Two for Elbowing

More thoughts on Ron Wilson and the next Sharks coach..

I've been thinking and talking offline more about the Sharks and Wilson, how we got here, where we go, more or less following up on my previous musings on the topics.

Ultimately, Ron Wilson wasn't fired because he failed. He didn't; just look at his numbers with the Sharks, and this season. 2nd best record, Division championship, 5th team left standing, and game 6 in the second round of the playoffs. Oh, and basically running the table the last quarter of the season....

The problem ("see, THERE's your problem!") is that this simply isn't good enough, given this team's talent. There have those of us who've felt -- and I believe Doug Wilson would agree -- that this team underperformed, both on an individual basis and as a team.

So if I'm Doug Wilson, I would need to sit down with Ron Wilson and have a very uncomfortable (but short) conversation, that goes something like this:

Given that this team didn't play to its full potential (It was damn good. It should have been even better), what can you do as a coach to help these players reach this potential that you haven't already done?

And given you've had five years as coach, if you haven't done it yet, why not?

In other words, Ron Wilson's damned no matter what. By this time, he's taken this team as far as he can take it, and everything he does from here on are variations on a known theme. Given the Wilsons likely had this discussion after LAST season -- and yes, the team and Wilson both improved, just not enough -- it's hard to see Doug Wilson saying "hey, let's go one more year and see what happens".

That's why Ron Wilson's unemployed today. Not that he did a bad job by any means, but he did the best possible job he could with this team -- and it wasn't good enough.

And honestly? That seems to be how to define Ron Wilson's career: he can turn players into a really good team, but can't quite get them over the hump. Anyone need to build a franchise? He's your guy (and Atlanta ought to be talking to him already; that may be the best fit for him now. Or maybe Florida).

Now, I don't envy the next coach. He comes in with even higher expectations, if that's possible. He has to be: (a) as good a coach as Wilson, (b) a better motivator than Wilson, (c) personable, and (d) even better able to work with and get these players to buy into his system. that's a bit set of shoes to fill.

It's not as simple as replacing Wilson with a hard-ass coach (no Pat Quinn or Mike Keenan) or a "player's coach", although I get the impression that Doug Wilson thinks that the players need someone who'll give this team more of an edge, so he seems to be leaning towards hard-ass.

The Sharks need a coach that can instill a "no prisoners" mentality into the team; a good start there is a coach who's a former player with that kind of mentality. That drives my thinking on the next coach as much as anything, and it changes my list somewhat.

It makes me now think that NHL playing experience is key, and so is NHL coaching experience. That means, at least to me, that Roy Sommer isn't a good candidate, and makes me lower Mike Sullivan further down my list.

But let me digress a bit -- Two things about the Sharks organization I like is that they care about their alumni, and that they are loyal to those that are loyal to the organization. Roy Sommer has been coaching at the AHL level for the Sharks for years, and many of the Sharks prospects succeeded at the NHL level. At some point, I believe he should get a shot at the NHL (assuming, of course, he wants one) -- and maybe it's time to bring him to the San Jose organization as an assistant under the new coach, perhaps the eye in the sky guy.

And I'd love to see Rob Zettler and Tim Hunter stay with the organization. Will they stay assistant coaches under the next regime? Unlikely, but wouldn't it be appropriate for them to take their next step forward with the team as well? I'd love to see the chance for them to go and take the helm at Worcester and get experience as a coach; I'd tend to think Hunter as the bench boss, but both of them deserve a chance to move forward and stay with the organization.

And having said that, back to the coach...

So after a couple of days reflection, what's my short list?

Pat Burns - may be an old-school coach, but also seems to understand the newer generation players. Has a good Joe Thornton connection, and Thornton has gone to him when he's had questions in the past. That seems like a good recommendation, and he has a solid resume, and wants to get back in the game. I wouldn't mind seeing it happen in San Jose.

John Anderson - coach of the Chicago Wolves, in reality the best coach who hasn't gone to the NHL. His IHL/AHL winning percentage? Right around .700, coaching a team taht in many cases had no affiliation, or one with a weaker team. If Bruce Boudreau is an example of the trend to moving from re-hiring the same set of coaches, then John Anderson is probably the next one to be brought up from the minors. And his teams win.

Joel Quenneville - I like what he did in Colorado, and I think his attitudes are compatible with the team and what the Sharks want to have happen. And he's a lot like Wilson, so I dn't see a need to tweak the team or the system heavily to fit into his visions.

Tony Granato - Speaking of Colorado, Granato is exactly the kind of player the Sharks need to have more of, and the kind of person that players can look up to and learn from. He's someone I"d like to see have a good senior assistant staff with, but I think Granato could do some interesting things in San Jose. And he's an alum. And a heck of a nice guy. And his sister's cute. Wait, that's not a reason to hire him... forget I said that.

How about Dale Hunter? Not an Alum, but... again, exactly the kind of player we need the sharks players to be more like. Currently an owner, president and head coach of the OHL's London Knights. He doesn't have the NHL coaching experience yet, but again, with the proper support structure, that wouldn't worry me so much. I know it wouldn't worry him...

So right now, those are my five favorites. Fortunately for Sharks fans, I don't get a vote. It'll be interesting to see what Doug Wilson does, though.

Coaches NOT on my candidate list:

Barry Melrose: there's a reason why he's worked for ESPN all these years. And a reason why he'll continue. Anyone who seriously floats him as a coaching candidate for any job should be someone you stop taking seriously.

Drew Remenda: they'll rehire Kevin Constantine first. Mostly because Remenda knows he's a much better TV guy than a coach. And he wasn't a bad coach, FWIW.

One local pundit suggested Mike Ricci, and even seemed serious about it. My only thought: that's a good reason to stop reading this person's writings about hockey. Ricci is many things, msot of the positive for the organization, but at least Jamie Baker has experience coaching his daughter's rep team. Might as well make Joe Thornton player/coach. Heck, that'd probably work better. And that's no rip against Mike Ricci -- but Ricci isn't qualified to be an NHL coach yet and won't be for many years, if ever. And no, I"m not linking to him. Don't want to either embarass him or make it easier for you to find him...

here's one for Penguins fans...

And only $20...

(T-shirt available from Mule Design)

Sharkspage on Ron Wilson

Great coverage of the Wilson firing on Sharkspage. Go read it.

Sharkspage - San Jose Sharks, Hockey, NHL sports blog:

Sharks EVP and General Manager Doug Wilson announced late this afternoon that Ron Wilson was fired after four and a half years behind the bench in San Jose. Ron Wilson was hired as the sixth San Jose Sharks head coach on December 4th 2002, recording a 206-134-45 record, .535 winning percentage, and two Pacific Division Championships (2004, 2008) in 385 regular season games.

Who's the next Sharks coach?

The media is pulling out all of the old names: Quinn, Burns, Hartley. Amusing, but... that's why they're media, and the media guys doing that are guys you should stop paying attention to. They're pulling it out of their butt, and not worth the time you waste reading them.

Who's going to be the next Sharks coach? I certainly don't have the answer, but I can think of a few names that I expect the Sharks to think about.

One is Roy Sommers, who's been cultivating the kids and doing the loyal person thing down in Worcester (and K.C., and Kentucky, and...). At some point, someone's going to notice him and give him a shot in the NHL, or the Sharks are going to move him up to the parent club. He's good, especially with younger players, and a lot of the current sharks were taught by him and coached by him during development. Which sounds a lot like the story of Bruce Boudreau, no?

Joel Quenneville intrigues me. He did some good things in Colorado, can deal with younger players, and has success. His system would work well in San Jose.

But two names that the big name folks aren't as likely to think of, and both have Sharks connections:

Tony Granato, former Shark, former Av coach and Av assistant coach.

Mike Sullivan, former Bruins coach, and former Shark.

Both have history with Doug Wilson, both have good coaching credentials, both have history with the Sharks (which is important to the Sharks, alumni credit goes a long way here) and with Doug Wilson, and both are really class individuals who handle people well.

