Various Mark Messier leadership award winners, ranked by how poorly they held up

I’m not sure the NHL has a weirder annual award than the Mark Messier Leadership Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Leadership.

It’s not quite a slam dunk, because the Lady Byng exists. But at least that award has been around for a century, and is voted on by a pool of writers who’ll always get it right because democracy never fails. The Mark Messier is a relatively new award that, as far as anyone can tell, just goes to whoever Mark Messier himself deems worthy. What’s the criteria? Nobody really knows. Leadership, apparently.

The award started off in 2006 as a monthly honor, before quickly being retconned into a more traditional annual award. That version has been handed out 18 times, with no repeat winners, because it’s just really hard to be a good leader more than once in your career. And while some of those winners are guys with reputations as legitimately great leaders like Sidney Crosby, Patrice Bergeron and Jonathan Toews, other winners haven’t held up quite as well. We got a reminder of that this week, when the reigning Messier winner was traded after the team that had been trying to dump him for months threatened to waive him. You know, typical leader stuff.

So today, let’s look back at that list of 18 winners, and remember X times that the award didn’t turn out to be a great omen for the future.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

It's not just you, Sid: Remembering six legends whose careers ended with playoff droughts

Sidney Crosby is bumming me out these days.

Not because he’s playing poorly. Quite the opposite – even at 37, he’s still scoring and playing a strong two-way game. No, the sad part is that it’s not anywhere near enough for the Penguins. With a sub-.500 record in a surprisingly tough division, their seasons already looks like a lost cause.

If so, it will be third straight year that Crosby misses the playoffs. And with two more years left on his extension, and little in the way of optimism that the aging Penguins can get any better, getting to five straight doesn’t seem unrealistic. Assuming he doesn’t push for a trade, it’s legitimately possible that we’ve already seen the last of Sidney Crosby in NHL games that actually matter.

Maybe things will turn around in Pittsburgh. But if not, Crosby could at least take some solace in knowing that he won’t be the only legend to end his career with little or no playoff action. It happens more than you might think, especially when we’re talking about players who are still performing at a high level. You’d think the hockey gods would make sure that every star got the sendoff they deserve. But for every Ray Bourque or Lanny McDonald or Mark Recchi who goes out on top, or even an Adam Oates who at least comes close, there are stars who never get that chance.

Let’s remember a few of those guys today, if only to make Sid feel better. OK, fine, to make me feel better about where Crosby might be headed.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

Penguins vs. Oilers: Which team holds all-time bragging rights?

The Edmonton Oilers have a chance to make history this week, as they’ll look to stretch a win streak that currently stands at 16 games. They’ll try to get to 17 tonight in Vegas and then 18 on Friday in Anaheim, which would break the all-time NHL record currently held by the 1992-93 Penguins.

In a way, that feels fitting. The Penguins and Oilers have felt like two teams connected for the better part of four decades. Wayne Gretzky gave way to Mario Lemieux as the league’s best player, around the same time that the Oilers dynasty was stepping aside for the Penguins. A generation later, it was Sidney Crosby passing the torch to Connor McDavid. And along the way, we’ve been able to debate Mark Messier vs. Jaromir Jagr, and Leon Draisaitl vs. Evgeni Malkin, and Paul Coffey vs., uh, Paul Coffey.

OK, great. So which team is better?

I don’t mean right now. I mean which team wins the all-time battle? The Penguins joined the league in 1967 and the Oilers arrived in 1979, and they’ve each won five Stanley Cups, tied for the most since they’ve both been in the league. They’ve both had legendary players. They both have devoted fan bases, and also plenty of other fans who can’t stand them.

Oilers vs. Penguins. Who you got?

>> 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.)

Introducing the “they had him but he never played there” all-stars

With the season just over a month away, it will be time to get back to real content soon. It’s been a fun summer of time-wasting challenges and random rankings, but soon it’s going to be time get serious.

Soon, but not quite yet. So today, we’re going to get to a topic that shows up in a lot of your requests: Superstar players, and the teams they never actually played for. Specifically, we’re looking for players who belonged to a team at some point, be it a few years or a few hours, but never suited up for them. Along the way, we should run into some interesting stories.

But first, a few ground rules™:

- We’re going to be building a 20-man roster out of 12 forwards, six defensemen and two goalies.

- We’re looking for overall star power. Normally this is the part where I give you the whole “only get credit for what a player did on your team” caveat, but… (gestures at entire concept). Full careers on this one.

- Finally, we’re limiting each team to one representative. Call this the Arizona Coyotes rule.

Sound good? Let’s do this. One full roster, full of stars who never played for the teams they were one.

---

We’ll start our squad with a Hall-of-Famer and all-time great, who’s also kind enough to be a simple example of what we’re looking for here. Six years before he arrived in Montreal and gave the Habs nearly a decade of Cup-winning goaltending, Ken Dryden was a Bruins third-round pick. Boston held onto him for all of three weeks before trading him to Montreal, and the rest was history. Unlike the Bruins, we’ll give him a chance as our starter.

The second goalie spot has a few worthy candidates. We could go with Tim Thomas, a Nordiques pick who never got a chance there. There’s also Olaf Kolzig, who was technically Maple Leafs property for a few weeks in 2009, or another not-quite-Leaf in Tuukka Rask. Or Mike Richter, a lifelong Ranger who was briefly a member of both the Predators and Oilers due to offseason shenanigans. Evgeni Nabokov was a Red Wing for a few hours before the Islanders sniped him off the waiver wire. The Canucks acquired John Vanbiesbrouck for a few days before the 1993 expansion draft. We could even dip back into very recent history to go with the Blue Jackets’ brief Jonathan Quick era. And the best of the bunch might be Henrik Lundqvist, who signed with the Capitals but was never healthy enough to suit up for them.

