Thursday, November 19, 2009

Olympic Torch Relay

It was nice to see SO many people out in Halifax last night to see the Olympic torch run by.

However, it could've used some better planning.

We showed up to Brunswick Street where Sidney Crosby was picking up the torch at Sackville Street. He would then run 300 metres to Carmichael street and pass it off to snowboarder Sarah Conrad.

There were thousands of people. People we're sitting on the wall surrounding the base of citadel hill, on walls and stairs on buildings lining the street. All up Citadel Hill. Thousands. They were everywhere you could think of. It was insanity.

No barricades along the route.

Someone tell me how that makes sense.

Anyway so Crosby jogs by and he's surrounded by this circle of security detail about 25 strong.

All you could see was an arm with a torch, and a little white toque. Then when he passed off the torch everyone tried to get closer to follow it down the hill. As soon as he passed a spot, people started walking in behind on the street.

Thumbs down.

The city's holiday parade is Saturday, I know there must be barricades that have been pulled out of storage. Did nobody think, "hey! let's use them for the part of the torch relay that days in advance we were predicting huge crowds to show up for."

Halifax Fail.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Scottie Upshall asks...

"We're here. We're not going anywhere," winger Scottie Upshall said referring to his embattled Phoenix Coyotes. "If we're winning games, why not come support a winning club?"

Answer: Because you're the Phoenix Coyotes.

In all seriousness, if I were one of the team's few fans last year, I probably wouldn't be back right now.

The summer shenanigans of "we're here", "we're gone", "we're in court", "okay the NHL is buying us", "oh wait, the NHL is buying us but has said they're going to move us next year", "maybe", would leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth.

Add in the fact Phoenix is already a fickle market, and most people in the desert would probably rather play golf then shell out for a hockey game -- you've got yourself a losing combination.

The summer's uncertainty and long, dragged out court battle has left fans saying "see ya, and good riddance"... and that means it's pretty much already signed and delivered that this team will not survive in this location. This isn't a fan base that is going to rally together and scoop up season tickets in record numbers to save the team (see: Calgary Flames 1990s).


Who cares?


bah humbug.

who cares.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Thumbs up.

Halifax Mooseheads goaltender Mathieu Corbeil wins the QMJHL Defensive Player of the Week award.

Keep it up kid.

The three-ring circus known as the NHLPA

So this is a saga that's not even really funny anymore. These guys run themselves like a student society at a university. They're weighted down with infighting. Committees are performing coos on the leadership. Oh hey! that's not bad enough, let's re-write the constitution. Next comes embezzlement.

And then Buzz Hargrove quit Sunday.

I mean this guy is the former head of the Canadian Auto Workers union. If he can't put up with the shit, who can?

But this is one of those issues that I was a little confused about. How did it get to this, why/how do people keep saying they "can't do their jobs in these circumstances"? I read a fairly decent account by CBC's Elliot Friedman of what is wrong with the NHLPA. I thought i'd pass it along.

The battle raging inside the NHLPA

November 7, 2009 05:40 PM | Posted by Elliotte Friedman

To understand the battle raging inside the NHL Players' Association, you must recognize what's happening outside its walls.

Here's an example:

Last season, two players got into a heated debate about a collective bargaining agreement issue. Player A is an elite star who took a "hometown discount" to stay with his current team. Player B - very good, but not on the same level - was heading into free agency.

Every summer, the union has the right to bump the salary cap by five per cent via something called the escalator clause. It seems like a no-brainer, except there's a catch: it increases the amount players lose in escrow. So, Player A was arguing against it. For him, the discount cost even more. In addition to the money he left on the table, he was losing a larger chunk of what he signed for.

Player B argued the opposite. He was approaching his best chance to sign a huge free-agent contract. Never again, he felt, would he get this kind of an opportunity to hit the jackpot. He ferociously argued in favour of the escalator, wanting every dollar possible.

In the end, the rest of the team sided with Player B. But, there were angry exchanges and hard feelings.

On the surface, the fight inside the NHLPA is all about Paul Kelly's firing. But, it goes deeper than that. Right now, the union finds itself at a crossroads, in the middle of its most important decisions since the overthrow of Alan Eagleson. It's not only about who will lead - it's also about where to go with the next CBA, how to motivate a disinterested majority and how to rebuild an organization rife with distrust.

"I don't know how it got this bad," one player, active within the union, said this week. "We have a lot of work to do."


