A Return to Winnipeg

The Winnipeg fever is catching on and for good reason.  The deal was agreed upon to bring the Atlanta Thrashers up North to the capital city of Manitoba, bringing the great game of hockey back to the city of Winnipeg.

The joy that must be running through the citizens of Winnipeg must be fantastic, while the hockey fans that are in Atlanta, as many as there may be, are likely shattered with disappointment that they have once again lost an NHL franchise.

To me, I'm very much in the middle, between joy and disappointment, more so to the feeling of indifference.  There is no real argument in either direction that would likely change my feeling on this matter, especially since I don't really buy into the "Make It Seven" movement for the sake of having seven Canadian teams, nor am I really going to spend my time worrying about what kind of market these teams are residing in or moving to, because team or league revenue is none of my everyday concern.  It's not my bleedin' money, why should I care who is losing or making money?

I would be truly disappointed if the Thrashers, in this case, just folded and shut up their shop and didn't take any opportunity to relocate, going down to 29 teams would be a real disappointment.  I would probably be more elated if the NHL decided to expand to 31 or 32 teams, increasing the amount of talent we would get to see in the NHL in any given season.  Relocation just doesn't work the same way for me.

This isn't to say that this situation isn't interesting, because it really is.  There are all kinds of stories now surrounding this impending move that makes for a raised eyebrow or two.  Will players want to move to Winnipeg?  What kind of budget does the new ownership group have for the franchise?  What will the eventual divisonal re-alignment look like?  I think the hockey related questions are way more interesting than the cosmetic questions, like "what name will they finally decide to use?"

I'm sure Winnipeg and the MTS Centre will be a rockin' place for NHL hockey and they will have a good growing team to support.  I do hope for the best in Winnipeg, much like I did for Atlanta and continue to for Phoenix, because there are people who love this game in these cities and I can't imagine what it would be like if I couldn't cheer for my favourite team any more.  It's a heartbreaking thought and I do feel for those Thrashers fans that have now lost their team to the big business.

It may not be my biggest concern, but I suppose I have a little bit of nostalgia for the Jets name... I wouldn't mind seeing my favourite Canucks beat the Jets in the first round of the playoffs again.  That would have a heart-warming feel to it.

Quick Thought on Chara's Hit on Pacioretty

This sucks. I don't think I need a blog post to really say just that, but it does provide a good lead into it all.  No one wants to see a guy wrap his face around the glass stanchion like a car around a tree, period.

As a standard, I really try to take the speed of the game into consideration for a lot of these kinds of incidents and I think there really is a good argument for it, but there is a hefty argument working against Zdeno Chara, as he and Max Pacioretty, the victim of this awful event, have a bit of a history this season and there were enough strides and more than enough time leading up to the collision along the boards, that could suggest that the giant Slovak defenseman wasn't going to let up.

I'm not sure what kind of consideration Chara had, when both players approached the open stanchion, about putting Pacioretty into it at full speed, but I could pretty well assure you that he would have put all he had into the rub out if it was all glass and boards and nothing else.

Watching it over and over again, it's hard not to take the shove into some sort of consideration.  This again goes back to the speed of the game argument, which has a lot of valid points.  Watching the play in real time is the key, because that's what this has to really be judged on.  It looked to be a rub, but Chara has a few strikes against him, taking away some of his allotted 'benefit of the doubt.'

Personally, I'm not going to lose much sleep over this hit, it really sucked and I hope Pacioretty is okay after it is all said and done.  Any supplementary discipline, if there is any to speak of, likely won't be terribly severe, in my opinion.

Taking on the Kostopoulos Suspension Decision

The NHL decided to come down hard on Calgary Flames forward Tom Kostopoulos on Sunday afternoon, levying him a six-game suspension for his hit on Brad Stuart of the Detroit Red Wings, which left the veteran defenseman with a broken jaw.  This is quickly becoming a hot topic and I thought I would write my first post of the New Year on the Soapbox about this controversy.

Below, have a look at the video and get a look at the play in question.



