Thomas Vanek Trade

Well, we all knew it was going to happen sooner or later. Regardless, it still comes as a shock: Thomas Vanek has been traded out of Buffalo. He’s probably quite relieved to get off of that sinking ship. Vanek played nearly 600 games (he leaves at 598) for the Sabres, and had been one of their best offensive players for quite some time now. That said, he’s in the last year of his deal, will be an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season, and never sounded too excited about staying in Buffalo for a rebuild.

So, where’s he headed? To the New York Islanders, to play with John Tavares. Going the other way are a 2014 1^st round draft pick, 2015 2^nd round draft pick, and Matt Moulson. Moulson turned into an elite player on the Island, having great chemistry teaming up with Tavares and becoming a 30 goal scorer in the process. Vanek has eclipsed 20 every season, including last year’s lockout-shortened, topping out at 43. It will be interesting to see what he can do with Tavares.

Here’s another thing that’s interesting. In addition to helping turn him into a top player, Tavares and Moulson are good friends. What sort of effect will this have on each player? Moulson is going to a train wreck, and while Cody Hodgson is a good player, he’s no Tavares. Yes, Vanek is an elite scorer and should mesh well with Tavares, but what effect will losing a good friend and linemate have on Tavares? Will he struggle while adapting to a new linemate? Moulson and him were the constants, with a rotating cast joining them on the right side: first P.A. Parenteau, then Brad Boyes, and now Kyle Okposo.

As mentioned earlier, Vanek is unrestricted at the end of the season. It’s been long rumored that he’d head to Minnesota, to play with good friend Jason Pominville, and where Vanek played college hockey. The Islanders are taking a big risk hoping they can resign Vanek. As it is, it’s a lot sent to Buffalo: two high draft picks and a top-line player. Both Vanek and Moulson are 29, and with both players being unrestricted at season’s end, are pretty comparable. Then the Isles throw in two picks, with the possibility that Vanek might not resign, and this trade looks pretty good for the Sabres. It was pretty clear Vanek wasn’t staying in Buffalo, but will Moulson? He could also sign elsewhere. Perhaps the Sabres consider trading him at the deadline for more picks or prospects to further help restocking for their rebuild. It’ll be interesting to watch what happens with each player and speculate their futures until either signs an extension.

Now all the trade watch attention is now on Ryan Miller. We’re waiting Darcy.

 

Okay, This is Getting Ridiculous

“You know, we ain’t hockey players. We’ve been clowns. We’ve been goons. We’re freaks in fucking sideshow. We’re nothing but a bunch of criminals, we oughta be in jail, that’s all there is to it. … Violence is killing this sport, it’s dragging it through the mud. If things keep up the way they are, hockey players will be nothing but actors, punks.”

I wake of John Scott’s hit on Loui Eriksson, the hockey world has been calling for Scott’s head the way Sabres fans have been calling for GM Darcy Reiger’s. Opinions have ranged from Scott should be banished for life to coach Ron Rolston should be fired. All are quick to find fault with one of two things: either John Scott as a player or the Sabres as an organization. Here's the hit again, in case you missed it.

I will do neither here. Yes, Scott is not the most talented player out there, but if you don’t think he’s put in an extremely high amount of effort to play in the NHL, I’m not sure you understand what is meant by ‘professional sports’. Likewise, the Sabres are not the only team employing a player we can term one-dimensional, with that dimension being that of the enforcer. Players such as Scott, Colton Orr, Paul Bissonnette, and George Parros are in the league because they are intimidating fighters. (Okay, Parros is in the league because he has an awesome mustache, but I digress.) So if we’re really looking for someone to blame, or for a cause to dangerous, dirty, and downright dumb hits like Scott’s, we need to look higher than the individual or the organization they play for. It’s the game.

Reg Dunlop, played by the late and great Paul Newman in 1977’s Slap Shot (one of the greatest movies ever), was onto to something. That's his speech above. Hockey is a physical sport; there is no getting around that point. The physicality is part of the appeal; we all love a good, solid, body check. But there is a difference between good, physical hockey and idiotic, violent hits that serve no purpose. There is a difference between a solid bodycheck that separates the player from the puck and the kind that results on players being taken off the ice on stretchers.

