The Sheet with Jeff Marek - Incorrect Calls, Habs on Fire, and Glow Pucks ft. Brian Burke

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

On today’s episode of The Sheet, Jeff Marek is joined by longtime NHL executive and analyst Brian Burke for a wide-ranging, no-nonsense conversation that hits some of the league’s most debated topics. The guys dive into incorrect calls versus “interesting” calls, how officiating standards are perceived across the league, and where accountability truly lies.From there, the focus shifts to a scorching hot Montreal Canadiens squad and the impact of their young stars. Burke weighs in on the recent play of Cole Caufield and Lane Hutson, what’s driving Montreal’s momentum, and what it could mean long term. The conversation also takes a nostalgic turn with thoughts on the Fox Sports glow puck era, before shifting into serious CBA talk, league economics, and structural realities. The episode wraps with listener questions and classic Burke candor you won’t want to miss.Leave a voicemail: https://www.speakpipe.com/TheSheetEmail us: [e-mail] TO OUR SPONSORS!!👍🏼 Fan Duel: https://www.fanduel.com/👍🏼Uber Eats: https://www.ubereats.com/caReach out to [e-mail] to connect with our Sales Team and discuss opportunities to partner with us!If you liked this, check out:🚨 OTT - Coming in Hot Sens | https://www.youtube.com/c/thewallyandmethotshow🚨 TOR - LeafsNation | https://www.youtube.com/@theleafsnation401🚨 EDM - OilersNation | https://www.youtube.com/@Oilersnationdotcom🚨 VAN - CanucksArmy | https://www.youtube.com/@Canucks_Army🚨 CGY - FlamesNation | https://www.youtube.com/@FNBarnBurner🚨 Daily Faceoff Fantasy & Betting | www.youtube.com/@DFOFantasyandBetting____________________________________________________________________________________________Connect with us on ⬇️Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/daily_faceoff💻 Website: https://www.dailyfaceoff.com🐦 Follow on twitter: https://x.com/DailyFaceoff💻 Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dailyfaceoffDaily Faceoff Merch:https://nationgear.ca/collections/daily-faceoffReach out to [e-mail] to connect with our Sales Team and discuss opportunities to partner with us! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Okay, here we go once again. Welcome to the sheet for this Wednesday, January 21st. Glad to have you aboard. The latest breaking news of the day involves the Olympics. Team USA, Seth Jones, is out on the back end, taking his place in somewhat controversial fashion. And we'll ask our Wednesday staple about this one. Not Adam Fox, not Lane Hudson, but from your Anaheim Ducks, Jackson, Lecombe. One of the many things we'll talk about on today's program. The blueprint is powered by Fanduel. Download the app today and play your game on Fandau. We are moments away from hearing from Brian Burke,

who joins us each and every Wednesday here on the program. A number of things to get to Berkey about, including an anniversary yesterday that came and went very quietly. We'll talk about any correct calls. We'll talk about the Montreal Canadians. We'll talk about the trademark, a trade market, rather. We'll get into some listener questions on the sheet line as well. and without further ado, we'll bring him aboard now.

He is Brian Burke, who joins us every Wednesday here on the sheet. Brian, first of all, last time we spoke, you were in Vegas in advance of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Vegas, and since then, Vegas has been busy getting some business done, namely bringing in Rasmus Anderson from the Calgary Flames. Do you have a thought on Kelly McCrimmon and Craig Conroy's latest deal for a defenseman? Once it was Noah Hanofan, now it's Razmus. Ms. Anderson, first of all, before the deal itself, the nature of general managers doing multiple deals with one another. Obviously, there's a comfort level between Craig Conroy and Kelly McCrimmon.

Do you have a thought on A, the relationship, and B, this deal here, Zach Whitecloud, a first, a conditional second, and a prospect go to the Calgary Flames? Well, first off, the familiarity is definitely a factor. I made multiple deals with more than one GM because you get the sense that the guy's reasonable. the deal that helps both teams. So there's some merit to doing more than one deal with one guy. Makes sense. This one here is a little different because Rasmus Anderson gave them no options

where else to go. Do you like the deal from Vegas' point of view? Do you like the return that Craig Conroy was able to get here? Obviously, these are two teams in different places in their winning cycle. Vegas is looking for a Stanley Cup. Calgary Flames are looking to rebuild this thing with hopes that it's a competitive team come opening of the new building? I think it's hard to get full value in a stress sale.

When everyone knows that the player wants to go to one team only, very hard to make fair value to get fair value in the deal. I never did with Bill Burry, for example. Fable Berry made it clear he was never going to play for me again. It made the best deal I could. It was not a good enough deal. It was not born to the return. term was not fair.

I even told everyone I said, look, this isn't a good enough deal, but it's the best I can do. I need to get some players back and try to start winning. So I like to know from that perspective, I think Craig Conroy got value considering. I don't like where a team says you can only go one place. We talked last week about the nature and we used the New Jersey example of no trades and no moves and how that can can really hamstring a team. I don't want to rehash that conversation. But you know Razmus Anderson from your time in Calgary.

What are the Vegas Knights getting here in Raz? Well, a quality person. He's a good guy. He played in Barry. He played for a great coach, Barry. We all know with Ducky. He was a wonderful man. Yeah.

But I think he's a really good player. I think he's a right shot D with he's one of the best in the league for that. I'm just not sure Raz will do the same intensity level that they like in Vegas. It would be a little difficult for him to play at that level in Vegas. Vegas has a higher standard than most teams. You know, that's interesting. There's a couple of things here.

And we'll get to move on after this one. I look at the Vegas Golden Knights, and the way they won the Stanley Cup, they would kill you in the neutral zone, and their defense was the biggest and the best in the NHL, full stop. and a lot of that was because of Alex Petrangelo. Now you have a situation where at any given time, you can have either Shea Theodore or you can have Noah Hannafin

or you can have Rasmus Anderson on the ice. That philosophy, how to win a Stanley Cup with the back end, is one bluntly, Brian, that you're familiar with going back to the 2007 and your anti-I.Mducks where you had guys by the name of Niedemeyer and Pronger and Bocherman and then depth guys like Jackman and Huskins and Dependley. Penta and these types of defenders as well. This is a formula that you're quite familiar with.

Yeah, and it adds some star power. I think they're thinking that get these two guys together, Noah Hannafin and RAS will be good together again. I like the deal. Don't keep me wrong. I like Razz. I'm just not sure that Noah Hannafin plays at the intensity level they thought he would or that Razz is going to do it.

