5 Reasons Why I Love Hockey

The usual line of questioning goes as follows:

"You're a big hockey fan? Did you play hockey?"

"No. Well not organized hockey, anyway."

"Where are you from?"

"North Carolina."

(Long Silence)

"Why do you like hockey then?"

Why do I like hockey then? As if it is not permissible to like something if you haven't played it or didn't grow up around it. I like Italian food and I'm not Italian, nor did I grow up in Italy. Okay, bad example but you get my point.

1) The Subculture. Hockey has a unique flavor that is unlike other sports. You can find a casual basketball or football fan almost anywhere, but if you love hockey, you love hockey. If you're trying to pose as a hockey fan you'll be outed as soon as they blow the whistle and you ask "What's icing?" It's almost like being a Trekkie or a Dog Show person. It's strange and goofy and intense and great.

2) The Regional Warfare. This is a love-hate reason. I hate that small-market, especially southern teams, get so much flack for even existing. Yet, I love it when the small-market team shuts up the haters, even if it's only for a little while. I love when Montreal fans make fun of Toronto for their losing history and I love it when Toronto fans tell Montreal to go celebrate by setting cars on fire. I love it when Sharks fans pick on the Kings for sucking and I love it when Kings fans make fun of the Sharks for always choking in the playoffs. The playing field on-ice might not be level, but off-ice there is more than enough fodder to go around.

3) The Jerseys. There is no other professional sports jersey that is less acceptable to wear in public than a hockey sweater. People wear baseball, basketball, football, and even soccer jerseys all the time. However, if someone wears a hockey sweater in public they look like a total dingus. Baggy sleeves, ill-fitting, over-sized logo on the chest. I loathe and respect that fan at the same time. They may look like an idiot wearing a giant Penguin on their chest at the bank, but man they love their team. Oh, and it just makes the jersey look that much better on the players.

4) The Names. Boogaard. Cheechoo. Tootoo. Sounds like gibberish but those are names. Then you have the obviously French-Canadian; Brind'Amour, Lecavalier, Gauthier. The obviously Finnish; Pitkanen, Jokinen, Laaksonen, Lehtinen. The Swedish players and their names that end in -strom, -sson, -berg, and -qvist. These are great names! Pick any team in the NHL and I'll tell you a name that makes milk come out of you nostrils.

5) It has everything. Speed, physicality, intelligence, skill. Both strategy and the lack thereof. I would love to describe the sport to an alien just for the reaction.

"So we put 12 guys on ice and they skate around."

"Okay."

"Then we give them sticks and they have to pass around a little puck that's the size of a coaster and try to put it into a goal."

"Okay."

"The puck is dense as a rock and can be shot at up to 100 MPH."

"Um, what?"

"And the players can ram their bodies into each other at full force."

"Wait, 100 MPH? Go back to that."

"And if they feel up for it, they can take off their gloves and fight."

"This sounds made-up."

No, my dear alien, it is not. It is very real and very great.

Jersey Destruction: Part 1

Welcome to the Dead-Zone. No, not the Stephen King book. No, not the movie based on the Stephen King book. No, not the Verizon commercials that parody the movie based on the Stephen King book. I'm talking about the middle of the summer where we are past the excitement of the draft and free-agent frenzy and far from the start of training camp. So, what I've decided to do is mercilessly skewer the jersey and logo decisions of all 30 NHL teams!

Let me start this off with a disclaimer. I actually like the mass majority of these logos and jerseys, but much of it is in a sentimental capacity. It's kind of like how you like the ratty, old couch you have but it's just too comfortable to get rid of. And yes, yes I know that many of these designs date back to the leagues inception and have a strong historical background. That said, let me tell you why they're awful.

We'll start with my hometown team's division; the Southeast.

Atlanta Thrashers

Don't let the name fool you, folks. A Thrasher isn't a rockabilly punk wielding a tire iron, ready to beat you senseless. A Thrasher is a tiny brown bird that tosses pine needles around. Doesn't that just strike fear into your heart? Atlanta also made the bold decision to spurn tradition and pick around 748 colors instead of just 3. Let's see, we've got light blue, dark blue, magenta, orange, yellow, white, and I still feel like I'm forgetting some. To top it all off, they decided to display the city's name down one of the sleeves, because when you're in Atlanta you're usually doing your best to forget where you are.

