Two for Elbowing

State of the Sharks...

Line changes, but no revelations on meeting - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:

so far, what went on in the room is indeed staying in the room.

The Sharks were back on the ice for a light game-day skate this morning and afterward, players were glad to talk in generalities about their two-hour meeting Friday, but when it came to specifics, players would give you a smile but no real information.

And that includes captain Patrick Marleau, who left after yesterday’s session without talking to a reporter.

“It’s good to get some things out in the open and talk about them,” said Marleau, who explained that he had to leave right after the meeting to get his brother to a doctor’s appointment.

I suppose I should cut Marleau some slack for the doctor's appointment, but...

Ya know, I've been supportive of Marleau as Captain, pushing back on some of the critics (on blogs and at the arena). But to be honest, he's disappointed this year.

And now, after a two hour team meeting at a critical point in the season, he ducks the press, while Mike Grier, Joe Thornton, Jeremy Roenick and Evgeny (not John) Nabokov stand up and take the lumps. He clearly could have at least taken two minutes to say "gotta run, but wanted to say...." -- something.

Color me disappointed -- again.

A while back I got floated one of those friends of a friend of a friend rumor which I've sat on, because you really can't judge them and when you have only one source, how do you judge them? I'm not a fan of blabbing every little fan-boy fantasy that comes along, so I've always tried to learn what sources are trustworthy and what rumors to pay attention to. This one? No basis whatsoever, except that I keep thinking about it and feeling that it seems to fit the situation pretty well.

And this comes from -- emphasizing how tenuous this is -- a friend who had a friend who met up with someone on Caltrain before the game, someone coming down from the city for the game who had a specific european accent. He claimed to be an old school chum who'd flown in to spend time with his buddy, who happens to play hockey for the Sharks. (excuse me for not naming nationalities, accents or names... No sense getting people involved indirectly). That person claimed that there was a lot of unhappiness in the locker room around Marleau -- and also that Marleau himself was unhappy.

The unhappiness with Marleau came from his being a new daddy; he was really enjoying being a new daddy -- enough so that he wasn't focussing on hockey or the team enough. Look at Marleau's home and away numbers; they unfortunately can be interpreted at something like this. Marleau hasn't STUNK -- but to mean, far too often he simply doesn't seem to have his head or heart in the game in San Jose. One could argue that getting on the road and in a hotel room gets him away from the home environment, and gets him back in his routine and focussed on the game -- hence his much strong road play.

And as to Marleau not being happy here? he doesn't like being in the shadow of Thornton, not being 2nd dog.

Take them for what you will. Or won't. I've had trouble believing that second one -- if he was unhappy, why did he sign the long-term deal to stay here?

But the home distraction? I have trouble rejecting it out of hand, not based on what I've been seeing. I know some fans love to play the "they make a lot of money, how dare they not perform?" game, but the fact that someone signs a contract for a good chunk of money doesn't mean the Sharks lock up their humanity in a box in a safe somewhere. The reality is, hockey players play through stuff routinely that would put most fans mewling and puking under their desks. It can be frustrating to us when a player proves himself -- so human -- but that doesn't make them not human. No "slab of meat" treatment here. And I can sympathize with someone who's got a new kid at home and that becomes a bit of a center of their life.

But he's had enough time -- and criticism - by now to figure out how to merge his home life into his work life and make them both work. And if this IS the problem, he hasn't done it. If it's not the problem, I have to wonder what is, because something is. His road numbers indicate he CAN play well, his home numbers indicate he simply isn't. So what now?

And it's pretty clear that he's captain; but he's not leading this team. this isn't necessarily a terrible thing. I don't believe a captain has to be loud and noisy and throw things (and people) around the locker room -- hell, we had that with Owen Nolan, and look how well that turned out. Marleau is more a captain in the style of Yzerman or Sakic, quiet but speaking at key moments, and leading by example on and off the ice. Except, unfortunately, he's not leading by example on the ice. he's one of the problems. And now leadership of this team has migrated -- to Grier, to Thornton, to Roenick, and to Nabokov.

So where does that leave Marleau?

I don't know what was said in that locker room among the players, but I can make guesses. More importantly, I think I know the gist of the Doug Wilson chat BEFORE the players chat. That was likely the "we believe this is the right team, but if you guys don't fix yourselves, we'll have to make changes to fix you" speech. One can only imagine which players he was staring at while saying it. you can bet it wasn't Grier, or Nabokov, or thornton, or Roenick...

