Integrity is a rare thing these days. A passing glance at the U.S. election, or politics in general, is indication enough.
When Marc Bergevin took the job as General Manager of the Montreal Canadiens in 2012 he told reporters he was ready for the job. What he didn't anticipate was everything that happened last season. After a brilliant start, the team all but collapsed when star goaltender Carey Price went down with a long-term injury. Certainly there were other factors contributing to the downfall, but for a team built largely from the goal crease out, it was a recipe for disaster.
Perhaps Bergevin could not have anticipated such a scenario, but I’m starting to believe he was ready to face it.
Managing a professional sports team is no easy task. One year they could be champions, the next fail to qualify for the playoffs. Any number of scenarios can occur beyond management's control: Injuries, bad bounces, a player - or players - losing confidence. Ask any goal-scorer how they got in a slump and most will be unable to explain it. The solution, we are told, lies in perseverance and a belief that if you keep doing the right things, the situation will eventually turn around.
For most of Marc Bergevin’s tenure as GM he has been doing the right things. Extricating the organization from expensive contracts, bringing in unsung talent without sacrificing developing players, and avoiding the pitfalls of trade-deadline spending sprees. Though not every move has met with fan approval, prior to last season most believed Bergevin’s actions were making the team better.
Many things unraveled last season, but the most significant was fan confidence in the Canadien’s front office. From conspiracy theories about Price's injury to the embarassment of the John Scott trade, the downward spiral seemed to accelerate with each passing week. Bergevin could have easily deflected the blame to someone else, but he didn't. Instead he took all of it on his shoulders, telling fans and reporters 'it's on me' while also doubling-down on his vision for the team, unwilling to fire his coach, using the now infamous ‘foxhole’ analogy, perhaps the one regret of his career as GM.
If there was any doubt that Marc Bergevin was up to the task of being the General Manager of the Montreal Canadiens it was quickly put to rest this summer. Pulling the trigger on the blockbuster trade of fan favourite P.K. Subban for veteran Shea Weber was Bergevin's boldest and riskiest move to date. He knew the backlash would be immediate and merciless, yet it did not sway his decision.
I have stated before that I believe Marc Bergevin’s goal has always been to make the Montreal Canadiens a better team. Unfortunately being GM of a team with a rabid fanbase means intense scrutiny fraught with many unpopular decisions. Executing a plan in an environment in which everyone else thinks they could do a better, requires tremendous courage of one’s convictions. When Marc Bergevin said he was ready to become General Manager of the Canadiens, the Subban-Weber trade was the precise measure of that statement.
It’s not difficult to figure out what Marc Bergevin and coach Michel Therrien believe to be a winning formula. It is a combination of grit, character, teamwork and great goaltending. It also involves building through the draft and player development. For the most part, those have been the guiding principles of the decision-making process over the past four years, and it is with these principles that Marc Bergevin has staked his future on.
It’s not often we encounter someone willing to endure the harshest criticism to see a plan to fruition. To be prepared to make wildly unpopular decisions with the firm belief that it is for the better. You can agree with him or not, but you can't deny that Marc Bergevin is is willing to do whatever it takes for the Montreal Canadiens to succeed, or go down trying.
That’s what it means to have integrity and it is a rare thing indeed.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Thursday, October 20, 2016
No Promises
In Montreal, hockey is religion.
That analogy is an old one, meant as a gentle jab at the sometimes obsessive nature of Montreal Canadiens’ fans. But in Québec, a province in which the physical presence of religion’s former dominance is undeniable, the line between religion and hockey is blurry.
Quebec is a land of churches. Towering stone steeples are often the signature of the smallest village or largest city. A short walk from the Bell Centre you will find an Anglican church and Marie-Reine-du-Monde Cathedral, where the funeral for Montreal Canadien’s legend Jean Béliveau was held. Just two of the city’s multitude of churches.
The Roman Catholic church was at the core of Québec society for most of its history, and though the Quiet Revolution ushered in a new era of secularism, words and icons once used as hammers of oppression still permeate every aspect of the province’s culture.
Despite religion’s fading relevance, its use of symbols and icons as a means to inspire and motivate is still very much alive.
Pregame ceremonies at Montreal Canadiens' home-openers are as close to a secular form of worship as you will ever see. They often incorporate icons and symbols, draw from history like scripture, and though they may lack confession, certainly there is a sense of atonement and humility to a greater power. That power it seems, is a transcendent vision of the franchise, not defined by its personnel or management, but something of myth and legend. Journalists and fans still talk about the ghosts of the old Forum, as if they were saints called upon to bless the current roster. Then there is the iconic torch which is literally and figuratively passed from player to player, generation to generation, linking today’s team to an unbroken chain of history and tradition.
Perhaps this is an overstatement of the meaning of such ceremonies, but it’s no coincidence that in a place where religion’s legacy still looms over the culture, that such ceremonies are deeply rooted in a tradition of reverence.
As much as these icons and symbols can inspire, as in the history of the church, they can also become tools of oppression.
One noticeably absent symbol from the Montreal Canadiens’ locker room this season was a sign that read ‘No Excuses.’ Much was made in the media about the removal of the sign, many suggesting that the team’s coaches and management did not live up to those words. The post mortem by General Manager Marc Bergevin on last season’s epic collapse seemed to be rife with excuses, ranging from key injuries to veiled references to character issues.
Whether we want to accept this assessment as a reason or a litany of excuses, Bergevin wasn’t wrong. These things were certainly a factor, though he and coach Michel Therrien are just as culpable in their handling of the crisis.
So why remove the sign? It's my belief that it was because this sign went from being a tool of inspiration to a tool of oppression. The truth is, many things in life don’t go as planned. We foolishly believe ourselves to be in complete control of our destiny, but when things start going off the rails we are suddenly reminded of our own fallibility. We saw how last season’s collapse turned a high-flying team into a disorganized mess. How it transformed a normally quiet and reflective Max Pacioretty into an angry and frustrated man. Loss after loss, the players had to look up and read ‘No excuses,’ words that they were commanded to live by, but were devastating to the spirit. Media and fans kept hammering the players, coaches and management with the phrase to the point that they must have felt completely and utterly isolated.
Icons and symbols can inspire, but they can also be tools of oppression.
I rather liked Tuesday’s home opening ceremony. A circle of players united with their captain, holding a torch quite literally passed from failing hands. No lofty promises, no guarantees, in fact very few words at all. Just a group standing as one, ready to face whatever lies ahead.
Strip away the icons and symbols, and this the best any of us can hope for.
That analogy is an old one, meant as a gentle jab at the sometimes obsessive nature of Montreal Canadiens’ fans. But in Québec, a province in which the physical presence of religion’s former dominance is undeniable, the line between religion and hockey is blurry.
Quebec is a land of churches. Towering stone steeples are often the signature of the smallest village or largest city. A short walk from the Bell Centre you will find an Anglican church and Marie-Reine-du-Monde Cathedral, where the funeral for Montreal Canadien’s legend Jean Béliveau was held. Just two of the city’s multitude of churches.
The Roman Catholic church was at the core of Québec society for most of its history, and though the Quiet Revolution ushered in a new era of secularism, words and icons once used as hammers of oppression still permeate every aspect of the province’s culture.
Despite religion’s fading relevance, its use of symbols and icons as a means to inspire and motivate is still very much alive.
Pregame ceremonies at Montreal Canadiens' home-openers are as close to a secular form of worship as you will ever see. They often incorporate icons and symbols, draw from history like scripture, and though they may lack confession, certainly there is a sense of atonement and humility to a greater power. That power it seems, is a transcendent vision of the franchise, not defined by its personnel or management, but something of myth and legend. Journalists and fans still talk about the ghosts of the old Forum, as if they were saints called upon to bless the current roster. Then there is the iconic torch which is literally and figuratively passed from player to player, generation to generation, linking today’s team to an unbroken chain of history and tradition.
Perhaps this is an overstatement of the meaning of such ceremonies, but it’s no coincidence that in a place where religion’s legacy still looms over the culture, that such ceremonies are deeply rooted in a tradition of reverence.
As much as these icons and symbols can inspire, as in the history of the church, they can also become tools of oppression.
One noticeably absent symbol from the Montreal Canadiens’ locker room this season was a sign that read ‘No Excuses.’ Much was made in the media about the removal of the sign, many suggesting that the team’s coaches and management did not live up to those words. The post mortem by General Manager Marc Bergevin on last season’s epic collapse seemed to be rife with excuses, ranging from key injuries to veiled references to character issues.
Whether we want to accept this assessment as a reason or a litany of excuses, Bergevin wasn’t wrong. These things were certainly a factor, though he and coach Michel Therrien are just as culpable in their handling of the crisis.
So why remove the sign? It's my belief that it was because this sign went from being a tool of inspiration to a tool of oppression. The truth is, many things in life don’t go as planned. We foolishly believe ourselves to be in complete control of our destiny, but when things start going off the rails we are suddenly reminded of our own fallibility. We saw how last season’s collapse turned a high-flying team into a disorganized mess. How it transformed a normally quiet and reflective Max Pacioretty into an angry and frustrated man. Loss after loss, the players had to look up and read ‘No excuses,’ words that they were commanded to live by, but were devastating to the spirit. Media and fans kept hammering the players, coaches and management with the phrase to the point that they must have felt completely and utterly isolated.
Icons and symbols can inspire, but they can also be tools of oppression.
I rather liked Tuesday’s home opening ceremony. A circle of players united with their captain, holding a torch quite literally passed from failing hands. No lofty promises, no guarantees, in fact very few words at all. Just a group standing as one, ready to face whatever lies ahead.
Strip away the icons and symbols, and this the best any of us can hope for.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
All or Something Else
I was 14 years-old when the Montreal Canadiens won their 22nd Stanley Cup in 1979. It was the year of Guy Lafleur's iconic game-seven tying goal against the Boston Bruins in the semis. Other than that, I don't remember much. When the Canadiens finally hoisted the cup at the hallowed Forum, I was in bed. As I recall, my brother woke me up to share the news. I can barely remember what I said, but it was probably something like 'oh, great,' before turning off the light, rolling over and going back to sleep.
For kids growing up in 1970s Montreal, Stanley Cup victories had become old hat. That's not to say we weren't huge fans of the club, we all knew we were part of something special. The few times I got to see a game at the old Forum, you could literally feel the history. There was a sense of being among heros past and present. The sights, sounds and smells are still quite vivid.
Despite it's mythical place in Montreal culture, hockey did not preoccupy our lives to the extent it does today. There were no 24/7 sports channels or dedicated websites or blogs or Twitter. Weeknight hockey games were rarely televised and hockey was a topic of casual conversation that fell somewhere between weather and politics. When summer arrived, hockey was put on a shelf with our gloves and toques, stored away with the skates and winter coats.
In 2016 it seems virtually impossible to be a fan of the Montreal Canadiens without experiencing a relentless stream of information, spin, opinion and speculation about the team. This has become the case for most pro sports today. Supporting a favourite team in the modern era is more than a preoccupation, it is a nonstop conversation that lasts all year long.
