All Things Hockey, March 11th, 2010

It has been way too long since we took a look around the NHL, so I am breaking out the latest edition of All Things Hockey to get caught up. There is a ton to talk about, and I am busy as hell with finals and final papers, so let’s get right into it.

A Bizarre Deadline

I usually take a particular interest in the NHL trade deadline. I wrote columns about it each of the last two years, spanning the entirety of this website. Last year, I wrote a bit of a preview, proposing trades that I thought would help each side. The year before, I ran through the entirety of the deals, giving grades. The drama of teams trying to make themselves better, either for the future or for the stretch run, combined with the endless interest of players changing sides, giving opportunity to judge who won and lost is more than enough to hold my attention. This year, though, the trade deadline was so unusual that it was hard to find too much to say.

First of all, the Olympic break severely screwed up the timing of the deadline. Really there were two deadlines, neither of which served as a full deadline. The first was a roster freeze that took place at the beginning of the Olympic Tournamnet. Just before this freeze, the Devils made what was by far the biggest splash in landing Ilya Kovalchuk from Atlanta. He was by far the biggest prize that would be moved, and was the hilite of the pre-Olympic rush that also saw Dion Phaneuf to the Leafs and Matt Cullen to the Senators.

It turned out that this first deadline would be the one worth discussing. Many, including myself, had expected an explosion of activity in the two days between the resumption of the NHL schedule and the trade deadline. I figured that the two weeks of a freeze would lead to negotiations (which could continue during the break), and deals would be submitted as soon as it was lifted. I was right, but not really. The volume of the deadline was pretty significant. Over 50 players changed teams, but really, there weren’t any headliners. Some of the biggest headlines actually were who stayed put.

When the two day window was closed, the Ducks had played backup goaltender roulette, the Leafs had dumped half the NHLers on their roster, and more mediocre players were changing cities than when the Hurricanes have to play a road game. The lasting image of the day was analysts on the hockey networks reaching in vain for something to say about a Chris Newbery for Jordan Owens or Yan Statsny for Pierre-Cedric Labrie. I don’t want to exacerbate that, so rather than breaking down individual deals, the biggest of which was between Phoenix and Colorado (this should say pelenty about the level of excitement around this), let’s just combine the two deadlines and declare some winners and losers.

5 Trade Deadline Winners

1. Washington Capitals- The Caps, already at the top of the standings in the East, they added Joe Corvo, Eric Belanger, Scott Walker and Milan Jurcina, all of whom are solid depth pieces, without really giving anyone up. Bonus points for adding WJC hero John Carlson to the lineup from the AHL, something that they would have done earlier if not for the restrictions for playing in the AHL over the break. In a market where there was no top end talent to be added, they did great to add depth, better than any other team.

2. Phoenix Coyotes- Peter Mueller is a talented young player, but he was struggling mightily to reach his potential in Phoenix. A change of scenery will do him well, but to get Wojtek Wolski is a great return for someone who has thus far failed to produce. The Coyotes are one of the big winners, though, because in addition to Wolski, they added 3 players for the stretch, Lee Stempniak, Mathieu Schneider, and Derek Morris, giving up only Sean Zimmerman and Matt Jones.

3. Ottawa Senators- Probably the most surprising of the buyers, as well as one of the most aggressive in this market. Matt Cullen moves at the deadline once again (well, a bit before it, anyways), and is a very underrated player. They picked up another underrated piece in Andy Sutton, although the second rounder they gave up was steep.

4. New Jersey Devils- Unquestionably, New Jersey got the biggest prize of the deadline in Ilya Kovalchuk, but there is a pretty good reason they aren’t higher up in the winner rankings. They gave up a lot in the first rounder, Patrice Cormier, Niclas Bergfors and Johnny Oduya. Sure, these guys together don’t come close to Ilya Kovalchuk, but they gave up four NHL players that they could have had long term. Assuming they don’t botch the pick, that is two or three top two line players, and one or two top 3 defensemen. Again, not enough to offset Kovalchuk, but they don’t get Kovalchuk long term. Kovalchuk turned down a massive contract in Atlanta, which tells me that he wants to test the fre agency waters. If he had any intention of re-signing before he was on the open market, he would have done so when Waddell opened his checkbook. New Jersey will have a chance to retain Kovy, but they will have to go up against everyone else to get him. Still, they got one of the best players in the league, and one that gives them a chance to win it all now, which makes them a winner now, even if it hurts them long term.

5. Atlanta Thrashers- Kovalchuk was gone. They did well to get a lot in exchange. I for one would love to see them grab him once again in the summer rush, then play him with Arshtyukin, a nice pickup, and Bergfors, just to piss off the Devils.

Deadline Losers-

1. Toronto Maple Leafs- Before you all jump off of that thing that looks like the space needle, and the sky dome, let me stress this first. Brian Burke did exactly what he needed to do. He needed to re-buld. The Leafs got a couple of prospects, including Caputi who has already seen time in the NHL. He loaded on draft picks. He got a goaltender that can work with François Alaire. He even got a potential franchise defenseman. He also gave up literally half of their NHL talent for the rest of the season, leaving an embarrassing product on the ice. It was what they had to do, but it still makes them big losers right now.

2. Carolina Hurricanes- They dumped, but they didn’t get that much back for their rentals, and they held on to some assets that they could have moved, most notably Ray Whitney, because of exorbitant asking prices, in exchange for…what, exactly?

3. Buffalo Sabers- They look like a contender, yet they dropped McArthur, a solid player, and picked up Torres, a player along the lines of Scott Nichol and Matt Cooke. That is to say, he is something that rhymes with swoosh.

4. Philadelphia Flyers- They could contend this year, but they have goaltending issues and could use a bit of help on the blueline and up front. They could have done with improvements in all three areas, but they did nothing of consequence.

5. Atlanta Thrashers- Yes, they were winners as well, and yes, they did everything that they could, but come on, they gave up Kovalchuk.

Hope Springs Eternal

Ready for the annual March “there are a ton of teams that have a chance” paragraphs? It seems like every year, we spend time talking about how jumbled the bottom of the standings are, how teams win 3 in a row to go from 14th to 5th, and how a bunch of teams have a chance. With points for regulation ties, a salary cap, division disparity and a host of other factors, it is pretty much inevitable. This year, though, as with many others, it warrants mentioning.

This year, the jumble is to the tune of just 7 points between 6th and 11th in the East. Out west, 8 points take you from the 7th seeded Nashville Predators, all the way down to the 13th seeded Wild.

It is the West, then, that deserves most of the attention. Sure, it is jumbled, but with about 15 games to go per team, there are really only two team in the conference that you could say with confidence will definitely miss the playoffs. That is even more congested than usual, and it means that there are currently five teams on the outside looking in, that could make a run at the post-season. On top of that, the top 6 seem pretty set, with the Aves sitting on a 7 point cushion between them and the going home early 9 spot.

It isn’t the pure numbers, though, that are really impressive about the playoff race. Look at the teams in this mess, and it is hard to believe that 16 of 30 teams make it, and these teams are struggling to include themselves in that. Detroit sits in 8th by 1 point, just 4 out of 10th, having won the Stanley Cup two years ago, and played for it last year. The Flames have been contenders for a while, but sit outside of the playoffs. Same can be said of the Ducks, who haven’t missed the playoffs since the lockout. I wrote earlier, that there was a lot of turnover amongst who was contending, and I am surprised to see that it is largely still there, with teams like Phoenix, LA and Colorado in the hunt for the 4 and 5 seeds, and the aforementioned been-there’s battling for 8th. Same goes for the east, where Boston, Montreal and New York have well known rosters looking for a playoff spot, and Ottawa, and well, just Ottawa I guess, contends for a division title. This is going to make for a great stretch run, and a crazy first round with so much talent around the 7-10 seeds.

Net Negatives

If we are indeed headed towards one of the most wide open cup races of the past few years, and I believe that we are, there is one reason above all else that can explain the chaos in the NHL, and it isn’t the aforementioned cluster at the bottom of the playoff picture.
Right now, there appear to be three dominant teams. Washington, San Jose and Chicago all have more than 90 points, with 97, 93 and 91, respectively. No other team has more than 84. These teams can certainly be caught, but they are definitively the teams to beat right now. This is hardly uncommon. It is pretty much the norm for a few teams to distinguish themselves from the pack at this point in the season.

There is one thing about these teams, though, that I have never seen before. Teams at the top usually share a characteristic, be it depth, top end scoring, rocklike team defense or superstars carrying them. All of those have taken place before. Right now, though, the unifying theme in the Bay, the Beltway, and the Midway is something that you would expect to see at the opposite end of the standings. All three teams have massive, and I mean MASSIVE goaltending issues heading into the stretch run.

It is most obvious in Chicago. Clearly, the Hawks don’t feel comfortable going to Antti Niemi at this point. If they did, they would have at this point. He looks like he has had a good enough season on paper, with a respectable .909 save %, and a very, very good 2.25 GAA. Clearly, though the Hawks see problems. I haven’t seen enough of Chicago, frankly, to say that he is the kind of guy who only stands to benefit from great defense in front of him, although the Hawks should have it (as long as Brian Campbell isn’t on the ice), but that has to be the case. Really, it is difficult to judge goaltenders on their stats, since wins, GAA and save percentage are all heavily influenced by the defense in front of the goaltender, perhaps more so than by the goaltender himself. The only way to really judge a goaltender is to watch him play, see if he makes the saves he should, and a few that he shouldn’t on a given night. If he does, you have a starter. If he doesn't, you have an issue.