Maybe Marleau needs a change of scenery. Maybe he just needed a kick in the butt by his Gm and his teammates (hell, he's not alone. Matt Carle, Kyle McLaren -- please bend over and start wincing; I'll cut Cheechoo slack because it was clear he wasn't healthy, even before he admitted he was hurt). And they aren't alone -- this team braincramps too regularly at key moments, and it's a group effort. It's almost as if they believe how good they are, and therefore mentally sit back thinking it's going to be easy. Nobody's easy in this league -- just look at the Coyotes now.

It'll be interesting to see how they react tonight. The Sharks have shown signs of coming around, but the consistency and committment still aren't there reliably enough. Better != Good, and even good isn't good enough yet. What I am convinced is if they don't show that they're coming around, and do so like starting in about three hours, then Wilson's going to have a short trigger and start looking to re-arrange the deck chairs. And you can bet he won't try to shake up the team by trading Patzold....

The good news is this team has played pretty well; over.500 and just under .500 at home -- but while it's avoided digging a hole so there's nothing to climb out of, it's not come close to playing to potential. Either they find that potential fast, or Doug Wilson will do something to help them find it. THAT's why they had a 2 hour meeting the other day -- and boy, I'll bet it was fun to be in...

(not!)

Sharkspage - San Jose Sharks, Hockey, NHL sports blog

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

With 622 entries from San Jose fans, 307 from Los Angeles, 229 from Anaheim, and 157 from Phoenix, it is possible to draw an early map of fan support for different NHL teams in the Southwest. The Sharks have large blobs of support in the SF Bay Area, Lake Tahoe, and northern Oregon regions. Allegiences are a little mixed between the Anaheim Ducks and Los Angeles Kings in southern California, Phoenix holds sway over Arizona, Las Vegas appears to be conflicted.

Some great data here... It's not surprising to see Sharks support moving into Tahoe and up into Oregon (as well as a clear blob around Crescent City and Arcata); there are a good number of Silicon Valley types that have relocated up there and are either doing the consulting gig or the telecommute -- I know some folks who are involved with the local (and growing) hockey scene around Ashland for just that reason...

Vegas is one of the (if not the) fastest growing cities in the country; not surprising to see a melting pot going on there, both of people moving there for the jobs and people retiring there. If nothing else, that's an ecouraging sign for the potential team in Vegas.

The LA/Anaheim area doesn't surprise me,either. the Kings were there first, so there is going to be a contingent of Orange County fans who stayed loyal because they grew up (like I did) a Kings fan, while the success of the Ducks is going to attract fans from both regions because they're the team that caught someone's attention. (the same is true of baseball; I was more a Dodger fan than an Angel partly because of the success and history and partly because I don't like the designated hitter...)

Way back when, we had a conversation with Matt Levine when he was actively working with the Sharks on the demographics; while the fan base extends out, typically, a season ticket base is pretty compact. Going back to a few years after the San Jose arena opened, 90% of season tickets went to people living within 30 minutes drive of the arena. Much the same is true of the A's and Giants. The Giants core base lives in S.F (about 12%) and down the peninsula, in large part because of CalTrain access, and into the south bay. The A's draw from the Fremont to Oakland corridor and out into the East bay, in large part because of BART access.

That explains in some ways why the Giants were so hard-ass about the A's moving to San Jose or silicon valley somewhere; that would have been a big potential hit on the Giants fan base, and it is unlikely that the A's fans left behind by a move south would shift to the Giants in as large numbers. And it's a cautionary tale for Lew Wolff with the Fremont ballpark for the A's -- good BART connectivity is going to b a key to maintaining his fan base, and where the new stadium going that's going to mean a shuttle system.

NHL’s version of jumping the shark

globeandmail.com: Globe on Hockey - Shoalts: NHL’s version of jumping the shark:

All right, this outdoor game nonsense has to stop. Now they’re talking about putting one of these abominations in a domed stadium next year.

When reports first surfaced that the college boys planned a game between Michigan and Michigan State next December at Ford Field, with the Detroit Red Wings and possibly the Toronto Maple Leafs making it an NCAA-NHL doubleheader, I didn’t think much of it. The Red Wings said talks were “extremely preliminary,” while the Leafs said no one had called them.

Then I ran into Leafs general manager John Ferguson last night. The Leafs still haven’t been asked but it was clear that if the Wings come calling, they will get a receptive audience. Figures, since Ferguson was a college player at Providence.