Carolina Hurricanes

The 'Canes are my favorite team. I grew up with them, but in the sake of fairness they shall not escape the scorn. If you didn't know the team's name, your first instinct might be, "the Carolina Flushing Toilets?" Nope, that's a hurricane. The 'Canes had the benefit of being a latecomer to the party so they could see what the other teams chose for colors and pick something different. They went with red as their primary color, which only a third of the league has. To finish it off, the Hurricanes decided to border the bottom of their jerseys with the Hurricane Warning flag design, which looks a bit like a bento box collection. They should serve sushi at the concession stands.

Oh, and their mascot is a hog. Why, you ask? Because of Southern BBQ, duh! "Aw, look at the adorable mascot! Let's cover his body in sauce and slow smoke him."

Florida Panthers

I'll start with a pat on the back of the Panthers branding team for doing away with the panther holding the destroyed remains of a hockey stick, but more on that when I get to San Jose. What Florida should really do is consider giving out 3-D glasses so it looks like the panther is leaping out of their players' chests. Then maybe the jersey itself wouldn't look so much like safety vest. What really throws me is the cat's whiskers and tail. They just make me want to pet the thing, not run in fear of a savage mauling. He's not diving to attack. He's pouncing ever so gracefully for a ball of yarn!

Tampa Bay Lightning

A scrawling blaze of wild electricity! What could be more exciting? Well, apparently Tampa thought a jagged forward-slash was. Oh, and could someone explain to me what the giant, needless circle behind the bolt is? Did they feel like they needed more geometry on their sweaters? Or maybe people would be confused what the logo was without a background? No, we got it. The Tampa Bay Zig-Zags, right? It looks like Flash's logo caught a cold.

Washington Capitals

Another pat on the back goes to Washington for ditching their old logo which prominently displayed the Capitol Building. I mean, nothing says hockey like a big government building, right? Except on their new logo, I can't help but find it ironic that their team's name, the Capitals, is in all lowercase letters. Hmm. Kudos for making the "L" look like a hockey stick as well. It should come in handy if your fans forget what sport you're playing. I can't forget to mention the secondary logo. As clever as it was to make an eagle look like the letter "W", it just looks like some kind of post-op bird that had his legs removed. He's got those wings, but the landing is going to be a little rough.

Next post: Central Divison.

Fuzzy Math

Let's rewind a few weeks to the start of the free-agency period. The most coveted free-agent available this year, Marian Hossa, shocks everyone and signs with the Chicago Blackhawks. In one fell swoop Hossa signed with his former team's rival (not surprising considering his track record), displaced his friend and former Blackhawks star Martin Havlat, and added to an already ballooning Chicago payroll.

Oh, but it's okay. Hossa got one of those crazy, new, front-loaded contracts that makes everything okay! Want me to explain? I'd love to!

Chicago signed Hossa to a 12 year deal worth $62.8 million. Ludicrous, but here's the catch; the contract is heavily front-loaded so even though Hossa will make nearly $8 million for the next seven seasons, his contract will drop to $4 million and less for the last 5 years. This averages Hossa's cap-hit to $5.167 million per season. In short, a team can only have about $57 million worth of contracts per season. So by giving Hossa this contract, they have around $3 million more in cap space for the first seven seasons than they would if Hossa's cap-hit matched his actual cash dollars.

Don't worry, the hard math is almost over and I'll get to the interesting stuff. Why is this contract so strange? Let's compare it to that of Eric Staal on my favorite team, the Carolina Hurricanes. Staal is a comparable player to Hossa in terms of offensive production. Staal is also signed to a long term deal and also for a lot of money. However, Staal's cash dollar amount starts at $6 million and goes up to $9.5 million at the end of the deal. This gives Staal a large cap-hit of $8.25 million. Here is the key difference; when Staal's contract expires he will be 32 and in the prime of his career. When Hossa's deal expires he will be 42 and ready for bingo (in hockey years that is).

The Hurricanes should be able to justify the steep cap hit in 2015 because Staal should still be putting up big numbers. Can Chicago justify wasting over $5 million in cap space on a guy who may not be nearly as productive?

