Years ago I knew a real jerk. He was my boss. He had discovered that since he could fire those working for him that he could get away with being abusive and intimidating. One day the Olympics were starting and he walked into the lunch room and loudly and disdainfully announced that he didn't get why anyone cared about the Olympics. For once I had an answer for him. I told him that people watched the Olympics because even though the athletes were put under enormous pressure the champions responded by digging deep down and somehow doing their very best; to witness this triumph of the human spirit was why we watched. I was thankful when a co-worker backed me up by saying, "that's something that needs to be said," because it was such a cliche. Taken aback, he slinked out of the room.
So the question I am posing is, why watch hockey? Why be a fan? For me the answer is the same as for the Olympics. I enjoy seeing the team as a whole and the players individually overcome adversity. There's nothing sweeter than seeing someone triumph even though the whole world seemed to think they couldn't cut it.
When a hockey player dons that storied and sacred spoked-B and earns our respect both on and off the ice by doing his very best he earns my loyalty. Tim Thomas is one of those players. He earned my loyalty years ago when fans kept saying he wasn't a true No. 1 yet he played better than any goaltender I had seen in years. He proved worthy of my loyalty when the media and many fans smugly claimed that he'd been replaced by Manny Fernendez--a proven No 1. goaltender--yet went on to not only win the starting job but the Vezina too.
So it was painful to me to see people wearing "It's Tukka Time" T-shirts at Bruins games last season and lauding Rask as if he was somehow born into the starting goaltender position, like royalty. And it was painful to me to read about fans wanting to trade Thomas for cap space over the summer. Hell, some still are. Even with the best start for a Bruins goaltender in 73 years some fans claim he's being played just so the front office can show him off to set up a trade. These people know no shame and even less about loyalty.
So lets get some things straight. Rask has not yet earned either the starting job or our loyalty--not in the way Tim Thomas has. The truth is that the team played so inconsistently for the first half of last season they made both goaltenders look bad. When they finally got their act together Timmy responded with a shutout. But his next game ended with his being pulled off the ice and after that Rask played the bulk of the season. The media anointed Rask as having stolen the starting job from Thomas. But we now know what really happened. Timmy was injured in that game and that injury required surgery over the summer before he could recover. Rask didn't steal the starting job--he defaulted into it. And sure, Rask played well right up to the middle of the second round of the playoffs. But make no mistake: he was seldom "great."
Over the last fifteen years we have seen so many goaltenders come and go. Some were hailed as the next great goalie who would lead us to a cup yet fell flat on their faces. Many people believed that the Bruins lacked the necessary goaltending to go far into the playoffs. Bill Ranford didn't have what it took and only lasted two seasons. Byron Dafoe looked like a future great but never really left his mark, either in the playoffs or the record books. Does anyone even remember Jeff Hackett? And what about the chosen one--Andrew Raycroft--the celebrated goaltender of the future who won the Calder as the best rookie in the NHL? After the lockout he was never able to get back into form. Now he bounces around the league as a journeyman backup. So forgive me if I expect Rask to actually earn his lauded position as the Bruins "goaltender of the future."
Even going back further in time the Bruins have had few great goaltenders. In truth even Gerry Cheevers, one of my all-time favorite Bruins, wasn't the greatest goaltender in his time. He had a hell of a team in front of him and don't let anyone tell you that doesn't matter.
The Vezina trophy is awarded to the best goaltender in the NHL. Tim Thomas won it for the '08/'09 season. You have to go back to Pete Peeters in '82/'83 to find the last time a Bruin won it and Peeters, like Timmy, was the real deal. Before that you have to go all the way back to the greatest Bruins goaltender, Frank Brimsek, in '38/'39.
Stats are even more telling. No Bruins goaltender has led the league in save percentage since they started keeping the statistic in the 1950's--except for Tim Thomas.
