The Hockey File

THE CRYSTAL BALL, PREDICTIONS FOR 2011-12: I know I’m late with this, but I’ve been busy and it’s still early enough in the season to write it up.

Here’s how it will all shake down:

Regular Season

Eastern Conference

1. Washington Capitals
2. New York Rangers
3. Buffalo Sabres
4. Tampa Bay Lightning
5. Montreal Canadiens
6. Pittsburgh Penguins
7. Boston Bruins
8. Winnipeg Jets
9. Toronto Maple Leafs
10. Philadelphia Flyers
11. Carolina Hurricanes
12. New Jersey Devils
13. Florida Panthers
14. Ottawa Senators
15. New York Islanders

Don’t be fooled by the Rangers’ ranking as a No. 2- the Eastern Conference is weak, with only two real contenders for the Cup in Washington and Tampa Bay. The rest of the teams are essentially competitive playoff teams right down to the tenth-ranked Flyers. The Leafs and the Flyers are the odd teams out in this equation because both have way too many question marks to guarantee a playoff berth, with Toronto banking on the perpetually fragile Tim Connolly to be Phil Kessel’s setup man and Philadelphia trading most of its offence for Ilya Bryzgalov, who has elite level talent but has a tendency to choke at the biggest moments. The Jets- the old Atlanta Thrashers- make a return to the playoffs in their first season in Winnipeg, as the Thrashers were on the rise last season. As for Pittsburgh, their position is fluid- since Sidney Crosby has no set return date and Evgeni Malkin is still feeling the effects of his knee injury, the Penguins’ performance depends on how much service they get out of both players. If neither are available for a lengthy amount of time, Pittsburgh could miss the playoffs entirely but if they are only ineffective for a short period of time, the Pens should be comfortably in the playoffs. Sixth, thus, is a reasonable compromise, since I believe the Penguins will have a healthy Crosby and Malkin sooner rather than later. The Sabres are the East’s darkhorse- the additions of Robyn Regehr and Christian Erhoff gives Buffalo a formidable top three on defence with super youngster Tyler Myers, meaning it will be even more difficult to score on Ryan Miller and the Sabres.

Western Conference

1. San Jose Sharks (President’s Trophy Winner)
2. Vancouver Canucks
3. Detroit Red Wings
4. Los Angeles Kings
5. Anaheim Ducks
6. Columbus Blue Jackets
7. Nashville Predators
8. St. Louis Blues
9. Chicago Blackhawks
10. Dallas Stars
11. Edmonton Oilers
12. Calgary Flames
13. Phoenix Coyotes
14. Colorado Avalanche
15. Minnesota Wild

San Jose wins the West because the Martin Havlat trade gives them a dimension their top six hasn’t had in a while- speed. Before Havlat, this was a slow, plodding group, and with big bodies such as Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau, he’ll have even more room to operate. He is fragile, though, but should play enough to be effective. The Canucks should also be in the thick of the Western crown chase, since only Christian Erhoff is gone from the team that dazzled the NHL last year, though Erhoff’s absence will be felt. Los Angeles also jumps into this mix with the addition of Mike Richards in the offseason, giving Anze Kopitar badly needed support and solidifying the Kings as the most physical team in the West. Detroit should win the weak Central in its sleep, but age has caught up to this group so don’t look for them to be serious Cup contenders. St. Louis jumps into the playoffs- barely- because they’re a young team that is on the rise, enough to push out a declining Chicago Blackhawks team. The Nashville Predators also sneak into the playoffs, since, although they suffered major losses in the offseason, Barry Trotz always seems to make it work, so I expect him to make it work this season. Finally, the Edmonton Oilers should make significant strides- their youth should start rounding into form and though it won’t pan out entirely this season, the Oilers should start to make some noise.

Playoffs

Eastern Conference

(8) Winnipeg 4, (1) Washington 3- The Caps have had numerous problems with upstarts in recent years, and the Jets will be no exception.

(7) Boston 4, (2) NY Rangers 2- Boston is built for the playoffs, and the Rangers just won’t be able to handle their size.

(3) Buffalo 4, (6) Pittsburgh 2- The Pens have no offensive depth go up against a team with a stacked defence. Ain’t going to happen.

(4) Tampa Bay 4, (5) Montreal 2- Steven Stamkos and Martin St. Louis will show Montreal why they need real offensive depth and not has-beens whose best years are behind them.

(3) Buffalo 4, (8) Winnipeg 1- The Jets don’t have any gamebreakers, making them easy pickings for the Buffalo defence.

(4) Tampa Bay 4, (7) Boston 3- This will be another classic series because both teams are very evenly matched. The Lightning will have learned from their mistake last season and play more offensive, a game Boston can’t keep up with, and can now match them physically with Simon Gagne’s presence.

(4) Tampa Bay 4, (3) Buffalo 3- Another classic series, the Buffalo defence against the Tampa offence. The Lightning will advance since the Sabres can’t match their scoring depth and Tampa’s defence is at least competent enough to stay with Buffalo, but it will be close.

