Taves is amazing five-on-five.

So is there a Carlson. So I think the penalty killing, it's a valid point, but I think it's in the big picture. I think it's a very minor one. Well, you can also poke holes in it in the sense that, I mean, obviously, if you're using that as an argument against Carlson, you're making the assumption that, A, he can't kill penalties, which we don't necessarily even really know because he hasn't been given the chance. And then on the flip side, if you say, well,

as coaches don't trust him to do it, it's like, are we really kind of sure 100% that Dave Cameron is actually a good coach who should be relied upon to be making all these, like, assertions that, oh, just because Dave Cameron thinks that Eric Carlson can't do it, it means that it's the law. Like, I don't know, all this stuff seems sort of very, like, you could pick holes in all of that, I think. I don't know if we should trust Dave Cameron,

but based on his comments today, Eugene Melnick doesn't mean. He doesn't trust him, yes. So, yeah, you're right, maybe. If we're wondering what Eric Carlson's usage would look like under a different coach, we might find out by October. Well, I think it's all a moot point. I mean, you've been just playing like 29 minutes. I think that if you had to play a couple extra minutes on the penalty kill, too,

he might just, like, disintegrate into thin air, I think. So anyways, okay, let's move on and let's discuss the Leafs a little bit. I know that you're a Toronto fan, and there's been this weird pushback here, because I've written about the Leafs a bunch lately, and there's basically a pushback from people who are in one of two camps. There's, whenever someone like myself praises the Leafs for seeming to at least have a purpose and a direction and some foresight involved in their decision-making,

people either think that it's kind of complete bogus fluff pieces that Rogers Sportsnet is asking me to do, and you and I are both affiliated now with Rogers, so maybe we're not the people to have this discussion. But then there's the second camp that thinks that, you know, they've been just so mentally traumatized by everything the Leafs have put him through over the years that they're taking the, we'll believe it when we see it approach. But I'm not crazy, right? Like, the Leafs are definitely headed in the right direction here. They are.

And then, look, there is that argument that's been made often over the last few weeks for the Leifes and other teams. This seems, I don't know, I don't know if there was a memo or something that I missed, but apparently at some point we all decided we're going to beat this drum at the same time. And I even wrote about it a couple weeks ago, this idea that, look, when you're going to do the rebuild, the tear down is the easy part. The losing is the easy part. Hitting rock bottom, stripping everything down,

that's the easy part. The hard part is building up from there. And, you know, in that sense, what the Leafs are doing now very successfully, granted, is still the easy part. They've got to still find a way to do the rest of it. And, you know, I take that point to an extent. I don't think anybody is,

looking at what the Leafs are doing now and saying, well, we've got to pencil these guys in for the Stanley Copping three or four years because it's a sure thing. I would dispute a couple things. So, first of all, they say the teardown is the easy part. Not necessarily, because I've watched the Leafs for 10 years, refused to do that tear down, you know, deciding to do it, actually having the, you know, being able to swallow hard and bite the bullet and look your fans in the eyes and say, this is the path we're going down.

You know, we can say that it's easy. you know, ask the folks out in Vancouver how easy it is. Ask, you know, maybe in Calgary how easy it is. So the Leaves do deserve credit. They have a plan. They are sticking to it. So far, you know, I think they're checking all the boxes along the way. There's a lot of boxes left to check for sure.

And, you know, how do they continue to develop these young players? How do they bring in the depth around them? Certainly, you know, you've seen the Oilers are Exhibit A. that you can have all the top of the draft talent, but if you continually fail to surround them with any sort of supporting cast, you're not going to go anywhere.

So, you know, I take that point. At the same time, with apologies to Oilers fans, I'm not going to judge every rebuild based on what happened in the Edmonton Oilers. The Edmonton Oilers are the worst case scenario. You know what? I mean, you know, I'm not going to not drive to the store

because somebody I know crashed their car once, you know, and the Oilers I know there's a lot of that pushback has come out of Edmonton. There's been a lot of, you know, fans and media there who've been like, you know, look at the Leafs acting like they're, you know, they're on the road to a Stanley Cup and, you know, they need to know that it's, well, yeah, it's been tough for you guys, for sure. But like I wrote a few weeks ago, there have been other teams that have thrown this switch very quickly. You know, this idea that, hey, once you hit Rock Bottom, you're looking at five years of pain

