Copyright Or Doing What's Right

Oh, the NHL Vancouver Canucks, when will you ever learn? I'm certainly not going to take the Aquilinis to task over the latest PR fiasco because the Canucks' ownership NHL legacy from Medicor to the Griffiths to Orca Bay has been pretty consistent in never seeming to get it right.

The latest, though, in case you haven't heard concerns a local kids' lacrosse team's simply awesome uniform and logo redesign as follows:

You've lacrossed a line there, kids

The initial story is here, but let's start at the start.

The Canucks in this off-season bought the National Lacrosse League's Vancouver Stealth (see V logo on that kids' jersey). Previously, there was nothing "Vancouver" about the Stealth as they played all their home games in a suburb (or exurb really given how far this Stealth home "city" is from downtown Vancouver) of Langley. Now, hopefully, how Calgary with its NHL Flames and NLL Roughnecks, Denver, Colorado, with its Avalanche and Mammoth (plus NBA Nuggets and MLS Rapids shows us owner Stan Kroenke pretty much has cornered the Denver pro sports market) and Buffalo with its Sabres and Bandits joint franchise ownership connections are, the NLL team here can maybe start drawing more than flies.

A Stealth Suburb Hides A Team Well

The NLL team out there in Langley played in a tiny 5,276 capacity arena located not only in this exurb but nowhere near any form of good transit (quickest is a 30-ish-minute bus ride from Surrey Central Station which equals a journey from downtown Vancouver of basically an hour and 20 minutes if you make perfect connections along the way) really making it pretty much a non-starter for most lacrosse fans (of which there are a a few much closer to the city given the fairly long history of the Western Lacrosse Association teams, the Adanacs [yes, that's Canada spelled backwards] and Salmonbellies, based in the closer suburbs of respectively Coquitlam and New Westminster) unless they enjoy driving even more on our clogged roads.

The Stealth team also being terrible has not helped attendance with not only losing records in four of its five seasons out in Langley but being absolutely horrendous at 23W-65L (and that includes a 9W-9L lone playoff season in 2017) overall. The Vancouver Stealth have had all of one sellout in their entire Langley history--its opener in 2014. Their average attendance last season was 3,507 per game, and the best they've averaged is 3,758 per. Even in their playoff season, attendance dropped to 3,206 per.

Within the NLL the Stealth are easily the worst team on the floor and at the gate over the past five seasons. In contrast the aforementioned Mammoth and Bandits plus the Saskatchewan Rush all average over 14,000 pretty much every season and the Roughnecks in the 11,000+ range.

Three of these teams naturally play in NHL arenas given the ownership connections, and the team in Saskatoon plays in a 15,100 capacity venue which is also the Western Hockey League's junior team the Saskatoon Blades' home arena.

So the Canucks out of the goodness of their hearts . . . deep pockets, decided to help . . . uh, see dollar signs in pro lacrosse given their Avalanche, Flames and Sabres brethren's NLL ties.

That's most likely why the furor over a kids' lacrosse uniform starts as the Canucks did announce plans on revamping the Stealth's logo and uniform for their upcoming first season in 2019 at Rogers Arena.

Squiring In A Logo

Where is gets super interesting is local Global TV sports anchor,  Squire (Satellite Debris) Barnes tweeted out this after the Canucks' purchase of the Stealth:

With that first shot fired off the logo bow a seed was obviously planted in the brain of one parent (the mysterious Rob in the media stories) of these lacrosse kids and voila, let the copyright controversy began.

The funny thing is the Johnny Canuck alternative logo is a homage to start with from the original pro Western Hockey League Canucks that existed prior to the NHL swooping in in 1970. Here's the before and after:

Canuckle Up, Boys, Johnny's Coming

Like the NHL Canucks, the WHL Canucks never really used the Johnny Canuck on their jersey a whole lot but did go a bit whole hog with Johnny as the primary logo at least in their final 1969/70 WHL season. The Canucks abandoned Johnny once they joined the NHL for the scintillating stick in rink...that was apparently supposed to be a letter C if you squinted hard enough and took enough drugs in the '70s.

Yet another Rob[erto], this time one named Luongo (via sensational goalie mask designer Marlene Ross) is part of this return of Johnny Canuck as his mask in 2007 was the first to feature Johnny Canuck in any shape or form on the NHL team's gear.

Luongo also had a Team Canada 2010 Johnny Canuck mask and went total Johnny Canuck skating away later on in his career here.

From 2010 Solid Gold To 2011 "Silver"

So like all hockey team controversies, it's never the ownership, hockey/lacrosse fans like Lacrosse Parent Rob or even little kids, it's always the goalie's fault.

It's the Most Wonderful Time Of The Year

Yes, the NHL playoffs are finally here and time once again for the experts to forget the past and continue picking teams to go deep based on regular season analysis and no sense of history.

I saw TSN's panel pretty almost all go across the board and pick not only the Nashville Predators to get to the Final again but win it all this time.

Do these "Insiders" just erase all memories of playoffs past as they relate to regular season play?

Do they not realize since 1995 only ONE team (the '09 Pittsburgh Penguins) has gotten back to the Final after losing in the Final the year previous?

Since '95 the previous season's losing Finalist have this "outstanding" record:
Missed the playoffs altogether - 6 teams
Lost in the 1st rd. - 8 teams
Lost in the 2nd rd.- 5 teams
Lost in the Conference Finals - 2 teams
Got back to the Final...and won it--the '09 Penguins

We're Number One!

Even if you go, well, the Preds finished first overall. They're so much better than last season. OK, so were the '15 New York Rangers who won the Presidents' Trophy the year after they went to the Final as the 11th overall team in the league. That 2015 Rangers team fell one round short losing to the Tampa Bay Lighting in seven games in the Eastern Conference Final.

So let's have a look at those teams that improved their records or at least matched their previous season's record the year after they got to the Final:

'96 Detroit Red Wings finished 1st overall again, and Draper gets his face rearranged in the Western Conference Final thanks to the Avs (2nd overall) and that Claude.

'97 Florida Panthers finished 7th again, lost to the Rangers (8th) in the 1st rd.

'01 Dallas Stars stepped up from 6th to 5th overall, beat the Oilers (12th) and lost to the Blues (6th) 4-donut.