This is where it gets interesting. There is an allegation that Hossa and the Blackhawks have a secret deal in place that Hossa will retire before the end of his contract, thereby preventing Chicago from having to pay him the low end of the contract in the future and also preventing them from wasting the cap space now. For Hossa and the Blackhawks it's a win-win. Get a guy in the prime of his career, pay him lots of money now, and take a smaller cap-hit by circumventing the rules of the CBA (the Collective Bargaining Agreement, in layman's terms, the rules).

Why stop there? They could have signed him to a 40 year deal, pay him $8 million for the first 10 seasons, then pay the league minimum of $500,000 for the last 30. His cap-hit would be $2.375 million and he could retire at the age of 40 and nullify the last 30 years of the contract. Well, that would be about as transparent as a Filet-O-Fish wrapper and since it is totally against the rules, they lessen the risk of getting caught by signing him to the contract he has now.

Well, the NHL thought something was rotten in Denmark anyway because they have launched an investigation of Hossa and Chicago's deal. If they are found guilty of malfeasance, Chicago faces a maximum penalty of $5 million and the loss of draft picks. I would imagine Hossa's contract would be declared null and void as well, thereby making him a free-agent. From there I'm sure Hossa and the Blackhawks could figure something out that didn't fly in the face of the rules.

So to tally it up; so far this summer Chicago has misfiled their RFA qualifying offers, unceremoniously fired their much loved GM, and potentially signed Marian Hossa to an illegal contract. Quite a bit of funk blowing around in the Windy City...

It Is Broke, So Fix It

There is an inherent problem with the NHL All-Star Game. It should be an exciting spectacle of high-talent, high-intensity hockey. The talent is high, but not always the intensity. Why? Because it's in the player's best interest (and that of the team he belongs to) to sandbag it. What incentive is there to play hard? Why risk injury? A Honda Pilot if you're named MVP? A little more bling for your trophy cabinet? Pretty insignificant when we're talking about multi-million dollar players who only lust for one, big trophy by the name of Lord Stanley's Cup.

Well, why not take a page from Major League Baseball and give the winning conference home ice advantage for the playoffs? Not only would that not sit well with hockey purists, it simply doesn't make sense for the NHL. Not a knock on baseball, but hockey is a full contact sport. In hockey, giving it your all means laying your body on the line every shift. Imagine this; Eric Staal goes all out, lays a full contact hit on an opposing player, and dislocates his shoulder. He's out for the season and for what? So divisional rival Washington can get home ice advantage and win the Cup? It doesn't make sense for hockey.

So how then? In what way do you bring out the intensity in the All-Star Game without risking a player's health? You don't. You can't and you don't. Part of the reason hockey is such an intense, uptempo sport is because there is that physical risk. Take it away and you lose the crux of the appeal.

Is it a lost cause then? Do we accept that the All-Star Weekend is a glorified breather for the players? After all, one of the best players in the game sat out the All-Star weekend (albeit due to "injury") and he lifted the big one over his head this summer. How can the NHL increase the appeal while maintaining as little risk as possible to the players? Simple; "John Kerry" the whole weekend and flip-flop the schedule. Make the All-Star Game itself the triumphant opening to the weekend and make the SuperSkills Competition the main attraction.

Seems counterproductive, right? Well, what is the All-Star Game for? It's supposedly to display the games greatest players and potentially entice more fans to watch the game. How does that work when those players are sandbagging it to prevent injury? It just ends up looking like Ice-Capades to the untrained eye. Do we really want a potential fan tuning into the All-Star game and thinking our beloved sport is boring? Not I.

So this flip-flop achieves what? Try to imagine this scenario. A guy/girl goes into work and says to his/her friends, "Did you see the NHL All-Star Game this weekend? There was this sweet tic-tac-toe pass on the game winning goal." Not exactly enthralling to a non-hockey fan. Okay, now try this one, "Did you see the NHL Super Skills Competition this weekend? This 6'9" guy hit a slap shot that was 105 miles an hour!" Which one are you more willing to tune into? The latter appeals to what American sports fans love so much about baseball; the stats. How fast can a player skate around the rink? How fast can he belt a slap shot? How fast can he break the targets? Not to mention the fact that there is a greatly reduced risk of injury in these events. It's all gravy.

Don't stop there either. Make more SuperSkills events that test other aspects of the game. Make the casual fan say, "Wow, I need to see that in a game!" It's better than, "This is what the best in the world has to offer? Boring!"