All else being equal, I’d go with Lundqvist here. But without giving too much away, I don’t want to use my Capitals slot this early. So instead, let’s go with Hall-of-Famer Eddie Belfour and his brief and forgotten two-day stint with the Nashville Predators in 2002. Yes, really.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

Grab Bag: Yes we know it’s too early, Gritty meets a puppy, Gretzky and Messier get weird and more

Welcome back to the Grab Bag, a feature that runs weekly monthly whenever I get around to it during the season. If you’ve been around over the years, you know the drill. If you’re new, you can expect NHL personalities trying to be funny, obscure players, weird rants, unworkable ideas, and breakdowns of old YouTube clips that go into way too much detail. Will you learn anything important? You will not. Look, it’s Friday and we all deserve some occasional empty calories. Let’s get to it.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

Mailbag: Matthews/Marner vs. McDavid, Team Canada vs. the World, and Messier vs. Canucks fans

The season is three days old, and if your team is currently outside of a playoff spot then their season is over. I know that sounds harsh. I realize some teams haven’t even played yet. But I don’t make the rules, and it’s better that you hear it from me now than have to sit through six months just to find out the hard way.

Let’s open up the mailbag and see what’s on your mind this month…

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

Hypothetical: As a Leafs fan, would you rather have won the McDavid lottery in 2015? You have to figure that we don’t finish 30th with Connor in lineup so we don’t get Matthews in 2016, or obviously Marner in 2015. Are the Leafs better with 16/34 or 97 and some other guy from ’16 draft? At this point in this hypothetical do we have more playoff success? – Adam T.

Do we have more playoff success than… none? Yeah, I like our odds.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

The Athletic Hockey Show: Sabres, Islanders, fantasy sleepers and more

On this week's episode of The Athletic Hockey Show:
- We talk through my New Season's Resolutions post
- John Vogl has all the key updates on Jack Eichel and where the Sabres go from here
- What happens if Eichel just gets the surgery with the Sabres' permission?
- Arthur Staple on the Islanders
- What's the deal with Lou not telling us who he signed all summer?
- Jess Granger joins us to talk fantasy sleepers
- Checking in on how our OfficePools teams are shaping up
- We react to the Carey Price news breaking as we record
- Remembering the huge impact of the Mark Messier trade and more...

The Athletic Hockey Show runs most days of the week during the season, with Ian and I hosting every Thursday. There are two versions of each episode available:
- An ad-free version for subscribers that you can find here
- An ad-supported version you can get for free wherever you normally find your podcasts (like Apple or Spotify)

After 50 years and no Cups, whose fans have had it worse: Sabres or Canucks?

One of my favorite movie characters is Count Rugen from The Princess Bride. He’s the creepy bad guy who’s trying to write the definitive work on the subject of pain. He’s fascinated by how much can be endured, and just how bad it can get. The sports fan side of me kind of gets where he’s coming from. Misery is interesting to me.

I’m also a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. These two facts may be related.

With three decades of Maple Leafs pain under my belt, I’m getting close to self-appointed expert status on the subject. But these days, there isn’t a ton of Leafs-related agony to be found. Toronto is leading the North division, and has a shot at the first Presidents’ Trophy in franchise history. They’ve been mostly… what’s the word for it? The one that’s the opposite of bad. It will come to me eventually, I’m a little rusty here.

But while my own team might be pain-deprived these days, at least temporarily, there’s still plenty to go around. And it’s possible that no two teams have experienced worse than the Vancouver Canucks and Buffalo Sabres.

The two franchises are forever linked, expansion cousins who entered the league together in 1970 and have been experiencing the ups and downs of NHL existence ever since. Both have come agonizingly close to Stanley Cups without ever winning one. Both have seen stars come and go. They’ve both made some, uh, questionable fashion choices.

And right now, both teams are terrible. Despite the season opening with significant optimism in Vancouver and at least a little in Buffalo, both teams are already all but out of the playoff hunt. And last Friday, on what was for both franchises their 18,721st day of existence, the two teams that started together found themselves arriving in the exact same spot at the same moment: With a GM facing the media, offering answers and asking forgiveness for a season going down the drain.

Players are frustrated. Jobs are in jeopardy. Vultures are circling. And fans are miserable.

But which fan base is most miserable? And which one should be?

Like my pal Count Rugen, I had a deep and abiding interest in finding out. But I couldn’t do it on my own, because true NHL misery is the sort of thing you need to see up close to really understand. So I asked two of our beat writers, John Vogl of the Sabres and Thomas Drance of the Canucks, to help me understand. I came up with ten categories of NHL suffering, and asked Vogl and Drance to make the case that their fan base has it worst.

Remember, this is for posterity, so be honest. Sabres fans, Canucks fans… how do you feel?

Stanley Cup final scars

Let’s start with the big one. Both teams have had near-misses but no championships. Whose close call(s) hurt most?

Vogl’s case for the Sabres

It’s June 1999. With more than 20,000 fans gathered at the foot of City Hall, Lindy Ruff steps to the microphone with the final two words of the season.

“No goal!”

Those words still echo around town. Brett Hull put his skate in the crease and can’t show his face in Buffalo. His controversial triple-overtime goal in Game 6 ended the Cup final but merely started the misery. Sabres fans will forever believe they were cheated. Making it worse is Hull, Mike Modano and other Stars were so injured they might not have skated in a Game 7, giving Dominik Hasek and Company a real chance to celebrate.

Drance’s case for the Canucks

If you think Stanley Cup Final pain is your ally in a misery duel with Vancouver Canucks fans, you’re wrong. Canucks fans were born in the darkness.

Fun fact: no franchise in NHL history that hasn’t previously won a Stanley Cup has ever lost in the Stanley Cup Final more than twice. Except the Canucks.

Fun fact #2: No franchise in NHL history that hasn’t previously won a Stanley Cup has ever lost in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final. Except the Canucks. And the Canucks have done that twice. Twice!