And frankly? Colorado could do a lot worse than hire Ron Wilson.... especially if they hire Melrose, or Quinn, or Hartley, or...

The day of re-hiring retread old-school coaches is going away folks. Except for old-school media types (and franchises like the Leafs, who will hire a "big name" and then wonder why they continue to suck....). The hockey player of today is a different kind of player, and it's time for the newer, up and coming coaches who understand that to come and coach. Not just bring back the same old names that have been fired 20 times before for the same old reasons...

Don't believe me? Look at Calgary and Keenan. Brought in to "take taht team to the next level". the "next level" was the same number of regular season points, and the same first round exit. Way to go, Mike. Nice improvement. Only now, the players up there are unhappy,b ecause Mike's not exactly a "people" guy, especially around goaltenders. Fortunately, the Flames goaltender isn't anything special, so it doesn't matter if he's unhappy, right?

right.

The ONLY "old school" coach I'd consider hiring for any position in the NHL is Pat Burns. The day for guys like Quinn and Hartley and Keenan is past. Smart franchises understand that... Adn the Sharks are a smart franchise.

Sharkspage - San Jose Sharks, Hockey, NHL sports blog

Sharkspage - San Jose Sharks, Hockey, NHL sports blog:

In that regard, the Sharks will look for a different approach. A head coach that can best take advantage of the size, speed, and chemistry contained on one of the most talented lineups in the NHL. A head coach who can maintain the up-tempo, entertaining style of play, and one who can translate that style into an intense playoff environment.

That coach... Barry Melrose.

Oh, good lord no. We'd be better off with Pat Quinn (and before anyone asks: Pat Quinn: Oh, good lord, no. Why? He's lousy with younger players. I don't want to see any "old school" coach, I want one that knows how to deal with the modern, younger hockey player).

Not only doesn't Melrose qualify on those levels, he hasn't coached at any level for how long? And I never really was impressed with his coaching in the first place.

thank god Keenan is under contract, or people would be suggesting he be the next coach...

Now, is this the time when the Sharks reward Roy Sommer for his work down in Worcester? I think we could do a lot worse than Quenville, and he's suddenly available...

Doug Wilson to Toronto? (nope) and the injuries the Sharks didn't talk about...

Doug Wilson to Toronto? Uh, not happening - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:

Not my fault, though. There were reports out of Toronto today that the Maple Leafs sought — and were denied — permission to talk to Doug Wilson about their vacancy in the general manager’s office.

and the farce in toronto continues. "hey, we like your GM, and we'd like him. can we have him? What? No? hey, we're the leafs!"

have the Leafs actually considered talking to someone NOT under contract? Of course, it's nice to know Doug wilson's well known enough to be considered for this "esteeemed" position. Why any sane and competent person would want a job with that group? I dunno...

Oh, and FWIW, there's a survey being done in toronto about their next coach, and for those who think Ron wilson ought to be fired, he's high on the list of candidates among the fans up there, along with Pat Quinn and Pat Burns...

As for the injury list — which I know some of you have already found on the Sharks own web site — I’ll just say here that it goes a long way toward explaining a few things, like Mike Grier’s sub-par performance compared to a year ago when he was a monster out there. But Doug Wilson wanted to establish a “no excuse” policy so I won’t go too far down that road now.

Here’s the list we were given:

TO UNDERGO SURGERY:
Devin Setoguchi: Left shoulder, sports hernia.
Mike Grier: Right knee.
Patrick Rissmiller: Sports hernia.
Kyle McLaren: Knee, plus recovery from groin injury.

SCHEDULED FOR MRI:
Brian Campbell: Knee, shoulder.
Craig Rivet: Wrist, knee, elbow.
Patrick Marleau: Shoulder.
Joe Thornton: Right knee (hurt in final playoff game).
Curtis Brown: Left hand.

OTHER:
Christian Ehrhoff: Ankle sprain.
Milan Michalek: Shoulder injury (hurt in final playoff game).
Douglas Murray: Wrist pain.
Jeremy Roenick: Rib cage.
Jonathan Cheechoo: Knee sprain.

four surgeries, five more MRIs, and five other random injuries, including pretty much all of the "underperformers" in the playoffs.
Amazing how hockey players find a way to play anyway.

Ron Wilson's delusion and when to derail the Cheechoo train - NHL Experts B... - NHL - Yahoo! Sports

Greg at Yahoo comments:

As for the roster, the Sharks are making the case for stability. But Chuq Von Rospach - who has his own evaluation of the Wilson situation here -- believes there needs to be some roster shuffling, and Milan Michalek and, surprisingly, Jonathon Cheechoo are his targets:

I think there needs to be some shuffling on the front lines, and it can't be 3rd/4th line guys. To me, the guys who are sometimes scary-awesome and sometimes missing are Mchalek and Cheechoo. They don't seem to be clicking into the system and chemistry of the team consistently. both should have strong market value, and could bring back a top 6 forward. Of perhaps an upgrade at D, if that's what is wanted. I don't think we need to trade both, but I'd listen for offers for either and take one that makes sense.

Everyone should just be happy Michalek can still eat solid food after that Brenden Morrow hit. As for Cheechoo, he could no doubt bring back something substantial ... as long as opposing general managers don't have access to his postseason stats.

or as long as opposing general managers see the upside Chechoo has, and see their ability to pull it forward in their system. The same exact comment could have been made a year ago about, say, Mike Ribiero in Dallas, no?

And both Michalek and Cheechoo could continue to mature and bloom in San Jose, too. I certainly don't want to see both leave. I'd personally not want to see either leave. But if (as people keep saying, and I don't really disagree) there's a chemistry issue, or a "not clicking" issue among the forwards, then things need to get shuffled; and you don't five a problem with the top six forwards by trading a fourth liner. These are bold and clearly controversial moves -- but if the answer was simple and easy, it'd have been done by now.

I see there are two answers here: leave it alone and expect the team to work itself out, or do something significant to shake it up. Any middle ground is likely to do more harm than good.

A good argument could be made for leaving it alone: the 20 game streak at the end of the season, the key 7th game win against calgary, the comeback against Dallas from 0-3 to the fourth overtime loss in game 6. Those are significant proof points that this team isn't broken.

Yet -- if the goal is to win the stanley cup, I'm just not convinced leaving it alone is enough to get there, not because this isn't a hell of a team, but because it's been shown there are a number of other teams in the league that are also hell of a team (Dallas, Detroit, don't count out Anaheim next year -- just in the west). They aren't going to make it any easier in future years, so if you really want to step past them, you aren't going to do it with baby steps.

Ron Wilson May Need Some Lessons on Motivation in the Workplace - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog

Ron Wilson May Need Some Lessons on Motivation in the Workplace - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog:

Between periods in one game, he wrote the names of Matt Carle, Marc-Edouard Vlasic and Milan Michalek on the board in the dressing room.

Jabbing at the board for emphasis, he said, "These are the guys that are letting us down."

Yup. Somehow I don't think I needed to take all those Management classes in college to learn that probably would not go over well.

Of course, it wasn't intended to. It was supposed to piss them off. And they from watching them play deserved it.

Why do I keep getting the feeling that people writing about sports never played it at a serious competitive level? I maxed out in high school, but god. Locker rooms aren't exactly kindergarten, and coaches aren't your nanny. I've seen a lot worse, and GOOD players don't crawl into a hole and whine, they raise their level of play in response. Even if it's an "I'll show him" reaction -- that's what he wanted, folks.

Picking up pieces and an update on Michalek - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -

Picking up pieces and an update on Michalek - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:

No need to remind this group that the GM will have to make some important decisions sometime during the next few weeks. You’ve already touched on several things that are likely to be on the table, so I’m not going into any of that at this point.

Here, however, is a list of which players are free agents as of July 1, both unrestricted and restricted. They are:

UNRESTRICTED — Curtis Brown, Brian Campbell, Sandis Ozolinsh, Dmitri Patzold, Tomas Plihal, Patrick Rissmiller, Jeremy Roenick, Alexei Semenov.