Clearly, Chicago has the later, and aren’t convinced that Niemi is a starter as demonstrated by their hesitance to switch to him full time. Niemi has been given the nod for just 21 starts in their 65 games. The other 46 have gone to Christobal Huet, and that has been a disaster. Huet has been the butt of jokes for most of this season, and has a save percentage under .900. He clearly has not lived up to expectations that any team could reasonably have for a starting NHL goaltender, yet they have been hesitant to go full time to Niemi. For that reason, I think that their goaltending woes go as deep as they seem with Huet despite Niemi’s strong(er) showing.
Moving to San Jose, it seems absurd to suggest that the Sharks have massive issues, as I suggested. At least it did a month ago. Then the Olympics happened. Evgeni Nabokov got positively LIT by Canada. I thought that it wasn’t as much his fault as shaky defense by over matched defensemen and forwards with at best a passing interest in their own zone, but it is undeniable that he got shelled in Vancouver. Still, it seems like Nabokov, with a GAA that is second in the league is at least getting the job done.

Coming back to San Jose, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Then the New Jersey game came, and he looked worse (yes, worse), than against Canada. At that point, I pronounced his career over via a text message to a few of my Sharks fan friends. He let in shots that an NHL goalie has no excuse for not stopping. He looked like a goaltender who had no confidence, one who had always relied on aggressiveness, no less.

I may have overreacted a bit. Nabokov played well in the third period a couple of days later against the Canadiens for a win, and even though he only faced 22 shots against a shaky Columbus team, he let up only once, an effort you can’t be unhappy with. Sure, I would take this situation with Nabby over that in Washington or Chicago, but goaltending is about consistency, and it is going to be interesting to see if Nabokov can find that for the rest of the season.

In Washington, the Capitals have three goaltenders in Semyon Varlamov, Jose Theodore and Michal Neuverth. Unfortunately, the old saying holds, that if you don’t have one, you have none. Varlamov appeared to emerge in the playoffs last year, and while his 2.55 GAA leads the Caps, it is only good for 19th in the NHL, which is hardly top tier. A groin injury in December has weakened his claim to the job, but like Chicago, it is curious that the Caps haven’t moved to Varlamov full time. That is because Neuverth is too young to judge, but also too young to rely upon in a playoff run. Theodore has been much like his former teammate in Montreal (Huet), in that he has had a dismal year, and struggled to grasp a starting spot despite leading the team in games played.

What is the takeaway? It is hard to say. Obviously, it isn’t killing these teams, since they are atop the standings right now, but it is hard to take too much confidence in any of these guys. Ultimately, I think it hurts Washington, who scores the most, but lacks the team D to make up for shaky goaltending. Really, though, the effect is that it means any of these teams can be beat (although it doesn’t mean they will, necessarily), and that opens the door for anyone who can get into the playoffs.

Cooke-ing up Changes

The general managers’ meetings in Boca Raton, Florida that are currently under way are seeing one topic absolutely dominate the headlines. That is the controversy over headshots in the NHL, as brought about primarily by Matt Cooke’s blow to Marc Savard on Sunday afternoon.

The Cooke hit was a dirty play that led to a scary situation with Savard lying utterly motionless on the ice. Cooke escaped the wrath of the Boston players only because everyone watching the game, myself and the NESN announcers included, followed the puck to the net, and didn’t realize what had happened to Savard before the replays.

Since then, Cooke’s character has been dissected and dragged through the mud, although for what it’s worth, he did look absolutely shocked and visibly shaken when Savard was lying on the ice. This by no means exonerates him, but it bears mentioning that he didn’t look like a guy who had been trying to injure another player. The hit itself though should be taken separately. Rather than making a clean, hard check, Cooke went for the big hit. Did he mean to hit Savard in the awkward, dangerous manner that he did? Maybe, maybe not. But what he did do was forgo the easy, safe play in favor of the big hit, and with upsetting consequences.

That, along with heightened awareness in all sports, has made the talk of the annual GM meetings the headshots that have taken place this year against Savard and Florida’s David Booth. I said before that I don’t like compulsory penalties for situations that come about, and this seems to be a main holding point in the negotiations about a new rule. Having said that, it is hard to watch these hits and say that there is a penalty too severe. The problem, to me, though, is not the head shot as much as it is coming from behind the player being hit.

Hitting from behind is the most dangerous play in hockey. We know this when a guy goes headfirst into the boards, since it is an obvious danger to the head and neck. Even in open ice, though, coming from the blind side is a play which, like along the boards, leaves the player at the mercy of the hitter. What the hitter does with that opportunity is up to him. WE have an intent to injure rule in our game that says if you use your body and equipment to take advantage and endanger another player, that is a penalty. Why shouldn’t this be a play where similar judgment is used. Forget about headshots, the wording the GMs are struggling with should be simple.

If you are behind a player, and you don’t use prudence in how you attempt to separate him from the puck, whether he gets hurt like Savard, or not, whether it is in open ice or along the boards, you go to the box. For 5 minutes. Quite simply, that’ll learn ‘em.

(I will now stop doing my Bill Waters impersonation)

Keeping International Alive: Way Overdue WJCs

When I got back to Santa Clara following Christmas break, I was completely enthralled (as you can ascertain from this site) with the World Junior Hockey Championships, as I am at the end of each year. When my editor for The Santa Clara (where I write about stuff as exciting as mid major women’s college tennis or WWPA Water Polo, and women’s college soccer is comparatively mainstream) said that he wasn’t sure what he was going to write for the one sports column carried by the paper that week, and asked if anyone had any ideas/wanted to write the column, I jumped at the chance. I told him that I wanted to write about the best tournament you have never heard of. I explained a bit, and he agreed.

Fast forward a couple of days, I am about half way done with the column, having written about 800 words, when I decide it is a good idea to ask him how much space I have.

His answer?

400 words.

When I was writing for the Kent News, and they told me I had 900, it was almost impossible. I like to spell stuff out, go on tangents and basically write long form. The standard newspaper 800 words has always seemed shot to me. 400? That is like an introduction for me.
Suffice to say, once I had cut what I was going to write by about ¾, it was hardly the column that I wanted to write. It is online at http://www.thesantaclara.com/home/index.cfm?buttonPushed=1&event=displaysearchresults&q=Jackson%20Morgus (under the questionable headline “beyond a miracle on ice”—obviously not mine), but really, I can’t say that it is a must read. Instead, I decided that I would expand it and post it here. Unfortunately, some things came up (all I can say), and so it never got finished. No matter, as I was putting together this ATH, I decided to dust it off, clean it off and wrap it up. Consider this a time capsule, taking you back to a great moment for USA Hockey. If nothing else, read part of it, then watch the highlights on YouTube to get fired up about the red white and blue again after the Olympics.

(By the way, that intro to the column: 364 words. I wasn’t kidding when I said that you can’t do a damn thing with 400. It is almost pointless. In fact I’ll get 400…now. Count it if you want. Now was #400. It is absolutely nothing.)

It is pertinent to absolutely nothing, but here are my 3 month old World Junior thoughts:

If you live anywhere near Walsh Residence Hall, and heard excited yelling around 7:45 Tuesday night, I can explain myself. Already, what is perhaps my favorite sporting event of the year has passed, and it couldn’t have gone any better. The problem is, aside from a few of my annoyed neighbors, hardly anyone noticed.

As with all years, the first week of 2010 has been action packed, so to speak, on the sports calendar. There were the New Year’s day bowl games that are a time honored tradition, but that’s not what got me fired up. Monday, like the 1,523,815 other residents and Idaho, I was ecstatic for my Boise State Broncos capping of the second 14-0 season in college football history, and while there may have been some yelling involved, that isn’t what I’m talking about either. Finally, the Winter Classic, played at Fenway Park on New Year’s Day, may have been appointment television, but while it is closer (the right sport at any rate), it still isn’t the highlight of the young 2010 sports calendar for me.

Rather, the highlight was a tournament played in the sports Mecca of Saskatchewan, Canada that, unless you follow hockey avidly, you probably didn’t even know about. It was the World Junior Hockey Championships, and my, was it a dandy.

For those of you (most of you) who aren’t familiar with the tournament, let me explain. Every year, starting on Boxing Day, the best under 20 players for their respective nations play a tournament, in order to decide which is the best country on earth (for people with skewed priorities such as mine, anyways). This year, as is to be expected in the world of hockey, Canada came in as a heavy favorite. Canada was stacked. Not, ‘every player is pretty good’ stacked, more like ‘every player has a chance to be a star in the NHL’ stacked. In fact, 15 of the 22 players on the Canada roster have been taken in the first two rounds of the NHL draft, and two of the seven that haven’t will be first round picks in 2010, their first year of draft eligibility. Another, Stephan “I might be the anti-christ” Della Rovere may in fact be the sole of the squad (if you are wondering about the anti-christ line, check out his antics in the USA-Canada game last year, you will understand).

