By Avi Goldberg, Featured Writer, All Habs Hockey Magazine
MONTREAL, QC. — We’re a little over a week in. There’s been no lockout to contend with, no Bettman vs. Fehr, only a wild and whacky start to a full National Hockey League campaign. With every early surprise success story and with each expected disappointment, the excitement only grows.
What will be the key storylines this year? What issues will dominate the pre- and post-game shows? What topics will light up twitterverse? In what follows, I present my top five on and off-ice NHL talking points for this season. I will discuss the relevance of each issue to the Habs in particular and to teams and fans away from Montreal as well.
As there are always unanticipated events, the list will never be complete. It will, however, tap into some big issues hockey people will be talking about over the next seven glorious months.
Issue #1: The Winter Olympics
Habs
With seven Montreal Canadiens, and a longshot eight, likely heading to their respective country’s national teams for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, the Habs will be quite well represented. And, while it speaks to the quality of the roster that one third of it will play in Sochi, the downside question is whether the dislocation and stress of competing in the Olympic tournament will adversely affect the Canadiens’ internal chemistry and rhythms in the year following last season’s surprising rise from mediocrity.
One Habs player arguably most under the microscope in relation to this will be Carey Price. Olympics aside, fans and media are already looking for Price to finally put an end to the guffaws and awkwardness that arise in response to the much repeated “he’s an elite goaltender” refrain. One wonders whether Price will thrive under the extra pressure of working to make Team Canada as starting goalie, or whether this game within the game of the NHL campaign will only add to his undoing.
The good news is that many of the Habs’ opponents will face similar issues during the Olympic year. Yet, Marc Bergevin and Michel Therrien will have their management and coaching skills tested by this exciting, yet challenging, opportunity.
Away
Lots of folks will be talking about the compressed schedule and about the major layoff that will shut NHL hockey down just before the playoffs. Yet, there is a trickier issue that might find its way into fan and media debate regarding the Sochi Winter Olympics—the question of Russia’s treatment of gays and lesbians and whether the Olympic games provide a reasonable and important opportunity to raise this issue for international discussion.
There’s already been a range of incendiary and thoughtful media discussion on this issue, and for the time being, things appear to be relatively quiet. What happens, though, if talk of a boycott or of athletes taking a stand heats up again? While some prominent hockey executives are ready to make noise and to find ways to actively challenge Russian law, questions are also being asked about whether the players should, or are willing to, do the same.
Despite what many sports fans like to believe, the Olympics, like all major sporting events, are routinely used by host countries and by participating nations to promote their society’s way of life. And, though the tension can take away from the experience of enjoying sport competition, the promotion of one society’s ideology inevitably draws someone’s ire and leads to organized efforts to speak up.
So, just like the Beijing games resulted in public discussions of China’s social policies, and the London Olympics opened debate about its repercussions for the city’s poor, people will continue to talk about gay rights in conjunction with Sochi. For the NHL, one concern arising from this reality is the extent to which players get pulled in. As we know from Tim Thomas’ experiences in Boston, there can be nothing more problematic for a team’s internal cohesion than if fault lines were to develop between Russian players expressing support for their home country’s policies and those who are willing to speak out against them.
Issue #2: Rough Stuff
Habs
When I last assessed the state of the Habs, at the end of last year’s lockout shortened season, the question of team toughness was impossible to ignore. Perpetually pushed around by rivals, Habs fans were clamouring for the team to bulk up. With the drafting of Mike McCarron, and the addition of George Parros, many felt the team was moving in a positive direction. With news that Parros would suit up for game one against the Leafs, anticipation was high that the team’s new toughness quotient would go on display on opening night. Then, when Parros’ face crashed to the ice in the middle of his second tussle with Leaf’s Colton Orr, it felt like the rebranding strategy was arrested.
Unlike the bad taste that Georges Laraque left in many peoples’ mouths during his time in Montreal, George Parros has, in the very time he’s been here, established a very warm relationship with local fans who’ve been waiting a long time for a player to assume the role of team policeman. Mutual respect aside, how does this early season setback affect the Habs in terms of the rough stuff?
Following the Parros incident, there was talk that his career would be over. It was said that, even if he’d have a full recovery, he’d take stock, realize that there’s more to life than giving and taking beatings, and would walk away from the game. In light of the uncertainty, fans were even suggesting that team should take a flyer on Ben Eager. Well, based on what we’re hearing, I say Parros will be back. But, I also say the team will be not much further ahead in terms of establishing an appropriate level of toughness.
Yes, there are some bigger bodies (Bourque, Eller, Pacioretty), but these are not the kinds of players who’ll open up space with their intimidating physical play. Jarred Tinordi gives hope for the future, and Brendan Gallagher and Brandon Prust will always give it their all. But, if the sight of George Parros coming down gave you the feeling that the Habs can’t do the toughness thing even when they try, it’s because you’re right. As many observers are increasingly saying, the best toughness is not mere punching power, but rather grit combined with size, speed, and skill. So, thank you, George Parros, but whether you’re in the lineup or out, the construction of a tougher Montreal Canadiens is very much a work in progress. Until the tipping point is passed, and to avoid a perpetual series of knockouts and dispiriting mismatches, I say keep the gloves on and pour all effort into learning how to defend and how to get better at putting the puck in the opposition’s net.
