NHL tells players to buzz off over rule change

1 Comment

On Monday, we learned that the NHLPA would submit a ‘band aid
solution’ to the NHL’s proposed head-shot rule, which would make
blind-sided hits the head illegal. Some felt that the NHLPA’s attempt at
delaying an immediate rule change was a big ‘up your’s’ to the league
that is tied to disputes between the league and the PA.

I wasn’t so certain it was just a matter of politics and the players
wanting to ensure there wasn’t an off-the-cuff rule change being
instituted in the midst of the season without completely covering every
aspect of the rule change in the summer. The NHLPA had originally wanted
any and all head shots made illegal two years ago but the league shot
that down; now the NHL just wants to make some head shots illegal.
There’s going to be some natural hesitation on the part of the players.

After last night’s news that the NHL Board of Governors had gone
ahead and approved the rule without prior agreement by the NHLPA, it’s a
certainty that politics are at play here when both sides should solely
be focused on player safety.

Bill Daly, deputy commissioner of the NHL, used the opportunity to
blast the NHLPA. From TSN:

“Our Board can enact rule changes at any time with or without
Competition Committee approval,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in
response to the NHLPA statement. “To the extent the Competition
Committee has approved the rule change in advance, it is entirely
insulated from PA challenge.  To the extent it is not a Competition
Committee-approved rule, the PA is free to challenge under whatever
“theory” they may have available to it. We have been attempting to work
through the PA and the Competition Committee for 10 days now on what
the League considers to be a very important issue.  To the extent we do
not receive NHLPA or Competition Committee sign-off or approval, we
will consider all available options and make a decision in the best
interests of the League and the players.”

Basically Daly is saying that the NHL has the ability to institute
any rule change they want at any time, and that getting the NHLPA
approval is just a matter of common courtesy. Since the PA wanted to
drag its feet and slow the process down, the Board of Governors went
ahead and approved the change anyway.

It’s important to clarify, however, that there is not a new ‘rule’
being instituted this season that would add a minor or major penalty to
the rule book. The change would allow for supplemental action for blind
sided hits, so that future Matt Cooke-style hits could actually be
punished.

After news broke that the BOG had approved the change, the NHLPA
released the following statement.

“Under the CBA, the League’s proposal cannot take effect until it
first receives the support of the joint NHLPA/NHL Competition
Committee, and then is endorsed by the NHL Board of Governors,” NHLPA
senior spokesman Jonathan Weatherdon said Tuesday night in a statement.

“To date, the Competition Committee has neither agreed on a proposal,
nor forwarded a proposal to the Board of Governors for its vote. As
we have previously stated, the NHLPA’s Competition Committee members
are finalizing their response to the NHL’s proposal regarding blindside
hits to the head and will be responding back to the league this week.”

So, the NHL passed a change that the NHLPA had not approved and the
PA says the league cannot do that according to the CBA. In fact, under
league rules the NHL can make a rule change without the player’s
consent. The PA would then follow up with a grievance to be heard by an
arbitrator, most likely months down the road. Meanwhile, the new rule
would still be in place.

The NHLPA’s statement was followed by a response by Daly to Pierre
LeBrun of ESPN.com:

Daly continued: “Without trying to throw anyone under the bus here,
let’s be real. This is a rule that’s intended to make the game safer
for the players. Its a no-brainer. The PA needs a hockey person, or at
a minimum a player, who is willing to take charge, to step up and make
a decision in the best interests of the game.

“It’s one thing to ‘punt’ on all the more mundane issues surrounding
the game until the Union has a new Executive Director and a clear
direction. We are used to that. But this is different. Someone needs to
show leadership, and they need to do it fast.”

This is a mess of massive proportions, and both sides have mud on
their faces.

The NHL can make it sound like they have nothing but the players
interests and safety at heart, but in reality this rule change is
nothing but a reaction to the public outcry over the dangerous hits
we’re seeing this season and how the league has maintained they can’t
punish players for them.

If they truly cared about these hits,
then the proposed rule change two years ago would have been passed.
Instead, the general managers just happen to meet the day after Matt
Cooke’s disastrous hit on Marc Savard and the NHL decided that this
might be a good time to get a change in place. And instead of addressing
all head-shots, the NHL focuses on a very specific type of hit relative
to two very specific hits we’ve seen this season. Not very proactive at
all.

The NHLPA on the other hand, finally sees a change come down the
pipeline but only including part of what they originally proposed just a
few years ago. It’s a change that is certainly needed, but the PA
decides that they want to control how this goes down and releases a
statement that they will send along a counter proposal. It slowed the
process down, and the NHL responded with their own “Eff You!” and passed
the rule on their own and trashed the NHLPA during the process.

So instead of a needed rule change that everyone agrees needs to be
in place getting passed with handshakes all around, we have the NHL and
the PA using this very public opportunity to circle each other in a
political battle that leaves both sides looking bad.

