Getty Images

What is your ideal Stanley Cup playoff format? (PHT Roundtable)

33 Comments

The big topic of discussion this week in the hockey world was Pierre LeBrun’s article over at The Athletic about NHL general managers being in favor of expanding the Stanley Cup playoff field. Shocking, right? GMs all on board with increasing their chances of getting into the dance, thereby being able to make themselves look better with a playoff appearance on their record.

“More playoff teams [equals] more fan bases with the pleasure of experiencing the playoffs [which equals] more revenue for owners/players to share [which equals] more meaningful games for national rights holders [which equals] more GM/head coaches who can say they made the playoffs and hopefully keep their jobs [less turnover],” one GM told LeBrun.

[The 2018 NHL Stanley Cup playoffs begin April 11 on the networks of NBC]

The NHL went to its current playoff format in 2013 with the top three teams in each division and two wild cards qualifying for the postseason. But there’s been a growing appetite for change.

The PHT staff sat down and discussed our ideal playoff formats, whether the NHL should expand the field and should play-in games be part of the postseason fun.

1. What does your ideal playoff format look like?

SEAN LEAHY: If the distances weren’t so vast in some cases, I’d love to see a straight 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc. format where the conferences do not matter. A Florida-Vancouver first-round matchup wouldn’t be idea travel-wise, so I understand the hesitancy.

I’m fine with going back to the 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7 format within each conference, but taking away the reward of an automatic No. 2 seed for a division winner. Going by the current standings, it’s looking like the Metropolitan Division winner will be the No. 2 seed under the previous playoff format. I would rather the Metro winner grab their true place in the Eastern Conference standings, thereby not punishing someone the Boston Bruins, who will likely finish ahead of that team. The Metro winner would be rewarded with home-ice in Round 1, not a higher seed should that be the case.

You’ll still get interesting matchups in the 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7 format, and once in a while you’ll get a rivalry like a New York-New York, Pittsburgh-Philadelphia, Chicago-St. Louis, LA-Anaheim-San Jose. It also won’t punish teams for playing in a strong division in any given year (Hello, Atlantic!)

JAMES O’BRIEN: The dream is to find the right mix between incentivizing a strong regular season while also opening the door for TV-friendly drama. Why not dominate the sports conversation every now and then, hockey? You might just like it.

So, for one thing, I’d go back to something a lot like the 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. format … except I think it would be fun to let the higher seeds choose their own opponents. Much like Sean’s plan, if you win your division, you guarantee a playoff spot, but no “top-three spot to the team that backed into the worst division title” business. (R.I.P., Southeast Division.)

The most interesting way to tinker is with what it means to be 1 and 8. I’ll expand on the implications for the eighth seed in play-in section, but I’d love to see the top seed in each conference enjoy five games at home instead of four, at least in the first round. With that, you could cut down on travel with a 2-2-3 home games setup, and also give top seeds a greater reward for 82 games of strong play.

Also, a televised event where the higher seeds choose their own opponents, like the SPHL, would be magic, especially if you found a way to force teams not to use cliches in explaining why they chose their opponents. Maybe unearth a celebrity superfan to explain said choices? This wouldn’t ever happen, yet I’d love to see Vince Vaughn talk about why the Blackhawks’ opponent “just isn’t money” or hear whatever Bill Burr would say about the Bruins’ adversary. (Note to self: make sure this event has, like, a one-minute delay to catch salty language.)

Now, if one can really dream: award three standings points for a regulation win, two for a shootout/overtime win (let’s face it, 3-on-3 is an arcade video game too), and one for losing beyond regulation. A regulation loss still gives you nada.

In short: A format more like the 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7 setup before the current brackets, except with the glorious awkwardness of picking your own opponents. The eighth seed being determined by an 8 vs. 9 play-in game. And if all wishes are granted, go with a 3-2-1 standings system.

JOEY ALFIERI: I think it’s time for the best eight teams to slot in wherever they finish in the standings. There’s no need for a division champion to get a one seed automatically. The best eight teams make the playoffs and if two teams from the same division claim the first and seconds seeds so be it.