Since the implementation of Rule 48 (Illegal Check to the Head), there has been plenty of focus surrounding this rule as a whole and possibly for good reason. There were a number of checks in the 2010 season, which were deemed questionable by good judgement, but also deemed legal, as there wasn't any elbows, sticks or charges into these checks, rather catching an opposing player unaware and striking a blow to his head. Fair enough, Rule 48 is in the books and it has been used off an on in the 2011 season to good measure.

As Mike Milbury contends (included in the clip below), and many agree to, including myself, the check does not fall under the guidelines of Rule 48, because the check was applied from the front, eliminating the first part of the rule.

Rule 48.1 -- Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.



Okay, I think that part is definitely lost in the heated nature of the argument and should be re-evaluated.  Since the hit shouldn't fall under Rule 48, we really should get away from referring to it, because it doesn't apply.

The call on the ice during the game was Kostopoulos receiving a 2-minute minor for roughing and no other penalties were given out on the play.  A roughing call does have a certain level of discretion applied to it by the referees in the game, especially in the sense that the game is so fast and goes beyond the field of view for most referees.  For argument's sake, let's have a look at the letter of the law for a roughing call...

Rule 51.1 -- Roughing – Roughing is a punching motion with the hand or fist, with or without the glove on the hand, normally directed at the head or face of an opponent.

Roughing is a minor altercation that is not worthy of a major penalty to either participant. (An altercation is a situation involving two players with at least one to be penalized).

Although the play does not involve a punch, rather a shoulder in a clean check fashion, it likely shouldn't have been deemed a roughing call, more than an interference call, at best.

Since the call on the ice was indeed a roughing call, the NHL league offices do have the ability to levy supplemental discipline under Rule 51.4.

Rule 51.4 -- Fines and Suspensions - There are no specified fines or suspensions for roughing, however, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

Despite the use of the roughing rule was possibly applied improperly by the letter of the law, you could argue that applying supplementary discipline should not apply to this case. Which I think is a fair argument to use.

But wait! There's more. Let's actually refer to Rule 28 for argument's sake.

Rule 28.1 -- Supplementary Discipline - In addition to the automatic fines and suspensions imposed under these rules, the Commissioner may, at his discretion, investigate any incident that occurs in connection with any Pre-season, Exhibition, League or Playoff game and may assess
additional fines and/or suspensions for any offense committed during the course of a game or any aftermath thereof by a player, goalkeeper, Trainer, Manager, Coach or non-playing Club personnel
or Club executive, whether or not such offense has been penalized by the Referee.

If an investigation is requested by a Club or by the League on its own initiative, it must be initiated within twenty-four (24) hours following the completion of the game in which the incident occurred.

Boy, oh boy... I think we have ourselves a winner.  At the league office's discretion, any incident on the ice can be reviewed and subject to supplementary discipline, even if the play wasn't penalized by the referee.  I would also take that as penalized correctly by the referee, for this instance in particular.

Let us also go back in time, to the not-so-distant past, to when the hits to the head to unsuspecting players was a hot button topic.  The league, executives and most of its players were in general agreement that these hits should be removed from the game, period.  With that being said, most people would also agree that Rule 48 isn't perfect, despite it being very clear in its wording.

So, finally, let's review what Colin Campbell had to say about his decision in his statement on Sunday afternoon.

"A number of factors were considered in reaching this decision," said NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell.


"Kostopoulos delivered a blow to the head of an unsuspecting and vulnerable player. As well, he targeted the head of his opponent and, while the hit was not from the blindside, the head was the principle point of contact.


"The fact that Brad Stuart was not in possession of the puck when the blow was delivered and the serious nature of the player's injury were also considered in my decision."

The league outlined the fact that the hit in question was not a blindside or lateral hit, thus eliminating Rule 48 from the argument, but a serious injury was caused during the play where an unsuspecting player took a blow to the head, without possession of the puck, did take place and punishment was deemed appropriate.

To sum it all up, from my perspective, this isn't a decision with the letter of the law, rather a decision that exercises good judgement. If Brad Stuart was not seriously injured on the play, this play would have had a short debate about Rule 48, have it quashed and Kostopoulos would be able to dress in the Flames next game.

