The Hockey PDOcast - Episode 76: Where Did It All Go Wrong?

Episode Date: April 8, 2016

Thomas Drance joins the to discuss how the Vancouver Canucks went from winning the Presidents' Trophy to being one of the worst teams in the league in just 4 years, with the bottom particularly falling out on them this season. We also look into how he'll approach filling out his awards ballot, and give advice on how to break into this industry. Here’s a quick rundown of the topics covered: 7:00 Jim Benning's tenure 12:15 Ownership Meddling 14:20 The Gold Plan 19:00 The NHL Awards ballot 30:45 Hockey blogging 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. 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 P.D.O.cast with your host, Dmitri

Filippovich. Welcome to the Hockey PEDEOCast. My name is Dimitri Filipovich. And joining me in studio in my living room is the, uh, one, the only Thomas Drens. Oh, thanks for the very generous introduction, Dimitri. Yeah. Pleasure to be here.

Yeah, no, this is exciting, man. I've wanted to get you on for a while, but you're a busy man. I feel like you have a million, million jobs in the hockey sphere, so. At least two, but thanks for having me and thanks for providing the blue buck. Yes. Not a sponsor, but they should be. If they want to send over some beer, we're listening. But no, I've become a dedicated listener, and I really admire the work you've done here,

so it's truly a thrill to be on with you today. Oh, stop it. Okay, so we're going to talk about the Canucks a little bit. And I say that fully acknowledging that a lot of people might have just instantly either turn this off or fast forwarded. But we've gotten a lot of kind of people asking, can you talk about the Canucks a little bit? Because I feel like there's nothing really worthwhile about their season this year, like in a vacuum. But if you view it as a big picture of what's happened to this franchise over the past like five years,

it's really sort of like an undertold story, I feel like. Yeah, it's been a, what, was a slow decline into mediocrity from being an elite team has become a precipitous decline into a seller dweller. And this is really the second time in three years that this team is going to be at the very bottom of the NHL stand as standings, right? Like with a very good lottery odds. And in looking at the big picture, this is a team that's sort of been caught in the middle, you know, in some ways. But that said, I was thinking about it today. And I think, you know, one of the things that they avoided was actually the worst case scenario this season.

I don't know that I buy that the injuries sabotaged their playoff bid, but the injuries certainly sabotaged their ability to finish 10th last. And now they're really going to be a bottom five team with decent lottery odds to find a pretty good player. And so in some ways, I almost think they got a little bit lucky in trying to thread the needle, as it were, and compete while rebuilding, you know, by failing to be competitive for a variety of reasons, I think they've dodged a major bullet this year. Yeah, no, I mean, you definitely, the worst position you can be in is that sort of late 2000s Calgary Flames, where you're just constantly just missing the playoffs, but you're not really getting good players in the draft. And I don't know, I don't want to put you on the spot here and make you look stupid by any means. But I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that before the season, we made a bet a friendly gentleman's wager on whether the Canucks would make the playoffs or not. And I think it was actually over a steak dinner. And the caveat here is I'm a vegetarian, actually. So I wasn't even planning on cashing. in on this bet. I was just so convinced

that Canucks weren't going to make the playoffs that it was it was a, uh, yeah, I'll get you some tea at the nom, I suppose. But yeah, I mean, I think the lesson to take from that is to, you know, catch me three or four beers deep and, uh, and suggest a bet. Yes. The lesson for all your list is.

I mean, they've been so bad this year. Like, I feel like the injuries thing is like, sure, they might have been a little bit better, but I'm looking at it right now. I've made a few notes. They're the fourth worst record in the league, dead last and goal differential. Only devil's score fewer goals and only the senators give up more shots against. Like that's pretty bad.

And pretty much any category you start by, like the names beside them are either the Oilers, the Leafs. And one of those teams is actively trying not to win. And the other team is trying to win. But that, it's a whole other issue. It's been really ugly. And I think, I was thinking about it today. And I think the undertold story, like people are talking a lot about how injuries

resulted in young players being promoted above their pay grade. And, you know, Bo Horvett being used as a elite shutdown center in his prime when that's clearly not a role. capable of handling and on and on. But I think the under-told story of what's occurred with the Canucks this season is that, you know, in early December, late November, Henrik Sidene sustained some sort of injury. We don't really know what it was. He didn't miss games until Christmas time.