Psychics Wanted

I have a fun game for you to try out. Next time you are due for a raise, tell your boss to keep paying you the same amount, but in a year they can start paying you a salary of $2 million, because that's how much you'll be worth. Then report back to me how long it took for you to fit your belongings into a box.

Seems ludicrous, right? Well that's the way the NHL works.

The debate will never cease on how much a player should be paid, or how a team is overpaying for someone. Seriously, not even the greatest player in the world will escape without criticism for the number of Ben Franklin wallet photos he's walking around with. I'll give you an example; I read somewhere that Alexander Ovechkin may not deserve the money he's making, or the length of his contract, because he plays such a physical game that it's hard to tell how durable he'll be. Really? That's the argument? For this guy?

On the other hand, players today demand contracts that are older than middle schoolers. That means General Managers are playing a lot more Miss Cleo than they ever have. How do you know how good or bad a player will be in the year 2017? What if 6 years pass, the guy turns into a skating mascot and you're still paying him $6 million a year? Whoops. Sometimes, it turns out he was injured before you even signed him!

Players are investments. With an investment, the least that you want is to break even. Ideally, you get a steal. However, more often than not you're left wondering why you emptied your savings into webvan.com, and believe me, there will be more than one webvan.com lacing up his skates this October.

What it comes down to is spending wisely. Anytime you put your money into a hypothetical, it's a gamble. You just have to play the odds in any given situation. How has he played thus far in his career? Does he have upside, or has he reached his max potential? Do I really see him playing at age 42? Why is my 12 year old cousin blogging about how much of an idiot I am?

Life for a General Manager is hard. Remember how your mom used to criticize you for wasting all of your money on baseball cards or Ninja Turtles? Now imagine you are a GM and have a couple million moms, constantly scrutinizing every penny you spend. And, these moms aren't lovable-casserole-making-moms, they're annoying-fanboy-blogger-moms. Not a terribly nurturing bunch.

Remember, no NHL GMs are psychic (none that I know of), so maybe cut them some slack. Or maybe e-mail them the name of a good tarot card reader.

Explain This To Me Like I'm Five...

There's an episode of "The Office" where the character Oscar is trying to explain to the character Michael how his budget works using an allowance and a lemonade stand as a comparison. After the severely dumbed down explanation, Michael replies, "Okay, break it down in terms of, um... okay, I-I think I'm getting you..." How does this apply to the NHL? Let's just say some General Managers are acting a little Michael Scott-like in their understanding of money.

Let me start by saying I have the utmost respect for these men and the difficult jobs they do. That said, some of them are screwing their teams royally!

So, who's doing it wrong? Let's look at Philadelphia. They are flush with talent on both offense and defense. However, they had to go to Russia and bring back a problematic goaltender in order to afford someone who is considered a "starter." Then, they trade a boatload of talent for a highly paid, yet aging star in Chris Pronger. Not to mention the fact they are saddled with Danny Briere's $6.5 million dollar contract until 2015. That would be fine if Briere was worth that much.

Philly has almost $46 million committed to salaries for next season and the salary cap is likely to come down from this seasons cap of $56.8 million. Even if it didn't, that would mean the Flyers would need to find 3 forwards, 3 defenseman, and a starting netminder for $10.8 million.

Philadelphia was in the worst condition, until Chicago stole their thunder. How? Well, for starters, Chicago is already over the cap for this coming season. They'll need to find ways to shed salary and not lose key players before the season starts.

However, like Philadelphia, the Blackhawks' real problems lie in the future. Chicago has $43 million committed to salaries next season. 7 of their players become Restricted Free Agents next season, and 5 of them Unrestricted Free Agents. Among those players are Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Andrew Ladd, and Duncan Keith. Heck, Toews and Kane alone will cost more than the $13.8 million in the cap space that's available for next season. Don't forget you have 10 other players to sign as well. Bet you're rethinking that $7.1 million contract you gave Brian Campbell last summer, right Dale Tallon?

The issue is a common one and a totally avoidable one; don't overpay for players. Pay a player their appropriate value. If you really want that player but they're asking for too much, don't sign them! Any team would love to have Marian Gaborik, but if I'm the Rangers, do I pay $7.5 million for a guy who gets injured more often than a hemophiliac rodeo clown?