ADAM GRETZ: I still like the 1 vs. 8 format that reseeds after every round. I think that does the best job — or at least as close to the best as we can get — of achieving the ultimate goal of the playoffs, which is putting the two best teams in the league against one another later in the playoffs. The current format sees good divisions  destroy each other while a team in a lesser division (*ahem* Ottawa) can go on a deep run into the playoffs because it got better matchups along the way. Short of completely revolutionizing the way North American sports are played (and by that I mean doing something drastic, like introduction and promotion and relegation system or something equally radical) I don’t see a better solution.

SCOTT BILLECK: Call me old-fashioned, but I like the idea of the best eight teams from each conference battling it out in a series of best-of-seven affairs. I don’t need wild cards and all of that. If the conference is really good one year, and some good teams miss the playoffs, then so be it. Teams flirting with .500 shouldn’t have a chance to make the playoffs. Give me the best of the best and let them duke it out for hockey’s holy grail.

2. Should the NHL expand the number of teams in the playoffs?

LEAHY: Fifty two percent of NHL currently teams make the playoffs. When Seattle enters the league in a few years, that percentage will drop down a whole two percent. More than enough teams reach Round 1, there’s no reason to dilute the regular season and reward bad general manager’s decisions by allowing 2-4 more teams in every year.

Teams grind it out for 82 games for a chance to be one of the final 16 with a shot at the Stanley Cup. You could even make a case there might be too many teams already in and the ideal number if somewhere between 12-14, thereby allowing for first-round byes for the top teams in each conference.

O’BRIEN: The NHL should not expand the number of teams in the playoffs, but it would be great to see a play-in format of some kind. (Again, see section 3 for the play-in fun.) As much parity talk as there is, shouldn’t a championship hopeful be able to be among the best 16 teams of 31? That doesn’t seem like such an outrageous question to ask. Plus, the playoffs are already about 2.5 months. Make them much longer and we’ll need lockouts just to catch our collective breath.

It would also be outstanding if the league found a way to drum up some way to discourage tanking for the first pick in the draft, although that situation gets messier the more you think about it. Honestly my brain already hurts just imagining how The Aggrieved Fans of Teams Slighted By the Process would gripe about it on social media. *shudders*
Let’s resolve to fix the playoffs first, then get to the draft. Deal?

ALFIERI: No thanks. More than half the league makes the playoffs right now, so if you don’t qualify then you don’t deserve to be in. If you have too many playoff teams, it’ll cheapen the regular season because the daily results won’t mean as much with so many teams qualifying for the playoffs.

GRETZ: Absolutely not. Even if the league expands to 32 teams we’re still taking half of the league to the playoffs. That is enough. And if you add more you are adding to a playoff run that is already long and grueling and demanding (both physically and mentally). Of course general managers and teams are going to be in favor of more playoff teams — it’s their jobs that are on the line for making (or missing) the playoffs.

BILLECK: This should only happen if teams can be added without rewarding mediocrity. Even in a 32-team, 16-per-conference scenario, 50 percent of the teams for each conference make an appearance in the playoffs. Any more than that and you run the risk of allowing teams who don’t deserve to be there into the mix. To me, it requires each team to earn it their playoff spot — there’s the line, go get it.  If you move to nine or 10, it should be because those teams deserve to be there, not because there are a couple more teams in the NHL.

Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

3. Would you be open to the idea of having play-in games for the final seeds in each conference?

LEAHY: This is certainly a better idea than doing something similar to decide the top pick in the NHL draft. I would be open to this idea only if the league cut down the regular season to somewhere in the 70-game range. Let the No. 7, 8, 9 and 10 teams in each conference play a one-and-done, mini-tournament for the final two seeds with the teams finishing with more points having home-ice. It will bring a little excitement to the period just before Round 1 and give the league and its television partners something to air on what are usually dark nights.

O’BRIEN: Yes. Each conference should feature a single play-in game between the eighth and ninth seeds. Going further with seeds 7-10 or something like that sounds like a barrel-o-fun, yet it would possibly be too unwieldy and disruptive to the season. Let’s say the league tries one play-in game per conference at least to start.