Tim Thomas is the real deal people. It's not Tukka Time yet and history tells us that day may never come. Once again the Thomas-doubters have written him off and once again Timmy has risen to the occasion. This is Timmy Time and we should enjoy it because this is as special as it gets. This is why we watch.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Fantastic Article by Jack Edwards
If Jack Edwards ever has to give up play-by-play he'd make a great print journalist; much better than those hacks they have writing for the Boston papers. Jack utterly destroys this summer's persistent Savard trade rumors in
Marc Savard's Merit, Peter Chiarelli's Plans Quash Anonymous Trade Rumors
Enjoy.
Marc Savard's Merit, Peter Chiarelli's Plans Quash Anonymous Trade Rumors
Enjoy.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Contract Loophole
Many hockey bloggers seem more interested in the running of the hockey business than the game itself. I usually stick to the hockey, and Bruins hockey at that. But from time to time there are some "business" issues that affect the game itself.
I am sure most fans have heard about the recent rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk’s 17-year, $102 million contract with New Jersey. I have read numerous stories on the subject. Most look at the mechanics of the so-called "loophole" used by New Jersey or at owners vs. players association politics. Many look at the possible consequences for similar contracts. But nobody seems interested in the larger picture. The question I would pose is this: are these "loophole" contracts good or bad for the NHL from the fans perspective.
First let's understand the issue. As I understand it some elite players are being offered unusually long term contracts where the salary drops to near league minimum for the years near the end, usually around the time the player has turned 40. The rules set out in the CBA compute the team's salary cap hit as a yearly average for these contracts. By extending them into "old age" at a lower pay the yearly cap hit goes down, allowing the team to supposedly circumvent the salary cap. This has almost universally been called a loophole.
In truth the NHL has little to hang their claim on that this is a circumvention of the salary cap. If the case were to go to a court of law (which it will not) I doubt the NHL would win. The GMs are simply playing by the rules of the game as set out in the CBA. If the NHL does not like it they should change the rules rather than reject contracts on what is clearly a highly subjective basis. After all, where do you draw the line? Kovalchuk’s contract is merely the most extreme example. Under the current rules there is no clear line for the GMs not to cross; there is no cut and dried way to determine which contracts circumvent the CBA and which don't. There has been a lot of talk about Savard's contract, but even Tim Thomas' contract could be viewed as a less in-the-face version of the same loophole. In my opinion the NHL has opened a can of worms. League officials have to look at each contract and decide, rather subjectively, which ones are to be rejected. Throw in the fact that some of these contracts are being looked at retrospectively and you have a highly ridiculous situation that is sure to make some teams and fans feel that they have been unreasonably singled out. This is bound to lead to acrimony and further embarrassment for the league.
But back to my question. Forget about all the politics and claims of subverting the idea behind the salary cap. What are the pros and cons of this type of contract from the perspective of the fans?
One thing the salary cap has done is to force teams to use more young (read cheap) talent on their teams. This has made it easier for young players to break into the NHL and to break into the league earlier than before. On the other hand it has made it more difficult for established "stars" to find large salaries in free agency. Typically each team now has 1-4 highly paid players. The rest of the team's salary is divided among mid-level and entry-level contracts. This puts pressure on GMs to "dump salary" by trading or walking away from their star players to make room for the inexpensive up and comers. The end result from the players point of view is likely to be shorter careers, particularly for the more lucrative period. That and they will likely end up playing for many different teams. We have seen a phenomenon of "revolving stars" and more long term "rental players" in recent years. Just look at the Montreal roster. It's dominated by a bunch of hired guns. Where is their storied history now? Is this really good for the game?
For the fans the salary cap means that their stars--their so-called franchise players--are more likely to be traded away or not re-signed than in previous generations. That is, except for these "loophole" contracts. The players sign these contracts because it guarantees them some measure of job security as they age and the possibility of being one day remembered as one of the teams "greats" because they played most of their career for the same team. For this same reason I too see these contracts as a good thing. I don't want my Bruins to end up like Montreal with a bunch of free agents with no ties to the organization and who are likely to be gone in a year or two. I wrote about that in my last blog. As a fan of the team for almost forty years, rather than a Bostonian who just wants to party over a cup win, I would find a cup victory like last year's in Chicago to be empty.