Returned briefly, got hammered by Mikhail Grabowski and Brooklyn, you know, missed a few games before the All-Star break and has returned. But if you look at, you know, his minutes per game started to fall precipitously in early December and the underlying numbers, I mean, you know, we're looking at a 40-game stretch where the Cedine twins are under 50%. And, you know, whether it's age, whether or not it's injuries, whether or not it's a combination of the two, and it probably is some sort of correlation of forces. Right. You know, what really fell out on the Canucks this year was the top end of their roster, which for years has actually been capable of hanging with the best of the league, even as

the team got sabotaged by atrophying depth. Right. You know, with increasing frequency. And this year that I think changed and all of a sudden you know so people are talking about well you know these young players will be better for the experience they've had this year and you know maybe the team's depth will be a little bit better maybe they can rebound quickly at least jim benning was sort of making some of those points on tsn 1040 right earlier today in Vancouver and you know I look at it and I just think man that might be true but only if the top end of this roster holds and you know with what we've seen this year with what we saw during the torturella season can the sidine twins sort of play at that level 55% outscoring opponents

you know two to one over the course of a full 82 game season reliably going forward and you know man I think that's a really tough bet to make yeah well it's a shame right because I agree you probably don't want to ask them to do all of that heavy lifting but if in the right scenario like if they had the support there's no reason why they couldn't have like a a yager type season right where they're still like well we've talked about this for years now it's like when are the Soudines finally going to decline? And it's maybe their five on five numbers or defensive numbers will slip a little bit. But like they have the smarts and sort of these, uh, inherent gifts in their game that's going to allow them to be good, probably even approaching their 40s if they really

actually want to keep playing, right? But yeah, yeah. I mean, you look at it when the Kinnocks were still in a playoff spot at the end of November. Yeah. Before the, you know, Brandon Sutter injury had really, like, wrecked havoc on the team. And before they lost Hanhuse, which turned out to be just a mammoth loss. way bigger than I would have anticipated at the time. Before that, with Chris Tannave and Henrik Siddeen on the ice, the Canucks had outscored opponents 10 to 1, you know, at that point in the season. And the percentage, say percentage numbers, shooting percentage numbers, weren't off the charts.

I mean, there was a little higher than 100 in terms of their PDO, but not outrageously. And that just, that logic fell apart over the second half of the season. I feel like no one's talking about that. And I really do think that that's the major reason why. this team fell into the gutter to the extent they did. Certainly injuries to Ham Hughes, Edler, Sutter, hurt. But really, when I look at it, I think the most costly injury of this team sustained

was the injury to Henrik Sadeen, even though it only cost him, you know, four or five games over the course of the full season. Right. Okay, so you mentioned Jim Benning earlier in an interview he did on TSN, and I wanted to talk to you about him a little bit because I know you've interacted with him and you might, you know, your opinion might be a little biased here because you had personal conversations. He's a lovely guy.

I'll tell a story. When I got back from Vancouver, or I got back from Toronto to Vancouver at the end of the All-Star Break. And, you know, Jim Benning was discussing the Brandon Pruss-Waver thing. And the TV cameras, the bright lights of the TV cameras move on. The radio mics move on. And it's, you know, me, Botchford, and maybe a couple other print guys. And Jim stops it and he goes, let me ask you guys a question,

like, Drans, when are you moving out here? Like, what's going on? And I explained to him, you know, that I've got my girlfriend in Toronto, who I need to keep happy. Jim, like, puts his hand on my shoulder. and he's like, there are things that are more important than the game, right? And it's just like, you're the nicest guy, you know? So, so yeah, that does color your...

Right. I don't think it colors my work. Yes. But it certainly does color your personal opinion. Like, I think he's a genuinely, you know, thoughtful human being. And I do think that he's a good scout. I do think he's got a good hockey mind. I think certainly what I'd say is that the asset management side and some of the,

as NHL management teams are becoming more sophisticated league-wide, we've sort of seen a little bit of an inverse movement in Vancouver, certainly from the Gilman Gillis era to where we are now, losing multiple players on waivers, and certainly mistiming a variety of contract extensions over the last year. So, I mean, all that stuff definitely hasn't done him any favors, but I have this theory, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that I think if he was more of a slick public speaker,

a lot of this stuff would be lost over a little bit more. But the fact that he sort of puts his foot in his own mouth sometimes when he goes on radio or on TV, and he's just not a, I don't know, he's just not a great sort of a spin master. Like he has a tough time sort of, even if there's really kind of well thought out thought process going on in his head of why he did these moves, he sort of has trouble relaying it to fans and media. And I feel like that can sort of sometimes get him into a little bit of trouble, which

isn't necessarily going to, you know, hurt him doing his job when he's speaking off the record with other GMs and making moves. But I think sort of public perception of him can get clouded a little bit by the fact that when you listen to him speak, you're like, wait, what the hell did he just say? Like, I don't even know what happened. Yeah, well, so one thing I'd point out, though, is I think Vancouver is a particularly difficult market for a GM. You know, certainly he's not Trilliving, for example, in Calgary, who speaks and you're