RESTRICTED: Ryane Clowe, Christian Ehrhoff, Marcel Goc, Joe Pavelski.

I think you add Boucher to the list of unrestricted.

the Sharks are a damn good team, but it's clear changes need to be made for the team to get better.

Here are my thoughts:

Goal:

I'd like to see Nabokov backed off to 60-65 games next year (his going to the world championships notwithstanding). Rest him a bit more, keep him a bit fresher.

If that means bringing back Boucher, or someone else, so be it. If Greiss or Patzold is ready for some serious NHL time, great. but let's ride Nabby a bit less next season.

Forwards:

Some tough calls to be made.

Core group (do not touch under penalty of death):

Thornton
Marleau
Pavelski
Mitchell
Grier
Clowe
Setoguchi

Not coming back:

Curtis Brown (Sorry, Brownie, but I think it's time).

Players I expect back, but which aren't "no trade under any cirucmstance" types (as part of the right deal? sure):

Tomas Plihal
Patrick Rissmiller
Jody Shelley
Marcel Goc

I want to see come back:

Jeremy Roenick

Players I'd consider trading:

Milan Michalek
Jonathon Cheechoo

I think there needs to be some shuffling on the front lines, and it can't be 3rd/4th line guys. To me, the guys hwho are sometimes scary-awesome and sometimes missing are Mchalek and Cheechoo. They don't seem to be clicking into the system and chemistry of the team consistently. both should have strong market value, and could bring back a top 6 forward. Of perhaps an upgrade at D, if that's what is wanted. I don't think we need to trade both, but I'd listen for offers for either and take one that makes sense.

Not JUST to shake up the top six chemistry a bit (and I think it needs it), but so that there's a quiet message to the locker room that if they don't find a way to win, they could be next. Even if you're a top player and fan favorite. Soemtimes, it's about sending a message.

For someone who felt Marleau should be dealt at the trade deadline, I'm convinced. he's not leaving, not as long as I'm GM. he might become another Steve Yzerman (and if he does, Ron Wilson's tough love, that some want his ass fired for, is a good part of the reason why. it was touch adn go for a while, but I think he guessed right in the way he handled Marleau).

I'd hate to see either go. But I think one of them needs to.

A top six of thornton-clowe-cheechoo and marleau-pavelski-setoguchi? that's not exactly terrible...

Defense:

Core group (do not touch under penalty of death):

Douglas Murray (what an improvement this year!)

Matt Carle (struggled at times, but seems to be growing into it; I'd hate to give up too soon)

M-E Vlasic (wow; at his age?)

Craig Rivet

I'd like to see back:

Brian Campbell (but not for Phaneuf money; if someone wants to pay him that, be my guest. he's missing that "punk brat" aspect to his game, which keeps him a rung below Phaneuf on the ladder. But $25m over 5 years? sure. Just not $30 over 5.

hint: I expect Campbell to stay. He seems happy. He likes playing 30 minutes a game. Why screw it up?

Not coming back:

Sandis Ozolinsh: thanks, Sandis. for everything.

Alexei Semenov: ditto. Neither of these are NHL caliber in today's NHL.

Kyle McLaren: love his guts and drive, but his knees are problematic. I think it's time to consider an upgrade.

going into the season, the D core was one of the question marks. Bringing on Semenov and Ozolinsh indicated to me the Sharks were worried about depth, too. And to soem degree, that's where the Sharks fell short this year, despite bringing on Campbell. So we need to continue upgrading this part of the team. but when I talk about replacing McLaren, it's not with a kid for worcester or a role player, it's a top-4 defenseman. This is not about bringing up kids and growing them into roles, it's about finishing a team almost over the hump.

So going into next year, I'm suggesting one key deal (Cheechoo or Michalek for a defensive upgrade, or a top-4 forward). Only two positions don't have likely candidates named, one on D (we only have five that make "my" team) and the backup goalie, assuming the right people come back. And black aces but I'm not worried about that.

On D, the kind of player I'd think of targetting is a Mike Commodore or a J-Michael Liles. Maybe someone like Ron Hainsey, or a Steve Montador. all in their mid 20's, all solid players with upside in the right players.

One thing I can guarantee: Doug Wilson will do something completely different than this, and when he does, I'll go "wow, I never would have thought of that" and like it. Whcih is why he's GM, and I'm a blogger...

Conference Finals projections

6-2 in the first round, with both cup picks live. Not bad.

Second round? well... Not so.

Montreal (my east pick) lost to Philly. I knew depending on Price was a risk, but so did Montreal. On a long term basis, it's probably good for the Habs, in that Price now knows what it'll take. but still Montreal's golfing.

chose the pens, won the series. But I still thought it would be tougher than it was.

And I chose Colorado? what was I thinking? I was thinking that half the Avs wouldn't go down to injury and that Theodore wouldn't get the flu. Even so, Detroit was much stronger than I figured they'd be, too. (FWIW, I have no problem with Quenville sticking with Theodore. I have huge problems with him sticking with him for four goals, when it was clear in each of the first couple of games that he was "not right" by the 2nd. Faster hooks might have made a difference early. Nothing made a difference later.

And Sharks/Dallas? Dallas deserves to move forward. Good luck to them.

1-3. Ouch. but still 7-5 for the playoffs. I still have time to screw that up.

And so I will.

In the west: I love how Dallas is playing, so I'm going to ride them. Detroit iss also playing well, but Morrow and Turco are playing insanely well. Hate to bet against them. Better yet, f they win the cup, it'll take some sting out of the Sharks losing, given nobody else did. So Stars, but in 7.

Philly/Pittsburgh: Like Philly. Love Pittsburgh. Pens in 6.

And since any money I won in the first round went right back in the 2nd, I think it's safe to say don't use this as your betting advice, folks.

The "Ron Wilson" question

Should he stay or should he go?

That seems to be one of the big questions circling around the Sharks now. In some areas (Al Strachan, the guys at CBC, and Bill Clement most especially) that question has been on the table for over a year now.

Strachan's been playing this hard for a while now, to the point where I'm wondering if Ron Wilson slept with his dog or something. Fortunately for Ron Wilson, Strachan's track record of accuracy in reporting these things is dreadful. In fact, that he's pushing it so hard makes me think there's no basis for it, because betting against Strachan is a good way to beat the odds.

(while I'm bitchslapping Strachan, let me remind folks to take a look at the sheer number of papers he USED to write for who no longer require his services. He's gone from the major toronto papers to -- foxsports.com. Big step up in the journalistic food chain there, Al)

A good background piece on Wilson comes from the esteemed James Mirtle. If you don't know his history, start here.

As to the future of Ron Wilson? I only have a couple of thoughts:

First thought, and it's a key one -- the Sharks organization just DOES NOT LEAK. There's a strong history there of them keeping their own counsel, and you just don't see much of anything hit the press, especially from management. That, by implication, means that there's no "source of high standing" behind these rumors. to me, as much as anything, it comes across as a few media types creating a story and running with it. I don't believe in the veracity of the "rumors", it's more blind speculation. And with the Sharks, they do what they believe is right, not what the press says they should do.

So I don't put any significant creedence into this whole story, especialy since the primary drum major seems to be Strachan. Of all of the media types, he'd be one of the last ones a Shark might leak to.

Second thought: Personally, as a fan and someone who follows the Sharks closely, is in the arena 35+ games a year and has gotten to know a number of people around the organization, including people with regular access to the locker room, I haven't heard any indications that Wilson is seriously not-liked, that he's "lost" the room, or that there's bad chemistry in the room. In fact, I keep hearing how tight the room is, how much the players socialize and watch out for each other.

Which doesn't mean much of anything -- reading the tea leaves is far from an exact science here, but my sense of the situation is that Wilson isn't on thin ice, at least not from inside the locker room.