Where did it start? During the 2004-05 NHL lockout. The union usually did a great job of keeping its membership informed, but there were several major failures this time. The day before the PA made its proposal for a 24 per cent rollback on all salaries, one player called the office to find out what the new offer would include. The decision was made not to tell him, or others, for maximum effect.

You can imagine the reaction.

Days before the lockout ended, Scott Walker went on TSN's Off the Record. Asked about a cap, he said players would never accept it. Less than 72 hours later, a salary cap was in place. Same with Bryan McCabe. The FAN 590 Radio station in Toronto ran clips of him saying, "We will never accept a cap" the day the deal was announced.

It didn't go unnoticed. A lot of trust was lost. As one player said, "How about a warning?"


As the NHL returned to action, the NHLPA imploded. Bob Goodenow, who ruled with an iron fist, was forced out. Ted Saskin, given the throne in controversial fashion, tried to dictate in a similar manner, but never had similar respect.

Veterans were at each other's throats. It took years for Chris Chelios and Trevor Linden to make peace over Saskin's ascension. Last month, when Brendan Shanahan's name was mentioned as a possibility to run the union, one player said, "No way. Not after what he did during the lockout."

(For the record, Shanahan openly questioned whether Goodenow's hard-line stance was the right thing. Some players saw that as disloyalty. Others said it was fair comment.)

Long-time union stalwarts like Daniel Alfredsson vowed never to be active again. It was too much aggravation.


The lockout had another unintentional consequence on the NHLPA: it changed the makeup of the membership. The new emphasis on speed and skill, rather than obstruction, made the league younger. Some older players never returned. Others didn't last. The turnover ended careers of people who'd been through three labour stoppages. The newer players didn't have that history.

Union members were divided into two groups: those who were still militant, and those who didn't care. The second group outnumbered the first one. That led to the general apathy, but it also meant that a smaller group of players had larger control over decision-making.

Those who support Paul Kelly claim that's what happened over the past year. As concerns about escrow grew - at one point last season, players were losing a quarter of their paycheques - there was grumbling that Kelly wasn't hard-line enough to correct that in the next CBA. Make no mistake: the key issue in Kelly's ejection was the escrow tax, ironic since he wasn't even working for the NHLPA when it was enacted.

Even if there were legitimate criticisms about Kelly's work, so many conflicts-of-interest existed within the NHLPA that it's difficult to determine their real truth. At least one advisory board member, Ron Pink, interviewed for Kelly's job and badly wanted it, no matter his denials. Another advisory board member, Dan O'Neill, did consulting work for the Tampa Bay Lightning. The ombudsman, first Eric Lindros, then Buzz Hargrove, openly discussed their dislike of Kelly, which kind of defeats the purpose of being an ombudsman. Kelly's supporters accused these people of overstepping their roles, sticking their noses where they didn't constitutionally belong.

On top of all that, Ian Penny and Kelly couldn't stand one another.

Kelly didn't see it coming until too late. There were a number of things used against him: a negative workplace health survey; the fact he spoke out against staged fighting without consulting his membership; and his decision to read confidential minutes of a players' meeting. (That was a huge mistake on his part. Many players were still angry at Saskin for reading their emails.)

But what really doomed him was a perception among hardliners that he wouldn't be tough enough to fight the escrow. According to sources, one person who definitely held that opinion was advisory board member George Cohen.

Cohen, nominated by U.S. President Obama as director of the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, questioned Kelly's ability to bargain a solution. Cohen's reputation appears beyond reproach, which is why it carried a ton of clout. But the execution was butchered - the now-infamous late-night vote to fire Kelly.

"Honestly," said one retired player, "Have you ever made a good decision at 3 a.m.?"

The hardcore anti-Kelly group used the general apathy to get their way. (As the Bruins were arguing Andrew Ference's role in all of this, one player said, "Maybe we should support the guy who did all this work while the rest of us were golfing this summer." Most others thought Ference took advantage.)

However, there were two things they didn't count on. First was Glenn Healy's resignation. (Full disclosure, in case anyone reading this doesn't know: We work together. But it should also be known he thinks I'm too easy on Kelly's enemies.)

When Sean Avery ended a between-periods interview with Healy by saying, "We need you back," (or something like that), it might have been the only time anyone in the league agreed with him. Healy was - and still is - a popular figure among players. It's no surprise that his resignation became a rallying point.

The second thing they didn't count on was the agents.