If this comes off, it will be the NHL’s version of jumping the shark, even if a new record for attendance at a game is set.

Okay..... So, it doesn't matter that it's popular. Or that's it's REALLY popular. Or even "setting records" popular.

David Shoalts doesn't like it, so it sucks. Evidently the only opinion that matters here is his.

God help us that the NHL does something that people like, and creates an event that spurs interest in the league. It might actually get media attention -- and that might draw new fans. And that would suck, because then what would people have to complain about Bettman over? (answer: bettman can't win; they bitch at him for not doing enough to grow the sport and expand it's market and exposure, and then they bitch at him when the league does things like this and the trips to Europe where they actually seem to be creating interest and doing things that seem to be growing the sport and expanding its markets. In one case, he's being ripped for not being innovative -- and when he's innovative, he's ripped for what he's doing not being traditional. Go figure.

Personally -- I'd love to go to one of these thing, for the same reason I went to a Grey Cup (yes, I'm an american. so?), went to the All Star Game in San Jose, and want to get to a Brier -- they're great events. Shoalts is being way too pissy here, frankly. It's good for the game, and it's fun, and it's something that generates interest. Stop thinking so hard and just let people enjoy it, for goodness sake. When it stops being fun, people will stop going, and the league will stop doing it. horrors that the league has figured out how to get 70,000 people to go to a damn hockey game. How terrible.

Where Would YOU Put an NHL Franchise?

Where Would YOU Put an NHL Franchise? - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog:

Say the NHL wanted to grant four expansion franchises around North America, and gave YOU the power to put a team in any city in which a team could feasibly be profitable. Where would you put these teams? Who deserves an NHL club?

Over at The Bleacher Report, writer Dhavel Patel picks four Canadian clubs out of his five selections, with Milwaukee, a city few regular NHL fans have ever considered, as a possible destination for an NHL club.

Ice Hockey is the biggest sport in this state and they do have the resources to support an NHL franchise, so why no NHL team. This is one of the strongest hockey states in the USA and Milwaukee is a metro area with close to 2 million people

The main reason for a lack of a team in Milwaukee is opposition from the Wirtz family in Chicago, because of Milwaukee's proximity. It was under consideration during the expansion to 12 team era, but was blocked. Instead, they ended up with the IHL Admirals, which has had strong support over the years.

1. Las Vegas, Nevada - Our own Eric McErlain has been on the case, and it seems there has been some interest from movie mogul Jerry Bruckheimer in having a team in Sin City. Without a pro sports franchise in the city, you can bet that the NHL would get itself a lot of interest and pack the house with sports-hungry citizens.

Sure, there is lots of competition from other entertainment options, but how many of them are sports-related? Very few. The NHL may also claim that the whole gambling thing is a turn off, but we know the NHL would LOVE to have people bet on their games. (As long as they don't *ahem* coach in the NHL)

One might hope, but the problem is that it isn't about competing for sports entertainment dollars, it's entertainment dollars. That's the problem in any non-hockey-crazy city -- where it's not a way of life, it's just one option for the budget, not THE option. The fact that there isn't a major league in there now isn't something I'd consider an advantage. Instead, it makes the market an unknown. That said, I'd certainly put one in there with the right ownership.

2. Hamilton, Ontario - Politics is the only reason preventing someone like Jim Balsillie from moving a team or expanding a team to this city. The Metro Toronto area could easily support another profitable NHL franchise, as there are a few million hockey-starved people who can't ever get to Leafs games due to the cost and lack of ticket availability.

That, and media dollars. Putting a team in Hamilton might well add 18,000 butts in seats a night, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

Problem one: one of the reasons canada is generating the revenue it does is because of the insane demand for tickets in Toronto, allowing them to charge very high prices for tickets -- $44 to $405CDN per. In San Jose, it's $19 to $150US. So, add a team in Hamilton. It sucks up some of that excess demand. Toronto ends up having to lower prices (or freeze prices for a few years). So yeah, you can go from selling 18,000 seats to 36,000 in the region, but you're not going to get the same average ticket price when you do. Hamilton makes money -- and it's not all NEW money to the league, some of it is sucked out of the Leafs.