'06 Calgary Flames leaped from 12th to 7th, lost to the then Mighty Ducks (12th) in the 1st rd.

'11 Philadelphia Flyers catapulted from 18th to 3rd, beat the Sabres (15th), swept by the Bruins (7th) in the 2nd rd.

'12 Vancouver Canucks finished 1st overall again, couldn't get out of rd. 1 vs. the Kings (13th).

'14 Boston Bruins 5th to 1st overall, beat the Red Wings (15th) and, of course, lose to the Habs (9th) in the 2nd rd.

Again? Didn't Cam Neely stop all this suffering?

'15 New York Rangers 11th to 1st, beat the Pens (15th), Caps (9th) and lose in seven to the Ning (5th).

'17 San Jose Sharks stay in 11th place overall, lose to the McDonut Oilers (8th) in the 1st rd.

Why are the Nashville Predators going to be any different? Maybe they are and it'd be great for hockey to see a Cup won for one of the best fan bases in hockey as well as once of the most underrated coaches in Peter Laviolette who has taken three different teams to the Final ('17 Preds, '10 Flyers and '06 Canes) and won it all with those '06 Canes. Who wouldn't want to see P.K. Subban stick it to Marc Bergevin and lift a Cup? I know most hockey fans do. Even so and with an in-form Pekka Rinne, history tells us otherwise.

Back to the Preds "won the Presidents' Trophy so they're really good" thought, but from this list above we can see four Presidents' Trophy winners who failed to get back to the Final.

In fact, overall the Presidents' Trophy winning teams period don't have much success in getting to Finals period.  Since '95 only seven Presidents' Trophy teams even gotten to the Final. Somebody needs to ask the Detroit Red Wings what the formula is because they've done it three times ('95, '02 and '08). The others are the '99 Hitchcock Stars, the '01 Avs, the '11 Choke Job Canucks and the '13 Lockout Season Blackhawks. The rest, thanks for playing. Better luck as a lower seed some other season.

Volek Or Halak--Pick Your Poison, Penguins

Hm, yes, they can but again it'll have to be by bucking history.

Of the teams to get to two Finals in a row, getting to that third one consecutively has been impossible since the Isles' 1980s' dynasty.

Here's the sad list:

'86 Oilers (1st overall)--a Steve Smith own goal and boom goes the dynamite! The Flames triumph in Game 7.

'89 Oilers trade Gretzky in the off-season and end up losing to him and the LA Kings in rd. 1. They win a Cup a year later so can't complain too much. 

'93 Pens (1st overall and winners of an NHL record 18 games in a row)--hello, Isles' David Volek in a Game 7 OT.

'99 Red Wings meet your annual blood feud rival Avs and out in rd. 2.

'01 Stars inexplicably get swept by the Blues in rd. 2.

'02 Devils (who precipitously dropped from 3rd to 10th overall) lost to the Canes (16th) who Paul Maurice (hey, Jets' fans!) coached  to the Final.

'10 Red Wings (also fell to 10th overall from 3rd) fell to the Sharks in rd. 2.

'10 Penguins got Halaked in rd. 2 by the 19th-placed Habs.

So, yeah, enjoy that Penguins' 7-0 whitewash in Game 1 and inevitable  series win over a Flyers' team that has not beaten the Pens all season long. Those betting might want to place a small wager that the Pens' run gets Voleked or Halaked in rd. 2.

Hey, nice pass, Ferraro!

Dear Daniel and Henrik,

Now as much as I think it's great for you both to address Vancouver Canucks fans with an open letter in The Players Tribune, I'm sorry I've always found it very hard to be a fan of your style of play. Hey, nothing against you as people. You do the whole Trevor "good in the community" Linden thing so kudos to you both. Then again it's not like I need my fave athletes to be saints off the ice. That's just a bonus, if they are nice guys.

Look, my idea of a hockey player is a bit more like this:

 Now THAT'S a hockey player. 

Given that Cam Neely to me is the prototype of what a forward should be in the NHL, I don't need ALL my forwards to play the same style. That would just be as dumb as thinking Jonathan Toews is a better player than John Tavares because Toews has been on three Stanley Cup winning teams and Tavares none so far.

I truly do love all types of players even ones who are not super physical but have those slick moves. Be it the super underrated Jean Ratelle in the '70s 
to the recent stylings of Pavel Datsyuk, it's great to see silky hands in action. No, my issue with both of you is slowness in various forms.

I get you were never going to be Swedish Rockets a la the Russian one--Pavel Bure.  

I want excitement though. I want to be lifted out of my seat. To put it in terms maybe you can both relate to, I'm not European, and I don't understand how watching the Tour de France on TV is entertaining at all. I appreciate the athleticism it takes to cycle up mountains, but it's not something I particularly want to watch for hours on end. So I'm hardly going to fall in love with two players cycling the puck down low no matter what the results are. 

It's simply aesthetics. I want Guy Lafleur flying down the wing. I want Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane doing this:

Getting started early

It's not like I don't enjoy Swedish hockey players either. Give me a Henrik Zetterberg or a Peter Forsberg and I'm onboard. Your buddy, Markus Naslund and you two--not so much. Again, it's a style-of-play choice. 

The other main problem related to slowness is your development into "stars." Who knows why but both of you took far too long to get really good. By the time you got to that "elite" level any chance of actually doing consistent damage and leading the Canucks deep into the playoffs on a yearly basis was gone. You may ask, "Well, what about the 2011 Final?"

We'll get to that later, but here's a comparison of what I was talking about as far as your career arcs. Let's have a look at some contemporaries that overlap your era and seeing how long it took them to break the arbitrary 82-pt. mark in an 82-game season and, as well, go on a deep playoff run to at least a Conference Final.