So, picture this: a neutral site with an NHL-ready arena that’s dying for high-level hockey bids for the two games, held during a weekend between the end of the regular season and beginning of playoffs. Call it “The Sudden Death Classic” or something snazzy.
Or the eighth-ranked team could just host the ninth-ranked team, if you’re less ambitious and fun.

ALFIERI: No play-in games, no additional teams making the playoffs. If you’re not one of the top 16 teams in a 31- or 32-team league, you don’t deserve to get in.

The playoffs start in April and finish in June, that’s long enough. We don’t need to add additional games. If you’re the nine seed and the eighth place team collected more points than you over 82 games, that team deserves to get in.

I understand why baseball did it. They had four teams in the playoffs on each side. The NHL doesn’t need to increase the amount of teams making the postseason.

GRETZ: I don’t really like the idea of a play-in game except for maybe one condition: Steal a page from the baseball playbook and if two teams are tied for in the standings for the last playoff spot don’t go by wins, or regulation wins, or anything like that — let them play a one-game tiebreaker. Would anyone go for that? Probably not. But that is just about the only sort of play-in game I want to see in the NHL. The playoffs are best-of-seven. Keep it that way.

BILLECK: OK, I’ll budge. I’m all for traditional means when it comes to the playoffs, but here’s my idea: I’d be open to having a play-in series. Best-of-three. I know, I know – the season is long enough as it is, some will say. But as a fan of the game, the more hockey the better. I don’t think one-off games make sense in hockey. Nothing is decided by those in the playoffs. This isn’t football. So let’s not go down that road. Give teams a best-of-three format for the final spot in each respective conference.

This would mean the eighth and ninth place teams have a three-game showdown to determine the final spot in each conference. To be fair, the eight and ninth place teams aren’t usually too far off from each other, and sometimes the gap between eighth and a top-three spot is razor thin. This allows for an extra mini-series that would be full of excitement. It would also allow for a little extra rest for the teams ahead of them.

Let us know in the comments what kind of playoff format you would like to see.

————

Sean Leahy is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @Sean_Leahy.

Mixed feelings about Anaheim’s ‘Mighty Ducks’ retro-themed third jersey

via Anaheim Ducks
5 Comments

When you’re mining nostalgia, there’s a risk of making us old, crusty types grumble about messing with our memories. One of the biggest ways to do that is to fall short when it comes to mixing the old with the new.

(But really, the biggest hurdle comes from our own faulty memories. That’s a discussion for a totally different blog, though.)

The Anaheim Ducks seem to realize that a significant chunk of their fans – and hockey fans who might buy sweaters even if they can’t stand Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf – prefer the goofy, yet lovable, “Mighty Ducks” logo. Between the charm of those looks and the bland, corporate font vibe they have going on right now, it’s pretty easy to understand the appeal.

So, the Ducks are rolling with the old-school look for their third jersey … well, kind of.

The team’s press release mentions that Guy Hebert, the goalie many associate with the team’s early days when they’re not thinking about Paul Kariya, was on hand to model the hybrid retro-new duds. As a reminder, here’s one of the uniforms Hebert sported back in the team’s duckling stages.

via Getty

The Ducks’ press release does a good job of capturing the vague “something’s not quite right” feeling about these third jerseys. Their hearts seem to be in the right place, yet there’s just enough “meh” to make this more of a double than a home run.

Anchored in black, the third jersey features the original “Mighty Ducks” crest with eggplant and jade striping from the Ducks iconic look of its inaugural 1993-94 season. Linking the team’s past and present, the jersey incorporates new into old with a touch of the Ducks current orange coloring represented in the crossed hockey sticks of the team’s original mark. Anaheim’s current jersey number and letter styling is used in the new third sweater, providing a cohesive look to the team’s 2018-19 uniform kits, while the interior collar denotes the franchise’s 25th silver season. The first of its kind to subtly incorporate each of the seven colors (Eggplant, Jade, Anaheim Ducks Orange, Anaheim Ducks Gold, Anaheim Ducks Silver, White and Black) the Ducks have worn throughout the club’s 25-year tenure, the jersey also features silver as a primary accent color in both the triangle of the crest and yoke, paying tribute to the team’s generational milestone.