Problem two: media. The two cities share media. Adding Hamilton to the mix up there won't create new markets for television or radio; it'll spread the existing audience out across more games and more ads, meaning it'll be harder to justify prices for the ads that get sold. End result: advertising revenue stays about the same, maybe even drops some (similar to average ticket prices) because of saturation and reduced demand. Hamilton makes money -- and most if it comes out of Toronto's revenue stream, it isn't created as an addition.

Bottom line: adding a team to Hamilton would be GREAT for the Ontario fans -- but it's rather a mixed economic blessing for the league, and it'd be a real kick in the shorts for Toronto. Now, I know most folks wouldn't mind kicking the Leafs owners in the shorts over this; but the league and the Leafs have other ideas -- and honestly, adding a team there doesn't make the league stronger or better off financially or anyone richer. Except the Hamilton owners; nobody else really benefits financially.

Instead, the NHL really needs to put a Canadian franchise back in Winnipeg if it can, and consider Halifax. Quebec City MIGHT be a viable third option, but it ain't gonna happen. Neither is Hamilton, no matter how much Ontario (and the Ontario media that drives much of the whining about this) wants to consider it.

3. Houston, Texas - I know, I know, you traditional fans think little of having another NHL team in the southern USA, but Texas has shown itself to be a good market for hockey (especially at the lower minor league level) and Houston is full of rich yuppie types who have money to burn.

I find it interesting that you rule out Kansas City without studying the market, and then rule in Houston in the same way... DALLAS has proven itself a good market (although it's starting a down cycle.. the bones are good there); I'm a lot more hesitant about sharing that joy with all of Texas -- and minor league support doesn't necessarily translate to NHL support. the price points are different. Kansas City is actually a better market, IMHO. Dallas is on my short list also, but whatever folks think might be bad about Kansas City goes for Dallas, too.

4. Seattle, Washington - Very few of you have ever thought of this city as an NHL destination, but there are a few reasons why I'd think Seattle would be a good market.

I have. Been there. Seen hockey there. The Key Arena is a pit.

Problems:

no building. Key Arena is a lousy hockey building -- it's the same footprint used in the old Phoenix building (remember the early Roadrunner years?), the Oakland Coliseum (pre-upgrade) and Thomas and Mack in Las Vegas. It's simply unacceptable for hockey, and besides, the upgrade the Sonics forced on it (with lots and lots of city money) about a decade ago ruined the building, which is why the Sonics are now demanding even more city money to replace it.

Lots of competition: Mariners, Seahawks. Expect the Sonics to figure out a way to stay. Adn Seattle is a community that does things, not watch things.

But the bottom line is -- no building. No way the city is going to pay for one. There are some talks about buildings in other places (Bellevue), especially if Paul Allen gets involved, but since Allen got control of the Rose Garden back in Portland, that seems to have quieted down. There's still some thought he might buy the Sonics and build a building in Bellevue, and then sell the Blazers and the Rose Garden. Doubt it. But there's no place to play here, no way one's going to get built, and buying a team AND building a building is economic suicide, so Seattle won't happen.

So, Seattle, Hamilton, Los Vegas, and Houston would be my choices. I believe all four cities would get good support, attendance, and make a good profit for the league and team owners. Sorry, Kansas, but you are an overexposed market and would not be a good place to have an NHL club.

Well, first of all, if the league expands beyond 32 teams, it's insane. Especially with the transfer agreements crumbling, you not only have to worry about dilution of talent, you have to worry about loss of talent we're currently getting from Europe, much as we're seeing defections to the Russian Super League and increasing trouble getting Russians over here. Double-banger on the quality of hockey if the league expands and doesn't solve the transfer problems. Even then, 34 or 36 teams (34 teams is tough to build a rational schedule around!) dilutes talent more than I like.

But if the league does expand two teams, then Hamilton and Kansas City or Vegas would be the two. If they expand four, I hope they'd go to whichever of those two wasn't chosen, and Halifax. Houston would be the next choice.

But before they expand, they need to solidify what they have. Can the league really support two teams in Florida? Atlanta? Columbus? Two teams in LA? Nahsville? I exppect the Predators have three years and then they're off to Kansas City, given who's gotten involved in the ownership there. If they succeed, even better -- they have a legitimate shot. But I'm doubtful.

Moving the Kings to Vegas might not be a bad idea, in all honesty. Rather than grow more teams, take the teams that are struggling and get them into stronger markets. I'm just not ready for expansion yet. Of course, every time the "E" word comes up the league denies it; so far, it's the media speculating about it and then bitching about it as if the league's already decided...