Joe Sakic age 20, 102 pts.; age 26, Stanley Cup champion
Peter Forsberg age 22, 116 pts. and Stanley Cup champion

Mike Modano age 22, 93 pts; age 21, Stanley Cup Final


Jarome Iginla age 24, 96 pts; age 26, Stanley Cup Final

Brendan Shanahan age 24, 94 pts; age 28, Stanley Cup champion
Sergei Fedorov age 22, 86 pts; age 25, Stanley Cup Final

Eric Lindros age 20, 97 pts; age 23, Stanley Cup Final
Claude Giroux age 24, 93 pts; age 22, Stanley Cup Final

Paul Kariya age 21, 108 pts; age 28, Stanley Cup Final
Teemu Selanne age 22, 132 pts; age 35, Conference Final

Marian Hossa age 24, 80 pts; age 24, Conference Final

Vincent Lecavlier age 26, 108 pts; age 23, Stanley Cup champion
Brad Richards age 25, 91 pts; age 23, Stanley Cup champion
Martin St. Louis age 28, 94 pts and Stanley Cup champion

Ilya Kovalchuk age 20, 87 pts; age 28 Stanley Cup Final 

Sidney Crosby age 18, 102 pts; age 20, Conference Final

Eric Staal age 21, 100 pts and Stanley Cup champion

Jason Spezza age 22, 90 pts; age 23, Stanley Cup Final

Pavel Datsyuk age 27, 87 pts; age 23, Stanley Cup champion
Henrik Zetterberg age 25, 85 pts; age 26, Conference Final

Patrick Kane age 21, 88 pts; age 20, Conference Final

Sure this is a subjective group (I mean, Datsyuk, for example, was a rookie on his first Cup not the leader he became by age 29 of his second Cup), but these are all mainly guys who at least started to do SOMETHING at an elite level by their mid-20s at the latest. 

Yes, Alexander Ovechkin (106 pts as a 20 y/o) has yet to get to a Conference Final let alone a Cup Final. Sure, a Sedin by another name due to his slow skating, Adam Oates (102 pts as a 27 y/o), took until age 35 to get to a Stanley Cup Final (with the Washington Capitals). Joe Pavelski or Toews have yet to record 82-pt seasons, but again these are two players I would rather watch because of HOW they play.

Hey, it's not like I'm asking for much, if you are future Hall Of Famers. If Steve Yzerman can go from a player had 87 pts as a 20 y/o and six 100+-pt seasons including a whopping 155 pts in the Air Hockey era and transform his game as he aged, you could have by now as well. Even if you consider the '80s Snorris Division made it easier for every team in that weak division to get into a Conference Final (Stevie Y at age 21), Yzerman from ages 29 to 32 captained the Detroit Red Wings to a Stanley Cup Final, Conference Final and then two straight Stanley Cups in those four seasons! 

Then there's your career arcs:

Henrik Sedin age 28, 82 pts; age 30, Stanley Cup Final
Daniel Sedin age 26, 84 pts; age 30, Stanley Cup Final

And at age 30, that is the ONLY deep playoff run your teams have ever had in 17 seasons in the NHL. 

So, I'm sorry, if I'm not onboard the Sedin Train. Then again I'm still trying to figure out how Linden went from looking like the next Cam Neely to virtually losing his scoring touch at age 26. Would someone please explain how he never cracked 30 goals again after six 30-goal seasons in his first eight years in the NHL?

You both do represent what I think the less delusional Canucks fans see in this franchise--year-upon-year frustration. Other than the Pavel Bure years when have the Vancouver Canucks not been as frustrating a franchise in any sport?

To me, this incident every Canuck fan knows pretty much sums up why neither of you will ever win my heart and, if that makes me heartless, . . . so be it: 

Definitely a TKO for Canucks' Cup hopes

Where was the fight back? Look, I get you're tough but just are not fighters and maybe some other Canuck should have jumped in, but how many punches to the face does it take to wake the ____ up?

You guys had been playing in the NHL up to that point for 11 seasons and what that showed me was not "discipline" and not taking stupid penalties. It showed me the Boston Bruins were going to clean your clocks.

Even gentlemanly Jean Beliveau would not take that abuse...or at least John Ferguson would have stepped in and clocked Brad Marchand. Sadly, Gino Odjick was not on the 2011 team. You win some; you lose a Stanley Cup.

As it was, we all know the story. The now obviously soft Canucks came back home after that Game 6 loss and did not score a single goal (Tim Thomas again outplays Roberto Luongo) in Game 7. Done . . . like . . . dinner.

To be honest, yes, you two could have won me over if you had led the Canucks to the Cup in 2011 (although having lost Games 3 & 4 by  a combined 12-1 score, I could not see a Stanley Cup materializing after Aaron Rome decided to wake up the Bruins with that dumb hit on Nathan Horton), but you were already on as thin ice thanks to the previous nine seasons of no deep playoff runs starting even back in the Markus Naslund era (yet another Swedish forward the Canucks "lucked out" with not named Zetterberg or Forsberg).

I could go on but be that as it may, you guys, to borrow from John McEnroe, cannot be serious if you think the Vancouver Canucks' signings of Dave Gagner, Thomas Vanek, Michael Del Zotto and the NHL's 2016/17 83rd leading scorer (Bo Horvat) to a six-year (six years!?) deal is going to result in a deep playoff run UNLESS Thatcher Demko makes the team and turns into 1986 rookie Patrick Roy . . .  or that other guy in the '80s. 

Don't you forget about me

Oh No, Canada!

Dear Justin Trudeau,

I hear you wanted all Canadians to cheer for the Ottawa Senators in the NHL playoffs because, well, I'm not sure why really. With all due respect, I do cheer for Canadian national teams in hockey at all levels. I always want Team Canada to do well internationally from the Olympics to Miss Universe. 

Always a bridesmaid

What I don't understand is how the leader of our nation can fall for this media-induced annual push to cheer on a so-called "Canada's team" when there is one Canadian-based NHL team left in the Stanley Cup chase. If you are this gullible to fall for this ruse, I worry about what the Orange Man down south may try to put past you. 

Hey, Justin, how'd like them oranges?

In 2017, for this Canadian based in your former teaching grounds my cheering order among the Final Four goes Penguins, then Ducks, and Predators if they end up vs. the Sens (sorry, I like the fans in Honkytonk Central over Boucher 1-3-1 hockey). So "all" Canadians minus at least this one will not be heeding your call to cheer for the team who seem to think a Roman Centurion is a Senator. 