Spend an hour or two on Twitter any given day and you'll witness unending arguments about players, coaches, general managers and officials. You will also be privvy to more than a few conspiracy theories telling you what is really going on. On game night, the conversations become more pointed and arguments become personal attacks. It's an exaggerated reality that magnifies success and failure to full blown histrionics, torching friendships and occassionally disolving into cultural and racial attacks.
I suppose this is the reality of social media itself, the online equivalent of people in cars shouting obscenities at others with the windows closed.
I get that people are passionate about their team (and I fully admit my own) but here's the thing, in sports, as in life, it is possible to have a contrary opinion without being abusive or derogatory. It is possible to be happy with your team's success without disparaging fans of the other team. It is possible to win gracefully and to lose gracefully.
At the same time, people are entitled to comment on, and be critical of, what they see. If an opinion does not mesh with your own, it shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on you personally. It's also important to recognize satire and not take everything we see so seriously. Humour is often the best way to deflate anger brought on by frustration. These are not just good guidelines for social media, but also for life in general.
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from the days when hockey did not occupy so much time and space. And no, this isn't a call to return to the 'good ol' days' because they weren't all that good, but we might find disconnecting from the 24/7 media cycle will make watching sports more enjoyable.
Maybe what we need most is to turn off the light, roll over and get a good night's sleep.
For kids growing up in 1970s Montreal, Stanley Cup victories had become old hat. That's not to say we weren't huge fans of the club, we all knew we were part of something special. The few times I got to see a game at the old Forum, you could literally feel the history. There was a sense of being among heros past and present. The sights, sounds and smells are still quite vivid.
Despite it's mythical place in Montreal culture, hockey did not preoccupy our lives to the extent it does today. There were no 24/7 sports channels or dedicated websites or blogs or Twitter. Weeknight hockey games were rarely televised and hockey was a topic of casual conversation that fell somewhere between weather and politics. When summer arrived, hockey was put on a shelf with our gloves and toques, stored away with the skates and winter coats.
In 2016 it seems virtually impossible to be a fan of the Montreal Canadiens without experiencing a relentless stream of information, spin, opinion and speculation about the team. This has become the case for most pro sports today. Supporting a favourite team in the modern era is more than a preoccupation, it is a nonstop conversation that lasts all year long.
Spend an hour or two on Twitter any given day and you'll witness unending arguments about players, coaches, general managers and officials. You will also be privvy to more than a few conspiracy theories telling you what is really going on. On game night, the conversations become more pointed and arguments become personal attacks. It's an exaggerated reality that magnifies success and failure to full blown histrionics, torching friendships and occassionally disolving into cultural and racial attacks.
I suppose this is the reality of social media itself, the online equivalent of people in cars shouting obscenities at others with the windows closed.
I get that people are passionate about their team (and I fully admit my own) but here's the thing, in sports, as in life, it is possible to have a contrary opinion without being abusive or derogatory. It is possible to be happy with your team's success without disparaging fans of the other team. It is possible to win gracefully and to lose gracefully.
At the same time, people are entitled to comment on, and be critical of, what they see. If an opinion does not mesh with your own, it shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on you personally. It's also important to recognize satire and not take everything we see so seriously. Humour is often the best way to deflate anger brought on by frustration. These are not just good guidelines for social media, but also for life in general.
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from the days when hockey did not occupy so much time and space. And no, this isn't a call to return to the 'good ol' days' because they weren't all that good, but we might find disconnecting from the 24/7 media cycle will make watching sports more enjoyable.
Maybe what we need most is to turn off the light, roll over and get a good night's sleep.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Counter Culture
P.K. Subban is a Nashville Predator. It doesn’t matter if you're okay
with 'the trade' or not, it's already history. Besides, there is very
little anyone can do about it, except perhaps complain which is
essentially pointless. Accept it and move on, that’s what grown ups do.
I believed at the time (and still do) that the trade was a mistake. Marc Bergevin went all-in acquiring a known commodity in Shea Weber in exchange for Subban’s obvious potential. If you were to ask general managers around the league, most would say it was a good trade for the Canadiens organization. Though clearly many like myself, plus one GM, don't agree.
Which brings me, oddly enough, to the current trainwreck that is the American election. Many of us have lamented the popularity of the supremely unqualified Donald Trump. It's becoming clear his support has little to do with substantive policy, but rather a thinly-veiled appeal to an underlying culture of intolerance and ignorance among many voters. Trump knows he is the right man for everything that is wrong with an appallingly large segment of American society.
So too in hockey, the problem isn’t Subban, or Bergevin, it’s the culture. As pro sports go, there are few that match hockey in its conservatism. Golf certainly. Tennis perhaps. For example, in an era when pro sports leagues have been forced to address player safety, in particular concussions, the NHL still tacitly approves of bare-fisted fighting by arguing that 'it's just part of the game.' The league generally discourages individuality in its players, both on and off the ice, unless it conforms to a model of humility, old-school toughness, quiet community service and 'the code.'
Subban is anything but that. He is brash, outspoken, funny, loud and incredibly gifted. His public image is as important as was his pride in playing for the Canadiens. Unfortunately that kind of thinking doesn’t mesh with NHL culture. In the minds of many, Subban was getting too big for his britches, an appropriately antiquated expression to illustrate the point.
Like it or not, players like Subban represent the modern generation of professional athletes. Branding is important to them, but can also be extremely lucrative to the franchises for which they play. Pro leagues don't own players like they used to, a concept that seems strangely foreign to NHL GMs.
The irony is that the Canadien’s glory days were rife with players and managers doing a lot of out-of-the-box thinking. They were trend-setters, not trend-followers. The wild-eyed intensity and politically vocal Maurice Richard comes to mind. The problem isn’t that players think they are bigger than the game, it’s management believing they are. Would Roy have been traded if cooler, more mature heads prevailed over ego? Let's be honest, it was a childish spat that set back the franchise at least a decade.
I believe Marc Bergevin sincerely wants to make this team better. I believe Michel Therrien thinks he has the winning formula. They may be right. I hope they’re right, but I can't help but wonder how much hockey culture plays a role in their decisions. That said, though I may disagree with their decisions, we all want the same thing, and I can't fault them for that. Besides, holding grudges is a profound waste of time.
I am very much looking forward to Canadiens hockey this season. I'm excited to see what Shea Weber brings to the team, but I will also be watching and supporting P.K. Subban.
Yes, I can do both. That's what grown ups do.
I believed at the time (and still do) that the trade was a mistake. Marc Bergevin went all-in acquiring a known commodity in Shea Weber in exchange for Subban’s obvious potential. If you were to ask general managers around the league, most would say it was a good trade for the Canadiens organization. Though clearly many like myself, plus one GM, don't agree.
Which brings me, oddly enough, to the current trainwreck that is the American election. Many of us have lamented the popularity of the supremely unqualified Donald Trump. It's becoming clear his support has little to do with substantive policy, but rather a thinly-veiled appeal to an underlying culture of intolerance and ignorance among many voters. Trump knows he is the right man for everything that is wrong with an appallingly large segment of American society.
So too in hockey, the problem isn’t Subban, or Bergevin, it’s the culture. As pro sports go, there are few that match hockey in its conservatism. Golf certainly. Tennis perhaps. For example, in an era when pro sports leagues have been forced to address player safety, in particular concussions, the NHL still tacitly approves of bare-fisted fighting by arguing that 'it's just part of the game.' The league generally discourages individuality in its players, both on and off the ice, unless it conforms to a model of humility, old-school toughness, quiet community service and 'the code.'
Subban is anything but that. He is brash, outspoken, funny, loud and incredibly gifted. His public image is as important as was his pride in playing for the Canadiens. Unfortunately that kind of thinking doesn’t mesh with NHL culture. In the minds of many, Subban was getting too big for his britches, an appropriately antiquated expression to illustrate the point.
Like it or not, players like Subban represent the modern generation of professional athletes. Branding is important to them, but can also be extremely lucrative to the franchises for which they play. Pro leagues don't own players like they used to, a concept that seems strangely foreign to NHL GMs.
The irony is that the Canadien’s glory days were rife with players and managers doing a lot of out-of-the-box thinking. They were trend-setters, not trend-followers. The wild-eyed intensity and politically vocal Maurice Richard comes to mind. The problem isn’t that players think they are bigger than the game, it’s management believing they are. Would Roy have been traded if cooler, more mature heads prevailed over ego? Let's be honest, it was a childish spat that set back the franchise at least a decade.
I believe Marc Bergevin sincerely wants to make this team better. I believe Michel Therrien thinks he has the winning formula. They may be right. I hope they’re right, but I can't help but wonder how much hockey culture plays a role in their decisions. That said, though I may disagree with their decisions, we all want the same thing, and I can't fault them for that. Besides, holding grudges is a profound waste of time.
I am very much looking forward to Canadiens hockey this season. I'm excited to see what Shea Weber brings to the team, but I will also be watching and supporting P.K. Subban.
Yes, I can do both. That's what grown ups do.
Winning Respect
(First published February 17, 2015)
In Montreal there is no higher position than coach of the Canadiens. With respect to Mayor Denis Corderre, the glaring media spotlight of Habs bench-boss is beyond compare. Every decision is scrutinized by a batallion of reporters, insiders, critics and pundits, not to mention legions of fans and couch-coaches worldwide.
It is simultaneously an incredible and soul-destroying job.
Michel Therrien doesn't have it easy. His NHL coaching resume prior to his hiring (or technically rehiring) is marked with near-greatness and ignominious failure. At times he doesn't help his own cause by making and repeating decisions that can seem puzzling, risky and downright bizarre.
Which makes it all the more impressive that Michel Therrien carries on his coaching duties seemingly without giving a flying f*ck what anybody thinks.
Of course, there are plenty of legitimate factors contributing to the Habs' success this season: Carey Price elevating his game to the stratosphere, brilliant moves by General Manager Marc Bergevin and young players maturing at the right time. Without undermining the value of those factors, I would argue where the rubber truly meets the road is how those elements come together on the ice. Certainly Therrien's experience as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins tells us that a skilled lineup doesn't always equate to success. Understanding the complexity of NHL-level strategy combined with the skills, mindset, egos and experience of your roster is a difficult balancing act at best.
Somehow in the face of his own personal history and the frenzied spotlight, Therrien has found a way to keep the Canadiens consistently atop the standings. Yet despite this record, he seems to have garnered only a modicum of grudging respect. In virtually any other franchise in the NHL (including Toronto) Michel Therrien would be hailed as a hero.
Is Therrien the best coach in the NHL? Successful certainly, but maybe not the best.
Is Therrien the best coach for the Canadiens right now? The answer has to be a resounding yes.
Turning around a team that failed to make the playoffs in 2012, with a roster laden with some notable dead weight, inexperienced and developing players, in the unforgiving and oft brutal spotlight of Montreal media and rabid fan base, is nothing short of remarkable. And yes, he's done so in two languages, despite having to endure crass mockery of his accent.
Love him or hate him, Michel Therrien is unwavering in his viewpoints and will coach the team the way he believes it should be coached until he gets fired, or retires. That is perhaps the only way a person not only copes with the stresses of coaching the Montreal Canadiens, but can be successful doing so.
