My sincerest thanks goes out to Andrew M. Greenstein, The unofficial NHL Uniform Database, Chris Creamer’s SportsLogos.Net and Mike Lessiter’s “The Names of the Games” (Lessiter, M. [1988]. The names of the game: The stories behind the nicknames of 102 pro football, basketball, baseball, and hockey teams. Markham: Beaverbooks [Chicago: Contemporary Books]). Much has been made recently about the desire to change the names of sports teams carrying Aboriginal-related monikers to more politically-correct, socially-acceptable nicknames. Well, to be fair, the notion has likely been around for decades, but the omnipresence of the Internet has made both the expression and the dissemination of the idea significantly easier. Add to this the increasing willingness amongst governments to delve into the history of their tumultuous, often-shameful relations with Aboriginal communities – and acknowledge and apologise for the litany of wrongdoings – and the conditions are optimal for a frank societal discussion in North America over what we want our sports teams to represent.
Let’s pause on that word for a moment: “discussion”. It seems as though any representation of Aboriginals within the context of sports is increasingly seen as automatically offensive. I am not Aboriginal, nor am I of Aboriginal descent. I do not have any conception of what it is like to have my culture, language and values – and or of my ancestors – torn from me and scattered to the winds. And I do not have any conception of what it is like to have this tragic chapter of my ancestry relegated to an aside in a grade school textbook. Thus, I can confidently state that I am not the best person to be writing about this. However, I do bring an outsider’s perspective to the issue, a perspective influenced neither by cultural history nor team fandom. So, with that all said, let’s take a look at Aboriginal team names from the four major North American professional sports leagues: MLB Atlanta Braves BACKGROUND: According to Mike Lessiter’s The Names of the Games, the “Braves” name came about in 1911 – following several name changes for the then Boston-based franchise – due to new team owner James E. Gaffney having a reputation as a “brave” on the political scene. The team eventually moved on to Milwaukee and, finally, settled in Atlanta, retaining the Braves name. Early logos were certainly stereotypical and the move to Milwaukee arguably worsened this condition. Only in 1990 did the franchise finally settle on something more palatable. MY VIEW: A “brave” is defined by Merriam-Webster as a warrior of an Aboriginal group. The current logo is a tomahawk, a traditional Aboriginal tool and weapon. Though the past iterations of the logo are bad enough to make even the most iron-stomached among us nauseous, from the outside, there seems to be nothing explicitly wrong with the team’s current brand. But for the love of all that is good and pure Atlanta, knock it off with the “Fear the Chop” garbage. Seriously. We get that your logo is a tomahawk, but the music takes an already borderline tradition and drives it full speed into Wrong-Side-of-History Gorge. Cleveland Indians BACKGROUND: The Names of the Games cites Louis Francis Sockalexis as the inspiration for Cleveland’s moniker, who was, apparently, the first person of Aboriginal descent to play in the major leagues (this distinction is contested). Sockalexis played with the team for three seasons in the early 1900s. In 1915, shortly after his passing, the Cleveland franchise renamed their team the “Indians” as a tribute, though there is not universal agreement on this point. The early logo history is abysmal, a condition that only worsened after the introduction of “Chief Wahoo” in 1946. Though the primary logo is currently a stylised “C”, Chief Wahoo has been retained as the team’s secondary emblem. Ironically, the Indians play at “Progressive Field”. MY VIEW: No contest; get rid of it. The name, tribute or not, is no longer acceptable. Not only is it factually inaccurate, it is so generic as a representation of Aboriginals as to be downright insulting. The logo worsens things exponentially, with its exaggerated display of Aboriginal stereotypes. Perhaps consultation with Aboriginal groups in the area is in order to find a new name that pays proper tribute to the region’s history (the Florida State Seminoles is one such example). If that doesn’t work, there is always the franchise’s original “Forest Citys” name to fall back upon. NBA Golden State Warriors BACKGROUND: The Warriors take their team name from the Philadelphia Warriors of the old American Basketball League. The team only lasted for two seasons, before being resurrected in 1946 for the Basketball Association of America. “Warriors” is a pretty generic name which can represent the subsections of nearly every society that defend said societies. But good gracious, that logo… Nahhh it’s okay though, that logo disappeared in 1962 and everything was fine after that. Okay, really now, third time’s the charm. OH COME ON. MY VIEW: Nothing wrong with the name. However, given the unfortunate history of the name’s representation – that of exceedingly stereotypical depictions of Aboriginals, the Warriors should think about a less-generic logo for their current uniforms to emphasise the fact that their moniker has truly moved away from its troubled past. Besides, the current logo isn’t all that exciting and would probably function better in a secondary role anyway. The NFL Kansas City Chiefs BACKGROUND: According to SB Nation blog Arrowhead Pride, former Kansas City Mayor H. Roe Bartle earned the nickname, “The Chief” on account of his work with the Aboriginal communities, and his nickname was the most-submitted entry in the contest to name the relocated Dallas Texans of the American Football League. The early logo was a stereotypical gongshow but, since 1972, it has been a simple arrowhead. Of course, arrowheads are a constant within the history of many cultures, but it isn’t Chief Wahoo so we’ll just gloss over that. MY VIEW: Oh good, they do it too! -___- Come on, Kansas City. It’s a bad tradition to begin with, but you also stole it from the Atlanta Braves…who apparently stole it from the Florida State Seminoles. Anyway. The name comes from a good place and the logo is stereotypical but pretty tame. Few problems here. Washington Redskins BACKGROUND: The Redskins were named as such due to their one-time tenancy at Boston’s Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox. However, since 1937, the team has been located in Washington, D.C., removing any legitimacy for their clearly insensitive team name. Prior to becoming the Redskins, the franchise was known as the Braves (passable) and the Eskimos (also abhorrent), so questionable names have been around since the beginning. Add to this the fact that their primary colour can be interpreted to represent stereotypical interpretations of Aboriginal skin tones and you’ve got yourself the strongest argument of the bunch for a total team branding revamp. MY VIEW: The worst of the worst. Owner Dan Snyder’s claims that the name is “a badge of honor” were debunked in 1933. The logo appears to represent no person in particular and the colour scheme is questionable at best. Blackskins, Whiteskins and Yellowskins would all be grossly inappropriate. So why is Redskins allowed to stand? The NHL Chicago Blackhawks BACKGROUND: The team is named for a World War One unit that was named after Chief Black Hawk of the Sauk Nation, who stood up for his tribe against the strong-armed tactics of the United States Government and its constant desire for expansion. The logos have remained fairly consistent over time – the primary emblem is a headshot portrait of an Aboriginal and the secondary is two tomahawks crossing over a stylised “C”. MY VIEW: So we’ve got the name of a legendary Aboriginal leader. That’s a pretty good start; I feel like, if a team really feels compelled to to utilise an Aboriginal-themed moniker, then it is good practice to choose a specific element of Aboriginal culture – whether that be a given tribe, position, role model or artefact – to draw from. The primary logo is a somewhat stereotypical, though admittedly neutral, image of an Aboriginal (The Names of the Games indicates that this portrait is a depiction of Chief Black Hawk, though Internet sources give mixed indications, with The (unofficial) NHL Uniform Database and Chris Creamer’s SportsLogos.Net both not indicating as such). The Blackhawks get a pass from me, though, should they indeed decide to change their logo, there is already a pretty solid alternative ready to go. In conclusion, I mean no offense and no harm by this article. They are simply my observations as an outside observer that is neither a fan of any of the above teams nor someone of Aboriginal descent. North American society can’t shy away from discussions about our troubled past – and present. For instance, I think we can all support the alteration of history curriculums to encompass the history of Canada and the United States as a temporal whole, rather than simply focussing on the European perspective of what happened after Europeans landed on North American shores. On the other hand, we also have to be aware of the fact that some people of Aboriginal ancestry are not bothered by this debate at all. In terms of sports, we cannot let maniacs like Dan Snyder continue doing what they’re doing. And yet, it is not prudent to just delete any and all references to Aboriginal culture from our sporting teams. If we do, where do we stop? If some people of Scandinavian descent are offended by the Minnesota Vikings, and their logo and mascot, are we going to change their name, too? No, that’s ridiculous. The vast majority of people can distinguish between the Viking propensity for ferocious warfare and the Scandinavian people as a whole. Now, if the team were named the Minnesota Whiteskins, it might be a different story. In the same way, I would imagine that most people know that the name “Braves” represents a small part of historical Aboriginal society, and is not reflective of Aboriginal people as a whole. Clearly, balance is needed. TL;DR? We should be wary of painting things with too broad a brush. At the same time, we should not refuse to acknowledge that a brush exists at all.