For these reasons I hope the NHL resolves the issue of this "loophole" in way that continues to allow star players to sign contracts that will keep them with their teams into their declining years. Otherwise in a decade we may wonder why numbers are no longer lifted to the rafters.
I am sure most fans have heard about the recent rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk’s 17-year, $102 million contract with New Jersey. I have read numerous stories on the subject. Most look at the mechanics of the so-called "loophole" used by New Jersey or at owners vs. players association politics. Many look at the possible consequences for similar contracts. But nobody seems interested in the larger picture. The question I would pose is this: are these "loophole" contracts good or bad for the NHL from the fans perspective.
First let's understand the issue. As I understand it some elite players are being offered unusually long term contracts where the salary drops to near league minimum for the years near the end, usually around the time the player has turned 40. The rules set out in the CBA compute the team's salary cap hit as a yearly average for these contracts. By extending them into "old age" at a lower pay the yearly cap hit goes down, allowing the team to supposedly circumvent the salary cap. This has almost universally been called a loophole.
In truth the NHL has little to hang their claim on that this is a circumvention of the salary cap. If the case were to go to a court of law (which it will not) I doubt the NHL would win. The GMs are simply playing by the rules of the game as set out in the CBA. If the NHL does not like it they should change the rules rather than reject contracts on what is clearly a highly subjective basis. After all, where do you draw the line? Kovalchuk’s contract is merely the most extreme example. Under the current rules there is no clear line for the GMs not to cross; there is no cut and dried way to determine which contracts circumvent the CBA and which don't. There has been a lot of talk about Savard's contract, but even Tim Thomas' contract could be viewed as a less in-the-face version of the same loophole. In my opinion the NHL has opened a can of worms. League officials have to look at each contract and decide, rather subjectively, which ones are to be rejected. Throw in the fact that some of these contracts are being looked at retrospectively and you have a highly ridiculous situation that is sure to make some teams and fans feel that they have been unreasonably singled out. This is bound to lead to acrimony and further embarrassment for the league.
But back to my question. Forget about all the politics and claims of subverting the idea behind the salary cap. What are the pros and cons of this type of contract from the perspective of the fans?
One thing the salary cap has done is to force teams to use more young (read cheap) talent on their teams. This has made it easier for young players to break into the NHL and to break into the league earlier than before. On the other hand it has made it more difficult for established "stars" to find large salaries in free agency. Typically each team now has 1-4 highly paid players. The rest of the team's salary is divided among mid-level and entry-level contracts. This puts pressure on GMs to "dump salary" by trading or walking away from their star players to make room for the inexpensive up and comers. The end result from the players point of view is likely to be shorter careers, particularly for the more lucrative period. That and they will likely end up playing for many different teams. We have seen a phenomenon of "revolving stars" and more long term "rental players" in recent years. Just look at the Montreal roster. It's dominated by a bunch of hired guns. Where is their storied history now? Is this really good for the game?
For the fans the salary cap means that their stars--their so-called franchise players--are more likely to be traded away or not re-signed than in previous generations. That is, except for these "loophole" contracts. The players sign these contracts because it guarantees them some measure of job security as they age and the possibility of being one day remembered as one of the teams "greats" because they played most of their career for the same team. For this same reason I too see these contracts as a good thing. I don't want my Bruins to end up like Montreal with a bunch of free agents with no ties to the organization and who are likely to be gone in a year or two. I wrote about that in my last blog. As a fan of the team for almost forty years, rather than a Bostonian who just wants to party over a cup win, I would find a cup victory like last year's in Chicago to be empty.
For these reasons I hope the NHL resolves the issue of this "loophole" in way that continues to allow star players to sign contracts that will keep them with their teams into their declining years. Otherwise in a decade we may wonder why numbers are no longer lifted to the rafters.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
That's Not the Way I Want It
It was only three weeks ago that the Chicago Black Hawks won the Stanley Cup. In the short time since they have traded away Dustin Byfuglien, Brent Sopel, Ben Eager and Kris Versteeg. All of them played important roles in their cup win. If I were a Hawks fan I'd be just a bit heartbroken.