Western Conference

(1) San Jose 4, (8) St. Louis 0- Yeah, the Blues beat the Sharks in this same capacity in 2000 but this is a different Sharks team- they know how to win and should easily dispose of the upstart Blues.

(2) Vancouver 4, (7) Nashville 2- A replay of last year’s second round series and should play out exactly the same- Nashville will have the hunger but won’t have the horses to compete with the Canucks.

(6) Columbus 4, (3) Detroit 3- The upset pick of the West, since the old Wings will show the hockey world that they’re firmly in decline whereas Columbus is a team on the rise.

(4) Los Angeles 4, (5) Anaheim 3- The Battle of Los Angeles should be a lot of fun, since both are bruising outfits that love to score. The Kings should win the day since they’re deeper, but barely.

(1) San Jose 4, (6) Columbus 1- Years before, the Jackets’ speed would have won the day. Not anymore, because now San Jose can skate with them, and should all the way to the next round.

(4) Los Angeles 4, (2) Vancouver 2- Should be an evenly matched, close series which is doom for the Canucks, who always wilt under pressure. This time it should be no different, especially against the physical Kings who will hit them out of the playoffs.

(1) San Jose 4, (4) Los Angeles 3- Rematch of last year’s first round. Should be closer this time since the Kings have added horses, but it’ll still be San Jose’s day- the Sharks now have speed Los Angeles can’t match, though this could go into overtime of Game 7. It’s that close.

Stanley Cup Final

(W1) San Jose 4, (E4) Tampa Bay 2- This will be the first ever Cup Final where no combatant will be north of the 40^th parallel, which should make hockey purists nuts. Once they get past their prejudices about hockey in warm weather climates they’ll realize these are two vibrant hockey markets with very good teams- this should be a competitive, offensive series, only going to San Jose- finally- because the Sharks have that much more depth.

SKEPTICISM ABOUT SHANAHAN: If there can be a complaint about Brendan Shanahan, the league’s new disciplinarian, it won’t be because he’s too shy to make a move- in the last ten days of the preseason, Shanahan issued nine suspensions totalling 60 games, with another two game suspension handed out on October 8 to bring the season total to 62 games. To put that in perspective, last season the league didn’t hand out its 62^nd game in suspensions until February 9, which represents a refreshingly aggressive approach in a league that desperately needs it. Shanahan has buttressed his approach with flashy videos (okay, they’re not really flashy) explaining why the suspension is what it is, giving him an air of accountability his predecessor, Colin Campbell, did not have. Furthermore, Shanahan is expressive and eloquent enough that his explanation is persuasive, another quality Campbell lacked.

However, I have my doubts and it’s pretty obvious what they are. So far, none of the players Shanahan has suspended- aside, maybe, from Buffalo’s Brad Boyes- has been anyone of real impact, and undoubtedly a player of impact will do something silly that requires action. The main complaint against Campbell was that he was hesitant to do anything in these situations or “softened” the blow to ensure the team he plays for isn’t punished that much. What will Shanahan do if Tyler Myers, Chris Pronger, Alexander Ovechkin, Milan Lucic or any other impact player with a history of discipline problems do something that calls for action? Will Shanahan again waver, his explanation ringing hollow?

The other part- and I’ve been saying this for years- is that the NHL still doesn’t have a set standard for infractions. Yes, Shanahan is persuasive in his arguments and you generally believe the call he made is the right one, but even he is showing signs of erraticism. The suspensions for hits to the head have varied- Clarke MacArthur received three games, Boyes received two, Brendan Smith eight and James Wisniewski 12. In Wisniewski’s and Smith’s cases, the victims were injured whereas in MacArthur’s and Boyes’ cases they weren’t. Wisniewski is a repeat offender so his case is a special one, but Smith, MacArthur and Boyes can be compared. First of all, if MacArthur and Boyes committed the same offence, they should receive identical suspensions and they didn’t. Second of all, if the standard is that injuries add to a suspension, why did Smith get an extra five games and Pierre Marc-Bouchard, another player without a record, only received two games for his offence (which was different, granted, but it still had the same result)? If the theory goes that if Bouchard’s victim, Matt Calvert, wasn’t injured that Bouchard wouldn’t be suspended, then shouldn’t Smith’s suspension be five games at the very most (which is three games, MacArthur’s suspension, plus two)? Simply put, these questions shouldn’t be asked, because randomness is the antithesis of discipline- if no two offenses receive the same punishment (or any punishment at all) then it can’t be a deterrent since players won’t know if the action will receive any discipline. If they don’t know they won’t care- and it’s business as usual again.

(I feel like I’ve written that before…I hate sounding like a broken record but the league never seems to learn…sad really)

Yes, it’s still early and Shanahan is new to the job, but there are still reasons for scepticism. His approach is refreshing so he deserves a chance, but unless he proves otherwise, there’s no reason to believe anything, unfortunately, has changed.