just like, well, that's, that guy sounds really smart. But, you know, I do think even a guy like Ken Holland would run into trouble in Vancouver. I mean, Ken Holland's got that staccato, you know, speaks really quickly. And he's sort of prone, he's a smart guy, but he's prone to sort of similar. talking himself in a circle a bit and getting himself into some trouble. The difference is is that in Detroit, I feel like they don't, you know, there's not four or five different blog outlets posting the entire transcription. There's not, you know, Taj 1944, just going ham on his Twitter feed. Right. And, you know, you think about Gillis, right? Gillis was a very,

very good public speaker. And some of the funnest things about listening to Gillis on the radio was when news broke and Gillis had to react to it in real time. Right. Like I remember he was on TSN 1040 when the Columbus Blue Jackets traded for Jeff Carter. And they're like, Carter and Nash, that sounds great, doesn't it? And Gillis says, there's not enough pucks to go around. It's like, exactly. He was dead right. They were both volume shooters.

Right. So, you know, but even him, toward the end of his tenure, people were saying, well, you know, Gillis's public persona really didn't do him any favors in Vancouver. Nonis, similarly, was very slick. Like, I remember him. Minnie Berkey? He was super slick. Like, I remember him breaking down the David Clarkson deal.

And I was like, man, maybe Dave Nones makes sense staying in this front office because he's so good at explaining moves. Regardless of whether or not he had a hand in them. And, you know, similarly, he was criticized widely for the way that he addressed the public toward the end of his tenure in Vancouver. And Brian Burke, who is the best person to put a mic in front of in the entire sport, you know, similarly ran into some trouble toward the end of his tenure, even though he was widely, you know, his persona was certainly widely admired in the Vancouver Marquis. So I do think there are some particular difficulties about this marketplace, but I also think some of Jim Benning's particular weaknesses, and certainly public speaking and general media presentation is among them, though he's improved a lot, I think, over his two years here. You know, I think it's not, that's that's, that in particular is not a great fit.

Right. But it helps that he has Lyndon, right? Yes. He has Trevor Lyndon, who, if you're selling a long rebuild in Vancouver. Or a pair of contact or classes. Or a gym membership. You know, Trevor Linden is the ultimate frontman that you could have out in this market. He's the only guy, I think, who can genuinely sell patients.

And, you know, one other thing is the Canucks in the Gillis era really made other members of the organization available a fair bit. Like, Gilman was pretty, had a somewhat significant public profile. Even Lauren Henning was more likely to speak to the media than certainly the likes of John Weissbrood now. And so, you know, I do wonder if they might want to, you know, cushion Jim a little bit more by perhaps making more people available within the organization. Because certainly that was the case under the Gillis regime. And I wonder if that's part of the reason we remember their media presentation as being perhaps so polished. Right. Well, I also wonder, and I don't mean to turn this into sort of defending Jim Benning, because as we mentioned, he has certainly made his fair sure of personnel moves that,

warrant questioning and wondering whether he's the man for the job. But there are a bunch of circumstances, as you mentioned, and one of them is sort of this idea that was going on in the middle of the season about ownership meddling. Do you think there's actually anything to that? Or do you think it's just one of those things where it happens really for most teams and it just got blown up here because it's Vancouver? You know, that's hard to say. I mean, the back channel stories of ownership meddling in Vancouver, those are the stuff of legends. And the fact is is that, you know, I have to be careful about what I say

because of what I can actually verify, right? No one of those things do this thing, don't worry about. When you just, you know, you, uh, I, I, I, I tend to believe that there's an element to which that existed certainly under the previous regime. Right. Um, I tend to see a lot of things that the Canucks do through that lens.

I think you can't ignore that possibility if you're trying to actually put your finger on what's going on with this club. Um, you know, I think, For example, when Lyndon went out front on, you know, told Elliot Friedman made sure that it was a centerpiece of the headlines on Hockey Night in Canada that Willie Desjardin was staying. Right. You know, I think it's hard to understand that decision outside the context, perhaps, of a line in the sand or whatever being drawn, which was widely suggested. So, you know, I'm sure it's an influence.

I'm sure managing up is a thing that all NHLGMs have to be aware. of, and certainly that's probably true in Vancouver, too. Right. You know, I don't have the hard information to really go blasting in on it. So, you know, I want to be very cautious about it. But do I think it's a factor here? Like, almost certainly. Okay.