The US had a nice squad, packed with future NHL talent, but one not that stood up to the loaded Canadians. On top of that, Canada had home ice advantage, playing in front of 17000 insane Canucks in Saskatchewan, and where ohbytheway five time defending champs of the World Junior tournament.

The first showdown between the rival nations (ok…the US and Canada aren’t really rivals in anything else, but trust me, they are in hockey) took place on New Year’s Eve. The red, white and blue looked primed to knock off their maple leaf loving neighbors to the north, holding a 4-2 lead in the third period, before the Canadian team battled back to tie it, with goals by two guys who you don’t know now but will in a few years, Jordan Eberle and Alex Pietrangelo. A shootout ensued, with the USA losing not only the game, after Canada went 3-3, but apparently their goalie Jack Campbell’s confidence.

(A couple of notes on the shootout:
1- The USA actually had every right to win that, the first goal by Taylor Hall actually hit the post, before caroming off of Campbell and back into the net.
2- Nazim Kadri did what can, at this point, only be described as the ‘London Knights move,’ which I wrote about before. Are they required to do it? Would he have been ostracized back in London had he just shot top glove? Is Tavares allowed to use it or did he not play there long enough? He didn’t even play with Sam Gagner and Patrick Kane, the ones who have done it in the NHL. I’m confused.
3- When I say losing Campbell’s confidence, I mean DESTROYING it. He was done. You could see it on his face.)

The US was therefore forced to play their way into the semi’s, which they did with a win over Finland, before knocking off a tough Sweden team and earning a rematch in the finals with Canada, who eased through the Swiss (like a typical Swiss team or cheese, they were full of holes) after getting a bye for winning their pool after the first USA Canada game. Along the way, though, Campbell’s confidence did prove to be shot, and it was his USNTDP teammate Mike Lee who carried the US to the finals. The rematch was on, and while the first game, which was heralded as an instant classic, was ultimately just for a first round bye, this one was for the whole thing. It would be just as good, maybe better.

Both teams came out flying Tuesday night. Unfortunately, the goalies didn’t. Lee and Canada netminder Jake Allan each gave up two goals in the first, and another in the second, making it 2-2 heading into the third. After the third goal, Lee was pulled, and it was once again Jack Campbell between the pipes for the Americans.

The Americans tallied twice early to start the third. All that they had to do was hold on, in order to break the streak and take the gold.

Canada’s immense talent made this difficult. Campbell, eager to redeem himself, was up to the task for the first 15 minutes of the period, making save after save to keep it a 2 goal game. Unfortunately, with just three minutes remaining, Oiler Draft Pick Jordan Eberle (a name hockey fans will recognize in a couple of years, if they don’t already), the eventual tournament MVP, one timed an Alex Pietrangelo pass past Campbell. One thought crossed my mind, along, I am sure, with the mind of every other USA Hockey fan who was around on New Years Eve, both 2008 and 2009: Here we go again.

Sometimes, you can just feel it. Maybe it was because it had happened twice in the past year (approximately), but Canada was buzzing after that goal. If you had given me even odds on who was going to win the game at that point, I would have taken Canada. I would have hated to do it, but no one who had watched the last two USA Canada games could have disagreed.

Unfortunately, I was right to worry. A minute later Eberle scored his second goal, his fourth in two games against the Americans. I barely remember how he scored it. All I remember is a lot of Canadians going crazy, a goal horn and a feeling of fulfilled inevitability. It was déjà vu, another two goal third period lead up in smoke. I was crushed. Defeated.

The US Team wasn't, though. They hung on, sent it to overtime and after a Jack Campbell save, with the teams tied at 4-4, John Carlson took the puck into the Canada zone 2-1. After a head fake to Derek Stepan, who was charging to the net, Carlson fired it short side, finding twine and giving the USA the opportunity to head back to the locker room and chant about having kicked Canada’s effing ass.

To win was great. To beat a Canada team that everyone who knew about Junior Hockey would have picked was great. To do it in OT was great. The greatest part, though, was that they had done it just when they seemed out of it. To take that game back when Canada had all of the momentum, after it seemed like we had just lost it, was just…great.

So this tournament was great, but I knew it was appointment viewing, one of my favorite events of the year, long before I knew that the United States would pull it out in dramatic fashion. What is it, then, about the World Juniors that is so appealing? There is a lot, but two things stick out.

First of all, this is the only tournament in any of the major American sports that features the best available players, representing their country, in the most important event of their season. The level of talent in the Olympic hockey tournament is staggering. The “Dream Team” in the basketball tournament is great. The problem is, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, despite what some have insinuated, would trade their gold medals in Beijing for NBA championships in an instant. Conversely, none of the players for Canada would have accepted silver had they been given CHL Memorial Cup championships instead, like the USA players wouldn’t trade their Gold’s for NCAA Frozen Four titles (or, if we’re honest, Memorial Cups).

There really is only one tournament that can say this, apart from World Juniors. The soccer World Cup is likely the defining moment of the player’s seasons, but it is neither annual, nor a major sport in America. While it is growing in popularity, soccer still just isn’t up there in terms of interest for Americans.

Add the passion of having a season defined by a tournament, like the playoffs for professionals, with the eyes of the entire NHL on these young players looking to break into the league, and the inherent rush anyone would get playing with for their country, and the result is a brand of hockey the intensity and passion of which is nearly unmatched, even in the NHL playoffs.

There is another thing that is great about the World Juniors, though. Like no other event in the world, the World Juniors give hockey fans a glimpse into the future of a league. Canada’s team was made up almost exclusively first and second rounders. Most guys on the Swedish Russian and continental teams will play in the NHL. Most of the USA team projects to be top 6 forwards. The talent level is insane. You could watch the CHL and college hockey for months, but you wouldn’t match the level of insight gained when you see when the best come together, not for nothing, to face the best.

There is a telling commercial that played during the games. It was of NHL stars, including Ovechkin, Nash, Crosby and Getzlaf, among others, raising their arms after goals. The punch line: “Raise your hand if you got your start in the World Juniors.” Truth in advertizing.

So the USA doesn’t seem care. I did, but we don’t yet. I guess I shouldn’t let that bother me that much, I can still watch the games on NHL Network and online. Believe me though, if you didn’t get angry at Stefan Della-Roverre, be impressed by Jordan Eberle, and go crazy after John Carlson’s goal, you are cheating yourself.

What I Love About…

Sidney Crosby, taken from the last Olympic column. If you read it last week, skip it, but I didn’t have the chance to find anything new for this column, so I’ll just re-run this.

There seem to be two factions here in America, now that Canada has gone back to their igloos, village fishermen and polar bears with a gold medal in the only sport they care about. The first is a sort of ‘good-for-you’ feeling, shared by a lot of sports fans who aren’t so much hockey fans on a day to day basis. The feeling that Canada, which most Americans have always liked, deserved to win on their home soil is certainly shared by many. On the other hand, there is a large dose of Sidney Crosby haterade. Not only do I not buy into this, I actually find it a bit upsetting.
If you happen to be a fan of the New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, you get a pass on this (I would include the New York Islanders, but as far as I can tell, they haven’t had a single fan since 1994). For these guys, it is a divisional rivalry thing. Personally, I chose to respect, fear and root against special players who are in the same division as the Sharks, but if you want to go all the way to genuine hate (sports hate, at any rate), that is fine with me.

Everyone else, though, you sound ridiculous.

Sidney Crosby only does one thing. That one thing, is do everything right. All the kid wants to do is be the best player that he can be, and win hockey games. Take a look at his career.
As a rookie, the cros was a twice in a generation playmaker (add Iginla to his number and you get the other guy), but not what you would call a pure scorer. This worked alright, especially when Gino Malkin joined him in Pittsburgh, but you could tell that Crosby was never completely satisfied with his role as a setup guy. Still, he killed himself to help his team win games. It is laughable that Ovechkin is sometimes sited by dumb hockey fans as better because “he plays a physical game.” I am the farthest thing from an Ovie hater, but Crosby spends more time in the corner, battling for pucks in a given month than Ovechkin has in his career. Crosby got plenty of help from guys like Malkin and Jordan Stall, but did every single little thing (on both ends of the ice), in leading the Penguins to the cup last year.

Crosby came into the game as an elite talent, but he had found new ways to get better, and to help his team get to championship level. Once they got there, there was only one thing that changed in his desire to get better. This year, he turned it up a notch. He decided that to take the Penguins back to the finals, he would have to be a scoring threat, because, as he said, teams could shut him down as a playmaker (untrue, but don’t tell 87 if you are a Pens fan). He did just that, shooting more, creating more, and racking up a league leading 42 goals.

Less noticeable, but more importantly, Crosby has turned two of what were considered his weaknesses into downright, indisputable strengths. Not just passable skills, but on both counts, league leading statistics. When attempting to find something wrong with the kid as a young player, nitpickers often pointed to faceoffs as something that Crosby could improve upon. All he did was work, and in 2009, he is 11th in the league in faceoff percentage. Same goes for shootouts. Crosby started out his career 1 for 9 in the tiebreaker, but now he has found a move (fake that almost is just a stickhandle to the backhand, back to the forehand to open up the goalie and a quick shot 5 hole), that works for him, and he is second in the NHL with shootout goals, with 6 in 8 attempts this season.