The way they played when they first came into the league, the way the Vegas goal of the Knights played when they first came into the league. We'll see if they can maintain it. I'm not saying they won't. Just have my doubts. Speaking of a defenseman, the latest news today, Seth Jones, will not be available for USA for the Olympics. Jackson Lecombe comes in.

And Jackson Lecombe really had a coming out party last year with the Anaheim Ducks. Really excellent defensemen, a lot of future promise, etc. I know a lot of eyebrows were raised considering Seth Jones is a right-hand shot. Adam Fox is a right-hand shot. Jackson Lecombe is a left-hand shot. Lane Hudson, not part of this conversation either. How do you read into this one?

Because there's a couple of different ways here. One, they're going to Jackson Lecombe and B, not going to Adam Fox as Seth Jones's replacement. Do you have a thought here? I think Billy Guerr wants a certain style of player, and Adam Fox probably doesn't meet that criteria. Adam Fox is a really good player, really good defenseman, but he's not a great skater,

think Seth Jones is a great skater, very powerful guy. So I think they're betting on footspeed there more than anything, even though the Colms have left shot from the University of Minnesota. Big kid can play. I'm not sure they match up perfectly, but I was a little surprised. I thought Fox would slide in there. Yeah, I think a lot of people did too. Do you think Lane Hudson would have been any type of consideration whatsoever, or is there

too much of a redundancy with him and Quinn Hughes? I think there's too much of a redundancy and he's too young. I think there's a real fear of putting it. Same thing with Celebrity going in. There's some trepidation. He's going in and makes sense. The rest of the guys have avoided the real young players for a reason. It's a man's tournament.

It's not the world juniors. It's the Olympics. Speaking of defense, Njordis Brodine, I mean, Sweden's just been ravaged, you know, by injuries, Leo Carlson, Victor Headman, Gabriel Landisca, go right down the list. And now, Jonas Brodine, and when you talk about high-level skaters, one of my favorite things always to watch whenever Minnesota plays Edmonton

and Brodine's in the lineup is watching him go stride for stride backwards with Connor McDavid. He's just flat out, one of the best skating defensemen in the NHL. He will not suit up for Sweden, who have just been ravaged here. and the latest Jonas Brodine, not available for Team Sweden. Isn't Jonas Brodine the best player that no one talks about in the NHL? He is to me, 100% Berkey. Great. I head for the game, really reliable.

No one ever talks about Jonas Burdine. No one. So it's a blow to them. I think he's a really underrated player. I agree with it, Jeff. He really is something else to watch. Okay, there's a lot of other things I want to get to here, but I want to make sure that we park a little bit of time to talk about an anniversary that you were part of.

The anniversary technically was yesterday. Yesterday was the 30-year anniversary of the introduction of the Fox puck, the Glowpuck, the... So 30-year, and I know you got some great stories involving pockets full of cash as well. I looked at the Fox Glopuck when it first came out and said to myself, this is a good idea, but the technology isn't there yet to really make it pop. And fans didn't like it. Too much of a distraction looked weird. But I understood the idea that the object of play in the NHL is quite small

and you want to be able to allow fans to have a look at where exactly the puck. is going. Before we get to stories about you trying to retrieve these things with wads of cash, what did you first think when you heard about the Fox Glopuck? I thought it was a gimmick. I thought it was a waste of time. Like many things Gary Bettman said, it was not a gimmick. It was really, people liked it. My dad, for example, who's dead now. My dad loved it because he couldn't follow the puck and older. He said, why do you guys fight this technology? It helps a guy like me who has strong. trouble my dad had to sit really close to the TV to watch hockey hated it great so i remember going in here he said you got to fly to st jerome

kove and work with this guy who's going to create this glowing puck i was like good that american decision we had a hacksaw puck in half yeah blew in the technology It was this big wheel-like technology, blew them back together again, then try them. And we had, like you said, remember we played in Boston. We had eight of those bucks.

They cost 400 bucks each. Back when 400 bucks was a lot of money, it was 30 years ago. And so when they went up in the crowd, and one got clipped up in the crowd, we would run over to them and say, like Philly or Boston or wherever. Give us that puck.

We'll give you a sweater. We'll give you $200, cash. And everywhere else, they said, okay, sure, we'll give you the puck back. But Boston, they're like, screw you, it's my puck. I didn't say it. The kids said, I'll give you $400 for it. Get out of here, get lost.

So it was hilarious. Try to get these bucks back, $400 bucks each. But the thing that I don't understand, I understand like, hey, look, I caught a puck at the game. But if someone's handing you $400 for it, because it's one of the fox pucks, I just don't understand what type of value they could ascribe to it other than, look, I caught.

pot this at a game. It's this Fox puck that I can do nothing with, this, this glow, this glow puck. And you guys were offering jerseys and cash. I don't know. This one seems like a simple decision to me. Give me all the cash that's in your pocket. You can have your puck back. I would have taken 20 bucks for a puck like that. 400 bucks. These guys are like, no, I couldn't believe it. But the boss was the only place they wouldn't take the money. That's incredible, Brian. So what was the, do you remember what the final nail in the coffin was? for the glow puck? I think a couple of them broke

and the little wheel in there. And if you get it in your head, inside the puck, a flat pancake shape like receptor, like a star shape, like eight points on a wheel that's glued in. A couple of them broke and I think that was it. Plus, I don't think Fox liked the technology.

People complain. Canadians in particular loathed it. I could, I mean, I remember as a Canadian hockey fan looking at this one sideways and saying this is gimmicky. But here's the thing that I always catch myself with on this glow puck idea. And I always try to remember this. Further to the point about your dad as well.

I grew up watching hockey. You grew up watching hockey. A lot of people watching or listening to the show all grew up watching hockey. So we instinctively know where the puck is going. Not just because we can train our eyes to see the puck. but we can look at body positioning of all the players on the ice and understand where this thing is. And I know a lot of people, and I always try to get this into my head, people that are coming to the game for the first time in their 20s, in their 30s, in their 40s, whatever, what's the common complaint that they all have? It's hard to follow the puck.

That's why I understood the philosophy behind it. Do you think, Brian, here we are 30 years later, with the technology that exists now to make this somehow cleaner, if they introduce some type of technology now to assist newer fans in seeing the puck, do you think it would work? I think it already has happened. I think the technology of watching now is way better than it was. I think the clarity of a television set, 5G or 4G, whatever the hell it is, I think it's the 4G. Okay, the clarity is much better and the resolve and resolution of the puck is much better. I think you can stay the puck now much better than you used to be able to. I don't think you need a glowing puck, but it'll probably happen again someday.

