Trade Deadline: Losers

Pittsburgh Penguins

I think the Penguins went ahead and did everything I said would be a bad idea in terms of trade deadline strategy. The Penguins are a team that started the year very slowly but are now in a tight race for first in the Atlantic division. Even with Crosby out of the lineup, the team has seen a new leader step up in Evgeni Malkin.

Now, with 20 odd games left in the season, the Penguins are not only faced with the task of reinserting Sidney Crosby in the lineup and shuffling around 20-25 minutes of forward ice-time a night, they also need to shuffle around 20-25 minutes a night to slot in Hossa.

Now, obviously, this is the sort of 'problem' most GMs would love to have; too much talent. But I think it's legitimate. A good hockey team isn't an all star team, its a team with the right players to accomplish certain tasks. A good team also has good chemistry, and chemistry takes time.

To add to that, Hossa's rent a player price was far too high.

Colby Armstrong is a useful 3rd line (who, according to Pierre Maguire, had 'unbelievable chemistry' with Sidney Crosby, though I think a doorknob would have great chemistry with Crosby) player who can play with a physical edge, just ask Patrick Eaves.

Angelo Esposito is kind of a wild card; Esposito is undeniably talented but he's looking like a Robbie Schremp variety of player - lots of talent not a lot of heart.

But adding in the first rounder as well?

I wouldn't have given up all that for few games from Marian Hossa, a guy who isn't even considered a playoff performer.

Pascal Dupuis was part of the deal - he had a pretty nice season in Minnesota about 5-6 years ago when he scored 20 goals on a goal starved Wild team. He's a tenacious guy, stats wise probably comparable to Erik Christensen, so we'll call that a one off.

The only way this trade is a success is if the Pens make it to the conference finals. That is the litmus test.

3:11 pm, Tuesday February 26, 2008
Acquire: Marian Hossa, Pascal Dupuis	Acquire: Colby Armstrong, Erik Christensen, Angelo Esposito and a draft pick

The Sidney Show

Well, I have to say I was pretty pleased to get to see Sidney Crosby's debut game in Calgary. While the media put a strong emphasis on the matchup between Crosby and Phaneuf, it should have been on Crosby and Iginla - after all, both are far and away their team's best players.

Crosby didn't get any points but he did a lot of the things he has become famous for, crisp passes, quick feet, great hussle and domination along the boards, which I think is the major reason he isn't like Gretzky or Lemieux.

Malkin is very much an individual talent and is not a great puck distributor, but boy was that a snipe. No chance for poor Kipper.

The guy though I was most impressed with throughout the night was former Team Canada World Junior Championship double gold medalist and captain, Kris Letang. He's still an undersized guy, but his positioning was outstanding and his play with the puck was very very good. He got beat by Lombardi in OT while trying to compensate for Lombardi's speed, it lead to that great set-up for Aucoin. Later on of course, Letang scored the shootout winner.

Nothing new to report on the Calgary Flames end of things except to say that I thought Nystrom played a pretty good game both against Pittsburgh and against St. Louis, lots of energy and lots of smart plays.

Anyway, here's a selection of shots I took from Crosby's first time in town.

Forechecking

Crosby watches as Iginla gets his first of the night

Laraque vs. Godard - Laraque had a lot of shifts alongside Crosby

Captain vs. Captain

Defensive zone OT Faceoff

Another battle with Iginla, in OT

Crosby leaves the ice on his last shift, he is replaced by Malkin

Drastic Times / Odds and Ends

WI has found an article by my fave, Bob McKenzie, who says the Flames should consider putting Sutter behind the bench for Game 3. It's not a crazy or stupid idea, but the same thing happened to Darryl last year, just slightly less drastically. By Game 7 of the Flames/Ducks series, Calgary was getting dominated by Anaheim's puck possession system and the season ended without so much as a whimper from the Flames.

This is not to say I don't support firing Playfair, because I do (as any regular reader knows). But at this point in the season, the Flames have run out of viable alternatives. But who knows, assuming the Flames do fire Playfair (which they won't), Darry does have some advantageous powers of motivation.

--------

I've been watching the Pens/Sens series with great interest this year, and it's been a perfect example of everything great about the playoffs. Back and forth leads, individual efforts, big hits...and best of all, Sidney Crosby is making his detractors look like fools. If Pittsburgh wins at all this series (2-1 Sens so far), it'll be because he and Gary Roberts are carrying the team on their shoulders. And except for a couple bad calls, the Pens could be winning this series.

In Game 1, Crosby was slapped with a VERY mediocre 'hooking' penalty, and on that PP, the Sens scored. Just before that, Crosby put the puck in the net, and it was discounted as a 'kick in' goal. Another debatable call. That 2 goal swing made the difference, as the Sens won 6-3.

Game 3, the Sens are up 2-1. As Roberts and Spezza are mutually tangling with each other, Crosby rushes into the Sens defensive zone and out muscles Joe Corvo for the puck, drives back out front and puts the puck past Emery (who clearly believes the play is still live). The whistle goes just before Crosby puts the puck in, and it was a genuine non-goal, but no one in the play (Crosby, Corvo, Emery) knew the play was over.