0 Comments
Let’s face it: 14 of the 30 National Hockey League teams don’t make the Stanley Cup Playoffs. So it’s not unlikely that you’re sitting at home, trying to figure out which postseason team is worthy of your support. Perhaps I can help:
Anaheim Ducks Why They Could Win Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry up front, a balanced D and two good goaltenders. Why You Should Cheer for Them Let’s call it like it is: the Ducks, though a favourite, are not a likeable hockey team. Between Perry, Getzlaf and Ryan Kesler, they’ve become the new Vancouver Canucks. Thus, if not for them, cheer for Bruce Boudreau. The man deserves it. Just pray the series doesn’t go seven. Chicago Blackhawks Why They Could Win Three Cups in the past six seasons tend to make you a favourite. Artemi Panarin replaces Patrick Sharp, and the defence core has been bolstered. So, basically, the Blackhawks are up a de-Winnipegged Andrew Ladd. Why You Should Cheer for Them Joel Quenneville is one of the most entertaining coaches in the game. Whether he is grabbing his crotch or kicking a towel, can you honestly say you’re not looking forward to another Spring of Coach Q? Dallas Stars Why They Could Win A high-octane offence led by Jamie Benn, Tyler Seguin and Jason Spezza propelled the Stars to a second-place overall finish in the NHL, not to mention the division title in the Central, the league’s toughest. Why You Should Cheer for Them For perhaps the first time since the 2005-06 and 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres – also coached by Lindy Ruff, the NHL has a legitimate contender that plays a run-and-gun style. The Stars are a real fun team to watch, and it will be great watching them shove their style of play down the throats of the “Defence wins hockey games” crowd. Detroit Red Wings Why They Could Win Darren Helm, Dylan Larkin and Andreas Athanasiou, among others, land Detroit amongst the fastest teams in the NHL. Their older veterans that might have lost a step – Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Richards… – are proven winners that can still play. Why You Should Cheer for Them For those of you living under rocks, Pavel Datsyuk might not be back in the NHL after this season. I, for one, want to see as much Magic Man – one of the best, if not THE best, two-way players this game has ever seen – as possible. Florida Panthers Why They Could Win Florida has three lines that score a bunch and two goaltenders who have had outstanding seasons. “Yeah but their possession num–“ Shut up, ride the wave. Why You Should Cheer for Them Because it would be hilarious for everyone outside of British Columbia if Roberto Luongo wins himself a ring. Also, Jaromir Jagr winning a Stanley Cup 24 years after his last one? Amazing. Los Angeles Kings Why They Could Win They’re the Kings. They possess the puck better than any other team – first in Corsi Close, by a significant margin, this season. They’ve won two of the past four Stanley Cups. After missing the Playoffs last year, one would imagine they will be chomping at the bit for a third title, especially considering their rivals, the aforementioned Blackhawks, just won their third Cup in six years. Why You Should Cheer for Them Is there anybody out there who doesn’t want two solid months of Darryl Sutter? Minnesota Wild Why They Could Win If they play to their potential, the Wild can run with anyone in the league. First Round upsets of division winners St. Louis and Colorado the past two years is evidence of this. Why You Should Cheer for Them A Devan Dubnyk Stanley Cup? LOL Oilers. Nashville Predators Why They Could Win After years of having to play a stifling defensive system to survive, Nashville finally has a couple of competent scoring lines to complement their vaunted back end. If Pekka Rinne can remember how to play goal, the Preds are in business. Why You Should Cheer for Them A hugely passionate fanbase has seen a chronic lack of playoff hockey during the Predators’ first 16 seasons, with the team never making it out of the second round. Also, nothing says championship like golden buckets. New York Islanders Why They Could Win The Islanders are a rambunctious team that underperformed during the regular season, scraping into the Playoffs in a Wild Card spot. If they can turn it on at the right time, look out for the Islanders. Captain John Tavares enters the postseason thoroughly en fuego. Why You Should Cheer for Them Of all of the fanbases in the league, this one might be the most deserving of a break. No Playoff series wins since ’93. The new arena is an hour away from the old one. Even if you manage to make it there, you could be one of the literally thousands of paying fans that can’t see half the damn ice. Shut up, here’s a scarf, go Nets. New York Rangers Why They Could Win A team with oodles of Playoff experience only got experiencier with the addition of Eric Staal. Plus, any team with Henrik Lundqvist has a chance to take it all. Why You Should Cheer for Them Lundqvist deserves a ring for bailing out the Rangers game after game, season after season. He ‘aint gettin’ any younger, either. Philadelphia Flyers Why They Could Win The Flyers were one of the hottest teams closing out the regular season. They have some good structure thanks to first-year Head Coach Dave Hakstol, and their goaltending situation has been solidified by the tandem of Steven Mason and Michal Neuvirth. Why You Should Cheer for Them The Flyers have a variety of intriguing storylines: Flyers co-founder and longtime owner Ed Snider passed away earlier this week. Dave Hakstol is a rookie coach coming out of the collegiate ranks. The Flyers made a heroic run to secure a Playoff spot. And don’t forget the Ghost Bear! Pick one. Pittsburgh Penguins Why They Could Win After losing their first 4 games under replacement Head Coach Mike Sullivan, the Penguins won 32 of their remaining 50 games. Sidney Crosby (8-game point streak) and Phil Kessel (12 points in his last 9 games) come into the Playoffs red hot. Why You Should Cheer for Them Due to injuries, postseason meltdowns and a healthy dose of bad luck, Penguins fans have been robbed of additional Stanley Cups after winning in 2009. Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are generational talents – with Marc-André Fleury not far behind – that any hockey fan would be blessed to watch play for – and win – Lord Stanley’s Mug once more. San Jose Sharks Why They Could Win The Sharks are sixth in the NHL in Corsi Close and possess a balanced attack, two good goaltenders and a Wookiee on defence. Why You Should Cheer for Them Yes, yes, the Sharks have let us down in the past. Several times. But are there two guys that deserve a Cup more than Joe Thornton and James Reimer? What better time to shake off the monkey? St. Louis Blues Why They Could Win The St. Louis Blues won the Central Division. They’ve had a Cup-contending team for the past few years and goaltender Brian Elliott comes in having posted some spectacular numbers to close out the regular season campaign (we’ll gloss over his getting pulled in the Blues’ season finale). Why You Should Cheer for Them The aforementioned Elliott is set to start for the Blues in Game One. Despite having consistently posted good numbers during regular seasons for St. Louis, the Blues have consistently supplanted him with a different starter for the Playoffs (Jaroslav Halák, Ryan Miller, Jake Allen…). It appears Elliott has the ball in his court. Here’s hoping it stays that way. Tampa Bay Lightning Why They Could Win Last year’s Cup finalists enter the Playoffs with significant injury problems, but goaltender Ben Bishop had another sterling season and Tampa’s team is deep and, now, experienced. Assuming they stay in the hunt that long, their lineup will only improve as the injured players return. Why You Should Cheer for Them The Lightning’s quest for the Cup last year was hampered by significant injuries to Ben Bishop and Tyler Johnson. It would be awesome to see what they can do when they – eventually – have a full lineup. Washington Capitals Why They Could Win Excellent goaltending, a solid defence core and a potent, multifaceted attack. Oh, and they won the President’s Trophy. What’s not to like? Why You Should Cheer for Them What, you mean a RUSSIAN player can captain a Stanley Cup-winning team? What kind of a sick, twisted world are we living in?! Happy Playoffs, everybody!! There has been much talk recently regarding the possibility of increasing the age of eligibility for the National Hockey League Entry Draft to 19.
At first glance, this idea just seems like another manifestation of the NHL’s compulsive desire to fiddle. “Let’s make the net bigger”. “Let’s make the crease smaller”. “Let’s switch around the divisions”. “Let’s ruin the World Cup format with Team Some-of-Europe and Team Young-Guns-But-Only-If-You-Are-23-And-Under-And-Not-Some-Foreign-Guy”. Seriously though: has the league ever thought of just leaving things alone? Even just for a while? The three main reasons for this proposed change are the notions that general managers and their scouting staffs would have a larger body of work from which to make decisions come draft day, that it would increase the level of competitive play at the junior (and collegiate, for that matter) levels, and that NHL teams would have to pay their players for one fewer year. First of all, NHL draft rules state that any North American player between the ages of 18 and 20 can be selected, along with any European player who has not yet entered the NHL. Therefore, there is already a large window of opportunity for NHL teams to identify late bloomers and hidden gems. It is down to their front offices to identify the best possible players, whether they be 18 or 19, 28 or 29, 38 or 39. Do your jobs, or get someone who can. Secondly, I understand the desire to maintain good-quality hockey at the developmental level, but, dear NHL, I would absolutely LOVE to know how you are going to go and tell someone like Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid or Jack Eichel that, as legal adults, they can’t play in your league. What more are these supernaturally-talented players going to learn in another year of junior or collegiate hockey? What if sending them back actually stunts their development? And, pray tell, what happens when junior-age players start flocking to the European leagues, à la Auston Matthews – or the KHL? Even worse, with the latter league’s ability to (mostly) pay its players comparable salaries to those of the NHL, what would be the incentive to come back? What happens if the next McDavid plays his entire career for HC Sibir Novosibirsk? You want good quality developmental hockey? Let 18 year-olds into the AHL! (for the uninitiated, the minimum age to play in the American Hockey League after having been drafted out of Canadian Major Junior is 20) Oh, to be fair, there have been various compromises floated, such as allowing 18 year-olds to be drafted, but only in the First Round. This suggestion is equally ridiculous; how much difference is there, really, between players at picks 30 and 31 of a draft? Come on, now. The NHL struggles to gain traction in many non-traditional hockey markets. Making things more complicated and inherently inconsistent does nothing to garner new fans, and just confuses and or infuriates the ones the league already has. It is really getting embarrassing for hockey fans to admit that they follow the NHL. As for junior hockey, the Canadian Hockey League is already plenty competitive. Yes, it can, at times and in certain areas, struggle to get people to care. But that isn’t the fault of a lack of talent. I feel like making some simple changes, such as altering the format of the Memorial Cup to something resembling March Madness (idea courtesy Jeff Marek on the Marek vs. Wyshynski podcast) would go a long way towards growing interest in the often-undersupported CHL. Drafting is inherently risky. Has this guy who has succeeded in Major Junior already reached his ceiling? What if he becomes complacent after being hyped so much at such a young age? Will that kid who has committed to college flunk out in his first semester? However, the same argument can be made for most things in life. “If I take money out of this bank machine, what if someone comes up behind me and steals it?” “If I pick Anaheim in the Playoffs, what if they have to play a Game Seven?” Raising the draft age to benefit NHL teams is akin to saying to the government, “Nahh, give me another year to pay my taxes. I just feel like I would be able to do a better job if you gave me another year. Oh and I’m also not going to pay you for that extra year.” Certainly, this may be ideal. But this is also not how the world works. You sit down, fill out the needlessly complicated forms, send them in and hope for the best. Most years, you get a tax return. Sometimes, you get audited. Sometimes, you get thrown in jail. That’s just the way life works. If NHL teams aren’t happy with the players they have selected, the Entry-Level Contract stipulations give them an easy out. Or, they can always do what the Leafs did this past offseason and fire almost their entire scouting staff. After all, if some NHL coaches and general managers haven’t embraced analytics, it stands to reason that their scouts