As someone whose artistic abilities peaked at “doodles during high school lectures,” maybe I’m not the person to ask here, but I’d argue that it’s pretty tough to “subtly incorporate” seven colors.

While comparisons to the Sharks’ look rank as some of the better jokes related to this reveal, the unveiling actually reminds me a bit of the Los Angeles Kings. You see, they decided to evoke the Wayne Gretzky silver-and-black look:

via Getty

… Yet, at the same time, tinkering in a way that makes grumbly folks like me grumble. In the Kings’ case, the grumbling came from tweaking the logo.

via Getty

Each nostalgia-themed jersey got a lot right, and if you asked a focus group to pick favorites, they might go with the new looks. That’s the thing, though. When you’re milking hazy memories, you bring out people’s fussy sides.

Should the Ducks have just followed the Coyotes’ lead in essentially putting out a carbon copy of their old sweaters, rather than this tweaked look? That’s not for us to say.

Actually, scratch that. They should have. This is still pretty cool, though.

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

Is Dumba’s five-year, $30M a good deal for Wild?

Getty
5 Comments

Matt Dumba‘s been enjoying a meteoric rise up the rankings of the Minnesota Wild’s most important players. Now he’s getting paid as such.

The Wild confirmed that the 23-year-old defenseman signed what should be a fascinating contract to ponder over the years: five years, $30 million (so a $6M cap hit). With that, Dumba becomes the Wild’s third-highest paid player, trailing only the twin monster contracts for Zach Parise and Ryan Suter.

It’s really remarkable to look at how much Dumba’s numbers leapt during the last three seasons. In 2015-16, he generated 10 goals and 26 points in 81 games despite modest ice time (16:50 per game). Dumba then saw a better role in 2016-17, collecting 11 goals and 34 points while averaging 20:20 minutes per night. Last season is when his numbers went from good to great; he generated an impressive 14 goals and 50 points while logging 23:49 per contest.

While the 2018 Stanley Cup Playoffs were generally frustrating for the Wild, Dumba’s work provided a tantalizing argument that the best may still be to come. Ryan Suter was on the shelf, so Dumba took charge, averaging a whopping 26:58 per playoff game against the Winnipeg Jets, and not really looking out of place in the process.

That said, Dumba’s possession numbers have generally been pretty run-of-the-mill, so this contract is far from unanimously approved. Wild GM Paul Fenton made some interesting comparisons between Dumba and P.K. Subban, as The Athletic’s Michael Russo reports (sub required).

“The risk has certainly allowed him to score in double-digit goals, for one,” Fenton said. “It’s hard to find right defensemen who have the ability to game-break, if you will. He’s got a bomb. You look at how guys have molded themselves over the years, there’s a risk-reward factor. P.K. Subban basically does the same thing in a lot of lights. You’re looking at him and saying, ‘Oh my god. He tried that in that particular point in the game or that position in the game.’ As he matures and goes forward, I think it will smooth itself out.”

The dream scenario is for the hockey world to look at the value of Dumba’s contract as an extension of Fenton’s days with the Predators, as Nashville’s knack for signing blooming defensive stars to team-friendly deals can be seen in the bargains for Ryan Ellis, Roman Josi, and Mattias Ekholm. (Subban, as Norris-worthy as he tends to be, isn’t cheap at $9M per year.)

Paying Dumba $6M per season might seem steep today, yet considering the gold rush on defensemen now that Drew Doughty/Oliver Ekman-Larsson signed and Erik Karlsson‘s eventually awaiting a Brinks truck, this could very well be the sort of pact that ages very well.

Then again, it’s no doubt that people are making jokes about other long-term Wild commitments that haven’t exactly aged like fine wine.

During the past three seasons, Dumba’s tied with Ellis for 15th place among NHL defensemen in goals scored with 35. His 110 points during that frame tie him with Jake Muzzin for 29th. When in doubt, you pay young defensemen who can generate offense, and Dumba certainly fits that bill.

(This also allows the Wild and Dumba to avoid salary arbitration.)

Minnesota stands in an odd spot as far as the future goes, as you can notice from all the mockery related to the Parise and Suter deals. As a team that’s been consistently good but rarely able to find the next gear to great, some will be queasy about another player receiving another meaty contract.