Yeah, let's move on. Okay, so I want to talk a little bit about this gold plan, which came up recently because Shane Donne started talking about it, but really it's something that was sort of brought up years ago. But it's interesting because I think it really applies to that at Canucks, because if you go on Twitter during their game days, I mean, when they beat the three California teams in a row last week, people were just freaking out.

You think it's like the worst thing ever happened. And this team just won three games against three other really good hockey teams. And it is weird, right? Because in a sense, I definitely agree with all those fans. Like it makes sense if you're rooting for a team or if you're building this team. At this point, if you're not going to make the playoffs or make a run, you really, you're incentivized to lose because you increase your chances of getting an elite talent that could make a difference for you in the future.

But that's a weird spot to be in because it's like, You know, it goes very counterintuitive to the reason why you're actually even playing the game in the first place. So, I don't know, like, what do you think the solution is there? So, first of all, I despise the incentives of play. I'm someone who has a genuine distaste for management tanking. You know, all apologies to Tim Murray and a bunch of others who've written the book, and I think that's the wisest course of action. The way the league is set up, if you're looking at this rationally, intentionally losing the way that, you know, certain teams in Buffalo and Toronto have done, I think is the wisest approach.

Like, I think that's the place that you're going to land elite talent, elite talent wins championships. If you're in this to win, you'll lose if you're not close. You know, I'm on board with that, but I have a distaste for it. And I think the reaction that you've seen from Canucks fans on Twitter over the past week, you know, is a good distillation of that. I think the product suffers when fans are actively rooting against the team that they usually support. I think that's just a poisonous atmosphere for everyone. And I'm glad you didn't use the word culture.

No, I just think it diminishes the product. Like speaking just from a sports entertainment product standpoint, like I just don't understand why the NHL would ever want, you know, some of their like most loyal, diehard, obsessed fans actively rooting against the team that they've spent 30 years cheering for. Yeah. So, you know, I think they've got to do something. I mean, I just think it's a mess every year. It doesn't matter which teams involved. It's not about the Kinnuck situation in particular. This is just a, the incentive.

The incentives suck. They're perverse. And they diminish the product. And so, you know, I like Shane Done's solutions somewhat. I still think it gives a little too much precedence to the bad teams. Right. But at least it gives fans a reason to root for winning. My favorite solution is the NBA's fixed wheel proposal. The wheel. The Zack Lowe's thing. I love that. And the reason I love that is, you know, you look at, to bring this around to the Canucks, they've never had a first overall draft pick. Like, I like the idea that a first overall draft pick is like a weapon in your arsenal that you get once every 30 years, but it's that valuable. Right.

And I love the idea of like trades, you know, a contending team trading, a really high pick. Yeah. You know, that would be massive news in a world where there was sort of a fixed draft pick. Standings or a 30 year cycle. So I'm a huge fan of that proposal. I'd love to see something like that. I think that would change the game for the better. What are the counterpoints against it?

I guess the, I think the biggest counterpoint against it is how do you implement it, right? because no one wants, you know, no bad team wants that to be implemented in the year that they're bad. They're going to get the first pick and then they don't get it. You know, so, I mean, maybe you do one last thing and set it on a fixed wheel for 30 years based on the finish of, you know, one season or whatever. And you make it fair based on how it flows over the next decade. But I think that's the biggest, I think the implementation of it is near impossible. But it's the way to do it. It's the fairest way to do it if you're going to keep the draft.

Maybe the next time they miss a season because of a lockout. Maybe they can. There go. Fine opportunity. I think they're going to have an opportunity pretty soon. Though even when that happens, they generally don't miss the draft, right? Oh, yeah. That's a key to keep in mind.

Yeah, they got to do something. It's so weird, right? Like, it's, I think it's pretty comical since I don't have any sort of investment with the team or anything like that. But it just like, it seems very weird and counterintuitive. And I don't understand, as you said, how the NHL can look at this and be like, oh, this is a good thing. It's like, bad, like any press is good press.

It's like, no. not really in this case. And really this has been going on for months. Like in Vancouver, it's really become pronounced over the last three weeks. But if you look back to three months, like, Smart Canucks fans have been plotting out how this team's demise and like how it can work out favorably and tracking the results of Columbus and Buffalo more closely than they are. Vancouver's division rivals since like February. And I, you know, I just don't see how that's good. I don't see how having your fans behave that way helps the league or helps the member of teams at all. All right, let's, do you want to talk a little bit about your ballot?

Because I know that you can vote on the awards this year. I know I know you can actually kind of give away all the secrets, but we can't probably lay out my whole ballot. And, you know, to be honest, I haven't done all my research on it yet. Anything I say here is subject to change as I continue to review the facts and consider in my head some of the games that I watched. But yeah, I got my ballot today. And I think it's going to be an interesting one.