haven’t, either. Who knows, maybe some teams still have a cadre of crusty, narrow-minded employees who like a guy with a “good stick”, who is “hard on the puck” and who scores well on the “eye test”. But I digress. Put simply, to those advocating for an increased draft age: stop whining and accept the fact that nothing in this world is a certainty. And please, PLEASE, stop your incessant fiddling with our game. On a Friday night early last season in Columbus, Ohio, the Canadian television feed of the Leafs-Blue Jackets game zoomed in on a heated discussion between Jared Boll and Dion Phaneuf. As they neared their respective benches, rinkside microphones picked up the following comment from Boll: “Nobody likes you”. That got me thinking: how had Dion Phaneuf fallen so far out of favour? A big, tough, Canadian kid from the Prairies who could hit, shoot and fight, all while being reasonably mobile. If you can find me a more stereotypical (NHL) hockey player, please let me know. So how did a guy with his genetic gifts and skillset, who burst onto the National Hockey League scene with 54 goals in his first three seasons from the back end, and who, according to both Hockey-Reference.com and war-on-ice.com consistently drove possession, become so scorned? Last week’s trade to the Ottawa Senators ended his often-tumultuous stay in Toronto, so let’s have a bit of a post-mortem, shall we? Dion Phaneuf broke in with the Calgary Flames in 2005-06 as a rookie defenceman and promptly put up 20 goals, including 16 on the Power Play. He followed this up with two seasons of 17 goals, and, at the end of 2008-09, his fourth NHL season, had accumulated 65 Goals and 206 Points – first and sixth, respectively, amongst NHL defencemen during that timespan. These impressive offensive numbers were complimented by his reputation for laying bone-crushing hits – that were usually squeaky-clean, I might add. He was submerged deep within a strong Flames defence core which included stalwart, if unspectacular, veterans such as Roman Hamrlík, Robyn Regehr, Cory Sarich and Rhett Warrener, all of whom excelled on the defensive side of the puck. Combine this with the backing of all-world goaltender Mikka Kiprusoff and Dion Phaneuf had full licence to search and destroy, both on the scoresheet and in open ice. Midway through another solid season in 2009-10 season, Phaneuf was dispatched to the Toronto Maple Leafs, who sold him to fans and media alike as a young, defensive stud who would be THE guy on the blueline of the Blue and White for years to come. A mere four months after his arrival, he was named Team Captain, in June of 2010. However, his arrival in Toronto – a infamously tough media market, along with his status as the Number One defenceman AND Captain for one of the most storied hockey franchises the world has ever seen changed Phaneuf – and not for the better. His game was tamer, more conservative. Ron Wilson’s nonsensical requirement that his defencemen keep two hands on their stick (seriously, it was a thing. Look it up.) did not help matters, but clearly, something was amiss. Did he receive pressure from his coach, or perhaps from on high, to tone down his exuberance and play a more responsible game? Did he alter his style of play to ingratiate himself to the notoriously savage Toronto media? Maybe he himself felt that, finally being out of the shadow of his mentors in Calgary and being Toronto’s Captain meant his game had to mature. Only he knows. What I do know is this: his goal-scoring and point production decreased, due in large part to the fact that his once-surgically accurate slapshot began to have trouble splitting the uprights on a football field. His possession numbers for his time in Toronto were brutal. Game-changing hits and end-to-end rushes became few and far between. Having lost the “high-reward” aspects of his play, Phaneuf became merely a “high-risk” player, with defensive coverage that often approached that of the Cheshire Cat. (GIF retrieved from: http://cheshiretime.tumblr.com/post/22138162629/alice-i-dont-want-to-meet-mad-people-cheshire) I argue that this taming of his game exposed Dion Phaneuf for what he is: a good NHL defenceman, comfortable slotting in anywhere from Number Two through Number Four in your rotation. Not, alas, a Number One. I believe that removing the unpredictability from his game actually made Phaneuf a worse player. Opposing wingers once had second thoughts about streaking through the neutral zone, as they knew Phaneuf might just take a chance and step up on them. Now, they had licence to put their heads down and turnstyle him mercilessly. Agitators felt they could push him around because, they knew that he, as the captain, couldn’t risk taking a bad penalty by responding physically. The rollicking, almost improvised style of play that had made Phaneuf a fan-favourite in Calgary – and across the NHL – was also the very thing that once made him so very effective as an NHL defenceman. And it had been beaten out of him, certainly in Toronto, if not also towards the end of his tenure in Calgary.
And you know what? Absolutely none of this is the fault of Dion Phaneuf. He didn’t ask to be traded to Toronto. He didn’t ask to be the Leafs’ Number One defenceman. He didn’t ask to be captain. He didn’t ask to not receive a half-decent supporting cast. And he didn’t offer himself a contract that pays him $7 million per season. Dion Phaneuf is an inherently erratic player. It’s just who he is. He can shoot the puck a million kilometres per hour. He can crush you in open ice or along the boards – take your pick. He can play the Power Play and the Penalty Kill. And for goodness’ sake, don’t fight him; he is one scary dude. His jumping up in the play and stepping up for the big hit can leave fans of his team a little clenched, for sure. However, he is a much more valuable player when the opposing team doesn’t know what the heck he is going to do next. I really hope that Dion Phaneuf, removed from the incredible pressures put on him in Toronto is unleashed in Ottawa and can return to fulfilling his potential. Teach him to pick his spots, sure. But do your best to rekindle some of that old fire. As the National Hockey League Trade Deadline approaches, the eyes of the hockey world once again fixate upon the general managers of the league’s 30 teams. “Will this guy be traded?” “Will that guy re-sign?” “Will he accept a rental deal?” These are the questions fans and commentators alike have begun churning out, given the flurry of activity in the past couple of weeks, most notably Seth Jones and Ryan Johansen swapping cities, and Luke Schenn and Vincent Lecavalier going to the Kings.