6,306 SHOW UP IN DALLAS- ANOTHER TEAM IN TROUBLE?: The hawks always seem to be circling teams in the South, and no, we’re not talking about Jonathan Toews.

This time the target are the Dallas Stars, who on October 10 drew a paltry 6,306 fans to a home game against the Phoenix Coyotes. The game itself was pretty staid with a dramatic finish, with Sheldon Souray’s point shot in the final seconds redirected home by Loui Eriksson to knot the score at 1 with Mike Ribeiro netting the shootout winner later in the night. The initial story was how the win showed a resiliency in Dallas that was absent in the team’s collapse last season but the real story was the lack of fans in the stands.

It may be true that the Texas Rangers were down the I-20 walking off the Detroit Tigers in the American League Championship Series, but that’s small potatoes for a team in Dallas that has been unstable for years. Ever since Tom Hicks put the team up for sale in 2009, the Stars have joined the cavalcade of teams- mostly, but not all, in the South- that are having financial problems. Hicks blames it on being “south of Pennsylvania” whereas the fans blame Hicks’ penchant for overpaying for veteran free agents in the Stars’ heyday for the Stars’ financial problems.

There could be some truth to Hicks’ statements. In Dallas’ Stanley Cup year, their payroll was $36 million (all figures U.S.). A year later, the payroll jumped to $46 million, enough for another Cup final run. Three seasons later in 2002-03 the Stars’ payroll jumped to $69.5 million, with it gaining $13 million for a $78 million count by the time the lockout hit. That’s an astronomical rise in such a short period, a rise that may have proven to be unsustainable. It’s worth mentioning that before the lockout the Canadian dollar was nowhere close to parity which affected the Canadian teams’ ability to compete financially, so the Canadian dollar’s rise against the greenback is a factor in Dallas’ competitiveness- the moment parity happened was when the Southern teams started really getting into trouble, because now the Canadian teams regained their financial muscle. Having said that, Dallas is the fourth largest market in the United States, too big to lose, and the team’s lack of success may have something to do with the team’s poor form as of late at the gate- this was a team that essentially grew hockey in Texas, an impact not felt anywhere else in the South.

It will still restart the rumblings about the viability of teams in the South, and will ask whether or not the Stars join the conversation. We won’t need to get into that debate- it’s been hashed and rehashed one too many times- but it brings the salient point that something does need to be done concerning the viability of franchises as a whole across the league. The current economic model, while better than the haphazard one that preceded it, hasn’t produced the results it was supposed to; and, as The FAN 590’s Bob McCown noted on his radio show, the NHL doesn’t have a lot of places to stick these struggling franchises. You have Quebec City, Kansas City and a whole lot of “maybes” and that’s it. Is it time to talk contraction? It may be the only option left.

One thing is for sure- this summer, the current collective bargaining agreement expires. You can bet we’ll be in for another long fight as the Southern teams look for financial sanity in a league that has yet to produce it. The sad part is that I’m not sure the NHL can survive another long stoppage- can a struggling league handle another lost season when it already lost one six years ago? All this because the league didn’t get it right the first time- and could pay the price the second time.

BONUS HIT: A story out of Russia sees the Kontinental Hockey League potentially adding a team in Italy. The team, Milan’s Rossoblu (the “red-blues”), was told by the KHL that they have “the organization to join the league”. However, there’s already a lot of scepticism (as noted by Alessandro Seren Rosso) about the viability of a team in Italy, namely the lack of proper facilities (the Rossoblu have an arena that sits 4,500 and draws 1,000), regionalism (Italian hockey fans- and sports fans in general- tend to gravitate towards teams in their own country, not ones from distant lands that they do not know) and the lack of available talent that could compete at the KHL level. However, the KHL has said for years that it wishes to conquer Europe, and perhaps a team in Italy represents the kind of “outside of the box” thinking that could prove to give it a productive legacy. This will be a story to follow in the coming months.

-DG

THE CANUCKS’ LOSS: THE UNEXPLAINABLE EXPLAINED: It’s still hard to digest, British Columbia, isn’t it? The Vancouver Canucks, the NHL’s team of destiny this season, coming up one win short of the Stanley Cup, bowing meekly in Game 7 against the unheralded Boston Bruins to the tune of 4-0. “Shock” and “disbelief” pervade amongst much of Canucks Nation, many of whom were still likely wondering when Game 8 would be played.