I'm wrestling with a lot of different choices. here. So, okay, before we get into the actual details of it, you're going to, I'm assuming you're a stand-up guy, you're going to release how you voted after you're actually allowed to, right? Yeah, I did that last year at NHL Numbers.com and I'd imagine I'll do it again, uh, somewhere at the nation network. How are we, it's 2016, how we're not at the point where everyone is obligated to do so? Like, it's, you know, I don't understand it. You do, though, end up publishing your ballot, right? And then it's like, you're the only guy who gave Brian Campbell a vote for Norris, right? You're just like, oh, well, that sucks. Yeah, well, I was looking last year, it's like, Dennis Wyden got like four fifth

place votes or something. Okay. Well, then that makes me feel... People that think Dennis Widman was the fifth best defense. That makes me feel way better. Because I had Brian Campbell. I think I was the only person who gave Brian Campbell a Norris vote and I was the only person who gave Miku Koevu a Selki vote. And I was just, not that I regret those decisions. I think those were justifiable. I argued for them. Those make sense to me and I do it exactly the same. But you do feel a little bit exposed, especially as a first time voter when you realize that you're the only guy who voted for a couple of players. That's good though.

I mean, I understand people can sometimes, you know, take it way overboard and take the stuff way too seriously. But like you do have some sense of sort of obligation. Like you're, this stuff is important in the sense that a lot of guys have it built in their contract incentives, for example, right? If he finishes like top five in the voting of a certain award,

he gets a bonus kicked in. Like it's, this isn't just like random throwaway stuff where it's like no one's ever going to discuss it again. And I think I don't have a vote myself. But if I did, um, and this applies to the Calder this year.

I would approach voting in terms of, I view it as a time capsule where if you look back it at five years from now, I want to look back and be like, who is the best rookie? Who is the most valuable player? Who is the best defenseman? Right. So it actually, of course, you can't predict how five years from now any of these decisions might wind up looking stupid because of injuries or, you know, falling off or whatnot. But like, you look back and it's like the year Barrett Jackman won the rookie of the year.

It's like, what the hell happened there, right? It's like. You do feel that sense of obligation. And you also feel this sense of obligation that. this isn't your, like it is your awards ballot and you need to use your judgment. But for example, you know, if I was defining the rules for the Calder, Artemi Panarin wouldn't be, uh, Panarin, excuse me, would not be eligible. I mean, this is not a rookie in any true sense.

This is a seasoned professional who just hasn't played in the NHL before. So, you know, he wouldn't be considered. But I'm not going to hold that against him in making my Calder vote because that's not how the rules are. no matter how I might view it personally. And it's the same thing with the Norris, right? People want defensive play. The language is the best defense player, right?

It's not even defenseman. It's a defense player. Right. Is the specific criteria. And I think you do have to include, you know, defensive, the quality of a guy's defensive play has to be considered strongly when we're talking about a defenseman. But it's also not a best defensive defenseman award.

Right. is the best player who plays defense. And so from my perspective, that means points matter an awful lot. And it's not just, it's not okay to just say, well, this guy's 20% better at defense, even though he's 40% less productive offensively. But defense is what we were prioritizing. This is about the best, a holistic view of who's the best player who plays that position. Well, especially since there isn't like one sort of agreed upon criteria for how we're

defining defense, right? And that makes sense because there isn't just one way to play it, right? Like for offense, you can look at a guy's goal totals or point totals or what he means to his team in that regard and easily define it. But like, I think people sometimes struggle grasping that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Like if you have the puck, the other team doesn't. And that you need to take that into account, right?

Like a guy might be in a liability in his own zone, but if he's rarely having to play in his own zone, like you should take that into account as well. Yeah. Well, and, you know, I think not to keep sub-tweeting Eric Carlson, but when you look at his defensive game, I just don't buy that he's a liability in his own end anyway. He was like four years ago, right? It's like, for sure. But his defensive impact is significant now. Now, it's not as significant as Drew Dowdy's.

I think Drew Dowdy is an appreciably better defensive player. But then you look at the offensive side of the puck. And, you know, we're not talking about apples and oranges here, right? We're talking about, you know, grapes versus champagne. Yes. And, you know, I look at Drew Dowdy's, he's the third most productive power play goal score this season. That factors into any consideration of his offensive value.