Interesting times. Okay, I try to stay away from grousing about officiating. I always say to myself, if I don't expect a player to be perfect, I can't expect an official. to be perfect. Do you think that's a fair statement? Until I see the perfect player, don't tell me about the perfect referee. Do you agree with that?

I agree. So yesterday with the Furlat call on Lane Hudson, so it's on a zone entry, Minnesota facing off against Montreal, it's the ghost call, the Phantom call, Montreal's making the zone entry. It's a tough pivot for Hartman. He falls down and Lane Hudson sits for two.

Now, in Furlatt's defense, to kick off the next period, he realized that it was a bad call, made the wrong call, and went and apologized to Lane Hudson, who was sitting in the box. But do you have any problem with this? Because, Bricky, I look at it and I say, I say, you know what, referees make mistakes. I don't think we should overreact to it. I know everyone's having a whack at this pinata. if you're watching the show, there's Furlatt talking to Lane Hudson and Hudson kind of saying, like, yeah, I get it, but I didn't do anything. And I'm sitting two minutes here. What did you make of this entire situation?

I think people should shut up and move on. Like, to me, yeah, it's a bad call. How many bad calls was Eric Furlatt making a game? How many bad calls do they make that night? Maybe one a month, really blown calls. They're whining about a fishing, about one call in a game where they could have called 70 penalties had 70 different judgment calls to make. I don't get it. I never complained much about officially when I was working for team. I don't get it. You know, one of the issues around it too is, and I know everyone's going to hate this example,

but it's always the law of unintended consequences. And I sort of frame it this way. Frank Patrick of the legendary Patrick family was the person that came up with the concept of the blue line and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association they used the blue line later was adopted in the NHA and then the NHL and it became part of how we watch hockey games. And then Matt DeShane went offside decades later.

And now because Matt DeShane went offside, we got to go pixel by pixel by pixel by pixel by pixel by pixel on zone entries. One of the things that popped up around the commentary of this one play yesterday was, should the NHL expand video review for all these questionable

penalties and it's already been expanded? A, I don't want to slow down the game even more. I like the human element of hockey. I like the gray area in hockey. I don't need everything to be like puck over glass where we stop and we got to get the call 100%

right. To me, part of the allure. of hockey and part of the charm of hockey is it's played by human beings who are going to make mistakes. I was going back and forth on text with Zach about this last night. I just hope that this doesn't, and hopefully it sounds like it won't, I hope that this doesn't turn into what Matt DeShane's offside eventually turned into. Look, we all hated replay. We fought replay.

They fought in baseball, football, basketball, and hockey for one reason and one reason only. The most important person in the rink is a person who pays for a ticket. not the person who watches on TV. The most important person in the rink, the most important customer in the rink, is a guy who buys a ticket. They're the most important group. We have to cater to them.

We don't want replay. So then we said, no replay. Just play on. And we said, well, we should look at some of these things, and we put in replay in football, and baseball, basketball. Now we're at a point now where we have more replay than we've ever had before,

but it's still not that intrusive. It's still not that common. We don't want to go farther, in my mind, unless you want to say in the play, We're going to review things a little closer. But even there, to me, if it's even the length of the eight-minute reviews, forget it, two minutes. Everyone on the ice has to make a call. So the referee says, I got tripping.

We're going to look at it. We've got two minutes to look at it. If you can't reverse the call, the call stands. Like, I can't stand the lengthy reviews. Playoffs are different. But there's an eight-minute review last year, a nine-minute review. Why? So we get one call wrong.

Why? I'm with you. One of the things that I'm really sensitive about, specifically in the regular season, the NHL has done a really good job of getting game length down to around 2.30, around 2 hours and 30 minutes. That's like a good number for an NHL game. You can remember the era where it was close to three hours.

And they've done a really good job, hurry up, face off, all these different types of things. they've got the job, they've got the game to a meaningful length at 2.30. I would not want to do anything if I'm the NHL to extend the games, to make them even longer. I know overtime, I know shootout. I get it. But one of the things that I think they've done, Brian, is get this thing to a reasonable length for term of play. What's your thoughts on that? I think so too.

Look at baseball. They spit up the game in baseball. It's way more fun to watch. So much better. Same thing in hockey. They've cut the time back. They expanded the timeouts a little bit last year on the slide. I didn't tell anybody.

But they managed the game length much better. Let's not make it longer. One of the interesting things coming out of yesterday, Qualcoffield scores a pretty important goal in that game that gives the Montreal Canadiens the win. And the Montreal Canadiens put out the tweet last night and just tagged at USA Hockey. after Caulfield scored that goal.

Do you ever thought on the omission of Cole? This is Montreal going right at USA hockey. And you know, you can make the argument that Dallas maybe should have done the exact same thing because Jason Robertson scored two goals last night as Dallas beat the Boston Bruins. But Dallas didn't do anything similar. This is a Canadian team going at USA hockey about their guy. Do you have a thought on the Montreal Canadians putting out this tweet about Cole Coffield? I think it's great.

But Billy Garon's going to be the one who decides who goes and doesn't go. He'll be judged by how that team does. They do poorly. People can bitch about Dickinson or Robertson and Caulfield or whomever they want to bitch about. If they win, no one's going to say a goddamn thing. And that's what Billy Garan has to do. That's the weight he carries as GM. So you have a new defense of Jackson Lacombe coming on.

Caulfield's not there. Robertson's not there. Okay. So what? They win, no one's going to say a bloody thing. Hey, do you have a thought? Robertson's been a story once again. He's still unsigned for next season.

He's a restricted free agent, albeit. Interest is high, certainly, around the league, should Jim Nill decide to go to market with Jason Robertson. It's believed he's looking for something in the Miko Ranton range of around $12 million. Left-off Team USA. Do you have a thought on Jason Robertson, the player and Jason Robertson, the situation, he just changed agents too.

He's gone to Andy Scott. He left Pat Preyson at CAA. And you know what that generally means. Do you have a thought on the Jason Robertson situation? How about this? The Jason Robertson situation right now. Okay. One comment I would have is Jason Robertson is inconsistent as a score.

He's a drought, a famine drought guy. And he scores in bunches, which a lot of good goal scores, have done over their career. It's not unusual. Certainly not unique. But when he does play, this guy scores goals in bushel baskets. He's a dangerous player. He's a great kid. I think they're going to have to pay him at some point, or he's going to command a really good haul if he moves on. In fact, he's on sign, though. That doesn't bother Jim Nell. He's let guys go on sign before. And he is a restricted free agent. So there still is some team control. Having said that, do you mean, do you want to risk arbitration and then have to?

have him walk away next year without anything to show. I don't know that it gets that far. I really don't, Berkey. There's a way. And arbitration is the last resort. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's wait and see what happens. Pretty smart guy.