Does that mean his job is safe? Hell, no. ONly Doug Wilson and Greg Jamison know that one for sure. What I do know is that if he is let go -- while the pundits may declare victory, it'll be a lucky guess.

Should Wilson be let go? I honestly see no reason for it. This team DID step forward this year, even if they fell short of the conference final by a small amount. I think the criticisms of the team over folding in big games was answered in both rounds, when they could well have and fought back.

that said, I think the team needs some tinkering, but not at the coaching staff level. But that's for a post later.

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if Wilson were let go -- but personally, I don't think that makes the Sharks a better team. you'd have to make sure you have a better coach on retainer first, and there aren't many out there with Wilson's credentials. Since Wilson doesn't seem to have "lost the room", it's hard to see any serious reason to make a change here.

If you're looking for good insight into the Sharks, you won't find it with Strachan, or the CBC guys, or the national media. Or, for that matter, guys like Mark Purdy or Ray Ratto, who've been sounding off recently now that the Sharks are in the playoffs, but are as likely to be experts at being pregnant as they are at sharks and hockey (not playoffs? you won't see them around...). Instead, listen to guys like Mike, and Dave Pollak, and Vic Chi, and Ross McKeon. They've spent their time in the trenches and know the team and its people pretty well -- as opposed to show up and posture come playoffs.

for the final word on Wilson, I'll send you off to Mike Chen, who does a good job of analyzing the situation and giving it some perspective. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I think he's got one of the more reasoned discussions.

My take on Ron Wilson:

Since we’ve got a little lull before the conference finals start, some different media outlets are posting their opinions on Ron Wilson. I tend to agree with the general notion that he’s gotta go, but I think some people might be either overthinking this or perhaps giving credit in the wrong areas.

The LA Kings are... Losing Money?

The LA Kings are... Losing Money? - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog:

That can't be right. Or can it? The Kings have always seemed to have some financial trouble, dating back to before the lockout. That's common knowledge. After that we went through an entire year without hockey for the sole purpose of restoring the financial viability of all the clubs. There were, and are, no guarantees that the clubs are all in the green, but from everything we have been told over the last three years they are doing much better than prior to the lockout. But wait ... The Los Angeles Daily News reported today that the Kings are losing more money now than they were prior to the lockout. Those emboldened words are key here.

The whole "the lockout was supposed to make all of the teams profitable" thing is a strawman. That's not what anyone ever claimed, what it did (and continues to do) is keep salary levels in line with league revenues, so teams have a CHANCE to be competitive, and competitive teams with good management and marketing have a chance to make money.

So what's going on in LA?

well, look at the record and the market. In 2006 the team was 12th in the league in attendance, in 2008, 21st, down 1,200 tickets a game. that's about a 50,000 seat drop in season attendance, which is a couple of million in lost revenue.

At the same time, Anaheim went from 24th to 15th, up 2,000 tickets a game. Since the lockout, LA's struggled, and in the last couple of years, have really fallen into the lower echelons -- while the Ducks merely won a Stanley Cup.

No suprise here: when you have two teams in a market, there's a swing audience that's going to follow (and buy tickets and trinkets) of whichever team does better. And on top of that, where success goes, sponsorships and other non-ticket revenues follow.

No CBA is going to save a team from attendance and revenue falloffs for being a lottery team, especially a lottery team that's competing with a Cup winner, double-especially one that looks to have a ways to go to be a playoff team again.

So why are they losing more money now than before the lockout? Because the Ducks are a better team, and they're a worse team.

It's really that simple.

when the Kings get better, so will their bottom line.

The CBA was designed to protect teams from financial issues outside of their control. No CBA can (or should) set things up to protect a team from it's own mistakes...

Sharks live to play another game.

And now we go to game 6.

Well, if it happens, losing in six is a lot less embarassing than losing in four; I'm sure there's a contingent that'll focus on the problems, because that's what they do, and ignor ethe positives, because it's a lot more fun to whine (for them).

We had a pair of those behind us for game 5, and oh, man. It ogt painful after a while, made me miss old Rat-basher's falsetto. They actually were there to celebrate the Sharks loss, as far as we could tell: not pro-Dallas, but anti-San jose. As the Sharks gave up 2 in the 2nd and went down 2-0, boy, did the invective (and fracks) fly. and more amusingly, as the Sharks rallied and came back, they got even more pissed. They reminded me mostly of those weird Nascar nuts that go to the races hoping for nasty crashes.

Even funkier, as soon as Pavelski scored the OT winner, we got one last round of cussing, and they stood up and literally ran for the exits. The entire arena exploded in noise and cheering, and they were pissed, and leaving like they were afraid someone might hit them. Well, a good chunk of the section around them was probably considering it, actually.

Their primary whipping boy, Christian "Errorhoff", who, from their comments, played such a rotten game that on at least ten shifts they declared that it was his last shift of the game and Wilson was going to bench him. (hint: Errhoff played 18 minutes and was on the ice for the last minute of the 3rd period...)

God, if I ever start sounding like that, someone shoot me.

Speaking of whining, there's always Daryl Reaugh:

Dallas Stars Blog:: KICKED IN THE CASH AND PRIZES?!:

To me this is known as kinetic motion - not kicking motion.

I mean my god, I guess according to the league's definition we all make one kicking motion after another as mere pedestrians.

Maybe its time for the NHL to add intent to the definition -- as in, "He intended to kick the puck." And then rely on their intelligent arbiters and video reviewers to differentiate. I agree, that's a stretch.

But truth be told, that call didn't sink the Stars in Game 5. Egregious defensive zone errors coupled with sniper -accurate capitalization cost the Stars Game 5. Errors that better be cleaned up prior to Game 6 or else we'll be prepping for a Game 7.

who is an announcer I really like listening to, but man...

fortunately, on the other side, there's Jamie Baker. Maybe Daryl ought to read Jamie's blog, so he can figure out what's going on here...

San Jose Sharks -> Morrow's Disallowed Goals:

Brendan Morrow and everyone affiliated with or cheering for the Dallas Stars is going to say they got robbed of a goal tonight on Morrow's first disallowed goal. I am going to give a technical analysis of why the goal was disallowed and why it was the correct call. But first lets clear up a few other things.

I love hearing all of the whining out of Dallas. Morrow's quotes show a level of anger and frustration that only benefits the sharks. If he's pissed at the reffing, he's not focussing on winning the game. I'll take that, Brendan.

So, what did I see in game 5?

It's my belief that the big difference between the Sharks and the Stars in this series is the Calgary Flames. The Stars got a few days rest; the Sharks played their butt off to beat the Flames and immediately turned around and started a series with the Stars.

Sunday will be the Sharks 13th game in the playoffs, in only 25 days. The Stars got one extra day off between series. Physiology kicks in here: it takes time to flush the lactic acid from the legs and restock the glyocgen. When you're pushing your body as hard as these teams are, an extra day of rest is huge.

And that's what I saw in the first couple of games: Sharks fading in the third, a sign of exhaustion and dead legs. the Stars simply had a little more in the tank, enough to turn the tide. And in game 4 and 5? You start seeing the tired legs evening out. In game 5, in fact, the Stars showed that third period fade; any advantage they had in the start of the series is gone -- and without that advantage, now things have turned back towards the Sharks a bit.

the Sharks in game 5 played a canny, possession-centric game. the Stars made a big push in the 2nd, but even so, the sharks hit a post and came close a number of times. Two goals got called back (I appreciate Jamie's analysis of the callback; I tend to agree with Reaugh about the rule -- but I go in the opposite direction, and I'd make any puck that hits the skate or boot a non-goal and take the intent or motion analysis out of the game. That game could well have been 4-0 stars, but it could also have been 2-1 sharks after 2 just as easily.

And in the third, you saw the Stars fade, their legs show that tired look. Tongues hanging a bit, shifts get shorter. they're hitting that glycogen wall, too, and the Sharks seemed able to dig deeper late and rally back.

