My first thought was, of course, do their brains even function? My reasoning was that, since sex hormones are regulated by the pituitary gland, you’d need some sort of neural stimulation to the hypothalamus to get them going, right? Especially since the first step of arousal is most likely going to be neurological: pheromones, touch, visuals, etc. But then I wondered, was it possible for spinal/hindbrain mechanisms alone to produce at least some form of arousal? Is it even ethically possible to test for that? (Cue someone linking me to a news story about collecting sperm from a braindead patient so his wife can bear his children.) And would a zombie’s autonomous systems still function?

But then I realized, wait a minute, hormone production is also tied into a bunch of receptor-mediated negative-feedback loops. Too little testosterone? Brew up some gonadotropins and get this party started. Problem is, you’d need blood flow to the pituitary to know that you need it, and blood flow back to the gonads to make the magic happen. So even if the zombie had enough neural function to recognize a sexual opportunity instinctively, without a heartbeat, he’s still screwed. Or not, as the case may be.

(At this point, Julie interjected and wondered if the zombie could just apply a vibrator to his girlfriend. Theoretically, sure, but would he have the higher cognitive function to think of and apply the idea, never mind get anything out of it, make it worth his while? More likely, she’d have to do all the heavy lifting on that one, as it were.)

Of course, we’re not done yet, because we can have heartbeat without cognitive function, or indeed any neural function at all, at least in theory. The sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes of the heart are capable of generating pacemaker potential in the absence of any sort of external stimulation, thus giving us heartbeat and blood flow without the need for a functioning nervous system. But then we return to the initial problem of erogenous signal transduction: that is, how does the zombie know when it’s sexytime? And how does the zombie “git ‘er dun,” so to speak? You’d need at least some nervous function to shuffle and eat brains, never mind perform any sort of sexual act; gotta stimulate those muscles, right? So without at least some form of nervous system, you’re again SOL.

Thus, we reach the conclusion that in order for a zombie to be able to have sex, he’d need to have at least partially-functioning nervous and cardiovascular systems (and presumably some kind of metabolic function to provide enough energy to drive all these actions and keep hormones in fresh supply, or at least process all the eaten brains and what-not). All of which raises the larger question: at what point is a zombie no longer a zombie? Or put another way, are there any different kinds of zombies that are capable of all this, while retaining their intrinsic zombie nature? (The conclusion of Shaun of the Dead springs to mind here.) The classical reanimated dead zombies of Romero et al. probably have nothing, but the 28 Days Later/Resident Evil virus zombies? Different story, potentially. Voodoo zombies? Different again. And what about consent? Can zombies give or receive consent? Would it be rape? Necrophilia? Would a human be into that? (Silly question; humans will fuck anything.) Do zombies even want to have sex? Do they carry the same reproductive drive as regular humans? Can zombies reproduce? If they can get it up and make it work, can they produce little zombie gametes, too? Would they be compatible with human gametes? Create half-undead children? Would they even want humans, or only other zombies? Is there such a thing as life-ism?

At this point, it seems clear to me that additional research will be required on my part, on the matters of zombie physiology, the minimum neurological requirements for sexual function, and perhaps even a little zombie psychology and philosophy.

Disclaimer: Any errors in physiology are entirely my own. If you’ve found this article, you probably know where to find me and yell at me for being so stupid. Though also consider the purpose of this article; chances are, I’m already taking this way more seriously than you are.

Doogie	Hoop	Matt	Gerard	Result
4-2	4-2	4-2	4-3	4-1
4-2	4-2	4-3	4-3	4-0
1-1	1-1	2-0	1-1	W-L
7	7	4	7	GO
7-7	10-4	6-8	7-7	W-L
35	27	35	35	GO

Thankfully, we no longer have Montreal around to gum up the works yet again. This time, it’s just two teams, and hopefully a pretty straightforward selection. Fair warning: Hoop and I wrote novels. The important bits, as always, are in bold.

So of course, the first game where most of the ‘Hawks play like the ‘Hawks, and I miss it. Ah, well. Wednesday!

Stanley Cup Finals

(3) Chicago vs. (18) Philadelphia

Playoff History: The only previous meeting between the ‘Hawks and the Flyers came in the first round of the 1971 playoffs, when Chicago polished off the nascent Broad Street Bullies in four straight en route to their fourth Finals appearance in 11 years.

1971 QF
4-0

Stanley Cup History: The ‘Hawks have not exactly led a charmed life, winning just three Stanley Cups, the fewest of any Original Six team, and none since 1961, the longest active drought. They were also tied with the Rangers for the fewest Final series appearances by an Original Six team prior to this year, at ten. In fact, since making five appearances in 13 years during the Hull-Mikita-Esposito era (1961-73), the ‘Hawks had only been back to the Finals once, and that year, they ran into a buzzsaw.

1931	1934	1938	1944	1961	1962	1965	1971	1973	1992
2-3	3-1	3-1	0-4	4-2	2-4	3-4	3-4	2-4	0-4

Since the Broad Street Bullies’ reign of terror was silenced spectacularly by the Montreal Canadiens in 1976, the Flyers have become perennial Stanley Cup bridesmaids: they’ve now lost five consecutive Final series, and won only six games in the process, half of which came in the 1987 classic against Edmonton.

1974	1975	1976	1980	1985	1987	1997
4-2	4-2	0-4	2-4	1-4	3-4	0-4

Season Series: The only meeting of the year between the ‘Hawks and Flyers came on March 13, a 3-2 win for the Flyers. Scott Hartnell tied the game with just over two minutes to play, then Chris Pronger scored the winner with just three seconds to go. Michael Leighton made 39 saves — and scored an assist — in the victory.

Doogie Says: The minute the Canadiens eliminated the Penguins in round two, I knew that the Stanley Cup champion was going to come from the West and that it probably wasn’t going to be even close, simply because the East, as a whole, is a shitty conference, and of all the teams there, the only ones that could hope to compete with a Western club had all been polished off by the underdogs. Washington, New Jersey, and Buffalo were all gone early, and with Pittsburgh following soon after, it was down to Montreal, Boston, and Philly, all of whom had made the playoffs in the last week, and none of whom exactly screamed contender.

I do fear that I may have underestimated the Flyers a bit. Certainly, I should’ve seen them coming last round, knowing how many games the Habs had played, and how the Flyers play, and how they’d underachieved due to goaltending injuries throughout the regular season. (I maintain that Ray Emery playing through an abdominal tear directly resulted in the firing of John Stevens back in December.) While they looked dead in the water in round two, with injuries to three important players in Gagne, Carter, and Laperriere, they outlasted the Bruins and staged that epic comeback, thanks in part to Simon Gagne making his dramatic comeback, and Michael Leighton stepping in flawlessly for injured Brian Boucher. Controlling the passive Habs four games out of five proved all too easy after that, especially with Laperriere and Carter making their way back in Game 4.

Yet ultimately, that’s precisely why I can’t lend too much credence to the Flyers as Finalists. Not to denigrate any of their accomplishments, but really, who did they beat? A New Jersey team they’d owned all year (5-1 in the regular season, 4-1 in the playoffs), an offensively inept Bruins team that lost what little it had when Krejci went down to injury, and a passive Canadiens squad that controlled the play exactly one game out of five. Colour me unimpressed. Furthermore, in that one game they did steal, the Habs showed us precisely how you beat the Flyers: move through the neutral zone with speed, dump and chase, forecheck aggressively, force the Philly defence to take penalties. Guess what the ‘Hawks are really good at?

Chicago’s had the much tougher road — Nashville is harder than anyone the Flyers faced, save maybe New Jersey, and it got meaner from there — and in the process of getting here, they’ve had their captain best the franchise record for single-season playoff points streak (13) and tie the franchise record for any playoff points streak, and tied an NHL record with seven consecutive road wins. They have superior skill at just about every position, save maybe goal, and as these playoffs have proven, you don’t need a great goalie to win it all, just good enough. They’ll test Michael Leighton (and Brian Boucher, should he make an appearance) far more than any of New Jersey, Boston, or Montreal did on a far more consistent basis. They’re just the better team all around, and I’ve seen nothing in any of the countering predictions to date that’s swayed me in the slightest. Philly can ride Leighton to victory in a single game, just like they did in the regular-season meeting mentioned above, but the bottom line is, Chicago is simply too much for anyone to handle. ‘Hawks win it in five, ending the longest active Stanley Cup drought and second-longest in NHL history, at 49 years.

Hoop Says: Let’s start in goal for both teams and it’s not exactly what you would call an elite goaltender match up with Antti Niemi for the Blackhawks and Michael Leighton/Brian Boucher for the Flyers. (Yes, I suspect we will see both Flyers goalies in the final) Niemi has been solid throughout the playoffs for the Hawks but never spectacular in my opinion. Leighton just came off what had to be the easiest three shut out performance in a series in the history of the sport. Needless to say I am not convinced at all in the Flyers goaltending as much as I am impressed by the Flyers defense corps. Advantage Hawks

Moving on to the defense for both teams, and this is a great match up! The Hawks’ top pair of Keith and Seabrook will have the task of shutting down the Richards line, while the pair of Chris Pronger and whatever stiff they throw out with him for the next shift [ed: Matt Carle at EV, Kimmo Timmonen on the PP] will be against the Toews line. It may be a bit of a cold hearted way to look at it, but from what I have seen it is true. Pronger is the Conn Smythe nominee for the Flyers with no hesitation in my mind, and he will see a lot of the Hawks’ nominee, Jonathan Toews. The Hawks can easily go five deep on the blue line while I think Pronger will have to play 45 minutes a night to give the Flyers a chance. Advantage Hawks

Moving up front, the Flyers’ Mike Richards has been great all post season for Philly. Philadelphia has also gotten some great play out of Claude Giroux, and Simon Gagne does pose enough of a threat that the Hawks’ D will have their hands full. Now you look at the Hawks and these guys are three lines deep and also have a solid fourth line. I am curious how the Flyers will try and handle Dustin Byfuglien in front of their net. The Sharks’ theory of “leave him alone” certainly did not work. I suspect that by the time this series is over, Byfuglien and Pronger will have a good hate for each other going. I just can’t see how the Flyers’ D will be able to hold up to the depth of skill Chicago brings to the table. Advantage Hawks

Now let’s take a look at the intangibles, starting with home ice advantage. Both teams have tough barns to play in and both should be rocking the entire playoffs. Listen to how noisy it gets in Philly when they play the Kate Smith rendition of God Bless America. The lid may come off that building! The Hawks’ home crowd is nothing to sneeze at either. When that horn goes and they play the stupid (yes, I said it) Chelsea Dagger song after a goal and I think there will be a few. The Madhouse on Madison will be exactly that. But the Flyers could have destiny on their side being the first team to come back from 3-0 down in 35 years to win a series. However, Mike Richards touched the Prince of Wales trophy so that gets wiped out with that curse [ed: Even though Crosby touched it last year?]. That being said, there is some magic in Philadelphia right now. Advantage Flyers

To wrap it up, I just can’t see a way the Flyers can win this series short of a few Hawks getting injured, or I am incorrect about the Flyers goaltending and they pull off another miracle. I also look at who the Flyers beat in New Jersey, Boston, and Montreal and none of those teams are even close to what Chicago will bring to the table. If Chicago can avoid over confidence then they should roll in this series. The funny thing is I would not be shocked to see Philadelphia win game 1 for that reason and for that reason alone I can’t pick a sweep. Your Stanley Cup Champions for 2009-2010 are…

The Chicago Blackhawks in 5 games

I will take Jonathan Toews as the Conn Smythe winner.

