The companion ex-Oilers post can be found here.

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Francois Beauchemin		Draft (3/75, ’98)	Waivers (CBJ, ’04)
Kyle Chipchura		Draft (1/18, ’04)	Trade (ANA, ’09): for 4/??? ’11
Dan Ellis		Trade (NSH, ’10): with D. Boyd for S. Kostitsyn	FA (TBL, ’10)
Saku Koivu		Draft (1/21, ’93)	FA (ANA, ’09)
Brett Festerling1		Trade (ANA, ’10): with 5/??? ’12 for M. Lapierre	Trade (ATL, ’11): for D. MacIntyre
Ron Hainsey		Draft (1/13, ’00)	Waivers (CBJ, ’05)
Mark Recchi		Trade (PHI, ’95): with 3/74 ’95 (M. Hohenberger) for E. Desjardins, G. Dionne, and J. LeClair	Trade (PHI, ’99): for D. Zubrus, 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig)
Michael Ryder		Draft (8/216, ’98)	FA (BOS, ’08)
Craig Conroy1		Draft (6/123, ’90)	Trade (STL, ’96): with P. Turgeon and R. Fitzpatrick for M. Baron, S. Corson, and 5/122 ’97 (G. Razin)
Tom Kostopoulos		FA (LAK, ’07)	FA (CAR, ’09)
Raitis Ivanans1		FA (AHL, ’04)	FA (LAK, ’06)
Alex Tanguay1		Trade (CGY, ’08): with 5/138 ’08 (M. Trunev) for 1/25 ’08 (G. Nemisz) and 2/49 ’09 (S. Elliott, COL)	FA (TBL, ’09)
Shawn Belle1		Trade (MIN, ’08): for C. Locke	FA (EDM, ’10)
Ryan O’Byrne		Draft (3/79, ’03)	Trade (COL, ’10): for M. Bournival
Mathieu Garon		Draft (2/44, ’96)	Trade (LAK, ’04): with 3/95 ’04 (P. Baier) for R. Bonk and C. Huet
Craig Rivet1		Draft (3/68, ’92)	Trade (SJS, ’07): with 5/146 ’08 (J. Demers) for J. Gorges and 1/22 ’07 (M. Pacioretty)
Mike Ribiero		Draft (2/45, ’98)	Trade (DAL, ’06): with 6/176 ’08 (M. Tassone) for J. Niinimaa and 5/142 ’07 (A. Conboy)
Stephane Robidas		Draft (7/164, ’95)	Waivers (ATL, ’02)
Doug Janik1		Trade (DAL, ’09): for S. Begin	FA (DET, ’09)
Sheldon Souray1		Trade (NJD, ’00): with J. DeWolf and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for V. Malakhov	FA (EDM, ’07)
Sergei Samsonov		FA (EDM, ’06)	Trade (CHI, ’07): for J. Cullimore and T. Salmelainen
Tomas Vokoun		Draft (9/226, ’94)	Expansion Draft (NSH, ’98)
Guillaume Latendresse		Draft (2/45, ’05)	Trade (MIN, ’09): for B. Pouliot
Jose Theodore		Draft (2/44, ’94)	Trade (COL, ’06): for D. Aebischer
Paul Mara		FA (NYR, ’09)	FA (ANA, ’10)
Steve Begin1		Waivers (BUF, ’03)	Trade (DAL, ’09): for D. Janik
Francis Bouillon1		FA (IHL, ’98)	Waivers (NSH, ’02)
		Waivers (NSH, ’02)	FA (NSH, ’09)
Sergei Kostitsyn		Draft (7/200, ’05)	Trade (NSH, ’10): for D. Boyd, D. Ellis
Dainius Zubrus		Trade (PHI, ’99): with 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig) for M. Recchi	Trade (WSH, ’01): with T. Linden and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for R. Zednik, J. Bulis, and 1/25 ’01 (A. Perezhogin)
Mark Streit1		Draft (9/262, ’04)	FA (NYI, ’08)
Ryan McDonagh		Draft (1/12, ’07)	Trade (NYR, ’09): with C. Higgins and P. Valentenko for S. Gomez, T. Pyatt, and M. Busto
Matt Carkner		Draft (2/58, ’99)	FA (SJS, ’01)
Corey Locke		Draft (4/113, ’03)	Trade (MIN, ’08): for S. Belle
Michael Leighton1		Waivers (PHI, ’07)	Trade (CAR, ’07): for 7/192 ’07 (S. Kishel)
Alexei Kovalev		Trade (NYR, ’04): for J. Balej and 2/51 ’04 (B. Graham)	FA (OTT, ’09)
Matt d’Agostini		Draft (6/190, ’05)	Trade (STL, ’10): for A. Palushaj
Jaroslav Halak		Draft (9/271, ’03)	Trade (STL, ’10): for L. Eller and I. Schultz
Marc-Andre Bergeron		FA (MIN, ’09)	FA (TBL, ’11)
Brett Clark		Draft (6/154, ’96)	Expansion Draft (ATL, ’99)
Cédrick Desjardins1		FA (QMJHL, ’06)	Trade (TBL, ’10): for K. Rammo
Dominic Moore		Trade (FLA, ’10): for 2/?? ’11	FA (TBL, ’10)
Mikhail Grabovski		Draft (5/150, ’04)	Trade (TOR, ’08): for G. Pateryn and 2/32 ’10 (J. Knight, BOS)
Mike Komisarek		Draft (1/7, ’01)	FA (TOR, ’09)
Christopher Higgins		Draft (1/14, ’02)	Trade (NYR, ’09): with R. McDonagh and P. Valentenko for S. Gomez, T. Pyatt, and M. Busto
Maxim Lapierre		Draft (2/61, ’03)	Trade (ANA, ’10): for B. Festerling and 5/??? ’12