I don't always agree with Michel Therrien's decisions, but I cannot fault his success in one of the toughest coaching jobs in professional sports.
Though I highly suspect he couldn't give a flying f*ck what I think.
In Montreal there is no higher position than coach of the Canadiens. With respect to Mayor Denis Corderre, the glaring media spotlight of Habs bench-boss is beyond compare. Every decision is scrutinized by a batallion of reporters, insiders, critics and pundits, not to mention legions of fans and couch-coaches worldwide.
It is simultaneously an incredible and soul-destroying job.
Michel Therrien doesn't have it easy. His NHL coaching resume prior to his hiring (or technically rehiring) is marked with near-greatness and ignominious failure. At times he doesn't help his own cause by making and repeating decisions that can seem puzzling, risky and downright bizarre.
Which makes it all the more impressive that Michel Therrien carries on his coaching duties seemingly without giving a flying f*ck what anybody thinks.
Of course, there are plenty of legitimate factors contributing to the Habs' success this season: Carey Price elevating his game to the stratosphere, brilliant moves by General Manager Marc Bergevin and young players maturing at the right time. Without undermining the value of those factors, I would argue where the rubber truly meets the road is how those elements come together on the ice. Certainly Therrien's experience as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins tells us that a skilled lineup doesn't always equate to success. Understanding the complexity of NHL-level strategy combined with the skills, mindset, egos and experience of your roster is a difficult balancing act at best.
Somehow in the face of his own personal history and the frenzied spotlight, Therrien has found a way to keep the Canadiens consistently atop the standings. Yet despite this record, he seems to have garnered only a modicum of grudging respect. In virtually any other franchise in the NHL (including Toronto) Michel Therrien would be hailed as a hero.
Is Therrien the best coach in the NHL? Successful certainly, but maybe not the best.
Is Therrien the best coach for the Canadiens right now? The answer has to be a resounding yes.
Turning around a team that failed to make the playoffs in 2012, with a roster laden with some notable dead weight, inexperienced and developing players, in the unforgiving and oft brutal spotlight of Montreal media and rabid fan base, is nothing short of remarkable. And yes, he's done so in two languages, despite having to endure crass mockery of his accent.
Love him or hate him, Michel Therrien is unwavering in his viewpoints and will coach the team the way he believes it should be coached until he gets fired, or retires. That is perhaps the only way a person not only copes with the stresses of coaching the Montreal Canadiens, but can be successful doing so.
I don't always agree with Michel Therrien's decisions, but I cannot fault his success in one of the toughest coaching jobs in professional sports.
Though I highly suspect he couldn't give a flying f*ck what I think.
Falling Leafs
(First published January 20, 2015)
The Twitterverse is abuzz today over so-called Toronto Maple Leafs fans tossing jerseys onto the Air Canada Centre's ice after another lackluster performance, a 4-1 loss to the Carolina Hurricanes. The chatter quickly escalated to crazed cacophony when it was revealed the jersey-throwers in question had been arrested, charged with public mischief, fined $5000 and banned from the Air Canada centre for a year.
Some opinions posit that the Maple Leafs organization is essentially applying a league-wide rule to the letter of the law. Citing player safety, under no circumstance shall fans throw foreign objects on to the ice, a rule that is often overlooked after the home-team scores a hat trick, or the occassional octopus in Detroit.
While the Leafs organization may argue that they are simply following standard procedure, make no mistake, the severity with which the organization is applying the law, and the public way in which it is doing so, is clearly an attempt to stem an an enormously embarassing trend.
From a hockey fan perspective, and moreover as a sports fan, while I do think the rules are being applied with notable zeal, what is being lost in the conversation is our understanding of what it means to be a team supporter.
Anyone who is a fan of a sports franchise knows that prolonged periods of success are never a given. There will be seasons of difficult losses or mediocre performances. For Leafs fans, that period has been intolerably long, and one could easily sympathize with their impatience, frustration and anger.
That said, to toss your team's jersey on their own playing surface is without question the height of disrespect. Rules and regulations notwithstanding, it is a public declaration not only withdrawing support for the current team, but also tossing aside its history and everything that it represents.
Yes, it is just a jersey. It isn't sacred or holy, however it still means something to those that wear it now and those that have in the past. In the case of the Toronto Maple Leafs that means a founding member of the NHL, 13 Stanley Cup championships and a huge fan-base whose loyalty, in the light of recent years, can only be admired.
There are other ways to express your displeasure for a team's performance (or lack thereof). You can boo them off the ice, you can stop showing up for games, you can write blogs or vent your frustration on talk radio.
But if you choose to reject the very symbol of the franchise you support, then perhaps you were never really a fan to begin with.
I believe things will turn around for the Leafs, there is too much at stake to maintain the status quo.
When it does, I'm sure there will be plenty of room on the bandwagon. I just hope the jersey-tossers enjoy the company of disingenuous hypocrites, because there'll be plenty.
The Twitterverse is abuzz today over so-called Toronto Maple Leafs fans tossing jerseys onto the Air Canada Centre's ice after another lackluster performance, a 4-1 loss to the Carolina Hurricanes. The chatter quickly escalated to crazed cacophony when it was revealed the jersey-throwers in question had been arrested, charged with public mischief, fined $5000 and banned from the Air Canada centre for a year.
Some opinions posit that the Maple Leafs organization is essentially applying a league-wide rule to the letter of the law. Citing player safety, under no circumstance shall fans throw foreign objects on to the ice, a rule that is often overlooked after the home-team scores a hat trick, or the occassional octopus in Detroit.
While the Leafs organization may argue that they are simply following standard procedure, make no mistake, the severity with which the organization is applying the law, and the public way in which it is doing so, is clearly an attempt to stem an an enormously embarassing trend.
From a hockey fan perspective, and moreover as a sports fan, while I do think the rules are being applied with notable zeal, what is being lost in the conversation is our understanding of what it means to be a team supporter.
Anyone who is a fan of a sports franchise knows that prolonged periods of success are never a given. There will be seasons of difficult losses or mediocre performances. For Leafs fans, that period has been intolerably long, and one could easily sympathize with their impatience, frustration and anger.
That said, to toss your team's jersey on their own playing surface is without question the height of disrespect. Rules and regulations notwithstanding, it is a public declaration not only withdrawing support for the current team, but also tossing aside its history and everything that it represents.
Yes, it is just a jersey. It isn't sacred or holy, however it still means something to those that wear it now and those that have in the past. In the case of the Toronto Maple Leafs that means a founding member of the NHL, 13 Stanley Cup championships and a huge fan-base whose loyalty, in the light of recent years, can only be admired.
There are other ways to express your displeasure for a team's performance (or lack thereof). You can boo them off the ice, you can stop showing up for games, you can write blogs or vent your frustration on talk radio.
But if you choose to reject the very symbol of the franchise you support, then perhaps you were never really a fan to begin with.
I believe things will turn around for the Leafs, there is too much at stake to maintain the status quo.
When it does, I'm sure there will be plenty of room on the bandwagon. I just hope the jersey-tossers enjoy the company of disingenuous hypocrites, because there'll be plenty.
Michel Therrien vs. Michel Therrien
(First published September 19, 2014)
'It was like men against boys' Michel Therrien notoriously lamented as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins. It was a cold January night in 2006 and his slumping team had just dropped a 3-1 stinker to the Edmonton Oilers.
Therrien threw the entire team under the bus that night and perhaps unwittingly, himself. He lambasted the player's soft defence and utter lack of passion, then concluded his exasperated diatribe by wondering aloud if he could possibly find a solution.
Despite the much publicized rant, Therrien managed to turn things around for the Penguins, eventually leading the team to the Stanley Cup finals in 2008. Though the Peguins lost to the Detroit Red Wings, the team looked poised to become perennial cup contenders. But by February of the following season it had all unravelled again and Therrien was sent packing. It was an inglorious end to what had once seemed a storybook tale for the former Habs coach. Adding insult to injury was his replacement, Dan Bylsma, leading the team to their third Stanley Cup in the same season, fulfilling a destiny Therrien surely felt he had earned.
When Therrien returned as coach for the Canadiens in 2012, that rant among other things, was firmly on the minds of fans. It was unsettling to know that the organization had placed its trust in a man whose past history included the most public display of losing a locker room in living memory. Secondary to that, was a lingering concern about whether Therrien was still capable of coaching at the professional level after a three-year absence from the bench.
We got our answer in the shortened 2012-2013 season when the Habs showed significant improvement. The mission was simple: make the playoffs. To that end, Therrien delivered. But the first round loss to a truculent Ottawa Senators team seemed to bring out a bit of the old, exasperated Therrien, although his frustration was mercifully not directed at his players.
Last season was something of a different story. Although Therrien more than delivered on the goal of the post-season, it was during the regular season when fans and pundits began to wonder which Michel Therrien was behind the bench. There were moments of what some might label strategic brilliance, like putting Peter Budaj between the pipes for a second time in Boston, as a healthy Carey Price sat on the sidelines. Then there were those head-scratching moments, such as stapling P.K. Subban to the bench in critical 3rd period situations, or virtually any time he let Douglas Murray on the ice.
As the season progressed, opinions in the Canadiens' fan-base and media alternated between various levels of frustration, confusion, surprise and muted admiration of Therrien's coaching abilities. When things went bad, Therrien stood silently behind the bench, looking remarkably like that bronze Rodin sculpture, while more than a few of us wondered if he was thinking 'what is the solution?'
The Habs solid performance in the post-season seemed to erase much of that doubt. Save for a couple of fumbles (see Douglas Murray again) Therrien adjusted strategy, boosted minutes of his top performers and most importantly, remained composed.
So the real question for the forthcoming season is: Which Michel Therrien will show up? Will the old habits resurface, or has the experience of the past two seasons become the wisdom that will take his coaching abilities to the next level?
It could be argued that there is a similarity between the Pittsburgh Penguins roster under Therrien and the 2014-15 Canadiens. Both are teams well equipped with a core group of young players with the capacity of becoming the league's best.
Similar too, is coaching a talented, but struggling team to a turnaround that led deep into the post season. In 2009, Therrien failed to capitalize on that past success, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
One hopes these similarities are not lost on Michel Therrien, and that somewhere behind that distant thoughtful gaze lies a man with something to prove.
'It was like men against boys' Michel Therrien notoriously lamented as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins. It was a cold January night in 2006 and his slumping team had just dropped a 3-1 stinker to the Edmonton Oilers.
Therrien threw the entire team under the bus that night and perhaps unwittingly, himself. He lambasted the player's soft defence and utter lack of passion, then concluded his exasperated diatribe by wondering aloud if he could possibly find a solution.
Despite the much publicized rant, Therrien managed to turn things around for the Penguins, eventually leading the team to the Stanley Cup finals in 2008. Though the Peguins lost to the Detroit Red Wings, the team looked poised to become perennial cup contenders. But by February of the following season it had all unravelled again and Therrien was sent packing. It was an inglorious end to what had once seemed a storybook tale for the former Habs coach. Adding insult to injury was his replacement, Dan Bylsma, leading the team to their third Stanley Cup in the same season, fulfilling a destiny Therrien surely felt he had earned.