Matt Says: This is a tough one…I’m going to say six games. My gut reaction was the Hawks, simply because, contrary to my pick here (What was I thinking? Brainwashed by my ‘Nucklehead roommate, I guess.), they’ve always been a team I cheered for and enjoyed watching play. But, they’re also overall a smaller team, especially against a team like Philly. And as Doogie mentioned, Philly is getting healthier. Leighton is on a roll, and no matter how poorly the Canadiens played, three shutouts in five games, something is going right…

I have a gut feeling I’m going to regret this, but I’m going to go with my initial gut reaction, and say Hawks in six. Let’s see if I can go from 0 and 4, to 2 and 0, and back to 0 and 1.

Gerard Says: Hawks in 5 due to my confusing predictions of the last round.

1. Conklin is not in the Conference Finals/Finals for the first time since the lockout. He always loses (sometimes actively making his team lose) and has the Conklin Curse.
2. Hossa has shared the last two (losing) teams with Conklin and as such is either a victim of the Conklin Curse or has caught it himself.
3. Loser of the Winter Classic who beat the winner of the Winter Classic to continue.
4. The winner of the Winter Classic has lost the Stanley Cup Finals in the last two years.
5. The winner of this year’s Winter Classic lost to the Flyers (the losers of this year’s Classic) in a loss so epic one may as well call it a transference of Winter Classic powers. [Ed: Or put more succinctly, the visitor in the Winter Classic has made the Finals every year so far -- and lost every year so far.]
6. Philly has stupid Pronger face and haven’t had a goaltender to get behind since Hextall.
7. Byfuglien is really fun to say phonetically, and will likely be a word Leighton is reading over and over while in net.

Chicago will win in 5. And if they don’t, I’m blaming it on the Conklin Curse.

Though I do look forward to Byfuglien knocking out Pronger’s teeth.

	6	2	3	3	7	4	4
	5	1	4	5	4	3	2

So first the “kinda” part. It continues to feel to me tremendously unfair that we dispatched the Wheaties rather handily in the playoffs, winning four straight after dropping the first game, then beat them again quite handily in the round robin (to the tune of 5-1, all goals in the first), and still had to beat them again in order to advance. I knew going into Friday’s game that it was going to be a squeaker, and I wasn’t going to be surprised at all if the Hitmen lost. Why? Because they’d just punted the Wheaties pretty hard, they were gonna come back pissed, and I wasn’t convinced the Hitmen were going to be able to get up for yet another battle against a repeatedly vanquished foe. Sure enough, three minutes and change into overtime, there they were, looking on in disbelief as the host team earned a free pass for the right to get skullfucked by the once and future kings (again). It was like a scene in a zombie movie, where one of the secondary heroes thinks he’s killed the zombie, but it pops back up again, so he puts a decisive round into its head, starts to walk away in that action-movie sort of way…then gets ripped to shreds by that same fucking zombie. Except not funny, because my team was the guy who got torn to hell.

I went over it in my head a hundred times. Why the hell should Brandon get a free pass? It’s not like they lost a hard-fought WHL Final or anything: they got schooled in the semis, for crying out loud! They’d lost to Calgary and Windsor, the consensus favourites by a mile, by a combined 14-4 in the round-robin. They had no business being there at all, and it showed in the final score of the final game (9-1 Windsor). Shouldn’t there be some way to remove the Wheaties from the process altogether? I dunno, make the Final a best-of-three between the top two teams. You still get your minimum-two-but-maybe-three games for gate receipts and TV ratings, and it seems like a much fairer gauge of who the best team in all the land truly is. Or maybe the hosts shouldn’t get a free pass if they don’t make their respective League Final. Something. Anything’s got to be better than this travesty of a result.

Then I stopped and reflected on the tournament as a whole, and came to a realization: the Hitmen simply didn’t play well enough. They got down 0-3 in each of their first two games, mounting a comeback against Moncton and losing 6-2 to Windsor. They became completely passive in their final round-robin game against Brandon after the first, then simply had no answer for Brandon’s tenacity in the semis. (These two things may or may not be related, depending on how you view momentum in a game.) I wasn’t scared of facing Windsor, as such: I maintain that we could’ve beat them, and if nothing else kept the score close. But I do wonder if we really deserved to win, regardless. Having two or three good periods in a tournament we should have dominated is no way to earn the right to play for the prize. Jones wasn’t good enough, the defence wasn’t good enough, the discipline wasn’t good enough, and outside the Jimmy Bubnick-Tyler Shattock-Kris Foucault line, the scorers weren’t good enough. Sure, we were missing Brandon Kozun, but that’s not an excuse: we were still three lines deep in offensive talent. They weren’t aggressively bad, or anything, they just weren’t at their best for most of the tournament, and it showed.

Still, even if we biffed our second consecutive chance to be crowned kings of junior hockey — and possibly the last for several years, given the amount of turnover likely to occur this summer — there’s a ton to be proud of. Two World Junior representatives, both of whom took home awards for their work at their respective positions: Kozun as the nation’s top scorer, Martin Jones as the West’s top goalie and MVP of the conference and league finals (Edit: and top goalie of the Memorial Cup). First overall in the League, for the second year in a row. The first 1-3 comeback in five years (since we ourselves were turfed by none other than those fucking Wheat Kings). Pasting the League’s best offensive team and the presumptive favourites by winning the goalie battle in spectacular fashion. Winning our first WHL title since the days of Moran, Brendl, and Fomitchev. The final result may not have been what was desired, but there’s a hell of a lot to be proud of here, and as the bitterness and pain fade, there are a lot of fond memories to look back on, and when we raise four more banners to the rafters of the Saddledome in late September, those will be the things that we as fans should focus on, not the resentment and disappointment of a single loss, off a single goal.

For the last time, congratulations to the 2009-10 Calgary Hitmen, and thanks for the memories.

After a lot of thinking, I’m beginning to feel like they’re right, at least to some degree, for a couple of reasons. For one, the talent disparity that we used to see in evidence whenever the Montreal Canadiens played, say, the Kansas City Scouts is largely gone. Yes, at the extremes, there’s still a clear difference between good and bad — anyone who’s seen a Blackhawks-Oilers game in the last two years can attest to that — but on an average night, the difference between two teams is much more granular than it’s ever been. Part of that is due to improved scouting, as teams scour not just the wilds of Canadian junior, but European junior and pro leagues, American college and high-school, and even occasionally (though all-too-rarely) Canadian university hockey. Good players are everywhere, and while you can question the decision-making and efficency of some teams, there’s no question that most of the stones are at least getting turned over, and that there’s talent to be found under every one of them. There’s also the fact that coaching, athletic training, and psychological training are much better now than they’ve ever been. Players get feedback on what they did wrong, can see the video of the error for themselves, and know what to do for next time. Guys can spend a dozen hours or more per week in the gym, building their aerobic base and their strength. Players learn how to deal with hostile crowds, can talk to trained professionals about their confidence and about off-ice issues that can prove to be a distraction. All of this leads to the average NHLer being much more skilled, fit, and resilient than they’ve ever been, and there’s much less disparity between the best and worst in at least the last two categories — and arguably the first, as well — than we’ve ever seen. And then, of course, we have the redistribution of talent brought about by the salary cap, which teams are still learning the ins and outs of five years later. All of this leads to a situation where it’s much more likely that the outcome of a game, for example, can hinge on a fortuitous bounce one way or the other, because on any given night, there’s not that much to choose from, relative to 30 or 40 years ago.

The other main reason is that high-level hockey seems to be a barely-controlled chaotic system, which I think is a product of the way the game’s developed over the last half-century or so. In that time, we’ve seen the introduction of the slap shot, drastic changes to goalie equipment and play style, meaningful east-west play, heavy shot-blocking, composite sticks, and mid-air redirection of the puck as an intentional play, to name just a few things. Many of these changes come in a sort of delayed chain-reaction. Slap shots begat changes in goalie equipment. Changes in goalie equipment combined with the butterfly style led to much more shot-tipping. The evolution of the modern east-west game — not just skating up and down your lanes, but cutting across the ice and creating holes through both skating and puck movement — started by the Winnipeg Jets of the 1970s and perfected by the Edmonton Oilers of the 1980s, made it difficult to play man-to-man defence, especially for the more lumbering brutes of the defensive trade, necessitating more shot- and pass-blocking, from all members of the lineup. Combine these changes with worsening ice conditions — especially in warmer climes and during the latter stages of the playoffs, as the weather gets warmer everywhere — and increased overall athleticism — leading not only to faster players and more violent collisions, but more abuse to the aforementioned ice through the course of a game — and the puck winds up spending much of its time hopping here, there, and everywhere, rolling, flipping, on end, what have you. Sometimes unpredictable things happen like, say, the puck hitting a rut on its way in from centre ice and hopping over a goalie’s glove, or a puck pinballing in off three sets of legs in front of the net. At a certain point, physics takes over and there’s little you can do to predict it.

All of which leads me to last night’s game between the Hitmen and the Spitfires. Sure, it ended 6-2 Windsor, and appeared for all the world, from the boxscore, to be the coronation of the first Memorial Cup repeat in 15 years. If they can abuse the only team that appeared to be any real competition to them going in, what hope does anyone else have? Except when you actually watch the game, it becomes clear that bounces played a huge role in the final outcome. The first Windsor goal came off a Michael Stone shot-block: the puck bounced just under his ankle, in the tiny space that was there, and fooled Martin Jones. The second, just a minute or so later, deflected off the stick of a backchecking Ben Wilson. It’s 2-0 five minutes in, a hole from which the Hitmen never recovered, but it was off two unfortunate bounces. From there, I felt it was actually a fairly evenly-played game, with both teams getting their share of the bounces: a shot that rang off both posts behind Martin Jones and out at one end, a tip by Matt MacKenzie going two inches wide because the puck started rolling mid-pass at the other, and so forth. A ton of close calls that could’ve been in or out, based on ever-so-slight variances in human performance — so small as to be irreproducable — or the condition of the ice or what have you. From the four-minute mark of the first to the 19-minute mark of the third, the balance of scoring was 3-2 Windsor. That was the game I saw, and that game in no way resembled the 6-2 final scoreline.