Stronger and sexier than a Trojan

The border has never really played into what team I want to win. In fact, it probably does the opposite given the Canadian-based teams tend to be super annoying to the rest of us outside the Centre Of The Universe (i.e., the Maple Leafs), have smug fans who live on past Cup glory (i.e., Habs fans), have been rivals in playoffs past (i.e., the Flames), have had horseshoes in lucking into superstars (i.e., the Oilers) or been as non-descript a boring franchise as the NHL has had (i.e., the Senators especially in the Jacques Martin era). 

Probably the only other Canadian-based team I'd ever cheer for other than the hometown Canucks (which, trust me, is harder than you think given the GMs employed here over the decades) are the Winnipeg Jets because that team usually has had similar hard luck and its fans are truly the best in Canada (sorry, Habs fans). Plus who doesn't love the team of Hull, Nilsson and Hedberg, Hawerchuk and Selanne, Pokey and the Bandit!

Fleury and Murray Lite

No, Mr. Trudeau Version 2.0, I choose the teams I cheer for as the playoffs move on based on how they play and if they have interesting players. Also, although upsets are fun and exciting, when it comes to the eventual Stanley Cup champion, I prefer my championship teams to be, ya know, actually good. 

Enough with the "low seed, treat the regular season like it means nothing" teams sneaking in a Cup. Yes, I'm talking to you the 2012 Los Angeles Kings who won less than half of their games in the '11/12 regular season. THAT'S championship pedigree? Grabbing the eighth seed thanks to overtime and shootout loser points then riding a hot Quick goalie to glory?

If that's the criteria to "building" a championship team, sign the rest of us up, will ya? Change the name of the sport to GOALIE then!

So, I honestly do not want the 12th overall Ottawa Senators nor 16th overall Nashville Predators stumbling into a Cup. Isn't the Canadian way about fairness? You taught school. You know floundering in mediocrity the whole school year and then acing the final exam really is not what it should be about. 

Nothing against Erik Karlsson or Bobby Ryan nor P.K. Subban or Pekka Rinne but c'mon now!

I want to see greatness. I grew up in an era of dynasties. Call me crazy but seeing the Carolina Hurricanes win a Cup in 2006 and then proceed to miss the playoffs ten times in the next 11 seasons just doesn't seem right to me.

I mean, if it's Canadian glory you seek, do not shun the Canadians who do great ambassadorial work for our nation such as Marc-Andre Fleury or Ryan Getzlaf just because they ply their Canadian-trained skills outside our borders.

If anything, you should dial it back on "Canada's team" all together as you might actually be seeing the Edmonton McDonuts vs. the Taranna Mike Babcocks in a Stanley Cup Final sooner than you can book another vacation on a government jet.

So, my advice is stick to politics, Captain Canada, and let us hockey fans choose whatever team gets us out of our seats with excitement in the next few weeks.  

 Hey, I'm Captain Canada!

The new Lou in South Florida

Look, I have three generations of military service in my family tree to this day. I think people with military backgrounds can be extremely successful in sports (see Air Force veteran Gregg Popovich's record as coach of the NBA's San Antonio Spurs) but to run an entire sports organization along military lines is bizarre in 2016. After all, militaries can be very good at winning wars but the aftermath and being able to reorganize a society well itself went out the door once the Marshall Plan days were over. To wit Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anyone with half a brain think the various military invasions from various nations over the years have left either nation in a more stable state headed towards peaceful democracies? 

You! Yeah, you! You're going places.

That's why I'm confused as to what billionaire Florida Panthers owner Vincent Viola is up to in South Florida. Look, I don't get the whole American obsession with one's alma mater. I do get wanting to work with friends and likeminded people although that can cut both ways. You don't want a bunch of yes men and women around you when you have to make the hard decisions.

Anyway, Viola has decide to surround himself with West Point graduates. That's his prerogative. Not sure how that equates with managing a hockey team but at least it's out-of-the-box thinking which is to be lauded in hockey. On the other hand, the '60s showed us athletes and a large part of Western society do not want the military involved in our daily lives at work. Although the U.S. military has modernized it is still a very hierarchical structure. Not that hockey isn't, but a buck private is not earning millions either. The NHL  is a totally different kettle bomb of fish.

Throw in the whole obsession with analytics the Panthers' owner loves because he made his billions using numbers to his advantage on Wall Street, and you have a great story developing, win or lose, in Sunrise, Florida. It certainly has not made the Cats as boring as their new Ottawa Senators lookalike uniforms are. 

Stick a white band under the crest, no one will notice the difference

But here's the rub after today's firing of coach Gerard Gallant--numbers are not people. It's fine to use "advanced" stats as a tool to shape your team. They just can't be the end-all and be-all just as the eye test can't be either. One of the key factors in finding the right player and coach for any team is character. I'm sure the Panthers say all the right things that they don't just rely on analytics, but Gallant's firing sure suggests otherwise.

According to the Panthers' PDO this season they are kind of smack dab in the middle of the pack. Their luck is neither good nor bad. They are pretty much where you'd expect them to be given the number of man games lost for their key players (Jussi Jokinen 12 GP, Nick Bjugstad 3 GP, and Jonathan Huberdeau hasn't even played this season). So changing coaches is trying to change that luck, I suppose. Or did management think the Panthers were the second coming of last season's Pittsburgh Penguins?

What the firing of Gallant shows most of the hockey world, and putting its rookie GM into the coaching seat, is Viola seems to be following another model. That would be one he saw maybe across the river from his Manhattan Wall Street offices--the Lou Lamoriello era in New Jersey. 

The Devils were notorious for changing coaches at will and at bizarre points in the season even just prior to the playoffs. Sometimes it worked . Sometimes it didn't. Sometimes Lou came down from his GM chair and stepped behind the bench. Sometimes he didn't. 

The New Jersey Devils won three Stanley Cups during Lou's GM reign. They also had the two Scotts (Stevens and Niedermayer) on defence. The Devils also never won a cup after Niedermayer left for Anaheim in 2004. Great players often make GMs look pretty great.