Maybe the players don't care about the NHLPA, but the agents sure do. They are generally distrusting of one another to begin with, constantly worrying (and with good reason) about poaching of clients. But, five years after the lockout, there are still hard feelings about who sided with whom. A number of high-powered agents felt Goodenow was taking them off a cliff.

It was their feeling that ownership had changed. There were guys with more money, who didn't have hockey in their blood. They were willing to sacrifice a season to get rid of Goodenow and get cost-certainty. The big agents felt he didn't recognize that and didn't understand it wasn't the same as 1994.

Goodenow himself couldn't stand them, which is interesting, because he used to be one. He believed that the NHLPA should have more of a role in negotiating contracts - if not take over the responsibility entirely - and would put pressure on them to constantly raise the salary bar. One of his close lieutenants was Penny.

Penny played an enormous role in Saskin's dismissal, going to police with evidence that Saskin illegally read player emails. In that battle, he and Chelios were on the same side. Privately, some players accuse Chelios of being biased in this case, because Kelly was his guy. (Chelios vehemently denies the accusation.)

Many of the agents who fought Goodenow wanted no part of Penny's return to power. It was believed Penny was going to bring back Ian Pulver, another Goodenow-era ally. Pulver - who had been very successful in arbitration cases - left the NHLPA when Saskin took over to become an agent on his own. He now represents Scott Gomez, Mike Cammalleri and top Russian prospect Kirill Kabanov, among others. (Pulver denies he was going to return.)

There were some - mostly from smaller agencies - who backed Penny and didn't have an issue with Pulver. But, the bigger agencies weren't thrilled about the idea and rallied their players. When Sidney Crosby stepped up and asked Penny to remove himself from the players' conference call on Oct. 18, Penny was finished.

(The McMurtry report sure didn't help him, either. If Penny was supposed to be valuable for his long-term "institutional knowledge" of the NHLPA, his detractors said, how come he didn't realize McMurtry was buddies with Alan Eagleson?)

That leads us to where we are. The question is: Where is the NHLPA going?

"Nobody can win," one agent said about the current fight. "The association has to move on, and you can't do that without impartial people picking up the pieces and rebuilding. Right now, every move one side makes gets criticized by the other."

"We have to move forward," said one player. "No one trusts anyone else. We're always looking to blame someone."

Certainly, there must be an investigation into what went wrong. Some heads must roll. But, at the same time, you have to begin repairing your rifts. The CBA extends through next year, although the players have the option to extend until after the 2011-12 season. (It is expected that they will.)

Five years before the 2004 lockout, Goodenow was preparing for it. He had a plan, informed the players what it was, and took steps to put it together. By that measure, the players are already two years behind.

For example, it's believed they will ask for an NBA-style limit on the escrow. Right now, basketball players can only lose nine per cent of their salaries and benefits. That's a max. Last season, their NHL brethren lost 12.9 per cent. How, exactly, are they going to prepare this proposal - and others - with all of this upheaval? They can't stand this CBA, but are well aware another lockout is suicide, especially since they already caved to a cap.

So, what are the solutions?


This is a clear victory for Chris Chelios. He's won. All of the people he wanted to get rid of are either gone, or going. He's got an empty canvas to paint with.

What he should do is pass the brush.

This organization hasn't had peace since it capitulated to the NHL in 2005. Saskin came - and left - under a cloud of suspicion. Kelly came in quietly, but left angrily. There was collateral damage on both sides, and it's time for a reset. If the NHLPA is ever going to right itself, the people involved in fights must step back.

There is a role for Chelios in the future, when, at age 850, he decides to quit. Right now, he's a lightning rod. Already there are accusations of intimidation and bias. Even if they're not true, he's too closely aligned with one side. All of the people he wanted to get rid of - Penny, Pink, O'Neill - they're gone. Buzz Hargrove is more radioactive than enriched plutonium. No one's going to listen to him. These individuals were permanently tainted by the Chicago coup.

Chelios never rested in his attempts to get rid of Saskin. Surely, there are people now who will never rest fighting him. He should recuse himself; let Nicklas Lidstrom, Rob Blake and Mark Recchi handle this.

Other recommendations:


Where are the young players? Crosby made his voice heard, but what about others? The current CBA ends after next season, although the PA has the right to extend one more year. (That's expected to happen.) Chelios, Lidstrom, Blake and Recchi will probably be retired by then. Those between 25 and 30 years old need to step up and show leadership. Young stars (Joe Thornton) and future stars (Drew Doughty) will be asked to take more active roles. This battle is being fought for them. If they don't, they deserve what they'll get.