For example, Thursday night Chicago’s Johnny Oduya hit Tampa Bay’s Marty St. Louis in the corner. St. Louis was knocked down and lost control of the puck. It was an effective hit, serving its purpose of eliminating the player from the puck. Oduya didn’t hit him high, didn’t drill him from behind into the boards, didn’t through an elbow, didn’t hit him after he moved the puck, he didn’t do any of that stuff. Instead, it was simply a solid body check. There’s thousands like this during the course of the season. Also on Thursday night, Boston’s Zdeno Chara hit San Jose’s Tommy Wingels inthe corner. The hits were not the same though. The differences: Chara hit Wingels high, after Wingels had moved the puck. If we consider a successful hit occurring when the player is eliminated from the puck, Chara’s hit doesn’t fit that criterion. As for the high hit, Chara is 6’9” compared to Wingels 6’0”, but John Scott is 6’8” compared to Loui Eriksson’s 6’2”. I don’t have to be a math major to realize which one has the bigger difference. Eriksson was moving the puck when the clock read 14:20, he was hit when it read 14:19. Wingels moved the puck at 2:33, he was hit at 2:32. If there’s a lateness of hit quotient, they seem pretty similar. Neither Eriksson nor Wingels finished the game, though neither left on a stretcher. But the uproar and furor is much higher regarding Scott’s hit. Why?

Both hits made contact with the head. Scott has an in-person hearing with the League’s Department of Player Safety regarding his suspension, while Chara will not have a hearing. Could this difference, as well as the public outcry, be attributed to Chara’s role as an elite defenseman, while Scott is nothing more than a 4^th-line enforcer? I’d say absolutely. It’s a definite double standard. This is a problem that falls squarely on the NHL and the Department of Player Safety. But once again, we cannot confine ourselves to lay the blame at this level. We need to look a rung higher on the blame ladder.

It’s the culture of violence, and general acceptance of it, that has leeched into hockey, and larger society in general, that deserves the blame. Instead of a tactic to separate the player from the puck, some of these hits have turned dangerous, resulting in the rash of boardings and headshots we’ve seen lately. They serve no purpose in the game. There have been 14 suspensions this year, including the preseason, with John Scott’s being number 15. Counting Scott’s, 10 have been for either boarding or illegal hits to the head. Ryan Garbutt was officially suspended for charging, but his hit on Dustin Penner was also a blatant hit to the head, bringing that count to 11 of 15. And theoretically, 2 of those 15 could be discounted, as Paul Bissonnette and David Clarkson received automatic suspensions for leaving the bench to join a fight. If you do that, it makes 11 of 13 being boardings or hits to the head. And it’s still October. It appears to be that it’s the search for the big hit, which ends up going wrong, that has resulted in these suspensions and injuries. 

(A case could definitely be made that Zack Kassian’s suspension, for high sticking Edmonton’s Sam Gagner, could also fall into the category of big hit gone wrong, as Kassian missed his hit, but followed through with a reckless high stick to Gagner’s face. The final of those 15 suspensions was Phil Kessel playing lumberjack to John Scott’s ankles, which would be an outlier in this case, joining the leave-the-bench-to-fight group.)

The big hit gone wrong is a case of recklessness and definitely is the player’s responsibility. If we conclude that that plays a major role in these injuries and suspensions we keep seeing, as I am arguing, then we need to determine what place they have in the game. As I mentioned earlier, hockey fans love the big hit, so it is clear that there will be no elimination of that. Nor should there be. There is a difference between great hits and dirty hits. The Department of Player Safety has illustrated this. Instead, I think we need to realize where to draw the line. There is a difference between hits that serve a purpose (the Oduya example above) and those that, quite frankly, do not (the Chara example above).

For example, look at Kassian’s suspension for high sticking Gagner. Kassian went for the big hit, but Gagner got out of the way. That should be it. Kassian missed his hit. Players miss hits all the time. However, Kassian swings his stick hitting Gagner in the face. We’ve gone from the big hit (or at least an attempt of one) to the big hit gone wrong. Look at Scott on Eriksson. Scott comes across with the intent to finish a check. However, whether due to his size, Eriksson dumping the puck in, a change in angle or some other factor, this goes from an a big hit to a big hit gone wrong. Garbutt on Penner is the same thing. Garbutt comes across the finish his check on Penner who has worked his way to the middle of the ice, with plenty of space to make a move. Garbutt comes in fast and leaves his feet to hit Penner in the head. Maxime Lapierre and Cody McLeod are both chasing the play and attempt to finish their checks on Dan Boyle and Niklas Kronwall (dis)respectively in the corner. They end up catching the player full speed, from behind, and drilling them into the boards. Once again, the attempt is a big hit, but the result is a big hit gone completely wrong.