When Therrien returned as coach for the Canadiens in 2012, that rant among other things, was firmly on the minds of fans. It was unsettling to know that the organization had placed its trust in a man whose past history included the most public display of losing a locker room in living memory. Secondary to that, was a lingering concern about whether Therrien was still capable of coaching at the professional level after a three-year absence from the bench.
We got our answer in the shortened 2012-2013 season when the Habs showed significant improvement. The mission was simple: make the playoffs. To that end, Therrien delivered. But the first round loss to a truculent Ottawa Senators team seemed to bring out a bit of the old, exasperated Therrien, although his frustration was mercifully not directed at his players.
Last season was something of a different story. Although Therrien more than delivered on the goal of the post-season, it was during the regular season when fans and pundits began to wonder which Michel Therrien was behind the bench. There were moments of what some might label strategic brilliance, like putting Peter Budaj between the pipes for a second time in Boston, as a healthy Carey Price sat on the sidelines. Then there were those head-scratching moments, such as stapling P.K. Subban to the bench in critical 3rd period situations, or virtually any time he let Douglas Murray on the ice.
As the season progressed, opinions in the Canadiens' fan-base and media alternated between various levels of frustration, confusion, surprise and muted admiration of Therrien's coaching abilities. When things went bad, Therrien stood silently behind the bench, looking remarkably like that bronze Rodin sculpture, while more than a few of us wondered if he was thinking 'what is the solution?'
The Habs solid performance in the post-season seemed to erase much of that doubt. Save for a couple of fumbles (see Douglas Murray again) Therrien adjusted strategy, boosted minutes of his top performers and most importantly, remained composed.
So the real question for the forthcoming season is: Which Michel Therrien will show up? Will the old habits resurface, or has the experience of the past two seasons become the wisdom that will take his coaching abilities to the next level?
It could be argued that there is a similarity between the Pittsburgh Penguins roster under Therrien and the 2014-15 Canadiens. Both are teams well equipped with a core group of young players with the capacity of becoming the league's best.
Similar too, is coaching a talented, but struggling team to a turnaround that led deep into the post season. In 2009, Therrien failed to capitalize on that past success, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
One hopes these similarities are not lost on Michel Therrien, and that somewhere behind that distant thoughtful gaze lies a man with something to prove.
Captain? What Captain?
(First published September 17, 2014)
The announcement of Saku Koivu's retirement last week was bittersweet. Sweet, for the memories of one the Montreal Canadiens most loved and respected team leaders in their history. Considering that list includes the likes of Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau and Yvan Cournoyer, that is high praise.
Bitter, for the ignominious way in which some media in Montreal regarded his captaincy and being uncerimoniously jettisonned to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, after a record tying ten-year tenure as team captain. Yes, that other captain was Beliveau.
Koivu was a talented hockey player, though maybe not a superstar by a statistical measure, who played in an era when the Habs roster was mediocre at best. He was a difference-maker for a team that managed far more playoff success than expected.
It was his battle with cancer, specifically Burkitt's lymphoma, that truly defined his character for Habs fans. Koivu demonstrated a quiet courage and determination that inspired many in the stands and on the ice. The experience cemented his relationship with the community, a legacy that remains to this day courtesy of the Saku Koivu Foundation's onging support of the Montreal General Hospital, and his role in securing a PET/CT diagnostic scanner.
Still, it is bittersweet that his last days as an NHL hockey player were not spent in a Habs uniform. If you believe in the power of symbolism, then in many ways it would have represented the paradigm shift in thinking that the Canadiens management claim to have undergone under Marc Bergevin's leadership.
It is for this reason many believe that Koivu's number 11 should be retired by the team, if not for his inspired leadership, certainly to make amends for letting go of one of its most respected leaders.
Perhaps part of the reason for not choosing a captain after sending Brian Gionta packing, is that the organization at long last recognized the bar set by Koivu.
Perhaps veterans Andrei Markov and Tomas Plekanec, who both played with Koivu, recognize what it really means to be team captain.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization understand the maturity demonstrated by Koivu and so concluded that neither Max Pacioretty or P.K. Subban are ready to don the coveted 'C', at least not yet.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization is recognizing what it had, and what it meant.
Perhaps.
Saku Koivu has certainly earned something beyond a cursory congratulations from the Montreal Canadiens for a long and successful career. I wonder though, if the idea of retiring his jersey will awaken those critics who regularly described Koivu as overrated and a poor leader for his difficulty with a certain language.
It's a page of history for which the organization and media ought to atone.
You could easily do worse than having a team captain like Saku Koivu, but you most assuredly would have a hard time doing better.
Our Hockey Song
(First Published September 16, 2012)
(Sung to the tune of The Hockey Song by Stompin' Tom Connors)
They're goin' nowhere, we're off the air, no hockey on tonight.
Tension grows, they've come to blows, no settlement in sight.
It all looks bleak, when Bettman speaks, it really is insane.
The fans all roar, we can't take no more, where's our good ol' Hockey Game?
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Second round… of negotiations…
The lawyers clash, over terms and cash, as they go down to the wire.
The fingers wag as the meetings lag, while the CBA expires.
The reporters scrum, the statement comes, everyone's to blame.
Each side wants more, owners lock the door, to the good ol' Hockey Game.
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Third Round. Last chance to save the season!
Oh take me where the game is fair, and the fans can cheer and shout.
Where they play all night, no lawyers in sight, they can never lock us out.
Fire Bettman's ass, and Fehr's alas, they're both completely lame.
Let's drop the puck, don't let them f**k with our good ol' Hockey Game
(Chorus x3)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
(Sung to the tune of The Hockey Song by Stompin' Tom Connors)
They're goin' nowhere, we're off the air, no hockey on tonight.
Tension grows, they've come to blows, no settlement in sight.
It all looks bleak, when Bettman speaks, it really is insane.
The fans all roar, we can't take no more, where's our good ol' Hockey Game?
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Second round… of negotiations…
The lawyers clash, over terms and cash, as they go down to the wire.
The fingers wag as the meetings lag, while the CBA expires.
The reporters scrum, the statement comes, everyone's to blame.
Each side wants more, owners lock the door, to the good ol' Hockey Game.
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Third Round. Last chance to save the season!
Oh take me where the game is fair, and the fans can cheer and shout.
Where they play all night, no lawyers in sight, they can never lock us out.
Fire Bettman's ass, and Fehr's alas, they're both completely lame.
Let's drop the puck, don't let them f**k with our good ol' Hockey Game
(Chorus x3)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
This Is Vancouver
(First published June 21, 2011)
It's officially summer, so technically we should stop talking about hockey. Well, technically what I have to say is not just about the game. I've already alluded to the fact that I am not sorry the NHL season is over. Like most, I think I'd rather just forget about it. Unfortunately, the post-game riots on the streets of Vancouver make that rather difficult.
There are many in the city of Vancouver that are beyond disheartened that their team failed to win the famed Stanley Cup, but to have suffered an international shaming at the hands of thieves, thugs and those driven by the mob mentality of the day is a much crueler fate.
What has upset me most is the level of public disdain for the city and its team which seemed to surface even before the rioters took to the streets. Listening to local sports radio during the Stanley Cup final, I was disturbed to hear the voices of many callers expressing their outright dislike for the Canucks. This has, and continues, to baffle me.
Living in the east and being exposed mostly to Eastern Conference hockey, it's hard to imagine that anyone could even really get to know the team, let alone develop a hatred. The few games that I watched during the regular season were fairly entertaining. After all, Western Conference hockey has a long established reputation for its wide open, end-to-end, barnstorming style.
Long before the league put the kibosh on clutch-and-grab hockey, the Edmonton Oilers were the most exciting and entertaining team to watch. The games were often high scoring affairs with plenty of action, and of course the Great One putting on a goal-scoring clinic. It was a far cry from the Eastern Conference (known then as the Wales Conference) where it felt as if the game was being played in a phone booth. The Bruins, Flyers, Whalers and even the Habs, all pulling and tugging at one another, with only inches to spare. Boring.
In the new NHL, the Western Conference continues to entertain in much the same way, and this year the Canucks were undeniably one of the most exciting teams to watch. So why the hate?
A more perplexing mystery is the way in which the country has turned against a city that hosted what is without question the most inspiring and unforgettable Olympic games in Canadian history. With apologies to Calgary and my home town of Montreal, the Vancouver Olympics not only showcased awe-inspiring performances by Canadian athletes, it did so against the backdrop of Vancouver's stunning natural beauty and was further complemented by the warmth, grace and hospitality of its citizens.
Were the Olympics perfect? No, there were some serious setbacks and issues that plagued the games. The lack of snow on Cypress Mountain, a mechanical failure during the torch-lighting ceremony to say nothing the tragic death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. Yet, somehow the Vancouver games, and the city, rose above failure and tragedy to unite a nation in hope, determination, ambition and pride.
This was Vancouver. This is Vancouver.
Some have regarded the post-game riot in Vancouver as an impetus to attack the city and its population. One local journalist even went as far as to claim the riot was exactly the reason Vancouver did not deserve the cup. Attempting to smear an entire fan-base and its city because of a mixed mob of crooks, vandals and those caught up in the insanity of the moment is a distasteful combination of hubris and callowness.
To suggest that the vast majority of Vancouver fans are just like those who chose to express their disappointment by smashing windows, looting stores and setting cars ablaze, is an irresponsible and gross distortion of fact that borders on contempt. Particularly from anyone who takes up residence in a city that has something of a reputation for hockey-related riots. This glass house has quite a history.
The necessity to label the rioters as fans seems to be another media obsession. I consider myself a fan of more than one sports team and I know hundreds of others like myself. But none of us have ever once felt compelled to express our anger in anything more violent than slamming our fists into the arm of a sofa. You can choose to label the rioters anything you want, but they are not fans. Not by any definition I know. Unless of course you feel the defamation of an entire population is a small price to pay for generating controversy to satisfy a narcissistic need for attention. Don Cherry has to retire eventually.
I am not an apologist as has been suggested. Those involved in the riots should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and perhaps a new law ought to be written to see justice done. The unspoken truth however, is that sports-related riots have become an all-too familiar blight on modern society. Montreal, Boston, Los Angeles and many other cities have all experienced this disturbing trend. Dig deep enough and you will find that every city has its darker side, a powder-keg of pent-up emotion looking for some spark to explode. I don't justify it, but to deny this reality is tantamount to burying our heads in the shores of the St. Lawrence.
The latest salvo launched in this pile-on trash-fest was the suggestion that the Canucks were not Canadian enough because they didn't have as many Canadian players on their roster as the Bruins. I guess once one is done slamming the fans and the city, might as well move on to the team and the organization.
The audacity to suggest that the people of Vancouver, who are no different than ourselves, somehow deserve this fate is wrong. Plain and simple.
I feel Vancouver's shame, as it is Canada's shame. I never believed the city was somehow entitled to the cup, but they certainly deserved a more graceful end to this story. My pride in Vancouver will not be shaken by this event, as my pride in Montreal remains strong despite its own long and often spotty history.