The injury, which was a result of a blow to the head, because you can't break someone's jaw by hitting them in the chest, was a key reasoning factor, not to mention the appearance of the hit did look somewhat vicious.

I'm a big supporter of clean checks to the head, I don't think there is any way to get around them in a lot of instances, but I can at least see the reasoning behind the unsuspecting player aspect of the whole thing.  This will be the kind of hit and supplementary discipline decision, which will likely incur a revision to the rule for the sake of better judgement.

Trying to Reason With Rypien

There is a lot to be said about keeping one's emotions in check, especially in the public eye. Unfortunately, Rick Rypien of the Vancouver Canucks was not able to do this in the face of some Minnesota Wild fans and now Rypien will face the wrath of the league's disciplinarians and will sit with a suspension.

There is little argument against Rypien's contact with the fan in the stands, that sort of thing is definitely frowned upon when hundreds, thousands or millions are watching from just about anywhere in the world.

I can't defend Rypien for his actions, because he really shouldn't have done what he had done, but I can understand where he was coming from and try to find his own reasoning for what he did, which I think is only fair.

Obviously, Rypien wanted another piece of Brad Staubitz of the Wild, since they did tussle earlier in the game, to which I gave Staubitz the decision for a better quantity/quality of punches thrown and landed.  I could see how Rypien may have agreed with that and wanted round two.  Unfortunately, when he went to go take care of this, already hot under the collar, the officials were quick to step in and not allow a second bout.  Clearly, this made Rypien far angrier, leading to an ill-advised punch while being restrained by the linesman, which may also cost Rypien from the disciplinarians on Wednesday.

It's not very often that you see Rypien terribly hot under the collar like he was last night.  For the most part, he does come across very sporting with some of the other fighters in the league.  There is a lead-up, there is a good bout and it's left at that... for the most part.  I truly wonder what else happened in the exchange or time in the penalty box for Rypien to snap.  That's something we'll never know.

When Rypien was being escorted the ice, he had to be restrained even further, which really had me thinking that he didn't want this altercation to end, because there was really a grudge to be settled.

Now, what happens on the ice is all fine and dandy for sporting and entertainment purposes and we all have a general idea how emotional this sport can be on a regular basis.  As people, emotions run high for long stretches before a person is able to cool down and that kind of time differs from person to person.  Clearly, the time from stepping off the ice and starting into the tunnel back to the dressing room was not enough time for Rypien to cool down.

Now, as a fan, we all like to have a good time when we go to our favourite team's sporting events.  We get to cheer on our guys, scream and cheer when they score, win a fight, make a great defensive play and/or win the game.  We even get to taunt the opposition, raining down boos (of course, that doesn't just happen to the opposition some nights) and try to get into the opposition's heads with all sorts of taunts, be it gestures or chants.  Fortunately, in 99% of the cases where fans are taunting the participants of the sport, there is either glass, boards or some elevation that stands in the way of the fans and the players, which keeps everyone safe and happy and the game just goes on like any other game on any other night.

When we do chant and taunt the players, be it the opposition for the sake of being the opposition or our own players for having a stinker of a performance, we the fans want to get into their heads.  That is the whole purpose of doing what we do in the bleachers/stands.  If we see the opposition falter or make a mistake, we feel like we've done our jobs to help our team succeed.

Clearly, the guy in the stands that was clapping (unclear if he was yapping as well) towards Rypien, who was walking off the ice, wanted to get in his head and Rypien wanted to rip something a new something.  There's a lot to be said when there is a pane of glass in between the two in question, but when there is only a 3-inch railing and maybe 36 inches separating the two (clearly meaning an open shot), a testosterone-filled pugilist is going to take that shot.

The fan got what he wanted in the end, to get into Rypien's head and I truly believe he was lucky that he wasn't hurt to any sort of degree.  I could only imagine the shit storm that would have come down on the Canucks, Rypien and the league if more damage had been done.

Again, I don't support what Rypien did in this case, but I can at least reason with him a little bit.  As a Canucks fan myself, I will accept any punishment that the NHL hands down without question, be it three games, ten game or more.  That was an unacceptable action and should be punished.  It is not my place to say how severe the punishment should be, it is just my place to sit and take whatever the league hands out.