The series is THAT close. Every game turns on two or three key plays. In the first three, those plays went to the Stars. In the last two, the Sharks. Now, the Stars have gone from "we just need to close out this series" to "if we don't win game 6, it's back to San Jose for a crapshoot". and suddenly, they've lost two in a row, and have "bad reffing" in their heads. These are not good things for a team trying to close out a series.

Having said that -- odds still favor the Stars, and will for the rest of the series. San Jose is definitely back in it; but you can't consider them a favorite. Or even money, even.

But heck, at this point, I think they answered the critics. Not that the critics will listen.... they're too busy looking for reasons to criticize. It's what they do.

The folks looking to rip the Sharks or fire wilson or blame Errorhoff and Marleau won't want to admit it, but this is a coin-flip series. Every game has basically been a coin-flip. and it doesn't matter if the Sharks went out in game 4 or game 7, it was still a bunch of coin flips. And yes, you can lose 4 straight coinflips and not have it your fault...

Onward to Dallas, where I expect Dallas to have some ghosts hanging around. It's going to come down to how well they handle the ghosts. I think we know what San Jose is going to bring, nad it's going to be whether Dallas can rise above that or not. One could say that's all about character and a coin flip...

sharks win game 4

Sharks win game 4. If nothing else, they save some face and pride -- not a small thing, actually.

But more important, that allows them to play game 5. They still have a huge hill to climb (33 years since the last 0-3 turnaround), but it's a start, and they showed guts and pride tonight when they could have packed it in. If they do that again in game 5, then suddenly Dallas has to start worrying.

After all, ultimately, while the Sharks still need to win 3 more -- Dallas still has to win one. All the Sharks have to do is prevent that. Not likely, but it's more likely now than it was this afternoon. The odds have shifted in the Sharks favor, and Dallas can't like that.

(neither could Dallas STOP it, and they sure tried. that was one hell of a hockey game. again)

another quick thought on the sharks being down 0-3

Having this discussion with a buddy, and a bit more perspective on this:

If Pavelski doesn't blow a tire in game 2, is this an entirely different series? If the called-back goal last night early wasn't blown dead? we're down 0-3, and it could easily be 3-0 if four or five pieces of "bad karma" turn the other way, or a couple of posts go in.

For all that it looks that the Sharks are done, the entire series turns on maybe four or five plays that didn't go the Sharks way. A post here, a fast whistle, a lost edge. One or two of those go the other direction, this series is tied, or even Sharks up.

It's not "sharks bad" here, but "dallas good". There are two teams on the ice, and right now, Dallas is getting the breaks AND taking advantage of them. Good to them. And the Sharks aren't playing badly, they're being beaten by Dallas, currently playing better.

It's kinda hard for me to get into the witchhunt that's going to happen (starting with the canadian media that's been hunting Ron Wilson and Patty Marleau all year beating the drums) when the real difference between the Sharks going to the final and the Sharks going to the tee seems to be a couple of posts, a fast whistle, a couple of penalty calls that maybe don't go our way and Pavelski going down and giving the Stars a gift in game 2.

I know it's not a popular opinion with some of the other fans, but I'm just not that frustrated, but I've always been tagged a suck up apologist... But then to me, there's no dishonor in being beaten by a better team.

Remember, every year 29 teams suck, because they didn't win the cup. Only one does. And this team is damn close to being a top 4 team, and is a top 8 team, even when not necessarily playing its best. The Sharks basically look really tired, Thornton and Grier and Roenick look gassed to me. And what was one of the worries coming out of the Calgary series? That the Flames took enough out of the Sharks that they couldn't get past the next round. Guess what? It happened.

And in case you haven't heard, the word is that Sean Avery went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing after the game last night, and was rushed to the hospital where they found a lacerated spleen.

He'll be okay, but think about this -- if he'd bled out a little slower and gotten to his hotel room before passing out, he'd be dead this morning, and it'd be a much different discussion today. And that puts a different perspective on the importance of this "game", or it should.

Update 1: new information is coming out that the cardiac arrest aspect was sensationalized reporting; Avery reportedly suffered the injury in the first period, played through the game, and was taken to the hospital after by the team doctor, where he walked in. Imagine if a blogger reported things that badly? But since this was the pro press, well, that's different.

In any event, Avery's going to be fine, but the underlying point is still valid: he's lucky this was caught early, that's a serious, potentially deadly injury, and to me, it puts the importance of the games in a different perspective, reminding me (again) just how seriously we ought to be taking this stuff sometimes.

In Dallas, it’s about burying chances — or not

In Dallas, it’s about burying chances — or not - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:

The media and fan base may be having a negative thought or two — as bad as being 0-2 is in a best-of-seven series, we all know that 0-3 is exponentially worse — but if those connected to the team are having anything close to a crisis of confidence, they’re keeping it to themselves.

No, it’s all about burying chances.

Well, we have our answer.

It's "or not".

Barring about three miracles, the Sharks season ends soon, against Dallas. I'll save the serious post-mortem for after the corpse is dead, but the fat lady is in the back room and I hear her warming up.

Funny thing is, I find it hard to work up much angst about this. It's not so much the Sharks are doing badly -- be honest, sharks fans, for once -- two overtime losses and a third game they led going into the third period and lost after a fluke play set up the Stars and caused the Sharks to lose focus.

The Sharks are in good company, with both Colorado and the Rangers also down 3-0 or close to it (colorado is trying to make a game of it ni the third as I type) -- and frankly, the Sharks are losing the best of those three teams.

Yeah, I'm off in "moral victory" land, but honestly, I do'nt see a lot to complain about with the Sharks. Instead, it looks to me like the Stars are playing better, and Turco is just unconscious. In three games and 2 overtimes, the Sharks have, in my books, "won" 6 of nine periods of hockey -- and are 0-3.

tip your hat to the Stars and wish them well moving forward.

thornton just looks out of gas, he had a weak game tonight, nothing left. The young kids (and let's not forget, the Sharks are still REALLY young) are showing some of what happens with kids under pressure: you get nervous, you get careful. And the Stars are taking good advantage of that. Seven forwards and 3 D under or at 25 -- that's half the roster, and I'm not counting black aces -- and no surprise there are a few butterflies on the ice. Nothing particularly wrong there that time won't help, if they're given time and the right environment to mature.

Doesn't mean this team doesn't need changes -- and more than tweaking -- but I said going into the offseason there were five teams that I felt could put a hurt on the Sharks and that the playoffs were going to be tough. And guess what? the playoffs have been tough, and Dallas looks to have succeeded at putting that hurt on us. I wish them luck against Detroit, they'll need it.

Sharks fans are going to haul out the "but this team was created to win this year" and start looking for sacrifices; but the same can be said for Dallas and Detroit, and even more so for Calgary, because with their cap issues, that team won't stay together too much longer. There were half a dozen or more teams "built for this year", and only one can win the Cup. This just isn't San Jose's year. Given every year there are 29 losers and only one ultimate winner, the odds are bad even under the best of circumstances.

OHwell.

I know, I'm being too rational here. Sorry, Sharks fans. We now return you to the "they have to fire Ron Wilson" circus, already in progress on TSN and blogs near year. We'll return to that question once it's officially the off-season.

Second round predictions..

First round done, and frankly, that was some great hockey. Only one four-game series, showing Ottawa to be the only team that really shouldn't have been in the playoffs (and my sympathies to my sens-fan friends, it was sad seeing the entire franchise melt down this season).

six of eight series go six or seven games, and there's been a lot of good, quality hockey. It's so good people looking for things to complain about seem to be falling back on the reffing -- and while the reffing isn't perfect by any means, if that's the worst you can find to complain about in the game, well, shut up and enjoy the ride.. (not that you will)

Game 7 in San Jose was a classic. The Sharks came out and just seemed ready -- something they don't always do. Calgary tried, but the Sharks simply didn't let them get much traction. Even when the Flames went up 2-1, it was my feeling that the Sharks attitude was "no big deal, we'll be there at the end". and they were.