But at even strength, he's produced at roughly the same rate as Chris Tanev, right? Yes. And it's hard to overlook that when Eric Carlson's having a historic offensive season. And when their two-way impact looked at holistically, right, is similar. I mean, they are, Drew Dowdy is slightly better to. offensively, but in terms of their overall two-way impact, they're pretty similar. And it's hard for me to overlook that too. I think the Selke is interesting because for years it was the award, it was like the one year or two late award where it was like, they would just give it to the guy

who was actually the best. Yeah, the Ryan Kessler wins at the year after the Canucks get Mani Mulhotro, which frees Kessler up from playing defense. Yeah. And it's, it's another one of those things, right? Where it's like a Paul Goste, not that he would, should deserve being nominated for the Selke, but it's like a guy like that is never. even going to get any sort of consideration for this because he doesn't have the requisite point totals to do so, right? And in theory, that's like a weird way to approach viewing this award, but it's just sort of the nature of the beast, I guess. Yeah, it's interesting. It is a two-way award. You know, I think it's going to be really hard for us to ever have Felix Hernandez of the

Selke's trophy, right? Felix Hernandez won the Syung with a 500 record in baseball. Right. Because, you know, their stats are a little bit more well-developed and his overall impact. Beyond that record was clearly the best in the American League that year. But, you know, I don't think we're ever going to see a 25-point player win the Selke. Even though it's, you know, supposed to be awarded to the forward who best excels in the defensive aspects of the game, it really is a two-way player award. And that's why I think you'll see Kopitar and Taves get nominated again, even though they don't play the type of, you know, shut down, a heavy diet of defensive zone starts role that guys like Brandon Dabinsky and David Backus and, you know, Patrice Bergeron, for example,

Sean Couture, those sort of players all hold down, Ryan Kessler too, hold down that sort of a deployment lean that's also defensive that, you know, Taves and Kopitar don't partly because their teams just are always starting in the opposite end of the ring. But, you know, so I think they'll get nominated. I think that it'll be them and Bergeron. I don't know quite yet where they figure into my ballot. I think the most interesting discussion. I'm having internally about the Selke are, you know, Sean Couturier, in my opinion, is a very strong candidate this year. And the only problem is that he has the sort of durability concerns. And, you know, that's going to be the same issue that I grapple with in voting for the Calder

with McDavid and Ghost versus, you know, Panarin. And so figuring out how specifically I want to wait that part of it, how much I value durability effectively, I think that's going to be the most interesting thing to sort of figure out, especially for down votes on the Selke. Well, I think that's fair, right? You're rewarding the guy for the season he had, and a guy that played nearly 80 games for his team is more valuable than a guy that played 60, right? Even if it's, sometimes you can't control injuries, it's a whole lot of luck involved. Like, that's just part of the, part of the award. Yeah, for sure. And, you know, I value durability so much in assessing players, you know,

for example, realizing that Mark Andre Fleury might only be an average starter, but he's an average starter who really will give you 65 games a year, you know, that sort of changed my whole perspective about his value to a team. And so, you know, I've come to value that durability as a skill and I've come to value that so much that, you know, then sort of getting away from that and making my awards vote and just going for true talent or quality of form seems a little bit hypocritical. So, you know, I haven't gotten, I haven't finished wrestling with that. I'll probably take the full week before submitting. What are you thinking about for the Jack Adams? Are you just sorting by PDO and picking the top guy?

So I don't vote on Jack Adams. That's the broadcasters. Oh, there. Yeah, yeah. Sure, that'll be handled with the utmost respect and dedication. I'd like Haxstall. I think Haxstall should be a strong candidate. Do you think he'll smile if he gets that award?

No, I don't. I think another guy is Barry Trotz, who's done a great job in Washington, and it was Bob McKenzie. They wrote an article recently about how the fellow coaches, you know, bestowed him with that honor of being the best coach in the league this year. And, I mean, I'm sure that means something. getting that from his peers and it makes sense that the caps have been very, very good this year. And I don't know, it's weird because I think, like, in theory, he probably, like, could have won it last year.

Like, I feel like that's where he did the heavy lifting, right? Like, it was, like, put it all into place. And then this year, it just all came together. Yeah. And, you know, you upgrade by two top six four runs effectively, right? Over the summer. But they did sort of deal ably with a variety of injuries. They also benefited a ton from good goaltending.

I mean, you know, as much as, as much as anyone else. I mean, Mike Sullivan, right? Would have to be a strong contender. I don't know about his durability, though. I mean, he just wasn't there for the 802 games. And so the other guy, I think, you know, I personally, if I was a broadcaster, would think of long and hard as a strong candidate, it's Bruce Boudreau. When you think about the start that they got off to and how remarkable it is, not that he deserves credit for it as much as Bob Murray does, but that he managed to withstand that, you know, just, effectively getting urinated on by the hockey gods for solidly four weeks and managed to survive that.