before you're going to get back up to that contending status. That's not necessarily true either, right? Sometimes it is. Some teams never get there, the Oilers, the Panthers, the Islanders for years and years, never had all these high picks, were always at the bottom, never really managed to get any traction out of it. But you look at the Blackhawks, the Penguins, the Kings, the Lightning, the Capitol, and all these teams that went from the bottom to, you know,

back towards the top of the standings fairly quickly. I'm not saying that's going to happen at least. I'm not saying that's going to leave two years away from being Stanley Cup contenders. but I do think that if they continue along the path they're on, they continue to make good decisions and follow the process that is apparently leading them to make some of these solid choices. You know, I'm not convinced that the least are as far away as people think, and that's a very weird thing for me to say as a least thing

because I'm used to the pessimism and all that. I've had 30 years of experience telling me that never, you know, never allow any of that optimism in at all. But, you know, I look at this team and, you know, the idea that these guys are going to be awful for five years, I don't buy that. I think they might be closer than some people think. Right. Yeah. So there's this, I don't know, how to share this phrase.

Okay, there's a certain segment of hockey fans that take, are morally opposed to the idea of tanking and it rubs them the wrong way and you should, you know, do it, do it properly or organically and just based off sound decisions. And that entire argument seems weird to me because the system right now is rewards teams for tanking basically, right? Like the Oilers, of course, haven't had success. And the Sabres for the past few years now don't necessarily have that much to show for their efforts. But I think that while the system provides support to teams who continually lose and rewards them with high picks, like you'd be foolish not to. What's the point of being the Canucks or being the flames for all those years with a Gidla and Kiprasoff, where they were just routinely in that ninth, 10th range in the Western Conference.

Like, it seems like truly bottoming out and hoping that you have a little bit of luck with the high prospects you wind up taking and then supporting that with good moves and the margins winds up elevating you to a higher level, right? Like, that seems like a no-brainer to me, but some people just can't seem to really wrap their head around that. Well, you know, here's the thing. I mean, I hate tanking. I really do.

I hate this time of year when everyone, especially this year, there's so, few teams on the playoff bubble. I mean, it seems like there's 10 teams that are already completely out of the thing. And everyone's just cheering against their team. Everyone's rooting for their own team to lose. We're all looking at the lottery percentages. You know, I really do, I really do

dislike this. And there was a part of me that really appreciated Brian Burke when he, you know, he was one of those guys who said, I'm not going to do this. You know, I am not, this is not who we are and we're not going down this path. Because I, you know, there's just something in

me, I can't stand that this is what the NHL is. But that said, this is what the NHL is. This is what the system is. And you're right. The incentive to tank, the incentive for me as a fan to cheer for my team to lose is obviously there. And so, you know, to me, I hate tanking, but I hate that the NHL has created this system. I have nothing against the teams that are taking advantage of it. You know, you look at what the Sabres did last year.

Sabres, you know, took a lot of heat for that, and I know a lot of Sabres fans had a real problem with some of the reactions and the way that the Sabres were singled out. But I feel like the Buffalo Sabres basically punted an entire season in order to get one of Connor McDavid and Jack Eichael. I don't like that the system made it possible for them to do that, encourage them to do it, but that's what the system is. And I've got no problem with Tim Murray going ahead and actually doing that.

And I've got no problem with Buffalo Sabers fans cheering against the team. You know, when they lost that game at the coyote, and favors fans cheered and people thought, oh my gosh, that's terrible. You know what? Maybe it's terrible that they set out how what they weren't supposed to say. But, you know, other than that, you know, this is what the system is. And there's better systems out there. There's other ways the NHL could do this.

There are ways that the NHL could create a system where you would be cheering for your team to win at this time of year, or at the very least, you know, you'd want them to win just for the sake of winning because there would be no point to losing. And, you know, Gary Bettman came out last week or whatever. it was and said, you know, well, our new lottery system, there's no more incentive to lose, which is, you know, it's clearly silly. The new lottery system is an improvement. It's better that we've introduced a little bit more randomness and made it so that you're

not guaranteeing yourself of anything other than the top four pick. That's an improvement, but there's still a long way to go. And, you know, I wish the league would make a more radical change so that we wouldn't have to go down this road every year. But until that happens, I have no problem. problem at all with teams that follow this strategy. And I've got no problem at all for fans that cheer for the results that very clearly are going to help their team in the long run.