Guess The Suspension: Chris Simon (Again)

Guess The Suspension: Chris Simon (Again) - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog:

Sometimes, you honestly wonder what's going through a player's brain when you see things like this.

Ultimately Jarkko Ruutu, the second-most annoying man in hockey, wasn't hurt, but imagine the potential consequences of something like this? That alone is why we may not see Chris Simon playing all that much going forward,

Short answer: the player's brain is basically offline when things like this happen. If you've ever been in a berserker rage, or around someone who is, it's obvious that thinking is the last thing on their minds.

I've been one of the few who thought Simon got somewhat of a raw deal on his last suspension -- it was clear he was concussed by the hit, and yet his retaliation was severely punished but the hit that caused his injury wasn't. In this case, though, there's no real middle ground to cut him any slack. It was pre-mediated, it was not during play, it was against a completely unaware and vulnerable player, and it was completely unnecessary.

I expect it's going to push just about every one of Colin Campbell's buttons -- and it should. This goes up in a class of unacceptable behavior along with Bertuzzi (on Moore), Marty McSorley (on Brashear), Wayne Maki (on Ted Green) and Bobby Clarke (purposefully breaking that Russian's ankle).

Also given Simon's history as a repeat offender -- almost completely deserved -- I can't seen Campbell showing much sympathy.

If you ask me -- Simon is suspended for the rest of the season, and doing so would effectively end his career. Like McSorley, he's close to the end as it is. An action like this should practically speaking usher him out the door.

Too bad, too. Chris Simon was always a player I respected (mostly) -- he made the most of limited talent and turned himself not into a "real" hockey player, not just a bully. He also (not a small thing) made himself a role model of sorts for the First Nations people.

Unfortunately, where other, similar players (George Laraques and Donald Brashear come to mind) took this same path and made the transition to "real" hockey player by leveraging their aggression and working on their skills AND controlling their temper, Simon never quite had the temper under control, and ultimately going to push him out of this league early and leave him with a tainted legacy.

Jordin Tootoo should be paying close attention here, because he's walking the same path as these players, and he shows signs of choosing to follow Simon down the path he followed.

I feel bad for Simon in a way, because he really could have closed his career and left people thinking well of him. Instead, I expect Campbell to throw the book at him (he should, and I hope he will), and so Simon will be remembered more for his mistakes than his play.

And that's only Simon's fault. Sigh.

Colin, send him home. This is the kind of action that the league needs to send a message over.

Update: 30 games. I guess I can live with that. I still would have preferred to see him go away for the season and have to ask for reinstatement, not just to make the point this can't be allowed, but because he HAS a long record of problems.

And one report I read today (CBC, I think) noted he was entering the alcohol and substance abuse program. Sad, but not surprising. For now, I"ll leave it as hoping that Chris can figure this out and solve it -- and if that allows him to play hockey again some day, even better, but now, it's time for him to focus on himself.

The Hockey News: Headlines: Chris Simon receives 30-game suspension, longest in NHL history:

Chris Simon was slapped with the longest suspension for an on-ice in NHL history Wednesday and will lose close to US$300,000 in wages.

And it could have been worse. An eighth career NHL suspension suggests that Simon may not have learned his lesson but the league decided that 30 games was sufficient.

"(NHL executive) Mike Murphy and I were talking about that fact - has he given up his right or his privilege to play in the National Hockey League?" league disciplinarian Colin Campbell said Wednesday.

But in the end, after much thought and deliberation, Campbell felt he had the right number, especially combined with the counselling Simon will seek out.

Update 2: just to make sure this is in the same place as my comment above....

On the Islanders Beat:

Asked about Simon’s agreement with Islanders owner Charles Wang to seek counseling in an effort to understand what made him snap for the second time in nine months after hitting the Rangers’ Ryan Hollweg with his stick in March, Campbell was recorded saying he hoped it would help Simon to meet with “the drug and alcohol, uh, uh, those doctors.” NHL spokesman Frank Brown quickly clarified that the doctors who deal with substance abuse under the NHL/NHLPA agreement also handle behavioral issues.

But the “stereotyping” horse was out of the barn.

So we shouldn't assume that the problem is substance oriented. But of course, I did, and here's the clarification

Peter Puck returns on Leafs TV

Peter Puck returns on Leafs TV:

Peter Puck is returning to television — this time on Leafs TV.

You know, if a US team or network was to do this, the canadian press would be all over it with hysterical laughter. But no, it's the Leafs. So it must be okay, right?