They revamped their system. They became a trap team and now they're sort of starting to score again. And I think they're probably better for it because they really did reconsider some of the ways they played. And that's often been the criticism of Boudreau's system is what system, right? It's that, you know, there's a lot of just go for it. Right. And, you know, I think they're not playing that way now. And you look at that decor. I mean, I think the Anaheim's going to be really dangerous in the playoffs. think what Bruce Widrow did this season deserve some recognition. Well, especially since we can like tangibly point to the fact that they made those

changes like, he made actual changes we can point and be like, listen, like they realize that things weren't going their way. And if they continued down this path, he'd probably get fired and they wouldn't make the playoffs. And they did something about it. And coaches very rarely do that. Like you see a guy like Michelle Tarian, for example. And there's only so much you could do.

Like, Kerry Price is so valuable that team. But he just like, you know, just kept doing the same thing. and didn't decide to alter his game plan at all. And there's something to be said for realizing when you need to change what's not working. Yeah, and Kerry Price is a good example of the durability thing working in reverse, right? It's like he didn't play this season. And as a result, we sort of now know that he really is the most valuable player in hockey. So maybe he should be considered.

He won't. All right. Before we get out of here, let's sort of talk about a kind of big picture general topic because I get a lot of emails and tweets about this. And I think you're the person. person to talk about this with because I consider you the John Calipari of hockey blogging where you just you run such a tight ship of bringing in high bringing in recruits yeah giving them a year or two of really just molding their games and then sending them out there to the pros and yeah well

I like when I get to keep them for a few years and you know once they're seniors and they really know your offense as opposed to those sort of swash buckling one and done guys like you yes yes who uh came in crushed the tournament and then uh out Well, we should say. I mean, I don't know if a lot of people know this, but you gave me my first chance in this industry where I was kind of doing my own independent blog, and you gave me a chance to write for Knoch's Army and kind of took off from there. And I get a lot of questions being like, what would you recommend as sort of your path to getting into this industry? Or do you have any tips or anything like that? And I usually just go with the same. You just, the reps are the most

important thing. Like, there's nothing that can replace that. But I don't know. What do you, what do you think to that question? Yeah. I mean, let me return your compliment by complimenting you. you're actually the perfect person to ask because when I look at what you did at Canucks Army, and you wrote there, you know, a couple two, two probably weekly for your first year there and your second year there, I got a job with the score and you were my choice to be the managing editor. And I really left you to your own devices, like probably more than I should have. Right. But you just excelled. You just wrote every day. You just became a workhorse. You started doing stuff

for the sporting news. You were always looking for other opportunities to branch out. And you really took advantage of, you know, an opportunity that wasn't all roses. But you were just like, it doesn't matter that there's some negative things that come here. I'm just going to build my own show. And you did a great job. And it was recognized and you went on to get better opportunities. And then I look at what you've done with this PDO cast. And I think it's the exact same thing, right?

You were looking to get back in the game. And you were just like, I'm just going to build my own thing and really improve at this one area. So first you got really good at writing. And now you've become, you know, as a multimedia superstar. Multimedia, and as a regular listener, I mean, you're... I said that tongue in cheek, by the way. No, of course, but your ability to guide conversations now versus when, you know, this started out in September or October, you know, it's grown exponentially. So I think you're right.

Those reps just building something and just being laser focused and disciplined in, you know, improving yourself while also trying to build a property. I mean, that's indispensable. I think that's way more valuable than a journalism degree these days. I think, you know, you got it. People don't pay for content anymore. They pay for audience. So it's like build your audience, improve, get better, and be a little bit political about how you do things. Don't be slamming everyone and, you know, acting the fool on Twitter.

You really do have to conduct yourself with a modicum of professionalism if you're going to be taken seriously. So those would sort of be my major things that I'd tell young journalists about. Well, listen, and I mean, to your last point about kind of conducting yourself professional, I mean, I don't want to be a hypocrite. Like, I was starting out definitely took shots at people that were in higher positions than I was. And, you know, that's, I think that's a natural thing where you sort of want to get noticed, right? And that's how Twitter really works sometimes where you say something to someone and hoping to get some sort of reaction from them. And I guess you definitely want to be respectful and not make it personal.