I have visited Vancouver a handful of times in my life, and each visit was unforgettable. My last visit took me to Vancouver Island and the city of Victoria. It was during the intial deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Soldiers boarded transport ships to set sail from the harbour for a long journey into the unknown. As the ships passed the shoreline, a small crowd began to gather. It grew steadily until it swelled into the streets. Quietly, and without prompting, the crowd began to sing O'Canada. Like many, I was moved to tears. It was one of the most unforgettable moments in my life.
This was Vancouver. This is Vancouver.
It's officially summer, so technically we should stop talking about hockey. Well, technically what I have to say is not just about the game. I've already alluded to the fact that I am not sorry the NHL season is over. Like most, I think I'd rather just forget about it. Unfortunately, the post-game riots on the streets of Vancouver make that rather difficult.
There are many in the city of Vancouver that are beyond disheartened that their team failed to win the famed Stanley Cup, but to have suffered an international shaming at the hands of thieves, thugs and those driven by the mob mentality of the day is a much crueler fate.
What has upset me most is the level of public disdain for the city and its team which seemed to surface even before the rioters took to the streets. Listening to local sports radio during the Stanley Cup final, I was disturbed to hear the voices of many callers expressing their outright dislike for the Canucks. This has, and continues, to baffle me.
Living in the east and being exposed mostly to Eastern Conference hockey, it's hard to imagine that anyone could even really get to know the team, let alone develop a hatred. The few games that I watched during the regular season were fairly entertaining. After all, Western Conference hockey has a long established reputation for its wide open, end-to-end, barnstorming style.
Long before the league put the kibosh on clutch-and-grab hockey, the Edmonton Oilers were the most exciting and entertaining team to watch. The games were often high scoring affairs with plenty of action, and of course the Great One putting on a goal-scoring clinic. It was a far cry from the Eastern Conference (known then as the Wales Conference) where it felt as if the game was being played in a phone booth. The Bruins, Flyers, Whalers and even the Habs, all pulling and tugging at one another, with only inches to spare. Boring.
In the new NHL, the Western Conference continues to entertain in much the same way, and this year the Canucks were undeniably one of the most exciting teams to watch. So why the hate?
A more perplexing mystery is the way in which the country has turned against a city that hosted what is without question the most inspiring and unforgettable Olympic games in Canadian history. With apologies to Calgary and my home town of Montreal, the Vancouver Olympics not only showcased awe-inspiring performances by Canadian athletes, it did so against the backdrop of Vancouver's stunning natural beauty and was further complemented by the warmth, grace and hospitality of its citizens.
Were the Olympics perfect? No, there were some serious setbacks and issues that plagued the games. The lack of snow on Cypress Mountain, a mechanical failure during the torch-lighting ceremony to say nothing the tragic death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. Yet, somehow the Vancouver games, and the city, rose above failure and tragedy to unite a nation in hope, determination, ambition and pride.
This was Vancouver. This is Vancouver.
Some have regarded the post-game riot in Vancouver as an impetus to attack the city and its population. One local journalist even went as far as to claim the riot was exactly the reason Vancouver did not deserve the cup. Attempting to smear an entire fan-base and its city because of a mixed mob of crooks, vandals and those caught up in the insanity of the moment is a distasteful combination of hubris and callowness.
To suggest that the vast majority of Vancouver fans are just like those who chose to express their disappointment by smashing windows, looting stores and setting cars ablaze, is an irresponsible and gross distortion of fact that borders on contempt. Particularly from anyone who takes up residence in a city that has something of a reputation for hockey-related riots. This glass house has quite a history.
The necessity to label the rioters as fans seems to be another media obsession. I consider myself a fan of more than one sports team and I know hundreds of others like myself. But none of us have ever once felt compelled to express our anger in anything more violent than slamming our fists into the arm of a sofa. You can choose to label the rioters anything you want, but they are not fans. Not by any definition I know. Unless of course you feel the defamation of an entire population is a small price to pay for generating controversy to satisfy a narcissistic need for attention. Don Cherry has to retire eventually.
I am not an apologist as has been suggested. Those involved in the riots should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and perhaps a new law ought to be written to see justice done. The unspoken truth however, is that sports-related riots have become an all-too familiar blight on modern society. Montreal, Boston, Los Angeles and many other cities have all experienced this disturbing trend. Dig deep enough and you will find that every city has its darker side, a powder-keg of pent-up emotion looking for some spark to explode. I don't justify it, but to deny this reality is tantamount to burying our heads in the shores of the St. Lawrence.
The latest salvo launched in this pile-on trash-fest was the suggestion that the Canucks were not Canadian enough because they didn't have as many Canadian players on their roster as the Bruins. I guess once one is done slamming the fans and the city, might as well move on to the team and the organization.
The audacity to suggest that the people of Vancouver, who are no different than ourselves, somehow deserve this fate is wrong. Plain and simple.
I feel Vancouver's shame, as it is Canada's shame. I never believed the city was somehow entitled to the cup, but they certainly deserved a more graceful end to this story. My pride in Vancouver will not be shaken by this event, as my pride in Montreal remains strong despite its own long and often spotty history.
I have visited Vancouver a handful of times in my life, and each visit was unforgettable. My last visit took me to Vancouver Island and the city of Victoria. It was during the intial deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Soldiers boarded transport ships to set sail from the harbour for a long journey into the unknown. As the ships passed the shoreline, a small crowd began to gather. It grew steadily until it swelled into the streets. Quietly, and without prompting, the crowd began to sing O'Canada. Like many, I was moved to tears. It was one of the most unforgettable moments in my life.
This was Vancouver. This is Vancouver.
The NHL’s Annus Horribilis
(First published June 17, 2011)
At a time when fans of the NHL should be celebrating an exciting championship final, I have a sense that the vast majority would rather just forget the whole thing.
The 2010-2011 season seemed to kick off with great promise. An original six champion set to defend its title, a rejuvenated Sidney Crosby exploding out of the gate and a ray of light for Habs fans, Carey Price earning back some respect from a cynical and bitter fanbase.
On paper it looked good, but all was not well in the NHL.
Just as the season began, a hit by Chicago Blackhawk Niklas Hjalmarsson on Buffalo Sabres' Jason Pominville cooled the early momentum. This was the first test of the NHL’s new Rule 48. Hjalmarsson received a two-game suspension, and it seemed the league was serious about how it applied the rule. But things did not change. Repeat offender Matt Cooke continued to target the heads of fellow players, despite repeated warnings and suspensions. Then the league lost arguably its most talented player in Sidney Crosby due to a concussion sustained in a head shot delivered at the Winter Classic. He did not return for the rest of the season.
Instead of stepping up its efforts, the league began to flip flop on its definition of an illegal head shot. This culminated in the most notorious decision of the season, the non-suspension of Zdeno Chara for his near career-ending hit on Max Pacioretty. This would unleash a firestorm of controversy, and the hit itself became a PR nightmare. The major news organizations jumped on the story and the NHL’s reputation as a league of abject violence was further cemented in the minds of the casual observer. For many of us, this became the turning point of the season, and the hockey was never quite the same.
The league’s disciplinary committee, which consisted mostly of Colin Campbell, whose son Gregory plays for the Bruins, and Mike Murphy, spent the better part of the season developing inexplicable, and at times indefensible, interpretations of Rule 48. The net result was a policy that was often inconsistent in its interpretation and confusing to many. Even as the league claimed it was concerned about change, mid-season meetings among owners, led by commissioner Gary Bettman, concluded there was no need to change the rule or apply it any differently.
The league’s inaction prompted Hall-of-Famer and Pittsburg Penguin owner Mario Lemieux to take the league to task after a penalty-riddled, cheap-shot affair against the New York Islanders. Lemieux also signs Matt Cooke’s paycheque. The statement resulted in a lot of name-calling and some of the most spectacular displays of hypocrisy and ignorance from coaches, league officials, hockey commentators and players. Meanwhile, the cheap shots and concussions continued unabated.
As the league lost control on the ice, the ownership situation of the Phoenix Coyotes went from bad to worse. The team, now owned by the league, was bleeding cash and a potential deal to sell the team to Chicago investor Matthew Hulsizer was circling the bowl. Hulsizer was demanding the city of Glendale pony up some of the $170 million purchase price in the form of parking revenues. Conservative think tank The Goldwater Institute, who adamantly opposes public money being used to support private ventures, threatened to go to court to block the move. In the end, the city of Glendale agreed to pay the league $25 million to support the team for one more year.
As this scenario played out, the league was forced to deal with the Atlanta Thrashers ownership situation, which was disintegrating even faster. With Winnipeg on speed dial, the league tried its best to spin the situation with a fictional ruse that it could somehow find a way to keep the team in Atlanta. Even as the story broke of a deal being reached between Thrashers ownership and Winnipeg-based True North Sports and Entertainment, the league (read Commissioner Bettman) continued to deliver denial after denial. When it was finally announced that Winnipeg was indeed the beneficiary of Atlanta's (and the league's) failure, Bettman felt absolutely no reason to celebrate the return of hockey to a hockey market, in a hockey-crazed country. His press conference in Winnipeg was a combination of Droopy Dog and a scolding first grade teacher. He warned that Winnipeg would have to sell out every game just to survive. Winnipeg's MTS Centre's capacity is just over 15, 000. Average attendance at Thrashers games this season was around 13, 500.
As if the NHL’s season of epic fails were not enough to drag professional hockey through the manure, we have to add the deplorable actions of a mass of meatheads tearing apart the streets of downtown Vancouver after Wednesday's game seven final. This sad scene was enough to prompt some in the media to suggest Vancouver, who had arguably the most talented and skilled team in the league, somehow did not deserve the Stanley Cup. Apparently the lack of intelligence and insight in the league’s head office is contagious. The goons win again.
As the streets of Vancouver descended into anarchy, a chorus of boos descended upon Bettman as he presented the Stanley Cup to Zdeno Chara, whose 2010-2011 highlight reel features an attempted decapitation of a fellow player. Chara then handed the cup to his colleague Mark Recchi whose Mensa-inspired statements this year included accusing the victim of faking. Class all the way.
One can only hope that next season will see some positive change. That the game’s integrity can be restored.
Are you listening Brendan Shannahan?
Losing Is The New Winning
(First published April 16th, 2011)
Habs fans can be forgiven for daring to feel good after last night's team-effort to secure themselves a place in the 2010-2011 Stanley Cup playoffs. They might even feel compelled to express such good feelings with Subban-esque exuberance. After all, this season's conclusion is certainly a far cry from the bumbling, stumbling manner in which they entered last year's post-season (a single point secured in an overtime loss to the Leafs).
The truth is, last night's game was one of the Canadien's most impressive team efforts this season, taking nothing away from the Chicago Blackhawks, who also put on a remarkable display of skill and effort. It was the net-minders who stole the show, with Montreal native Corey Crawford bringing everything he had to the game, and Carey Price somehow bringing that much more.
There was a lot at stake for the Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks, struggling to make the playoffs, and the Canadiens trying to prove that last year's post-season run was not an enigma.
This is just part of the back story in what turned out to be a very entertaining hockey game. Yet thus far I have written more in this blog than anything that appeared on TSN's NHL webpage last night. In fact, I already surpassed their coverage by the time I had written "Habs fans can be forgiven..."