That’s not Dumba’s fault, nor is it on Fenton, who is still just beginning his run as Wild GM. If Minnesota’s taking the next step anytime soon, it will be on the back of strong play from young pieces, and Dumba ranks among their most important talents.

For the most part, this is a very fair example of “the cost of doing business,” as Dumba brings a lot to the table. Still, if he remains mixed at best defensively and the Wild struggle overall, the heat could turn up on the player and his team for this contract. So, again, this one will be fascinating to look back on once we gain hindsight.

(Personally, it seems more than reasonable, but time will tell if that inkling is correct.)

This summer stands to get even costlier for the Wild, as Jason Zucker needs a new contract after a breakthrough of his own. His salary arbitration hearing is currently set for July 28, so expect movement on that front in the next week.

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

Goaltending remains biggest question for much-improved Blues

Getty
9 Comments

Sometimes it feels like the St. Louis Blues have faced questions in net for about as long as water’s been wet.

In signing Jake Allen to a four-year, $17.4 million contract a little more than two years ago, the Blues hoped that they might finally have a true No. 1 goalie after bouncing around from Jaroslav Halak to Ryan Miller to Brian Elliott. They even gave Martin Brodeur a brief shot during the twilight games of his career.

(No, you weren’t hallucinating. Brodeur really did play for the Blues.)

Instead, Allen’s been a liability, to the point that he briefly more-or-less lost the 2017-18 starting job to Carter Hutton.

Interestingly, both of the Blues goalies cross their fingers for a rebound next season. The transition from Hutton to Chad Johnson is disastrous on paper if you only judge the netminders by their 2017-18 numbers, yet the bigger picture argues that Johnson can be one of the more reliable backups. Despite a horrendous .891 save percentage from last season, Johnson still has a career average save percentage of .910.

You can’t ask for much better than that from your No. 2, but the Blues still missed the 2018 Stanley Cup Playoffs even after Hutton played like a great starter for chunks of the past season. Simply put, the Blues need more from Allen.

Let’s consider some of the factors that might impact Allen.

  • To some extent, the 27-year-old (who turns 28 on Aug. 7) is who he is. Allen already has 219 regular-season and 22 playoff games under his belt. His career .913 save percentage is pretty mediocre, thus there’s a fear that the Blues will need to overcome Allen on more than a few occasions.
  • That said, he did generate a .920 save percentage over 47 games in 2015-16, and strong work during the 2016-17 postseason argues that Allen has a higher ceiling than many might assume.
  • No doubt, Allen’s 2017-18 was abysmal, as he went 27-25-3 with a backup-caliber .906 save percentage.

It’s frequently wise to dig a little deeper to try to figure out why a goalie might struggle. In Allen’s case last season, it came down to special teams situations. While he boasted a virtually identical even-strength save percentage in 2017-18 (.919) compared to 2016-17 (.918), his shorthanded save percentage plummeted from a career-high .901 to a career-low .834.

There’s a real worry with some goalies who simply can’t cut it in PK situations, whether that comes down to questionable lateral movement, struggles to see around screens, or any number of explanations. Even after considering those long-term concerns, it’s comforting to realize that last season might just be an aberration.

  • The Blues aren’t that far behind powers like the Maple Leafs when it comes to improving during the off-season. One of the delights of their bold moves to try to contend is that they landed a near-Selke-level two-way player in Ryan O'Reilly.
  • Some good and bad news is that the Blues generally carried on the tradition of playing strong defense and hogging the puck last season. At even-strength, they allowed the fifth-fewest “high-danger” chances, according to Natural Stat Trick.

The bright side is that the structure could very well give Allen a chance to enjoy a rejuvenation. The less optimistic take is that Allen has struggled at times even with a sturdy team in front of him.

  • Such digging doesn’t immediately dismiss Allen’s shorthanded struggles. Apparently the Blues allowed the fifth-fewest high-danger chances on the penalty kill, also according to Natural Stat Trick. It’s up to Allen more than anyone else to turn around those bad PK numbers, or at least it appears that way on paper.

***

Blues GM Doug Armstrong made quite a few moves that lead you to believe that St. Louis is swinging for the fences heading into 2018-19. If a letdown costs him his job, at least he’d be going out with a bang by making some attractive tweaks.