Sorry, you cut out there on me. What was that? Jim is a pretty smart guy. GM of the year for a few times here for a reason. Kiefer Sherwood. Kiefer Sherwood gets traded from the Vancouver Canucks to the San Jose Sharks, and they give up a couple of second round draft picks. Now, I know some people may look at the compensation and say,

look, if San Jose is firing out second round draft picks, maybe you might want to get a cost-controlled veteran defenseman, and that's fine. What did you make of, and Kiefer Sherwood, as we all know, is unsigned past July 1st? What did you make of the San Jose Vancouver deal here? Sherwood for a pair of seconds and a depth defenseman in Cole Clayton. Mike did an interview a couple weeks ago, and someone asked me about Keeper's Sherwood, and I got his name wrong.

We called him Keeper's Southern one. They go nuts. I get names wrong all the time, but they go nuts. I do what I do. So anyway, I like the player a lot. I don't understand the big fuss. It's the best year he's had by a mile, and yes, he leads the league in hits, but he's not a punishing hitter.

He hits when he should. He's a legitimate guy. I like him. They're not carrying people off after he hits him. So to me, it was a fair price. One second round pick made sense, maybe two. They don't re-sign him. Two second-round picks was way too much if they don't resign him.

They re-sign them. That's a fair price. Good player, good ad. Which leads me to believe, because I'm with you on this one, when you look at the compensation that was given up, it sounds very much like Mike Greer is going to take a good run here. at resigning Kiefer Sherwood. Like you don't give up two seconds

and not say to yourself, yeah, we're giving up two seconds and we're just going to let this guy go. Like, you're going to try to resign the guy. I think they've already had a conversation and have some idea that they'll be able to do just that. You know, the Calgary Flames

who mentioned out the top of the show with Bradson goes to the Vegas Cold of the Nights. It does feel like it is the beginning, the first domino of what could be and probably will be a sell-off here for the Calgary Flames. Do you have a thought on Cadre? Do you have a thought on Coleman as well?

I don't think Cadreys going anywhere based on a couple things. One, who's going to play if they trade them? Who are they going to play with? They're still mathematically not eliminated, not even close to it. So to me, I mean, they're out of the playoffs right now, but win four games, they're right back in it. The nature of the playoffs in both conferences this year has been that you can get right back in and look at Buffalo.

Get right back in. with a little run. So to me, I don't think they'll trade him. And Murray Edwards has said as much to me, when I was in for Naz's game, there was thousands of the game, Murray said, he didn't say, we're not ever going to trade him, but he said

we have no intention to move him at this time. Now, at this time, are the key words. It doesn't mean they're bound by that. But I don't think they're looking to move cadre at all. What about Blake Coleman? Blake Coleman is a different thing, because I think he's more of a different different price tag. He's got the pedigree

with two cups. I like Blake Coleman a lot. He's a really good player, really smart. He's hard. That's a different different telephics for me. They would be listening. Brian, one of the things that I was, oh, by the way, you know, I should have asked you if I should have done this off the top.

We had a lot of fun yesterday talking about the goalie fight between the Florida Panthers and the San Jose sharks. Alex Nadelcovich facing off, squaring off, rather, again, Sergei Barbraff. mentioning on the show yesterday, a record that will never be touched. As much as Glenn Hall has a consecutive games played record for a goaltender, this one will never be touched either.

Billy Smith had in his career 21 fights, and the overwhelming majority of them were with players. But not just players, as you well know. Like he fought Dave Brown. He fought Dave Semenko. he fought Steve Durbano. Like he fought tough guys. So that record, 21 fights for a goalie will never be touched.

I'm quite confident in saying that. What did you make of Alex Nadelcovich squaring up with Sergey Brabowski a couple of nights ago? I loved it. I think you're right about Billy Smith. Billy Smith fought players. But keep in mind, in a goalie fight, when you fight a player, another player almost always comes in within seconds. Very seldom do you stand and duke it out with a guy. if someone jumps in almost immediately.

So it's a great record. I love Billy Smith, but it's not like he fought those guys on his own because that's not how it works. But I loved it. I thought it was great. I thought Bobroski saw Ned in there throwing bunches in the scrum, decided to come down and get involved. I sent Ron Exxel a note.

I sent Mike Smith a note. They both responded right away. I loved it. That was great. A lot of enthusiasm in the fight, not much technique. Not much technique. I mean, listen, I've always felt, you know, when it comes to a goalie fight, balance is certainly a big issue.

I would imagine that both Hextall and Mike Smith would have loved that moment, Berkey. Yes, they both did. It's, does it seem to you that, and I want to expand this also to the PWHL, that in hockey right now, there is more a slant towards physical slash violent play, that we've swung hard one way, we've swung hard another way, and now the pendulum has come down to the middle, and it's sort of settling into where it should be right now.

Do you find that to be true in the NHL? I'd say in the NHL we're still moving. I think in the PWHL, my view is we've got to be careful of where we're going. I think they're taking too many hard hits and not penalizing them and not suspending them. and right in the amount of players.

I don't think. They've got to be careful with that. I told the women when I work for them, I don't want you all to look like me in 20 years. Broken shoulders, knees, all that stuff, scars, all of our faces. Who wants to look like us? No one.

Not a bunch of women. Not a bunch of attractive women, for sure. So I worry about that. But to go back to what you're saying, I think the game is faster and better than it's ever better. Everyone will agree to that. But it's been sanitized a lot. There's not much hitting.

not much fighting. That's coming back in all of a sudden. Florida, I give credit for shaping that direction. I think we're coming back that way. We're not as far as I'd like to go yet. Did you find that after you won the Stanley Cup with Anaheim that more teams went that direction too? I mean, like, look, you had a lot of skills. Certainly, we talked about the blue line earlier, but did you find that the cascading effect after your ducks won the cup where more teams wanted to play like you? Yes. It's a monkey see, monkey do league. No question about it. The teams all went the way we went. But that reversed itself pretty quickly, too.

It did, but it seems as if, you know, you remember, like 2006, Carolina wins the Stanley Cup. And then everything is about footspeed, foot speed, foot speed. And you won the Stanley Cup in 2007. It's all about having a blue line and having some nuclear missiles on the bench as well. Florida has won. Tampa has won. That's a team that has a gang attack mentality, too. So we'll see where this thing heads and who wins the Stanley Cup this year.