Despite what some people down the 401 might think, Canadiens fans generally don't mope around with a chip on their shoulder. They are much harsher toward their own team than with their rivals. Nonetheless, there's always been a sense that respect for the Habs in Toronto-based media is grudging at best.
What truly exposed the negative bias was something that should have united fans and the league, the now infamous hit on Max Pacioretty by Zdeno Chara. It should be noted that to a man, all of TSN's Hockey Insiders, and many other analysts and players believed that Chara should have been suspended; if anything for not taking everything he should have learned in his 13 years in the NHL to back off a dangerous play. The league not only did nothing, it went as far as to chide the Canadiens organization for what it perceived as an exaggeration of fact. This left Don Cherry, who's intelligence and charm have decades exceeded their expiration date, to blame the Habs organization and the stanshion for being at fault and Chara's negligence consigned to the annals of great 'hockey plays.'
League officials, it seems, can barely hide their contempt for the team, as evidenced by Colin Campbell's eye rolling treatment of La Presse reporter Richard Labbé. When Labbé questioned the league's inaction on Chara, Campbell all but concluded Pacioretty deserved a face full of stanshion because of his questionable hit on the New York Islanders' Mark Eaton earlier in the year. So much for impartial.
Recently, Team 990 radio host Mitch Melnick noted an interesting omission in one of the NHL's latest 'History Will Be Made' television ads. The commercial, titled simply 'Mess,' is a collection of film footage from decades of Stanley Cup celebrations, replete with flying sticks, gloves, ticker tape parades and spilling champagne. Several teams are represented in the video, most of them American, and none of them include the Habs. The Canadiens have enjoyed the majority of those celebrations (24 of the 94 times it has been awarded).
Even the encyclopedic mind of Pierre McGuire is not immune to reserving his harshest criticisms for the Canadiens organization. As an astute analyst of the game of hockey, Pierre is generally fair and honest when talking about the Habs on local radio. Put him under the studio lights at TSN headquarters and another side emerges, highly critical of the Habs front office while regularly giving the Leaf's Brian Burke a hall pass.
Further to the head-scratching treatment of the National Hockey League's most successful franchise (a fact, not fan interpretation) was last night's inexplicable praise for the Toronto Maple Leafs. In case you haven't heard this one before, the team began the year with great promise before coming apart as the season progressed. They went on to make a desperate end-of-season run for the last playoff spot, and (stop me if you've heard this before) fell short. The NHL's version of the Dallas Cowboys had praise heaped upon them from Sportsnet's Hockey Central analysts last night for their 'courageous' season-ending desperation, topped off with a delightfully rosy prognosis for next season.
Really? Why exactly should anyone in Leaf nation be celebrating? A season that began with such promise was squandered by poor play, and let's be honest, bad coaching. If I were a fan I'd be thinking that this is worse than deja-vu, it's a nightmare. How could you not wonder aloud why the largest market in professional hockey, and perhaps the largest fan base, can't do anything better than falling a few point short of a playoff birth for the sixth consecutive time?
Yet somehow it makes perfect sense to give the Leafs top coverage.
Am I exaggerating? I invite you to check out both TSN and Sportsnet's NHL pages today, and tell me who dominates the headlines.
I have no time for conspiracy theories. Usually they are based on little fact and appeal to an audience ready and willing to cling on to what little information fits their world view.
For Habs fans it shouldn't matter. The team's track record speaks for itself. Regardless of how far the team goes this year, the Habs made the post-season. If my numbers serve me correctly that would be a league-leading 78 playoff appearances.
Still, you have to wonder what a team has to do to get some respect from the league and the media.
Habs fans can be forgiven for daring to feel good after last night's team-effort to secure themselves a place in the 2010-2011 Stanley Cup playoffs. They might even feel compelled to express such good feelings with Subban-esque exuberance. After all, this season's conclusion is certainly a far cry from the bumbling, stumbling manner in which they entered last year's post-season (a single point secured in an overtime loss to the Leafs).
The truth is, last night's game was one of the Canadien's most impressive team efforts this season, taking nothing away from the Chicago Blackhawks, who also put on a remarkable display of skill and effort. It was the net-minders who stole the show, with Montreal native Corey Crawford bringing everything he had to the game, and Carey Price somehow bringing that much more.
There was a lot at stake for the Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks, struggling to make the playoffs, and the Canadiens trying to prove that last year's post-season run was not an enigma.
This is just part of the back story in what turned out to be a very entertaining hockey game. Yet thus far I have written more in this blog than anything that appeared on TSN's NHL webpage last night. In fact, I already surpassed their coverage by the time I had written "Habs fans can be forgiven..."
Despite what some people down the 401 might think, Canadiens fans generally don't mope around with a chip on their shoulder. They are much harsher toward their own team than with their rivals. Nonetheless, there's always been a sense that respect for the Habs in Toronto-based media is grudging at best.
What truly exposed the negative bias was something that should have united fans and the league, the now infamous hit on Max Pacioretty by Zdeno Chara. It should be noted that to a man, all of TSN's Hockey Insiders, and many other analysts and players believed that Chara should have been suspended; if anything for not taking everything he should have learned in his 13 years in the NHL to back off a dangerous play. The league not only did nothing, it went as far as to chide the Canadiens organization for what it perceived as an exaggeration of fact. This left Don Cherry, who's intelligence and charm have decades exceeded their expiration date, to blame the Habs organization and the stanshion for being at fault and Chara's negligence consigned to the annals of great 'hockey plays.'
League officials, it seems, can barely hide their contempt for the team, as evidenced by Colin Campbell's eye rolling treatment of La Presse reporter Richard Labbé. When Labbé questioned the league's inaction on Chara, Campbell all but concluded Pacioretty deserved a face full of stanshion because of his questionable hit on the New York Islanders' Mark Eaton earlier in the year. So much for impartial.
Recently, Team 990 radio host Mitch Melnick noted an interesting omission in one of the NHL's latest 'History Will Be Made' television ads. The commercial, titled simply 'Mess,' is a collection of film footage from decades of Stanley Cup celebrations, replete with flying sticks, gloves, ticker tape parades and spilling champagne. Several teams are represented in the video, most of them American, and none of them include the Habs. The Canadiens have enjoyed the majority of those celebrations (24 of the 94 times it has been awarded).
Even the encyclopedic mind of Pierre McGuire is not immune to reserving his harshest criticisms for the Canadiens organization. As an astute analyst of the game of hockey, Pierre is generally fair and honest when talking about the Habs on local radio. Put him under the studio lights at TSN headquarters and another side emerges, highly critical of the Habs front office while regularly giving the Leaf's Brian Burke a hall pass.
Further to the head-scratching treatment of the National Hockey League's most successful franchise (a fact, not fan interpretation) was last night's inexplicable praise for the Toronto Maple Leafs. In case you haven't heard this one before, the team began the year with great promise before coming apart as the season progressed. They went on to make a desperate end-of-season run for the last playoff spot, and (stop me if you've heard this before) fell short. The NHL's version of the Dallas Cowboys had praise heaped upon them from Sportsnet's Hockey Central analysts last night for their 'courageous' season-ending desperation, topped off with a delightfully rosy prognosis for next season.
Really? Why exactly should anyone in Leaf nation be celebrating? A season that began with such promise was squandered by poor play, and let's be honest, bad coaching. If I were a fan I'd be thinking that this is worse than deja-vu, it's a nightmare. How could you not wonder aloud why the largest market in professional hockey, and perhaps the largest fan base, can't do anything better than falling a few point short of a playoff birth for the sixth consecutive time?
Yet somehow it makes perfect sense to give the Leafs top coverage.
Am I exaggerating? I invite you to check out both TSN and Sportsnet's NHL pages today, and tell me who dominates the headlines.
I have no time for conspiracy theories. Usually they are based on little fact and appeal to an audience ready and willing to cling on to what little information fits their world view.
For Habs fans it shouldn't matter. The team's track record speaks for itself. Regardless of how far the team goes this year, the Habs made the post-season. If my numbers serve me correctly that would be a league-leading 78 playoff appearances.
Still, you have to wonder what a team has to do to get some respect from the league and the media.
For Max. For Hockey.
(First published March 11, 2011)
With so much being said and written about the Zdeno Chara hit on Max Pacioretty, it probably makes no difference for me to weigh in on the topic. In large part because, according to the league and the vast majority of big network hockey insiders and analysts, I must recuse myself from having an opinion because I am a long-time fan of the Canadiens.
Nonetheless, there are a few things that I am finding impossible to accept in the days following this incident, and many arguments that need to be addressed.
Let me first express my thoughts on some practical matters. First off, I don't think the current police investigation is useful. We all know where this will end up and frankly it is a waste of police resources that ought to be directed at real criminal activity. Secondly, Air Canada's threat to pull its advertising from the league, while newsworthy, was in my opinion ill-advised and poorly executed. I believe it would have been more effective for the carrier to first garner support among fellow sponsors and together express their concern to the league rather than make a threat in which no one believes the airline was prepared to follow through.
Third, and this may make me rather unpopular, I do not believe Zdeno Chara to be a dirty player. As much as the evidence from prior games suggests a vendetta-like attitude, I simply can't believe he would have wished for this outcome. Hockey is a rough sport, and hard hitting is a big part of that. I do believe he made a huge error in judgement, and I think he knows it.
I would like to address some of the criticism and analysis from some individuals in the media outside of Montreal. Many of these individuals believed that the Chara hit was not atypical of a hockey play, and had it been elsewhere on the ice there would be no discussion. Many also believed that despite this knowledge the league would likely issue at least a minor suspension. That did not happen.
The outrage amongst fans and media in Montreal has been played-up significantly in this debate, and has been used to undermine the severity of this incident. The argument being that because this happened to one of our own, naturally we would see the issue of dangerous plays in the league with a bias. My response is unequivocally yes, we are more hurt and shocked because this was our player. This incident happened in front of fans, Pacioretty's parents, and our children. I have been a Canadiens fan for forty years, of course I am upset.
I have also been a hockey fan for forty years as well. The question has been asked rhetorically, where were Canadiens fans when Matt Cooke levelled Marc Savard? Where were Canadiens fans when a Guillaume Latendresse illegal hit ended Rob DiMaio's career? Believe it or not, we were just as shocked, and in the case of the latter, embarrassed and ashamed.
There seems to be a surprising lack of understanding of Canadiens fans among many of the media people outside of this city. Have they not figured out by now that this fan base is more critical of its own team than anywhere else in the league? While Habs fans are passionate about their team, they also have a deep appreciation and knowledge of the game of hockey. I dare-say, the average Habs fan knows more about line combinations, ice-time and game strategy than fans in Florida, San Jose or even Boston.
The sports reporters, analysts and insiders have been far to quick to dismiss this incident as simply a hockey play, and just as quick to assume the anger and frustration felt in this city is just a blind affection for a team and nothing more. I would contend that there is a similar type of bias at work here. Because we are Habs fans we are incapable of thinking or saying anything other than that which blows this issue out of proportion. That is tantamount to taking the notion of impartiality and twisting it to fit your own viewpoint.