Player movement is inevitable, particularly with a salary cap in place. But is all this turnover really good for the game? Sure, if the Bruins win a Cup the "sports fans" in the region will suddenly rediscover hockey and jump on the band wagon, buying merchandise and maybe even going to a game or two next season. The front office will be thrilled. But those guys don't fill the season seats. They don't follow the team when it has a losing season. Once the team stumbles they will all go back to their whining and complaining. In the end they aren't true hockey fans. They just want to puff out their chests and join the celebration when the team that happens to play in their city wins it all.
I look back over the last 40 years of Bruins hockey and what stands out are the great players. Whether it be Borque, Neely, Cheevers, Espo, Chief, or Bobby. The cups were great, but it is the unbroken line of Bruins players going all the way back to 1924 that makes Bruins hockey what it is. It's not just the league-wide stars like Orr, but the role players as well.
The pre-lockout B's were a mess. I used to wonder which of those guys would have their jersey raised to the rafters. Thornton seemed a lock. But who else? Muzz? Samsonov? No way. To me, those teams were the low point for the Bruins going back to when I was a kid.
A cup would be terrific and great teams need to prove their greatness by winning a championship. But in the end it is only a vehicle for the next generation of Bruins greats. It is those greats that true hockey fans celebrate. Who are we going to celebrate tomorrow? What number is going to sent to the rafters next? I know the Boston "sports fans" will scoff at this. But that just proves that we don't have the same interest in the team.
If in the end we win the Cup only to see our "rentals" move on, then what will we have to remember? Who will we celebrate in a decade? I look over the current roster and see a few potential candidates for the rafters. I really do. Chara. Savard. Lucic. Thomas. Maybe Bergeron. Yet I read the paper and two of those names are reportedly on the trade block. Yeah, I know that Tim Thomas is in a tough spot with a young (read inexpensive) kid apparently playing just as well. But Savard?
In my opinion this is where it all starts to fall apart. When the dust from the lockout had settled and Peter Chiarelli established himself as the architect of the team the cornerstones were Chara and Savard. In my opinion if he has backed himself into a corner that requires that he trade one of those two then it all unravels. It's not just a matter of another expendable center or a shrewd disposal of a player who may have his best years behind him. Savard is a cup final away from the rafters. That may be difficult for some to see when caught up in the moment, I know. Worse yet, it would be a sign of failure. In hindsight the last two seasons could be remembered as the "glory years" as the team rebuilds again. I've been following this team's ups and downs for almost 40 years now, and that's what I think. This is a pivotal moment. Does Savvy stay or does he go?
Player movement is inevitable, particularly with a salary cap in place. But is all this turnover really good for the game? Sure, if the Bruins win a Cup the "sports fans" in the region will suddenly rediscover hockey and jump on the band wagon, buying merchandise and maybe even going to a game or two next season. The front office will be thrilled. But those guys don't fill the season seats. They don't follow the team when it has a losing season. Once the team stumbles they will all go back to their whining and complaining. In the end they aren't true hockey fans. They just want to puff out their chests and join the celebration when the team that happens to play in their city wins it all.
I look back over the last 40 years of Bruins hockey and what stands out are the great players. Whether it be Borque, Neely, Cheevers, Espo, Chief, or Bobby. The cups were great, but it is the unbroken line of Bruins players going all the way back to 1924 that makes Bruins hockey what it is. It's not just the league-wide stars like Orr, but the role players as well.
The pre-lockout B's were a mess. I used to wonder which of those guys would have their jersey raised to the rafters. Thornton seemed a lock. But who else? Muzz? Samsonov? No way. To me, those teams were the low point for the Bruins going back to when I was a kid.
A cup would be terrific and great teams need to prove their greatness by winning a championship. But in the end it is only a vehicle for the next generation of Bruins greats. It is those greats that true hockey fans celebrate. Who are we going to celebrate tomorrow? What number is going to sent to the rafters next? I know the Boston "sports fans" will scoff at this. But that just proves that we don't have the same interest in the team.