There are two takeaways from this. One is that goons the league over better hope that Crosby is never told that his weakness is that he doesn’t fight enough/isn’t a good enough fighter, because you better believe that if that were the case, he would lock himself in an MMA gym for the summer and come back to break every orbital bone in the league. More importantly, Crosby is, quite simply, the complete package. A supposedly good guy to boot, Sid does everything that you could want on the ice, and if he doesn’t, you can bet he will next year.

Homer Note of the Week--My Take on the San Jose Sharks

I have already rambled on for way too long, given the 15 pages I have to write for Economics and the Poetry (yeah, poetry…) portfolio that I should be getting done right now, so I am going to keep it short and sweet.

I want to remind every Sharks fan that didn’t like what I said about Nichol in the last column that:

a. You probably didn’t like Ehrhoff, and I was right about that one. and

b. This Exists


That’s all.

Save of the Weeks/ Year

I don’t care if he had no idea what he was doing, this stop by Andrew Raycroft is effing incredible. Roberto who?

Goal of the Week

It was a little bit of a difficult week to choose one goal as the goal of the week this time. There were some strong contenders from the likes of Datsyuk, Kopitar and chronic danglitis victim Kris Versteeg. The big winner, though comes to us from our old friend Guillaume Latendresse.

Shorter Hockey Thoughts

- I don’t know if the formidable trio of Luca Caputi, Tyler Bozak and Phil Kessel rolled out as the first line for the Toronto Maple Leafs Tuesday against the Bruins was the worst first line that the NHL has ever seen, but I have to believe that it is about as low as I have seen for a first unit. I actually like these guys, Caputi has some promise, Bozak has been good for the Leafs, and Kessel is an elite goal scorer. The hard truth though, if you hail from Ontario, is that this is a top line consisting of two guys who started this season in the AHL, and would still be there for about 26 franchises isn’t getting it done. Add that to the fact that Kessel is a pure scorer, not necessarily someone who gets the puck onto his own stick particularly well…yikes.

- Just an ugly game in the Boston-Toronto matchup. The Leafs have about 4 NHL forwards, and the Bruins are missing Savard, Raskk, and Chara, and have had massive scoring issues already this year missing the Kessel/Savard combo. Bad times all around.

- I was going to try to rank all 30 teams in terms of young talent, either under 25 or maybe even 23/24. I feel like it would be fun to look at who has talent coming up, and who may need a re-build in a couple of years. I simply don’t have time though. All these papers are cramping my writing style, and a ranking like that is pretty labor intensive. I might try to get it done next week, when I will be going with the classic Kent School exam, lift, write model (maybe four people get that joke…whatever).

- I swear to god, there are less people in the stands every time I see a Thrasher game. More people show up to the PCHA playoffs than the Predators visiting Atlanta. It was depressing how empty that was.

- How come Chris Pronger gets to play by his own rules? The puck gets chipped past him in space, in the neutral zone, and he doesn’t even think about turning around. He just puts two hands into Kyle Okposo so he doesn’t get burned. I get it that it is the only way he can stay in the league, since he is old, slow, and built to play before the rule changes, but GOOD. GET HIM OUT OF HERE!

- Is it just me, or a lot of Olympic goalies struggling since coming back to the NHL? I don’t think that players will have any sort of extra fatigue, but goaltenders, it is possible.

- A perusal of YouTube has PK Subban as a lock to one day join the African-Canadian sports hall of fame, or as it is currently known, ‘Jarome Iginla’s trophy room.’-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Canadians. I hope no one is offended by my pointing out that this is one of the unintentionally funniest pages on Wikipedia. Because it is. I had no idea that Maestro was the first Canadian rapper to have a top 40 hit.

- Andrew Raycroft and Ilya Bryzgalov absolutely disappeared in the shootout Wednesday night. They combined to give up 7 goals a row, something I don’t think I have seen before, before Bryzgalov finally got a hold of one to get the Coyotes a point.

- Good job by the GMs proposing the OT and Regulation wins tie breaker (basically, if two teams are tied, the one with less points from the shootout gets the nod). Without getting into it, it just seems to make sense.
- The Capitals 99 points in mid-March are really impressive, but less so when you look at the rest of the southeast division. Atlanta is second with 66, and they get to play Florida and Carolina all the time. Yikes.

TOP 8 / bottom eight

On the Up

8. Ottowa- Mainly so I can point out that Cheech got sent to the minors…sad.

7. Phoenix- 85 points and an improved roster…didn’t expect them to be on this list. I demand that if they win the cup, Gary Betteman congratulate himself as the owner, only because of how ridiculous it would be.

6. Vancouver- Have more offense with Sedin-Sedin-Samuelson and Kessler-Burrows-Raymond than people think

5. Pittsburgh- Also made themselves better with Leopold and Ponikorovski

4. New Jersey- Scary offensive team, not your typical Devils

3. Chicago- 3 of the best players in Vancouver, Hossa, Kane and Teows were Hawks

2. Washington- Most points, made themselves better…got jumped?

1. San Jose- My goaltending issues aren’t as bad as your goaltending issues.

On The Down

23.Tampa Bay- I don’t like to go 5/3 on conferences, but I do think the East is weaker.

24. Carolina- Trying to make a run, but it isn’t that it is going to be too little too late, just that the hole is way to big.

25. Florida- Despite a hot Vokun

26. Atlanta- Now significantly less fun to watch

27. NY Islanders- Dissapointing campaign for Tavares, but he is only 19.

28. Columbus- Out of it in the West, and going the wrong way.

29. Edmonton- 0 for January. 0 FOR FREAKING JANUARY.

30. Toronto- The standings don’t say so…yet.

Non-NHL Update

We are over 6500 words…come on, the 2000 words on the World Juniors don’t count? Fine. Uh the Frozen Four is coming up in…a bit…

Award Watch

Vezina

Obviously, the Olympics don’t count, but in addition to using that tournament to become a national household name, Ryan Millar is putting up a stunningly good season in Buffalo. Miller leads the league with a .931 save percentage AND a 2.15 GAA. He is slacking in shutouts and wins though, he is 5th and 6th, respectively in those two categories. Loser.

Honorable Mention- Who are we kidding, this is sewn up. Vokun is the only one who can even see Miller, but he won’t get it with his team well out of contention.

Adams (Coach)

Look at the standings, now at the Coyotes roster, back at the standings, now the teams that are behind them, you ask yourself why, but you don’t know. Now look at the stats, find the big scorer for Phoenix, he isn’t there, now you are at the goalies stats Bryzgalov, no. Look back at the standings, wonder how, now look at Dave Tippett. He’s on a horse.

Yes, I just imitated this Old Spice commercial. Sue me.

Honorable mention- Joe Sacco (Col), Cory Clouston (OTT)

Calder (Rookie)

It is Tyler Myers. It just is. Tied for second amongst rookies in points (36), and a shutdown D-man to boot. Unbelievable. He should have been on a national team. I’m glad he wasn’t though. Effing trader.

Honorable Mention- Matt Douschene (COL), James VanRiemsdyk (PHI), John Tavares (NYI)

Norris (Defenseman)

82 Point watch (for explanation, look at Norris in that one): Green 66 points, Capitals 67 games. Still, Green has a good shot, especially because he can be streaky. He is the favorite right now, although there are others lurking, who’s deficit in points will be helped by the fact that they are perceived to be better defensively.

Honorable Mention- Duncan Keith (CHI), Dan Boyle (SJ)

Vezina (MVP)-

I want to say Crosby. He does everything. I would kill to play with him If I was starting a team. He would be the no-brainer first pick. Ovechkin leads the league in +/-, goals and points though. It has to be him. It just has to.

Honorable Mention- Sidney Crosby (PIT), Patrick Marleau (SJ), Henrik Sedin (VAN)

Yet Another Break From Sports; Three Classical Economists

I have never posted anything that I wrote for school on here before. Twice, I have posted things that looked as though they could have been academic assignments, but both were written solely for this blog. I'm a bit hesitant to, but I am going to break that trend. Mainly, I am going to because I think that this last paper, for economics, is worth reading. Econ is my favorite academic subject, but I have never really been sure if I could write about them. I had never really tried to. This is the first thing that I have that may be worth reading, even if you aren't particularly interested in econ. Hopefully, you will find it interesting, if not feel free to skip it, there is more hockey and mindless video clips coming this afternoon.

Three of the greatest economists of their time, Thomas Robert Malthus, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes were tied together most strongly by a single unlikely trait. These men were very different in the way that they went about the science and philosophy of economics. They did not share a single method of analysis, a similar set of circumstances, a similar conclusion, or even a similar question which they sought to answer. In a general sense, all three looked at the quandary of how to satisfy unlimited wants with very limited resources. It is impossible, however, to narrow down a unifying theme to their work beyond that universal question. Rather, the most pertinent unifying theme between the three extraordinary philosopher-scholars was that the schools of thought bearing their name had at best a shaky relationship with their actual work.

