Trying not to remember the time Steve Ott licked Jeff Halpern

(This post is part of a fundraiser for the ACLU and SPLC, two great causes that need our help in these, umm, trying political times. For a donation of $50 or more on Giving Tuesday, readers got me to write about whatever they wanted. So I wrote the nonsense below, which was requested by several people.)

A thing I didn’t remember but which doesn’t surprise me even a little is that Steve Ott once licked — or tried to lick — Jeff Halpern.

This isn’t necessarily because Ott is a gross weirdo, though obviously it’s not NOT because of that. But for sure there’s clear evidence that this is a thing which happened. Here’s video if you don’t remember this happening either:

I’m gonna say this: I don’t think Ott licks him. I think he tries, but doesn’t accomplish it. So close and yet so far.

But like, let’s get into the psychology of why Steve Ott — remember when Jack Edwards called him “Brave Steve?” — would even TRY to lick someone, right? Because if you’re trying to mess with someone and get into their head and so on, how is licking something you think to do, rather than, say, put your glove in his face without touching him, or making a big show of trying to get your stick under his skate blade while you wait for the draw? Just little annoying stuff. Maybe move your foot in front of his. You know, regular annoying pest stuff.

Licking, or attempted licking, has to be a sign of sociopathy. Because, as they point out in the video, Halpern and Ott — who is inexplicably still an NHL player — were teammates with Dallas prior to this incident which I do not remember and seems incredibly farfetched even though there’s video evidence to support that it definitely happened. I have to accept that. Even if I don’t want to. Which I do not.

So anyway, Steve Ott — who is objectively slimy as a hockey player even though I’m sure he’s so so nice in real life — is like “Hey I used to be friends with this guy. How will I mess with one of my friends? I know, I’ll try to lick his visor.” Who thinks like this? How do they do it? I cannot know the mind of a madman but it seems to me that there can only be a deranged logic here which for the sake of decorum and indeed my own sanity must not be explored.

So I refuse to write an oral history, or even a made-up oral history, of this transpiring. It is gross and bad, so of course Steve Ott is involved. To try to glean some kind of logic from it tilting at windmills. I do not accept the challenge.

The only person whose reaction in all this that I can even try to approximate is Halpern’s. Because I know what my personal reaction would be if my friend tried to lick an article of my clothing. I would say, “What’s wrong with you dude? Get away from me.”

This is the only reasonable reaction to any human being — let alone Steve Ott — trying to lick your visor. Revulsion. Perhaps even a dimmed view of humanity as a whole. Definitely something to do with rethinking your friendship in the first place.

And by the way, that’s just the announcers (and me) reading into “They used to be teammates so this is good-natured.” For all I know, Halpern can’t stand Ott because Ott is always trying to lick his stuff. Wouldn’t surprise me, anyway. Not at all.

The Ducks aren’t going to pay a lot for that blue line. Just kidding they are.

(This post is part of a fundraiser for the ACLU and SPLC, two great causes that need our help in these, umm, trying political times. For a donation of $50 or more on Giving Tuesday, readers got me to write about whatever they wanted. So I wrote the nonsense below, which was requested by J. Kaz.)

Remember all that drama this summer about how the Ducks were going to be able to get all their restricted free agents signed?

They were always a budget team to begin with and they just didn’t have the money to spend on Rickard Rakell, Hampus Lindholm, and Sami Vatanen. On some level you got it, but at the same time it was like, “How are you going to not-sign these three guys?” They’re all solid or better contributors, and Lindholm in particular is an elite defender.

And that’s why it was weird to see Vatanen sign first, back in June. And then Rakell shortly before the season started. Leaving Lindholm(?) as the final addition in late October, well after the season got under way.

How could a responsible NHL team let this happen? How did they get into this mess? Well the answer, not surprisingly, comes down to cap mismanagement, just like it always does.