(By the way, I know I’m very late getting to this...but I figure it’s about this time Canucks fans would realize that the game actually did happen, just like the unfortunate rioting that marred the city in its aftermath)

So how did a team that just couldn’t lose find a way to lose The Big One? For starters, you have to ask if this really was a different Canucks team than the one that choked in years past- aside from a slow start that culminated in a 7-1 thrashing at the hands of their arch nemesis Chicago Blackhawks, things this season went extremely well for Vancouver, right until about Game 3 of the Cup Final. It wasn’t until that Cup Final where the Canucks had less than three victories after four games in a playoff series, and it wasn’t until they lost the fateful Game 7 that Vancouver had even trailed in a series. Sure, they almost blew a 3-0 series lead to Chicago, but that’s a different kind of adversity than the one you’d face with a series deficit. Against Chicago, the Canucks already had the series “won”, they just let their guard down. A series deficit is different, since that means you’ve got to find a way to win a series you might not even think you’re supposed to win. To keep things in perspective, Vancouver has won just two series (out of 15) since 2001 when they faced a series deficit after four games- the 2003 Round 1 matchup with the St. Louis Blues when they were down 3-1 and the 2010 Round 1 matchup with the Los Angeles Kings, when they were down 2-1. By contrast, Boston won three series in 2011 when they faced a series deficit after four games, including in the Cup Final. Resiliency, therefore, is still lacking in Canada’s third largest city.

Leadership is also an issue. Despite Boston having the reputation for rough, physical play (which they used effectively in the series), it was Vancouver that resorted to cheap shots and theatrics during the series, from Aaron Rome’s hit on Nathan Horton to Jannik Hansen celebrating a goal he clearly did not score (nor was allowed to stand). Certainly Boston’s physical pressure and defensive alignment- a big part of the Bruins’ successful game plan- took away the space the Canucks were accustomed to and that would lead to frustrated antics, but it was also an indication there was no one in the dressing room to stand up and tell the team to play to their strengths instead of allowing Boston to get underneath their skin. By contrast, players like Mark Recchi, Tim Thomas and Zdeno Chara- all veteran leaders- found a way to get the Bruins to stay the course even when things went fluey, such as when Horton, one of the team’s few pure goal scoring threats, got decked by Rome.

Lastly, the Canucks really missed their goaltending. Yes, Roberto Luongo doesn’t deserve all of the blame for Vancouver’s loss- the choke was a team effort, not just him- but Louie does deserve to have his own part of the blame. There’s simply no excuse for him to allow three goals within the first eight minutes of Game 6 with Vancouver a win away from total victory, or for his ordinary performance in Game 7 or his downright pathetic performances in Games 3 and 4. Luongo seems to go as the team goes- when the going gets tough, he gets going, and the pattern repeated itself. What makes it more irritating is that Louie’s talent level is at the elite level, and he’ll frequently put on elite performances throughout the season. He just can’t seem to do it when the lights shine their brightest, which is whenever he faces adversity. In every playoff year, Luongo’s statistics have been markedly worse in each series he’s lost, being at least a goal above his average each time. Such play is unacceptable, and it makes you wonder if Louie can even continue being a Canuck with such regular choke jobs.

The question becomes where Vancouver goes from here. Already this offseason there are question marks about where this team is headed, as the decision to resign Kevin Bieksa and say goodbye to Christian Erhoff seems based purely on the playoff run, and that’s a recipe for disaster. Sure, Bieksa is a “heart and soul” defenceman whose aggressiveness and energy is infectious, but Bieksa has had only two seasons north of 40 points whereas Erhoff has had three straight, including 50 this past season, not to mention the fact that Erhoff is typically one of the team’s better defenders. Offence and mobility from the point, one of the Canucks’ major weaknesses (one exploited by the Bruins in their victory), is now considerably weaker. Vancouver’s only hope is that Alexander Edler becomes that all-around defenceman he’s been primed to become, because otherwise that hole is going to sink the ship for another season. Then there’s the question about Luongo, whose meltdowns have been far too frequent to ignore- is this his final season in Vancouver? A sixth straight meltdown cannot be acceptable as patience is already wearing very thin in Canuck circles.

One thing is certain- after five seasons of being considered contenders and coming up short, the Canucks don’t have any more room for error. Their core is nearing the end of their primes and while it may not be “one more season and that’s it”, that point is becoming dangerously close, and they may only have this season to win the Cup, because, otherwise their pieces may run out of trade value if they do decide to clean house. Don’t get me wrong- this team should still be considered one of the favourites for the Cup in 2012, but seasons like last season don’t come around that often and Vancouver may have blown their best bid ever. If the team doesn’t break through in 2012 or even 2013, the questions of “what if” will get louder- and the pain that much worse.

STRANGE SPLASHES THIS FREE AGENCY PERIOD: Tell me you saw this coming- the Philadelphia Flyers, one of the league’s elite teams, a team only a year removed from a Cup Final appearance, decides its only choice for improvement is to trade its two top players- Mike Richards and Jeff Carter- and acquire only prospects in return.

Then you have the Buffalo Sabres, long one of the league’s least aggressive franchises, spend huge bucks in bringing in Christian Erhoff and Ville Leino to add some punch to a lacklustre offence. It’s the first time since “The Lockout” that Sabres General Manager Darcy Regier actually made significant free agent signings, suggesting that Buffalo and new owner Terry Pegula are ready to make noise in the hockey world.