Away
Of course, the George Parros incident did more than just lead Habs fans to worry about the state of their squad. Coupled with some high profile pre-season antics, the Parros incident brought on a sudden intensification of the debate about the place of fighting in hockey during which a handful of respected managers let it be known that they believe it’s time for the NHL to take fighting out of the game. As with talk of boycotting Sochi, things are quieter on this front than they were at this time last week. Will the league-wide discussion and angst go away? Is the NHL poised for major change when it comes to fighting?
In the history of hockey, at least in Canada, there has always been a very fine line between support for a strenuous and aggressive game on the ice and opposition to acts that appear to spill over into treachery and that feel as though they border on the criminal. Another part of that history has been the way that the hometown lens has affected the interpretation. When our team’s been attacked, we’re far more likely to object to the violence than when our boys are the ones accused of crossing the line. Regardless of swings in the pendulum of public opinion, large numbers of fans and media members, from all walks of life, have historically been intrigued by, and drawn to, the spectacle of toughness in hockey.
While the MMA generation might see the entertainment value of fighting in hockey as no different from what goes on in the squared circle, and while the NHL is cognizant of this vis-à-vis its business and marketing models, fan and player love for the rough stuff is nothing new. With fighting and violence undeniably a part of hockey’s history and culture in Canada, and even in the face of mounting criticism, nothing short of a revolution will be needed to remove it from the game. Gary Bettman referred to this reality when he told the CBC on opening night that addressing fighting in the NHL is a balancing act. And, by declaring that the game will evolve on its own rather than be changed via a sudden decree, it was clear that, at least under his watch, the seeds for the revolution aren’t there just yet.
Issue #3: The Coaching/Management Carousel
Habs
Things were pretty quiet, and the fans were mostly quite content, in Montreal last season. Therrien stayed calm and managed to oversee a significant improvement in the team’s on-ice performance. Bergevin, meanwhile, stared down P.K. Subban and won, spoke the truth about Carey Price at season’s end, and brought in Briere and Parros during the offseason. The Bergevin-Therrien regime came into this year with a pretty high approval rating, but is this a lasting peace?
Bergevin took a little heat for signing Briere, for not going all out to land Vincent Lecavalier, and people are even saying the Subban bridge deal could end up costing the Habs much more in the long run than had the club given him a longer term contract. Yet, the GM is only in the first full year of his mandate, the free agent market was slim this past offseason, and there are promising youngsters in the pipeline. Given the rope that Gainey was given, Bergevin’s safe for the foreseeable future.
The situation is not the same for the coach. Last year, there were small rumblings about Therrien’s stubborn generosity with Desharnais and about whether he truly practiced what he preached about giving the players who played best the most ice time. We’re only a few games in, and after the Habs managed to go 1-1 in Alberta, I see that Twitter is growing increasingly bold about chastising the coach. Therrien can make a good impression with some confident talk when things are going well, and with some tough words when the team faces a little adversity. But, he wasn’t a unanimous number one choice. And, if the team fails to meet its expectations, the clamouring for a coach who’s really new to Montreal will only grow louder and more hostile. Stay tuned.
Away
It took only three games for the Flyers to be the first squad to make a splash when they relieved Peter Laviolette of his coaching duties. Is Paul Holmgren that far behind? Aside from Philly, Patrick Roy is off to a raucous start in Colorado. And, despite his promise to make bold moves, Craig MacTavish’s Edmonton Oilers have started the season identically to how they looked last year. Outside of Montreal, which coaches and GMs are on the hottest of seats?
We know that everyone’s talking about Bob Hartley in Calgary, but with the team playing well, Brian Burke in the executive offices, and with Jay Feaster responsible for the team’s roster, perhaps it’s the GM who’ll be the first to be shuffled out of Southern Alberta. The duo of David Poile and Barry Trotz is a model of consistency in Nashville, but how long will ownership support their efficient application of Moneyball to a hockey team if the Predators continue to fail in their efforts to achieve real playoff success? And, we’re watching the switcheroo that saw John Tortorella land in Vancouver and Alain Vigneault take over the New York Rangers, but I’d say that it’s Mike Gillis and Glen Sather who’ll have to provide answers first if their respective teams remain stuck in their early season lethargies.
There’s more pointed talk now of the cavalier and illogical manner in which coaching and GM hirings and firings are carried out by NHL owners than there has been in recent years, but given the stakes that seem to be at play in the business of hockey, the trend is likely to continue.
Issue #4: Media Watch
Habs
As far as local media is concerned, one of the most important stories is the Bell-Astral merger, and its implications for the two English language radio stations that cover the Habs, TSN 690 and CJAD.