The Sharks are reminding me more and more of the Detroit Red Wings in their "machine" days, when it was obvious they knew they were going to win, almost daring you to beat them. The Sharks seem to be growing into that kind of mentality.

My feeling going into the Calgary series was that if the Sharks survived it and were healthy, it'd be hard for anyone to stop them. Coming out of the series, I feel that way even more. It certainly doesn't get any easier in round 2 -- but it's not going to be harder. And the Sharks have toughened and gotten that confidence going again, so watch out.

Gotta give credit to a few folks: Kirprusoff had an awesome series, despite being pulled twice. the first time, it worked. Last night, it blew up in Keenan's face, with joseph giving up a goal almost immediately and effectively putting the game out of reach. Keenan, of course, put the onus on Kiprusoff in the post-game interviews and not on his decision to put a cold goalie in against a team putting on a big rush. Sometimes the coach's strategy works, sometimes it blows up, but that's the goalie's fault.

(and why did Keenan not show up in the handshake line? A bit classless, Mike. just like throwing Kiprusoff under the bus after the game. way to go, guy).

Also big kudos to Iginla, who worried me that he might beat the sharks singlehandedly, and sure tried. In game 7, everywhere he went, Joe Pavelski was there making sure the pass didn't get through cleanly -- and in the third, I'm not sure Iginla ever really left the ice. I haven't seen formal numbers, but he had at least 12 minutes, I think, playing a forward shift with his line, then double-shifting at D with Phaneuf. Talk about a stud. (oh, and Phaneuf was the third stud. he's a punk and a fairly dirty player, but he's also very good and effective at it).

Finally, congrats to Owen Nolan, probably playing his last game (and also to ex-shark Wayne Primeau, who also made the Sharks moderately miserable in the series). Been fun to watch him all season playing well after most of us thought he was done years ago, and in this series, he was a force and scored a number of key goals.

But the big question in Calgary is how they're going to make that team better; I don't think Keenan is the answer (in today's NHL, can he be?), and that team played its heart out, and it wasn't good enough. Sutter has some tough decisions to make. First one I'd suggest is whether Keenan is who you want behind the bench. Sutter, bluntly, would have been in that handshake line, and that is to me a symptom of the bigger issues that Keenan carries with him; Scotty Bowman was never a "player's coach", but Keenan's act wears out very quickly, and if his job was to take the Flames to the next level and get them deeper into the playoffs, it didn't work. We'll see. I know what my answer is, but then, my answer never involves hiring Keenan in the first place.

Anyway, a couple of days off, and back to the war. So what's the 2nd round look like? And how'd I do in the first?

In the west, I was 3-1; picked san jose, detroit and colorado, missed Anaheim. In the east, I was also 3-1, picking Montreal, Pittsburgh, and the Rangers, missing Philadelphia. Not a bad start.... And both of my cup final picks are still live, even better (montreal/san jose)

So in Round 2

East: Montreal/Philly: I'll take Montreal in 6. I like how they're playing, and I think Price will outplay Biron. but it won't be easy.

Penguins/Rangers: I think this one's a tough one to call, but I'll go Pittsburgh in 7. it can go either way, but I think the Pens will win this one.

West: Detroit/Colorado: in this case, I think the obvious answer is Detroit, but I'm not happy with the goaltending (neither is anyone in Detroit), and the Wings look vulnerable. And Jose Theodore has turned back into a goaltender. So I'll take Colorado in 6.

San jose/Dallas: Nabokov? Or turco? San Jose? or Dallas? the teams have played very even this year, but the Sharks are on a run, and I don't think Turco can play better goal than Kirprusoff did. 2nd round isn't by any means easier for San Jose, but I don't think it's harder. Sharks in 5.

Drop the puck already!

(no, give us a couple of days for our ears to stop ringing...)

update: Mike Keenan skipping the post-series handshake is even more curious given this quote he gave just a few days ago:

To shake, or not to shake

Mike Keenan says never has he snubbed an opponent in a post-series handshake ceremony.

"No, but I've had other people mad at me who didn't to shake my hand," the Flames skipper said with a smile. "Pat Quinn (then coaching the Canucks) didn't shake my hand when we won (the Stanley Cup) in New York. Other than that, everybody else has."

The series-concluding ritual became a hot topic Friday when New Jersey netminder Martin Brodeur wouldn't extend his hand to Rangers tormentor Sean Avery after New York dispatched the Devils.

"I think it's part of the tradition of a hockey series," said Keenan. "It's the way it always has been, I don't know why we would change it."

(found in, among other places, the Ottawa Citizen)

Why the Sharks won game 7...

This will take a bit of explaining.

Over on the big island, Kilauea volcano has been erupting for years. Recently, though, activity has been picking up, and there are some indications it's going to get even more interesting (maybe).

An old friend of ours and fellow Sharks fan was on the research team there in college, and still keeps in contact with the team there.

And we were chatting today, I made a comment about putting out the Flames, that perhaps Pele was mad at the Sharks; goddess of fire, she's in conflict with the sea and its inhabitants.

So somewhere along the way, it was decided that placating Pele was a good idea, and emails were sent, and thus it was found someone at the University of Hilo who both played ice hockey and had a sense of humor, and a bit before the game started tonight, I heard that (well, unofficially, since throwing stuff into the volcano is against the rules) a puck was sent to Pele to encourage her to show favor to the Sharks tonight.

And now you know the rest of the story...

And I think I owe someone a case of beer....

Thornton, Sharks stun Flames in Game 4

Thornton, Sharks stun Flames in Game 4:

Joe Thornton scored the winning goal on a deflection with eight seconds remaining as the San Jose Sharks rallied for a 3-2 victory over the Calgary Flames in Game 4 of their Western Conference quarter-final series on Tuesday night.

You really didn't think it was going to be that easy, did you?

Well, some of you did. And some of you have been alternately tossing yourselves off roofs or hyperventilating into paper bags.

Of course, it's the pundit's job to encourage this kind of over-hyper-analysis -- whether it's blogs, newspapers or CBC, they have time to fill, and so of course they want to fill it with Serious Stuff.

In reality, though, it still takes four games to win or lose a series. And that's really the core of the San Jose/Calgary series: two really good, well-matched up, exceptionally well-coached teams in a seven game chess match. I got a number of emails from people after game 1 freaking, whe in reality, all that really mattered was a split in San Jose. And ditto game 3, when in fact until a team gets a third win or has a two win lead, it's just part of the process.

And now it's best of 3, with two games in San Jose. San Jose had the "first game at home" jitters in game one and while really outplaying the Flames after the first 7 minutes, still lost. The Flames did the same thing in game 3, first time at home in a couple of weeks -- but found a way to get desperate enough to take the game back.

And now, four games later, we've decided nothing. San Jose "should" still win this series -- but "should" and "will" are really different things. It's very evenly matched. And the Sharks proved they could respond to the loss in game 3, and now Calgary has to do the same after having a lead (despite being more or less blown out of the building) late, only to lose with 8 seconds left. Major body and morale blow.

But both of these teams are proving to be master counter-punchers. Game 5 should be fun. Easy? nope. But fun.

Before the series, I said the Flames couldn't beat San Jose, but Iginla and Kiprusoff could. That is really what's going on. The series is tied because of three key factors:

1) Kiprusoff is playing exceptionally well, almost unbeatable.

2) the Flames forecheck is making the Sharks crazy and generating some nasty turnovers, and...

3) the sharks Defense (especially McLaren and Campbell) are struggling under that pressure, and so the sharks are losing pucks in situations that the Flames capitalize on for key goals, and fighting to get offensive pushes going. McLaren just doesn't look healthy to me, and Campbell's aggressiveness is being turned back at him by a well-coached Flames team.

Get away from the partisanship of being a Sharks fan or a Flames fan, and this is one hell of a great series full of great, gutty hockey.

A few other thoughts about the series:

any remaining doubters about Marleau, or about Marleau as captain, or about Marleau as a shark, can shut up now. marleau has emerged as a great captain, just not a noisy one. And for those of you don't believe captains can be quiet, ask Joe Sakic or Steve Yzerman. And no, Patty's not to either of those guy's level yet, but he's taking a huge step forward this series.