When I was growing up my parents tried to teach me not to spend money on something that isn't worth it. I probably could have lived with a few less video games, but for the most part the lessons stuck. Maybe I should tell my parents to call some of the leagues GM's and give them some pointers...

Why does this matter? Why not let those teams mismanage their money? Because when a player gets an inflated contract, it ruins things for everyone. If Player X gets a $4 million contract, even though he deserves a $3 million contract, everyone else gets bumped too. To go back to an analogy for five year-olds, you can't give one child two scoops of ice cream and another, equally valuable kid one scoop. Unless of course you value your children differently...

It's a "buy first, ask questions later" mentality and some teams are going to feel the sting when the bill comes. It's only a matter of time until it hits the fan and GM's learn to rebuild through the draft (see Kings, Los Angeles or Blues, St. Louis for good examples) and not throw wads of money at UFA's (see Gainey, Bob). Unfortunately, you can't always expect your kids to make the right decisions the first time. Sometimes you have to watch them fall and hope they learn to get back up and not make the same mistake twice.

How Bob Gainey "Milburied" the Habs

Yesterday, a coworker asked me why I was slapping myself in the face. It was an attempt to wake up from the hilarious dream I was having in which Bob Gainey, GM of the Montreal Canadiens, traded Christopher Higgins for Scott Gomez of the New York Rangers. Usually it's up for debate who "wins" any given trade. However, you can send the debate team home for this one. Gainey got fleeced.

Then I heard the rest of the trade...

Gainey obtained Scott Gomez along with Tom Pyatt and Mike Busto (both throw ins) from the New York Rangers for Christopher Higgins, Ryan McDonagh, Pavel Valentenko, and Doug Janik. Ouch. Gainey might want to check his back pocket too, because he just got robbed. This flirts with dangerously-bad, Mike Milbury-esque trades.

Why, you ask, is this trade so slanted in favor of the Rangers? I love lists, so here we go:

Oops #1) Gainey didn't get what he was looking for. This trade was supposed to distract all of the dejected Montreal fans who were forlorn over Gainey's inability to trade for Vincent Lecavalier. Instead, Gainey got a player with half the size and half the skill. Gomez is a slick little speedster, but he is by no means big, nor strong, nor as productive offensively as Lecavalier.

Oops #2) The big name going the other way. Higgins hasn't put up the same kind of numbers as Gomez, but his value is higher as a goal scorer and a physical player. Not to mention a younger and likely more appropriately paid one (I'll get to that later). Higgins won't have to do much to exceed the expectations set for Gomez.

Oops #3) The other names. To Montreal, Pyatt and Busto are decent prospects at best. They're both in the minors right now (Busto is in the ECHL which if you didn't know, is second tier minors). Safe bet is neither gets more than a handful of games in the NHL other than as a role player. Going to New York, we have McDonagh, a first round draft pick and Montreal's 1A prospect. What?! Why?! Why trade him too?! McDonagh wasn't just icing on top of the cake that is Christopher Higgins, he's another cake! Not to mention Valentenko, a big defender whose Russian team says is ready for the NHL, or Doug Janik who actually has 161 NHL games under his belt already. This won't just hurt the Habs next season, it will hurt for years to come as McDonagh smashes tiny Habs-forwards into the glass.

Oops #4) The money. Montreal got rid of an RFA who they could have resigned for significantly less than the nearly $7.4 million per season they'll be paying for Gomez over the next 5 years. I'll let you reach for those smelling salts... That's right, Scott Gomez who has had 1 season with more than 20 goals makes nearly $2.3 million more than Marian Hossa! Take a big whiff of those salts people. While the rest of the league is worried about being pushed to the cap ceiling as it lowers onto them like an Indiana Jones booby trap, Gainey goes out and gets the most ridiculously overpaid player he can.

Oops #5) Montreal fans hate this trade. I won't say all of them do, but most of them do and definitely the smart ones. Message boards around the interweb have Habs fans already calling for Gainey's head on a pike.

So to recap, here's Gainey's report card on this trade:

Gomez not a #1 Center = Fail
Higgins has more value = Fail
Value of prospects traded = Fail
Taking on a ridiculously expensive contract = Fail
Pissed off your fan base = Fail

What could have compelled Bob Gainey to make a trade so bad that it nearly made Pierre McGuire physically wretch during a broadcast? I have no idea, but maybe if I keep slapping I'll wake up...