Inevitably, GMs will be dichotomously divided into the categories of “geniuses” and “idiots”, the breakdown of which shall occupy everyone’s time until the Playoffs actually begin. But should we really be so hard on general managers? Would you REALLY want their job? Okay, yes, they make a lot of money and have – ideally – significant control over a National Hockey League team, entities worth hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars. It’s not near as simple as it looks, though; I argue that GMs are truly a unique breed. Last season, I signed up for a Fantasy Hockey league with a group of my friends. Pick a bunch of players and track them through the season, all in an effort to beat everyone else in various statistical categories. Simple, right? At the draft auction, I spent my biggest chunk of change on Henrik Lundqvist. Perennial Vezina candidate, good team – albeit not possession-wise (seriously, check out the Rangers’ possession numbers for the past 2 years), very durable… I should be set in goal, right? Well, a puck to the throat changed that. And then my backup, Steve Mason – who has very quietly been posting some real solid numbers the past couple of years in Philadelphia – went down, as well. Gahhh. What to do?! Do I look at the Free Agent pool? Do I make a deal? Do I bring my goalie coach out of retirement? I ended up trading for Brian Elliott, who had a rough end to the season, ultimately ceding the starter’s role to Jake Allen. I was so desperate for a goalie though, I was willing to give up Patric Hörnqvist and Kris Letang. Now, in hindsight, that was, obviously, an awful deal. But hey, the pressure to win was on, and I did what I thought was best. I had a need, and I addressed it. Granted, it blew up in my face. Didn’t I do what a good GM is supposed to do, though? “Yeah, but fantasy sports aren’t real sports”, you’re probably saying to yourself. “You’re an idiot!” might come to mind, as well. And you’d be right, on both counts. But how is Marc Bergevin, for example, feeling right about now? The one-time division-leading Canadiens are plummeting in the standings, having lost all-world Carey Price to injury a couple of months back. They can’t score and they can’t keep the puck out of their net to the same degree: not a recipe for success. Should they make a move for a goalie? Well, you’re not going to find a goalie anywhere near the calibre of Carey Price (sorry, Ben Scrivens) for an affordable price, and a trade for a top-tier ‘tender would likely eliminate a strength to address a weakness. Maybe the Canadiens’ skaters weren’t quite as good as projected, so perhaps some more offence is in order. But what would you need to give up for that? Or, as Montréal fans have been screaming about for years, maybe the coaching style is the problem. But do you really want to change horses in the middle of the stream? Especially when you are still – barely – in Playoff contention? Beyond the explicit statistics and team performance, there are innumerable less-obvious, yet critically important, things to consider – most of which are mercifully absent from Fantasy Hockey. "Will I have a job next season if I don’t make this trade?" "Will I have a job next season if I do?" "Why is the other GM willing to do this?" "Will the player we agree to come here?" "What’s his personal situation like?" "Will he re-sign with us next season?" "Will he fit in nicely in the dressing room?" "Can we use him properly? "How will this affect the team in the coming years?" "What will my legacy be?" Every year, some general managers cave in to their worst instincts, at the Trade Deadline or otherwise. Remember when the Thrashers traded away young stud Braydon Coburn for greybeard Alexei Zhitnik? That said, GMs have to feel comfortable walking into their dressing room, looking each player in the eye and saying, “I’ve done all I possibly can to help you”. They have to be comfortable at a podium, telling the media that, “Yeah, we have a real chance this year!” They have to be comfortable telling ownership, “I’ve given us the best chance to win”. They have to be comfortable with going home to their families and friends, who have no doubt been inundated with opinions galore. And they have to be comfortable looking themselves in the mirror and saying, “I’ve done the best job possible”. That’s one hell of a tough job. Are we really right to criticise? Well, yes. We are the fans who invest the time, energy and money to keep our teams going. Just be thankful you don’t have their job. Buckle up, folks; February 29th is coming faster than you think. The modern hockey world is home to countless analysts and pundits who peddle their knowledge and influence to fans of our fair game. Others – myself included – comment on hockey happenings from an unofficial, non-expert position, providing – hopefully – additional insights to compliment those emanating from official channels. However, even in this endlessly connected world with innumerable critics and constant analysis, there is one element of the game that neither fans, nor bloggers, nor experts have ever really been able to figure out: goaltending.
Think about it: outside of the top five or ten goaltenders in the league, can anyone really claim to know which goalies will be successful in a given year? What on Earth happened to Vezina finalists Ilya Bryzgalov and Niklas Backstrom? Why don’t durable stalwarts Roberto Luongo and Marc-André Fleury get the credit they deserve? And can someone please explain the remarkable resurgence of Devan Dubnyk? People tend to judge goalies based on the ‘tenders they played with and or grew up watching. I remember specifically two instances during my (House League) career that illustrate this point: I had a parent of another kid on my team tell me that I needed to “stand up more” so that I could “be ready for high shots” – nevermind how most goals go in the lower half of the net, he grew up watching Johnny Bower, dammit! Another year, I had a coach at the tryouts pushing down on my shoulders to see how close I could come to a full split because, of course, groin flexibility is the most important criteria for judging a 11 year-old’s goaltending ability – someone clearly needed to take away his Dominik Hašek tapes. Analysts, be they former professional goaltenders, players or otherwise, are generally no better. Nearly every goal is followed by some explanation of how the goaltender should have, somehow, had that puck. How about giving credit to the shooter for hitting their spot? Or blaming the team for a defensive breakdown? Even when the goaltender does stop the puck, commentary often takes the tone of, “and the shooter just couldn’t get the puck up over the pad”, totally dismissing a fine bit of goaltending. Obviously, analysts they have a requirement to project their admittedly extensive knowledge and experience. Thus, they are quick to explain everything in simple, black and white terms. “He goes down too early”. “He cheats on plays”. “He needs to come out and challenge”. And you know what? That commentary might well be fair enough if modern goalies were constantly turning around to dig pucks out of their net. But, judging by the fact we have had the NHL’s “lack” of goal-scoring shoved down our throats, lo these many years, that is clearly not the case. In my view, the constant criticism and deconstruction NHL goaltenders are subjected to is, for the most part, unwarranted. Every profession has people who are successful. Each person who becomes successful does so in their own unique way. Therefore, perhaps analysts who are former goaltenders have a bias towards the sort of style they themselves employed, and perhaps those who are former players have a bias towards the sort of style they witnessed their teammates playing. Therefore, the second a goal goes in on a goaltender who is not playing a style of which they approve, many analysts pounce. That said, as mentioned before, goaltending is complicated to analyse and predict, so is it really right to blame those tasked with critiquing goaltenders to sticking to what they know? The same can be said for the fans; fans are accustomed to watching goal be tended in very specific ways – is it really fair to blame them for being apprehensive about an unorthodox style? After all, who among us doesn’t get a bit clenched watching James Reimer or Jonathan Quick between the pipes? As a Greater Toronto resident, I am more than familiar with how this phenomenon can extend even to goalie coaches. Take François Allaire, for example. He is undoubtedly a smart and talented individual, having won Stanley Cups in 1986 and 1993 (mentoring Montréal’s Patrick Roy, who won the Conn Smythe trophy on each occasion), and adding a third in 2007 tutoring Anaheim’s Jean-Sébastien Giguère (whom he also coached to a Conn Smythe win in 2003, despite the Mighty Ducks losing in the Final). However, his insistence on strict adherence to a conservative, Butterfly-dominated style of goaltending, despite meshing well with the builds and skillsets of Roy and Giguère, severely handicapped the careers of Leafs Vesa Toskala, Jonas Gustavsson and James Reimer during his tenure in Toronto (2009-12). These three goalies had established themselves as lively, athletic puckstoppers, and so a switch to this much more conservative brand of goaltending was, ultimately, disastrous. Toskala has long since retired, and Gustavsson and Reimer have only recently begun to show flashes of their former brilliance. With any other facet of hockey – any other industry, for that matter, people ask “if”, not “how”. Can you imagine if a goal-scorer was criticised for scoring too many bang-in goals? Or if a Centre was criticised for winning too many faceoffs with his feet? No? Exactly. And yet Dominik Hašek, with 6 Vezina Trophies to his name, is often deemed to have been “lucky”. Henrik Lundqvist, Olympic Gold Medal and Vezina Trophy notwithstanding, is chastised for playing too far back in his net. Corey Crawford, with 2 Stanley Cups to his name, is still considered a second-tier starter with a weak glove hand. My point is this: leave goalies alone. They have a tough enough job already. Nobody really understands goaltending, not even goalies. It just sort of…is. The job description is pretty simple: prevent the puck from entering the net. However, there are infinite ways to execute said task, and we all need to become comfortable with that fact. Perhaps not all roads lead to Rome, but it is very rare that a goalie and or said goalie’s style of play is solely responsible for a team’s struggles. Barring that situation, let them be. The much-maligned Jonathan Bernier got his first win of the season – his first win since 05 April of this year – last night against the Los Angeles Kings. Yes, it had to come sometime and yes, the Kings were at the end of a lengthy road trip but hey, a victory – and a shutout victory, at that – against one of the top teams in the NHL is definitely something to be proud of. Bernier is fresh off a conditioning stint in the American Hockey League. Since returning to the Leafs, he has had one poor game, one adequate game and, most recently, a great game against his former team, including an outstanding pad stop on sniper Marian Gaborik.