The Panthers do have a gem on defence in Aaron Ekblad so thank old-school Dale Tallon for that draft pick under his GM's watch. (Speaking of which, wouldn't it be sad and ironic should the Panthers win a Cup with the core of the team players Tallon brought in. He did the same for the 2010 Chicago Blackhawks yet was fired before he could get his name on the Cup despite having his stamp all over that team.) Ekblad is a key building block, but to summarily fire Gallant 22 games into a season with no class or honor (I do believe that's a tenet of West Point, isn't it?) shows me more of a Wall Street than a West Point mentality. Let's call it Wall Point, shall we?

How does one make billions on Wall Street? Certainly not with a long-term buy-and-hold policy. No, all those trading algorithms are put to use making thousands of trades in microseconds daily. This firing smacks of the same. It's short-term thinking. We'll see if it works in the NHL.

So Tom Rowe is the new Lou--a GM who steps down to coach. Although Rowe was a head coach for six seasons in the AHL and two in the KHL, he has a horrendous playoff record--four times his teams lost in the first round and only in his first season with the Carolina Hurricanes' farm team, the Lowell Lock Monsters, did his team win a playoff round. In the KHL his Lokomotiv Yaroslavl also lost in the first round.

Then again Lou Lamoriello's coaching record in "pro" hockey was not all that great. Twice he took over the Devils' coaching reigns. The first time in the 2006 playoffs he got them past round one then they were out in round two. The second time in 2015 they missed the playoffs.

So if it's the new Lou the Panthers' owner wants, maybe it's the new Lou he gets.

Slaying The Dragons

Did you hear? The San Jose Sharks Are Finally True Contenders? The St. Louis Blues finally won a playoff series? The Nashville Predators finally slayed the Dragons...uh, Ducks?

Nothing to see here, folks

Yes, the San Jose Sharks defeated the team (the LA Kings) that beat them in 2013 and 2014. They've avenged the blowing of a 3-0 lead in games in that infamous 2014 first round series. They must be going all the way after defeating a two-time Cup winner after so many playoff frustrations.

So, the 11th-overall Sharks with the .910 save percentage of Martin Jones is our next Cup winner?

It's only one round. The Sharks beat a team, although rated by many as maybe good enough to get back to the Final, actually MISSED THE PLAYOFFS last season. This is also a Kings' team that blew a huge lead in their own division creating this bad matchup vs. the Sharks. Also, it's an LA team without no-longer-here Slava Voynov or injured early Alec Martinez meaning Drew "I finally got a lone point in the series" Doughty had to play an insane average of 30:53 a game (a full five minutes per game over the next guy, Jake Muzzin, on the LA D) and, wow, it really didn't work out for the Kings. That's a shocker, huh!

Yes, it was such true fan pain for the Sharks to not beat a team two series in a row after beating the Kings way back in 2011. Nothing like the Boston Bruins losing 18 (yes, Ed Westfall, you read that right) series in a row to the Montreal Canadiens. But what do I know being a lapsed B's fan? I curse you still, Mike McPhee!

 Hey, is this an Islanders' broadcast?

Also, this notion that the Sharks are somehow playoff failures is based on what exactly? Since the team actually got good in 2001/02 (finishing 5th overall) the Sharks have played in 22 playoff series and thrice (thrice, I say!) made the Conference Finals. Other than when the Detroit Red Wings were in the West, no other team has played more series out West than the Sharks over this time period.

You don't think most fans would take that? Sure, it's frustrating not to make a Final or win a Cup but the Sharks in those 11 playoff seasons from '02 to now the San Hosers only went out in rd. 1 three times. It's not like they don't give their fans something to cheer for.

Beats being a Nashville Predators' fan and seeing your team lose six out of eight times in the first round over the same time period. Luckily, this season is different...or the same as 2011 and 2012, if the Preds lose to the aforementioned Sharks.

Yes, the team which played its first Game 7 in history has been in the rare air of the second rd. before so again let me wait on Pekka Rinne's scintillating .915 save percentage vs. the Ducks in rd. 1 being a sign that all their dragons were slain.

Finally, the woe begotten St. Louis Blues. Now they do have a legit reason to celebrate as the team has lost three seasons in a row in the first round. The Blues have only won two playoff rounds since 2002 prior to beating the DEFENDING STANLEY CUP CHAMPION Chicago Blackhawks.

What an accomplishment! That's never been done in round one be-....Oh, wait, there was the 2012 Bruins losing to the Washington Capitals, the 2011 cap-stripped Hawks (what? no way!) losing to the Vancouver Canucks...the 2008 Ducks losing to the Dallas Stars, the 2004 New Jersey Devils losing to the Philadelphia Flyers...and technically, although there was a lockout in between, the 2006 Tampa Bay Lightning losing to the Ottawa Senators.

Now usually, the defending Cup champs that do flop badly have had a poor followup season such as when Tampa went from 2nd to 16th overall or Chicago in '11 dropping from 3rd to 13th. The '16 Hawks actually went from 7th in 2015 to 5th. So that really was quite the accomplishment by the Blues and it's not like the Hawks played poorly at all. Six of the seven games were one-goal games including two overtime ones. The goals all tolled were Hawks 20-St. Loo 19.

The shots, though, overwhelming favored the Hawks 256 to 205 so...let's just say Brian Elliott, because he hasn't done all that well in the playoffs up till now so he gets overlooked in the whole Henrik Lundqvist meets Jonathan Quick to this year's Braden Holtby discussion, basically stole this series despite turning back into his old self in Games 5 and 6 of this series. Elliott was outstanding in Games 3 and 4 in Chicago to help the Blues go up 3-1 which was most likely key to winning in seven--the Hawks ran out of gas climbing back into the series and Brent Seabrook hit both posts on one shot. I guess Keith awoke the Kraken...uh, Backes.

Anyway, three teams out West apparently slayed their dragons and one at least will be in the Conference Finals so let the media hype begin.

Just wake me when St. Louis or San Jose actually make the Final. Then we'll see what exactly is what with both of these teams. Smashville, on the other hand, it's all gravy really if the Preds can get past the Sharkies.

Watch over us, Frank

However it turns out, we have a slew of interesting teams finally in the last eight. All of which would make worthy champions. So enough with the two days off between every game in the first four you're playing 'Ning and Islanders and let's get the second rd. rolling. 

Stingy D = Playoff Success

Let the real hockey begin!

So now it's time to figure out who's going to go deep or go home. First of all, toss out looking at the seedings and focus in on the goals against.