Yeah, well, that makes perfect sense. Okay, let's talk about some teams that are actually winning now, and there's about three weeks left in the season, I guess, and there's a race in each conference to follow, but let's focus on the more interesting one from Miao East where, just because it's going to have more ramifications in the playoffs, I think, how they're going to unfold at least on the Eastern Conference side. And it's this battle between the flyers, islanders, and Red Wings, or only two of them is going to make it.

And I think maybe even the more interesting thing is the curveball that's totally snuck up on us here, where especially after the Malkin injury, we expected that the penguins would be one of those three teams instead of the islanders. But all of a sudden now, there are only a few points back of the Rangers for second in Metro. And I know that you're the good person to ask this question, because I know that you're very big on rivalries. And obviously you must have been pretty excited about that island.

Islanders, Rangers matchup, which seemed like a certainty for a while there, but all of a sudden now, uh, we might not get that. I, man, I was, I was all over that and I almost feel personally to blame. I feel like I, uh, I, uh, you know, I probably pumped it up too much and the hockey got saw that and figured that they had to go in and mess it up somehow. Beyond, I've still got my fingers crossed that we'll get that, that Rangers Islanders first round match up, especially if it comes with a Pittsburgh, Washington first round or two. I mean, I think that's the ideal situation for, for that metro. but yeah, no, I mean, it's an interesting race, it's a small race,

but in a way, you know, maybe, you know, maybe that's going to be more interesting to follow. You know, you're following the same two or three teams every night. It's not like past years where there's a half dozen teams, and you forget about one team and then suddenly you look at the standings, and oh, geez, there they are because they, you know, and everyone's having their three-point games and all of this silliness that the league's ridiculous standing system creates for us. but yeah, I mean, I'm fascinated by the Philadelphia Flyers. I really am what they've become under Ron Hextel.

After, you know, years and years of the Flyers always being, you know, the big kid in the room when it came to any top players that were available, any free agents, any trades, the Flyers were always so aggressive. They were always right in on them. You know, you put them right next to the Rangers as far as the teams that were obviously being the most aggressive as far as going out and trying to build winners. And clearly, you know, it didn't really work out for them. But it's interesting to me to see them change direction this way

and have Ron Axel come in and so far take a very patient approach. Because remember last year they were on the bubble around the trade. They weren't really intending for a playoff spot, but they were in that zone that we all pretend that teams are still in it where, you know, if you're within six points at the deadline. and the GM says, we're going to make a run, and we all pretend like they've got a shot to do it.

They were in that zone, and Ron Hexel didn't say, we're going to make a run. He went seller instead, which I thought was the right decision, but a very interesting one, especially in that Philadelphia market. And then this year, you know,

doesn't sell, but also doesn't buy, even though he goes into the deadline, you know, even closer to a playoff spot, you know, doesn't go out looking to bring in those reinforcements. He's clearly, you know, we talked about,

the least having a plan and sticking to it. Ron Hexel clearly has a plan, and he's sticking to it. I think that's the right thing, even though I'm very interested to see what the reaction is if the Flyers end up missing the playoffs by one point, let's say. What's the reaction in Philadelphia to the fact that Ron Hexel didn't bring anyone in? But I will say I've mentioned that in the past.

Every Flyers fan I've ever heard from has said, you know what, we're fine with it, we get it, we understand what the plan is. We trust this guy, and if it means missing the playoffs, rather than going into the first round and getting swept by the capitals or whoever, then we're okay with it. So, you know, it's going to be interesting to see. And, you know, clearly the fact that they're chasing the Detroit Red Wings with this 24-year streak on the line.