However, there is still a lot of work to be done. Bernier hasn’t had an easy run in Toronto. In fact, the story of his entire career seems to be one of struggle and setbacks. At the 2008 World Juniors, Bernier was selected as one of the goalies for Canada’s entry, splitting duties throughout the Preliminary Round with Steve Mason. Despite having the tougher draw, Bernier, with a 44-save shutout over the Czechs and a 4-3 loss to Sweden, was passed over in favour of the 2-0 Mason, who faced only 38 shots combined over two games against Slovakia and Denmark, stopping 37 of them. Despite Mason’s shaky play in Canada’s QuarterFinal win over Finland, Bernier was again passed over for the SemiFinal. Mason won that game, too, before leading Canada to the gold medal over Team Sweden. Despite his team’s success, Bernier was vocal in his displeasure, both during and after the tournament, at having not been given the same opportunities as Mason. Mason was, admittedly, the better puckhandling goaltender of the two, which Canada’s coaches might have felt would benefit them on the international-sized ice surface – the 2008 tournament was played in the Czech Republic. Or, perhaps Bernier’s loss against Mason’s perfect record made all the difference. Who knows. Whatever the case, Bernier did not endear himself to the hockey community with his unhelpful, albeit understandable, attitude towards the situation. Drafted by Los Angeles, Bernier was set up to take over the Kings’ goaltending throne, before being usurped by another prospect, Jonathan Quick. After the Kings won the 2012 Stanley Cup, a trade request Bernier had originally made before that season’s trade deadline was made public. Despite the championship, Bernier still wanted to go somewhere to be closer to home and, crucially, somewhere where he could be a starter. Again, understandable, given that 2012 Conn Smythe winner Quick had firmly entrenched himself as the starter in LA. But again, more evidence that Bernier is, perhaps, a bit of a difficult personality. On to Toronto where, in 2013-14, Bernier turned in a spectacular season of work in propping up a marginally competitive Maple Leafs team, winning 26 games and posting a .922 Save Percentage. Reality came crashing down when Bernier was injured and James Reimer could not maintain the bailing out of the Leafs’ perpetually sinking boat. And though 2014-15 was a miserable year all around for the Maple Leafs – Bernier included, he still managed a middling .912 Save Percentage. However, the fact remains that Bernier has never had success over a significant enough period of time for him to warrant consideration as an elite National Hockey League goaltender – and perhaps not long enough to even be considered a bona fide starter (rather than a good 1A or 1B option). And yet, Bernier still remains supremely self-confident, bordering on abrasively so, at times. It is this self-confidence, and perhaps not an inherently difficult personality, that I contend is Bernier’s biggest strength – AND his biggest weakness. He has the calm, collected demeanour of Carey Price, rarely appearing rattled. However, much like Price early in his career, this zen model of goaltending has gotten Bernier into trouble. Coolness and calm are fine when things are going well but, when they are not, they lend themselves to accusations of uncaring and apathy. Countless players have been labelled as “lazy” or having a “bad attitude” because of their relaxed demeanour on the ice. As mentioned, Carey Price. Frank Mahovlich, anyone? How about Jaromir Jagr? Bernier’s on-ice behaviour has not helped this perception. His cool, calm manner seems to be central to his playing style, often at the expense of focus and intensity. Certainly, bad goals go in on every goalie. But not at the frequency with which they go in on Bernier. I believe that much of the problem lies with his overly composed, casual nature in the net. How about the goal against the Carolina Hurricanes from a couple of years back? Or pre-Leafs Michael Grabner’s shorthanded tally? Of course, this article would not be complete without Oliver Ekman-Larsson’s legendary snipe. And, from this season, check out Derek Stepan’s entry. Those goals were absolute stinkers, to be sure. But even goals that were not inexplicably awful illustrate my point: the first goal of the 2014-15 season Bernier allowed went in because his pad was not flush with the ice. A weak shot, right along the ice, from a horrible angle: definitely preventable. Or this one, also from last year: he has to seal that post; that just cannot go in. Or, how about this one: I understand standing up for a high shot but it is pretty clear that this one needed to be a butterfly save. Even he stopped it, where was that rebound going? You get the point. To be sure, there are worse goaltenders than Jonathan Bernier in the NHL. And I am equally sure that I could scrounge up enough lowlights to make a pretty decent blooper reel for any National Hockey League ‘tender. However, Leafs fans know a thing or two about questionable goaltending. And no goaltender has made them do this more than Jonathan Bernier. Say what you will about James Reimer and his technique, no one ever questions his intensity and compete level. Bernier probably has more raw talent than Reimer. However, in terms of putting it all together on the ice and, ultimately, producing results? Reimer’s got him beat, hands-down. The main bullet point of the presentation? Bernier gives up a lot of soft goals, and often looks as though he is not even trying. The cool, calm, collected manner he endeavours to project is often a detriment to his game, making him appear casual and apathetic. His self-confidence in himself and the way he plays might be grating on the teams on which he plays, and is definitely so on the fans he plays for. This last point is especially pertinent given that Leafs Nation is used to the self-deprecating, “Aww, shucks”, widely-recognised-all-around-good-guy attitude of tandem compadre, James Reimer. I do not believe for a second that Jonathan Bernier does not try, or that he is in any way apathetic towards his team. I also do not believe he is the goalie he has shown himself to be in the past couple of years. However, to get out of this funk he is in, he needs to channel his zen into focus and his self-confidence into intensity. I believe that Jonathan Bernier should be a starting goaltender in the National Hockey League – and a darn good one, at that. It is up to him to find that consistency that has eluded him so far in his career. Being cool, calm and collected is only helpful until it isn’t. But, look at Carey Price: once one finds that balance between composure and focus, the sky is the limit. The NHL season is deep into November and, as people across Canada settle in for the deep freeze, a familiar voice greets them as they cozy up to their televisions. It is a voice that has been warming up Canadian winters since 1973 – 1969, if you include his Hockey Night in Canada radio career. It is a voice that broadcast the Stanley Cup Finals for 29 straight years. The voice in question, of course, belongs to one Robert C. – “Bob” – Cole.