Sure, some nights a team gets outplayed, full stop…but others, the bounces go the other guys’ way and obscure the balance of play. Maybe I’m being a blinkered fan here, and maybe I’m not lending enough credence to score effects, but what I saw last night was a team that could compete with the best in major junior, that suffered just a couple of breakdowns, but otherwise played an admirable road game without their best forward. If they play Windsor again on Sunday, with Brandon Kozun healthy enough to play, I see no reason to think that they can’t win the Memorial Cup. That doesn’t mean that they will, of course, but it does mean that the gap between the Windsor Spitfires and the Calgary Hitmen is not what yesterday’s score would have you believe.

Doogie	Hoop	Matt	Gerard	Result
4-1	4-1	4-1	4-2	4-3
4-3	4-2	4-2	4-2	4-1
4-2	4-2	4-1	4-3	4-2
4-1	4-1	4-2	4-3	4-2
4-0	4-2	4-2	4-2	4-2
4-3	4-2	4-2	4-0	4-2
4-3	4-1	4-2	4-3	4-2
4-2	4-1	4-3	4-2	4-3
5-3	6-2	4-4	4-4	W-L
18	13	16	18	GO

To be fair, though, I think most of the hockey world bet against Montreal, and for pretty solid reasons. Philly…man, I don’t know what the three of us were thinking. There were way too many signs there for us to ignore. Throw in a little homerism (Matt), and a couple of gutsy picks (Gerard), and you wind up with a 4-4 record pretty quickly. The winner of round one, though, as both most correct and most accurate picker, is Hoop, with six correct series and “only” 13 games off. (See this comment for an explanation of the latter.)

Apologies for the minor lateness (it’s now 2-0 3-0 3-1 Sharks midway through the first period of Game 1); in my defence, the power kind of died around here for a little bit today due to a freak spring snowstorm. Also, I didn’t expect the game to start at 5:30 local time on a weeknight. Matt and Gerard will add their explanations/justifications later, but I’m liking the variety in this round. Time to separate the men from the boys. Or the lucky from the not. Whatever.

History Has Been Made. Too bad the commercials have been thoroughly diluted by parodies of variable quality and questionable decisions on which plays to showcase.

Eastern Conference Semifinals

(4) Pittsburgh vs. (8) Montreal

Playoff History: The Canadiens upset the Penguins, who still had Jagr in his prime leading a pretty solid lineup, in 1998, their only meeting to date.

1998 CQF
4-2

Season Series: 3-1 Pittsburgh.

Doogie Says: I’ve said this a couple of times now, but while there were good reasons to believe Washington was going to roll Montreal pretty easily, there were also good reasons why that didn’t happen, good reasons that really don’t apply to this series. For one, the Caps tend to ditch the gameplan and try to do everything themselves when adversity rears its head, something the Pens don’t do. This makes it possible for a good positional team to weather the storm, limit opportunities by pushing them to the outside, and make hay on the counterattack, where the Caps are somewhat weak in their own zone. Again, not so the Penguins, who will continue to attack the middle like a Stanley Cup champion and who have a full defensive commitment from the entire lineup (see Crosby yanking a puck off the goal line in Game 2 against Ottawa). Jaro and the mini-Halaks will probably continue to get in the way of a couple thousand shots, and that will probably produce a tighter series than one would expect from the paper teams, but I don’t think this is a run that has legs, unless Halak would care to repeat that .978 SVP he put up in his last three games. Penguins in six.

Hoop Says: The Canadiens pulled off the shocker of the decade.. err century… err I dunno it’s been a while since there has been a bigger shocker. But lets be realistic, the Penguins are a better team than the Caps from front to back, and that is the difference. Been a fun ride Les Habitants! Penguins in 5.

Matt Says: Penguins in six.

Gerard Says: Canadiens in six.

	6	1	2	2	2	3	2	3
	3	3	0	3	1	4	5	4

(6) Boston vs. (7) Philadelphia

Playoff History: The Big Bad Bruins and the Broad Street Bullies waged war repeatedly through the mid- to late-70s, once for all the marbles and three times for the right to get spanked by the Canadiens. Somehow, they’ve yet to meet since.

1974 SCF	1976 SF	1977 SF	1978 SF
4-2	4-1	4-0	4-1

Season Series: 2-1-1 for each team.

Doogie Says: I said in Round 1 that if Rask could get enough goal support, the Bruins might be able to put together a decent run. I didn’t think that would happen against Buffalo, but now that Marc Savard is back, and the B’s are facing another injury-depleted team, I think I’m beginning to believe. True, the Flyers dealt with another offensively-inept team in New Jersey last round pretty handily, but then the Devils aren’t built for war the way they used to be: say what you will about the Bruins, they’re always built for war, so physicality probably isn’t going to be a huge advantage for either team. In the end, I think it comes down to whether the Flyers’ depth can solve Rask (Dan Carcillo had two goals in the last series), and whether Brian Boucher turns back into a pumpkin at some point in this series. I think we’re gonna get a hell of a series, but in the end, Rask proves to be the difference in a long one. Bruins in seven.

Hoop Says: Boston showed a good team game that I suspected they would in round 1. Philly however walked into New Jersey and punched the Devils in the mouth. Philly has an edge up front and on the blue line. Boston has the edge in net, and I generally like picking the team with the better goaltending, however I think the Flyers could be on one of those magical rolls. Flyers in 6.

Matt Says: Bruins in six.

Gerard Says: Bruins in five.

	5	3	4	4	0	1	3	3
	4	2	1	5	4	2	4	4

Western Conference Semifinals

(1) San Jose vs. (5) Detroit

Playoff History: The Sharks made an impression in their first-ever playoff series by beating the prohibitive favourite Red Wings in seven in 1994. The Wings got their vengeance the next year, then served to fuel the fires of those claiming the Sharks can’t hack it in the playoffs by ousting them in the second round three years ago.

1994 CQF	1995 CSF	2007 CSF
4-3	4-0	4-2

Season Series: 3-0-1 Detroit, with one win coming in the SO.

Doogie Says: This is actually a bit of a tough one. Part of me wants to point to San Jose’s playoff record (one conference final in eight semifinal appearances, and it was six years ago), Detroit’s playoff record (three straight appearances in the conference finals, including two wins and a Cup), and the season series record above, and call it a day. But that’s lazy, so instead I’ll justify the obvious pick of Detroit by saying that while Howard had some iffy nights against Phoenix, San Jose’s top line remains AWOL while Joe Pavelski and Ryane Clowe are leading the team in scoring, with Pavelski pulling their asses out of a fire on no fewer than two occasions last round. While some of Detroit’s depth veterans are struggling (hello, Mr. Cleary), at least the guys who get paid to be King Shit are doing precisely that (Zetterberg has 11 points in 7 games; Datsyuk has 8; their top four D all have 5 or 6 points each). Bet on the Wings to make it four trips to the Final Four in a row. Red Wings in 6.

Hoop Says: San Jose showed a lot of mental toughness in the first round, proving that this is a new team. Detroit got all it could handle from a game Phoenix squad. Realistically Phoenix should not have been able to hang with Detroit which concerns me. San Jose had every excuse to fold after the game 3 own goal in OT. These teams are very close, and I am going with the goaltender in this one. Gimme Nabokov, and the Sharks in 7.

Matt Says: Red Wings in five.

Gerard Says: Red Wings in seven.

	4	4	4	1	2	4
	3	3	3	7	1	1

(2) Chicago vs. (3) Vancouver

Playoff History: Oh, man, I’m really excited about this series, because of the recent history. These two clubs played a pretty entertaining (and occasionally violent) second-round series last year, capped off by a wild 7-5 Blackhawks victory. Before that, two meetings in twenty-seven years.

1982 CF	1995 CSF	2009 CSF
4-1	4-0	4-2

Season Series: Tied 2-2, with each team taking a close win and each team taking a lopsided win.

Doogie Says: Last year, these two clubs put on a hell of a show, and I expect this year to be no different. Healthy, I think these are two extremely well-matched clubs, with Chicago being slightly deeper on offence and Vancouver having the better goalie. I think home ice advantage will play a big role with the matchup game, and I suspect that the continued absence of Willie Mitchell will hurt the Canucks. Their PK was awful last round, and looking at the scoring chances, VAN-LA was much closer than it looked on the scoreboard, and could conceivably have gone either way if not for LA’s goaltending letting them down. It all adds up to something that at least superficially resembles the outcome of last year’s series, though the fun part, as always, will be the journey. Blackhawks in six.

Hoop Says: In my opinion the Hawks got damned lucky to get by Nashville. Vancouver’s PK made their series with the Kings much more interesting than it should have been. Both these teams are very deep, and I think the goaltending is close. The biggest factor here is the X factor. And that is are the Hawks in Luongo’s head? I say they are. This is the series that Roberto needs to win to prove he belongs in the conversation of elite goaltenders. I don’t think he can do it. Hawks in 6.

Matt Says: Canucks in seven.

Gerard Says: Blackhawks in five.

	1	4	5	7	1	5	4
	5	2	2	4	4	1	2

RE: Ebert’s Second Take

For what it’s worth, I think both parties are missing each others point.

Art is a tricky thing.  Some people believe that art is any production of creation while others believe that “art” and “entertainment” should be separated because there’s something distinctly different between the two.  While I’m firmly in the second camp, I get what both parties are saying so let’s try to bridge the gap.  Ebert is speaking from ignorance — that’s pretty obvious — but he still has a point.  If we separate the two concepts games cannot be art.  However, separating the two makes no sense unless we separate “game” from “narrative.”

Obviously if you don’t separate art and entertainment, the entire argument seems absurd.  There’s no distinction to be made since the worst fiction novel is categorized in the same breath as, let’s say, Hamlet.  In this distinction historical significance gets thrown out the window as well, which is why I think people like Ebert (and myself) avoid it.  Surely a historical perspective is vital, isn’t it?