Finally, there’s the Toronto Maple Leafs, who are still trying to figure out the formula to get them out of the team’s longest ever playoff drought, yet refusing to explore every option. GM Brian Burke wasted no time making a splash, signing Tim “Wrap Me In Bubble Wrap” Connolly and trading for John-Michael Liles, Matthew Lombardi and Cody Franson. However, there were also reports that Burke was in the running for the prize of the free agency period, Brad Richards, but didn’t land him because Burke didn’t want to give him a front-loaded contract, rightly suggesting they circumvent the salary cap. Despite his principle, Toronto Star columnist Damien Cox lambasted him, suggesting that Burke doesn’t want to follow his own team’s basic principle of doing whatever it took for them to win, since Burke isn’t doing that himself.

What to make of these strange developments? Philadelphia sold its moves as a clearing salary cap space to make room for Ilya Bryzgalov, whom they acquired at the Entry Draft for a song. Yes, the Flyers likely did need to trade one of Richards or Carter to make it work, and yes both players were MIA in the team’s lacklustre playoff run, but there was no need to trade for Bryzgalov- despite what many suggest, the team’s goaltending struggles were due to head coach Peter Laviolette not having any faith in Sergei Bobrovsky (pulled after just one horrible start against in the first round against Buffalo) and not because the team really didn’t have any goaltending to rely on. Bobrovsky, who shined as a rookie, should have had another season to work out his kinks. Furthermore, although the Flyers likely needed a shakeup after its disappointing run, trading both Carter and Richards still makes no sense, as much of the team’s primary offence is gone without much in the form of replacements. Simply put, the moves reek of a team that panicked, because moving your top two players is a move a rebuilding team does, not one that’s still a contender like Philadelphia is.

Then you move to Buffalo, whose moves suggest that they want to be a contender but it’s proof the team still has a lot of learning to do. Yes, Erhoff has been a steady beacon for the Canucks posting three straight 40-plus point seasons (including 50 last year), and, yes the cap hit is good, the term is horrible- the Sabres are giving ten years to a player who is already 28, someone whom they can’t expect to maintain his production for that long (this ain’t Nicklas Lidstrom we’re talking about). Leino, meanwhile, may have scored the overtime winner for the Flyers in Game 6 to prevent Buffalo from defeating them in the playoffs and may have had a 19-goal season in 2010-11, but in his previous two seasons- including the playoffs- Leino could only notch 18 goals, all in 94 games. Is a six-year commitment at $4.5 million per season all that justifiable in this case? He hasn’t proven himself as a consistent scorer, so this deal has the potential to blow up in Buffalo’s face. Yes, you like the moxie that Pegula is showing, but the jury’s still out on whether or not he knows how to spend his money wisely- just because Buffalo has the money doesn’t mean it has to be spent now, it could have waited until a piece Buffalo actually needed became available. The Sabres did need some depth on both sides of the blueline, but Leino and Erhoff represent some significant risks, and if they don’t work out, Pegula could hamper his ability to improve the team in later seasons- not the way he’ll want to be remembered.

Finally, there’s Toronto. This is a make or break season for the Maple Leafs, since, if you compare the Leafs to Burke’s tenure in Vancouver, need to make the playoffs in 2012. Burke’s Canucks needed four seasons to get back into the playoffs with the third season being the Canucks just barely missing. The Leafs followed that course, but it was because they found a surprise starter in James Reimer, and you have to wonder if he can maintain that pace over a whole season. Connolly, one of the league’s better playmakers when he actually does play, could be the first-line centre Phil Kessel needs to really be effective, but there’s a reason the Sabres let Connolly go and that was because the team didn’t think he had the heart to compete- just the kind of player the testosterone-laden, belligerent and truculent Maple Leafs really want. Lombardi, for his part, has been one of the league’s fastest players and oozed potential right from when he stepped into the league in 2003, but he’s never banked on it, scoring 20 goals just once (in 2006-07) and hitting the 50-point plateau just once (in 2009-10). He also played just two games last season for the Nashville Predators, so his health is now a major concern. This means that the Leafs’ hopes for offensive depth may just blow up in their face. The two defensive acquisitions- Liles and Franson- were solid pickups and should help Toronto, though their effectiveness could be moot if the forwards don’t convert the chances the defence will give them.

Lastly, is Cox’s criticism on the mark? In this case, it just might be- Richards is a make-or-break kind of player, the kind of superstar that can turn a team around in an instant. Furthermore, Richards is a coach’s dream, doing all the “hard work” that so few players are willing to perform, making a player like him, with all his skills, that much more valuable. The fact that Burke didn’t want to pull all the stops- including going against his own principle- to land him speaks volumes about his own effort level. When a Leaf gets lambasted for his own efforts this season, he can simply point to his own boss and say “hey, if he’s not willing to give 100%, why should I?” Just like his colleague Pegula, Burke is taking a major risk, only this time if his risk doesn’t pan out he just might be out of a job, something Pegula won’t have to worry about. Oh, if only Burke could be an owner.

All this points to what should be a season with a lot to watch out for- and that’s just on the ice.

THE THRASHERS FLY OFF TO WINNIPEG: It only took them 15 years and a lot of foot dragging, but the franchise relocation that never should have happened in the first place has finally been corrected: the Winnipeg Jets are flying back home.