In addition to not having Lindholm and Vatanen locked down for about $9.5 million combined, they’re also spending $4 million on Cam Fowler (a deal that’s vaguely worth it), $4 million on Kevin Bieksa (not worth it), and $3.25 million on Clayton Stoner (might as well just light $3.25 million on fire and flush the ashes down the toilet).

Bieksa and Stoner are obviously two very bad bets, as is forward Ryan Kesler at $6.875 million. And whether you’re a budget team or capped out (which the Ducks now are), every dollar counts and so on and so forth. Every dollar you give those guys — old and broken down as they mostly are — is one you can’t give to your 22-year-old superstar defender.

Now, to be fair, the Ducks got Lindholm to bend on his ask and locked him in at an incredibly good deal that takes him all the way through his prime and out the other side. That’s the advantage of having a CBA designed to screw young players at every opportunity, especially if they’re good. But honestly, it’s because NHL GMs can’t help themselves when it comes to signing 33-year-old physical defensemen that it’s a discussion to begin with. Imagine if that money were spent wisely, rather than wasted on guys on the wrong side of 30 who couldn’t play that effectively even when they were on the right side of it?

In the end it all kinda-sorta worked out for the Ducks but there shouldn’t have been that much drama in the first place. Everyone’s signed now, and the Ducks are chugging along near the top of their division (despite firing an excellent coach and replacing him with a borderline-incompetent one).

But the kinds of decisions Bob Murray makes about how he pays the guys he’ll be putting deeper in the lineup don’t exactly give you hope that everything is going to be figured out, long-term.

You can say that about a lot of GMs, though. And those GMs don’t have as much elite talent as Murray does in the first place.

Imagine being Henrik Lundqvist’s boss

(This post is part of a fundraiser for the ACLU and SPLC, two great causes that need our help in these, umm, trying political times. For a donation of $50 or more on Giving Tuesday, readers got me to write about whatever they wanted. So I wrote the nonsense below, which was requested by Greg Sasso.)

Benoit Allaire has been the New York Rangers goalie coach for the past 13 seasons. There was a writeup about him in the New York Times circa 2006. That means he’s been around for the entirety of one of the greatest goaltending careers in the history of the sport.

Henrik Lundqvist isn’t the greatest goaltender of all time — that is, of course, Dominik Hasek — but as the years go on and the .920 seasons keep piling up, his name pushes closer to the Big Three: Hasek, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur. It’s very difficult to see yourself living through history, but you look at what Lundqvist has done in delivering 12 straight seasons of being better than league-average (and usually much, much better than that) and you have to say few goaltenders have ever been this good or even close. The air is rarefied.

Continue reading

A theory about why the Stars aren’t as good as they should be

(This post is part of a fundraiser for the ACLU and SPLC, two great causes that need our help in these, umm, trying political times. For a donation of $50 or more on Giving Tuesday, readers got me to write about whatever they wanted. So I wrote the nonsense below, which was requested by Ann Merrin.)

Okay so I’m not supposed to talk about the Stars’ goaltending at all here, let alone saying for the zillionth time that it’s bad. But it’s bad. It’s really bad. It’s .895 for the team and it’s holding this club back.

But the goaltending was a big problem last year too — not this bad, but still awful — and the Stars cruised through most of the season. So yeah you can scapegoat the goaltending here, and you’re not wrong, but they have much bigger problems throughout the rest of their lineup too.

Continue reading

What’s next for Detroit?

Screen Shot 2016-04-22 at 1.08.06 PM

(This post is part of a fundraiser for 826 Boston, a non-profit tutoring and writing center that provides free help to kids at underserved schools. For a donation of $50 or more, readers can get me to write anything about hockey they want, so donate today to make me say stuff by clicking here. I probably don’t believe the nonsense below, which was requested by Eric Phillips.)

The Tampa Bay Lightning eliminated the Detroit Red Wings from the NHL postseason last night. It was the second year in a row they lost in the first round to the Bolts, and also the third year in a row they lost in general.