Sean says: This one really comes down to what type of pain hurts worse. The Canucks have come closer to the Cup, getting within one win in both 1994 and 2011. But the Sabres have that single defining play that they can probably still see when they close their eyes at night. This one’s too close to call, and also I’m already sad. This may have been a bad idea.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

The 10 types of player/team reunions, and how often they work

Last week, we celebrated Valentines Day by encouraging you to break up. When things aren’t working out for a player on your favorite team, sometimes it’s best to just say goodbye, even if that means all sorts of ugly drama.

But there’s another side to that coin. Sometimes, two sides go their separate ways and then realize that they shouldn’t have. Often, that just leads to regret. But every now and then, everyone can swallow their pride and get back together.

That happens fairly often in the NHL. We saw it last week, when the Senators reacquired Ryan Dzingel. And we apparently came close to a much bigger example, with reports that the Penguins had given serious consideration to a reunion with Marc-Andre Fleury.

That one feels a little too perfect, and it might seem like it would inevitably work out great for everyone involved. But that’s now always how these things go, and getting back with an ex isn’t always the smartest move. Sometimes, it’s best to leave the memories alone.

So today, let’s sort through some complicated feelings about reconciliation by looking back through NHL history at some of the times that a star player has returned to familiar territory. We’ll divide them into 10 different categories, and see if some have better outcomes than others. (Spoiler alert: They do.)

The Final Bow

We’ll start with one of the most common reunions. In this case, a player spends a big chunk of their career establishing themselves as a star with a team. For whatever reason, they end up leaving, and maybe have success elsewhere. But then time catches up, and they find themselves at the tail end of their career, with maybe another season or two left in the tank.

They’re not a star like they once were, at least in any real sense beyond name value, but they can still contribute something. With the clock ticking on their career and (often) dwindling options for where to land next, they head back to the scene of their greatest success for what will probably be one last run. Not to win a Cup, since the team is bad, but just to close the door in a way that feels right.

Notable examples: Glenn Anderson in Edmonton, Curtis Joseph in Toronto, Rob Blake in Los Angeles, Kevin Lowe in Edmonton

If you’re not a fan of those teams, you might not even remember any of those comebacks. But that’s kind of the point – they’re for the player and the fan base, and nobody else even needs to know.

How it usually ends: They don’t put up great numbers, because they just can’t anymore, and the team isn’t very good. But nobody really cares, because sometimes it’s just nice to have a familiar face back in the fold.

Unfinished Business

A modified version of the The Final Bow, this category is another that sees a player return to a former team late in his career. But this time, while the player may not be the star he was in his prime, he’s returning to a contender. This isn’t about a bad team getting some sympathy PR by bringing back a familiar name. Instead, it’s a good team with Stanley Cup aspirations bringing back a name from the past as, they hope, one of the final pieces of a championship puzzle.

Notable examples: Doug Gilmour in Toronto, Dave Andreychuk in Buffalo, Justin Williams in Carolina, Sandis Ozolinsh in San Jose, Dominik Hasek in Detroit, Denis Savard in Chicago, Rick Tocchet in Phialdelphia

Also, Michal Handzus in Chicago at the 2013 deadline, although I’m not sure he really counts since he’d only played a few games there the first time.

How it usually ends: There are a wide range of outcomes here. Hasek and Handzus won Cups, albeit in diminished roles. Williams helped the Hurricanes get back to the playoffs, and they had a nice run. At the other end of the spectrum, Gilmour blew out in knee in his first game back with the Leafs and never played again. In between, you just hope the returning player will occasionally show you a few flashes of what they were in their prime, and maybe help you win a key game or two.

Unfinished Business, except it’s the Devils

Yeah, they get their own category.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

Revisiting some of the NHL's most painful breakups

It’s almost Valentine’s Day, and after the year we’ve all been through, it presents a nice chance to refocus on what really matters by asking ourselves important questions like “Am I currently going out with someone” and “What was going out like, I can’t remember” and “Wait, does this person live with me because that would explain who’s been eating all my food.”

Then you could break up with them. That part’s optional, and not necessarily recommended based on your personal circumstances. But it’s how a lot of relationships end, both in the world of romance and in the NHL. This is called tying your sports story into a current event. I am a professional writer.

Years ago, I put together a list of ten of NHL history’s ugliest player/team breakups. It wasn’t an exhaustive list, because it couldn’t be, because this sport is constantly tossing new examples onto the pile. Just recently, we’ve seen the Pierre-Luc Dubois drama play out in Columbus, and it may not be long before the Patrik Laine sequel gets good. We saw the end of long-term relationships like Zdeno Chara in Boston and Joe Thornton in San Jose. And we’re still not sure what exactly happened with John Chayka in Arizona. This league and its soap operas, am I right?

So today, let’s remember a few more bad breakups from NHL history. My first piece covered names like Patrick Roy, Dany Heatley, Eric Lindros and Pavel Bure, but we’ve got plenty more ground to cover. After all, it’s the NHL, where everything ends badly and nobody should ever get too attached.

Sergei Fedorov and the Red Wings, 2003

Happier times: Fedorov is one of the greatest players in Detroit history, a supremely skilled Russian star who won a Hart and two Selkes while providing the dominant two-way play that helped finally tip the Red Wings from regular season monsters to Stanley Cup champions.

But then: In 1998, after a lengthy RFA standoff that dragged well into the season, Fedorov signed an offer sheet with the Hurricanes that was ridiculously front-loaded with bonuses designed to make it unmatchable. The Wings matched anyway, and Fedorov stuck around for five more seasons, but a relationship that had been rocky from the start never fully recovered.

How it ended: Fedorov finally left for good in 2013, signing with the Ducks in free agency, and the bad feelings lingered for years. Even after his induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame, the team still hasn’t retired his number. But time heals some wounds, and there have been recent signs of a thaw in the relationship, especially with Steve Yzerman running the Wings now. There’s even been talk of Fedorov joining the organization in some capacity.