In each of the past three seasons in the 1st round, the team with lowest GA has won seven of the eight series. The three lone exceptions (Los Angeles Kings '13, Chicago Blackhawks '14 and Anaheim Ducks '15) to this all went on to the Conference Finals.

Going a bit farther back in 2011 and '12 the lower GA teams went 5-3 each season in rd. 1.

Now here are how the 2015 NHL playoffs rd. 1 match up GA-wise:

Panthers 208 GA vs. Islanders 216 GA
Lightning 201 GA vs. Red Wings 224 GA
Capitals 193 GA vs. Flyers 219 GA
Penguins 203 GA vs. Rangers 217 GA

Ducks 192 GA vs. Predators 215 GA
Kings 195 GA vs. Sharks 210 GA
Stars 230 GA vs. Wild 206 GA
Blues 201 GA vs. Blackhawks 209 GA

Now, if you had run the table the last five seasons and picked just the lower GA teams each round as the playoffs progressed, you'd have been 54-20 overall. You'd have picked the Stanley Cup winner 4 out of 5 times correctly.

That's picking after each round knowing who is playing who.

For argument's sake, let's say you had to do the bracket straight through to the Final from the start of the playoffs and used this lower GA standard to make your picks.

So you'd have gone as follows:

'15 Chicago over NY Rangers in Final (actual: Chicago over Tampa)
(11 out of 15 overall to advance correct)

'14 LA over Boston (actual: LA over Rangers)
(11 out of 15 to advance correct)

'13 Chicago over Ottawa (actual:Chicago over Boston)
(again 11 out of 15)

'12 St. Louis over NY Rangers (actual:LA over New Jersey)
(just 6 out of 15)

'11 Vancouver over Boston (actual: Boston over Vancouver)
(9 out of 15)

I'd take those returns any day.

Now how about our old favorite the defending Stanley Cup Champion?
There was a run from 2004 thru 2012 where out of eight playoff seasons, five times the defending champs lost in the 1st rd. and once even missed the playoffs altogether (hello, '07 Carolina Hurricanes meet the '15 LA Kings and '95 New Jersey Devils).

Prior to 2004, you'd be hardpressed to see the defending Cup winners flop so badly. The past three seasons has seen a sort of righting of the old ship with the '13 Kings and '14 Blackhawks both getting to the Conference Finals before bowing out.

Anyway, the teams that tended to flop out all have one thing is common. They either fell in the overall standings or stayed right where they were. The Blackhawks, although not as good defensively in the '15/16 season jumped from 7th overall to 5th so, after losing Game 1 in OT despite outplaying the Blues by a mile, maybe don't count them out in rd. 1 yet.

Then we have the famous losing Finalist failings. Maybe because going all the way to the Final and coming up empty drains your team, or the whole NHL sees how you can be beat, the losing Finalists don't have a lot of success come the following playoff year.

Since after the '94 lockout and starting from that shortened '95 playoff season to '15, the losing Finalists have done the following:

Missed the playoffs five times.
Lost in the 1st rd. seven times.

Won a rd. and got to the Conference Semi-Finals five times.
Got to the Conference Finals but lost there twice.

Got back to the Finals...and won it! Just the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins.

So, how about the '15 Cup runner-up Tampa Bay Lightning (without Steven Stamkos and Anton Stralman) in the 2016 NHL playoffs? Well, they dropped from 5th overall to 12th so that's not a good sign.

Of the playoff teams that had fallen off in the standings from the previous season their record is just 3W-4L in the 1st rd, and only those '09 Pens who fell from 4th to 8th won more than one round.

In other words, don't put any money on the 'Ning getting back to the Final even if you think they can knock off the Datsyuk Retirement Run in rd. 1.

Since the '04 lockout, there's also been this huge push from the teams that lose in the Conference Finals returning at least to that stage the following season and sometimes to the Final and winning it. Check this out:

Teams that made consecutive Conference Finals
'04 & '05 Buffalo Sabres
'10 & '11 San Jose Sharks

Teams that lost in Conference Final and then went to Final and won!
'09 & '10 and '14 & '15 Chicago Blackhawks
'13 & '14 LA Kings

Teams that took it two steps further...and beyond.
'07, '08 & '09 Detroit Red Wings

Wings lost in '07 in the Western Conference Final, won the Cup in '08 and got back to the Final in '09 to lose to the Penguins...who also made two Finals in a row in those '08 & '09 years.

Now is '15 Conference Finalist Anaheim taking the next step because we know the '15 Eastern rep New York Rangers are hardly a good pick to do that in 2016?

I'll let all this sink in until we have a look at teams who get shutout and/or thumped early in series.

Until then, I'd suggest stick with the Cats and Isles and forget the hype even about the Kings and Sharks unless you enjoy tremendous hits that lead to non-scoring chances and very few shots on goal. Is anyone coaching either teams? All that hitting in the first period in Game 1 is doing the Ducks a world of good for round two. Keep at it, boys!

Top 10 MiLB Logos 2016

Since a gauntlet (where exactly can I buy one as I do need a new gauntlet) has been thrown down by @AMSTS (All My Sports Teams Suck--a Tweety sports account set in Berlin yet doesn't really deal with Hertha Berlin) and @Real_DJ_Swizzle (who apparently is at college studying to long snap shepherds) on Twitter to put my monkey where my logo is, here is my totally biased Top 10 Minor League Baseball Logos for 2016. 

Just to give you a baseline that some of you can relate to, on the Major League level I'm talking anything from a Gothic D to the Swingin' A's. I'm also partial to cartoon birds and even racist co-opting of Louis Sockalexis' Tribe but no Sox of any kind and certainly no "team name + baseball" is anyone's idea of "cool" let alone worthy of any "best of" logo lists. In other words: If it's gaudy, I don't want to party. If it's easy on the eyes, Borat high fives. 

So let's logo-a-go-go...minor league style.

10. Albuquerque Isotopes

Not a huge fan of the color scheme but Homer J. Simpson's Southwest cousin to the Springfield Isotopes is well balanced and gets an A...for should've turned left at this city. 

These directions are really starting to bug me

9. 