That’s bad, and if you ask me (someone did) you’d almost rather miss the playoffs than just make it and lose in the first round every year. Fortunately, it might not be something the Wings have to worry much about next year.

After all, there’s a very distinct possibility that Pavel Datsyuk hops a jet back to Russia and never suits up for the Wings again, and we all saw early in the season how bad Detroit was in his absence. Probably that overstates things, but the Wings are barely making the postseason with a guy who can still reliably drive possession (and is just about the only guy on the team that can do so on a level that actually makes a big difference for the team). No Datsyuk, plus an extra year of miles on Zetterberg and Kronwall, and so on. Yeah, they’re developing young talent, but it’s tough to develop guys who can replace Hall of Fame talent.

And yeah, that’s the kind of doom and gloom Wings fans have gotten sick of hearing for years, but we’ve been looking at diminishing returns for years since Nick Lidstrom retired. At some point they diminish to the point the team needs to really consider its long-term future.

If you routinely draft in the mid-teens or later, you’re not usually getting  difference-making talent. NHL talent? Sure, absolutely. Reliably so. I would note that the Wings’ drafting prowess is often overstated but they do routinely get guys to the bigs, and that’s not nothing. That helps. But it doesn’t get you back to the point where you can reasonably expect to, say, compete for a Stanley Cup or even, probably, a division title.

Let’s put it this way: With all the talent on the roster, and Petr Mrazek (probably) punching well above his weight class for a good chunk of the season, they still only ended up with 93 points in a soft-as-heck division. I don’t see them getting better than that next year, that’s for sure. Yeah they can PDO their way to a better point total, but in terms of actual quality, you kind of have to feel like they’re topped out right now.

Who’s in the pipeline that’s gonna put the puck in the net next year? Anthony Mantha maybe, then who? Tough to say with any certainty. Sure, they can spend money on the free agent market, but when’s the last time the Red Wings got someone actually good via UFA? Mike Green? Yeah okay. There are certainly guys worth acquiring this summer. It’s a good UFA class for once. But that still feels like putting a bandaid on the problem, rather than addressing it directly.

I dunno. If it were up to me, and I were running just about any team in Detroit’s position, I’d start selling hard and get a few years’ worth of high picks. They’re a rich team, moving into a new building soon. Do what Toronto did and use your resources to take bad contracts and prospects from teams in dire cap positions. Let someone take the Datsyuk cap hit. And so on. You have enough young talent on hand that you don’t have to tear it all the way down, but a few years of missing the playoffs probably does everyone some good in the long run.

Thank you for reading and supporting 826 Boston. Don’t forget to donate!

All teams are bands now

the-beatles-circa-1966-650-430(This post is part of a fundraiser for 826 Boston, a non-profit tutoring and writing center that provides free help to kids at underserved schools. For a donation of $50 or more, readers can get me to write anything about hockey they want, so donate today to make me say stuff by clicking here. I probably don’t believe the nonsense below, which was requested by Chris Prod.)

I have been asked to compare every NHL team to a band, so here I am doing that. I have to say it was harder than I thought.

Anaheim Ducks: Sublime. They are from California and pretty much exclusively for dirtbags.

Arizona Coyotes: Oasis. In constant danger of not being a thing any more.

Boston Bruins: The Dropkick Murphys. They’re fundamentally bad but you can’t tell anyone from Boston that.

Buffalo Sabres: Thin Lizzy. You may know them from their Bad Reputation.

Calgary Flames: Nickelback. Really bad, but their fans will swear up and down that they’re awesome and you’re wrong even though you are clearly not wrong.

Carolina Hurricanes: Rage Against the Machine. Really good when they’re good. More often not very good.

Chicago Blackhawks: AC/DC. Really only got super-big after a new guy took over, but then had a whole lot of hits in a short time.

