Anaheim Ducks and Calgary Flames may lose stars; Maple Leafs GM backs enforcers; and realignment plans on ice
? Watch the latest NHL video highlights
Anaheim Ducks and Calgary Flames may lose stars such as Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf and Jarome Iginla; Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke backs enforcers; and realignment plans on hold
Neighbourhood yard sale?
Two teams in the West could be in for some big changes, but only one has so far announced it's ready and very willing.
The Ducks
Despite bringing in Bruce Boudreau behind the bench earlier this season, the Ducks have struggled. And before Saturday's game against the Blue Jackets (more on that in a minute), the team's GM Bob Murray decided to let everyone know exactly where he stood on the state of his squad: basically, everything must (or can) go. That is, apart from Saku Koivu and Teemu Selane. They can stay. Or, at least, they have to stay, thanks to no-move clauses in their contracts.
Craig Custance at ESPN put the team's situation this way:
"The reality is that the Ducks sit 20 points outside a playoff spot in the Western Conference and have a much better shot at landing the No. 1 pick and Nail Yakupov than a miracle playoff run in the impossible West."
(Custance also asked former Ducks coach ? and current Red Wings coach ? Mike Babcock about whether he'd "put in any requests to his general manager" on potential players, and got not only a classic Babcock-esque answer, but just kind of the most amusing quote I've seen printed in while.
Babcock answered: "You know what? I haven't run into Ken Holland, he was at the world juniors, but I'm sure on this flight [to Toronto] we'll have time to talk." Translation: F--- off.)
But anyway, the prospect of the majority of the Ducks being on the table was certainly interesting. And, of course, with names like Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf, Bobby Ryan and Jonas Hiller on the roster, the speculation was obviously rampant. In particular, eyes turned to the Leafs, where former Ducks GM, Brian Burke, seemed perhaps one of the more likely to make a play for pretty much anyone in Anaheim. Or maybe just the one, actually.
Yes, Ryan Getzlaf had the fans all a-twitter. Could Burke have him on a short list? Would he be the perfect addition to guarantee the team a spot in the playoffs? The conversation and potential permutations of what such a trade might look like spiraled away on the HF Boards, but did anyone ask Getzlaf? Yes. Here's what he said to the OC Register:
"I want to be part of [the Ducks] more than anything. In junior, I played for the same team my whole career and I kind of imagined the same things when I came here and still do."
And it also might be worth asking whether Getzlaf is still worth what it's speculated he could bring in (ie. multiple young players). He has 27 points this year in 40 games, and only 7 of those are goals. Is he worth all the hyperventilating?
As for the others? Here's what Corey Perry did on Saturday night. A hat trick. And all right, one goal was an empty-netter, and it was against Columbus, but still. Perry's probably not going to post another 50-goal season (which was only last year), but his 18 goals and 35 total points is bound to cause as much interest as the trade deadline looms as anything Getzlaf can drum up. Is he perhaps even more valuable?
So, with a handful of good names to choose from on the Ducks, who would you be willing to give up from your team? And for who? Would any team be in any position to pick up more than one of the higher-calibre Ducks?
The Flames
The other team in the West that might need to start thinking seriously about making a few of its star players available is the Calgary Flames. After their 9-0 dismantling at the hands of the Boston Bruins this past week, Allan Maki at the Globe and Mail was one of a few who was starting to think the Flames might actually need to keep going, breaking the team apart and starting from the ground up. And one of the first names on the list of possible trade bait? Jarome Iginla.
"The Flames' owners have been loathe to trade Iginla for fear of public backlash. They love the guy, love the way he generates brand recognition and moves merchandise," Maki wrote. "That said, they'd allow Feaster to shop Iginla if he came to them and requested a change of scenery. That would enable the owners to say they were doing a long-serving employee a favour by giving him a chance to pursue a Stanley Cup elsewhere ? because we all know it's not going to happen here any time soon."
That's a tough sell, but it's unfortunately probably the truth. And, strangely enough, the one factor that might make Iggy's departure from Calgary a bit easier, is him finally scoring 500 goals ? something he managed to do on Saturday night:
Not a pretty thing ? it had to go off two Wild skates before it went in ? but they all count. And the fact that he did it on home ice was all the better, especially because now Calgary can feel at least somewhat OK when it says goodbye to its long-time captain.
But even if he goes now, before a Cup victory, Iginla leaves behind a pretty impressive legacy in Calgary. There are any number of high points in his career in the city, but a few probably stand out. His first point as a Flame, for instance ? an assist on a goal by Theo Fleury; surpassing the latter on the Flames all-time goal leader board with his 365th goal in 2008; or his 1,000th point. And that epic shift in game 5 of the Cup final in 2004. Or what about that time he put Canucks' pest Willie Mitchell in his place? Or when he made sure, at the end of Trevor Linden's last game the Flames stuck around to shake hands. He's served the Flames well as arguably the best captain the league's seen since Steve Yzerman.