Would have been funnier if the Phoenix Coyotes came back, but Winnipeg and Manitoba won’t care- they have their team back, after way too long.

It does come with a lot of caveats, however.

The team that is flying north are the old Atlanta Thrashers, marking the second time a team has failed in Dixieland’s largest city. The first time around was in 1980, when the Flames took off from Atlanta and moved to Calgary after dwindling attendance doomed the franchise. The same story applies to the Thrashers, who were a difficult sell for much of their tenure in Atlanta, but it comes with a slight twist.

The main difference between the Thrashers and the Flames is that the Thrashers never had any sustained success, whereas the Flames posted winning records in four of their final five seasons (including a 90-point effort in 1978-79 at a time when points were much harder to come by). They never did win a playoff series, winning just two playoff games in separate years, but the move was justifiable since the team’s success wasn’t being reflected at the gate.

The Thrashers, on the other hand, were a losing outfit for most of their entire 10 season run in the NHL, drawing comparisons to the Vancouver Grizzlies (now in Memphis) of the National Basketball Association, who were also a losing outfit for their entire run. Just like the Grizzlies, the Thrashers never got their fair shake in the NHL, because no one could see if Atlantans were staying away because of a lack of on-ice success since there was no on-ice success.

Furthermore, the sports landscape has changed considerably since the 1970s. With the advent of cable and satellite TV, not to mention the Internet, sports is more accessible now than it was when the Flames were in Atlanta, where sports were essentially only available on radio broadcasts and were hard to find on television. This means that in the Flames’ time, the only sports fans were the ones who were really dedicated to it, as opposed to now where casual fans seem to outnumber the dedicated ones because of this accessibility. A team- especially a winning team- is easier to sell since more people are going to be aware of it, meaning a winning Thrashers team could have actually had a chance of success.

The other caveat is the market itself- Atlanta was the ninth largest market in the NHL, which is a significant loss to the NHL’s market reach. Yes, the Atlanta market itself failed, but the failure of teams in the South has more to do with market saturation than actual apathy for hockey in the South. The reason for this is simple- all you have to do is watch how teams like the Nashville Predators, Carolina Hurricanes, Tampa Bay Lightning and Florida Panthers all seem to oscillate between periods of success and periods of apathy, with those periods of success coming when the teams are successful. There just aren’t enough fans to sustain the teams during the lean years (like there are in Canada or the more established hockey markets in the U.S. like Boston or San Jose). It would have made more sense to move a team like Nashville or Carolina (which are considerably smaller markets) than it would have been to move the Thrashers, since Atlanta (by far the largest of those three cities) could have easily served both markets. The failure of the Thrashers is as much a failure of the team in the market as much as it is the failure of the NHL’s overanxious desire to put teams in the South, plopping too many teams too quickly. A more cautious approach might have spared the Thrashers this fate, since it may allow them to “expand their reach” to gain the fans they needed instead of bumping into another market like they did in the past.

The good part is that a relocation that never should have happened has been corrected. I’m not sure if the right city was selected to part from, but only time will tell.

ADDENDUM: We must end with a sombre note, as this summer marked the passing of Derek Boogaard and Rick Rypien, both way too soon.

Boogaard, known as one of the league’s toughest enforcers during his time with the Minnesota Wild, passed away in May in what was ruled to be an accidental death, though there are suspicions. An autopsy revealed he ingested a lethal dose of alcohol and oxycodone, with Minneapolis Police suggesting that his brother, Aaron, provided him the oxycodone illegally. No foul play is suspected, though who knows what demons lurked in the situation- Aaron did provide Derek with the drugs only a day after Derek left drug rehabilitation.

Rypien, meanwhile, was found dead mysteriously in his home in Crowsnest Pass, Alberta (just west of Lethbridge). Police ruled it a suicide, but have released very little other details. Friends, including teammate Jason Jaffray, were stunned at the news, because although Rypien had been battling depression for quite some time, there were hints that he was overcoming it. Still, there were a lot of demons lurking below the surface there as well, since Jaffray noted that although Rypien was getting help, he hardly ever opened up about his struggles, so there’s still the chance a trouble popped up that no one saw coming.

The deaths serve as a reminder that hockey players go through struggles just like we do. We like to have this image of our favourite players as impervious to pains and other stresses because of our own need to project our ideal likeness upon our role models; and indeed, seeing the lives many NHLers lead- with great cars and homes and usually appearing jovial on the camera- make it appear like their lives are paradise. Events like the passing of Rypien and Derek Boogaard serve as a reminder of reality; that, despite the appearance of a paradise life, they are still humans, and all humans have struggles. Unfortunately, and sadly, not all of us can overcome those struggles.

Rest In Peace Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard. You both will be missed.