Colorado Avalanche: Coldplay. They’re awful and the guy in charge is insufferable.

Columbus Blue Jackets: Dream Theater. Can’t imagine why literally anyone likes them.

Dallas Stars: Muse. I feel like Jamie Benn is, like, super into Muse. He thinks they’re deep, I bet.

Detroit Red Wings: Paul McCartney. Really good a long time ago, now just churning out mediocrity that everyone gushes over for reasons unknowable.

Edmonton Oilers: Kings of Leon. People swear they were good once and you’ve seen some pretty compelling evidence to that point but looking at what they are now you’re still pretty skeptical.

Florida Panthers: Ratt. Because of the throwing rats? I don’t know. This was a hard one.

Los Angeles Kings: Red Hot Chili Peppers. From California and it’s kind of embarrassing if you like them.

Minnesota Wild: The Replacements. Because the Stars left the Twin Cities and they came back, I guess?

Montreal Canadiens: The Beatles. People still talk about things that were legitimately great in the ’60s and ’70s like they’re still important today. And if a young person is like, “Yeah but I’m not 100 years old so what do I care?” people yell at them.

Nashville Predators: Diarrhea Planet. because they are from Nashville and they rule.

New Jersey Devils: Bruce Springsteen. Obviously.

New York Islanders: Billy Joel. Also obviously.

New York Rangers: Ace of Base. Their No. 1 hit was in 1994, and you’ve heard it just about enough for one lifetime.

Ottawa Senators: The Police. One super-talented guy ruined by a whole lot of garbage.

Philadelphia Flyers: Guns ‘n’ Roses. I never got why people liked them or thought they were good.

Pittsburgh Penguins: Queen. The ultimate singles band, and when the main guy goes you might as well fold up the tents.

San Jose Sharks: Creedence Clearwater Revival. Not a single No. 1 hit but man, there’s a lot to like in the catalog.

St. Louis Blues: Black Sabbath. Really heavy, really overrated.

Tampa Bay Lightning: Blue Öyster Cult. One big hit, not a lot going on since.

Toronto Maple Leafs: Bon Jovi. They retired the guy’s number and also the band is very bad.

Vancouver Canucks: Pink Floyd. You’re better off not getting involved.

Washington Capitals: Eagles. You won’t believe how spectacularly things fall apart.

Winnipeg Jets: The Beach Boys. They really shouldn’t have come back.

Thank you.

Thank you for reading and supporting 826 Boston. Don’t forget to donate!

The Sabres are moving in the right direction

Untitled(This post is part of a fundraiser for 826 Boston, a non-profit tutoring and writing center that provides free help to kids at underserved schools. For a donation of $50 or more, readers can get me to write anything about hockey they want, so donate today to make me say stuff by clicking here. I probably don’t believe the nonsense below, which was requested by Cory Zaranek.)

The first thing you have to say about the Sabres and where they’re headed is that with Jack Eichel and Sam Reinhart alone you’re probably not going to do too badly for yourself. Just as a starting point, that’s a good nucleus around which to build.

But of course the Sabres have long been stockpiling draft picks and prospects and the like in an effort to make sure that the future is brighter than it would have been even when the Ryan Miller-led teams of the mid-to-late 2000s actually had people (i.e. Terry Pegula) thinking a Stanley Cup was a not-at-all-laughable goal.

This is what allowed them to go out and acquire Robin Lehner, Evander Kane, and Ryan O’Reilly (the latter of whom has been very good for the Sabres this year). In all, they’ve had 13 players on the NHL roster for much of the year under the age of 26. And that doesn’t include guys like Hudson Fasching, Linus Ullmark, or Casey Nelson, all of whom are likely to be pretty good. Nor does it include whomever they pick in the first round this year with one of their 11(!) picks. Nor the nine(!) more they have in 2017.