"You wouldn't believe how much money we're paying to people who aren't working for us," one player said.

Another player - and I stress this is someone who was not a Kelly fan - made a great analogy: "When a team hires a new GM, they let him being in his people and leaves behind the people he needs. Why can't we do the same?"

Right now, the constitution is crippling. The executive director reports to the 30 player reps. There is also an ombudsman, an advisory board and one retired player liaison for each of the six NHL divisions. I understand checks and balances, not wanting anyone to get too drunk with power, but this is too much.

Bill Gregson was runner-up to Kelly in the most recent search for executive director. Even though they were competitors for the top position, Kelly was so impressed with Gregson that he tried to hire him, anyway. (He accepted a job as CEO of The Brick and isn't interested now.)

"The players have to decide what they want," Gregson said last week. "You can't run it constantly answering to 30 people all over North America...That's a tough spot for anyone to go into. What you have to do is make sure you find the right structure, with the right person."

"Then - this is the key thing - you have to let them go run it."

"We have to spell out – clearly – what an executive director can do by himself and what he needs approval for," another player said. "That will eliminate a lot of the confusion."


Under Bob Goodenow, the NHLPA fought everything the NHL tried. It worked for a long time. He made the players a lot of money. Under Saskin and Kelly, the PA was a friendlier organization, more publicly comfortable with Gary Bettman. The right approach is somewhere in the middle - polite, but firm.

The Goodenow approach is outdated with the salary cap in place. That's never going away. But, the NHL will step up and try to hit another home run, which is its job. Maybe it's guaranteed contracts. Maybe it's longer entry-level deals. Maybe it's more buyout periods and a less-onerous formula. Maybe it's changing unrestricted free agency from 27-year-olds with four seasons of experience OR anyone with seven years (as under the current deal) to players aged 27 AND with seven seasons. That one-word change is a big deal.

If the players want to cap escrow, they'll have to decide what to give up in exchange. They'd better find someone smart to make that decision.

There are so many possible structures. Maybe a hockey guy surrounded by lawyers. Maybe a labour lawyer surrounded by businessmen (that was the Goodenow model). Maybe a businessman surrounded by lawyers or hockey people.

Whatever they choose, this is it. They've swung and missed twice, with an NHL presence looming as large as Mariano Rivera's. This is the NHLPA's last chance to get it right.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Okay seriously, what's going on.

Halifax Mooseheads won two games. In a row. Head over here for a game recap.

The team was decked out in snazzy sweaters for their Canadian Forces appreciation night. I've received rather untactful hints from man of the house that he wants one. We'll see.


There have been lots of encouraging things for the Mooseheads in the two wins. And, for that matter the heartbreaking 3-2 loss in Saint John Wednesday, where the Mooseheads were tied 2-2 with just 2 minutes left only to have the Sea Dogs score.

The team's secondary scoring has seemed to have shown up, and Mathieu Corbeil is playing more than okay.

Even stranger, the Toronto Maple Leafs played Friday and Saturday night as well, and THEY strung two wins together. Previous to that the Leafs also only had one win. Last night during a commercial break I mentioned to John the Leafs were winning 3-0. I then joked that the destinies of the two teams are linked. "oh dear," he said.

Yes, oh dear, is right. If the Hockey Gods have indeed linked the destinies of the Mooseheads and Leafs, I'm not sure who I feel worse for, the Mooseheads or the Leafs.

Go Leafs? (The Moose are doomed.)

Next up, the Moose host the Shawinigan Cataractes, who lost 7-0 last night. Not sure if that bodes well for the Moose or if Shawinigan will be super-mad that they lost 7-0. I'm hoping their souls have been crushed. Regardless, if Mathieu Corbeil (pictured below) can keep playing like he did in the last three games, the Mooseheads have a chance. Which is more than they had for most of the season.

Quick note, this is a screen shot from, great website with lots of video from behind the scenes of our show. Not pictured is myself who toils away back at the studio, usually running around like a nut searching for stats, scores and audio clips.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Mooseheads win, can't compute.

Mooseheads get hard-earned second win

November 06, 2009 - 8:45 pm
By: Jennifer Casey

If the Halifax Mooseheads could play the Val-d'Or Foreurs every night, they'd probably have a better record than 2-18-0-1.

The Mooseheads one and only win this season came against the Foreur (7-13-2-0) in September.