Karl Marx has been credited with the quotation that has troubled his followers, and he has had many, for centuries. While Marx was never financially successful, his ideas of class conflict did attract a level of attention during his lifetime. However, he puzzled his contemporaries and the millions who would later take up what they believed to be his cause when he was quoted as saying “I am not a Marxist,” of the working class spirit that had risen in his name.

Likewise, the Malthusian problem is hardly an adequate encapsulation of the work of Thomas Robert Malthus. The British thinker was the most worldly of thinkers, looking at the current state of affairs, and extrapolating what these things could mean for society. Malthus has been pigeonholed in history as having simply looked at the problem of population and production, but really his analysis went deeper into cycles of production and consumption, with considerable attention given to property, wages and rents. While the dismal analysis that included poverty as a check on population, an inexorable cycle to rival or surpass that of Marx and an opposition to poor relief make up the dark Malthusian legacy, they fail to encapsulate the genius of his analysis. Perhaps most notably, like Marx who came to reject the ideology of Marxism, the Malthusian Catastrophe was not actually proposed by Malthus himself, but rather by writers who followed his work.

A disconnect between first hand philosophies and the schools of thought bearing the names of economists endured to the 20^th century, and managed to pester John Maynard Keynes, as it had pestered Thomas Robert Malthus and Karl Marx. In this case, the disconnect reflects that faced by Marx, in that the philosophy bearing his name, Keynesian economics, reflects the philosophies and analyses not of Keynes himself, as Marxism strayed from those of Marx, and instead reflected those of the thinkers that had been influenced by, and proceeded to follow the actual thinkers work.

For Thomas Robert Malthus, the difference between the man and the school of thought is not so much due to Malthusian thought differing from Malthus, but rather only touching on a small portion of what he wrote. Indeed, the fact that the world had too many people for prosperity ever to be wide spread, and that the progress cannot keep up with the growth of population, which is what one commonly thinks when they hear ‘malthusian,’ is not a misrepresentation of what Malthus believed. On the other hand, it only scratches the surface.

Malthus was more concerned with the widening of the discrepancy between population and food production than the difference itself.

Progress in the capacity to produce food would seem to counteract the problem of growing population, but in fact this is the bane of the Malthusian problem. When production increases, so do wages. According to Malthus, with a growth in wealth comes a growth in the birthrate. These do not manage to offset each other, because while the increase in capacity grows in a line, geometrically, because there are more people to reproduce, population grows exponentially, widening the gap between the two. This means that even though progress can increase production, man’s capacity to reproduce guarantees that a portion of the population, and indeed a growing portion, will always be in poverty. People have been eager to extrapolate from this supposition that the population must be controlled at any cost. While Malthus did oppose corn laws and other government hand outs, it is not fair to suggest that he was in favor of things like pruning the lower classes directly, or even birth control and abortion. Rather, Malthus sited ‘moral restraint’ on the part of man in order to deal with the problems brought by population growth.

Malthus’s population problem was hardly the extent of his economic analysis. Malthus also talked extensively about what he called general gluts. It seems contradictory to his problem of population in that it deals with overproduction. Malthus postulates that when there is overproduction, it is impossible to get out of this, because in order to drive up demand, there must be more in wages, but to create these wages more must be produced. This is also one of the earliest critiques of savings in that when there is too much saved up, the savings will be spent on expansion. This does not put money in the pockets of people who can help demand to catch up. This would later be adjusted by John Maynard Keynes.

Malthus’s final point of pertinence was that on rents. Malthus regarded rent as value given to something that had nothing to do with the actual production involved. In other words, the price of rent had nothing to do with actually adding value to an economy. Therefore, Malthus called rents unproductive costs, and stated that only with surplus can rents be paid.

The disconnect between Marx and what came to be known by names such as Marxism, Socialism, Communism and egalitarianism (which have their differences, but arise from the same Marxian capitalistic apocalypse) is very much a clear cut and easy to identify. All of these ideologies are largely based on what will come of a society in which capitalism has been overthrown. While Marx was an extremely potent writer, devoting about 2500 pages to Das Kapital and still more to works such as The Communist Manifesto or Wage Labor and Capital, hardly any of those pages have to do with the result of the working class revolt. Rather, Marx is concerned only with capitalism (somewhat ironically), and the inexorable downturns that will lead to its demise. He specified only that the society would be classless, directly opposing capitalism in that respect, and that society itself would control means of production. Karl Marx, contrary to his legacy as the patriarch of systems that have been seen in China, Cuba and Russia, among others, had nothing to say regarding governments controlling command economies, or even about how the production should be owned.

Rather, Marx was concerned not with the post capitalist world, but how the current capitalist society would come to an end. The man known to most close to him as “the Moor” believed himself to have discovered a perfectly inescapable reality of history, and willingly extrapolated its future. In the time of Marx’s writing, capitalism consisted of a boom bust cycle far more powerful and sporadic than that of today’s regulated economy. Marx’s inescapable demise for capitalism was a byproduct of these boom bust cycles, as well as the very progress that drove the seeming growth of capitalism.

Before his actual synopsis of the demise, Marx pointed out a number of general problems. Marx proposed that each time technological progress was made in society the class system became more defined. The owning classes, the Bourgeois, as Marx called them, were advanced, while workers were further exploited. This placed strain on the class structure of the economy, and would drive workers together in an adversarial stance against the owners. Marx also rejected Adam Smith’s guiding hand, saying that capitalism was in need of structure and guidance in order to operate efficiently, but that paradoxically, the capitalists themselves operated best when given free range. This too, theorized Marx, would lead to problems for capitalism, as chaos from a lack of planning could lead to crises of supply. These were all problems that were proposed in the frustrated journalist’s early work. His masterpiece, Das Kapital, would spell out the method of how these issues would come to fruition.

Das Kaiptal is a second attempt to answer the question that Adam Smith was the first to ask, namely how does the capitalist system work. It is hard to imagine, though, that they are analyzing the same thing, as their conclusions could hardly be more different. Lost to some who expect it to come to fruition, is that Das Kapital is academic in nature. Marx’s analysis is set not in the real world, but in one of perfect capitalism, without monopoly, government (although in his time this was not a stretch, as the government had little control over economics at the time) or prices that differed from an objects value. Marx clearly views this as close enough to the truth, though, as he sets out to demonstrate the difficulties that were on the horizon for capitalism.

Marx starts with profit, as it plays a key role in the end of the system. If value is equal to the amount of labor in an object, and price is equal to value, profit should therefore be impossible at fair wages. Marx finds the source of profit by saying that in fact wages are not fair. A worker is paid not by how much he produces, but rather how much it takes to sustain a worker. The worker’s labor, though, exceeds that which he needs to subsist, leaving the difference to the owning class in the form of profit. This profit leads Bourgeois to expansion, driving competition in wages, and decreasing profit. Marx refuses the idea that this increase in wages will lead to more supply for workers in the form of increased population, leaving the capitalist looking for a way to regain profit.

His answer come in the form of machinery, which cuts down on labor. The problem is, these machines, like the goods that are sold for profit, are sold where their value equals their price. Therefore, the capitalist pays back any profits that could come from a machine when he buys it in the first place. Forced to innovate by competition, the capitalist has switched from labor, which he can exploit for profit, to machines which he cannot. Therefore, in order to survive (since other firms will switch to machines and take market share if the capitalist refuses to do so), the capitalist must destroy his own profit. The capitalists have therefore started a race towards a finish line of zero profit.

In Marx’s cycle, this alone does not destroy capitalism. Rather, it leads to a downturn (the common bust of the day) when profits aren’t enough to sustain business. Business eventually resumes, too, when machinery becomes idle, workers take lower wages, and enterprise bounces back. The cycle, though, repeats, with bigger firms having taken over smaller firms. When it does, each bust is worse than the last, and eventually, even the biggest businesses are taken out. A monopoly is the result, and the workers rise up to overthrow their now centralized enemy, and that spells the end for the capitalist system, which is replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and later pure communism.

Of the three, Keynes’s work most closely resembled what has since bourn his name. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and the theories within were indeed the driving philosophical influence behind the Keynesian school of economics. At its most rudimentary level, Keynesianism encourages government spending to rejuvenate economies, based on the fact that the economy doesn’t actually have an automatic self correcting mechanism. While this idea was spelled out in The General Theory, Keynesian economics do not explore the depths of Keynes’s work, and they do borrow from other schools of thought.

Focusing on the ideas just of the man, and not the school, Keynes’s theories are simultaneously and paradoxically both simple and complex. In The General Theory, Keynes dives into the minute complexities of investment and business cycles, the effects of interest rates, and the multiplier effect’s influence on recovery to make his points. At the same time, one of the brilliances of Keynes is the simplicity of markets not being infinite and therefore cramping savings’ ability to equal investment, and establishing that depression can be a self perpetuating cycle, which comes to rest at a bottomed out equilibrium.