Bertuzzi says he felt he was expected to fight

The Hockey News: Headlines: Court documents: Bertuzzi says he felt he was expected to fight:

Todd Bertuzzi felt he was expected to "fight someone" the night he attacked Steve Moore and said he would have been "challenged" by former Vancouver Canucks coach Marc Crawford if nothing happened, according to court documents in Moore's multi-million dollar lawsuit made public Tuesday.

And here's the other shoe dropping in the "Marc Crawford told me to go hurt him" circus.

All of which is really meaningless, except in the legal world of "who owes what percentage of which judgement for what reason".

Marc Crawford's reported statement "must pay the price": stupid? yes in some ways, but it's one of those famous phrases that coaches use under many circumstances and allow them to be interpreted subjectively. Did Crawford really mean to go out and break Moore's neck? Hell no, and we all know it. Did Crawford imply that someone should go and pound his face for a while? Definitely. That's "hockey", and "the code".

Now Bertuzzi says he felt he was expected to fight. As in "wah, it's all Crawford's fault. he made me!" -- let's shift the blame here.

All Bertuzzi is doing here is making me feel sympathetic for Crawford a bit. Emphasis on "a bit".

My bottom line: yes, there was all of this talk about "retribution" and "getting even" or "pay the price" in the locker room. That's what locker rooms do, for god's sake.

But where in all of the locker room "chat" did someone tell Bertuzzi to hunt Moore down from behind and mug him the way he did?

Nobody -- Bertuzzi included -- wanted Moore seriously injured; nobody wanted his neck broken and his life ruined. Yes, they wanted him bruised and sore -- that's "hockey" and part of "the code", after all, and that's fine. that's a natual aspect of the competitiveness of sports like hockey.

But Bertuzzi was the one who decided that when Moore declined to cooperate to hunt him down from behind and mug him. Was Bertuzzi trying to break his neck? Of course not. But it was his poor judgement in what actions to take and how far to push it that led to the sad accident. And he can point at Crawford or his teammates or bad ice conditions or Steve Moore or the phase of the moon all he wants -- it doesn't change the fact that it was Bertuzzi who decided to take this act, and it was a stupid and dangerous act, and a person got seriously hurt.

And that lives on nobody's shoulders but Bertuzzi's. Everyone else was acting perfectly within the context of "hockey" and "the code", and Bertuzzi's act was no more acceptable within the definitions of those ideas than McSorley's stickwork on Brashear. And all his whining that he was told to do it is empty; he was told to drop the gloves and pound Moore (not explicitly, but read between the lines; we all can, Crow...) -- and Bertuzzi made a judgement call on how to do that which was wrong and dangerous. And the responsibility for THAT lies only on himself.

now LEGALLY, I won't be surprised that Crawford and probably the Canucks are found partially responsible for the action. But if I were the judge, I'd tell Bertuzzi to grow up and act like a man on this and stop shifting blame. After all, taking responsibility for your actions is part of "the code", and isn't that really why they were after Moore? To make him responsible for his earlier action, whether or not he wanted to be?

Frankly, though, I don't think this is Bertuzzi doing this. I think it's his lawyers and his insurance company... Hockey fans shouldn't read too much into it -- or let it distract them from what really happened and who made the decision that caused it.

Update:

TSN : NHL - Canada's Sports Leader:

There is no code," Vancouver Canucks forward Trevor Linden, a 20-year NHL veteran and former president of the NHL Players' Association, said Wednesday.

"There is no sign language. There is none of that. That's someone's dream."

So, according to Trevor Linden, there is no code.

Trevor, I have great respect for you. Please don't insult our intelligence like this.

The Hockey News: Headlines: Former NHL hopeful pleads guilty in Quebec court to manslaughter charge

The Hockey News: Headlines: Former NHL hopeful pleads guilty in Quebec court to manslaughter charge:

A former hopeful with the San Jose Sharks of the National Hockey League pleaded guilty Tuesday to a manslaughter charge stemming from a drug-related murder.

Eric Laplante, 28, who was a third-round draft pick by the Sharks in 1998, could spend the next 11 years behind bars if the Crown gets what it wants.

Sad, but a reminder that even of those few hopefuls who get drafted, only a few "make it".

The Battle of California: Drew Remenda's Shark-Thoughts, now in Chen-Style!