What can I say? I'm a sucker for black and yellow (black and yellow, black and yellow) from the Pittsburgh Pirates and the other Iron City Beer city's teams as well as bees ever since the days of Karl-Heinz Granitza and the Chicago Sting.

Still I wish the Bees went back to this Little Rascals-looking bee. 

8. Carolina Mudcats

Mudcat Grant would be proud.

7. 

Usually not a big fan of sticking a baseball as your logo, but love that the sun raises its eyebrow and winks when it's game time. Then again a huge fan of this guy with a baseball as his head so maybe as long as the baseball is "a head" of everything else, I'm good logo-wise with that.  

"Nothing to see here. Move along, people."

6. 

Animals swinging bats. Never a bad move. Plus this Bison knows the home run porch at Coca-Cola Field is in left. 

5. Durham Bulls

Hit Bull! Win Steak!

Need I say more? 

A Nuke LaLoosh classic with no BS in this design.

4. 

Yes, in 2016, the name should be changed but until that day this smallpox blanket meets Native American ninja throwing star gets the heave-ho, I'm all onboard. Although it does also remind me of a certain group of aliens. 

One small vertical leap for the Moon-inites

3. 

Maybe a tad boring for some but with MLB teams now going for the ring around the logo (with team name in that ring road), I dig one of the early adopters. Also, horses in silhouette just work. 

Hi Ho, Mustangs . . . Away!

2.

So it's an apple with a cooking pot on its head? That's what you're going with? Hey, I have no idea what tin-cap sort of town Fort Wayne is or if Bruce Wayne or Wayne Gretzky now lives there. All I know is I would wear this on a T-shirt anyday.

1. 

An oldie but still a goodie. How can you not love a confused lugnut just trying to fit into this wacky world of minor league baseball? 

There you have it, folks, enjoy and check out the two guys' Twitter feeds at the top I mentioned for inspiring me to get off the bench and do this. 

Enjoy the season. 

Check out a minor league baseball game in 2016. Who knows? 

You just might find a team and a logo you'll love. 

Please Move The Red Wings Back West

Maybe it's just me but have the Detroit Red Wings lost more than they think they've gained by switching to the Eastern Conference? We're now in the third season since the switchover, and do the Wings have any rivalries with any teams in the East at all?

Gordie Howe does not have Lou Fontinato to destroy even if the Habs are now decent again. Maybe the Wings will develop a 1950s-like rivalry, but the Habs-Bruins rivalry is still going to trump that no matter what.

Even vs. Boston, the Wings went out meekly in five games in the 1st round in 2014. 

The Wings went seven with the Tampa Bay Lightning in round one in 
last season's playoffs. Did any of the games jump out and stick with you as classics? Do you feel a Stamkos vs. Datsyuk rivalry building?

Then there's their old Snorris Division rivals--the team from the Centre of the Universe.

Sure, they played the Toronto Maple Leafs in the Winter Classic in 2014--the  first season the Wings were in the East. Yet did that conjure up any of those old Western Conference matchups of yore such as this?:

Or this?

Maybe it's going to take until the Leafs actually get half decent to fuel a Mike Babcock vs. his old team feud, but even so, Babs, left the Wings on good terms. Jeff Blashill, the current Wings' coach, was an assistant also under Babcock and has nothing but praise for the man who took the money over, ya know, maybe coaching another Cup contending team.

West Is Best

The Wings' most-storied rivalries, when they got good again from the mid-'90s, were against the Colorado Avalanche and the Chicago Blackhawks. Now, obviously, the Avs' rivalry began to fade once Patrick Roy retired and the one with the current Toews-Kane-Keith et al Blackhawks era took center stage.

So again I ask: Was the switch of conferences to have more games played in their own Eastern Time Zone for television's sake really worth sucking the life out of these rivalries?

The NHL On NBC has Rivalry Night every Wednesday. The league itself recently had "rival" teams playing back-to-back since the last lockout to build up interest.

Detroit's other teams in football, basketball and baseball are all in divisions with teams mainly from the Midwest. The NFL's Lions have been in NFC Central since 1970 with the Chicago Bears, Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers.
The Lions have been in the same freakin' division with the Bears and Packers since 1934!

The NBA's Detroit Pistons were the Chicago Bulls' main rivals during the Michael Jordan era and that carries over at least when both teams get good at the same time. The Pistons are also now in a revamped Central Division with the very same Bulls, Indiana Pacers and Milwaukee Bucks with only the Cleveland Cavaliers in their time zone. OK, the NBA has a far better geographical balance than the NHL such that the Pistons play in the Eastern Conference meaning the 11 of the other 14 teams are in the Eastern Time Zone, but even so, if you named the Pistons' biggest rival, it's the team in the City Of Broad Shoulders.

Baseball's Detroit Tigers, much like the Pistons, are in, yes, a Central Division. Their American League division mates bar the Cleveland Indians are in the central Time Zone (the Kansas City Royals, Chicago White Sox and Minnesota Twins).

Throw in the history of Detroit as Motown both musically and with the Big Three automakers, the Motor City on the whole has a lot more in common with the industrial cities of the Midwest than the Eastern Seaboard.

Since there is much handwringing about the NHL's expansion plans and this seemingly endless wait for Seattle to get its arena act together and hope they find some rich person who wants to put an NHL team there, why not just entice (monetarily. if need be) the Red Wings back to the West? Then you can put a team in Las Vegas now rather than later.

You'd then have your 16 teams in the West. Add an expansion team in Quebec City to the East to replace Detroit. Then forget about Seattle until another day as, let's face facts, the city really prefers to get an NBA team first and foremost to bring back the glory days of the SuperSonics.

The Red Wings would slot in well in (here it is again) the Central Division and we can look forward to more Game 7 craziness vs. the Blackhawks like this:

Or Game 7 Stevie Y vs. the St. Louis Blues flashbacks

 

Then there's Shea Weber cozying up to Henrik Zetterberg

Finally, there's the Avs with Patrick Roy as coach. All the Avs would need to ratchet this up to Defcon Draper is hiring Claude Lemieux as an assistant coach.
Who wouldn't want to see what Avs' beat writer Adrian Dater turned into a book appropriately titled Blood Feud begin anew?