What kind of breakup it was: The couple that’s always on the verge of breaking up but ends up holding on a lot longer than everyone thought before the inevitable final straw.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

Grab Bag: Awards thoughts, MLB lessons and the 1994 Rangers visit David Letterman

In the Friday Grab Bag:
- My spies have the scoop on what the voters really thought about all your favorite awards candidates
- A lesson hockey can learn from this MLB mess
- An obscure player who could have been an off-brand all-star
- The week's three comedy stars
- And a YouTube look back at the 1994 Rangers celebrating their Cup win in a David Letterman top ten

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free 90-day trial.)

Mailbag: Relegation, Toronto expansion and my ideal hockey broadcast

Thanks to the assorted lockouts, every couple of years I try to get into European football when there are no NHL games to watch. Mostly, it doesn’t really last but I am kind of fascinated by the concept of relegation and occasionally wonder what that would look like in hockey. For all of the crazy ideas that you have thrown out there over the years, as far as I am aware, you have never written about relegation and I’d love to get your take on how that might work (or not work!) in the NHL.

– Mitch J.

Any time I do anything about ideas I’d like to steal from other sports – and I do that often – somebody will bring up relegation. I’m not a soccer fan, so I don’t have a strong grasp on how it all works, but based on my limited understanding, I’m fascinated by the concept. Every year, a team or teams at the bottom of the standings get banished to the equivalent of the minor leagues, while other teams are elevated to take their place. It adds an entire new level of drama to the race to stay out of last place. In hockey, if your team is terrible you might get rewarded with a new superstar in the draft. In soccer, you might get kicked out of the league.

Would I want to see that in the NHL? Are you insane? Of course not, I’m a Maple Leafs fan. Asking a Leafs fan if they support relegation is like asking a snowman if they support saunas. I’m not even going to pretend that I don’t know with absolute certainty how that would end up.

What is your all-time NHL commentary crew? Let’s go with PxP, color, between the glass, studio host and two or three studio analysts.

– Tyler A.

Hoo boy. OK, let’s stipulate that this is all based on my personal experience as a fan – I’m not trying to do some sort of objective leaguewide survey here. That said, my team is obviously going to start with Bob Cole and Harry Neale in the booth. Cole’s voice is the soundtrack to my hockey story, and I’m not sure he ever paired as well with anyone as he did with Neale’s dry wit.

Between the glass, I’ll take current-day Ray Ferraro. My host will be James Duthie, although I’d be happy with Ron MacLean too. And my analysts would be any of Bob McKenzie, Elliotte Friedman or Chris Johnston as the insider, Kevin Weekes or Mike Johnson as the former player/Xs and Os guy, and Brian Burke as the crusty old guy with stories. Mix in Jim Ralph doing the occasional comedy bit and every broadcast starting with a Tim Thompson montage and I’m a happy viewer.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free 90-day trial.)

Weekend power rankings: A rerun from 1980

Editor’s note: Due to the ongoing pause to the NHL season, we are once again dipping into the archives to air a Weekend Rankings rerun from a previous season. Please enjoy this week’s power rankings, which originally ran on Monday, Jan. 7, 1980.

The Philadelphia Flyers played last night, and stop me if you’ve heard this one before, they didn’t lose.

Oh wait, you have heard that one. In fact, you’ve heard it for nearly three straight months, because the Flyers haven’t lost since their second game of the season. That’s 35 in a row, if you’re keeping track.

You figured that if the streak was ever going to end, last night would be the night. The Flyers were five games into their road trip as they prepared to face the Sabres, the league’s second-best team. With six wins in their last eight games, Buffalo has started to pull away in the Adams. Add in the extra motivation of having lost to many of these same Flyers in the Stanley Cup final just a few years ago, you would think that if anyone could end the streak, it would be Buffalo.

Nope. Bill Barber broke a third-period tie, Rick MacLeish added the insurance marker with five minutes left, and the Flyers cruised to a 4-2 final. Ho-hum. Throw another win on the pile.

With 35 straight games without a loss, the Flyers have already shattered the NHL record, set just a few years ago by the Canadiens; that milestone came and went weeks ago. Friday night’s 4-1 win over the Rangers nudged them ahead of 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers for the longest undefeated streak in pro sports history. Granted, that Lakers team had to win all those games because the NBA doesn’t have ties, which are a fundamental and immutable part of hockey, but it’s still an impressive feat.

And there’s no end in sight. I mean … what are we even holding the rest of the season for? Just give the Stanley Cup to the Flyers, and let’s be done with it. They’re literally unbeatable.

OK, I’m being a little facetious here – obviously you can’t just shut down an NHL season before it’s finished. But it sure does feel like everyone else is playing for second place at this point. And to make matters worse, there’s no reason to think that the Flyers’ dominance is a one-year phenomenon. Mark my words, there’s a new dynasty on the horizon, and it’s coming straight out of the Patrick Division.

In the meantime, the Flyers cap off their six-game road trip tonight in Minnesota. The North Stars are a good team, but we know how this is going to turn out. It’s going to be a long time before the Flyers lose another game this year. Or maybe that should be if they lose another game.

On to this week’s rankings. Hey, I bet you’ll never guess who’s No. 1.

Road to the Cup

The five teams that look like they’re headed towards a summer of Rubik’s Cubes, Pac-Man and taking the Stanley Cup to see Empire Strikes Back.

I don’t know about you, but I’m still adjusting to the new playoff format. After years of having an even dozen teams make the playoffs, the NHL is expanding the format to 16 teams this year. And let’s just come right out and say it: That’s way too many.

Yes, the league went from 17 teams to 21 this season due to the WHA merger. There’s some logic to adding extra playoff spots when you add more teams. But having 12 out of 17 teams make the playoffs meant that 70 percent of the league got in. Now, with 16 out of 21, it’s all the way up to 76 percent. That’s crazy. Yes, you want to get as many teams involved in the playoff race as possible, because that’s how you keep all your markets interested. But there has to be a limit.