Netcrashing: Are Monster Contracts Bad for the NHL?

Thanks to Ilya Kovalchuk, we now ask ourselves whether or not long-term, front-loaded contracts are bad for the league and my immediate answer is no.

Long-term contracts like these are good for the NHL, because it keeps the league's best players in the league guaranteed for much longer, the player gets his market value at the time and the team works it's way under the salary cap in a fashion that has not yet upset the league or its officials publicly, therefore I see no problem with these deals.

If teams are willing to commit to deals like these, paying players a lot of money, I don't see how this is really going to change the game.  As the years draw on, I don't think we are going to see many reductions in ticket prices, concession costs or beer charges; I believe all of those things are inevitable either every year or every other year, regardless of a team's budget or winning percentage.

In the salary cap era, there are still so many teams dealing with the salary cap ceiling with these long-term contracts on the books and teams are only fitting in depth players because of these deals.  The gain for many of these teams who are signing deals is that they are still able to sign three, four or five players at the league minimum to help out their rosters.  I don't think there are many deals built to fit in another superstar under the cap, unless these stars have decided to take less money for longer, which really isn't considered being front-loaded in a lot of cases.

Ilya Kovalchuk, Duncan Keith, Roberto Luongo, Alex Ovechkin, Henrik Zetterberg, Marian Hossa, Rick DiPietro, Nicklas Backstrom, Vincent Lecavalier, Mike Richards and Johan Franzen all have deals with 10 or more full seasons left to be acknowledged and by star value, I can only see a couple of names that could be mistakes (DiPietro and Franzen).  So, it really isn't like any Tom, Dick or Harry is signing these deals, making life easier for any team or for any manager, it's only those managers that have decided that these guys are "franchise players" and should be part of said franchise for a long time to come... or until their no-trade clause can be lifted and/or disappears.

If the KHL threat is actually real and the NHL doesn't want to actually lose some of their best players, these could be the kind of deals that need to be given that doesn't allow for such players to disappear too quickly.  Sure, Keith, Luongo, DiPietro, Lecavalier and Richards are all North American and are all less of a flight-risk, but can the NHL really bank on that?  Maybe not.  For Kovalchuk, Ovechkin and other Europeans, they could be considered a flight risk on free agency, except for Evgeni Nabokov, whose reputation has been hurt by a few too many playoff disappointments and couldn't garner a deal.  I don't think anyone was too disappointed when he went back home for the money and to finish his career at home.

In the Devils' case with Kovalchuk, they have themselves a player that has proven that he is a natural goal scorer, one of the best in recent memory, for a long time to come and at a cost that looks pretty good, if he can score 50 or more goals in only a few of the next 10 years.  Of course, they have to assume that his skills will diminish around the end of those 10 years and it will only be his hockey smarts and willingness to play more defense that will keep him playing at age 37 or longer.  Of course, the Devils are well within their rights to trade Kovalchuk away at that time or even lend a helping push to try and get him to retire, eliminating that cap hit from the books entirely and legally.  Since when is it illegal to retire?

In all honesty, if I was a GM of an NHL team, I might consider looking at these deals as a solution to a firepower issue, but the counterargument being that you will be stuck (unless some other team wants to get stuck with him via trade, assuming NTCs or NMCs don't come into question) for a very long time.  Players want security and teams want legal flexibility and until one team goes terribly overboard with a long-term deal, I don't think we'll see the end of these.  With only 11 contracts over 10 years remaining today, we're not over run with these huge deals, they just get a lot of press, because they are still taboo to some fragile minds.

Not Doing Enough with the Outdoor Games

First of all, I like to go on the record and say that I am a huge fan of the outdoor games the NHL has put on in recent memory.  From the Heritage Classic to the last Winter Classic in Boston, I think they are all great spectacles and are wonderful to watch. 