Jim Hughson and Mike “Doc” Emrick are wizards with words, using vocabularies that would make even the most accomplished wordsmith scratch his or her head. Gord Miller and Chris Cuthbert are crisp and precise, with a knack for the brilliant soundbite. Joe Bowen wears his heart on his sleeve every night. Certainly, there are many talented television broadcasters in the game of hockey throughout Canada and the United States. But none can quite bring to a game that which is brought by Bob Cole. Truth be told, he really doesn’t say all that much whilst on the air. And he has never been the most accurate of announcers. But he gets television. A radio commentator has a much different job – after all, the audience cannot see the game at hand. Bob Cole understands that the television viewer can see what is going on, so he doesn’t feel the need to comment on every single little event. He realises that his job as a television broadcaster is, instead, to communicate the elements of that game that don’t always translate well to the viewers at home – the atmosphere in the building, the momentum of the play, the gravity of the situation. I would wager that even the casual hockey fan could walk past a room where a Bob Cole-called game was being shown and, without a glance at the screen nor a query of a viewer, could ascertain the closeness of the play, the importance of the situation and the period in which the game finds itself. All this based on a few seconds of Bob Cole commentary, you ask? Go ahead; try it. More than just being descriptive, he has the unique ability that is shared by few others, most notably elite actors: the ability to make the audience feel – feel what those out there performing on the stage – or on the ice –are feeling. Who didn’t stand up and cheer when Canada won the Olympic Gold Medal in 2002? Who doesn’t get chills when listening to Cole call Todd Marchant’s 1996-97 series-winning goal for the Oilers against the heavily-favoured Dallas Stars? If you’ve got six minutes, why not lose your mind as Cole’s voice runs out of octaves during Game Seven of the 1989 Smythe Division Semi-Finals? Detractors have long wished for Cole to retire. They feel that the game has passed him by, that there are other announcers out there that could do a better job. But for any hockey fan, love him or hate him, Bob Cole is the voice that calls the hockey games in your head. There is even an app for that. He’s been calling the best league in the world for nearly fifty years. How many others have been at the top of their profession for that long? It is simply astounding. And therefore, Bob Cole deserves our respect. He had the courage to follow his dream and, once he achieved it, has never let anybody take it away. At 82, he is still going strong, calling games for SportsNet after Rogers took over from his old home, CBC, as the national broadcaster for the NHL. People will say he’s too old, but “too old” for what, I ask? Age has nothing to do with it. He has, quite simply, been the best hockey commentator on television of our generation, if not of all time. So he can call games as long as he damn well wants to. The uncanny abilities of the world’s greatest players are often taken for granted until they leave the game. I often feel sadness when these legends of hockey retire – sadness at not having watched them more often during their playing careers. And I know that the hockey world will feel the same way if Bob Cole ever decides to hang ‘em up. That’s a big “if”, though. Steve Dangle has been getting a lot of heat lately, and I don’t understand why. For the uninitiated, Dangle started making videos following every Toronto Maple Leafs game on a webcam in his room. Well, when I say webcam… It was clearly some kind of root vegetable. Anyway. Along with the videos, known as Leafs Fan Reactions, or LFRs, he has since done work for the OHL, and CHL, the World Juniors, the AHL and, now, the NHL. He has worked at theleafsnation.com, LeafsTV, CBC and, now, Rogers SportsNet. Nike even sponsored him to go to the 2010 Winter Olympics. And this is just what I know from following the guy; there very well might be more. The man has paid his dues.
Young guy, intrepid blogger, works his way up from nothing, makes The Show… Who doesn’t love a story like that? Well, a lot of people, evidently. As a major presence in SportsNet’s online platform, Dangle’s work has been promoted in their social media releases, especially recently. However, some people have been voicing their concerns A) with his content showing up in their News Feed and B) with the fact that he is an employee at SportsNet in the first place. There is a petition – which, to be fair, has been mercilessly trolled by fans of Dangle – to get his videos removed from SportsNet’s site altogether. Some are even calling for him to be fired. Now, if you go into StarBucks, order a drink you’ve never had before and then realise you don’t like it, do you demand that the barista be fired? No, the next time you come in, you get something else. If you don’t like Dangle’s stuff, don’t watch/read/listen to it. No one’s putting a gun to your head. He’s got over 31,000 subscribers on YouTube, over 33,000 followers on Twitter and a podcast sponsored by Panago Pizza so, obviously, some people like him. If you are not one of them, that’s fine. How does he, in any way, affect your life? This is his job and he’s making his own way in the world, so why are you demanding his head? Hockey is, let’s be honest, the 4th most popular of the 4 major professional sports in North America. We hockey fans are a passionate bunch but we occupy but a small niche of the sports market. We aren’t like the NFL, for example, where each and every team has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of devoted, diehard fans. Some NHL teams do, undoubtedly. But many do not. Unfortunately, as untapped as many hockey markets are, the NHL is, and has always been, a stodgy institution that is stubbornly resistant to change. Two current examples: the NHL’s reluctance to discipline its players and protect its stars, and the disregard with which the league has treated both the short and the long-term effects of concussions. Gary Bettman, despite obvious demand, refused to develop a league-sponsored replacement for CapGeek. Too many goalies getting good at this playing-the-puck witchcraft? Better put in the Trapezoid. Going back a few years, helmets were not universally mandatory until the 1997-98 season, despite Bill Masterton’s passing in 1968. The NHL as a league and as a community is not a brilliant institution. A good chunk of the media coverage of hockey is equally conservative and reactionary. Think of the terms “good stick”, “student of the game” and “play the game the right way”, and let me know what image pops into your head. The hockey establishment, writers and fans alike, need to understand that there are many ways to enjoy and think about hockey, and that they do not have a monopoly on it. For instance, analytics have been around – and reliably predicting outcomes – for years but it was really only this past season that much of the mainstream hockey media began paying attention to them. An energetic new – usually younger, but not exclusively so – generation of people covering the game is emerging. Dangle is part of this movement, and seems to be doing rather well with it. Pushback is essential in order to generate healthy debate. But there is no need to character-assassinate someone. Steve presents topics in a fresh, exciting way that is humorous to many of us “established” hockey fans, but also inclusionary to those who might be new to the game. After all, hockey can be an intimidating sport to take up as a fan. Why not make it easy and fun, instead of grumbling about the uninitiated? And for those of us who grew up with the game, he has an ability to pass almost instantaneous judgement on an issue – and be right about it most times. When looking at an issue, it is exceedingly difficult not to experience an immediate gut reaction towards one extreme or the other. Most people, professional journalists and otherwise, need time to think about and process the situation in order to draw some semblance of a reasonable conclusion. Dangle can, seemingly, do that off the top of his head. That is a rare gift. We have a curious instinct as human beings to instantly harangue any attempts at change, especially when it conflicts with our own personal views. However, we did not develop the civilisation we live in and enjoy today by being stagnant. So, to the hockey community: calm down, open the window and let some fresh air in. There's room enough for everyone. We are now two weeks into a fresh, new NHL season and it appears that some things never change. On Wednesday 07 October, the Toronto Maple Leafs took on the Montréal Canadiens in the season opener for both teams. Early in the first period, Leo Komarov shoved P.K. Subban from behind into the boards. The hit itself was nasty, but the fact that Subban did not turn into the hit, the fact that he was a dangerous distance from the boards and the fact that the puck had left the area combine to make it an inexcusable act. Thankfully, Subban got up and finished the game. Komarov, for his transgression, got nothing more than 2 minutes for Boarding. I am constantly puzzled as to why hits like Komarov’s receive little to no discipline on the ice, and rarely, if ever, face punishment off it. Though Komarov’s hit was not outright predatory, it was the latest in a long line of illegal plays that the NHL should be, via strict disciplinary practice, eradicating from the game forever.