Of course, Tim Murray is a smart GM and has already said that he’s looking to make trades this summer to improve the team’s roster, dealing from a position of strength (organizational depth) to improve one of weakness (NHL depth). The team also has plenty of money to spend and relatively few free agents who need money any time soon, so bringing in a guy on relatively big money — not Steven Stamkos, but something a step below — is an option as well.

With so many players under 26, you can already bank on a bunch of them continuing to improve. You can also say goodbye to David Legwand and Carlo Colaiacovo, both of whom were brought in as veteran space-fillers and will be replaced by kids who are equal to or better than them. One imagines that Buffalo might have been one of the clubs to target Nail Yakupov via trade, who’s always played well with good players but more often been shuttled off to the third and fourth lines in Edmonton.

But the thing is, Murray could do nothing and with a healthy-all-year Lehner (who has been excellent when fit) still reasonably expect to be more competitive. This is, at long last, a well-run organization that values the right things and makes almost exclusively good decisions and you can trust in the fact that they’re going to add quality to this roster to supplement the growth of their young players. This is not and never will be an Edmonton Oilers situation. Everyone is just too smart for that.

Are they a playoff team next year? Tough to say, but it would seem difficult for them to finish with fewer than 85 points if they got a year’s worth of solid goaltending and added just a little more talent.

Thank you for reading and supporting 826 Boston. Don’t forget to donate!

Why you should always share bad hockey columns

Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 3.16.18 PM(This post is part of a fundraiser for 826 Boston, a non-profit tutoring and writing center that provides free help to kids at underserved schools. For a donation of $50 or more, readers can get me to write anything about hockey they want, so donate today to make me say stuff by clicking here. I probably don’t believe the nonsense below, which was requested by Gus Booth.)

One of the things you often hear about in the NHL these days, at least if you hang out on Twitter a lot (big mistake, bucko!), is that there are a lot of bad, lazy reporters out there covering the sport and holding rather lucrative jobs with a lot of influence.

This much is indisputably true. The vast majority of these guys are probably in their mid 50s to early 60s and have been covering the sport since before there was an internet to tell them how wrong they are about it (usually very). Often, these reporters have their writing passed around online and people get mad about it. They say, “Look at what this idiot wrote! He is provably wrong here!” and then sometimes they even write their own things proving that the provably wrong thing was indeed wrong.

But there is a subset of Hockey Twitter which holds the ideal that sharing such Bad Content is actually beneficial to the Bad Content Creator. Because all it does is drive pageviews and ratings or whatever, and makes them look better and more popular.

This view is dumb for a number of reasons:

  1. The world of Hockey Twitter Getting Mad is pretty small.
    I have a decent number of followers on Twitter and when I share bad columns, I have the option to look at how many people clicked through. It’s rarely more than 100. The amount this sharing actually moves anyone’s needle is minimal.
  2. Bad reporting should be called out whenever possible.
    These guys have big voices, and even if you’re sitting there like, “Dah jeez, I hope no one else looks at this,” guess what buddy: Plenty of people at it anyway!
  3. Sometimes calling it out leads to good or at least enjoyable outcomes.
    You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need. (I came up with that. Don’t steal it.) And often what you need is not to get all steamed about Another Bad Column by one of the same four or five Bad Content Creators, but rather to laugh at it.

I’ll give you two good examples from one columnist who is wrong a pretty healthy percentage of the time: Steve Simmons. Remember the time Tyler Dellow went on the radio in Toronto and humiliated him and Simmons got so mad he started yelling? If not, here it is:

Remember the time Pension Plan Puppets did the legwork and figured out Simmons lied about the Phil Kessel hot dogs rumor and Keith Olbermann made fun of him on national TV? If not, here it is:

See? That’s just one bad columnist and it’s two hilarious moments because someone read the columns and shared the columns. These are ideal outcomes, of course. Most of the time you can view it as a particularly poignant reminder that baby boomers are literally the exact reason why print media is dying. It’s only very rarely that the slop these guys write gets debunked and ridiculed so hilariously.