The details that Keynes uses to get to his conclusions are long and complex, but essentially his theory of depression (he wrote The General Theory in the 1930s) is as follows. When people have excess income, they tend not to save it in the traditional sense of simply holding onto it, but rather to invest it. When there is room for business to expand, this works wonderfully, with businesses hiring more people, creating new facilities, and contributing to economic growth. The problem with this is that when business is poor, there is no reason for business to attempt to expand, and therefore little for people to invest in. The multiplier effect then slows down as people are forced to hold their savings (when people invest their excess income, businesses give these invested savings to other people in the form of more wages, hence the amount of wealth in the economy is multiplied), and the economy slows down. Furthermore, since businesses are unable to create more wages, demand for expansion ceases to rise. The same lack of investment that was caused by businesses not wanting to expand causes a lack of demand for expansion in a self perpetuating cycle.

In his earlier writing, Smith said that it may be possible that the lack of demand for investment would lead to cheap interest rates, which would revitalize the multiplier cycle and get the economy out of the downturn. Writing on the depression in The General Theory, though, Keynes comes to the realization that because the slowdown has decreased wages, the presumed well of investment that would drive down interest rates is not there. That takes away the presumed bounce back. The economy has come to an equilibrium, but one in which it is in a glut with no mechanism for getting out of the recession, which leads to depression.

Having established quite a direct link to the work of Malthus, in that he is essentially building on and explaining his theory that savings can be the bane of economic growth, it is here that Keynes takes himself away from the work of Marx. Karl Marx was quite content to let the system die, and made little effort to suggest a remedy. Rather, he diagnosed a problem, and his solution was to let the system die and start over. The same cannot be said for Keynes. Perhaps it can be explained by the biographical discrepancies between the two, Keynes being successful in business, Marx failing again and again, being forced to live humbly at the mercy of Friedrich Engels, but that is to get away from their works. What is clear is that Keynes does offer the solution to his problem of prolonged depression.

Keynes once again resembles Malthus in that contemporary believers in the capitalist system were shocked by what he had to say, earning their disdain for his radical proposals. For Malthus, few people wanted to hear about how increased death rates were, frankly, the road to prosperity for the living. For Keynes, the realization was that in order to save capitalism, it needed to be less pure. Here is the one similarity of conclusion between Keynes and Marx. Both believed pure and ‘perfect’ capitalism to be flawed and ultimately self destructive. Keynes, though, saw that there was an entity that could stop the cycle. Keynes noticed that government projects, no matter how tedious or even pointless, could have the effect of revitalizing the economy be restarting the multiplication of wages, and driving demand for expanding private sector business. In the 1930s, the idea that government need step in to cure the economy was revolutionary, but indeed Marx noted that tedious pursuits like pyramid building had always had the desired stimulating effect. With that in mind, Keynes suggested government spending almost to no end.

A large portion of both Marx and Malthus’s work was predictive in nature. Malthus’s prophecy of diverging food and population production was slated to carry on into the coming centuries, and Marx’s destruction of capitalism would take place after a cycle had played itself out. In both cases, they were largely wrong. Nothing resembling the laws of an economic society that reproduces past its capacity, or collapses upon its own progress has played out in the Western World. In both cases, there have been developments that could be said to resemble their predictions, but in reality they are of a different nature.

Marx has proven to be wrong for a number of reasons. The first is that he underestimated the veracity with which workers believe that they can become the capitalists. They look at themselves as capitalists in the making, rather than advocacies of the owning class, which keeps them away from a revolutionary spirit. Another, simpler explanation of why this fails to come to fruition is that Marx may simply have misjudged his “laws of motion” for business in which firms are swallowed up, and profits continually dwindle. It is true that some firms are eliminated in bust cycles, but they often pop back up in booms, at a sustaining, or even growing rate. The final point to why we do not yet live in a Marxist world is that his reasoning is based on a pure form of capitalism. We, of course, do not see such pure competition and perfect markets on a day to day basis, and these deficiencies in perfect competition can throw a wrench into all of his reasoning. Furthermore, those in charge of capitalist systems will often move away from perfect competition with government spending and social programs, which counteracts Marx’s projected cycle. Some will point to fascism in Italy and Germany, or communist uprisings in Eastern Europe as evidence that Marx’s predictions may have come to pass, but these can hardly be considered the global scale uprisings, which Marx saw as transcending nations, when working classes came together.

As for the Malthusian problem, it appears that he simply underestimated the level at which production could grow. Advancement after advancement in shipping and in production have made it so that trade and technology can offset the growing population which Malthus correctly identified. In some poorer countries, population has skyrocketed (particularly India and China), and food is a pressing issue. This does not conform with Malthusian ideals though. Malthus predicted such a scenario in the Western, rich world, and indeed that one of the driving factors of the problem would be a rise in wages and wealth driving up the birth rate. This is far from what has come to pass in the poorer parts of Asia.

Keynes, on the other hand, wrote from a different perspective. He was not so much a predictor. He did not attempt to look into the future. Because of his position in the midst of the depression, he was asked for solutions, rather than predictions. Marx was essentially an unemployed writer, Malthus a professor. JM Keynes was rubbing elbows with the leaders of his day. He did not have the ability to say simply ‘this is what will happen.’ Instead he was asked to predict how it could be controlled. If anything, his predictions about ‘pump priming,’ as he called the government stimulation, was seen to be true when wars necessitated government spending, but this was a remedy, not a natural course of action, like Malthus and Marx attempted to draw a map for.

Both Marx and Malthus, then, were able to look into the future with some small degree of accuracy, but both were significantly off as to the conditions that would lead to their predictions. For Marx never so much as considered Russia as a candidate for the start of the communist uprising, and believed that it would tear down national borders, when really it created international tensions. Malthus correctly predicted that population would skyrocket, and that this could create food problems, but he did not see that trade would offset this in the rich world, and he misidentified the cause of the multiplying human race, as in fact wealth has lead to a leveling of population growth in the 20^th and 21^st centuries.

Another stylistic and interpretive similarity between Malthus and Marx is apparent. Both had a fairly extensive reserve of hard economic analysis. Marx worked extensively on labor theory of value, rate of surplus value and organic composition of capital. Malthus wrote the majority of his pages on topics such as the value (or lack thereof) of rents, general gluts, and the hazard of excess savings. In both cases, though, the economic analysis by the two men was overshadowed by the less mathematical, more philosophical work that brought societal fates together with economic analysis. For Marx, dialectical materialism would be his legacy, and for Malthus, it would be issues with population growth.

One, then, can hardly be blamed for thinking that the pertinent question would indeed be that of which philosophy is correct. Unfortunately, even to say that only time can tell would be incredibly optimistic. Indeed, in the scale of a single lifetime, not even time can give us the answer to the enduring questions of financing, laboring, producing, distributing and consuming. All three of these thinkers looked at this constant query, and gave their take on its fate. One gave an explanation and a solution. Two saw the system as inexorable. They asked differing questions to the same end. All three revolutionized the way that people look at a seemingly mundane world of production, transaction and consumption.

All Things (Olympic) Hockey: Part 5, Wrapping It Up

This hurts. It sucks. Losing always does.

The United States falling in the gold medal game to our rivals to the north was tough, as losing goes, too. I have been recapping games for you here, but I don’t need to do this one. The world was watching. It was all over ESPN, NBC, and even found its way on to news sites like NYTimes.com or CNN.com. One in three people with their TVs on were watching the game as it was played, calling in to question the judgment of 2/3 of America. In Canada, that number was 4/5, so I really see no point in a blow by blow. The game certainly didn’t disappoint on the ice, unfortunately, that’s exactly what the result did.

It was easy going into the game to say that it was all upside. I had told myself that the tournament had been so great that even if Canada maintained hockey dominance, I couldn’t end it upset. I told myself that I had known that the USA was a long shot, and that silver would be a great finish. I knew that the tournament had brought hockey to the forefront of the sports world. And I told myself that I had seen the greatest hockey tournament of my life, 34 enjoyable, great games of the 41 that were played, and that really, we were all winners. All those things were true, and I couldn’t have asked for a better game in the finals. All I do is watch hockey when I have fee time between October and June, and between the last two Sundays, I saw the two best hockey games I have ever seen. Unfortunately, by the time Crosby went Miller time and put the USA on ice, I was convinced that the USA not only could win, but would win.

I knew Canada was better, but we hadn’t lost yet in Vancouver. The team was resilient, and more importantly, despite what some had thought coming in, they were damn good. 120 minutes of even hockey isn’t a fluke, the USA could play with Canada. When they went down a few minutes into overtime, all the rationality of not being disappointed, thinking that everyone was a winner after the greatest tournament I have ever seen, and realizing that silver was a great result for USA Hockey was crushed by the anger brought about by seeing Corey Perry hug Chris Pronger having just won the gold that should have returned to the USA after 30 years (this hug really happened, and when it did, I really wanted to cry).

What had been elation on facebook and twitter moments before when Zach Parise had tied the game, was replaced by Crosby hate which I reject, anguish which I shared and disparaging remarks about Canada being Americas hat, which I refrained from, but fully endorsed. On the ice, it was one of the best games I have ever seen. I can’t possibly say that I feel cheated, and I’ll get to those things, but it was still a tough reminder that in sports there are two things. There are no moral victories. No matter how rational you are coming in, there is only winning and losing. One is great the other hurts.