The Battle of California: Drew Remenda's Shark-Thoughts, now in Chen-Style!:

The issue of Marleau's play came up and I was really surprised at how candid Drew was. He said that the rift between Marleau and Ron Wilson still hasn't healed, despite what they say to the press. Doug Wilson has acted as the intermediary, but Drew says that Doug is leaving it to Marleau and Wilson to find a workable solution. A caller suggested taking the C off Marleau, and Drew's own personal thoughts (not speaking for Doug Wilson -- let's make that clear) is that doing that is a no-win situation because (a) it devalues Marleau if it ultimately leads to a trade (and that's a big IF -- he's NOT suggesting that or advocating that at all) and (b) it loses Patty from a player/coach perspective, though if you look at Dallas, Mike Modano seems to have shaken that off (that's my own input, not Drew's).

About the time Drew said this, Marleau's play really picked up. Whether it'll sustain is still to be seen, but it makes me ask myself whether this was Drew simply flapping his mouth at a Canadian radio station, or whether this was a conscious plant by the team. The Sharks are one of the most closed-mouth, careful-in-public teams in the league -- I just can't think of this being accidental (although with Drew, you can never be sure). Instead, to me it feels like it was done by design, a public part of a private discussion with Marleau that basically boiled down to "time to get over it, or our patience will start wearing out".

And so far, he seems to be getting over it.

The Mitchell Report: Bud Selig’s buddy does fine - Talking Points with Tim Kawakami - San Jose Mercury News sports blog

The Mitchell Report: Bud Selig’s buddy does fine - Talking Points with Tim Kawakami - San Jose Mercury News sports blog:

It should be no shock that George Mitchell, who is both a canny politician and a friend of Bud Selig, produced a canny political document that is fairly friendly to Bud Selig.

The Mitchell report, which was released today, is the best thing Selig could’ve asked for given the unruly circumstances of its origin, and maybe the commissioner did ask exactly that.

Why? Because Mitchell produced some names and knocked some heads (for credibility), proposed some tough new testing procedures (for the future), gave Selig the option of punishing particular players (Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens), yet walked away from the hard, ugly stuff.

is anyone really surprised? I'v read through some of the report, and basically, it confirms our worst fears for what was going on. the league has the advantage that they can point loudly at the player's association for stonewalling attempts to institute drug testing, while hoping nobody notices they didn't in fact try very hard to push the union on it. The union looks bad (and IMHO, with justification) -- but that doesn't make the league pure as snow.

What the report said to me can be broken down into a few talking points:

Players take these things for a couple of reasons; a few (like the alleged Bonds) to push their performance further, but most in fact were taking them for a different reason: to heal faster and to be able to play longer. It wasn't to improve their performance, but to keep their job.

That is one of the huge issues with this: while we focus on the Big Names playing the steroid and HGH game, it's the journeyman and marginal players that are really stuck here, because they're on the bubble, or fading to black at the end of a career -- and that's when you're willing to try anything to keep it going, or get it going again.

THOSE are the players that need to be protected from themselves. I frankly don't care if someone like Bonds wants to hose out his future life in the name of a home run chase; stupid players do stupid things. But that marginal player needs to be protected from his own desperation.

The other thing that struck home was that athletes and teams have to stop playing the "not a role model" game. Andro sales grew 1000% after McGuire was outed with it, and its use among the OTHER group that needs to be protected from itself was stunning.

That group is the kids -- high schoolers and young adults -- who see what the athletes do and take it as confirmation actions and decisions are okay. Not only are these kids not old enough to really understand (or care -- I remember when I was young and immortal, weren't we all at that age?) the implications of what they're doing. Athletes can't pretend that young athletes won't look pu to them and take what the pros do as a model for what they can do. Even if you don't care about what pro athletes do to their bodies in the name of your enjoying the sport -- we can't NOT care about the kids that will follow the lead of their heroes, for good or bad.

The winners here?

Bonds, in a minor way -- not because he gets cleared of anything, but because he's no longer alone as the scapegoat for the league. He has plenty of company now, and that doesn't minimize what he did, but it puts him in pretty good company.

And Mark McGuire... Whatever you think about Andro, it WAS LEGAL when he took it, and you could walk into any GNC and buy yourself some. Mitchell makes that point strongly, and frankly, if you start going down the slippery slope of retroactively excluding people from the Hall for things that were acceptable and legal at the time they did it (but not today), you're opening up a real can of worms you really don't wnt to deal with.