As wise as Armstrong often appears, so far, the organization making Allen “the guy” in net has really backfired.

Ultimately, his job and the Blues’ fate probably lands on Allen’s shoulders. Improvement seems plausible, yet we’ll need to wait and see if he’ll improve enough to allow the Blues to take advantage of all the weapons they added this summer.

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

Immediate jump unlikely to be best for Kotkaniemi, Habs

Getty
4 Comments

The Montreal Canadiens shouldn’t ask “can Jesperi Kotkaniemi jump straight from the 2018 NHL Draft to the main roster?” Instead, they’re better off wondering if he should.

Canadiens GM Marc Bergevin said that the 18-year-old will get a chance to impress in training camp after performing well at development camp, according to NHL.com’s Sean Farrell.

“He got better every day, so we’re going in with an open mind,” Bergevin said. “I don’t know, but just the fact that he’s signed and he’s coming to camp and he’s closer to the NHL. Where he’s going to be Oct. 1, I can’t tell you, but we see a lot of potential and growth in this young man.”

That’s fair, and the Canadiens would be justified in giving the third pick of the 2018 NHL Draft the nine-game audition before sending him to Finland or the AHL instead of burning the first year of Kotkaniemi’s entry-level contract.

Cautionary tale

But, big picture, this is probably one of those situations where both sides would be better off if Kotkaniemi dips his toes in the water rather than diving right in. If Montreal needs a quick example of a player whose rookie deal hasn’t been used in an optimal way, they might want to consider Jesse Puljujärvi, who went fourth overall in 2016.

Puljujärvi only played in 28 games in 2016-17, making a minimal impact while pushing himself that much closer to ending his rookie deal. Things didn’t get that much better last season, as he only generated 20 points in 65 games. A breakthrough is quite possible in 2018-19, but the downside would be that the Oilers would then need to give him a raise, and would only really enjoy one high-value season from his entry-level contracts.

That’s the sort of poor asset management Montreal should be concerned about, especially if they’re being realistic about their chances next season.

Tension in the air

Now, it’s plausible – maybe probable – that things could go a little better in 2018-19. For the most obvious example, the Habs could conceivably be viable if Carey Price returns to elite form (and good health).

In all honesty, the Lightning and Maple Leafs seem slated to be light years ahead of Montreal. The Panthers and especially the Bruins head into the season with higher hopes, too. The Habs run the risk of falling short of the postseason even if they improve considerably, so why not just push Kotkaniemi’s contract back a year instead of possibly wasting it?

The Finnish forward only turned 18 on July 6, so you’d expect him to be a bit less polished compared to an older prospect like, say, Brady Tkachuk. The worst-case scenario might be if Kotkaniemi plays well enough to hit double digits in games played, yet generally struggles and ends up stunting his growth while wasting a year of that ELC.

It might not be the healthiest environment for Kotkaniemi to debut, either.

Bergevin and head coach Claude Julien must be at least a touch concerned about job security, and the atmosphere has a chance to be pretty toxic. Critics blast Julien for how he handles young players at the best of times, but how ugly might the scene be if fans are calling for Bergevin and Julien to be replaced?

Montreal seems pretty locked-in to its forward group this season, too, and that’s possibly accurate even if they actually pull the trigger on a Max Pacioretty trade. The return could be pretty modest if Kotkaniemi’s is merely a minor upgrade over a replacement-level player.

***

The Habs already made a divisive choice in selecting Kotkaniemi after lucking into the third pick in 2018. Many believe that Montreal aimed at need first and foremost, with the expectation being that Kotkaniemi will develop into the first-line center, a piece that’s eluded Montreal for ages. The pressure’s eventually going to be pretty fierce for the prospect to deliver, so the Canadiens would be wise to wait until he’s truly ready.

And, again, the decision need not be based on altruism alone. Instead, by doing what’s most likely best for Kotkaniemi, the Canadiens stand a better chance to take advantage of his cheap contract when they’d ideally be better prepared to contend.

There are worse problems to have, yet Montreal really needs to start getting these decisions right if they want to turn things around.

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.