The Olympic hockey tournament couldn’t have been better. I couldn’t be prouder of team USA. Bobby Ryan, Jack Johnson and Ryan Whitney play for a division rival. Brian Rafalski, Zach Parise and Jamie Langenbrunner play for teams I have grown up resenting. I will never be able to root against any of them, or anyone else on team USA again. There are a plethora of great things that I can take away from the Vancouver Olympics, but right now, all I am getting is that we lost. The greatest player alive ended the greatest tournament I have ever seen, and right now it sucks.

There were so many things to like about the Olympics, whether you are a diehard hockey fan, a big sports fan with a passing interest in the ice, or even a casual sports fan that tunes in only to check out the Super Bowls, March Madness’s and National Championships of the sports calendar. As someone who started to preview the Olympic hockey tournament last February, and routinely writes about the NHL, it would be impossible for me to sum it up from a perspective of something other than a diehard fan, and as someone who lives with hockey every day, one of the most fun things about the tournament was that for once, hockey was the center of the universe.

It can be frustrating being a hockey fan in America. ESPN will relegate NHL highlights to the last few minutes of SportsCenter, or go months without putting it on the front page of ESPN.com. That certainly wasn’t the case during these Olympic Games. Hockey has always been there with American media, but you wouldn’t say that it has ever quite been a mainstream topic. Once Team USA made it clear they were poised to make a run, though, America seemed willing and eager to follow them, and the sports media followed suit.

Hockey fans and non-hockey fans alike were checking scores, watching games online or on tape delay, even as NBC was trying to tell us that the Olympics were for our mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends by showing an endless array of figure skating and ice dancing, the most insufferable of all so called sports, in addition to a plethora of women’s events surrounded by ads for Tide and Vicks, or ones proclaiming that ‘To their moms, they will always be kids.’ ESPN was putting previews and scores on the front page. It was the main attraction for talk radio. NBC was even forced to give in, eventually, moving the USA-Finland game to live, and carrying the Canada-USA game both live and with limited commercials, in order to show all the action.

It isn’t just conjecture and insinuation, either. The ratings for hockey were huge. Almost as many people tuned in to MSNBC to watch the USA beat Canada as watched Obama get elected on the most prominent liberal news source. 27.2 million people watched the USA-Canada final in the United States, along with 80 percent of Canada. Not 80 percent of people watching TV, but 80 percent of the population, or 26.5 million people (this is perhaps my favorite stat, that more Americans watched than Canadians, although the 80 percent is astounding). Essentially, hockey was as big yesterday as it has been for 30 years since Carter and Brezhnev decided to forgo nuclear war and the USA beat Russia in the battle of Lake Placid, to put it lightly, to win the cold war and ensure the triumph of capitalism and freedom for the world over communism and dictatorship.

Even if the American numbers would have been just as high against Slovakia (they wouldn’t have been, although judging by the Finland numbers, they still would have been huge), the viewers were treated the best team in the tournament, America, against the best players, the Canadians. Someone said that if you don’t enjoy that, you don’t enjoy hockey. I would say that you don’t enjoy sports.

Does that mean that the NHL will now turn around and do numbers that beat the BCS and regular season football all the time? Of course not, but it does mean that come playoff time, or Sunday afternoons, some of the 50 million plus that checked out the games will come across the NHL and say, ‘hey, it is Ryan Miller,’ or Sidney Crosby, or Patrick Kane, and stick around, when they would have changed the channel before. That’s because people like hockey. Very few watch it, say “I’m bored,” or “that sucked,” and never want to go back to the game. Usually, the reaction of sports fans watching hockey is at worst that they don’t get it, but more often, that they want to watch more. The problem for the NHL has never been a bad product, but rather under-exposure. While a little familiarity from a popular Olympics may not turn around hockey as a TV sport, with an NBA lockout looming, it can’t be a bad thing. And who knows, it might be enough to boost the game in the USA after all, even if it is just a little.

I mentioned women’s events and figure skating—and the effect that they have on ratings—above, and wanted to clarify my thoughts on that, as well as put my take on the NBC coverage out there.

Women’s events should absolutely be in the Olympics—not the figure skating, but the women’s events like hockey, skiing and Speed Skating for instance--, but to covered and hyped to the extent that they were? Come on. I can name three women’s skiers, two snowboarders, and a speed skater. The only males I know that don’t play hockey are Shaun White, since he has been bouncing around for a few years, Bodie Miller because he used to be the best, and Apalo Ohno because…well I’m actually not sure what his appeal is, but he keeps getting jammed down our throats. I’m not being a misogynist, only pointing out that it is a fact that men’s events push more boundaries, are faster, and are generally more exciting, yet they receive significantly less coverage. The reason for this is pretty simple.

Unfortunately, the networks know that sports fans will tune in, so they go out of their way to bring in other audiences that could lead to a big number. This emphasis is misconceived as being because women and non-traditional fans watch more. Instead, it just means that they need to be pandered to more, since their viewership can be had, and will push ratings to greater heights, but it is harder to court. This leads to a paradox in which the core audience is neglected, in order for the network to attract its largest possible audience. You can’t blame NBC for it, but it is rough if you are a sports fan.

One thing I can blame NBC for, though, is the tape delays. Many people have pointed out, similar to the point above, that the primetime show does huge numbers and should be kept as it is, even if it is taped footage. I completely agree. I watched most of my stuff online, and was uninterested in the pageantry (that’s what it was---sports don’t have judges) that was emphasized at night. The problem is that there is not a single reason that I have heard or can think of, in the vast and rapidly expanding GD universe, that events occurring at noon, 2 or 3 in the afternoon shouldn’t have been live on NBC.

When many of the live events were taking place, in the afternoons, NBC’s typical programming includes repeats of soap operas, the Bonnie Hunt Show, something called a Wendy Williams show and the abortion known as the Ellen Degeneres show. I know, because I am in the gym most days at this time, and there is usually at least one TV on NBC. Every time I see Ellen dance in front of her audience like the dorky, phony loser that she is, before she sits down, and fails to be funny with guests I could not possibly care about, I hate humanity a little bit more, and that is the so-called ‘highlight’ of the slate of afternoon vapidity that they refused to cancel, or even move to one of their cable networks. Yes, I am losing my temper, but it is well freaking justified. If you try to tell me, NBC, that those are better programming decisions than showing the Olympics while they happen, and that this is a valid reason for not showing me a life freaking hockey game, I will fly to New York and take the cast of 30 Rock as hostages.

I forgot what I was talking about. God I hate dumb executives…

One more thing, speaking of dumb executives. If you are a casual sports fan who, like millions of your countrymen, tuned on the game on Sunday to check out some hockey, enjoyed it, and now want to watch a bit more, you have no idea where you can watch it. I’ll answer the question for you it is on N-B-freaking-C, the network you were watching, and it is on every Sunday, but you didn’t know that. Why not? BECAUSE NBC DIDN’T SHOW ONE GD PROMO FOR THE NHL ON NBC! NOT ONE! IN THE ENTIRE TIME THEY WERE DOING THE BIGGEST RATING THEY WILL GET IN MONTHS, FOR A FREAKING HOCKEY GAME THEY DIDN’T STOP AND THINK, ‘HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD LET PEOPLE KNOW WE HAVE MORE OF THIS.’ NO I WILL NOT TURN OFF CAPS LOCK. THIS IS EGREGIOUS. IT DEFIES LOGIC. I LITERALLY DON’T KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE HOW STUPID THAT IS.

People have said that the NHL may not see any sort of significant boost from this tournament, which to me is a load of crap. I have a number of friends who have cheerfully told me that Sunday was a bad day for the NBA, because they are now in on hockey. If I am wrong though, I will know exactly why.

I will now take a five mile walk to calm down…

Having ranted for about two thousand words about how great the 2010 Olympics were, I probably don’t need to tell you that I am strongly in favor of the NHL returning to the Olympics in 2014, by going to Sochi, Russia. Gary Bettman has refused thus far to commit to such a scenario, but he simply has to send guys overseas. First of all, because not one player has said that they don’t want to travel and represent their country, and some have gone as far as to insist that they will, if they are released from the league for 2 weeks or not. There is more to it than that though.

A lot will be made in the run up to the decision to go to Sochi or not, of the fact that Bettman works for the owners, and that the NHL doesn’t see a dime from the Olympic Games. The thing is, as a commissioner of a major sports league, your job goes a bit deeper than your financial responsibilities to the owners. Your responsibilities do, anyways. Sure, protecting the interests of the owners and the league can come first, but they shouldn’t be the only concern. Growing and protecting the game should certainly factor into decisions made, especially if there isn’t a significant downside, and I am sorry, but a condensed regular season with a 3 week break is not a significant downside.

Beyond that, the premise that the Olympics don’t help the NHL is shortsighted. If anything, the NHL needs to work with their partners (coughNBCcough) to ensure that it does help. You cannot convince me that having the best players in the world, on perhaps the biggest stage in the world, does not help the game of hockey. It is too good, and too exposed not to at least make people more aware of the game. People will say that the games didn’t help the NHL, but people talking about hockey helps the NHL. Period. Sure, the USA-Canada final in an NHL city is about as good as it can get from the standpoint of North American hockey, but that hardly means that significant momentum can’t be built for the sport even if the result is less perfect.