And just just makes it even more interesting. So it's, you know, it's going to be a fun race. It will be interesting to watch. And then, yeah, looking at just the way that those teams kind of move up and down in the standings and see what sort of matchets we get, because there could be, there could be some real fun ones, or there could be some really weird ones, and we may still, we may still get my wish that we haven't seen yet under the new format of getting the double crossover that will completely confuse fans who don't understand how the, how the playoff

seating actually works, and are going to be very confused where if the season ended today, you'd have Detroit suddenly becoming a metro team and the islanders becoming an Atlantic team and nobody would understand what the heck was going on. I'm sure, yeah, I'm sure the NHL would be really happy about that, considering how much time they spend pumping up these rivalries and all of a sudden that throws them for a little loop. But no, the second round, I don't know, like, I would love to see, of course, I mean, Penguins Capitals, Rangers Islanders would be a great first round, for example. But if you're telling me the second round is going to have potentially Ducks Kings and

then Penguins Capitals, like those are two pretty juicy matchups, I think. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that, you know, I wrote a thing that this week about, the Central Division. I talked about how, you know, how great that division has been, how entertaining it's been those three teams at the top that are, you know, have been trading first place all season long

and how, you know, how interesting a race that is because the two teams that don't finish first are going to have to play each other. And, you know, I've been enjoying the heck out of the Central this year, but I had up, you know, more than a few people reach out and say, you know what? Central may, yeah, Central's been great top to almost bottom

if you knock Winnipeg off there, but the top three in the Pacific might be just as good. And, you know, those three California teams, and, you know, San Jose's been forgotten a little bit. You know, and I think they're a better team that people think, but, yeah, the fact that we're going to get, you know, at this point, assuming that L.A. or whoever wins specific makes it out of the first round, we're going to get back-to-back battle of California.

I mean, that's one of it, if not the best three-way rivalries that we've seen in a while. You know, man, you look at whichever team comes out of that. I mean, a team like Anaheim, if the season ended today, you're looking, we've got to beat San Jose and L.A., and then we've got to beat whoever comes out of that central division just to get to the finals, go up against potentially the Washington Capitals team that finished 20 points ahead of everyone. Man, it's a real tough path to the Stanley Cup for somebody this year, especially, whichever team comes out of the West.

Well, I think the Sharks have had a pretty remarkable season because I'm pretty sure last time I had, you on the show. We were discussing the idea about Patrick Marlowe trade and how I remember you wrote an article about how rare it is. The guys this late into their career get moved on. And we were discussed, the sharks were just a mess. And the entire Pacific there, other than the Kings was it was just sort of the laughing stalk of the league. And then all of a sudden, the sharks have been playing as one of the best teams in the league for the past however many weeks. And you look ahead and it's like, okay, they're probably going to have to go through the ducks and then the Kings back to back.

And there's just, I guess anything's possible in the playoffs, but it seems very unrealistic. And then I'm just sort of mentally bracing myself for all the think pieces about how Joe Thornton just can't get it done in San Jose and wondering whether it's time for them to move on and start their franchise all over again. So I don't know, I just, I really feel for both Thornton and the sharks, because as great of a year as they've had, the roadblocks ahead of them just seems so daunting. Yeah, I mean, the sharks have been such a weird team over the last few years with you know, that whole reputation of not being able to get it done in the playoffs.

And then this weird kind of rebuild that wasn't a rebuild, that was maybe a reload, but also not kind of quite that, that Doug Wilson had them doing where, you know, he kind of say one thing and then he'd do the other. You never really knew what direction they were going in. And, you know, yeah, like I say, they've sort of been forgotten, and that's kind of the human nature, right? Like, we latch on to stories.

We love the story in the first half of the season, and the story in the Pacific was, A, that the division was terrible, and B, was the Kings. The Kings are back, the Kings are running away from this. You know, look out, NHL. They took a step back last year, but the Kings are right back in it, and here's your top-tier Stanley Cup contender coming out of the Pacific. And then the second half, it's been the Ducks in that charge that they've made, and, you know, being at one point, the hottest team in the NHL cooled off a little bit since then,

but looking as good as they did and making the run at the Kings, and so, you know, we all kind of dropped the kings and started talking about the ducks, and now, you know, down the stretch back to the Kings a little bit, but, you know, meanwhile, you know, I think a lot of people who are probably listening to us talk right now who don't have the standings in front of them would be surprised to look at the standings and realize how close the sharks are to those two teams. It's not like it's the Kings and the Ducks and then a big gap down to get to the sharks. The sharks are one point back at the Anaheim Ducks right now.