Well, here are the proportions of the issue, a player was sent to hospital with a fractured vertebrae and a severe concussion for what is being described as a hockey play. Am I exaggerating the truth?
Let me get back to Chara. As I stated earlier, I don't believe him to be a dirty player. I may not like the fact that our team has to play against him, but that has more to do with the fact that he's good. As rival teams go, I like the Bruins. I like the city of Boston, and yes I'll admit I like Bruins fans too. Why? Because they are as passionate as Habs fans. This is a rivalry as old as the league itself, and for the most part it's been an entertaining one. It's also been tough. Cheap shots, hard hits and chippy play are the hallmarks of Montreal-Boston games. I could do without the extracurricular jabbing and trash-talk, but otherwise I enjoy a good Bruins-Habs game.
The issue at hand is this. An increasing number of dangerous and illegal plays has resulted in devastating injuries to some of the league's best, and most entertaining players. These injuries have been working up to a deadly crescendo in recent years and I believe culminated with the injury to Pacioretty. I have not heard from a single person watching that game, no matter which team you support or where you are from, who looked upon Pacioretty's motionless body lying prostrate on the ice and was not sick. Let's just leave team allegiance and prejudgement aside and focus on that.
League rules are very clear on certain issues. If a player tries to clear a puck and accidentally sends it over the boards, it is a penalty, regardless of intent. If you have a high stick, even if it flies up accidentally, and the stick hits another player in the head, it is an automatic penalty. A four minute penalty if the action draws blood, again regardless of intent.
Chara's hit on Pacioretty pushed him into a stanchion (turnbuckle) and caused a serious injury. If we were to follow the reasoning governing the two previously cited rules, a player must, at all times, be in control of his body during play, regardless of intent. If we were to apply the same reasoning behind the high-sticking rule, if said action results in an injury, the penalty should be more severe.
By downplaying the severity of Chara's action, intentional or not, the league has given tacit permission to players for this action to occur again. As a fan of hockey, this is unacceptable, and it is a serious miscue by the league.
You can dislike Habs fans, you can even dislike the city, it's irrelevant with regards to this issue. But if you were a witness to what happened in Tuesday's game and, with a clear conscience say that this is just part of the game of hockey, then I submit that it is not Canadiens fans that have lost touch with reality, it is you.
Have a safe weekend.
With so much being said and written about the Zdeno Chara hit on Max Pacioretty, it probably makes no difference for me to weigh in on the topic. In large part because, according to the league and the vast majority of big network hockey insiders and analysts, I must recuse myself from having an opinion because I am a long-time fan of the Canadiens.
Nonetheless, there are a few things that I am finding impossible to accept in the days following this incident, and many arguments that need to be addressed.
Let me first express my thoughts on some practical matters. First off, I don't think the current police investigation is useful. We all know where this will end up and frankly it is a waste of police resources that ought to be directed at real criminal activity. Secondly, Air Canada's threat to pull its advertising from the league, while newsworthy, was in my opinion ill-advised and poorly executed. I believe it would have been more effective for the carrier to first garner support among fellow sponsors and together express their concern to the league rather than make a threat in which no one believes the airline was prepared to follow through.
Third, and this may make me rather unpopular, I do not believe Zdeno Chara to be a dirty player. As much as the evidence from prior games suggests a vendetta-like attitude, I simply can't believe he would have wished for this outcome. Hockey is a rough sport, and hard hitting is a big part of that. I do believe he made a huge error in judgement, and I think he knows it.
I would like to address some of the criticism and analysis from some individuals in the media outside of Montreal. Many of these individuals believed that the Chara hit was not atypical of a hockey play, and had it been elsewhere on the ice there would be no discussion. Many also believed that despite this knowledge the league would likely issue at least a minor suspension. That did not happen.
The outrage amongst fans and media in Montreal has been played-up significantly in this debate, and has been used to undermine the severity of this incident. The argument being that because this happened to one of our own, naturally we would see the issue of dangerous plays in the league with a bias. My response is unequivocally yes, we are more hurt and shocked because this was our player. This incident happened in front of fans, Pacioretty's parents, and our children. I have been a Canadiens fan for forty years, of course I am upset.
I have also been a hockey fan for forty years as well. The question has been asked rhetorically, where were Canadiens fans when Matt Cooke levelled Marc Savard? Where were Canadiens fans when a Guillaume Latendresse illegal hit ended Rob DiMaio's career? Believe it or not, we were just as shocked, and in the case of the latter, embarrassed and ashamed.
There seems to be a surprising lack of understanding of Canadiens fans among many of the media people outside of this city. Have they not figured out by now that this fan base is more critical of its own team than anywhere else in the league? While Habs fans are passionate about their team, they also have a deep appreciation and knowledge of the game of hockey. I dare-say, the average Habs fan knows more about line combinations, ice-time and game strategy than fans in Florida, San Jose or even Boston.
The sports reporters, analysts and insiders have been far to quick to dismiss this incident as simply a hockey play, and just as quick to assume the anger and frustration felt in this city is just a blind affection for a team and nothing more. I would contend that there is a similar type of bias at work here. Because we are Habs fans we are incapable of thinking or saying anything other than that which blows this issue out of proportion. That is tantamount to taking the notion of impartiality and twisting it to fit your own viewpoint.
Well, here are the proportions of the issue, a player was sent to hospital with a fractured vertebrae and a severe concussion for what is being described as a hockey play. Am I exaggerating the truth?
Let me get back to Chara. As I stated earlier, I don't believe him to be a dirty player. I may not like the fact that our team has to play against him, but that has more to do with the fact that he's good. As rival teams go, I like the Bruins. I like the city of Boston, and yes I'll admit I like Bruins fans too. Why? Because they are as passionate as Habs fans. This is a rivalry as old as the league itself, and for the most part it's been an entertaining one. It's also been tough. Cheap shots, hard hits and chippy play are the hallmarks of Montreal-Boston games. I could do without the extracurricular jabbing and trash-talk, but otherwise I enjoy a good Bruins-Habs game.
The issue at hand is this. An increasing number of dangerous and illegal plays has resulted in devastating injuries to some of the league's best, and most entertaining players. These injuries have been working up to a deadly crescendo in recent years and I believe culminated with the injury to Pacioretty. I have not heard from a single person watching that game, no matter which team you support or where you are from, who looked upon Pacioretty's motionless body lying prostrate on the ice and was not sick. Let's just leave team allegiance and prejudgement aside and focus on that.
League rules are very clear on certain issues. If a player tries to clear a puck and accidentally sends it over the boards, it is a penalty, regardless of intent. If you have a high stick, even if it flies up accidentally, and the stick hits another player in the head, it is an automatic penalty. A four minute penalty if the action draws blood, again regardless of intent.
Chara's hit on Pacioretty pushed him into a stanchion (turnbuckle) and caused a serious injury. If we were to follow the reasoning governing the two previously cited rules, a player must, at all times, be in control of his body during play, regardless of intent. If we were to apply the same reasoning behind the high-sticking rule, if said action results in an injury, the penalty should be more severe.
By downplaying the severity of Chara's action, intentional or not, the league has given tacit permission to players for this action to occur again. As a fan of hockey, this is unacceptable, and it is a serious miscue by the league.
You can dislike Habs fans, you can even dislike the city, it's irrelevant with regards to this issue. But if you were a witness to what happened in Tuesday's game and, with a clear conscience say that this is just part of the game of hockey, then I submit that it is not Canadiens fans that have lost touch with reality, it is you.
Have a safe weekend.
Fighting for Credibility
(First published February 22, 2011)
The Montreal Gazette recently published a poll conducted by Ipsos Reid that stated 54% of Canadians support an outright ban on fighting in hockey. This comes in the shadow of the latest fist-flying fracas between the New York Islanders and Pittsburgh Penguins, which led to fines of $100,000 and a total of 23 games worth of player suspensions. It also prompted former super-star Mario Lemieux to openly criticize the league for it's failure to address this form of violence in the game.
Lemieux's comments met with the predictable old-school NHL response, which was to deflect criticism by attacking his credibility (Lemieux is General Manager of a team that employs Matt Cooke, whose on-ice acts of career-ending violence are well documented). Don Cherry, who hasn't said anything intelligent since 1982, was the first in line to call Lemieux a hypocrite.
Hockey analyst Pierre McGuire, a former scout and assistant coach with the Penguins, while conceding Lemieux's somewhat shaky high ground, was quick to defend his position. As a player who played in the previous 'clutch and grab' era of the NHL, Lemieux knows full-well the value of change, and, in this case, that it is time once again for the league to evolve.
It does.
This year has seen an unprecedented level of attention on the goonery and violence in the game. The Boston Bruins star forward Marc Savard could possibly have played the last game of his career due to a concussion he suffered on January 18th. He had just barely recovered from one he suffered courtesy of a blind-side hit from the aforementioned Matt Cooke. Sydney Crosby, easily the league's biggest star, is still out with a concussion he suffered at the Winter Classic on January 1st.
The league has offered a moderate improvement to its rule books regarding blind-side hits, but to many the punishment does not fit the crime; and while it may claim that fighting is technically against the rules, the league continues to tacitly support its role in the game and will go as far as to use it as a promotional tool.
In a recent rant about fighting in the NHL, Team 990 radio personality Conor McKenna pointed out that the last sanctioned bare-knuckle fight took place 1889. Bare knuckle fights are considered illegal in North America. That is not to say that sports fighting competitions are any less popular. The popularity of Ultimate Fighting (UFC) and mixed martial arts is growing exponentially; but here's the thing, there are no pads, pucks, nets or ice. Just one on one combat. If that's what you like, then I have no qualms.
Let me go on the record and say that an outright ban on fighting in hockey is decades overdue. It is brutal, moronic and without question completely unnecessary. The best, and highest rated games in the history of hockey did not involve fights. There are simply no intelligent and reasonable arguments to keep fighting in the game, particularly at a time when people are finally awaking to the fact that violent acts can lead to serious life-long injury.
The league's handling of blind-side hits has been laughable at best and done little if anything to curb the act. To compound the issue, as long as the NHL accepts fighting as a reality of the game, the league will continue to be considered the joke of major professional sports. In case the league, or those who think otherwise, don't already know, the movie Slap Shot was a comedy, not a drama.
If the NFL, a high-impact league and also one of the most successful professional sports organizations in North America can suspend a player for a single punch, why can't the NHL?
It is possible for a hockey game, sans flying knuckles, to be exciting and physical. The IIHF World Juniors and Winter Olympic games are perfect examples.
The NHL seems to forget that its players have lives outside of the game. Families and hopefully a career after they hang up the skates. Perhaps they just don't care, as long as they can fill their seats with fans hungrier for blood than goals.
Things can change. In 2011, seatbelts are mandatory and the vast majority of Canadians don't smoke. This isn't 1977.
Sadly, I know change will not happen any time soon, mostly because of the knuckle-dragging meatheads that permeate the fan base and league offices staffed by former players and their bronze age mentality of defending honour and settling scores.
Or until somebody dies.