People who've been madly cheering Campbell should slow down and realize that a Dman that plays that aggressive is going to get burnt at times -- and right now, he is. As Sandis Ozolinsh in his prime used to prove, a guy like that will generate lots of scoring chances; we just don't know for which team. I'm not criticizing Campbell here -- but the people who want to think you can have a player like that without the negatives his game style comes with. Personally, I'll take my chances with him any time.

I still haven't seen much out of Michalek. I saw more in game 4 than the previous three, but he's still not holding his own. Cheechoo and Thornton really stepped up in game 4, especially late.

And so to game 5. And it's too close to call -- and I like it that way. (for now)

Zebras' work flusters Flames

Zebras' work flusters Flames:

"I'll share those thoughts with the league and with the supervisor of officials," said Keenan, whose side was saddled with six straight minors in a nine-minute span in the second period. "I'm not going to comment on it. I don't have a comment on it . . . I'm biting my tongue here."

Flames captain Jarome Iginla was more outspoken about the penalty disparity -- but not by much.

"I haven't seen that (a string of penalties) in a playoff game. It wasn't even that vicious. Nah, it's a tough one," said Iginla. "We didn't agree with a lot of things, and it wasn't just the calls that were against us. It was also when Owen (Nolan) was on a breakaway (and getting hauled down) . . . that was real frustrating.''

Here is one of those great mysteries of being a hockey fan: that players and coaches somehow continue to believe that it doesn't matter whether one team is taking penalties or not -- that somehow the referees should keep the penalty calling "even", even if the actual play isn't.

In other words, if one team keeps taking more penalties because, say, they're on the edge of being blown out fo the building and barely hanging on, the referees sill shouldn't call "too many" penalties on them (i.e., let them get away with them!), and if they don't stop calling them, or go find trivial things to call the other team on.

In other words, it's the referee's job to not call a game as it happens, but to somehow keep the game balanced by not "over" calling a team that's taking penalties because it's struggling.

Huh?

In any event, during that 2nd period disaster by the Flames, every penalty called on them was deserved. And a few weren't called that could have made it even worse. The team was on the edge, it's play shambles, and they were hanging on (literally, at times) for their very game-life. And if it wasn't for Kiprusoff, it could have been a serious blowout.

And the Nolan pull-down? Rules are pretty clear here: if you're going for the puck, and you contact the puck first, then it's a legal play and not tripping. Unless, of course, you're looking for the referees to "balance' the game. Which, in fact, they tried to do in the third....

On the other hand, when a team starts blaming refs instead of looking at it's own bad play, it's starting down the path of finding excuses for losing -- and in the playoffs, once a team gets that in their head, game over. Keenan is running a knife-edge here between playing the refs to get an advantage and putting it in his player's heads they can't win because the refs won't let them, and if the players get that mind-set going, it's over.

Of course, it could be over anyway. That save on Nolan with 5 minutes left, you could just see the Flames deflate. They were manhandled much of the game, blown out in the 2nd (except for Kiprusoff), and the few times they really got good shots, Nabokov stopped them cold. And then the Nolan shot, where Nabokov almost looked like he was beyond out of the play and somehow got it -- that could be the place where the Flames start thinking they can't beat this guy.

New role for a couple of refereeing vets

globeandmail.com: Globe on Hockey - Duhatschek: New role for a couple of refereeing vets:

It was reported fairly widely that both Shick and Mick McGeough, two of the NHL's most experienced referees, were not working the playoffs this season. What wasn't said was that Shick, who generally works deep into the post-season most years, volunteered to step aside this spring, so that a handful of younger officials could work the playoffs. He's here, not as a series supervisor, but as a coach for those young refs, one of whom - Kelly Sutherland - was scheduled to work the Flames-Sharks' opener alongside the veteran Don Koharski. Shick will retire after next season; McGeough, on the other hand, is done for good. For anyone who didn't like his theatrical ways, they won't have Mick to kick around anymore. McGeough retired at the end of the regular season; like Shick, he will act as a refereeing "coach" in these playoffs.

Well done by Rob Shick, and more power to him.

And frankly, I'll miss McGeough. He was a pretty good ref for the most part. His weak point seemed to be a bit of a temper, a team could get under his skin and then you'd see ticky-tacky penalties doled out. Not saying he punished a team (I don't think he did), more that a team that pissed him off stopped getting any slack cut. And it was a bit too easy to piss him off some nights. Well, many nights.

But one thing I'll miss as the older refs retire -- the new crop is generally decent and growing into the game, but the old refs all had personalities, and the new ones seem to be chosen to avoid that. It's sometimes really hard to tell who's reffing a game, where it was hard NOT to know who was reffing when it was Shick, or Fraser, or Stewart, or McGeough... And yes, I know some folks consider referees with a personality a problem in the game. I personally don't. To a point.

2008 Playoff predictions.

Still not at the point where I'm hockey blogging reliably yet, but wanted to get this in (and once I free up some time and energy, I have some stuff I want to get written....)

So here's my predictions for the 1st round and my picks for the cup final. One thing I can guarantee: gonna be some fun hockey in the playoffs.

Western Conference:

(1) Detroit vs (8) Nashville: seems like a no brainer, but Nashville's had their number this year to some degree. However, Detroit has this ability to step it up in the playoffs, and it'll be interesting to see how well they do that. Nashville is going to try, but I'll take Detroit in 5.

(2) San Jose vs. (7) Calgary: I don't think the Flames can beat the Sharks. I do worry that Kiprusoff and Iginla can. If they choose to take over the series, watch out. I don't think it'll happen. Only the Sharks can beat the Sharks, and this year, they don't seem to be planning on it. Sharks in 5.

(3) Minnesota vs (6) Colorado: The western match that just doesn't interest me much. I do think Colorado will take it, I don't think either team gets out of the second round. Colorado in 6, but someone wake up the goal judges...

(4) Anaheim vs (5) Dallas: Here's the series I'm rooting to be long, to be full of overtime, to go 7 games. anything to let these two teams beat the crap out of each other. I do think Anaheim will prevail. I don't know if it'll be four games or see, but I don't see much in between. I think Dallas has a chance -- I don't think Dallas will succeed at taking it. Anaheim in 6.

coming out of the west: San Jose (well, duh)

Eastern Conference:

(1) Montreal vs. (8) Boston: to me, the only gimme in either conference. Maybe because Boston hasn't been able to beat Montreal since Dryden was in goal? Montreal looks to have the easiest (note: not easy) path out of the first round here, perhaps a rested team will make later rounds easier for them. Montreal in 4.

Note: every time I turn around, I see someone else doing the "the last time a rookie...." thing and comparing Price to a young Patrick Roy. Talk about a load to lay onto a youngster ON TOP OF actually having to win in the playoffs. However, I haven't seen much to indicate the kid isn't able to handle the pressure, but whoof. Let him win a series before sending his number into the rafters, folks.

(2) Pittsburgh vs (7) Ottawa: My sens fans are gonna hate me for saying this, but Ottawa is little better than Boston here. Unlike Boston, I don't think "happy to make the playoffs" will make losing in the first round better. Pittsburgh in 5, and Ottawa needs some serious help. and a #1 goalie that isn't a walking braincramp (hint to emery: when you win, you're eccentric. when you stop winning, you're a cancer. any questions?)

(3) washington vs. (6) Philadelphia: oh, what a run. And may it continue. the Caps are fun to watch. I'm not sure how the Flyers are going to handle them, and I like Huet better as a goalie, proven or not. Capitals in 6, and here's hoping they make life interesting and miserable for the east for a while...

(4) New Jersey vs. (5) NY Rangers: I hate betting against Martin Brodeur -- but I will. I'm not hugely thrilled by the Rangers, either -- both teams are flawed -- but I think the reign of the Devils is over. Rangers in 5.

coming out of the east: Montreal.