The sharks are five points back of the Kings with ten games left. they play each other once. I mean, it's an outside shot, but it's not impossible that the sharks could win that division. You know, I think that would really catch people by surprise. And, you're right. The sharks are one of those teams. They're just, they've got such a tough path to the Stanley Cup.

The odds are overwhelmingly against them, and as soon as they go out, everybody's going to fire up the narrative machine and go back, whether it's Joe Thornton or whatever it is, you know, similar. Same sort of thing out east front. with the Washington Capitals, with the history that that team has in the playoffs, which I don't think is fair because I don't think nothing that Alexander Rovichkin and

Braynhoope do has anything to do with Peter Bondra or Olaf Colzig or whatever happened back in 1992. But that's not how it works in sports. You know, it's not, you know, I was writing another thing today on a different topic. And I said, you know, if we're being fair, we've got to look at it this way, but we're not being fair because we're sports fans and we're not fair. So, you know, that is unfortunately going to stick to the sharks. and they probably do have to blow it up at some point, just given the age of these guys.

I mean, you've got Marlowe and Thorntner both into their late 30s at this point. You just can't, at some point, you've got to sort of turn the keys over to the younger guys. But it's not because this is a team that has somehow been fatally flawed and can't win the big one. I mean, at the end of the day, sometimes you build a really good team, and you can be one of the five or six best teams in the league for the better part of a decade, and you just don't win the Stanley Cup. And that's just it. You know, that's the full extent of the explanation.

We always look for these flaws. They couldn't get it done. They couldn't find a way they did leadership and, you know, all this stuff, character, and, you know, all this. Sometimes you're just a real good team and your number just doesn't get called, and that's just the reality of it. And I have a feeling that that might be what we're seeing with the sharks, but I don't think that's how the story is going to get written when and if we see the end of this variation of the team.

I mean, maybe they'll be well-served kind of coming in as the underdog with very few expectations because for years they were atop the standings in the regular season and had all this hype and all of a sudden they just come crashing down in the first round and maybe, yeah, I mean, it'd be huge for them if they could potentially even steal that Pacific Division crown here because then that means that they would only have to play one of those teams, and they could just let the Kings and Ducks kind of just beat each other up in that first round. But it's still seeming unlikely that's going to happen at this point. All right, Sean, it was good fun chatting with you.

Do you want to plug anything while you're still here? I know that you're doing an event coming up in Ottawa, and I know we have a ton of SENS fans that listen to this podcast, and maybe some of them would like to come check you out. Yeah, all those SENS fans who want to thank me in person for my support of Eric Carlson. and coming out. Yeah, there's an event that's Thursday night down in the market.

It's part of this Puck Talk series that you probably seen mentioned on Twitter and social media and other spots they've done stops in Toronto and elsewhere. And I think this is the first one in Ottawa. So it's me, it's Ian Mendez, Bruce Gere, Shannon Proudfoot, Chris Johnson is doing it. And, you know, as far as I know, it's going to be, you know, a few hockey people

we're going to be taking questions, just talking to some hockey, talking about probably a lot of the same topics we just talked about and some interaction with the audience and that sort of thing. So I've mentioned it on my Twitter. I'll mention it again, but certainly anyone out there in Ottawa is looking for something to do this coming Thursday, come check it out. And beyond that, you know, as far as stuff to plug, you know, plenty of stuff on sportsnet,

plenty of stuff on Vice. Hockey News once a week. I've got a piece going out on the Guardian. I think tomorrow they, on the whole tanking situation, and they asked me for an explainer on what exactly was going on and while these NHL teams seem to be trying to lose. So, you know, I've had more than a few people complain to me that my stuff is kind of spread out everywhere these days.

So, you know, what easiest thing to do, just follow me on Twitter, and I promise whenever I write something, I will spam me with multiple links to it. over the course of the day. Excellent. I highly recommend that. And we'll make sure to get you back on, especially if we get that Islanders Rangers series.

I know you're going to be so fired up that we'll have you on to preview that. I'm in. Cool. Okay, talk to you, man. All right. The Hockey PDOCast with Dmitri Filipovich. Follow on Twitter at Dim Philipovich and on SoundCloud at

SoundCloud.com slash hockeypedocast.