However, after taking the Saint John Sea Dogs, the league's top team, to task Wednesday night. The Mooseheads came out flying Friday, and didn't turn back, winning the game 6-1.

"It's great to be in the room after a "W", the guys are excited," says goaltending coach Brad McCharles.

Although it was scoreless for most of the period, the Mooseheads were dominating the play. And with a few minutes left in the frame, Sawyer Hannay scored on a breakaway following a heads up pass from Carl Gelinas as Hannay was stepping out of the penalty box.

A night of firsts for many players on the team, Sawyer Hannay, Matthew Stoddard, and Pascal Amyot all got their first goals of their season.

And goaltender Mathieu Corbeil held a goaltending clinic, turning away 31 shots on the night, including a few breakaways and several close calls.

McCharles says Corbeil's timing was on and he was seeing the puck well. However, he also said the team has to remember they play again Saturday night.

"There's still some talk that we have another game tomorrow night," says McCharles.

The Mooseheads face the PEI Rocket, pregame show kicks off at 6:48 p.m. live on

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Liambus hit

If you haven't seen the hit, check it out.

Did Ben Fanelli turn into the boards? yah a little. Was he being screened by his goaltender and didn't see the hit coming? absolutely. Did Michael Liambas go in there with the intent to sent Fanelli to the hospital? I doubt it.

But I agree with the OHL's decision to suspend Liambas for the entire season and the playoffs. In my mind Liambas becomes an unfortunate example of the message all hockey leagues should be sending. Guys are not looking out for one another out there. Now, this doesn't mean guys should be prancing down the ice holding hands. But recent hits in junior hockey and the NHL have shown a disturbing amount of hits where guys are going in to injure. And I doubt the coaches will step in to halt this trend without the incentive of a lengthy suspension.

Sure, that Mike Richards hit was "legal" however, he probably should have let up a little. You can mentally and physically bruise a guy without sending him to hospital.

This is controversial, since guys are supposed to give it their all. Keep your head up, etc etc. But what does giving it your all do if you kill a guy.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

What is with all the injuries?

Seriously the guys have been dropping faster than a classroom full snotty-nosed kids with H1N1.

What is going on this season?

And it's not just a bunch of fourth-line guys taking a few nights off after breaking their first on someone's face.

This is top line guys. And a lot of them are on IR, and "out indefinitely".

Evgeni Malkin, Marc Savard, Milan Lucic, Jonathan Toews, Jason Spezza, Sergei Gonchar, Alex Ovechkin, Daniel Briere, Simon Gagne, Eric Staal, Andrei Markov, Daniel Sedin, Roberto Luongo, Marion Hossa....

Just take a look at the injury report. You have to scroll down forever. It's ridiculous. The only team that hasn't been touched by injuries are the Calgary Flames. Then there's teams like, the Vancouver Canucks or Colorado Avalanche who have SEVEN guys out.

Not including the healthy Calgary Flames, the other 29 teams have an average of 3.5 guys sitting out.

How are these guys getting injured? Has something changed in the way guys are playing? Did they not do enough in off-season? Is this just fluke? Was it this bad last year and I'm just high on Clif bars and energy drinks? Are the injury gods punishing the NHL for being dummies about the Phoenix Coyotes and the 2014 Olympics?

Someone sacrifice Sean Avery to the Hockey Gods so we can get an answer.

Points for nothing.

One of the things that has really been grinding my gears lately is the points for an overtime loss. blah.

The point for an overtime loss was originally put in after they made overtime 4-on-4. It was to appease the teams who said, 'well now it's easier to score'. (I mean, no shat eh? that was the point right?)

But when they introduced the shootout after the lockout, why didn't they remove that overtime point? In all seriousness, it's overtime, it's fair hockey. If your team lets a goal in, in overtime of game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final.... you don't get a point. You lose and you go cry in your beer somewhere. Why is the NHL awarding a point to team who wasn't good enough?

I think the point for an overtime loss is cheap. Get rid of it.

Now on the other hand. I do agree with a point being awarded for a shootout loss.

The shootout, as fun as it is to watch, is still a tough one to take. I still have horrible horrible nightmares about the Nagano Olympics... I'm sure the American junior team has horrible horrible dreams about Leksand, Sweden.

Shootouts are the result of the goaltenders, and usually 6 players. It's not a team thing. So a point for a loss in a shootout, yah give it to them. Because I think the shootout is more for the fans.