However if you separate the two things get murkier.  Firstly, these things must be judged historically as well as a combination of its own parts.  The importance of the work must be established.  Some works are obviously art from the get-go, but often things are so far ahead of their time that you really can only look at them historically.  This is what Gabe follows up with:

Ebert is simply filling a role played out by art critics throughout history. There was the newspaper headline back in 1959 with regards to Jackson Pollock’s work that said “This is not art — it’s a joke in bad taste.” It’s a funny line but time has proven it was also completely wrong. Ebert has thrown his hat in with the rest of the short sighted critics who would rather debate what is or isn’t art, rather than simply enjoy the work of artists.

and for the most part I agree.  Some things are obviously art and other things are only art in retrospect.  Judging with words like “never” is almost certainly going to come back and bite you in the ass.

But I think Ebert is right.

Games can never be art.  Games are an abstract construct to get people to interact.  While a chess set can be art and a game of chess can be played artfully, the game of chess is not art.  It’s entertainment.  Likewise the architecture of a game can be art, and the game can be played artfully, but that doesn’t mean that the game itself is art.

But I hate defining things in those terms because I’ve played a number of Final Fantasy games.  I’ve played Braid.  I’ve played Flower.  I’ve played Portal.  And these video games are art.  Just playing them makes that obvious.  So where is the disconnect?

The battles in Final Fantasy are not art.  They are a game.  I hit the attack button and I attack.  Done.  It can get complicated in a chess-type way, but it’s a game — I either win or lose each battle.  The characters and environments can be rendered beautifully and artistically, but the actual game aspect cannot be considered art.  But the narrative can.

Everybody who’s played Final Fantasy VII remembers the death.  It brought some people to tears.  How can that not be art?  Everybody I know who played FInal Fantasy IX really got to like the characters and eventually really wanted Vivi to succeed.  How can characterization like that not be art?  Everybody who played Final Fantasy X will tell you how well constructed the plot was with the inevitable twists and turns along the way.  It was an Epic, forget just a story.  It was a modern mythology.  How can that not be art?

Or more currently (and abstractly), Braid, Flower, and Portal.  Ebert calls the text between levels of Braid “exhibit[ing] prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie,” which is 100% true.  However, the real narrative is implied by the gameplay in this case.  The game is about the futility of turning back time.  Even if you win, you fail.  In Flower, you are the wind, opening up flowers and making the world a more beautiful place while trying to strike a balance with modern society.  The gameplay implies a distinct vision of the future, a hope for the present, as well as abstractly presenting the framing device as petals flowing in the wind.  That’s art.  Portal’s gameplay implies a battle with one’s mind to not only escape from one’s shackles but to also release another from what binds it.  It frames the game in tiny snippets such that the narrative is constructed entirely in the player’s mind.  This is art.

I have a Philosophy and English bachelor’s degree.  I’ve read a lot of literature.  The narratives of these games are as strong as 1984, Brave New World, or Neuromancer and it’s reasonable to think that in the future they will be seen as having as much cultural significance.  Some of them flirt with being able to be seen as serious existential or postmodern narratives.  There is no way to deny that this is art.  None.  Regardless of how gracefully these video games will age, their cultural significance in the advancement of the medium cannot be disputed.  I mean, hell, Final Fantasy VII has sold over 100,000 copies on a version released 12 years after it was released.  This is not chess.  Nobody plays FFVII for its gameplay.  To deny the narrative as art is just silly.  Final Fantasy VII is to game narratives as The Lord of the Rings is to the fantasy genre.

Games cannot be art.  Sure.  Fine.  Video games architecture and character modelling are surely art, and if we think of video games being about the narrative then video games can be art.  If we think of video games being about the gameplay then video games cannot be art.  If we think of it as a combination of the two, we can still at least pick out the narrative as art.

But it’s not as simple as the result of artistic work being art.  If that were the case we could look at houses as art — everything as art — and the word becomes absolutely meaningless¹.  Art needs to mean something more.

And video game narratives, in some cases, definitely fit the bill.  Definitely.  13 years later Final Fantasy VII is still going strong and it’s one of the most culturally important narratives of this generation.

How is that not art?

¹ – I doubt anyone who creates anything at all — whether it be a house, an epic novel or a toilet — does not have the intent to create something aesthetically pleasing or having some cultural importance.  Toy makers design toys to elicit emotion.  Everything that is ever created is created to a) fulfill a purpose and b) elicit emotion.  Are video games somehow more artistic than a house because they’re consumable?  More artistic than a house because they fulfil a cultural purpose (houses also really, really do)?  Kellee Santiag’s distinction is completely arbitrary.  We communicate with architecture.  We tell stories in construction.  Deconstructing an old house we can see the care or lack thereof in its construction.  We can see what materials they used to use, which tools, and learn a bit about that period’s culture.  Did they use electric heat?  Gas?  Boiler? Did they use copper wiring?  Copper pipes?  Iron drain pipes?  These things all tell us about a culture and a time in history.  These things are all intended to be both pragmatic and aesthetically pleasing.  Do we want to consider housebuilders artists?  If so, can’t we consider every act of creation art?  At that point life is art.  And I would agree with that.  But when we’re talking about art colloquially or academically we’re not talking about art in that way.  Frankly, Kellee Santiag doesn’t seem to understand history, film or even what art is.  Either that or she just makes her argument really, really poorly.

Matt and Gerard were comically late getting their entries to me, so this goes up mere minutes before the start of the playoffs. But it’s on time! Improvement from last year! After the jump, let’s see some predictions…

Not really much to say about tonight’s game that hasn’t been said already. The Caps’ stars left their gameplan in a bin, and all tried to do it all themselves. The Habs block a million shots, Halak stops the other million, and it’s 2-1 for the bleu, blanc, et rouge over the red, white, and blue.

Conference semis start tomorrow. We’re on the clock, gentlemen.

Eastern Conference Quarterfinals

(1) Washington vs. (8) Montreal

Playoff History: None. Most of the years where both teams have actually been good enough to make the playoffs together came during the divisional era, when it would’ve been very tough for them to meet anyway.

Previously On…Survivor: The Caps dropped in seven to the Penguins in the conference semis, while Montreal bowed out in four to the Bruins in the first round.

Season Series: Surprisingly, tied 2-2. Even more surprisingly, the team with the most skills competition wins in this series is Washington (1): the Habs won both of theirs during real hockey (one regulation and one OT).

Doogie Says: This is being touted as one of those series that “could” end in upset. Sure, if Client Jaroslav Halak stands on his head (fun fact: the Habs are the second-worst team in the East at getting outshot by playoff teams), the midgets find a way to best both Jose Theodore and Semyon Varlamov (one is more likely than the other), and if the Canadiens don’t fall asleep trying to maintain slavish devotion to The System by Jacques Martin, it’s possible. Hell, given the number of 6-5 games these two clubs have played the last couple of years, they may even be able to outgun them. But given the way they backed into the playoffs — had they not gotten that loser point from Toronto in Game 82, they’re watching both the Flyers and Rangers do post-season battle from a golf course in Ile Bizard — and the fact that their best power-play sniper is the injured Glen Metropolit, and just given the fact that they lost in overtime to fucking Toronto for Christ’s sake, this is a team going nowhere fast. They can steal a game, maybe even two, but an upset? So not happening. Capitals in five.

Hoop Says: Is there any reason other than hope to think that the Canadiens can hold off the Caps? No. Capitals in 5.

Matt Says: Backing into the playoffs is never a good thing. Capitals in 5.

Gerard Says: Caps in 6, because the Habs have played them surprisingly tight this year.

	2	6	5	6	1	1	1	3
	3	5	1	3	2	4	2	4

Postmortem: Remember how I said that I really didn’t think it was possible for Montreal to limit Washington’s chances to the point where the Habs’ stars could keep up with the Caps’ stars, because of how shitty they’d been down the stretch? Yeah, yeah, I think the entire hockey world outside of Montreal fell for that. A large portion of this victory goes to Jaroslav “.978 SVP in Games 5-7″ Halak, who will also rightfully get most of the press, but a bunch of the credit also goes to the defence that laid down in front of a good chunk of the 26 shots blocked per game on average and did an excellent job limiting Alex Ovechkin’s opportunities in particular — Spacek and Gill in particular were in Ovechkin’s face seemingly every time he came in on the rush. Heck, the Habs’ PK was at least partially focused around stopping Ovechkin and letting the rest of the team play catch and try to adapt, and they did so with aplomb, to the tune of 32/33 or 97.0% efficiency. I’m not convinced Halak or the Habs will be able to replicate this feat against Pittsburgh, because it’s just so unlikely, but maybe for tonight I should turn off my rationality and let myself be a fan for the first time in a while: you’re wrong more often, but it’s usually a lot more fun.

As an aside, I should really point out that John Carlson — hero of the World Juniors for the United States in Saskatoon this past Christmas — had a whale of a series, and Karl Alzner didn’t look out of place in his G7 call-up. The future of Washington’s defence is bright, and I bet we see both of them in the regular lineup next October.

(2) New Jersey vs. (7) Philadelphia

Playoff History: You would think these two would’ve met frequently in the divisional period, but the Devils were garbage for the first half and Philly was garbage for the second half of that time, so no dice. The Flyers do account for the only playoff series in Colorado Rockies history, though. They also played a couple of high-profile conference finals in the inter-lockout period, both ending in New Jersey Stanley Cups.

1978 PRE	1995 CF	2000 CF	2004 CQF
2-0	4-2	4-3	4-1

Previously On…Survivor: The Devils were stunned by the Whalercanes in seven in the opening round last year, while Philly was less stunned by Pittsburgh in six in that same round.

Season Series: Figure this out: Philly’s 5-1 against Jersey this year. A couple of them were even decisive. I had no idea.

Doogie Says: Philadelphia’s problem for as long as I’ve been alive, it seems, has been goaltending. They tried once again to fill the gap left by the crazy outline of Ron Hextall trying to murder Chris Chelios on the ice over twenty years ago with Ray Emery. Unfortunately, he seems to have ripped up every structure attached to his pelvic girdle and may never play again. Seriously. This has led to a game of musical chairs in the crease, as goalies continually drop like Spinal Tap drummers until only Brian Boucher remains. Philly’s goal differential has slowly been sliding downward the last little while, and while Jersey had their struggles for a while this year, with Marty playing less like Marty than we’re accustomed to during the middle portion of the season and Jamie Langenbrunner seemingly on the outs with Jacques Lemaire, but the Devils have actually been rolling the last little while, provided they actually score (the Devils have been held to two goals or fewer in nine of their last twenty, including being shut out by the lowly Oilers). Besides, the second round is where the latter day Devils tend to fall apart, as Marty suddenly buckles under the weight of another 90-game season. For this round, it’ll last longer than it probably should, because damned if the Flyers aren’t tenacious, opportunistic bastards, but Devils in seven.

Hoop Says: Martin Brodeur vs Brian Boucher: who would you take? Ignore the regular season record. Devils in 6.