Let me get to, I want to get to a feature that we do here about hockey history. And it's something that you'll have more authority to talk about than I will. So here it is. Hungry for Hockey History is a presentation of Uber Eats. Uber Eats is enabling fans to maximize their fandom all season long with exclusive game day deals on the app. From game day eats to paper plates and napkins, if you're hosting, to all the ingredients you need to make your favorite game day. dip. Before, during, and after the game, Uber Eats is assisting every hockey fan's experience all season long.

Zach, I believe you have a topic upon which Brian is an expert. Shoot. Yes, January 21st, 2016, there became a new goal leader in Vancouver. Daniel Cedin became the all-time leading goal score in Vancouver Canucks history, scoring twice against the Boston Bruins to pass Marcus Nasland. Cedine would go on to finish his career with 393 goals, a total that still stands today as the Vancouver Canucks goal record. Does Cidine's Berkeley? You know anything? Well, I know one thing.

Everyone says what a genius I was for drafting, but I got the sequence wrong. I drafted Daniel first, second overall, and Hank went third. That's why they wore 22 and 33. They both wanted higher numbers. I said, no, try to take 32, 22 and 33. So they went with those numbers.

And Hank was a better player. Anyone could play. Hank could play with anyone, but Daniel could only really play with Hank. So great players, great people, wonderful hockey players, wonderful, better citizens. Just a joy to be around. It was an honor and a pleasure to have them as players. You know, it's interesting. when I look at the Siddines and the more that I think about them,

I have the same feeling about Boria Salming as well. Look at that picture. Oh, that's great. I think of the same thing. And that is outside of the skill, which was elite. I think of toughness in one very specific way. You were there. I mean, one of my favorite quotes from you is, you know,

Cedin is not Swedish for Punch Me in a Scrum or a cross-check me. I'm paraphrasing one of your great quotes here. But these guys were like beaten up. up and roughed up and slashed and cross-checked and punched and kicked and all of it, and they never changed the way they played. To me, that's tough. That's toughness. The same thing.

Greg Adams, so we had Greg D. Adams, the one from Nelson, played for us. I thought Greg D. Adams, my, Nicholas Baxter played for me, their games got better as the game went on when they got rough, even though they didn't initiate much. So I think the twins were tough in their own way. I'd like to know what they would have done point-wise. in a more modern era where they didn't get beat up and tackled like that. You know, that's a good point, too. The other thing that I've always wondered about, and again, this is, there's no right answer.

It's just sort of idle speculation. Did you ever wonder, Brian, what would have happened if you weren't able to make that deal? Like, that was a deal that had a lot of moving parts. And as you've discussed before, there were moments where you felt like you weren't going to get the ball over the finish line. Did you ever think of what would have. happened to their careers if they hadn't if you hadn't done that deal to draft both of them well they told me they had a real specific plan where one of them was going to play at st mike's and beat the

draft eligibility and the other one's going to play for the conucks or whomever drafted him they gave a very convincing story that they were not going to play separately they said you get us together we're not going to play we're not going to play separately you have to get so i bought into that then they told me afterwards they would have happily played separately who made me feel like an issue um no i think it's one of those things i always mentioned is toms kerdin deserves the most credit for that tomas credin believed in these kids long before anyone else did mark croft for tournament of players they deserve the benefit for that deal uh one of the things because towards towards the the end of their uh towards the end of their uh careers where you know it was

it was looking like they were maybe going to become free agents and sign somewhere else. There was a lot of interest with the Detroit Red Wings specifically. Early on in their careers, though, how many teams called you about the Sadeen's? Nobody. Early on, no one, it took them a while to get there. Daniel Sadeen scored 20 as a rookie, but it took a while to come. And they had trouble with the speed of the game. They had trouble cycling, which was their game.

had trouble with the speed of the game so it took a while for them to get there. I was gone by the time they turned into really complete players. It only happened for a year or two. The first year they went back, you remember, after I drafted them. So I don't wonder much about that. Just mentioned Thomas Crudini again

because he believed in these kids long before anyone else did. Paid off huge. Wonderful careers. We've kept you longer than we normally do, but today was full value as always. be good. We'll talk in seven days. Who's that handsome guy over your left shoulder, by the way? He's got good hair, doesn't he? He sure does. He's got the good feathers, Berkey. He's got the good feathers. You be good. We'll talk next week.

Nice to have to see it. There is Brian Burke who joins us every week here on the program. If you ever, Zach, you must have wondered about that somewhere down the road. Like, what would have happened if Brian wouldn't have been able to pull off the Sedin deal in Vancouver? Because there were times where there's a lot of moving parts. And Brian McCabe, trade was involved in all of it where it might not have happened like they didn't they didn't get it done until they're on the draft floor uh to be honest i had never thought about it until you brought it up and the first couple of times we've talked about it with burkey i was like i actually never thought about an alternate reality where that wasn't the case because it always just made sense to me that they were together and they were together all the time all the pictures you see like the ones

we just put up on the screen of burkey at the draft and stuff like it's just it's so so difficult for me to imagine a universe or an NHL universe without them together. Pretty hilarious, though, that they were going to. They stole Spurkey they weren't going to play not together. And then they told them after, yeah, we were. We would have played separate. Yeah, we're just trying to get here together. But to me, it's like one of the great, I mean, everybody has their like, what if.

You know, like there was a member of Mike Keenan told me about a deal that the, the, the Panthers had with the Boston Bruins. one for one, Joe Thornton for Roberto Luongo, but then the Florida owner didn't want to take any money back, and so that went nowhere, and what would that have meant for hockey? Roberto Luongo sharing the crease with Tim Thomas. Everybody that went through 2011 knows, like, what that turned into. I don't know.

I think everybody has their, like, what if questions about the NHL and a big one for me, and I think some people as well. What if Berkey didn't make that deal? What would have happened to Henrik and Daniel? They make their way through the NHL. Anyhow. A couple of things here that we still want to get to on the program. First of all, let's do a couple of listener questions on the sheet line.