The Sens score the next 2 goals and put the game out of reach. Of course, on the 4th goal, the Sens are blatantly off-side (caught by my eagle eyed friend and stop-motion reviewed by the both of us). In other words, another 2 goal swing for the Sens.

In my opinion, this series isn't quite over.

Just as an aside, hats off to Penguins fans who felt the need to BOO the Canadian National anthem. The sorriest bunch of fans in the league prove once again why they don't deserve a franchise.

Bigger Nets No Solution to NHL Problems

As the Flames -Avs game has been postponed, I have now been given the opportunity to write about the continuing idiocy of NHL brass.

Two issues have been gnawing at me over the past week; the NHL's Paternalism over the Penguins, and Colin Campbell's plan to increase net sizes.

The years have not been kind to the Penguins franchise. After almost folding in the 70s, (saved by new owners), the 80s (saved by the (alleged) throwing of a season and the emergence of Mario Lemieux,), and the 90s (when Lemieux brought the team out of Chapter 11), the Penguins are now up for sale once again.

It is clear there are not many buyers interested in this franchise, and I am no Harvard Business grad, but here are partial reasons:

• The Penguins play in the oldest (and from what I hear, the most dilapidated) arena in the NHL. Steve Staios referred to it as a prison. The Penguins were depending on Isle of Capri Casinos to build a new $290 million rink if they won the slot license for the city, but that bid was quashed on Wednesday




• If history does in fact repeat itself, then getting fan support for the Penguins is going to be next to impossible. This franchise routinely ends up in the bottom end of NHL home attendance figures. Possibly explains why the franchise almost folds every 10 years

Jim Balsillie, owner of Research in Motion, made what I understand to be a very generous offer to buy the Penguins, even without the Isle of Capri deal guaranteed. However, if the rumours are true, the NHL faxed him several demands before the Isle of Capri deal went down, including a stipulation that he keep the team in Pittsburgh for a given amount of time, regardless of the new arena deal (or apparently profitability). Balsillie promptly withdrew his bid, the Isle of Capri deal fell through, and Lemieux has stated that any future deals with Balsillie are off the table.

From a Canadian fan's perspective, these last minute demands from the NHL are a slap in the face, especially for Winnipegers and Quebecers. Where were these demands when those franchises were shipped south, in some cases to cities where the idea of hockey looks as if it'll never take hold. Is the idea of a Canadian billionaire taking a failed American franchise north to Hamilton or Winnepeg (where there is a new arena built even without a franchise) so disturbing to the market mad NHL that they'll stop the deal at any cost?

Well good luck to Mario and Gary, but right now it looks like for some reason Basillie is still somewhat interested, otherwise they're going to have to go to Frank D'angelo, hockey fan/bad beer ad extraordinaire (to be fair, the ads are supposed to be bad, and they're somewhat hilariously so). Right now nothing would make me happier than see both the current Penguins ownership and NHL brass get screwed for not heeding the age old advice of beggars not being choosers.

My second rant concerns the proposed increase of net sizes (by the same guy who hands out disciplinary decisions no less. Lets get a handle on that first, sound good Collie?) I don't understand the NHL's obsession with increasing scoring. Why do they believe that increased scoring will result in increased viewship or fandom?

Soccer is the world's most popular sport, and its almost always a low scoring affair. I doubt the average soccer game gets half the goals scored of the average hockey game. Contrarily, Lacrosse games probably average twice the number of goals of a hockey game, but its not half as popular, at least in terms of viewership.

This is only speculation on my part, but I think there are multiple attractions to hockey. Firstly, the athleticism involved in skating and puck handling is astounding. Few athletes in terrestrial sports could understand the complexity of puck handling, checking, positioning in skates. Many hockey players can run and catch a ball with a high degree of competence. Few pro football players could even skate.

Secondly, there is a great amount of strategy and planning in hockey. Few people who even watch the game understand how an individual player should position himself, let alone how a group of 5 people consistently position themselves in accordance with one another and the other team to maximize their chances of success.

Third: Shifting on the fly. This brings an element of explosiveness and strategy to the game itself. In other sports coaches can send everyone out and tell them exactly who to cover. In hockey its a constant battle to get the right matchups between one player and another. In addition, it allows player to stay fresh and play at a very high rate of speed, keeping the total game speed up. NBA starters play up to 45 minutes a game. Baseball players sometimes play double headers (two game in one day). A great hockey player might play 25-30 minutes a game, but usually only if there isn't another game the next night. If there is a game the next night, usually players don't play much past 20 minutes.

Finally, individual efforts and awesome plays. Sometimes you just have to watch and wait for the unexpected. Most nights (for me at least) a player will make a play that simply inspires awe due to its precision or creativity or effectiveness. Whether its a coast to coast or a great 1-1 battle, its what makes hockey worth watching.

So lets put an end to these bigger net ideas. Goals aren't all hockey fans look forward to, and if people simply want to see them they can watch the highlights at the end of the night and miss the real game.