But just like you don’t golf hoping to drop a fairway shot within three inches of the pin, when it happens, it brings you so much joy that you’ll keep booking tee times for the rest of the summer.

Thank you for reading and supporting 826 Boston. Don’t forget to donate!

Wow Brad Marchand is good it turns out?

Untitled(This post is part of a fundraiser for 826 Boston, a non-profit tutoring and writing center that provides free help to kids at underserved schools. For a donation of $50 or more, readers can get me to write anything about hockey they want, so donate today to make me say stuff by clicking here. I probably don’t believe the nonsense below, which was requested by Asmae.)

Not being one to get into saying, “I told you so,” (lol) but boy it turns out that Brad Marchand is having another whopper of a season and he’s really good and I’ve been saying it for years.

The thing with saying, “Brad Marchand is good,” though, is that you can point to any number of stats you want to validate it, but he just has a large number of people who don’t like him and any time you praise him, they fall back to their one dumb defense that will always kinda-work:

“But only because he plays with Bergeron!”

Let’s get that out of the way right now, then: Patrice Bergeron is one of the best players alive. I long ago stopped trying to rank which centers were the best in the league in my head, but suffice it to say that Bergeron is one of the five best alive. Don’t think there’d be too many people to put up an argument on that front.

But the thing that arises when evaluating the wingers of elite centers is that most elite centers see their wingers change on a regular basis. For example, Sidney Crosby has played at least 100 minutes with Phil Kessel, Chris Kunitz, Patric Hornqvist, Pascal Dupuis, and David Perron this season. Kunitz is his most regular running buddy (poor Sid!) but most other guys bounce off and on his line on a regular basis. You can do this for almost any elite center: Jonathan Toews has played the vast majority of his time in recent years with Marian Hossa, but also Patrick Kane, Artemi Panari, Andew Shaw, Tuevo Teravainen, Andrew Ladd, and even Ryan Garbutt. In all kinds of configurations.

One guy you can’t do that with is Bergeron. He’s had just 187 minutes at 5-on-5 all year without Brad Marchand (pretty much all of them because Marchand was either suspended or injured), and more than 764.5 with him. Their results are through the roof: An expected goals-for share of 55.4 percent, and the Bruins carry less than 46.1 percent when they’re off the ice. Together, they have a corsi-for of 55.4 percent as well, and the Bruins are likewise a mile below that number when they go for a rest.

So much of that has to do with Marchand’s skill it’s not funny, but those who decided four or five years ago he was trash and haven’t paid any attention to the Bruins since then aren’t going to be convinced by WOWYs alone.

Here, then is the really crazy number: This season, when Brad Marchand has been away from Bergeron and some stranger has been on his wing, Bergeron has looked… ordinary.

Bergeron without Marchand (187 minutes at 5v5)
CF%: 51.0
SF%: 49.2
GF%: 40.0
xGF%: 48.1
RelCF%: +1.64
RelSF%: -1.31
RelGF%: -12.23
RelxGF%: -0.3

Yo it’s almost like…………. Brad Marchand is good? I dunno folks, that’s just how it looks to me, your nice friend. He’s at 34 goals and 54 points in 68 games this season. How anyone still looks at that and thinks “passenger” is so far beyond me that I’d have to become a Ranger fan to understand it (haha).

At this point he’s arguably the second-best player on the Bruins (behind only Bergeron) and no lower than fourth (if you want to be really generous and include both Loui Eriksson and Tuukka Rask). I said I didn’t really rank centers any more, but I also can’t name four left wings better than Marchand. In no particular order: Jamie Benn, Taylor Hall, Alex Ovechkin, and ___________? Can’t come up with one.

This was the case before he pushed 40 goals for the season, of course, but that certainly doesn’t hurt the candidacy.

To me, Brad Marchand will always be a champian.

Thank you for reading and supporting 826 Boston. Don’t forget to donate!