If in the end we win the Cup only to see our "rentals" move on, then what will we have to remember? Who will we celebrate in a decade? I look over the current roster and see a few potential candidates for the rafters. I really do. Chara. Savard. Lucic. Thomas. Maybe Bergeron. Yet I read the paper and two of those names are reportedly on the trade block. Yeah, I know that Tim Thomas is in a tough spot with a young (read inexpensive) kid apparently playing just as well. But Savard?
In my opinion this is where it all starts to fall apart. When the dust from the lockout had settled and Peter Chiarelli established himself as the architect of the team the cornerstones were Chara and Savard. In my opinion if he has backed himself into a corner that requires that he trade one of those two then it all unravels. It's not just a matter of another expendable center or a shrewd disposal of a player who may have his best years behind him. Savard is a cup final away from the rafters. That may be difficult for some to see when caught up in the moment, I know. Worse yet, it would be a sign of failure. In hindsight the last two seasons could be remembered as the "glory years" as the team rebuilds again. I've been following this team's ups and downs for almost 40 years now, and that's what I think. This is a pivotal moment. Does Savvy stay or does he go?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wideman Shipped to Florida
If history is any example, Dennis Wideman should be celebrating his trade to the Florida Panthers. Wideman is the latest in a string of Bruins defenseman who have been much maligned by fans during their time in Boston. Hal Gill (1997-2006) was considered slow and absolutely detested by many. So too was Nick Boynton (1999-2006). Boynton just won the Stanley Cup. Gill won it last year.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm just sayin'.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Stanley Cup Final is Ridiculous
Yeah--I said it. Why? Because having the cup final in June is idiotic. Schools are out. People are going on vacations. The overriding theme is warm summer fun, not anything to do with ice or hockey. Hockey means next to nothing in June! I've been a hockey fan long enough to recall when the cup final was in April. Then May. Now June. Where does it stop? August? Are we headed for a year-round season?
Something that's equally ridiculous is the 82-game schedule. It's bad enough that the regular season has become a sort of meaningless pre-season, but to have it drag on for 82 games is just too much. I know the franchises make money on every game, but I find it hard to believe that there is no downside to spreading the season so thin. There are exceptions, but most NHL arenas are not filled to capacity for every game. I'd bet that if they played fewer games most of the lost revenue would be made up by higher per-game attendance.
I think the cup final should be played no later than April. To accomplish this, I'd remove at least 10-12 games from the schedule and start the season earlier. Hockey in September makes way more sense than hockey in June. If nobody cares about hockey in September, fine. That's way better than nobody caring during the cup final.
Something that's equally ridiculous is the 82-game schedule. It's bad enough that the regular season has become a sort of meaningless pre-season, but to have it drag on for 82 games is just too much. I know the franchises make money on every game, but I find it hard to believe that there is no downside to spreading the season so thin. There are exceptions, but most NHL arenas are not filled to capacity for every game. I'd bet that if they played fewer games most of the lost revenue would be made up by higher per-game attendance.
I think the cup final should be played no later than April. To accomplish this, I'd remove at least 10-12 games from the schedule and start the season earlier. Hockey in September makes way more sense than hockey in June. If nobody cares about hockey in September, fine. That's way better than nobody caring during the cup final.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
No Deep Analysis Required
In the end the Bruins did play with heart in game 7 of their series with Philly. But like the series itself, they were unable to sustain it. Many will claim the team doesn't have enough talent. Some will make the excuse that Krejci, Sturm and Seidenberg were out with injuries. Others will suggest the Flyers were the better team. But I believe the bottom line is much like last year. The series against Carolina was really lost not in game 7, but when they failed to show up for game 1. This year the series was lost when the Bruins failed to put the Flyers away in games 4 or 5, as a great team would have done.
Like a cat toying with a mouse, if he doesn't kill his prey when he has the chance sooner or later it will escape.
Like a cat toying with a mouse, if he doesn't kill his prey when he has the chance sooner or later it will escape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