At some
point, we’ll all get around to actually trying to make the game better
and then possibly marketing the sport to more fans. That would be an
ideal concept.

P.K. Subban takes Canada 2016 World Cup ‘snub’ in stride

ANAHEIM, CA - MARCH 02:  P.K. Subban #76 of the Montreal Canadiens looks on during a game against the Anaheim Ducks at Honda Center on March 2, 2016 in Anaheim, California.  (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images)
Getty
6 Comments

Just about any contending hockey nation will force some “snubs” heading into the 2016 World Cup of Hockey. Snubs feel especially inevitable for Canada, though.

P.K. Subban has taken some confidence hits, relative to his abilities, when it comes to international play. Maybe that explains why he essentially shrugged off not making the team, as Sportsnet notes.

“I mean, everybody wants to make the team, right? And there’s a bunch of guys that I’m sure wanted to be on the team. But that’s the way it goes,” Subban said. “Listen, at the end of the day, we could take four or five teams to this thing. When I was speaking to [Team Canada GM] Doug Armstrong, my number one thing was I just want to see Canada win gold. So, I’ll be there cheering just like everybody else.”

Let’s face it, it’s probably pretty easy for Subban.

He’s super-rich, generally beloved and has a gold medal to his name. That probably makes it easier to shake off a snub.

That said, he also brings up a fun idea. If the Team North America idea runs out of steam, wouldn’t it be fun to watch Canada A vs. Canada B, or something of that nature?

Hey, if you’re bored, feel free to fantasy draft a second Canadian team for such a scenario. Or, you know, each a sandwich instead.

In other Subban news, he had fun with the Toronto Blue Jays:

Should Lightning trade Bishop and hand the torch to Vasilevskiy?

CHICAGO, IL - JUNE 08:  Ben Bishop #30 celebrates with Andrei Vasilevskiy #88 of the Tampa Bay Lightning after defeating the Chicago Blackhawks 3-2 in Game Three of the 2015 NHL Stanley Cup Final at the United Center on June 8, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois.  (Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)
Getty
6 Comments

Erik Erlendsson poses what may seem like a bold question on Hockey Buzz: should the Tampa Bay Lightning hand the reins to Andrei Vasilevskiy by trading Ben Bishop?

Erlendsson points to these comments made by Lightning GM Steve Yzerman, with the last sentence likely being most pertinent:

“I think we’re in a fantastic position,” Yzerman said. “We have two outstanding goaltenders, based on what we’ve seen from Andrei both last year and this year and in particular, him coming in in the Pittsburgh series, I think we have a brilliant young goaltender and a proven, I don’t even want to call Bish a veteran because he’s still relatively young in terms of years played and games played, but we’ve got two outstanding goaltenders. I know that at some point, when that is, we may for expansion or cap reasons, have to make a decision.”

Yes, at some point Yzerman would be forced to make a decision. Assuming an extension doesn’t come early, both Bishop’s $5.95 million cap hit and Vasilevskiy’s rookie deal ($925K cap hit) will expire after 2016-17.

One would think that this would be the fork in the road moment … but what if Yzerman decides to be proactive and trade Bishop now?

Stevie Y has plenty on his plate with new deals needed for Steven Stamkos, Nikita Kucherov and Jonathan Drouin.

Still, this is expected to be an expensive offseason, whether it’s literal (locking all or more of those big pieces) or more figurative (possibly losing franchise player Stamkos). As great as Bishop has been, his near-$6 million could go toward locking down those pieces, especially if management already expects Vasilevskiy to be The Guy.

Granted, the Lightning have seen firsthand how crucial it can be to have two starting-quality goalies (at least for however long you can hold onto them).

Quite a conundrum, right?

If nothing else, it’s a point to consider, even while acknowledging Bishop’s strong work.

More on the Lightning off-season

Steven Stamkos on the situation

The Bolts want to bring back Jonathan Drouin

Subtle but effective offseason pushed Sharks to next level

Leave a comment

SAN JOSE, Calif. — After watching the San Jose Sharks miss the playoffs for the first time in more than a decade, general manager Doug Wilson set out to remake the team last offseason.

Individually, none of the moves sent shockwaves through the NHL. The Sharks hired a coach who made the playoffs once in seven seasons as an NHL coach, traded a first-round pick for a goalie who had been a backup his entire career, added two playoff-tested veterans for depth at forward and defense and signed an unheralded Finnish rookie.

Together, the additions of Peter DeBoer, Martin Jones, Joel Ward, Paul Martin and Joonas Donskoi to a solid core that had underachieved proved to be the right mix to get the Sharks to their long-awaited first Stanley Cup Final appearance.

“I thought this team has a lot of the pieces of that puzzle,” Martin said. “Doug did a great job bringing guys in that he did, to make that push for it. I don’t think many people would have guessed that we’d be here right now, but I think we believed.”