In the early days of a new partnership that’s been quickly forged between two radio stations and staffs that were previously rivals, a handful of on-air talent, including sports broadcasters, was let go. Of particular significance for Habs fans in all of this are questions surrounding the synthesis of voices that were previously separate. How does the addition, for example, of CJAD’s Rick Moffat and Abe Hefter to Habs coverage on TSN 690 affect the content or style of coverage? How does the blending of veteran talent affect the prospects and status of younger TSN 690 personnel who might be pushed to lower positions on the depth chart? Will TSN 690 be able to grow its audience? Or, in a new media age, will fans increasingly migrate to being regular consumers and participants in a range of Montreal focused internet sports radio options that are also moving to enhance the quality and depth of their programming?
The addition of Brian Wilde to TSN 690 Habs coverage is a boon for traditional radio in Montreal, but it’s too early to tell how Habs media experience will be shaped by the coming together of two stations with long independent histories and cultures, and by the concurrent growth in prominence of digital media platforms.
Away
Aside from waiting for the next player to say something stupid on Twitter, the biggest Canadian media story of the year has to be the fate of Hockey Night in Canada. English language broadcaster of Saturday night hockey since 1953, the CBC’s current contract with the NHL is up at the end of this season. An exclusive negotiation window between the two parties was supposed to have closed at the end of September, but does it really matter whether or not HNIC remains on Canada’s national broadcaster?
Proponents will cite tradition, the historical quality of the broadcast, and the fact that Hockey Night in Canada and CBC have done wonders to weave hockey deeply into the culture of Canada. Opponents will argue that private broadcasters have eclipsed CBC in terms of innovation in hockey coverage, that Don Cherry, Ron MacLean, and Bob Cole are badly played out, and that the state broadcaster has no inalienable right to hold the rights to present hockey to Canadians on nights and during times when the games matter most to the fans.
According to reports on the negotiations to date, the asking price for the rights is sky high, one of Canada’s major telecom companies is chomping at the bit to steal them away from the CBC, and Gary Bettman is known to drive a very hard bargain. As much as the CBC will press to keep hockey, and as much some Canadians will speak up in support of conserving a sport-media-community relationship that’s been comfortable for some time, sentimentality might go out the window this time. Look for a secondary broadcast deal to give CBC a new Sunday night hockey property to deliver to Canadian fans, but I’m betting that Saturday night and the Stanley Cup finals move to a corporation symbolized by big blue letters and by the ubiquitous commercials for digital services that aren’t nearly as funny, edgy, or entertaining and their producers and marketers likely believe them to be.
Issue #5: The Stanley Cup Champion
Habs
The million dollar question for Habs fans in 2013-2014: Are our Montreal Canadiens serious contenders for the Stanley Cup?
Price will not become the goalie we want him to be. Without Emelin, and aside from Subban and Tinordi, the defense is small, ill-suited to protect Price, and not offensively skilled enough to create scoring chances by getting the puck to forwards in transition. The forwards contain a number of interesting and useful players, but the championship calibre number one centre, number one line, and number two line are not yet finalized. The coach appears to lack clarity regarding his own standards.
There are prospects on the way, and Eller, Gallagher, and Galchenyuk will all eventually find their rightful places in the lineup. But, even with Marc Bergevin doing what’s needed to address the team’s weaknesses both on the ice and behind the bench, the Habs are minimally two years away from real contention for the Stanley Cup.
Away
If this isn’t the year for the Montreal Canadiens, how about for other Canadian based teams? Is this finally the year that the Cup returns North of the 49th parallel?
In a lengthy investigation of this very question, non-hockey guy, Nate Silver, presents few reasons why it’s been more than twenty years since a Canadian based team has won the Cup. In addition to taking on the obvious realities that there are more teams in the US, and that the salary cap limits the amount that owners and expert GMs of hockey clubs Canada can spend on talent, Silver presents statistics to show that extra wins and losses in Canadian markets do almost nothing in terms of moving team revenue. If wins and losses do nothing to affect the serious profitability of Canadian-based teams, Silver asks whether incentives really exist for their GMs to do the ambitious things that are needed for them to build winning teams.
At first glance, it’s a conspiracy theory argument. But, when you think about some of the puzzling moves in places like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, and even Montreal over the years, is it really that much of a stretch to ask how much managers have feared for their jobs if team performance for the good or for the bad would have so little bearing on the bottom line?
I don’t present this information to argue that GMs in Canada don’t have their eyes set on building championship quality teams. But, it does provide some sense of the realities of the business environments in which a Mike Gillis, Jay Feaster, or Kevin Lowe operates. Canadian GMs are doing all that they can to get their teams to the top, but when franchise survival or profitability are more obviously on the line, as they are in many of the US markets, maybe GMs have to work just a little bit smarter on a more consistent basis.
Will the Cup come to Canada in 2013-2014? I say St. Louis over Boston. But, trust me, don’t take it to the bank.
Follow me on Twitter @AviGoldberg