After all, the dumb staged fights between designated goons is going the way of the "Jon Scott leading the All-Star vote" dinosaur, but who doesn't love the looney tunes' aspect of a full-on line brawl involving goalies (and I might add two terrific 6-5 hockey regular season [yep, not even playoff] games as well)?

  Round One--1997

Round Two--1998

Let's just give you the Top 10

 

I rest my case. Move the Detroit Red Wings back to the West, Mr. Bettman.

A Real Lou-Lou Of A Move

I admit I'm an ageist. I don't think people in their 80s should be driving around in most vehicles on the road. If you live somewhere where public transit is virtually non-existent, please let (or make!) your kids be your chauffeurs. Beats the alternative, I say, such as this.

So, obviously, the Toronto Maple Leafs hiring Grandpa Lou Lamoriello baffles me even if he's a spry 72. The Make Beliefs do realize they are getting Lou Version 2015 not Lou Version 1990s, right? They also I hope realize that the GM of the now three-time in this era Stanley Cup champion Chicago Blackhawks is Stan Bowman and not his dad Scotty? Sure, Scotty is a paid consultant to the Hawks' management committee but he's not scouting, drafting, trading or signing players because, well, he's 81 years old and . . . semi-retired.

This Leaf move almost eerily parallels the NFL's "let's hire Bill Parcells well past his sell-by date" nonsense. You remember that era, don't you?

Parcells, after his stint with the New York Jets as coach/GM ended in 2000 at age 58, three years later he ended up as Dallas Cowboys' coach. Now this was 13 years since Parcells last won a Super Bowl with the team that made his rep--the New York Giants of Lawrence Taylor and THAT defence. It was also seven years removed from taking the pre-Tom Brady New England Patriots to the Super Bowl (where they lost to the Brett Favre era Green Bay Packers).

Now it all started well as Parcells' Cowboys went 10-6 and made the playoffs in 2003. By 2004, 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde ended up as their starting QB and they went 6-10. Bouncing back with two consecutive 9-7 seasons was better but Parcells' final season featured, well, Tony Romo.

Oh snap!

Parcells retired for the third time in his career after that fiasco and left having not won a single playoff game (0W-2L) in his Cowboys' career.

Then at age 66 in 2007 he joins the Miami Dolphins as Executive VP Of Football Operations. In three seasons there the Marine Mammals went a Chad Pennington 11-5 and, of course, proceeded to lose their playoff game then followed that up with two straight 7-9 seasons.

Now since turning 72 Parcells has been a consultant for the Cleveland Browns.

I rest my case.

Maybe at one time Lou Lamoriello was great at making trades back in 1989 (Tom Kurvers from the [that's right] Leafs for the draft pick that became Scott Niedermayer) or having the Blues mess up their chances of a Stanley Cup ever in their history by signing...(wait for it)...restricted free agent Brendan Shanahan off the New Jersey Devils in 1990. This cost the Blues a defenceman by the name of Scott Stevens.

 Ouch! No, seriously--ouch!

Five years later the Devils trapped a Cup with two of the greatest defencemen named Scott in NHL history. That twosome helped the Devils to another two Cups and once Niedermayer left for Anaheim, the Devils have not win another Cup.

The problem with the old-boy NHL network and its reliance on relationships and signing "names" is it ignores the obvious. Everyone is less effective at a certain age. How much energy does anyone have in their 60s let alone their 70s to do the things they did so well in their 40s and 50s?

So, as I said, I'm a total ageist because there's a time and a place for everything. Sorry, I was never interested in seeing Mick Jagger on stage after the '70s and now he's IN his 70s still up there.

I'll stick with Mick in his 20s

Well, good luck then with the Leafs' choice. After all just have a look at this treading water litany of trades Lou ran through from 2005 until the Ilya Kovalchuk deal.

Now the Kovalchuk deal depending how Lou looks at it could be considered a decent one given it showed the league that New Jersey was still alive and the team actually went after a scorer. It also could be said it messed up the Devils cap-wise for those years despite Kovalchuk contributing 19 points in the 23 games to the 2012 Final.

So was the Kovy signing worth it though? Two years earlier from that 2012 Final, the Devils re-signed free agent Ilya Kovalchuk to that 17-year deal designed to circumvent the salary cap. The NHL rejected that contract length and then the deal was adjusted down to "just" 15 years costing the team $3 million in fines, two draft picks (including a 1st rounder) as the NHL penalized Lou and the Devils for this attempt at cap circumvention.

Oh, there's a beautiful postscript as well. After all that when Kovalchuk jumped to the KHL during the 2012/13 lockout, the NHL decided that the Devils could get their $3 million back as well as that first round draft pick although Lou had to pick at number 30 in the 2014 Entry Draft. So Sweet Lou came up smelling roses to some degree.

Now if you look at the trades since the original Kovalchuk trade, Lou has again messed around the edges of the Devils' team but really other than getting goalie Cory Schneider for a first round pick (Bo Horvat), which may end up a wash given Horvat's promising rookie season, I guess offloading 90-year-old Jaromir Jagr to Florida for a 2nd and 3rd round pick was the only other laudable move Lou has done over the past few seasons.

So has anything Lou done since the Cup years warrant him being a GM at age 72 of an NHL team? (Insert your own Laffs' joke here about them even being an NHL team.)

Time to review Lou's New Jersey Devils' career:
The Scotts' Era (12 seasons give-or-take of Niedermayer and Stevens)
3 Cups
1 other Final
1 Eastern Conference Final loss
1 Eastern Conference Semi-Final loss
5 times out in the first rd.
1 time missed the playoffs

The Post-Scotts Era (10 seasons)
1 Final
2 other times in the Eastern Conference Semi-finals
2 times out in the first rd.
4 times missed the playoffs (out of the last five seasons)

Well, at least the Maple Leafs have Mike Babcock's last five seasons to draw on, right? I mean, who wouldn't want a coach whose teams lost twice in the first round the past two seasons and hasn't been gotten a very talented team to a Conference Final since he last took the Red Wings to the Final in 2009?

After all, isn't that Carey Price in the Leafs net behind a defence that includes Duncan Keith, Shea Weber and Drew Doughty? I'm sure Babcock will be back to the Final with that lineup in no time with Lou right by his side.