You may ask if this really is the problem, where do we go from here? I don’t know. I won’t even pretend to have all the answers. I’m pretending that I have one, that it is big hits gone wrong that are causing all of these suspensions and injuries. One thing that I’ve danced around though, is the idea of violence and it’s prevalence in the sport. Can we call the goods hits physical hockey and the bad ones disturbing cases of violence? I think that could be an appropriate distinction. So now, it could be said, that we know the problem. In a culture where violence is rather common in media, it has spread into the culture’s entertainment, and in this case, that entertainment is sport. Look how many people stand up and cheer when there’s a fight at a hockey game. It’s most of those in attendance. What was once physicality and been distorted into unnecessary, violent, dangerous hits. It’s partly the changing attitudes and knowledge of the hockey community. We know more about concussions and there is more concern for a player’s well-being after their retirement. What we used to consider great hits (Scott Stevens, anyone?), we now see as dangerous plays. Players search for that big hit, whether it accomplishes a role in the play (such as separating a player from the puck) or to fire up their team and home crowd. Sometimes, these hits are great hits. Other times, it’s simply a case of a player taking it too far. That is the big hit gone wrong. This is the violence that has seeped into the sport.

Now that we have determined the enemy, how do we go about rectifying the problem? I don’t have the solution. I’m just writing an essay that will probably be read very little, if at all. For better or worse, there are people involved with the game at a variety of levels that are charged with the responsibility of determining a solution. Maybe it’s longer suspensions, maybe it’s standardized, automatic suspensions, maybe it’s some sort of player education initiative, maybe it’s a rule change to legislate unnecessary hits out of the game, maybe it’s a host of other possibilities. I don’t know. What I do know, is that dangerous, violent hits are a problem, that, unfortunately, appear to be approaching the epidemic level. And for the interests of all involved, the players, the fans, the organizations, the league, something needs to be done.

Goalie Gaffes

So the last thing I wrote for this, concerning dirty players such as Maxime Lapierre, was a little serious. So this one will be a little more lighthearted. The subject: recent goalie gaffes. There have been a number of these so far this season. The first is thanks to Marc-Andre Fleury, famous for his post-season meltdowns. But, let’s notice that Fleury is 7-0 for the Penguins this year with a 1.84 GAA. That still won’t help him live down this – a goal allowed from center ice.

His opposition for that game was Roberto Luongo, who was victim to an even odder goal recently. The good, old own goal, thanks to a mishandle by Dan Hamhuis. This was on a Vancouver power play, with absolutely no pressure on. I watched this game live, and couldn’t believe that it happened. But then again, who else, besides maybe Fluery, would this happen to. Off one skate, and then the other, before slowly sliding behind the goal line. I mean, what are the odds that this would happen. This takes at least two views to fully appreciate. And is better when you read this. I love the view from the net. And seeing all the Habs fans celebrate in the corner.

 

Equally strange was Jonathan Quick’s mistake on this Ryan McDonagh goal. It was also a shorthanded goal, as McDonagh was simply clearing the puck after a won faceoff. Quick went to play the puck, dropped his stick, and had the puck bounce off his blocker and then slide into the goal. If you’ve found a theme on these strange goals, it’s that the puck has decided not to play nice and take all sorts of weird bounces.

Quick’s former understudy made a mistake off his own. Jonathan Bernier allowed a long distance goal against the Hurricanes, one that stood up to be the game winner. Ron Hainsey tried to pass the puck up ice, but missed his man and the puck slide down the ice. It bounced off the boards and came back to hit Bernier in the skate and deflect into the net. One guy who deserves a lot of credit here is Radek Dvorak. The play would’ve been whistled for icing, but Dvorak beat both Maple Leaf defenders down ice. Because he would’ve won the race for the puck, Bernier was getting set to play the puck when it bounced back on him, hit his skate, and gave Carolina a 3-2 win. Again, the net cam view is great.

 This next play doesn’t really fit the category, but it’s a goalie doing something different with the puck. Check it out: 

 Yes, that is Phoenix goalie and diver extraordinaire MikeSmith scoring a goal. And not just being the last player to touch the puck, but actually shooting it down the ice and into the open net. And it’s a good thing he didn’t waste any time, because with 0.1 second left, he barely made it. As much as I don’t like Smith, that’s still pretty cool.