Help me become a better contrarian

Hey folks…

It's been a while since we've done an edition of The Contrarian. A reminder: You send in a statement that you think is obvious or inarguable, and I’ll try to come up with the contrarian view.

We've done a few of these, and the ones that work best find that sweet spot of feeling difficult but not impossible. "Mark Messier was a bad signing for the Canucks" and "Ray Bourque's Cup win was good" worked great. Stuff like "Connor McDavid is good at hockey" or "Ice is cold", not so much. Your job is to set me up, not stump me completely, although a little degree of difficulty should keep me sharp.

Send me your sure-thing statement via email at dgbcontrarian@gmail.com.

Getting a new CBA without a lockout is bad, actually: The Contrarian returns

It’s late-July, we’re two months away from games that matter, and NHL GMs have apparently taken the rest of the summer off. Let’s get Contrarian.

This is the feature where you send in your most obvious takes, and I tell you that you’re wrong, whether I believe it or not. In the past, we’ve made the case that Mark Messier was a great Canuck, Ray Bourque’s Cup win was bad but Brett Hull’s crease goal was good, and Bobby Orr’s flying goal photo is overrated. Last time, we made the case for Alexander Ovechkin being an overrated bum, and also for Alexander Ovechkin being an underrated legend, because we’re flexible like that.

This time, we’ve got a new CBA, an old legend, and everything in between. Let’s dive in.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

The Contrarian: The Ovechkin goals record chase is bad, and other fake arguments

Welcome back to The Contrarian, the feature where you state the obvious and then I argue against it, because I’m a sportswriter and that’s just what we do, whether we mean it or not. This time around, you want to debate Alex Ovechkin, Connor McDavid, the playoff format, and the Olympics, among other topics. Or then again, maybe you don’t. Let’s wade into the mailbag and find out.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

The Contrarian: That famous Bobby Orr photo is bad, and other fake arguments

Welcome back to The Contrarian, one of the most beloved and popular features that I write. Unless it isn't.

The concept here is simple. Readers send me statements about the NHL which they believe to be obviously true, bordering on the inarguable. Then I argue against those statements anyway, and see if I can convince you to start thinking the unthinkable.

Do I actually believe any of this? Maybe, but that’s not the point. The point is that I’m a sportswriter, and if I’m going to have any success in this media world, I need to master the art of making ridiculous contrarian arguments that make just enough sense to be infuriating.

Previous editions of The Contrarian have seen me make the case that Mark Messier was a great Canuck, Ray Bourque’s long-awaited championship was bad,  and Brett Hull’s skate-in-crease goal was actually fine. Today, we’ve got a new batch of reader statements that can’t be argued. Spoiler alert: All of them will be.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

The Contrarian: Brett Hull’s Cup-winning goal was good, and other fake arguments

The Edmonton Oilers were apparently feeling a little bit contrarian this week.

With all of hockey ready to crown the Florida Panthers, hand over the Cup and call it a season, the Oilers ruined the party on Saturday night. They finally showed up for the final, and turned what was supposed to be a coronation into a butt-kicking. In the process, they made all of us shelve our “Panthers win” takes for at least one more game, and sent the hockey world grumbling to the airport for yet another travel day.

I can respect it. I’ve been known to dabble in the whole contrarian thing myself, with takes like “Mark Messier was a great Canuck” and “Ray Bourque’s Cup win was bad, actually”. With some unexpected time to kill before Game 5, let’s break that gimmick out again.

As always, the concept is simple: You make what you think is an obviously true statement, the kind of thing that nobody could even argue with. I take the contrarian position, and make my best case. And as always, you can try to guess which of these arguments I actually mean, and which are just a case of a grumpy sportswriter instinctively going against the grain.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Ray Bourque’s Stanley Cup win was bad, actually: It’s the return of The Contrarian

It’s Friday, and it’s a good time to have some fun. Except it isn’t. Unless it is. Which it isn’t. But really, you moron, it clearly is.

Yes, it’s time for another round of The Contrarian, the feature where you send me your most obviously correct hockey takes, and I tell you that you’re wrong. We tried this back in October, when you forced me to make the case that Mark Messier was a great Canuck, the puck-over-glass penalty works, and Kerry Fraser wasn’t to blame for missing that high stick in 1993. And I succeeded, because I’m a sportswriter, and our most important skill is to make loud and convincing cases arguments for things we don’t actually believe.

If you have a statement you’d like to submit for a future edition of The Contrarian, you can do that here. But fair warning, the bar has been set high, as you’re about to see. Or not see. As always, feel free to try to figure out which of these I actually believe.

The Stanley Cup handoff to Ray Bourque was a great moment in hockey. – Adam S.

On the contrary, Adam, you blockhead.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

The Contrarian: How Mark Messier saved the Canucks, and other fake arguments

Welcome to The Contrarian, a new column idea that I’m very excited about.

Or am I?

You see what I did there. And there’s more where that came from, because the concept here is simple: You send me some NHL-related statements that you believe to be true. It can be something that seems obvious, maybe even inarguable. Then I argue it anyways, and try to convince you that you’re wrong.

I get to flex my contrarian muscles, which will come in handy if I ever get invited to be on one of those TV shows where sportswriters just yell at each other about stuff they don’t actually believe. You get some (hopefully) fun contrarian content to challenge your cherished assumptions and/or roll your eyes at. It will be fun.

At least, that’s what I thought before I started reading through your submissions. You people are messed up. You couldn’t let me ease into this, could you? Nope, you went right to the top shelf with just about the most slam dunk statements you could find. I’m surprised none of you went with “ice is cold”. Maybe next time.

But I said I’d give this a try, and I’m a man of my word. Let’s do this. You’re wrong about everything, and I’m going to prove it to you. (And as an added bonus, try to figure out which of these I actually believe.)

Note: Submissions questions have been edited for clarity and style.

The Mark Messier era in Vancouver was an unmitigated disaster. – Olivier C.

On the contrary, Olivier, you moron.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)