Admittedly, the league has made some progress in cracking down on its most predatory players. With Raffi Torres being handed a 41-game suspension – and deservedly so – for an illegal check thrown in the preseason, I was cautiously optimistic that the league had turned a corner. After what went on in last year’s playoffs, I felt that change could not come fast enough. In the first round alone, there were enough dangerous plays to turn even the most conservative of hockey people cynical. Lubomir Visnovsky gets run over by Tom Wilson on a play where the puck was long gone and where the head was deliberately targeted. No supplementary discipline. John Tavares gets crushed from behind by Alexander Ovechkin (before setting up a goal, yes, I know). No supplementary discipline. Ovechkin obliterated Thomas Hickey in a very similar fashion later on in that series. No supplementary discipline. Sidney Crosby, of all people, was the victim of a drive-by headshot from the Rangers’ Carl Hagelin. No supplementary discipline, even with Crosby’s history of concussions, not to mention the fact that, you know, he is the best player in the world. Now let’s go back to 2011 when a young, up-and-coming goaltender by the name of James Reimer was clipped in the head by Brian Gionta of the Canadiens. No supplementary discipline. Oh, and, by the way: how on EARTH was Dustin Brown not penalised, let alone suspended for this hit earlier this year?! There is a popular line recited ad nauseam regarding this issue: “Things aren’t going to change until a real superstar gets hurt”. Well, lest we forget, earlier in 2011, Sidney Crosby received the first of his serious head injuries courtesy of David Steckel in the Winter Classic. Any guesses as to what happened? No supplementary discipline. Seeing a pattern here? NHL discipline should be applied without regard to either players’ stature within the game, but if you can’t, at the very least, protect your most valuable assets, then something is seriously wrong with your business model. And yes, I get that many of the above examples occurred in the playoffs. But the hits are still just as hard in April as they are in September. I love Ovechkin, I really do. He is a guy who is electric to watch and really seems to have fun out there. So I hate to single him out as an example. But his combination of exuberant power hockey and blinding speed, has, multiple times, led him over the edge, resulting in suspensions of 2, 2 and 3 games. Given this history, it boggles the mind how the NHL did not throw at least a couple of games at him last April. One could even make a case for a half-dozen game. It should have been even more but, due to the NHL’s ridiculous double standard of officiating and discipline that is evident each Spring – on account of the playoffs, I’d better not get greedy. If the Caps were to have lost their best player for any amount of time, how eager would other players around the league be to pull the same type of thing? Instead, nothing happened and the hazardous play continues to this day. Joe Torre, the legendary baseball figure, hit the nail on the head when discussing his decision to suspend Chase Utley for an illegal slide during the MLB playoffs. He talks about wanting to “keep…players on the field”. This should be the ultimate goal of any professional sports league. Teams and fans alike invest a lot of time and money in players and, in the words of Harold Reynolds (who can be heard later in the above clip), “you want [that] protected”. Aside from teams and fans, players bank on themselves, too. These are individuals who have spent most of their childhood and adolescence practising a sport, and have but a few short years in adulthood to make their money. Injuries can seriously snarl up these plans. Let’s look at the star players that have left the league recently due to head injuries alone: Eric Lindros, Keith Primeau, Paul Kariya, Marc Savard, Chris Pronger… Need I go on? Fans go to sporting events to see stars play, not to see them carted off the ice on stretchers. And if the NHL can’t even protect their stars, let alone their journeymen, then its future as a league looks bleak. The NHL’s inaction on increasing and enforcing discipline has left a trail of agony and heartbreak far beyond the ice surface. Over the years, countless players have either been diagnosed with Post-Concussion Syndrome or have succumbed to its effects. Bob Probert, Derek Boogaard and Steve Montador are three players whose tragic deaths have been linked to concussions. There are suspicions that the deaths of other players, including Rick Rypien and Wade Belak, are also connected to head injuries. The NHL is currently fighting legal action which alleges the league was aware of the perils of head trauma and did little to address it. In some situations, they allegedly made things even worse. Check out the first couple pages of this court document from February and tell me it doesn’t give you chills. The NHL even tried to fight the lawsuit at its source, saying it was too costly to pull and compile all of the applicable medical records. The NHL needs to change, and needs to change now in order to stop the bleeding and make the game what it can and should be: a fast, hard, competitive sport that people can watch and make a living playing without fear of someone’s brain getting smacked around. Hockey will always be a tough sport. But it can be tough without being inherently dangerous. The NHL needs to realise that its actions – or inaction – trickle down to leagues of all levels. By all accounts, minor hockey is haemorrhaging players. There are a few other factors at play, but one major contributor is player safety; parents don’t want their kids’ brains to be scrambled before they graduate high school. This development is, obviously, going to be severely detrimental to the league, if not tomorrow, then 10, 15, 20 years down the road. The National Hockey League has a real opportunity here to stand out among its peers. Major League Baseball and the National Football League, who have both struggled with injury concerns of their own, are notoriously slow-acting in these regards. All that would be necessary is for the rules of the league to be enforced at all times and, when necessary, tweaked. For instance, why not make Boarding and Charging calls automatic 5-minute majors? Why not judge plays not on the health of the recipient, but on the merits – or lack thereof – of the play itself? Why not make such suspensions 5 games for a first offence? Let’s make sure the games are decided by the presence of players, not the absence of them. The NHL should also, without reservation, compensate the poor souls who devoted their life to this game, only to emerge battered, bruised and concussed. Some, tragically, didn’t emerge at all. How refreshing would it be to see the league come out and say, “We screwed up. We were wrong and we want to make it right.” Put plainly, the league needs to take responsibility. The NHL can deny, deny, deny all it wants. But anyone with even a modicum of common sense must realise that the NHL knew what was going on. It is up to the courts now. Let’s hope they do the right thing, both for the individuals involved and for the game as a whole. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” So what did Komarov deserve? A 5-minute major for Boarding and a Game Misconduct, in my opinion. A 2 or 3-game suspension would not have been out of line, either. But what does the NHL deserve? You tell me; this league makes Raffi Torres look like a saint. |
Peter FerrellThis is a hockey blog. CategoriesArchives
September 2016
|