ICING - NEVER A GOOD THING

Dallas Stars Blog:: ICING - NEVER A GOOD THING:

I’ll tell you what I’d do. Instead of altering the rules that govern icing I’d just do away with icing all together.

Why do we still have it in our game? What purpose does it serve? Would the game suffer without it?

I don’t know. I’m not sure. And no it wouldn’t.

you know what? I really like this idea. Let 'em play.

Why automatic icing is the wrong solution...

I wasn't at the Minnesota game where Kurtis Foster was injured on the icing race -- Laurie's at Spring Training, we had three games at home this week, I had things to do, and so the tickets went to a friend (besides, I usually find Wild hockey anything but... yawn.).

But I was watching it on TV, and saw the injury in all its glory. It was a very sad, unfortunate thing. I'm not sure it was avoidable, Foster to me already looked to be losing control when Mitchell pushed him (and he did, but it seemed to me to be part of a legitimate play, not an intent to cause a problem).

And as expected when something high profile and graphic happens, the calls for "fixing" the problem are coming out fast and furious. For example:

The NHL Broke Kurtis Foster's Leg - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog:

But that debate is a distraction from the real issue at hand, which is the League's refusal to protect its players by instituting a no-brainer policy of "no-touch" icing.

and

james mirtle: Foster's big fall - A hockey journalist's blog:

Yet another incident that screams for the league to introduce no-touch icing

to name just two.

Dan Rusanowsky sees it differently:

San Jose Sharks -> Tough Break:

Some say that the incident is an illustration as to why automatic icing should be instituted in the NHL, but I disagree, as I did after Marco Sturm ended his season after a chase-collision with Adam Foote in Colorado in 2004. A similar injury could happen on a simple dump-in from center ice, or a mid ice collision, or one of any number of possibilities. It was an extremely unfortunate occurrence, to be sure, and is a reminder that the road to the Stanley Cup can be filled with potholes.

And I have to admit I agree with him. At one point -- especially after a similar situation where Marco Sturm was injured -- I was a strong advocate of automatic icing, but as I've studied and thought about it more, I've changed my mind. Automatic icing isn't the solution here.

We saw a similar reaction when Richard Zednik had his throat cut -- calls for mandatory throat guards, even some people calling for changes to skates and other "out there" solutions. This despite that in the NHL, it was 19 years between incidents. Fortunately, that drum has been mostly silenced as people put the injury back in the larger perspective of the game and the risks involved, and so should this one.

Stop and think about it for a minute: the chase for the icing is, in fact, an exciting play that can change the momentum of the game and give a fast team a significant advantage. It creates fan interest and it can decide a game. Because of this, I think doing away with it is sending the game in the wrong direction.

And while I don't have stats handy, if you look at how many careers have been ended in the last five years to concussions or eye/face injuries, if you look at the number of man-games lost to those injuries and compare those numbers to injuries that happen during an icing play, I'm sure you'll find that concussions impact teams and players MUCH more than icing plays, and so do injuries that could be minimized by mandatory visors.

So before the league goes off "fixing" icing, it really should stop and figure out how to stop hits to the head and how to keep players from getting their bell rung. Nick Kypreos and the Lindros brothers could have some input here, I think. And players should quit talking about personal choice and put the stupid visors on.

Fact is, if I sat and thought about it, I could likely find five or six injury types much more common and damaging to players and teams than icing incidents. In the larger scheme of how to protect players and reduce the impact of teams on player injuries, "fixing" icing seems to me like painting the bathroom while the stove is on fire in the kitchen. Go put the stove out, then talk to me about painting.

That doesn't mean I don't think the league should do NOTHING here; I just don't think automatic icing is the answer.

What I suggest instead is to make penalties during icing plays more serious. For instance:

• Any penalty taken during an icing play behind the goal line where the icing is not washed out by the play is an automatic five minute major.
  
• Any play taken during an icing behind the goal line where the icing is not washed out by the play that causes a player injury is an automatic game misconduct.
  
• Any place taken during an icing behind the goal line where a player is taken off on a stretcher is an automatic match intent-to-injure.
  

The point of this is to make the area behind the goal line a relative safe zone for the player attempting to make the icing. The chasing player trying to wash it out has to make a judgment coming in whether to pull up from the chase or whether to make the attempt to wash; if he knows that he's at risk of costing his team a major penalty because the play is too close or there's a risk of taking a penalty, he'll play it more cautiously -- which is what we need here.

What's needed here isn't radical surgery -- doing away with icing plays -- but giving a chasing player more incentive to be cautious and pull up unless they know they can make the play and do is safely. You do that by making the repercussions of taking a penalty at the end of the play more serious. By mandating that any penalty taken in that zone during that play a major, that'll be enough for players to pull up and not force the play unless they're sure it's safe to do so.

Mostly. Will there be bad choices? injuries? yes. But hockey is a fast and physical game. Injuries are part of it, and we can't legislate total safety into the game, even if we turn it into ringette, which nobody wants. What we CAN do is create incentives and disincentives to certain actions that encourage injuries, which will reduce both the frequency of those happening and the severity of the injury they cause.

Which the league really ought to get serious about doing in other parts of the game, too. Say, starting with hits to the head. But that's a different post...

There's no need for radical changes to the game. We can manage this problem with more thought and less impact. And should.

Paring down the goalie gear

Paring down goalie equipment seems to be the continuing story this season. We came into the season with the usual suspects whining about the goalies having an unfair advantage, and the GM's meeting seems to have done nothing else but discuss the state of the gear. 

Even former members in good standing of the "Goaltenders Union", Darryl Rheaugh and Brian Hayward, have said the goalie equipment needs to be cut down to size. Bet that makes them popular in the goalie's corner of the locker room!

But before all those people who want to turn the tables and go after the guy *in* the mask with a chain saw, some things to think about:

1. The NHL doesn't live in a vaccuum: I know this may come as a surprise to the GMs and various NHL columnists, but there's a whole bunch of hockey out there that isn't NHL. If the NHL cuts back on the gear to the point where a number of goalies decide that playing in Europe beats taking multiple bone bruises, the game *will* suffer. Oh, Europe will fall in line, just like university hockey and all the other ways to the NHL not in the system? Really?  How about the World Junior champsionships, the World Hockey Championships, heck the Olympics?  Do the NHL GMs still think the rest of the hockey world rolls over and pees for them?  There's peeing going on, that's for sure, but I'm not seeing a lot of rolling over these days.

2. Who's paying for this party? Okay, so you cut the pads down to 10 inches or some clever boy comes up with a way to wrap the leg pads around the shins, and they cut the glove size and the blocker size, etc.   If the NHL does get their way and it somehow magically ripples through the hockey system, there's a bunch of hockey equipment that suddenly is of no use.  I guess the NHL GMs, and those ex-goalie color analysts all make enough money that if they have to swap out their kid's  equipment, hey no hassle. Maybe after changing the rules, they'll switch their little goalies to center or something!  But for real people, goalie gear is a serious expense, and even if the local league is helping to foot the bill, someone is going to have to pay for all that new equipment. Better get your PR people on this in advance, because the first tearful hockey mom on HNIC, and you all look like throughtless creeps.

3. "But it looked good in the photos":  If you skate too close to the edge of biometric data (you're doing biometric data, right?  right?) someone at either end of the spectrum is going to get hurt, maybe because the pretection wasn't big enough, maybe because someone forgot that as they cut the width and the height of the pads, maybe the ability to absorb shock goes down in a non-linear fashion (oops!). And since no one was thinking about sizing the equipment down, it works fine for adults, but the kids start getting linear fractures of their tibia.  All I'm seeing are a bunch of people who are running like mad towards "we must make it harder for the goalies to tend goal", and not thinking about the consequences.

And that's the thing--the GMs are running towards a "solution", not to original problem ("fans want more scoring--how do we get more scoring?), but to one of the contributing factors. Why aren't we seeing any evidence that someone actually thought about this?