The players all said the disappointment of blowing a 3-0 series lead to Los Angeles in 2014 and then missing the playoffs entirely last season served as fuel for this season’s success.

DeBoer also credited former coach Todd McLellan for helping put the foundation in place that he was able to capitalize on. The Sharks became the second team in the past 10 seasons to make it to the final after missing the playoffs the previous season, joining the 2011-12 Devils that pulled off the same trick in DeBoer’s first season in New Jersey.

“Everyone was ready for something a little bit fresher and newer, not anything that much different,” DeBoer said. “The additions that Doug made, it just came together. I inherited a similar team in New Jersey when I went in there. First time they missed the playoffs for a long time the year before I got there. I think when you go into that situation, when you have really good people like there was in New Jersey when I went in there, like I was with this group … they’re embarrassed by the year they just had, and they’re willing to do and buy into whatever you’re selling to get it fixed again. I think I was the benefactor of that.”

The transition from McLellan to DeBoer wasn’t seamless. As late as Jan. 8, the Sharks were in 13th place in the 14-team Western Conference and seemingly on the way to another missed postseason.

But with Logan Couture finally healthy after being slowed by a broken leg early in the season and the move by DeBoer to put Tomas Hertl on the top line with Joe Thornton and Joe Pavelski, the Sharks rolled after that and made the playoffs as the third-place team in the Pacific Division.

In-season additions of players like depth forwards Dainius Zubrus and Nick Spaling, physical defenseman Roman Polak and backup goaltender James Reimer helped put the Sharks in the position they are now.

“With the new coaching staff we needed to realize how we needed to play to win,” Thornton said. “Once that clicked, and that probably clicked maybe early December, I think after that, we just exploded. I think that’s really when we saw the depth of this team. Everybody plays a big part.”

That has been especially true in the playoffs when longtime core players like Thornton, Couture, Joe Pavelski and Patrick Marleau got the support that had often been lacking during past postseason disappointments.

Jones has posted three shutouts in the playoffs, including the Game 7 second-round clincher against Nashville and back-to-back games in the conference final against St. Louis. He has proven more than capable of being an NHL starter after serving an apprenticeship as Jonathan Quick‘s backup in Los Angeles.

Ward scored two goals in each of the final two games of the conference final and has 11 points this postseason. Donskoi exceeded expectations just to make the team as a rookie and has solidified his spot on the second line with five goals and nine points.

Martin’s steady play has allowed offensive-minded defenseman Brent Burns to roam at times and given San Jose a strong second defensive pair that had been missing in previous seasons.

Zubrus and Spaling played a big role as penalty killers and on the fourth line, while Polak has been one of the team’s most physical players.

“Doug did a great job this summer, this season,” Couture said. “A lot of credit needs to go to him for the guys he brought in.”

Shattenkirk on Blues trading him: ‘That’s out of my hands’

ST LOUIS, MO - MAY 23:  Kevin Shattenkirk #22 of the St. Louis Blues skates against the San Jose Sharks in Game Five of the Western Conference Final during the 2016 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs at Scottrade Center on May 23, 2016 in St Louis, Missouri.  (Photo by Dilip Vishwanat/Getty Images)
Getty
4 Comments

In a vacuum, it’s confounding to imagine the St. Louis Blues trading Kevin Shattenkirk.

He’s a highly productive defenseman in the meat of his prime at 27, and his cap hit is a super-bargain at $4.25 million.

Of course, as is the case with many of the NHL’s biggest steals, the Blues will eventually need to pay up. In Shattenkirk’s case, his bargain deal ends after the 2016-17 season.

That’s a tough enough conundrum on its own, but consider the deals on the Blues’ cap that also expire after next season.

Now, there are also some areas of relief; some will be happy to see the Blues part ways with Patrik Berglund‘s $3.7 million cap hit (unless he plays out of his mind, naturally).

There are also some other things to consider.

A) What if the salary cap rises more than one might expect for 2017-18?

B) Would expansion help the Blues cut a little fat by losing a less-than-ideal contract?

C) Who are the Blues bringing back from this off-season?

Item C) dovetails with Shattenkirk. Will the Blues try to bring back David Backes and/or Troy Brouwer, possibly squeezing out Shattenirk?

There have been rumors about Shattenkirk being shopped around in the past, yet the summer is a great time to make deals. Teams get salary cap leeway, owners may want reboots and new coaches could really value Shattenkirk’s in-demand skills.

For what it’s worth, Shattenkirk would prefer to stay:

There’s a strong chance that Blues GM Doug Armstrong may bide his time, whether he’s inclined to trade Shattenkirk during the season or re-sign him.

Still, the talented defenseman’s situation shows that the Blues have big decisions to make even regarding situations that do not technically demand immediate choices.

One thing seems certain: it won’t be any easy call.

Related

Blues face tough questions

David Backes wants to stay

So does Troy Brouwer