-DG

Four minutes and 14 seconds. That’s all it took for the Stanley Cup dream to evaporate for the Vancouver Canucks, at least for a fortnight. Right in the middle of it was Canucks goaltender Roberto Luongo, who allowed three goals on eight shots in just eight minutes of work, his Veznia form nowhere to be found on what was supposed to be Vancouver’s poster night. It continued an alarming trend of poor performances at TD Garden, where Luongo now has allowed 15 goals on 66 shots for an abysmal save percentage of 0.772 and a Goals Against Average of 8.05.

What makes the meltdown in Boston on Monday more troubling was that it came after a shutout in Game 5, which should have been a sign he was going back into form. Yes, Games 3 and 4 were horrible, but you could see it as an aberration, because even the best goaltenders have their moments. However, you expected him to rebound and regain his form, where, at worst, he could have lost Game 6 but kept the Canucks in the game. His meltdown suggests that at the most important position, Vancouver simply cannot have confidence.

This is why he has to win Game 7 or else he’ll have played his last game as a Canuck.

Yes, I said it- if Luongo loses, there’s no justification for keeping him in Vancouver. There’s no middle ground here- no “he stopped 70 of 71 shots in a heartbreaking quadruple overtime loss.” No, a loss is a loss- he has to win, or else he’s out.

The reasoning is very simple- when the Canucks need him most, Luongo has choked. Badly. Not just in this playoff- in each of his previous four seasons with the Canucks, when Luongo needs to be at his best, he has been at his worst, and a fifth straight season of misery would be proof enough that he just can’t be the goaltender Vancouver can rely on for postseason success.

Luongo’s problems began in 2007, when the Canucks drew the eventual Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks. While his play wasn’t as bad as it would be in later years, Luongo still found a way to struggle against Anaheim, posting considerably lower save percentages and GAA at home against the Ducks (.889, 2.99 GAA) than on the road (.947, 1.93). Not surprisingly Vancouver lost both games at home against the Ducks, including Game 4 where the Canucks blew a 2-0 lead in the game en route to a loss in overtime, putting Vancouver in a 1-3 hole that they couldn’t recover from. A year later, Luongo would win just once in his final eight starts to send Vancouver spiraling out of the playoffs altogether.

The problems picked up steam once Vancouver got matched up with its nemesis, the Chicago Blackhawks, in 2009 and 2010. The story is oft-repeated: after successful first round series, Luongo followed it up with a dramatically lower level of play against Chicago. In 2009, Luongo’s GAA was almost two and a half goals higher (3.51 vs. 1.15) against Chicago than it was against his first round opponent, the St. Louis Blues; with that series highlighted by the Game 6 collapse where Luongo failed to maintain two late Canucks leads in allowing seven goals on 28 shots (0.750 save percentage) throughout the game. In 2010, the Blackhawks just shelled Luongo all series long, especially at home where Luongo couldn’t buy a win or a save, where he posted a .845 save percentage and a 5.38 GAA in all three Vancouver losses.

Now, the Canucks have this, where it’s Boston’s turn to bombard Luongo. It’s getting to be a familiar sense of “déjà-vu” all over again for Vancouver, and this time it’s just one heartache too many. No team can expect to win when their goaltender provides numbers like that, so Luongo shouldn’t get a free pass from the Canucks- especially when his poor performances have come so consistently.

Yes, you could say that this season is different because Luongo has at least led the Canucks to the Cup Final, two rounds better than he’d done previously. Normally, I’d be inclined to agree, but this time I can’t. This isn’t a Vancouver team that’s “in the pack” that Luongo navigated through the woods to this point, this is a Vancouver team that overwhelmingly won the President’s Trophy and looked like world beaters throughout the season. If Vancouver loses Game 7, it wouldn’t be a series that the Canucks “could have won but didn’t”- this was a series they were “supposed to win”, the kind of win where you don’t question “if” it’ll come, just “when”. Just for Luongo to lose under those circumstances would be inexcusable, let alone have the worst games of your career.

Besides, how many more times does Luongo have to play poorly in the clutch before people start realizing he’s the problem?

All of this will be moot if Luongo leads the Canucks to Stanley Cup glory on Wednesday night. Then, we can assume that he really has chased the demons and become the big-money goaltender he’s been positioned to be. If he loses, it’ll be another choke in a long list of chokes, the pervasiveness of which being a clear indicator that he isn’t the playoff-level goaltender the Canucks truly need. If the pressure of Game 7 wasn’t bad enough for Luongo, he’ll have to contend with knowing his future hangs in the balance with this game.

It’s said that you make a name for yourself most in the playoffs. Now it’s time for Roberto Luongo to make it count.