I mean, imagine if the league keeps this up. We’re told that further expansion will arrive someday. What are we going to do when there are 24 teams? Or 28? Or, to pick an odd number at random, 31? If you kept the same ratio of playoff teams in a 31-team league, you’d end up inviting 24 teams.

A 24-team postseason. Good lord. Let’s start handing out points for losing too, while we’re at it.

Anyway, the one piece of good news is that at least we got rid of that weird preliminary round where only some of the teams had to face off in shorter series. That was a total crapshoot, and nobody even knew whether it was supposed to count as a real playoff series or not. I won’t miss those.

But yeah, 16 teams are making the playoffs this year. I know it seems like a lot, but we’ll have to get used to it.

5. Chicago Black Hawks (15-13-12, +1 true goals differential*) – They’re barely .500 and they can’t score, but they’re still running away with the Smythe because it’s the worst division in hockey. Hey, at least it won’t be won by a 73-point team like it was last year. Man, the Smythe is terrible. I guess we might as well get used to saying that because some things never change.

4. Montreal Canadiens (18-16-6, +12) – I know, I know, I should show the defending champs more respect. They’ve won four straight Cups, after all. Shouldn’t a dynasty team be the favorites?

Yes, they should, but this isn’t that dynasty team. There’s no Ken Dryden, or Yvan Cournoyer, or Jacques Lemaire. There’s no Scotty Bowman. Another year without Sam Pollock. They’re already on their second coach, after literally giving their first coach ulcers. This isn’t the same team that rolled over everyone for the last half-decade.

They’re still good. Guy Lafleur should get 50 goals, and Steve Shutt might get there too. So could Pierre Larouche. They’ve still got Larry Robinson and new captain, Serge Savard. Rod Langway looks like a future Norris winner that they’ll definitely hold on to. And on the right night, the combo of Mario Tremblay and Rejean Houle can drive a goaltender crazy.

So they deserve some respect, which is why they’re in the top five. Can they win a fifth straight Cup? I guess we can’t count them out. But at the risk of overdoing my Philadelphia love-in, I’d advise Montreal fans to watch tonight’s Flyers/North Stars game, because good luck getting past that team in the playoffs.

3. Boston Bruins (21-11-5, +32) – First-year head coach Fred Creighton continues to do a great job, and seems like the long-term answer behind the bench. But the big story is rookie defenseman Ray Bourque, who’s stepped in as a 19-year-old and already looks like one of the best blueliners in the league. He’s not especially big or physical, so you have to wonder how long he can last in the league. But he can do just about everything else, and it’s not hard to envision him being the guy who brings the Stanley Cup back to Boston.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free 90-day trial.)

Remembering the dramatic tying goals that went to waste (aka the Zelepukins)

With no new NHL action these days, the league’s broadcast partners have been dipping into their archives to fill airtime with memorable games from the past. And it’s been pretty cool. We all miss live hockey, but getting to rewatch some old classics isn’t a bad way to spend an evening.

For example, over the weekend Canadian viewers were treated to replays of a pair of classic Canucks Game 7s: their showdown against the Flames in 2004 and their grudge match against the Blackhawks in 2011. A few days earlier, both Sportsnet and Fox Sports West showed the Kerry Fraser game between the Leafs and Kings from 1993.

All memorable games. But they had something else in common, and you may have noticed it. They all featured a very specific type of goal. They all had a Zelepukin.

OK, I’m guessing you don’t call it that, since that’s a label I’ve been using in my own head over the years. But you know the moment. A Zelepukin is when a team scores a dramatic goal to tie a crucial game at the end of regulation but then goes on to lose that game in overtime.

A Zelepukin goal is always a weird moment in hindsight. When the tying goal happens, it’s euphoric for one fan base and crushing for the other. But then the script gets flipped in overtime, and you realize that the Zelepukin just prolonged the misery. Sometimes, the tying goal itself is all but forgotten, replaced in the collective memory by the overtime goal it spawned.

And that’s where the paradox of the Zelepukin kicks in – if your team scored it, you might end up wondering if you’d rather it had never happened at all.

That question has always kind of fascinated me. So today, let’s look at those three Zelepukin goals we’ve been able to relive in recent days, as well as a few more famous ones from hockey history. We’ll start with the one that might have been the most memorable in NHL history. If you’re not sure which one that is, well, the name might give you a hint.

May 27, 1994: Devils vs. Rangers

The setup: It’s Game 7 of the Eastern Conference final, with the Rangers hosting the Devils at Madison Square Garden. New York has won the Presidents’ Trophy and is looking to punch a ticket to the final and a chance to end a 54-year Cup drought. But the underdog Devils are giving them all they can handle. The series is already legendary, having featured Mark Messier’s infamous Guarantee that kept the Rangers alive in Game 6. Now it all comes down to one winner-take-all showdown.

The situation: Game 7 turns into a fierce defensive battle, with Mike Richter and Martin Brodeur trading saves in a 0-0 tie until Brian Leetch gets the Rangers on the board midway through the second. As the third period ticks away, it starts to look like that goal will hold up as the winner.

The Zelepukin: With Brodeur on the bench and 18 seconds left, the teams line up for a faceoff in the Rangers’ end. Messier wins the draw but the Rangers can’t clear, and a goalmouth scramble leads to a golden scoring opportunity. Richter makes what seems like an impossible save, but a certain Devil is there to hack away at the rebound: Tom Chorske!

No, just kidding. It is, of course, Valeri Zelepukin.

And just like that, 18,000 delirious Rangers fans go dead quiet. For at least a little while.

But then: In arguably the most famous overtime of the era, the two teams don’t score through one period before Stephane Matteau’s harmless-looking wraparound attempt ends it. The goal isn’t especially pretty, but the call will live forever.