And by the way, your way to get in, speakpipe.com slash the sheet emails, the sheet at the nation network.com. We'll do more of those as the week progresses. But what do we have on the sheet line today, Zacharoo? Let's start with this one from Jeffrey that comes in about Vegas. Hey, Jeff and Zach. Jeffrey here. Jeff, I want to get your opinion on something. Ever since the inception of their franchise, Vegas has been ultra aggressive. Now, granted, they were given a lot of ammunition at the

expansion draft from other general managers, but eventually the Piper is going to come calling. They keep trading futures to try to win the cup now, which I respect and admire, but there will come a point where this is going to backfire on them. Just want to get your thought on what you think it's going, what do you think is going to happen with Vegas? And long term, once they stop winning, could this be detrimental to the franchise in their long term existence in Vegas? Thanks. It's a great question. I think we've all wondered about it. Jeff, thanks for the call. I think we've all wondered about it, Zach. At what point, you know, does the bartender turn the lights on and say last call? Time, gentlemen, time, gentlemen. By the way, you know where mind your peas and

cues comes from? No, where? Old English taverns. When the bar was getting too rowdy, the innkeeper or the saloon keeper, the bartender, would say quite loudly to calm everybody down, he'd say, gentlemen, mind your pints and quartz, mind your pints and quarts,

that's where mind your peas and cues come from. The calm down, rowdies like you and your apish friends, saloon gallivanting. But anyhow, I think we've all sort of wondered, like, where is this going to go with Vegas? And the thing that I admire about Vegas is they look at everything as a resource to win the cup right now. Like Bill Foley, the owner, like he starts it all. Okay, he's the one that's like every single year we need to compete for the Stanley Cup.

That is our job. So if you're a first round pick, don't buy property. Okay. If you're a recently acquired player, still, don't buy property. because everything is a resource in service of the Vegas Golden Knights winning the Stanley Cup. If you're a hockey fan, you love your team. You love it.

Every year they are going for it. Now, Vegas has a couple of advantages. One, tax-free state. Oh, wait, whoa. What? Oh, I thought that didn't matter. I thought that didn't matter. Tax-free.

Right, of course. Of course. Even though player after player, after player, after player, after player, after player, I continue to tell us that it's a factor. Tax-free state. It's a place to play players want to live. It's a place where players want to stay. And there is always going to be that magnet there.

So to Jeff's point, I don't know when it's going to end. It doesn't look like it's going to be anytime soon. Even this year, like I wondered if they were going to be able to pick up Rasmus Anderson without trading Trevor Connolly. And guess what? They picked up Rasmus Anderson and didn't have to trade Trevor Connolly. Now, I still think that Vegas makes another move this year for a top six forward. And maybe that's where you trade first round draft pick, Trevor Connolly.

But still, everything is always in play because this team exists for one reason only, and that is to win the Stanley Cup. And it almost feels like their philosophy is not that we're not going to worry about our salary cap during the year, but whatever we do, we're going to clean it up in the summer. Yeah. That's what they do. Yeah. We're just going to, we'll do this.

We're going to, you know, we're going to break some eggs to make this omelet, and we're going to clean it all up in the summer. I applaud Kelly McCriman for this. I applaud George McPhee for this. They're one of the, for me, they're one of the model franchises in the NHL. Do they have certain advantages that other franchises don't have? Absolutely. I just don't know when this is going to end.

And when the bartender is going to say a last call, but it doesn't sound or feel like it's anytime soon. And especially with the salary cap, like I remember on the 32 pod with Elliot, we had Bill Foley on. And one of my favorite things to ask owners was, if there was no salary cap, how much would you spend on players? And he went, ooh, I think like 150 million. This cap can keep going up and up and up and up and up and up and up. And Bill Foley's like, all right, let's go. Kelly, spend.

Go get players. So I have, Jeff, it's a long-winded way of saying, I don't know where this ends for Vegas, but it's not going to end soon. It ain't going to end soon. Yeah, I also kind of get the feeling that based on their ruthlessness that they show in terms of winning,

that there would be. Attention, Gary Lawless. Zach just called your team ruthless. I did that. Intentious. I do kind of get the feeling and it's an overly optimistic outlook from my perspective but the second things turn sour

that they take the approach of tear it down instantly start again with the pieces and get as much back and then it wouldn't be that long because part of the question Jeffrey asked there was about the long-term impacts of the franchise because of what they're doing right now. I don't know. Do you know what I mean, though?

It's like, oh, this thing is going sideways. Anderson, you're back out on the market. Mitch Marner, you're gone. They're decided. You're gone. Yeah. Yeah. And then you start picking up pieces to make it back quicker.

So here's one of the things. It's funny. I was talking to someone from a team this morning. And like right now, teams are going through their group meetings. Okay. And one of the things that always comes back is from people is like you really realize which people in your organization are married to certain players, emotionally because these are my guys.

These are like, I have like a default that these are my guys and they're perfect and we're going to keep on. I don't get the sense for one second that Kelly McCriman looks at players on his team and says, and completely attaches himself to them. That as a manager, you have to be able to make like really hard,

sometimes cold, sometimes even ruthless, some people might say, decisions. And Kelly McCriman is able to do that consistently. I say that admirably. And if I'm a Vegas called the Knights fan, if I'm any hockey fan, that's how I want my general manager to behave. Same as George McChry. When I first started doing the Leafs coverage that I was doing, I just made my own YouTube channel and was doing

stuff that way. I used to getting fights with people all the time before I realized sometimes this is not worth it to deal with, but it would be like, it would be like, oh, maybe Nick Robertson could be involved in this trade. And be like, oh, like, he's a homegrown prospect. Don't trade the guy. I'm like, why? Why? Can you make your team better? Why not? Like, why not explore options? Look what they do. Look what they move off of these pieces and picks and prospects and they get better and they compete every single year. Isn't that what you want? Don't you want to compete every year? Isn't that the goal? One of the rules that the salary cap taught us that every manager should understand by now, even a dummy like me understands this.

Going back to the introduction of the salary cap in 2005, one of the rules is if you can make your team better, even if it's just by a little bit in a salary cap system, you have to do it. It doesn't matter if even it's just like you can make your fourth line a little bit better, you have to do it. Yeah. You can make, like, our third pairing D, make them a little bit, but you have to do it. And the successful teams understand that and do it, and the ones that spin their wheels don't. But to me, that's one of the lessons of the salary cap era. And McCriman gets it. Yeah.

Guy McCriman gets it. Yeah. Agreed. We got another one? You want to get to the next, yeah, the next one here. This one comes in from Joe about Colorado. All right. Hey, guys.