The Montreal Gazette recently published a poll conducted by Ipsos Reid that stated 54% of Canadians support an outright ban on fighting in hockey. This comes in the shadow of the latest fist-flying fracas between the New York Islanders and Pittsburgh Penguins, which led to fines of $100,000 and a total of 23 games worth of player suspensions. It also prompted former super-star Mario Lemieux to openly criticize the league for it's failure to address this form of violence in the game.
Lemieux's comments met with the predictable old-school NHL response, which was to deflect criticism by attacking his credibility (Lemieux is General Manager of a team that employs Matt Cooke, whose on-ice acts of career-ending violence are well documented). Don Cherry, who hasn't said anything intelligent since 1982, was the first in line to call Lemieux a hypocrite.
Hockey analyst Pierre McGuire, a former scout and assistant coach with the Penguins, while conceding Lemieux's somewhat shaky high ground, was quick to defend his position. As a player who played in the previous 'clutch and grab' era of the NHL, Lemieux knows full-well the value of change, and, in this case, that it is time once again for the league to evolve.
It does.
This year has seen an unprecedented level of attention on the goonery and violence in the game. The Boston Bruins star forward Marc Savard could possibly have played the last game of his career due to a concussion he suffered on January 18th. He had just barely recovered from one he suffered courtesy of a blind-side hit from the aforementioned Matt Cooke. Sydney Crosby, easily the league's biggest star, is still out with a concussion he suffered at the Winter Classic on January 1st.
The league has offered a moderate improvement to its rule books regarding blind-side hits, but to many the punishment does not fit the crime; and while it may claim that fighting is technically against the rules, the league continues to tacitly support its role in the game and will go as far as to use it as a promotional tool.
In a recent rant about fighting in the NHL, Team 990 radio personality Conor McKenna pointed out that the last sanctioned bare-knuckle fight took place 1889. Bare knuckle fights are considered illegal in North America. That is not to say that sports fighting competitions are any less popular. The popularity of Ultimate Fighting (UFC) and mixed martial arts is growing exponentially; but here's the thing, there are no pads, pucks, nets or ice. Just one on one combat. If that's what you like, then I have no qualms.
Let me go on the record and say that an outright ban on fighting in hockey is decades overdue. It is brutal, moronic and without question completely unnecessary. The best, and highest rated games in the history of hockey did not involve fights. There are simply no intelligent and reasonable arguments to keep fighting in the game, particularly at a time when people are finally awaking to the fact that violent acts can lead to serious life-long injury.
The league's handling of blind-side hits has been laughable at best and done little if anything to curb the act. To compound the issue, as long as the NHL accepts fighting as a reality of the game, the league will continue to be considered the joke of major professional sports. In case the league, or those who think otherwise, don't already know, the movie Slap Shot was a comedy, not a drama.
If the NFL, a high-impact league and also one of the most successful professional sports organizations in North America can suspend a player for a single punch, why can't the NHL?
It is possible for a hockey game, sans flying knuckles, to be exciting and physical. The IIHF World Juniors and Winter Olympic games are perfect examples.
The NHL seems to forget that its players have lives outside of the game. Families and hopefully a career after they hang up the skates. Perhaps they just don't care, as long as they can fill their seats with fans hungrier for blood than goals.
Things can change. In 2011, seatbelts are mandatory and the vast majority of Canadians don't smoke. This isn't 1977.
Sadly, I know change will not happen any time soon, mostly because of the knuckle-dragging meatheads that permeate the fan base and league offices staffed by former players and their bronze age mentality of defending honour and settling scores.
Or until somebody dies.
Bob The Builder
(First published December 6, 2010)
What a difference a year makes.
There is perhaps no better example of this truism than the 2010-2011 Montreal Canadiens. The team currently sits atop the Northeast division at 17-8-2, five points ahead of second place Boston. The once maligned Carey Price is enjoying a league-leading .935 save percentage, with 4 shoutouts, and has already surpassed his total number of wins from last year.
Of course, it didn't quite start out that way. The preseason debut of the post-Halak era Habs played out with the spotlight firmly and perhaps unfairly glaring into the face-mask of Price. The shadow he cast that night was less than stellar. What came next proved to be an appalling display of classlessness and derision on behalf of a few disgruntled Canadiens fans. It was cruel and ignorant behaviour and frankly an embarrassment to this city.
Price's response? A cool and measured chill out everybody, it's just the preseason.
For a fan base still smarting from the loss of Halak, a player with whom many had come to expect miracles, the notion of chilling out didn't sit too well. But then, how could they know?
Indeed, the expectations on the young Price were ponderous. Tapped as the team's goalie of the future and thrust into that role while still very fresh in the league, Price has shouldered far more adversity than virtually anyone on the team. P.K. Subban, by contrast, emerged from his time in the Hab's farm team, the Hamilton Bulldogs, seemingly inheriting the role of fan favourite. To his credit, Subban has delivered, proving to be every bit the skilled, competitive defenceman we were told about and hoped for.
That is until his overly stylish play put him squarely (although not officially) in the team's doghouse. One might have thought that banishing arguably the best rookie defenceman in the league to the press box was a bit of a risk. Particularly considering that the team is once again without its number one defenceman in Andrei Markov, but that is not how the puck is bouncing this year for the Habs.
Both Yaroslav Spacek and Roman Hamrlik have somehow turned back the clock on their veteran years. Then there has been the surprisingly solid play of two other rookie defencemen in Yannick Weber and Alexandre Picard. Picard is more the veteran at 25, but still, the two are playing far beyond their billing. All of this has resulted in one of the best controversies the team has had to face in years. Too many good players and not enough room on the roster. Reinserting Subban into the lineup means either Weber, Picard or possibly Mathieu Darche would be forced upstairs. Too bad it couldn't be Scott Gomez, but that's another can-o-worms.
Even coach Jacques Martin is being viewed in a new and refreshing light. No longer considered by fans and the media as a one dimensional, puck-possession coach, Martin is showing a remarkable strategic vision. The program, whatever it is, has been bought heart and soul by the team, and thus far it has produced impressive results.
All of this is nice. Nice for the fans, nice for the players, nice for the organization. Even the normally raucous debates on L'Antichambre seem tempered by the team's success.
Unfortunately, the person to whom the fans and organization owe most of the credit is no longer at the helm. Make no mistake, with very few exceptions, the true architect of this team is Bob Gainey. You can be as critical as you like of the former general manager, but take a good hard look at the decisions he has made, particularly towards the end of his tenure, to reshape this team virtually from the ground up. Was he perfect? No. Were his decisions always the right ones? No. But forget the negatives for the moment and consider what has gone right. Moreover, contrast Gainey's success in hockey crazy Montreal versus Brian Burke's success in hockey obsessed Toronto.
Yes, it took time. Yes, there were setbacks. Building, and then rebuilding a team is no easy task. It takes lots of time, lots of patience, and the occasional gamble. To be successful at this process means looking much further down the road than the impatient fans and media are willing to embrace. It also means enduring an insane amount of criticism from people who really have no idea of the challenges most GMs face, or even a good understanding of the process of team building.
Regardless, from my spot in the bleachers there is really only one person who deserves long overdue recognition for the team's success, and without reservation do I give Gainey full credit. It's a shame he no longer holds the position of general manager to enjoy the fruits of his hard work and vision. Knowing Gainey, he's sitting back and enjoying the peace and quiet outside of the spotlight with the satisfaction of knowing he did what he always did best for the Canadiens, whatever it takes to win.
What a difference a year makes.
There is perhaps no better example of this truism than the 2010-2011 Montreal Canadiens. The team currently sits atop the Northeast division at 17-8-2, five points ahead of second place Boston. The once maligned Carey Price is enjoying a league-leading .935 save percentage, with 4 shoutouts, and has already surpassed his total number of wins from last year.
Of course, it didn't quite start out that way. The preseason debut of the post-Halak era Habs played out with the spotlight firmly and perhaps unfairly glaring into the face-mask of Price. The shadow he cast that night was less than stellar. What came next proved to be an appalling display of classlessness and derision on behalf of a few disgruntled Canadiens fans. It was cruel and ignorant behaviour and frankly an embarrassment to this city.
Price's response? A cool and measured chill out everybody, it's just the preseason.
For a fan base still smarting from the loss of Halak, a player with whom many had come to expect miracles, the notion of chilling out didn't sit too well. But then, how could they know?
Indeed, the expectations on the young Price were ponderous. Tapped as the team's goalie of the future and thrust into that role while still very fresh in the league, Price has shouldered far more adversity than virtually anyone on the team. P.K. Subban, by contrast, emerged from his time in the Hab's farm team, the Hamilton Bulldogs, seemingly inheriting the role of fan favourite. To his credit, Subban has delivered, proving to be every bit the skilled, competitive defenceman we were told about and hoped for.
That is until his overly stylish play put him squarely (although not officially) in the team's doghouse. One might have thought that banishing arguably the best rookie defenceman in the league to the press box was a bit of a risk. Particularly considering that the team is once again without its number one defenceman in Andrei Markov, but that is not how the puck is bouncing this year for the Habs.
Both Yaroslav Spacek and Roman Hamrlik have somehow turned back the clock on their veteran years. Then there has been the surprisingly solid play of two other rookie defencemen in Yannick Weber and Alexandre Picard. Picard is more the veteran at 25, but still, the two are playing far beyond their billing. All of this has resulted in one of the best controversies the team has had to face in years. Too many good players and not enough room on the roster. Reinserting Subban into the lineup means either Weber, Picard or possibly Mathieu Darche would be forced upstairs. Too bad it couldn't be Scott Gomez, but that's another can-o-worms.
Even coach Jacques Martin is being viewed in a new and refreshing light. No longer considered by fans and the media as a one dimensional, puck-possession coach, Martin is showing a remarkable strategic vision. The program, whatever it is, has been bought heart and soul by the team, and thus far it has produced impressive results.
All of this is nice. Nice for the fans, nice for the players, nice for the organization. Even the normally raucous debates on L'Antichambre seem tempered by the team's success.
Unfortunately, the person to whom the fans and organization owe most of the credit is no longer at the helm. Make no mistake, with very few exceptions, the true architect of this team is Bob Gainey. You can be as critical as you like of the former general manager, but take a good hard look at the decisions he has made, particularly towards the end of his tenure, to reshape this team virtually from the ground up. Was he perfect? No. Were his decisions always the right ones? No. But forget the negatives for the moment and consider what has gone right. Moreover, contrast Gainey's success in hockey crazy Montreal versus Brian Burke's success in hockey obsessed Toronto.
Yes, it took time. Yes, there were setbacks. Building, and then rebuilding a team is no easy task. It takes lots of time, lots of patience, and the occasional gamble. To be successful at this process means looking much further down the road than the impatient fans and media are willing to embrace. It also means enduring an insane amount of criticism from people who really have no idea of the challenges most GMs face, or even a good understanding of the process of team building.
Regardless, from my spot in the bleachers there is really only one person who deserves long overdue recognition for the team's success, and without reservation do I give Gainey full credit. It's a shame he no longer holds the position of general manager to enjoy the fruits of his hard work and vision. Knowing Gainey, he's sitting back and enjoying the peace and quiet outside of the spotlight with the satisfaction of knowing he did what he always did best for the Canadiens, whatever it takes to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)