Do you wish it never happened? If you’re a Devils fan, it’s quite possible that Zelepukin’s goal, at the moment it happened, was the highlight of your entire life as a sports fan. But in hindsight, if you could wave a magic wand and make it disappear, I think you’d have to. Sure, losing 1-0 on a Brian Leetch goal would have been painful. But if you never had to hear Stephane Matteau’s name screamed at you ever again, I think it would be worth it.

April 26, 2011: Blackhawks vs. Canucks

The setup: By 2011, the Hawks and Canucks had managed to brew up a surprisingly heated inter-division rivalry, one that had seen Chicago eliminate very good Vancouver teams in both 2009 and 2010. The Hawks had gone on to win the Cup after that second series, but the Canucks were the favorites heading into their 2011 rematch after a franchise-record 117-point season. All they had to do was slay the dragon.

And through three games, they did. The Canucks built a 3-0 series lead, one that the history books said should be all but insurmountable. But then the Hawks fought back with a blowout win, and then another, and then an overtime win in Game 6 to tie the series. That set up a Game 7 in Vancouver where the Canucks would either fight back with one of the biggest wins in franchise history, or suffer a loss so devastating that they’d have no choice but to detonate the roster. No middle ground.

The situation: Alex Burrows opened the scoring early in the first, and it seemed like that might be enough as Roberto Luongo held off a surprisingly toothless Chicago attack. Late in the third, the Hawks’ chances went from bad to worse when Duncan Keith took a tripping penalty to leave them shorthanded. All the Canucks had to do was play keep away for two minutes, then take it home.

The Zelepukin: A neutral zone turnover led to a harmless looking 2-on-4 rush for the Hawks. But as it turns out, Jonathan Toews is pretty dangerous, even from all fours.

And just like that, the Canucks were headed to sudden death on the verge of what would have been viewed as one of the most epic chokes in NHL history.

But then: Five minutes into overtime Chris Campoli’s failed clearing attempt wound up in Burrows’ glove, and he hammered one past Corey Crawford for the winner.

Do you wish it never happened? Watch that overtime winner again. Do you see how happy Burrows is? It’s the highlight of his entire career. If you were a Hawks fans, would you want to take that away from him? Of course you would. It’s not even a hard question. This Zelepukin clearly needs to go.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free 90-day trial.)

Playing ‘what if?’ on the 25th anniversary of the 1994 lockout that changed the NHL

The hockey world has spent the last few weeks on a familiar topic for NHL fans: work stoppages. And for once, the news was mostly positive, as the NHL and NHLPA have decided not to end the current CBA early. That means we won’t have a lockout in 2020, although one could still happen two years later when the CBA expires as scheduled.

A 2022 work stoppage, if it came to that, would be the fourth of the Gary Bettman era. Just about all of us still have fresh memories of the 2012 lockout, which wiped out half a season. And we all know the story of the 2004 version, the most divisive and protracted in North American pro sports history. That lockout saw the owners win their ultimate goal of a hard salary cap while becoming the only league to cancel an entire season in the process.

But while the impact of those fights, both good and bad, are still being felt around the league to this day, the original NHL lockout seems to have largely been forgotten. That one came way back in 1994 when Bettman was in just the second year of his new job. It dragged into January 1995 and ultimately cost the league half a season. And in hindsight, it didn’t achieve all that much, with an eventual agreement that mostly retained the status quo. At the time, that deal was seen as a win for the owners, but it quickly became apparent that they hadn’t gained enough. As trilogies go, Part 1 of the NHL’s lockout series didn’t pack in much in the way of drama or major plot twists, but it did introduce the important themes and characters while setting the stage for the bigger productions come.

Next week will mark the 25^th anniversary of the official start of the NHL’s first lockout. To celebrate, let’s look back on what happened a quarter-century ago, and how the league might look if things had played out differently. Here are five “what if” scenarios to ponder.

What if: The owners had held firm for a salary cap?

Let’s start with the big one. The owners headed into the 1994 negotiations looking to remake the league’s economic system. Bettman was hesitant to use the words “salary cap,” but he’d been hired two years earlier at least in part due to his role in helping the NBA create a cap system. It wasn’t hard to read the writing on the wall.

But any talk of a hard cap seemed to fade early in the negotiations, with the two sides instead focusing on a payroll tax. The league’s reported proposal was punitive enough – more than a dollar taxed for every dollar spent over a set limit – that Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA viewed it as all but a de facto hard cap, a scenario they weren’t interested in accepting. So the players sat back and waited for the owners to fold. Eventually, they did.

That came as a surprise to Bettman, who’d gone into the battle with assurances from his owners that they had his back and were prepared to strap in for a long fight. He’d certainly acted like a guy who was willing to play the villain, firing the first shot in August by unilaterally withdrawing some player benefits. The animosity between the sides got so bad that at one point, Chris Chelios even appeared to threaten Bettman’s safety, a moment for which he later apologized.

As the lockout dragged on and games were canceled for the first time in league history, the owners continued to put on a united front, even authorizing Bettman to cancel the entire season. But behind the scenes, that solidarity was crumbling. (For a more in-depth look at the politics of the 1994 lockout, I highly recommend “The Instigator,” Jonathon Gatehouse’s must-read look at Bettman’s tenure.) It eventually became clear that Goodenow and the players weren’t going to cave, and the league’s richer teams began to wonder if losing an entire season was really worth it. The players had offered a handful of concessions, including a rookie salary cap. With the deadline to cancel the season looming, the owners decided that those small wins were enough.

What if they hadn’t? What if the owners had remained united behind Bettman? Or maybe more realistically, what if Bettman had done a better job of making sure that his owners had no choice? The commissioner learned a tough lesson from the 1994 lockout, and made sure that he went into the 2004 version with more power and less vulnerability to his owners getting cold feet. What would have happened if he’d been able to get his charges to hold the line in 1994 instead?

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

What’s the most important trade in NHL history that didn’t happen?

Last​ week, we had​ some​ fun​ with​ a few​ of​ the contenders​ for the title​ of second most​ important​ trade ever made.​​ These weren’t just the biggest trades in terms of the talent involved on the impact on individual teams – they were the deals that actually changed the course of NHL history.