Matt Says: I’m going to have to side with Hoop on this one: I think Brodeur will be the difference. Devils in 6.

Gerard Says: Flyers in 6.

	1	5	2	1	0	1
	2	3	3	4	3	4

Postmortem: Clearly, I should’ve listened to the nagging doubts I had about Jersey’s ability to consistently generate offence, especially given the season series against Philly. (Wonder how this’ll affect Ilya Kovalchuk’s free agent marketability?) Still, who knew that Brian Boucher would rediscover the game he had ten years ago in this series? I really did not think he’d be the better goaltender, and it’s not like he stole the series or anything, either.

(3) Buffalo vs. (6) Boston

Playoff History: The Adams Division says hi.

1982 DSF	1983 DF	1988 DSF	1989 DSF	1992 DSF	1993 DSF	1999 CSF
3-1	4-3	4-2	4-1	4-3	4-0	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: The Bruins lost to the Whalercanes in overtime of Game 7 last year, while the Sabres haven’t seen the inside of the postseason since their last division title in 2007. Which may be why I’ve forgotten how ugly that fucking slug is.

Season Series: 4-2 Bruins, albeit with one shootout victory in there. Also, four of the six games were decided by one goal, and the other two were decided by two.

Doogie Says: The Bruins are another trendy underdog pick because of the absurd numbers Tuukka Rask put up this season, reminding some of Miikka Kiprusoff circa 2004. I would probably be tempted to take them as well, but no Marc Savard means the Bruins are in a world of trouble offensively. Yes, they won the season series, but most of those games came before Matt Cooke ended Savard’s season, and I have no faith in Boston’s popgun offence — the last to 200 goals this season — to be able to beat another Vezina candidate in Ryan Miller. While Buffalo’s got some injury woes of their own right now, though Connolly and Hecht are expected back for Game 1, I think they started out in a better position, in terms of depth. There will be a lot of 2-1 and 3-2 games here, but in the end, it’s the Sabres in six.

Hoop Says: Divisional matchups in the playoffs are always the most frightening. Chara is the difference. Bruins in 6.

Matt Says: I didn’t really watch much of the Sabres this year, so obviously, this goes to the team with the better commercials. Bruins in 5.

Gerard Says: Buffalo in 7. Looking at the season series, I think the East is gonna be a lot tighter than everyone thinks.

	2	3	1	2	4	3	2
	1	5	2	3	1	4	4

Postmortem: What do you know, I totally underestimated the Savard-less Bruins. I really didn’t think that scoring by committee was going to work out, but it proved to be enough behind Tuukka Rask’s goaltending. I would suggest that the Bruins are probably still boned against the Pens, but if Montreal wins their series, it’s Boston-Philly, and that’s a much better matchup.

(4) Pittsburgh vs. (5) Ottawa

Playoff History: The closest thing we have to an, “oh, not you assholes again,” matchup. They’ve met twice in the last three years, with this being the rubber match. The victor in each series, incidentally, went on to lose in the Stanley Cup Finals.

2007 CQF	2008 CQF
4-1	4-0

Previously On…Survivor: The Penguins, you may have heard, won the Stanley Cup last year. Ottawa did not. Their last trip to the playoffs, though, did end in a Senator scoring the Cup-winning goal: Chris Phillips into his own net, Steve Smith-style, against Anaheim in 2007.

Season Series: Tied 2-2. Bizarrely, no game was decided by fewer than three goals.

Doogie Says: I have no faith in the Senators. Take away that eleven-game winning streak, and they’re just another bad bubble team in an Eastern Conference full of them. They have the worst goal differential of the playoff pool by quite a bit, and Pittsburgh is deeper and better at every position. This is another series that shouldn’t, and won’t, be close. Penguins in five.

Hoop Says: I know the Sens are a sexy upset pick. But really Pittsburgh is the better team. Penguins in 5.

Matt Says: I think Ottawa will manages to put up a fight, but overall, I don’t see them winning. Penguins in 6.

Gerard Says: Jesus Christ. Every Pens-Sens game this year has been a blowout and they each took two. Let’s say Pens in…7.

	4	2	4	7	3	4	4
	5	1	2	4	4	3	2

Postmortem: Thanks to that noted goalscorer Matt Carkner and a heroic effort in net by Pascal Leclaire, we got an extra game between these two. The biggest surprise isn’t so much that Crosby dominated the series, but that he finished with fourteen points in five games (he was held pointless in Game 6). I’m not sure I want to be Boston or Montreal, whomever faces Pittsburgh in Round 2: with both Crosby and Malkin going, and the depth contributing, these guys are as dangerous as ever.

Western Conference Quarterfinals

(1) San Jose vs. (8) Colorado

Playoff History: Three close series, though two of them came when Colorado was scary good.

1999 CQF	2002 CSF	2004 CSF
4-2	4-3	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: San Jose got embarrassed — again — by the Ducks in the first round, while Colorado decided to take a spin at the draft lottery. Well played, Colorado.

Season Series: Tied 2-2, with one Colorado win coming during Percentagepalooza on opening night, and one coming in the shootout.

Doogie Says: Sorry, Matt, but your team is all kinds of no good at all. They’re the only playoff team in the West to get outshot (and handily so) by non-playoff teams, yet they posted a massive goal differential against them, confirming my season-long observation that they’re riding percentages like a mechanical bull. Sure, San Jose’s got issues — I don’t trust Nabokov as far as I can throw him, for example — but this is not the time for those issues to rear their ugly heads. When the Sharks face better competition in Round Two, they’re going to be in trouble, but if there’s a weak sister in this bunch, it’s Colorado with a bullet. Sharks in four.

Hoop Says: Will San Jose find yet another way to collapse in the first round? Doubt it. Colorado is out of gas, Sharks in 6.

Matt Says: Despite what I may have said above, I’ve got to go with my team and their penchant for winning games they shouldn’t. Avalanche in 6.

Gerard Says: The season series is 2-2. The Sharks have a history of choking. Heatley and Thornton disappear in the playoffs. Marleau has a career year and Colorado’s goaltending can steal games. Given a seven-game series, Colorado is younger (will tire less) and less prone to arrogance (they’re surprisingly old for their ages). Colorado is going to take this. Mark my words. MARK THEM! Avalanche in 6.

	1	6	0	2	5	5	4
	2	5	1	1	0	2	2

Postmortem: Two Colorado wins due to pucks going off of San Jose D in OT or late in the third, and a whole lot of Craig Anderson being otherworldly. But really, we knew all season that Anderson was the only reason Colorado was within a country mile of the playoffs: the only question is, why didn’t I take that into account in making this prediction? Boy, was that short-sighted.

(2) Chicago vs. (7) Nashville

Playoff History: None. Nashville’s still new at this playoffs thing.

Previously On…Survivor: The Hawks got shown up pretty good by the Red Wings in the conference finals, 4-1, while Nashville just barely missed the dance.

Season Series: 4-2 Chicago, all in regulation, and all before New Year’s.

Doogie Says: Poor Nashville. Every year, they enter the playoffs (or come close), have such high hopes, then they run into a good team, put up a valiant fight, but ultimately for naught. That being said, I don’t expect them to go down without a fight, simply because Chicago’s goaltending is prone to nights of epic collapse seemingly without reason. But while goaltending could cost Chicago the Stanley Cup, it won’t cost them against Nashville, because their offence just isn’t good enough — Patric Horqvist came out of nowhere to score 30 goals, but there’s only two guys with more than 50 points — and their special teams are just plain bad (16.4% PP, 24th; 77.1% PK, 28th). It is interesting to note, however, that despite their offensive juggernaut status, Chicago actually has a pretty middling power play themselves, at 17.7% (16th), but a solid PK at 85.3% (4th). However you want to look at it, though, even given Chicago’s weaknesses, I don’t think Nashville is capable of exploiting them. This series will go on longer an anyone expects, but ultimately, the guys you expect to prevail will. Blackhawks in seven.

Hoop Says: The Preds will give the Hawks all they can handle. But Chicago is too deep. Hawks in 6.

Matt Says: Chicago. Still scary. Hawks in 6.

Gerard Says: Chicago in 4.

	1	2	1	3	5	5	4
	4	0	4	0	4	3	2

Postmortem: Fourteen seconds. The Predators were fourteen seconds from taking their first-ever 3-2 lead in this series, but a Patrick Kane shorthanded goal, followed by a Marian Hossa OT winner (after he’d been assessed a major — figure that out) led to the same old script playing out in Music City. It’s too bad, because Nashville gave the Blackhawks everything they could handle throughout the series, at least when they weren’t on that anemic excuse of a power play. I feel really bad for Preds fans, honestly: they keep getting teased, then having their hearts mercilessly broken by usually-superior teams. It’s like being an Oilers fan in the ’90s, really. Hopefully, they find their Marchant goal someday soon.

(3) Vancouver vs. (6) Los Angeles

Playoff History: Towel Power propelled the Canucks to the Finals in ’82, while Gretzky propelled the Kings to victory in ’91 and ’93. Since then, bupkis. (Since then, the Kings have missed the playoffs far more often than not.)

1982 DF	1991 DSF	1993 DF
4-1	4-2	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: The Canucks collapsed against Chicago in the conference semis, losing 4-2, while LA hasn’t been to the post-season since Britney Spears was only driven crazy by a dude in a song. (Too old of a joke?)

Season Series: 3-1 Vancouver, with one win in the shootout. Those three wins, though, came in the first half of the season, while LA’s single win came just two weeks ago, to the tune of 8-3. Not that it’s predictive of much, but…

Doogie Says: I want the Kings to advance. Really, I do. I still like Ryan Smyth, and I still don’t like…well, pretty much anyone on the Canucks. And their fans are still complete fucking douchebags. Scott Reynolds at C&B presents some decent evidence to suggest the Kings can pull off the upset, too. But I can’t believe that Luongo’s going to continue to stink like he has, though Hockey Night in Canada‘s preview show did suggest that the loss of Willie Mitchell might be the difference. Plus, Vancouver’s got one of the deepest offences out there, with six 25-goal scorers. For some reason, I have a hunch LA will keep it close — I actually like their defence quite a bit, all things considered — but I can’t see them pulling the upset like some have predicted. Canucks in seven.

Hoop Says: This will be a learning experience for the Kings. Too much talent in Vancouver. Canucks in 5.

Matt Says: The evil part of me wants to see the Canucks get swept [ed: "Evil?" Nay, sir, the civilized side of you.], but I think this one will be a long series. Canucks in 6.

Gerard Says: LA in 7.