With the impending news that there is a 2nd outdoor game being added in Calgary for mid-February to the usual New Year's Day game, which will be in Pittsburgh, I did scratch my head and wonder if they were going to go with the same Winter Classsic moniker for the 2nd game before a couple of tweeps put the idea of possibly rehashing the Heritage Classic name, since it's another game between two Canadian clubs.  Okay, sounds fine, moving on.

Here's my concern, as I try not to follow the paths of so many and complain about the novelty of the game wearing thin because of too much exposure, rather if the NHL is so keen to sell hockey to other markets, then why are the sunbelt teams not getting any exposure in this grand hurrah of hockey?

Selling outdoor hockey to Canada and the Northeast portion of the USA is like selling steak to a Texan... they are going to buy it and wish they had more of it, because it tastes so good.  Why isn't the NHL selling this prime rib steak of a game to the vegetarians in California, Florida, Texas and Arizona by putting their teams in the game?  Of course they'll have to visit a cold city to maximize the Winter effect.  All of the players that play for club teams down in the South know what Winter is actually about, so it won't kill them to play in this game, plus you might be able to attract some new viewership by hockey friends inviting non-hockey friends over in Miami to watch the Panthers play the Maple Leafs at BMO Field in Toronto. 

"You mean, THAT is what hockey is?  That's so cool..."

The NHL is doing a good job of making the 2011 Winter Classic into a banner year, pitting their top two superstars together in a battle outside, which in all fairness needs to be done once and a while.  The fireworks and atmosphere will be great for Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin going head to head, while in Calgary, the Canadian tastebuds will be satisfied with a Heritage Classic between West and East with the Flames and Canadiens going head-to-head. 

I really hope that the NHL uses their current argument to keep hockey in the sunbelt to futher make gains with the outdoor specials they have.  I think that's a super idea.

Curious About Kovalchuk

I was actually thinking of doing a quick blurb on how I thought the Ilya Kovalchuk free agency situation may go down this Summer and I was kind of derailed by the word that a KHL club has come down adding fuel to the fire.  If there is any truth to the reports that SKA St. Petersburg has given Kovalchuk a 3-year/$30 million offer, it really blows the socks off a little bit, doesn't it?

SKA St. Petersburg doesn't have to wait until Kovalchuk's contract is officially up to start throwing numbers at him, unlike the rest of the NHL clubs, which gives them a full month of a head start to tempt the Russian superstar back home for the near future.  Of course, I don't think anyone will be putting any pens to paper until the current deal expires, since that would create a bit of a stir, even after a reported memorandum between the NHL and KHL, in regards to transfer agreements.

In the blurb I had half-prepared, I was going to go on about what kind of value Kovalchuk was going to get from clubs, if he makes it to unrestricted free agency and to his own benefit, I think he can really write his own meal ticket with a new deal.  There have been rumours that Kovalchuk was looking for somewhere near the salary cap maximum and there have also been reports that he'd take significantly less money if he can play for a winner, which does make a lot of sense, since a lot of those Cup favourites are already tightly wound to their budgets and pressing up against the cap ceiling.  I, personally, picture the whole situation more like a sliding scale, where you can lump a lot of the rebuilding teams together and call that a cap maximum for his services, while some of the better teams can have him at a reasonable discount of a long-term cap hit of $6.5 or $7 million.  I don't doubt there is something in between those numbers as well, but that's me just being creative.

This offer to Kovalchuk does open the door to all sorts of conclusions we can all jump to and read about over and over and over again.  If Kovalchuk takes the deal, we should be able to conclude that he went for the money, because he couldn't get the right combination of winning and money in the NHL or he's just plain greedy.  If he stays in the NHL and takes less money, we can turn our noses up on the KHL and all believe that we cheer for the best hockey league in the world.  Sure, there is plenty of in between in there, but I wanted to make sure we all know what we were up against, because what we read doesn't believe in the in-between.

Nevertheless, I could really care less about where Kovalchuk wants to play and I couldn't really be bothered either way if he stays or goes.  The NHL, on the other hand, should be greatly concerned with how Kovalchuk decides his own fate, because once the KHL poaches a former number one overall pick like Kovalchuk, despite being Russian and so forth, what's to say that the KHL doesn't start poaching more top end talent for their league... despite most of them also being Russian?