This is Joe from Wyoming, a huge avalanche. fan. I wanted you guys to weigh in. Are we going to see Landisog handing Brent Burns the cup at the end of the season? Or are the avalanche going to be like Boston a few years ago against Florida or even Tampa when they faced off against Columbus when they set all the regular season records and fell flat on their face? What do you guys see out of the avalanche from the postseason? I'd love to know. And Jeff, whenever you make it out to Wyoming on vacation, I'd be happy to send a lot. an itinerary of what to see in the equality state. Thanks. You guys are great. Keep it up.

I love it. Thank you for that. When I get to Wyoming, I'm going to Bobby Holik's farm. That's one of the first things I will do is I'll call up Bobby and say, Bobby, I want to see the horses. Well, first of all, if they do go the route of Tampa with Columbus or with Boston with Florida. Right now, that would mean that the San Jose Sharks and Maccles and McCleine Sellebrini have beaten them.

And what a story that would be to add to the legend of Macklin Sellebrini this year. I can't see it. Now, I did say the same thing about Columbus and Tampa. Did say the same thing about the Florida Panthers, the Boston Bruins. I just don't know that I would see that if the San Jose Sharks played the Colorado Avalanche.

but as they say, that's why they play the games. I just can't see it. To me, Colorado is right now, you know, gun to your head, who's the Stanley Cup champion? It's Colorado Avalanche right now. And they're probably going to add something at deadline too. It's going to be tough to bet against Colorado other than they're going to face off. They're going to have a tougher route to the conference final than either Vegas or Edmonton will.

But it ain't going to happen in the first round. Too good Yeah In terms of handing the cup over You gotta think it would be Brent Burns There's nothing I can add by the way To what you just said about them Fultering so I don't have anything else to add there

But Brent Burns I think is the The very obvious choice to get that one Wait a minute A defenseman goes to Colorado To find his long pursued Stanley Cup Have we ever seen a story like that before Zach? That must be something new in hockey Boston guy

77 And then he takes his skates off And he leaves them at Center Ice And he walks off Be still in my heart Be still my heart No What he's going to do is he's going to sign another contract

Because he wants to beat Corey Perry To win the 2003 draft To be the last man standing But yes one day someone will That would be the ultimate You win the Stanley Cup You hand the cup over You take your skates off from leaving center ice

Yeah. Okay. Handing your great scenes. Handing your great scenes. What I'm doing. Anything else we got for today? I want to play a video for you. Yeah, I want to play a video for you.

One thing that you always talk about with guys being miced up is referees being miced up. And we had a moment that's gone viral on social media over the last couple of days that involved a face-off and two very prominent Edmonton-Muller's players having interactions with referees. So I want to take a listen to this. get your thoughts on this. Let's go. What we do to work better on face off together?

You and I? I think we're okay. I haven't yelled at all? No, no, no, I know. I know. But like, I was just talking to Leon. Like, right there, I'm meeting a lot of shit because technically that's, as you know, I've talked to you and I don't want to call it. That's the last thing I want to do. So, but it was, like, every time I feel like, it's just like I talk to Leon and in a bank right right across again. So I just want to know, like, is there something I can do to try to work with you guys better? Because the last thing I want to do is kick me. It's going to be a little bit hot always, but I think you're doing a great job.

We started off on the wrong foot, but I think we're good now. We've taken enough big draws together that I think we're all right. Yeah, but I just want to make sure that we can be on an open line. Yeah. Appreciate that next time. Okay. Okay. So that's Connor McDavid, obviously. And they're talking about Leon's Rice-Sitle and getting thrown out of the draws.

First of all, how did you see that? What was your, what was your read on that one? because I have a very specific read on it. Well, I mean, the first takeaway was Leon Dricettle just runs hot, and that's what David was kind of giving him the – Don't worry. It's not going to change. Yeah, there's nothing you could do.

I don't know. What else is there? Obviously, I like that he's trying to – I like that he's trying to work with these guys to make sure that they're on the same page. That was one thing that I enjoyed it. They all do that. Like, that's – that's – like, that's – like, that's why I find – everyone's like, everyone's like, oh, we've got microphones on players.

No, put microphones on refs. to hear those conversations. Those are way more interesting to me than putting microphones on players to hear guys swear at each other. That to me says when McDavid says, ah, you know, it's just, just Leon,

that's the way it's going to be. Because Leon's been booted from a ton of, trust me, this is a, this has been an issue in Edmondson. Cheating on the draws happens. Everybody does it. I think that's Connor's way of saying,

he's not going to change. Yeah. Like he's like It's funny too Because you might look at it And you say to yourself like Okay he's been kicked out of tons of draws Like maybe if you're Leon Dreisel

You'd say maybe I should change up a little bit here Drysettle ain't changing Part of me really admires it Part of me says like okay like They're going to keep calling this They're going to keep punting you But Leon's still like I ain't changing I ain't going to change how he do draws

And that's McDavid essentially saying Like, you're just going to have to deal with it, sorry. Because he ain't. I like the recognition in there as well. Like, no, no, no. You and I are good. Like, we have figured this out. I've listened to you.

You're listening to me. Leon, Neh. That's, it's inevitable. I like that word that he used. It's inevitable. It's inevitable. Yeah.

That's the way he is. He's running hot at the face off. But a part of me really, even though, like, maybe a sane person would say like, dude, you might want to change up the way you do draws. Yeah, I was just like, Screw you. Screw you. I'm not going to throw me out.

He's also got that paddle. Yeah, I know. Which is, I feel like makes it so much more obvious when he is cheating. Like you can see the paddle, you know the paddle is his. So that thing coming through early, you're like,

Leon, dude, I told you not to put your stick down yet. It's in my face. I know the stick is down. Do a better job here. The burger flipper. I say this knowing full well that it's never going to happen. But anytime,

Anyone asks as if you having a conversation with someone about hockey and they say, well, I'm a traditionalist. Ask them this. So should we change face-offs? Because the way face-offs used to happen was the puck started on the ice. There's no drop. And the two players lined up. So you can't, so you don't have getting people kicked out and the referee. I think it was a bell before the whistle would ring the bell and that's how the face-off happened.

and you got rid of all the BS about guys getting kicked out and fans saying, just drop the puck. How would you feel if they decided to get rid of the drop altogether and just started the face off with the puck on the ice, like they used to for all of you traditionalists out there? No, I'm not in favor of that. Like lacrosse. I don't like that.

You're a lacrosse guy. Like lacrosse. There are no dropping lacrosse. Okay, well, you have to better explain it to me. Then did they start with their sticks touching the puck? because that's how they started it. No, not touching the puck, but the sticks are away from the puck.