	3	2	3	6	7	4	4
	2	3	5	4	2	2	2

Postmortem: Boy, if not for Vancouver’s PK laying the biggest egg in playoff history through four games (what were they at, 40% at one point?), this series probably isn’t even close. Certainly, once they got their shit together and Luongo started playing like Luongo, they became the team I expected to see going into things. But while everyone talks about the Sedins, Mikael Samuelsson, the Detroit castoff, the guy who was left off Team Sweden at the Olympics then promptly told his national ice hockey federation to go fuck themselves, leads playoff scoring with seven goals in six games. I mean, look, I’ve got him in my regular-season pool, so I know what he can do, but what the hell?

(4) Phoenix Arizona vs. (5) Detroit

Playoff History: The Detroit Red Wings terminated the existence of the Winnipeg Jets on April 28, 1996, with a 4-1 victory at Winnipeg Arena. The two franchises also met in 1998, a year the Wings won the Stanley Cup.

1996 CQF	1998 CQF
4-2	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: Detroit made their second straight Stanley Cup Finals, losing to Pittsburgh in seven. The Coyotes haven’t made the playoffs since Brit–wait, I already did that one. Shit. Um, let’s just say it’s been a while.

Season Series: Tied 2-2. Phoenix required OT (but oddly, not a shootout) to win both of theirs, while both of Detroit’s were taken in regulation.

Doogie Says: First, regarding that little name change at the top, it should be pointed out that it seems all but assured this team will be called the Arizona Coyotes next year, unless the NHL has a complete conniption fit over it (unlikely) or decides in favour of “Glendale Coyotes” instead (riiiiiight), so we might as well get used to it now. Anyway, I had high hopes for the Coyotes running into someone like LA or Nashville, because I’m pretty sure they could handle either of those teams; the one team I was afraid of was Detroit, and wouldn’t you know it, they win out while LA gets owned by Devan Dubnyk, and here we are. Detroit is only this low because of all the injuries they sustained to basically every player of note in the first half. Once everyone came back, they played like the Detroit Red Wings, and I expect nothing less in this series. It should also be pointed out that Phoenix led the League with a whopping 14-6 record in the shootout, and as we’ve seen from past experience, that shit never holds up, and more to the point, is totally irrelevant to the playoffs. Ilya Bryzgalov is a hell of a goalie, and will keep the Desert Dogs in it, but Detroit is Detroit, and once again, it seems unlikely that anyone in their path will be able to stop them. Red Wings in six.

Hoop Says: Phoenix will keep a couple games close but the Wings are in fine form. Red Wings in 5.

Matt Says: I don’t know if I like Detroit’s chances this year. Let’s go with the mongrels. Coyotes in 7.

Gerard Says: Detroit in 6.

	3	4	4	0	1	5	1	3
	2	7	2	3	4	2	6	4

Postmortem: This was, in one sense, a very opportunistic series. When Detroit started looking old and tired, and when Jimmy Howard started playing like a rookie goaltender in the playoffs, the Coyotes were able to exploit it. When Phoenix got sloppy (Game 2) or nervous (Game 7), as young teams do, the Red Wings were the Red Wings, as they ever were. The story of the series, though, might be special teams. In their three wins, the Coyotes were 6/13; in their four losses, they were 1/20. Detroit, meanwhile, was 2/16 in their three losses and 5/18 in their four wins. The contrast is less stark for Detroit, mind you, and the ineptitude of Phoenix’s power play, much like Nashville, really hurt them when it counted: they failed to convert on a 5-on-3 late in the second period of Game 7 when the score was only 3-1, then Brad Stuart came out of the box and scored on a breakaway to put it on ice. It’s too bad, though, that Shane Doan was unable to return, because that could have made for a more even game, particularly early, and a much more interesting conclusion, especially since the Coyotes were able to win two of three with Doan in the lineup and pushed Detroit to seven even without him. I think Detroit may be more vulnerable than they’ve been in past years, because of Howard’s inconsistency and the aging of some of their stars, especially on defence, but clearly, when the vets are on, as they were in Game 7, they’re still one of the most dangerous teams in hockey. The Sharks will have their hands full.

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Troy Bodie		Draft (9/278, ’03)	FA (ANA, ’08)
Joffrey Lupul		Trade (ANA, ’06): with L. Smid, 1/30 ’07 (N. Ross, PHX), 1/22 ’08 (J. Eberle), and 2/53 ’08 (T. Hamonic, NYI) for C. Pronger	Trade (PHI, ’07): with J. Smith for J. Pitkanen, G. Sanderson, and 3/82 ’09 (C. Abney)
Todd Marchant		Trade (NYR, ’94): for C. MacTavish	FA (CBJ, ’03)
Lubomir Visnovsky		Trade (LAK, ’08): for M. Greene and J. Stoll	Trade (ANA, ’10): for R. Whitney and 6/??? ’10
Marty Reasoner		Trade (STL, ’01): with J. Hecht and J. Horacek for D. Weight and M. Riesen	Trade (BOS, ’06): with Y. Stastny and 2/50 ’06 (M. Lucic) for S. Samsonov
		FA (BOS, ’06)	FA (ATL, ’08)
Guillaume Lefebvre1		FA (NAHL, ’08)	FA (BOS, ’09)
Miroslav Satan		Draft (5/111, ’93)	Trade (BUF, ’97): for B. Moore and C. Millar
Tim Thomas		FA (SM-L, ’98)	FA (IHL, ’99)
Mike Grier		Trade (STL, ’95): with C. Joseph for S. Corson2	Trade (WSH, ’02): for 2/53 ’03 (E. Tunik, NYI) and 3/94 ’03 (Z. Stortini)
Jochen Hecht		Trade (STL, ’01): with M. Reasoner and J. Horacek for D. Weight and M. Riesen	Trade (BUF, ’02): for 2/31 ’02 (J. Deslauriers) and 2/36 ’02 (J. Stoll)
Raffi Torres		Trade (NYI, ’03): with B. Isbister for J. Niinimaa and 2/53 ’03 (E. Tunik)	Trade (CBJ, ’08): for G. Brule
Curtis Glencross		Trade (CBJ, ’08): for D. Tarnstrom	FA (CGY, ’08)
Ales Kotalik		Trade (BUF, ’09): for 2/58 ’09 (J. Blacker, TOR)	FA (NYR, ’09)
Steve Staios		FA (ATL, ’01)	Trade (CGY, ’10): for A. Johnson and 3/?? ’10 or ’11
Erik Cole		Trade (CAR, ’08): for J. Pitkanen	Trade (CAR, ’09): with 5/131 ’09 (M. Kennedy) for P. O’Sullivan and 2/58 ’09 (J. Blacker, TOR)
Joni Pitkanen		Trade (PHI, ’07): with G. Sanderson and 3/82 (C. Abney) for J. Lupul and J. Smith	Trade (CAR, ’08): for E. Cole
Sergei Samsonov		Trade (BOS, ’06): for M. Reasoner, Y. Stastny, 2/50 ’06 (M. Lucic)	FA (MTL, ’06)
Ray Whitney		FA (SJS, ’97)	Waivers (FLA, ’97)
Mathieu Garon		FA (LAK, ’07)	Trade (PIT, ’09): for D. Sabourin, R. Stone, and 4/??? ’11
Jan Hejda		Trade (BUF, ’06) for 7/187 ’07 (N. Eno)	FA (CBJ, ’07)
Toby Petersen		FA (PIT, ’04)	FA (DAL, ’07)
Jeff Woywitka		Trade (PHI, ’03): with 1/25 ’04 (R. Schremp) and 3/81 ’05 (D. Syvret) for M. Comrie	Trade (STL, ’05): with E. Brewer and D. Lynch for C. Pronger
Daniel Cleary		Trade (CHI, ’99): with C. Kilger, E. Moreau, and C. Laflamme for B. Mironov, D. McAmmond, and J. Elofsson	FA (PHX, ’03)
Kirk Maltby		Draft (3/65, ’92)	Trade (DET, ’96): for D. McGillis
Mike Comrie		Draft (3/91, ’99)	Trade (PHI, ’03): for J. Woywitka, 1/25 ’04 (R. Schremp), and 3/81 ’05 (D. Syvret)
Radek Dvorak		Trade (NYR, ’03): with C. Cross for A. Carter and A. Pisa	FA (STL, ’06)
Steve MacIntyre1		Waivers (FLA, ’08)	Waivers (FLA, ’09)
Mathieu Roy1		Draft (7/215, ’03)	FA (CBJ, ’09)
Matt Greene		Draft (2/44, ’02)	Trade (LAK, ’08): with J. Stoll for L. Visnovsky
Ryan Smyth		Draft (1/6, ’94)	Trade (NYI, ’07): for R. O’Marra, R. Nilsson, and 1/15 ’07 (A. Plante)
Jarret Stoll		Draft (2/36, ’02)	Trade (LAK, ’08): with M. Greene for L. Visnovsky
Kyle Brodziak		Draft (7/214, ’03)	Trade (MIN, ’09): with 6/161 ’09 (D. Kuemper) for 4/99 ’09 (K. Bigos) and 5/133 ’09 (O. Roy)
Petr Sykora1		FA (NYR, ’06)	FA (PIT, ’07)
Marc-Andre Bergeron		FA (QMHJL, ’01)	Trade (NYI, ’07): with 3/73 ’08 (K. Petrov) for D. Grebeshkov
Roman Hamrlik		Trade (TBL, ’97): with P. Comrie for B. Marchment, S. Kelly, and J. Bonsignore	Trade (NYI, ’00): for E. Brewer, J. Green, and 2/35 ’00 (B. Winchester)
Georges Laraque1		Draft (2/31, ’95)	FA (PHX, ’06)
Jaroslav Spacek		Trade (CHI, ’06): for T. Salmelainen	FA (BUF, ’06)
Jason Arnott		Draft (1/7, ’93)	Trade (NJD, ’98): with B. Muir for V. Zelepukin and B. Guerin
Denis Grebeshkov		Trade (NYI, ’07): for M. Bergeron and 3/73 ’08 (K. Petrov)	Trade (NSH, ’10): for 2/?? ’10
Dean McAmmond		Trade (CHI, ’93): with I. Kravchuk for J. Murphy	Trade (CHI, ’98): with B. Mironov and J. Elofsson for C. Kilger, D. Cleary, E. Moreau, and C. Laflamme
Tim Sestito1		FA (ECHL, ’06)	Trade (NJD, ’09): for a conditional pick (’10)
Dwayne Roloson		Trade (MIN, ’06): for 1/17 ’06 (T. Lewis, LAK) and 3/67 ’07 (S. Machacek, ‘ATL)	FA (NYI, ’09)
Rob Schremp		Draft (1/25, ’04)	Waivers (NYI, ’09)
Doug Weight		Trade (NYR, ’93): for E. Tikkanen	Trade (STL, ’01): with M. Riesen for M. Reasoner, J. Hecht, and J. Horacek
Steve Valiquette		FA (NYI, ’03)	Waivers (FLA, ’03)
		Waivers (FLA, ’03)	Trade (NYR, ’04): with D. Helminen and 2/48 ’04 (D. Byers) for P. Nedved and J. Markkanen
Chris Pronger		Trade (STL, ’05): for E. Brewer, D. Lynch, and J. Woywitka	Trade (ANA, ’06): for J. Lupul, L. Smid, 1/30 ’07 (N. Ross, PHX), 1/22 ’08 (J. Eberle), and 2/53 ’08 (T. Hamonic, NYI)
Danny Syvret		Draft (3/81, ’05)	Trade (PHI, ’08): for R. Potulny
Matthew Lombardi		Draft (7/215, ’00)	Draft (CGY, 3/90, ’02)
Bill Guerin		Trade (NJD, ’98): with V. Zelepukin for J. Arnott and B. Muir	Trade (BOS, ’00): with 1/19 ’01 (S. Morrisonn) for A. Carter, 1/13 ’01 (A. Hemsky), and 2/43 ’01 (D. Lynch)
Dwight Helminen		Draft (8/244, ’02)	Trade (NYR, ’04): with S. Valiquette and 2/48 ’04 (D. Byers) for P. Nedved and J. Markkanen
Eric Brewer		Trade (NYI, ’00): with J. Green for 2/35 ’00 (B. Winchester) for R. Hamrlik	Trade (STL, ’05): with D. Lynch and J. Woywitka for C. Pronger
Ty Conklin		FA (NCAA, ’01)	FA (CBJ, ’06)
Brad Winchester		Draft (2/35, ’00)	FA (DAL, ’07)
Yan Stastny		Trade (BOS, ’05): for 4/98 ’06 (J. Delory, SJS)	Trade (BOS, ’06): with M. Reasoner and 2/50 ’06 (M. Lucic) for S. Samsonov
Jason Chimera		Draft (5/121, ’97)	Trade (PHX, ’04): with 3/80 ’04 (B. Ryan, NYR) for 2/57 ’04 (G. Paukovich) and 4/112 ’04 (L. Reddox)
Tom Poti		Draft (3/59, ’96)	Trade (NYR, ’02): with R. Murray for M. York and 4/106 ’02 (I. Koltsov)