In the same time, I think it's okay to question when, you know, just because someone, has a high position, you don't necessarily need to automatically agree with what they say. As long as you're being in a respectful manner, it's perfectly okay to kind of question them and be like, why do you think this way, this is how I'm viewing it, and start a conversation. Can I make a suggestion? That's my favorite tactful entry point. You know, and in my case, I was a little bit lucky in that when I was coming up at Canucks Army, I had Cam Sharon, so I was always sort of the good cop. And the only time I really ever got in fights with people was when I thought they crossed the line with Cam, right? Like that was sort

of the general um fisher point that sort of brought me into a variety of uh of twitter loggerhead sort of battles with other media members but yeah i mean i really do think that that's crucial that said you know especially this like advanced stats hockey blogosphere was really built on ruthlessly ripping apart other people's work and that was that yeah that was the that was at the heart of a lot of what we did so you know i think it depends partly on your goals too right if you're really trying to make your name as an analyst and maybe you want to work for an NHL team you probably got to go in there and break some jaws. If you're looking to be media, I'd say you probably have to go in and act a little bit more conscientiously and deferentially

toward a variety of people. Right. And you have to be ready for a lot of very unglamorous months and years, right? Because it's like, it's not one of the, like, there's, I'm sure there's thousands, if not millions of people out there that are like, I could do as good of a job as this guy. Like, just give me a chance. It's like, well, The thing with media, though, is everyone really believes that. Like, you always, you know, and I mean, to some extent we both did because we wouldn't, you know, be doing what we were doing what we were doing if we didn't. But, you know, you read all this hockey ride and you're like, I could do a better job than that. And then you get into the room and you're like, oh, this is hard.

Like the actual skill set required to develop sources and gather quotes. I mean, that's not an easy thing. That's not something you can come off the street and be good at. It takes work. You actually have to work at that. And then, you know, say you get on TV or say you get. on the radio and then you realize oh you know it's easy to talk in the bar about hockey all the time but this is actually difficult being focused being on time um you know that stuff's not easy

and then television same thing you know you're like oh i could easily like that's a stupid point about culture i could do a way better job and then you get on and the lights go on and you freeze and it's tough i mean it's it's every time i've seen behind the curtain i've realized how difficult um every person's job is so but i do think there's a natural inclination. Everyone believes they can do a better job than you when you're in media. I mean, that's just how it is. Well, when you flew into Vancouver from Toronto, you were never like, I could fly this plane better than this fire. It'd be weird if you thought that way. That would be super strange if you thought that way. But I've had that with this podcast where

it was easy when no one was listening when like my mom and my best friends were listening, where it was like, I can say whatever I want, right? And then all of a sudden, once I started realizing that not to like you know take this stuff too seriously but when I started seeing people like starting message board threads or or even blog posts with like this was said on the hockey pedioka as I was like oh crap I actually sort of need to like kind of pay attention to what I'm saying and I'm not complaining at all because that challenges you to you know stay on top of your game rather than coming on here and wasting 40 minutes of my time my guest time and my listeners time just kind of shooting the shit about nothing we're actually sort of need to be focused on what

you're talking about yeah no and and it's uh it's especially the Making a conversation flow, jumping from point A to point B in a focused manner, something you know, this podcast has become exceptionally good at. I think that's a really difficult skill. And, you know, everyone wants to talk forever and you can't in media, right? You've got to be, you've got to be fast, you've got to be repetitive. And you've got to be so laser point focused on the point you're making. And, you know, you've done a really good job of making, you know, an esoteric podcast, right?

Because the topic that you're, the subject matter you're often discussing is. extremely niche, but I think you've done a really good job of making that accessible and packaging it in such a way that it's not, you know, a calculus professor droning on, except when you have me on, of course. Well, thanks for coming on, man. Anytime, man. Before we get out of here, we should probably plug the hockey analytics conference. It's happening this weekend. It is happening in Vancouver at Simon Fraser University.

Canucks Army is putting on. I'm an alumnus there. You're an alumnus. Oh, perfect. My jersey should be hanging up on the rapids. It's an SFU and Canucks Army, you know, joint production. So you're really a dual alumnus for the Vancouver Hockey Analytics panel. Follow Van Hack on Twitter.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of interesting nuggets. I'll be on a media panel with Jason Batchford, David Ebner, and a mystery host. And I'm looking forward to that. But it'll be a good way to sort of celebrate the end of the season and discuss a lot of advancements and analytics. And, you know, Kinnock's Army has produced a lot of talent over the years. I think a lot of people will be there who've, you know, come through the system over the years. So I'm excited to get us all back together. and see everyone.

I think it'll be a lot of fun. The Kentucky of hockey blogging. Absolutely. All right, people can follow you on Twitter at Thomas Drans. Absolutely. Where can they read your work? We're in my work at sportsnet.ca and also at the nation network, really across the platform, but mostly Canucksarmy.com.

Cool, man. We'll make sure to have you back on sometimes soon. And time, man. Cheers. The hockey PDEO. Follow on Twitter at Dim Philipovich and on SoundCloud at soundcloud. At soundcloud.com slash hockey p.docast. Thank you.