But to paraphrase the old cliché, sometimes the most important trades are the ones you don’t make. So what about those? What are the most important trades in NHL history that didn’t happen?

Now clearly, we could get a little silly here. Wayne Gretzky for Mario Lemieux was a huge trade that wasn’t made. Same with Rocket Richard for Gordie Howe, or Sidney Crosby for Alexander Ovechkin. Any one of those deals would have changed the course of history, but none of them happened. There’s also no evidence that any of them were ever even discussed, so it feels ridiculous to spend any time thinking about them.

But there have been other blockbuster non-trades that really did come close to happening, or at least seemed that way at the time. So today, let’s look at eight deals that didn’t happen, but that we know were at least considered. I’ll give you a legitimate source for the trade and you let me speculate wildly about the rest. Do we have a deal?

If so, we’re one step ahead of these teams. But a few of them at least came close. Here are eight contenders for the most important NHL trade that didn’t happen.

1992: Eric Lindros to the Rangers

The trade: The Quebec Nordiques send Lindros to New York in exchange for cash, draft picks and a package of players including names like Tony Amonte, Alexei Kovalev, Sergei Nemchinov, James Patrick and John Vanbiesbrouck.

Unlike many trades-that-weren’t, this one was actually a done deal. The problem is that it wasn’t the only Lindros trade the Nordiques made that day.

The source: There’s some question over the specific names involved in the deal; for example, Mike Richter occasionally shows up instead of Vanbiesbrouck. But we know the Rangers and Nordiques had a deal of some sort, because it was at the center of the arbitration case that transfixed the hockey world during that 1992 offseason.

Why it didn’t happen: Blame Larry Bertuzzi. The NHL arbitrator ruled that the Nordiques had made their deal with the Flyers first and would have to abide by it.

But what if it did?: If Bertuzzi sends Lindros to New York – which is what most observers had expected at the time – then we change the next decade or more of history for at least three franchises. The Flyers don’t get Lindros, but they also don’t dismantle their team to do it, and they hold onto the rights to Peter Forsberg. The Rangers land the biggest prospect in NHL history, but might not have enough depth left over to win the Stanley Cup in 1994. And without Forsberg turning into one of the best two-way centers ever, the Nordiques/Avalanche might not win it all in 1996 and 2001.

As for Lindros himself, he’d have had the chance to start his career while playing behind and learning from the player he was most often compared to, Mark Messier. And maybe he avoids all the off-ice battles that defined his time in Philadelphia.

1962: Frank Mahovlich to Chicago

The trade: Maybe “trade” isn’t the right word. This one was a sale. Specifically, the deal would have seen the Maple Leafs send Mahovlich to the ‘Hawks in exchange for $1 million.

The source: This one was splashed all over the front page of sports sections around North America in the days after the deal, given that the two teams had agreed on it and word leaked out to reporters. The story has since been repeated often; here’s a detailed look back from NHL.com.

Why it didn’t happen: The deal was struck between Leafs co-owner Harold Ballard and ‘Hawks owner James Norris during a late-night meeting in which they were, in the words of immortal Toronto sportswriter Milt Dunnell, “fortified by the gargle.” In other words, they were both hammered, and that led to some second thoughts on the Leafs side, with Stafford Smythe claiming that “we never rolled a drunk yet and we don’t have to start now.”

That noble high-road stance lasted for all of a few days, at which point the Leafs realized that there was a million dollars on the line. They tried to rekindle the deal, but by that point Norris’ brother Bruce had talked him out of it.

But what if it did?: Mahovlich and Bobby Hull were the two best left wingers of the era, and this trade would have put them both on the same team. If the ‘Hawks didn’t go bankrupt from the payout, they almost certainly would have challenged for another Cup or two over the decade to come. And the Leafs may not have won the three more Cups they’d capture with Mahovlich, including that famous 1967 win.

But the trade’s impact would have been even bigger, not just in the NHL but throughout the sports world. The $1 million price tag wasn’t far off from what some teams made in ticket sales in a year, and would have been unprecedented for a single player – as Stan Fischler put it a few years ago, imagine Sidney Crosby being sold for $95 million today. The sale would have redefined how professional athletes were viewed, and would’ve probably made it much tougher for owners to hold down salaries on what would now be million-dollar assets.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

What was the second most important trade in NHL history?

What’s the most important trade in NHL history?

Easy. Wayne Gretzky being traded from the Oilers to the Kings in 1988. There’s really no debate. That one’s number one by a mile.

Cool, good post. See you in a few days.

(Editor’s note: Uh, Sean … we were kind of hoping for more than 40 words out of this one.)

Huh. OK. In that case, let’s up the degree of difficulty by changing the question around.

What’s the second most important trade in NHL history?

Now things get tougher, in large part because the Gretzky trade was such a game-changer that it overshadows everything else. That trade changed the league’s financial landscape, reset how hockey was viewed in the U.S. and is directly responsible for the existence of about a half-dozen of today’s teams. Forget the NHL, you could make a solid argument that it’s the most important trade in the history of sports.

So sure, the drop down to second place is going to be a big one. But that’s what makes the debate fun, because once you get past Gretzky, the field suddenly gets crowded.

Note that we’re not talking about the “biggest” trade, in terms of the number of players or even the sheer star power involved. What we’re looking for here is importance. That’s an admittedly fuzzy concept, but think of it this way: If you go back and undo the deal, how much of NHL history changes?

So with all due respect to Alexandre Daigle, let’s take some time to remember number two – or at least the contenders for that crown. Here are 10 possibilities that I think can make the strongest case.

The Next One arrives: Eric Lindros to the Flyers

The trade: On June 30, 1992, the Nordiques sent Eric Lindros to the Flyers for Peter Forsberg, Steve Duchesne, Mike Ricci, Ron Hextall, Kerry Huffman, Chris Simon, two first-round picks and $15,000,000.