-DG

(W1) Vancouver Canucks vs. (E3) Boston Bruins

How They Got Here

Vancouver

Western Conference Quarterfinals: Defeated Chicago 4-3

Western Conference Semi-finals: Defeated Nashville 4-2

Western Conference Finals: Defeated San Jose 4-1

Boston

Eastern Conference Quarterfinals: Defeated Montreal 4-3

Eastern Conference Semi-finals: Defeated Philadelphia 4-0

Eastern Conference Finals: Defeated Tampa Bay 4-3

THE SKINNY

There shouldn’t be any surprise about the Finalists this time around- right from the start the season, both Boston and Vancouver were tabbed as Cup contenders, though as the season wore on Vancouver became the heavier favourites. Both teams entered the playoffs with lots of question marks, with the Bruins having to answer their epic collapse against the Philadelphia Flyers in 2010 (becoming only the fourth team in major sports history to blow a 3-0 series lead) and the Canucks having to answer for years of playoff failures despite their contender status, mostly at the hands of the Chicago Blackhawks. For both, the 2011 playoffs would be all about redemption.

It didn’t start out that way, though. The Bruins looked like they were headed for an early exit when they fell behind 2-0 to the Montreal Canadiens in Round One, while the Canucks looked like they could have been the fourth team to blow a 3-0 series lead when the Blackhawks suddenly became unbeatable and stormed back to force a Game 7 overtime. Fortunately for both teams they won Game 7 in overtime- Nathan Horton for Boston and Alexandre Burrows for Vancouver- but that didn’t make anything easier. Vancouver saw a gamer Nashville Predators team in Round Two than many might have given them credit for, while Boston saw the Tampa Bay Lightning run rings around them in Round Three before just squeaking out a Game 7 victory. To say that these playoffs have been “eventful” for both teams is an understatement- it’s more like they went through many years of playoff experiences in just two short months.

Yet, here they are...and now it’s time to break down their matchup.

THE BRUINS WIN...IF

That power play ever gets going. The Bruins are sick of hearing about it, but there’s no way a team with an 8.2% power play clip can even dream of winning the Stanley Cup. To put it in perspective, the Bruins’ power play ranks third last- out of *all* the playoff teams. In fact, the only teams to rank below Boston- the Pittsburgh Penguins and the New York Rangers- were bounced in Round One. Endemic in this problem is a lack of finishing, as the Bruins’ big bodies like Milan Lucic and Horton have shown they’re able to create space on the ice to move the puck but they just don’t seem to have the hands to bury the chances they’re getting. Boston also has a lot of problems moving the puck in the attacking zone, and that has a lot to do with the fact that Tomas Kaberle has been a colossal failure. If scorers like Lucic, Horton and David Krejci can get going- which they can- it’ll help the Bruins in the long run.

The other way Boston can win this series is with size. Though Vancouver can bring it physically as well, none of the Canucks are a match for the Bruins defenceman Zdeno Chara, the biggest player in the world. The Canucks also showed in Game 5 against San Jose that a physical attack can wear them down, and Boston would be capable of doing that for a whole series. Boston also needs to make sure its defensive approach is working at full capacity, as even though they showed against Tampa that they can score with high scoring teams, it’s just not suited to their roster, so they can’t be caught in an up and down affair.

THE CANUCKS WIN...IF

Their offence continues producing. It hasn’t always been consistent, but their big guns- Ryan Kesler, Henrik and Daniel Sedin, Alexandre Burrows- are producing, getting plenty of support down the lineup in guys like Maxim Lapierre, Chris Higgins and Raffi Torres. Their power play is also clicking, thanks mainly due to the offence they receive from the point from players like Kevin Bieksa- who is making a case for big bucks as a free agent this offseason- Christian Erhoff and Sami Salo, with Dan Hamhuis doing a great job patrolling the defensive zone. This says nothing about the job Roberto Luongo has done in net, playing like a man on a mission in finally bringing his regular season play to the playoffs, and the job of Alain Vigneault as head coach, who has been able to get the Canucks to play whatever style is necessary- freewheeling, physical, defensive- and still win.

The only question that remains is Vancouver’s mental fortitude. They may be the most complete team in the playoffs, but they have yet to play a “series”. Yes, Chicago pushed them to seven and Nashville to six, but the Canucks had a 3-1 series lead in each series, with the only time they’ve ever been tied in a series being after Game 2 against Nashville and never trailing. While the Bruins aren’t on the same level as the San Jose Sharks or the Predators may be, they are capable of making this a series with the Canucks, and that’s the only test that’s really left for this team. It’s also been the test that’s been their downfall, since they’ve only won one series- the 2010 First Round series with the Los Angeles Kings- when they’ve been either behind in a series or tied 2-2 after four games. Every other time they’ve lost. So when the going gets tough, do these Canucks get going?

WHO WILL WIN

The Vancouver Canucks, in a healthy six games. Yes, the Bruins aren’t quite the team that the Sharks or the Predators are, but they do have enough to make this a series with the Canucks. However, Boston’s lack of production on special teams as well as elite forwards (compared to Vancouver’s special teams prowess and their own batch of elite forwards) will be their downfall. Vancouver has already shown they can play the Boston game and do it well- no one has shown they can even keep up with the Vancouver game, because no one has the horses. Tim Thomas, Luongo’s equal in the Boston net, has the capability to steal a game or two for the Bruins, but it won’t be enough- Vancouver is just too deep and too well rounded for Boston to keep up.

-DG