It's probably time Iginla left, if he can, to free up some space and allow for a complete change in approach to the team.
Oh, except 10 Flames players have no-trade clauses in their contracts ? names like Tanguay, Stajan, Bourque, Glencross and Bouwmeester. So, um, actually, maybe forget everything? Might just have to ride this one out for a bit, Calgary.
No fighting = no accountability?
Just when it seemed the winds were shifting toward an overall acceptance that the NHL ought to take a serious look at even continuing with its culture of enforcers and fighting, Brian Burke, current Maple Leafs GM, said stuff. And what he said this week certainly got some attention: that the game evolving to cut out these roles was not necessarily a good thing. Rather, it could mean the game will get a lot worse ? that the "rats will take this game over."
"If you want a game where guys can cheap shot people and not face retribution, I'm not sure that's a healthy evolution," he said, elaborating that the game is becoming a place where there is no accountability any more.
"These guys that won't back it up, won't drop their gloves, run around and elbow people in the head and hit people from behind. They never have to answer for that in the game, they used to have to answer for that in the game," he said, adding now all that policing is left to Brendan Shanahan. "The Greenpeace folks will be happy with this." Yeah.
Here it is, and it's worth hearing him out:
[It should be noted that Burke was venting after having to send Colton Orr, the Leafs' current enforcer, to the minors a day earlier, so it was obviously on his mind.]
So, what do we make of this? Well, like anything, it's really probably not so simple as all that.
I'm not prepared to dismiss Burke here as some kind of troglodyte bent on taking the game back to some lost time, because I like him and I think at the heart of his comments, there's a grain of truth ? players are less inclined to take the kinds of shots we've been seeing (I'm looking at you, Torres. We're all looking at you.) if they know the next minute they'll face painful retribution on their next shift. Looking at it that way, you see his point, and in a weird way it almost starts to look like having fighting and enforcers in the game actually makes it all safer.
But then you're like, wait a second, what kind of twisted world of bizarre logic am I in and who put me here and why is this place run by Brian Burke, who, for all his hockey knowledge and prowess, is sort of terrifying?
Because a few minutes later, Burke is asked about Boogard, and whether this argument could still be made, that there has to be a balance. Burke replied:
"Correct, if you accept the science on this issue will evolve ? I don't think it's there yet ? and you can say that's the reason for these issues with Derek Boogard... If that's part of it, fine, then we have to look at that, too."
The key word I think in all of this is one that Burke actually uses ? evolution ? though he kind of hides it behind a wall of, frankly, crypto-machospeak that draws some weird parallel between the act of actually sticking up for yourself and letting someone else do it for you. But anyway, whatever; I get it. The point is that even Burke seems to acknowledge (grudgingly) the game is in a state of flux. Given that, it seems to stand to reason that not everything will work right away. One can just as easily assume that as the game progresses and, yes, evolves, perhaps these issues will do so as well ? even to a point where solutions present themselves in unanticipated ways.
All of which to say that it seems to me (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) that we're sort of past a point of no return in hockey, where as much as we can argue that these guys get paid, knowingly sign up for the enforcer role, and carry it out as instructed, we also have to wonder how we can (equally knowingly) endorse it. And I'm not sure, personally, whether the way things are going will work or, as Burke suggests, completely ruin the game. I doubt he does either, to be honest. I hope it doesn't. Nobody wants to see hockey turn into a shadow of its former or current self, and end up a lifeless, boring sport that somebody watches only because the only other thing on is darts.
No more realignment
Forget about the realignment that we talked about a few weeks back. The NHL Players Association put the whole thing on ice this week, because... well, a few reasons, actually.
Here's the story from the Globe and Mail, which lays it out as plainly as possible:
"The two primary objections to the realignment plan involved travel ? and the possible increases in wear and tear on players under a schedule that they hadn't seen yet ? and the fairness question. Under the new configuration, two of the four conferences would feature eight teams and the two others would include just seven. Since the top four teams in all four conferences would qualify for postseason play, it made it easier, on a percentage basis, for clubs in the seven-team conferences to make the playoffs."
All right then, fair enough. Or is it?
The scuttlebutt around the league's commentators this week was this wasn't just a simple question of fairness or what have you. In actual fact, it seems it was more a way for the PA to tell the league where to go in the run up to this year's collective bargaining agreement discussions ? a conversation that will no doubt get progressively more heated as the months go on. In that case, it might seem as though the PA is acting not so much in the interest of the fans or the sport, but for political reasons. And that's annoying.