¹ Not currently on active roster.
² RFA compensation in lieu of 1/14 ’96 (M. Reasoner) and 1/15 ’97 (M. Zultek, LAK)

The final tally, before the deadline:

• 4 teams have four (CAR, CBJ, MTL, STL)
• 4 teams have three (ANA, BOS, LAK, NYI)
• 9 teams have two (BUF, CGY, DAL, DET, FLA, MIN, NJD, PHI, WAS)
• 7 teams have one (ATL, EDM, NSH, NYR, PHX, PIT, SJS)
• 6 teams have none (CHI, COL, OTT, TOR, TBL, VAN)

(Edit:) And after the deadline:

• 4 teams have four (ANA, CAR, MTL, STL)
• 6 teams have three (BUF, CGY, BOS, FLA, LAK, NYI)
• 8 teams have two (CBJ, DAL, DET, MIN, NSH, NJD, PHI, WAS)
• 7 teams have one (ATL, EDM, NYR, PHX, PIT, SJS, VAN)
• 5 teams have none (CHI, COL, OTT, TOR, TBL)

Additionally, three active players have recorded two separate stints as an Oiler: Mike Comrie, Marty Reasoner, and Steve Valiquette. Of course, the larger question is whether any of this is at all relevant, especially with the trade deadline coming up shortly after the Olympics to make this list almost instantly out of date. My response to this is, because I was curious. And I wanted to see how many I could come up with off the top of my head. I think I got about 3/4 of these guys, which I’m pretty happy with, all told.

(Edit:) There are a couple of patterns here, though. One is that they’ve made a hell of a lot of trades with the Islanders, Flyers, and less recently, the Blues, over the years. They haven’t traded often with Anaheim, but when they have — Pronger and Visnovsky — it’s been huge. Finally, yesterday marks the first time in 30 years the Flames and Oilers have made a deal, and I’m calling it a victory for the Oilers. Sorry, Steady Steve, but your day has passed.

Finally, it’s too bad I didn’t do this a couple of years ago, or I could’ve tied back to this little piece of history.

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Martin Gelinas		Trade (LAK, ’88): with J. Carson, 1/18 ’89 (J. Miller, NJD), 1/20 ’91 (M. Rucinsky), 1/16 ’93 (N. Stajduhar), and cash for W. Gretzky, M. Krushelnyski, and M. McSorley	Trade (QUE, ’93): with 6/137 ’93 (N. Checco) for S. Pearson

Gelinas and Rucinsky were both journeymen, briefly playing together in Quebec. Both left the NHL in 2008, and retired from active play after a year in Europe, the last two pieces of one of the most infamous trades in professional sport.

Sept 3/09 – Today in Phoenix, Judge Redfield T. Baum handed down a ruling saying that Jim Balsillie was not an acceptable bidder for the Phoenix Coyotes franchise. However he also ruled that the NHL had violated anti-trust law, and was awarding an expansion team to the Blackberry Billionaire to begin play immediately for the upcoming 09/10 season in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

The NHL immediately refused to hold an expansion draft and required the team to be filled up with UFA players. Wasting little time Mr. Balsillie called up his close and dear friend Hoop27 to put together an NHL roster for the upcoming season using the salary numbers from the UFA’s last contracts.

We had a chance to sit down with Hoop as he explained the roster he has put together for the Hamilton Blackberries. HJ – “Congratulations on your appointment as the GM of the Blackberries. What has been the most difficult challenge for you so far?” Hoop – “Well the biggest problem I had found was ensuring that we reached the salary floor of $40.8M while still trying to build a team that could compete this year, and have some players that will be with us a few years down the road as we try and build a minor league system as well.”

HJ – “Now when you say compete this year what are the team goals?” Hoop – “The team has a couple of goals in this inaugural season. First we want to field a competitive team for the great fans of Hamilton. Secondly we think there is an opportunity to make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference this year.” note: The Blackberries were placed in the North East division for this year with realignment being discussed for the future.

HJ – “Before we get into the actual players you have signed I am wondering if the playoffs are an attainable goal?” Hoop – “If we were placed in the Western Conference I would tend to agree with you that we would have very little opportunity to make the post season but in the East and the division we are in we feel that we can compete on a nightly basis.”

HJ – “Well I wish you luck and would like you to take us through the roster you have assembled, would you like to start with the goaltenders?” Hoop – “As we all know this is the most important position in all of pro sports. And I believe we have a tandem that can lead us to the post season, but also I would stack them up against most teams in the NHL. We first signed Manny Fernandez who in my mind is a legitimate #1 goaltender on most teams. His price tag was a little high but we felt we was worth the 2 year deal we gave him. I then went out and immediately signed Kevin Weekes to a 2 year deal as well. Not only does Kevin have a wealth of experience, he has proven to be a solid goaltender everywhere he has played. Not only that he is a great player in the community and we feel giving him a 2 year deal will allow him some security and a chance to set down roots in Hamilton.”

HJ – “Alright so your goaltending is set how about the men that will play in front of him? Defense is a tough position to fill at the best of times.” Hoop – “Absolutely! And in our situation I felt it best to go with an experienced core of guys that can take care of our own end as a first priority. So I have signed Bret Hedican, Greg Zanon, and Ken Klee to one year deals. Greg will have a player option for a 2nd year. We will have a little offense out of the back end as well signing Patrice Brisebois to a 2 year deal and for me the steal was Marc-Andre Bergeron who I have given a 3 year deal to. And these to should be able to anchor the back end with some offensive upside. I have also taken a couple chances signing Kyle McLaren to a 1 year deal if he passes his physical which it appears he should be able to. And I have signed Denis Gauthier to a 1 year deal with a team option for a 2nd year. We think Kyle should be able to regain his form of 2 years ago and could be a top defenseman for us and Denis will give us a player that other teams will have to account for.

HJ – “So what about up front? Who have you been able to sign so far? Lets start up the middle at Center.” Hoop – “Gladly Heywood! And I am pleased to let you be the first to hear that we have first signed Mats Sundin to a 1 year contract and he will serve as the Blackberries first captain! Mats had a desire to play in Ontario and he feels that our team gives him the best shot at making the playoffs. And he in turn gives us a legitimate #1 center and to be honest it is a great marketing investment for us. Also Dominic Moore, and Viktor Kozlov have agreed to 2 year contracts with us and should provide us with scoring depth down the middle, also with Moore we get a great work ethic and fine penalty killer. We have also signed a couple good character guys in Manny Malhotra and Blair Betts to 1 year deals with team options for a 2nd year, so I feel we should be solid down the middle.”

HJ – “It seems you have been able to find some depth at Center. How does it look on the wings? Lets start with the left side.” Hoop – “This was the toughest part in my opinion I had to take a couple of contracts on the wings that may not be ideal but I also had to reach the salary floor, but all in all I am pleased with what I have put together starting on the left side my first two signings were really no brainers with what was available on the market I have given a 2 year deal to P.J. Axelsson and a 1 year deal with a team option to Kyle Calder. P.J. Is just a brilliant passer and should have an opportunity to put up some career highs with the players we can surround him with. Kyle is as good of a two way guy as there is in the league. I also think that I have found a steal in signing Matt Pettinger to a 2 year contract. Matt is a great defensive forward and truly underrated in my eyes. I rounded out the left side with some size and character signing Andrew Peters and Brad May to 1 year contracts. Both guys were happy to be able to stay close to home and they should bring us some grit and leadership. Andrew is also one of the top heavyweights in the league and Brad will drop them as well as having great leadership.

HJ – “And what have you been able to find on the right side?” Hoop – “A lot of underrated skill in my opinion. We have signed four guys to 2 year deals and they are Petr Sykora, Richard Zednik, Miroslav Satan, and Maxim Afinogenov. Richard and Maxim can both play either wing and I suspect you will see that during the season. But with all four guys they can be legitimate 20 – 30 goal scorers given the ice time and power play time they will receive for us. Maxim is the biggest risk for us as he had a terrible year last year in Buffalo and he was the first to admit it to us. But I feel his upside is worth the risk of his contract and that also got us over the salary floor.