There are some detractors that have nothing to do with the NHL, usually by referencing the 1980 games, but these premises are fairly easy to reject. An argument that some people have voiced is that the Olympics were somehow more pure when the athletes were amateurs. I couldn’t disagree more. Ask the IOC how the Olympic baseball tournament has gone. Without pros, the Olympics essentially become a second rate event. That, not having professionals, is what would fly in the face of the Olympic spirit. The Olympics are all about bringing the best athletes in the world together (as well as the best curlers), in order to see which nations are dominant at these sports. In no way would restricting access to the games to those who are at the top level make this a better tournament. It would make it a lower level of play at best, arbitrary at worst. As for the 1980 argument, that was a perfect confluence of circumstances. No one can say anything about the 1984 or 1988 tournament other than ‘the Russians probably won.’ One of the first sporting events I can remember, however vaguely, is the 1992 Lillehammer Olympics. I was 3, but I remember watching with my parents. Not once, as far as I can tell, did we watch hockey. 1980 will never happen again, and to try to replicate it is shortsighted.

Generally, I like to refrain from blaming ‘the media,’ in the general sense, as one. This is hard to detect, since I do it all the time, just know that I have an urge to write about something stupid that I hear all the time, let’s just say twice a day, by way of an estimate, but usually stop myself. During the Olympics, there were a lot of things that gave me this urge. Here are a few of them.

- People kept asking themselves, in previewing team USA, if a ‘repeat of the Miracle on Ice’ could take place, and the USA could take gold. I don’t even need to explain how stupid this is, but just for fun, had the USA decided to send their world junior team, and the Russians sent their national team, and the USA took gold, that would be a repeat of the miracle on ice. But only if the Russians were playing for China. And people in America actually realized how evil the Chinese government actually is. Everyone knows this by now, but there were still plenty of morons trying to play this up, and they need to be called out.

- Later, I heard a lot of people talking about the United States’ upset of Canada. They were responding to the hordes of media saying that this victory compared to that of 1980. They were rightfully calling out all the people saying that this was just as big a win for USA Hockey. There was a problem, though. No one was saying this. They were responding to people that they had made up. Sure, plenty of people were comparing the game to the 1980 tilt, but not one was saying it compared favorably. To a man, people agreed that it wasn’t as big an upset. Still, the media felt compelled to point out that these people (who I stress, are imaginary), kept saying that this was the same, and correcting them (even thought they didn’t exist).

- A third 1980 thing got to me. We get it. It was the greatest thing in the history of hockey, nay sports, nay human history, nay the universe. Listen, I have seen Miracle 2,864 times. I own the documentary. I have found the entire game online and watched it multiple times. I even read The Boys of Winter twice. I know that the most interesting story wasn’t Eruzioni, or Ralph Cox getting cut, but Herb Brooks playing nice with his archrival at Wisconsin, Bob Johnson, because he was afraid Johnson wouldn’t let his son Mark play in the Olympics for Brooks. Just thinking about this, I want to watch Miracle again. Having said all of that, can we just agree to move on? I’m not saying completely. We should show clips when Johnson is coaching the women’s team. We should run a piece or two on it on anniversaries, and at least once an Olympics. What bothers me, is that everything that USA Hockey does gets brought back to it. I don’t want to forget about the 1980 games, but I am ready to move on.

- This one is less about incompetence and making stuff up, and more about my competitive disposition. I listen to Leafs Lunch, an hour long talk radio show out of Toronto every day. I don’t listen because I care particularly about the Toronto Maple Leafs, but rather because I enjoy good sports talk radio, and Leafs Lunch is one of the few high quality shows with a focus on the NHL. I would recommend it to anyone who likes hockey, as Darren Dreger is perhaps the best reporter in the NHL, and provides a great league wide view. Last Thursday, the day after the red Maple Leafs smoked out the Russians in dominant fashion, they opened the show in an…aggressive…manner.

Here is the link, take a listen for yourself (you have to scroll down to get to the February 25^th show).

(If you didn’t listen, the show began with Queen’s We Are the Champions, before guest host Brian Duff proceeded to declare the tournament over for the next five minutes. You really need to listen to get the full effect, though.)

Now, bear in mind, that this was not Monday’s show. Canada had not only not won the tournament yet, they hadn’t even made the championship game yet. Even if he was trying to make a point, the whole thing came off as sort of infuriating. After I listened to that, I wanted to take the ice for the United States, who had just beaten the Canadians, a team that had only played one game in which they looked unflappable.

The podcast is great, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes hockey, but this got me a bit fired up, because Duff completely trivialized two strong teams (Slovakia and America). Then again, he was right, although Canada didn’t exactly roll to the title like he predicted, with one goal wins over Slovakia and the United States.

- Not one person on ESPN, ESPN Radio, ESPN.com or NBC pointed out how great it was that the second leading goal scorer in the tournament was Norway’s Tore Vikingstadt. Seriously, his name is Tore Vikingstadt. That is way better than Fedor Tyutin, the current league leader in awesome names, and may even be good enough to surpass Jeff Beaukeboom as the greatest hockey name of all time. Seriously forget the trade deadline, my one hope for the Sharks is that they sign Tore Vikingstad. He did score 4 goals in four games against America, Canada, Switzerland and Slovakia, three of the top four teams in the tournament. Would I buy a Tore Vikingstad Sharks jersey? I am pretty broke, but I don’t think I would have a choice. I don’t know what the transfer rules are for the DEL, but we need to at least inquire about the Hanover Scorpions’ (Vikingstad’s current team) interest in Scott Nichol or Brad Staubitz.

(And you’re right, this had basically nothing to do with the media, I just wanted to point out how awesome Tore Vikingstad is. He is my new favorite player.)

There seem to be two factions here in America, now that Canada has gone back to their igloos, village fishermen and polar bears with a gold medal in the only sport they care about. The first is a sort of ‘good-for-you’ feeling, shared by a lot of sports fans who aren’t so much hockey fans on a day to day basis. The feeling that Canada, which most Americans have always liked, deserved to win on their home soil is certainly shared by many. On the other hand, there is a large dose of Sidney Crosby haterade. Not only do I not buy into this, I actually find it a bit upsetting.

If you happen to be a fan of the New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, you get a pass on this (I would include the New York Islanders, but as far as I can tell, they haven’t had a single fan since 1994). For these guys, it is a divisional rivalry thing. Personally, I chose to respect, fear and root against special players who are in the same division as the Sharks, but if you want to go all the way to genuine hate (sports hate, at any rate), that is fine with me. Everyone else, though, you sound ridiculous.

Sidney Crosby only does one thing. That one thing, is do everything right. All the kid wants to do is be the best player that he can be, and win hockey games. Take a look at his career.

As a rookie, the cros was a twice in a generation playmaker (add Iginla to his number and you get the other guy), but not what you would call a pure scorer. This worked alright, especially when Gino Malkin joined him in Pittsburgh, but you could tell that Crosby was never completely satisfied with his role as a setup guy. Still, he killed himself to help his team win games. It is laughable that Ovechkin is sometimes sited by dumb hockey fans as better because “he plays a physical game.” I am the farthest thing from an Ovie hater, but Crosby spends more time in the corner, battling for pucks in a given month than Ovechkin has in his career. Crosby got plenty of help from guys like Malkin and Jordan Stall, but did every single little thing (on both ends of the ice), in leading the Penguins to the cup last year.

Crosby came into the game as an elite talent, but he had found new ways to get better, and to help his team get to championship level. Once they got there, there was only one thing that changed in his desire to get better. This year, he turned it up a notch. He decided that to take the Penguins back to the finals, he would have to be a scoring threat, because, as he said, teams could shut him down as a playmaker (untrue, but don’t tell 87 if you are a Pens fan). He did just that, shooting more, creating more, and racking up a league leading 42 goals.

Less noticeable, but more importantly, Crosby has turned two of what were considered his weaknesses into downright, indisputable strengths. Not just passable skills, but on both counts, league leading statistics. When attempting to find something wrong with the kid as a young player, nitpickers often pointed to faceoffs as something that Crosby could improve upon. All he did was work, and in 2009, he is 11^th in the league in faceoff percentage. Same goes for shootouts. Crosby started out his career 1 for 9 in the tiebreaker, but now he has found a move (fake that almost is just a stickhandle to the backhand, back to the forehand to open up the goalie and a quick shot 5 hole), that works for him, and he is second in the NHL with shootout goals, with 6 in 8 attempts this season.

There are two takeaways from this. One is that goons the league over better hope that Crosby is never told that his weakness is that he doesn’t fight enough/isn’t a good enough fighter, because you better believe that if that were the case, he would lock himself in an MMA gym for the summer and come back to break every orbital bone in the league. More importantly, Crosby is, quite simply, the complete package. A supposedly good guy to boot, Sid does everything that you could want on the ice, and if he doesn’t, you can bet he will next year.

I can’t really buy into the whole ‘it would have been good to win, but I’m happy for Canada’ thing. USA Hockey is right there with the Sharks for me. World Juniors are my favorite part about the holidays. I started thinking about the Olympics a year ago. I know we could have won, and I really wanted gold for this team. The fact is, though, that it is fitting that Crosby, the best player in the world ended the tournament with the greatest players in the world.