But then there's this, from Greg Wyshynski at Yahoo!'s Puck Daddy:
"According to sources with knowledge of the negotiations, the NHL didn't include the NHLPA in the formation of the realignment plan because there was no mandate in the CBA to do so. So the league created the plan, the Board of Governors passed it and the dare was made: Go ahead, kill off something that the majority of hockey teams, fans and media deemed a positive move for the NHL. But the league eventually needed the NHLPA's consent. It was never a given despite reports to the contrary."
Ah ha. Well, isn't that interesting. Indeed, not long after that blog was posted, the NHLPA released a statement to similar effect, and included this:
"In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the League to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns (e.g., the scheduling of more back-to-back games, more difficult and lengthier road trips, number of border crossings, etc.), but the League did not want to enter into such a dialogue."
Oh.
Even still, the league could argue the amount of time it was taking to get around to a decision was making life difficult, in that they would have to settle on a schedule for the 2012-13 season, and needed to decide where the teams would actually be. Which is also a fairly reasonable argument.
It might leave some wondering whether the PA is actually against the realignment or is just using it as a tool in negotiation strategy. If it's the second, then it's particularly frustrating, as a change will need to be made at some point, thanks to Winnipeg's re-introduction, and it seems as though the proposed realignment made a certain degree of sense. It's even more annoying, in some ways, because the PA mentions that travel issue. So, for the good of a few other teams who would have to fly a bit more over the course of an entire season, thereby adding up a lot of miles in total, the Jets will have to bear the brunt of that all alone for a while. Nothing like replacing a team in a market that loves to see it return, only to burn it out on two years of heavy travel.
Also, what happens in the future? We can speculate all we want at this point about whether Quebec City will get a team (and perhaps the PA has more insight into that, and is thus gaming things), but bottom line is that if the league then decides to go through with the realignment after all this mess is over with, then what? Will the fairness issue still be a problem? It could be a dangerous argument to make. Unless, of course, by that time, everyone's forgotten.
In fairness, on the other side, the players and their union are probably sweating it a bit after watching what happened with the NBA, and the ultimate decision on shared revenue. With that in mind, it's understandable the PA would fight for whatever it can get in just about any way it thinks it can get it. If that means delaying a massive shift like the realignment, then, perhaps, so be it?
Is it even possible to pick sides on this one yet?
Blue Jackets fire (another) coach
Back to Columbus: they fired their coach, Scott Arniel. I know what you're saying, and yes ? finally. After the team lost to Anaheim on the weekend (the same game where Perry managed a hat trick), the organization decided to pull the chord. I guess Ken Hitchcock hanging around was not actually the problem in Columbus; the problem with the Blue Jackets is apparently still that they're the Blue Jackets.
General manager Scott Howson (who somehow still has his job), noted the team only has 2 wins in their last 11 games.
"I just wanted to move the team in a new direction with a different head coach," he said when announcing Arniel's departure. "Scott tried everything and he was running out of answers. I didn't see much hope in moving forward with him. I just felt this needed to be done."
Not much hope, huh? No kidding. It really feels that here, I should be writing something like "and thus ends another bad season for the Blue Jackets". Except it isn't. We're not even close.
I'm not even sure what else to say about this, except it's beginning to look a lot like history repeating in Columbus. At this rate, the team will probably finish last in the league and again have another chance to draft high. Looking at some of the names they have ? Nash, Carter, Vermette, Umberger, Wisniewski ? it really does not seem that bad a team on the surface, and probably one in which a young, talented player, could get a lot of ice time and perhaps play a role in turning things around.
And yet, this organization seems to consistently be able to take its regularly promising draft position and do virtually nothing with it.
Over at ESPN, Scott Burnside (in a conversation worth reading with fellow commentator Pierre LeBrun) called the Blue Jackets a "colossal disappointment."
"I spoke to one general manager recently who suggested that the NHL should buy it and fold it; that's how ugly it is there," he argued. "This is a fundamentally flawed team from the goal on out. So the firing of Arniel is really just the appetizer to what will surely be the dismissal of GM Scott Howson the moment the season ends and yet another rebuild to sell to the ever-diminishing fan base in Columbus."
And there we were, a few months ago, thinking Washington probably had morale problems. In comparison, this is like watching a dying star slowly collapsing in on itself. I mean, where does it go from here?
At least they managed to beat L.A., I guess. But perhaps that's not saying much, either, at this juncture.
Goals of the week
Plenty of good stuff this week, including some serious shows of patience from Franzen, Ribeiro and Tavares, and a lovely shootout goal from Lars Eller.
Also of note, the first shot the Canucks took in Florida Monday night was a goal. They ended up losing, but still, worth a look:
.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jan/11/corey-perry-ryan-getzlaf-brian-burke
No comments:
Post a Comment