And then it goes. And then the puck is already in the middle. Man, sticks go down, then you ring the bell. So it's going to be a fair draw every time. It just won't be a drop. Are you in love with the drop so much? Do we love the drop so much? Because if we love the drop,

then we're going to have to put up with all this other crap. Because the way to solve it is to start with the puck on the ice. Your thoughts, Zach Phillips. Nah, I don't know. It's not that I'm in love with it so much. I just don't care enough to change it. Are you going to stop complaining about linesmen? You won't change.

You won't change how they do the face. No, I think that they can be two different things, though. Oh, black and white. Yes, they can be two. No, that one is different. That one can be two different things. No, what used to drive me nuts, and I think I've told this before, but it was Ray Ferraro I heard one time.

I don't remember if it was him who said it, or someone else said it in a game he was playing in. But the centerman, whoever it was, got kicked out of the face off and turned to the referee, the linesman, and said, 17,000 people to watch you here tonight stripes. I love that one. It stuck with me. But what used to make me lose my mind because I was a centerman as well was the pump fake. Why pump fake?

Oh, I know. If the guy's cheating, okay, I can understand if you're like you're cheating. Stop cheating. I've warned you. Okay, you cheated. You're kicked out. Sure. No issue there.

The pump fake makes me lose my marbles as a centerman and somebody watching seeing the pump fake happen. Drop the fucking puck. Why do you think that the guys are going through early? They're going through on reaction to your hand going. Like there is a very specific timing both guys are reacting to. And then you're going like this. I don't need the fake, fake. drop it. That's when you can just drop the puck.

Something I first really noticed with the Boston Bruins, and I'm surprised we don't see more of it. Because a lineman and referee, they don't want to they don't want to call a minor penalty for

face-off infraction. It happens, and we've seen it before, but the first guys get chucked, first guy gets chucked out. If there's another infraction, it's a two-minute penalty. They don't want to do that. I'm surprised we don't see more of the dummy draw. Well, the guy goes in

and it's his job to cheat and if you cheat, generally you're going to win the face off, but it's his job to go in there and get kicked out. And then the better centerman comes in to actually take the draw, knowing that they don't want to make that call.

And it becomes advantage for the team that just had the player kicked out. You know what I mean? Yeah. Go in there deliberately to cheat knowing you're going to get kicked out and there's no penalty. So there's a warning. They don't want to make the call. they don't because to Ray for our as point they really don't want to make it all

about themselves. That'll just more attention and you'll get a cleaner drop and your better face off guy will be in and you'll win the draw. Zach Anderson in the chat says we have a youth ref that will look the opposite way and just drop it.

It angers so many kids. Okay so here so Red Story would do this when he officiated you could never get away with this now. If the guys were goofed around, there sticks too much at the draw, you know what he would do? Throw the puck in the corner. That's the one I like when they redo the draw.

I don't mind that if they say it's an unfair draw because the puck bounced one way. I'm okay with that. I don't mind that. We'll do a show on Facebook. All right. That's good. Okay, listen, are we going to hustle? Thanks so much for joining me here today.

whether you're watching on YouTube or listening. Oh, geez, I forgot. Thank you, thank you, thank. I'm like, what else I have to do? How could I forget about that? The sheet is powered by Fanduel. Play your game with Fanduel. It's the NHL season,

and Fandual is your home for all the action on the ice. From Blue Line to Batslip, we've got your cover-to-all-season with unique promos, live offerings, and more features to let you play your game. Miss Puck drop, no sweat with a live-same game parley. You can build up your bets until the final buzzer. Download Fandul Sports Book Today and play your game.

Please play responsibly 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Your moment, your spotlight, your shine, Zach Phillips. Okay, well, good thing you were wrapping up because today's bad, so let's just get through this. Oh, is it a rough one today? You got a story with me? Sam Tang at the end of anything?

Anything thing, what do you got? No. No. No, okay. Okay, let's just do this. Inside joke, inside joke, sorry. No. I get it together.

No, I went over to friends house last night. Uh-huh. Yeah, okay. And they had a cat. And I wanted to, I wanted to pet the cat, but he leaves the door open. The cat, I guess, likes the door open, but he never goes outside. He just likes the door open because he likes the air. And I asked if I could pet the cat.

And he said, don't pet the cat. He'll leave. Just get through it, Jeff. Just go through it, Petterson, DeBring, Kit. Alex DeBring Cat, Anders. Just get through it. $5 will humor, Zach. And $5 will win you, $132.

and 81 cents Elias Patterson Alex the Brinket Anders Lee Don't pet the cat He'll leave There you go Okay

We did it We're through it By the way Don't ever change Don't ever stop Don't ever change Everyone Zach Anderson

Says holy cow Zach You have brought shame To our name That's right Jeffrey says drop the puck from the scoreboard like in bubble hockey That's a good one So you're not looking at the hand Everyone's looking up waiting for the puck to come down

Like you want to talk about how many guys are going to get a hit in the face As you say how many high sticks would there be if you dropped it from there Guys getting whacked in the head You try to get the advantage on the draw Wow It's like when you go to the hockey O' Fame And you do the goal tending and they have the puck's come out from the shooters that come and you've got to read them.

The puck's dropping from out. You shoot them out from the sideboards and you've got to win the drawback because it comes out on an angle. Or we can just go back to the origins of the game and start with the puck on the ice. Get rid of the drop altogether. Nah, nah, no, no, I know. I know. Said the center. Said the centerman's.

Philips. I like to draw. I just want to yell at referees too. I just want to lie or you scream as some linesmen. All right. On that, we'll wrap up. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for watching on YouTube.

Thanks for listening on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for subscribing if you have. And if you haven't, please consider doing so on our YouTube channel here at Daily Faceoff. Thanks to Brian Burke for stopping by. I kind of went Broadway a little bit here with Berkey, but that's okay. It was worth it. Some good stuff. From our man, Brian Burke, who's here each.

and every Wednesday. We're back on the sheet tomorrow. One o'clock Eastern. Hope you can join us. Enjoy the games tonight. We'll talk about them tomorrow. Oh, Zach, remind me to talk about the Winnipeg Jets tomorrow. I got a thought on the Winnipeg Jets here that I want to get to with people.

We ran out of time today, but got a couple of thoughts on Winnipeg. I want to share with you guys tomorrow. So more on that tomorrow. There's your hook. Tomorrow, America's talking about the Winnipeg Jets. And just something that I think people might be overlooking a little bit here. We'll get to that tomorrow. sheet 1 o'clock eastern tomorrow right here on our daily face off YouTube channel or wherever you get to podcasts we'll talk to me