The case for: Read that list of names again. Then remember that Lindros hadn’t played a single NHL game at this point. It was an almost unfathomably huge haul for one teenaged prospect – and it may not even have been the best deal the Nordiques could get, given that they preferred the Rangers’ offer.

At the time, Lindros was considered the best prospect to come into the league since Mario Lemieux, and maybe even the best ever. He never quite lived up to that hype in Philadelphia, but he did win a Hart Trophy and led the Flyers to the Stanley Cup final. Meanwhile, Forsberg became arguably the best player in the deal and helped the Nordiques win two Cups in Colorado.

The case against: Both Lindros and Forsberg had their careers shortened by injury, so the trade’s impact wasn’t quite what it could have been. Still, that feels like nitpicking.

Moose on the Loose: Mark Messier to the Rangers

The trade: On Oct. 4, 1991, the Oilers traded Mark Messier to the Rangers for Bernie Nicholls, Steven Rice, Louie DeBrusk and future considerations.

The case for: For better or worse, this trade defined the next decade and more for both teams. Against all odds, the Oilers had survived the Gretzky trade and won another Cup in 1990. But Messier’s exit signaled the true end of the dynasty and the Oilers’ new role as one of the NHL’s have-nots. (A point that was driven home when Nicholls initially refused to report.)

As for the Rangers, they watched Messier win the Hart while guiding them to the Presidents’ Trophy in his first season. But the big moment came in 1994, when they finally put an end to the “1940” chants by winning the franchise’s first Stanley Cup in over half a century. It was Messier who led them there, most memorably with his guaranteed win against the Devils. And it was Messier who was the one to receive the Cup handoff in front of a roaring MSG crowd.

Messier would go on to captain the Rangers until 2004, not counting the three years he took off from 1997 to 2000 to go do missionary work, and is often ranked as the greatest Ranger of all-time. And maybe even more importantly, Messier and the Rangers made the NHL seem cool and trendy for just about the first time ever.

The case against: New commissioner Gary Bettman decided that the Rangers’ win made for the perfect time for a lockout, and any momentum the NHL was riding was squandered. Rangers fans were too delirious to care, but this trade’s impact beyond New York and Edmonton didn’t end up being as big as it could have been.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

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

A brief history of players being told that they wouldn’t be traded and then being traded

It’s​ been almost two​ weeks​ since​ the​ end​ of​ the William​ Nylander contract saga,​ with its twists​ and​ turns and last-minute​​ buzzer-beater resolution. As the round-the-clock coverage fades into more reasonable daily updates, we’re trying to sort through the various details that are emerging on how this deal was put together.

One of those details is Nylander’s apparent belief that Kyle Dubas has promised not to trade him.

Nylander says he has assurance from Dubas he won’t be traded while he’s the GM.

— James Mirtle (@mirtle) December 3, 2018

Because of the way the CBA works, the personal word of his GM is the only sort of trade protection Nylander can get; players aren’t eligible for no-trade or no-movement clauses until the reach their UFA-eligibility seasons. So Nylander has to rely on Dubas to hold up his end of the bargain here.

And Dubas probably will – after all, trading Nylander wouldn’t make much sense for the Leafs, and this is a rookie GM who’d no doubt prefer to establish a reputation as a straight-shooter. Assuming Nylander’s version of the conversation is accurate and Dubas really did give his word, there’s no reason to think that the young winger has anything to worry about here.

But just to be safe, he might want to stop reading right about now.

Because as it turns out, NHL history is filled with players who’ve believed they’d been given the same sort of assurance that Nylander says he got from the Maple Leafs. And more than a few times, those promises turned out to not be quite as ironclad as the player would have hoped.

So today, let’s look back at a few of the (many) trade scenarios in hockey history that started with a firm handshake or at least a perceived wink and nudge and ended with a player angrily mumbling about loyalty while packing a suitcase.

1975: The Bruins trade Phil Esposito to the Rangers

We’ll start with what may stand as the most famous example of the genre: the 1975 blockbuster that saw the Bruins trade Esposito and Carol Vadnais to the Rangers for Brad Park, Jean Ratelle and a minor-leaguer. It was a monster deal, one that saw New York acquire the player who’d led the league in goals in each of the last six seasons. And it didn’t make Esposito very happy.

That was because he’d signed a new contract that summer that he assumed would let him finish his career in Boston. He’d reportedly been offered $2.5 million on a five-year deal to join the WHA’s Vancouver Blazers, but took roughly half that to stay with the Bruins. According to Esposito’s version of events, Harry Sinden promised him that he wouldn’t be traded, and even offered to write a no-trade clause into the deal, which at the time was rare. Esposito says he told the GM not to bother, and that his word was enough. Weeks later, he was gone.

The trade, of course, ended up being a steal for the Bruins. Esposito played well in New York, but Park became the best player in the deal. And it got even more lopsided when the Rangers decided to reunite Esposito with center Ken Hodge, and sent a young Rick Middleton to the Bruins to get him. Park and Middleton became key parts of the late-70s Bruins teams that nearly won the Cup.

At the time of the trade, Esposito told reporters that he was “crushed” and that “I thought I had a home in Boston.” But he said he had “no regrets” toward Sinden or the Bruins. That tone would change over the years, as Esposito carried the grudge well past retirement. In 2013, almost 38 years after the trade went down, he was asked about the Bruins facing the Blackhawks in the Cup final and responded that “This series doesn’t mean shit to me.”

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

Grab bag: A moment in time

In the Friday Grab Bag:
- The NHL were the big winners in the concussion settlement. So why does it feel like we all lost?
- A new rule we need to see for penalty shot calls
- An obscure player with a knack for finding terrible teams
- The week's three comedy stars
- And a classic YouTube look back at the legitimately amazing 1987 Edmonton Oilers "Moment in Time" video

>> Read the full post at The Athletic