HJ – “I have to admit you have put together a roster that should be able to compete most nights. However I would suggest that the scoring is going to be a problem.” Hoop – “It may be but we also have some players that just have not received time on the number one lines in their past and power play time representative of their skill levels. But we also realize that we won’t win games 5-4 we will try and win games 3-2 and 2-1 and see if we can’t challenge for a playoff spot. I also have a phone call out to a guy in Sweden by the name of Forsberg, so with any luck we could add a little more before the season starts.

HJ – “And have you been able to find a coach as of yet?” At this point of the interview Hoop had just checked his blackberry which had been buzzing. Hoop – “Actually yes I am pleased to say we have just agreed in principle with Dave Tippett on a 5 year deal, and we will of course allow him to hire his own staff.” HJ – “Did you just receive that?” Hoop – “Yup, these blackberries are fantastic! And I am very pleased to hire Dave on as he was unjustly fired from Dallas. But as far as I’m concerned we just landed one of the top 10 coaches in the NHL!”

HJ – Thank You for giving us the time to go through your roster as I am sure you must be extremely busy right now. Before I go I have to ask what is your biggest long term goal for the Hamilton Blackberries? Hoop – “That’s very easy Heywood. Seeing Gary Bettman hand our captain the Stanley Cup here in Hamilton.”

This is a look at the 23 man roster the Hamilton Blackberries will be going with for opening night…

GP     W    L     GAA     PCT     SO     EN    GA    SHA    Starts

Manny Fernandez  Bruins G 4,750,000     28     16     8      2.59      .910       1          1       71       791       27

Kevin Weekes           Devils G     700,000     16       7      5      2.42      .920      0          1       32       399       13

GP    G     A     PTS    +/-   PPG   PPA  SHG  SHA  GWG  GTG  PIM  SH  PCT

Kyle McLaren          Sharks D  2,500,000     61      3     8        11         3        0         1          0         0           0           0        84     39   7.7

Bret Hedican              Ducks D      870,500     51      1     5         6        -7        0         2          0         0           0           0        36     40   2.5

Marc-Andre Bergeron Wild D 1,691,000    72    14  18       32         5        7       11          0         0           3           0        30   140 10.0

Greg Zanon          Predators D      750,000    82      4    7        11         8        0         0          0         1           1            0        38     54   7.4

Ken Klee                   Coyotes D       625,000    71      1   10       11         9        0         0          0         0          0            0        28     51   2.0

Denis Gauthier            Kings D   2,200,000    65     2     2         4      -11        0         0          0         0          0            0        90     36   5.6

Patrice Brisebois Canadiens D    750,000    62     5   13       18        -3        4         3          0         0          1             0        19     68   7.4

Mats Sundin           Canucks C    5,626,500     41     9   19      28        -5         5         9          0         0          2             0        28     84 10.7

Viktor Kozlov        Capitals C    2,500,000    67   13  28      41        -9         2       13          0         0          0             0        16    153  8.5

Dominic Moore       Sabres C        900,000     81   13  32      45        -2         4         5          1          0          1             0        92    165  7.9

Manny Malhotra Blue Jackets C 1,500,000 77 11   24      35         9         0         6          0          1          3             0        28    116  9.5

Blair Betts               Rangers C         615,000      81    6     4       10       -5         0         0          2          1          1             0        16       83  7.2

P.J. Axelsson         Bruins LW     1,850,000    75    6   24      30       -1          2         9          0          0         0             0       16       87  6.9

Kyle Calder               Kings LW     2,700,000   74    8   19      27        -1         2         2          0          0          1             0       41       93  8.6

Matt Pettinger Lightning LW      1,100,000   59    8     7       15      -14        2         0          0          0          1             0       24      82  9.8

Andrew Peters      Sabres LW          550,000   28    0     1         1         -2        0         0          0          0          0            0       81       10   –

Brad May      Maple Leafs LW          600,000   58    1     6         7         0         0         0          0          0          0            0       89      32  3.1

Petr Sykora        Penguins RW     2,500,000   76  25  21      46          3       13         6          0          0        10            0       36  180 13.9

Richard Zednik Panthers RW     1,750,000   70  17  16      33          2         3          1          0          1          4             0       46  153 11.1

Miroslav Satan Penguins RW     3,500,000    65  17  19      36          3         6          5         0          0          2             0       36  120 14.2

Maxim Afinogenov Sabres RW  3,500,000   48     6  14      20        -7         0         7         0          0          0             0       20    93  6.5

First, let’s consider the age argument. It would seem that the primary concern here is that Khabibulin should be primed to fall off a cliff any year now because previous generations of player did, which is awfully nice to know but really quite irrelevant, especially considering the fact that this team just got a near-career year out of a 39-year-old ‘keeper. The fact of the matter is, players understand and implement nutritional and training principles better now than they have at any point in the League’s history, and are in better overall physical condition than at any point since the game’s very earliest days, when multi-sport professional athletes playing hockey in the winter and lacrosse or rugby in the summer were common. Put more succinctly, I believe that 40 is the new 35, and that we will continue to see more players put up serviceable numbers well into their late 30s. (As an example, Brendan Shanahan put up nineteen consecutive 20-goal seasons, his most recent at age 39, and scored 40 goals as recently as age 37. Until this most recent half-season, he’d been averaging over 18 minutes per night for as far back as Hockey Reference has numbers, about ten years.) I don’t think it’s valid to presume that players today will follow the same progression curve that their forebears did, because they operate fundamentally differently, showing up to camp in elite physical condition instead of playing their way into it. We’re still several years away from having a sufficient amount of data to predict when the modern NHLer takes that irrevocable nosedive into athletic senescence, but as it stands right now, I would postulate that playing a 36-year-old goaltender for a significant number of games (i.e. more than 50) should not present a real problem, so long as he’s stayed in shape to this point.

Comparing Khabibulin to his team

The other argument revolves around his mediocre-to-bad save percentages while a member of the 2005-08 Chicago Blackhawks. Above is a table showing Khabibulin’s points percentage, save percentage, and goals-against average as compared to the team average for his entire career, with the Chicago numbers blocked off separately. (Ironic aside: one of his worst regular-season performances, at least relative to his backup, came in his Stanley Cup-winning season of 2003-04.) In 2005-06, I don’t think anyone would deny that he was at best not helping matters, and at worst a big part of the problem, but at least in terms of save percentage and goals-against average, he outperformed the team average (that is to say, he was better than his backup) in all three years. At the very least, this tells me that Khabibulin was far and away the best option on the team for all three of those years. Could there have been better goalies on that team? Sure, probably. However, I would suggest that the raw numbers, which have been cited repeatedly as a problem, would be influenced by the quality of the team. I know, the accepted wisdom of the Edmonton Eulers is that individual players don’t have a significant impact on a goalie’s save percentage, and that may be so, but I would counter by saying that we understand, and even expect, that a goalie is going to have a sub-.900 SV% on the penalty-kill. You’re down a man, defensive coverage is stretched to the limit, and breakdowns will inevitably result in high-percentage chances and goals. Would it not be logical, then, to extend the same consideration to bad hockey teams? That’s not to say that we should forgive that abysmal .886 in 2005-06, of course, nor is it to say that universally, better teams will have better goalie numbers (see: the 2005-06 Oilers), but that all other things being equal, the same goaltender will probably put up worse numbers on a worse team. It’s no surprise to me that Khabi’s SV% increased in each of the next three seasons, because the team itself got better each year. The larger change from 2007-08 to 2008-09 (.909 to .919) could also be due in part to the fact that Joel Quenneville was a bit more concerned about defensive responsibility than his predecessor, Denis Savard, in addition to the overall improvement in the play of the team. You can argue that there were better options out there that should have at least been considered — leaving aside the usual caveat that no one wants to play in Edmonton anyway — but that doesn’t necessarily mean the option that the Oilers ultimately went with was a poor one.

When I started this article, I hadn’t planned on it turning in to the Nikolai Khabibulin Show, because to be honest, the real question marks for me are behind him. Let’s start with Jeff Drouin-Deslauriers, the designated backup for this season. To be blunt, I don’t have much faith in him; never mind the statistics, he looked shaky in his first-star turn at Madison Square Garden last November, when he withstood a siege in the final forty to squeak out a 3-2 shootout win, and he’s only looked worse from there. I can see that he’s trying to play something of a hybrid style, more akin to that of Martin Brodeur than most other modern goalies, but let’s be honest: JDD is no Marty. Aside from relative talent level, of course, part of the problem is the fact that Deslauriers spent much of his early pro career being jerked around by the Oilers. They pulled the plug on their own minor-league team after his rookie year, and shared affiliation with others for a couple of seasons, forcing him to play behind other teams’ prospects — an even greater problem for goaltenders than skaters. They finally got him a minor-league team he could start for in 2007-08, but then made him spend most of last season in the press box, because three-goalie rotations are traditionally the mark of a successful hockey club. Whatever abilities he had have been at least somewhat squandered and suffocated by the terrible arrangements the Oilers made over the last few years, to the point where I think his ceiling is now much lower than it was when they drafted him seven years ago. He just didn’t get enough net time as a young man to build up both the skills and the confidence to take the next step, and confidence is an important thing for a goaltender more so than any other position, certainly based on my own limited experiences in net. Maybe a new goalie coach and a greater opportunity with the NHL club will help him to some degree, but at this point, he’s a career backup, and I wonder even then if he’ll be able to hold off future prospects as they mature into NHL-ready goalkeepers.

The prospect he should be worried about now is Devan Dubnyk. No, a .906 SV% in the AHL isn’t entirely confidence-inspiring, but as I noted with Khabibulin, I don’t think SV% is a number that can be considered entirely without context. The 2008-09 Springfield Falcons were, in a word, fucking awful. In fact, they had the worst record in the AHL last season at 24-44-12 with a -70 GD. I’ve already mentioned Rob Schremp as one person who had a bad year on that bad team, but I think Dubnyk is, frankly, much more likely to rebound into an NHL player at this stage of his career. Certainly, a sub-.910 SV% is kind of to be expected given the number of injuries and ECHLers inflicted on that team. There’s no guarantees, of course, but I have a lot more faith in him without even seeing him than I do in Deslauriers. As for judging his play personally, well, I’ve never seen the kid play, or if I have, it was at a pre-season game several years ago, of which I no longer have any recollection. My thinking is that for 2009-10, Dubnyk should focus on being The Guy in Springfield and putting up good numbers, so that he comes into camp in 2010-11 ready to wrestle the backup job from Deslauriers. While I think he’s probably the better goaltender, certainly in the long term, I can’t imagine he’s ready for the NHL job this year. I have to hope that he will be soon, though; as unconcerned as I was about Khabibulin’s age now, when his final year rolls around, there has to be a succession plan in place, and frankly, I’d rather he be succeeded by the kid that was developed properly in the minors than the kid that wasn’t.