¹ Not currently on active roster.

The current distribution, as of the trade deadline:

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

Whereas the Oilers had a ton of teams with just one ex, the Habs have a ton of teams with two and a bunch more with none. I could be more insightful, but since this post is four months late, I’d rather just kick it out the door and put actual thought in come October.

Editor’s Note: Matt’s picks are going up late, because he’s screwing the pooch really busy at work. So I present the other three, and will edit his in whenever he gets around to giving them to me. [Ed: And now they're up.]

Editor’s Note #2: Picks may be late, considering Round #2 starts tomorrow and I have a presentation to prepare for on Friday morning. I may write postmortems for all the series on the weekend or something, or I may get distracted by a shiney.

Clarence Campbell Conference Quarterfinals

(1) Vancouver vs. (8) Chicago

Playoff History: Pretty one-sided, all told. The Hawks and Canucks have met each of the last two years in the playoffs, and both times, the Hawks have come out the victors.

1982 CF	1995 CSF	2009 CSF	2010 CSF
4-1	4-0	4-2	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: The Canucks were ousted by the Blackhawks for the second year in a row, and this time, the ‘Hawks went on to win it all, defeating Philly in six for the Stanley Cup.

Season Series: Tied at two. Interesting note: Turco played three of the four games for Chicago, winning one in the SO and losing the other two.

Doogie Says: There’s a real temptation here to call for the upset, based on recent history, and yes, the fact that Turco’s kind of bad suggests that maybe Vancouver’s wins weren’t entirely earned, and yes, the Canucks and Blackhawks actually had pretty similar possession numbers through the regular season, I can’t shake the feeling that this is Vancouver’s year. Consider the fact that they were down an average of 1.5 top-six D all year, but still ripped it up by counting numbers and were near the top of the League in underlying stats. Sure, they had arguably the weakest division in hockey to beat up on, but they also put up a strong record against the rest of the League (18-4-2 vs. Northwest, 11-5-2 vs. East, 25-10-2 vs. Central/Pacific). On the other hand, while Chicago is weaker overall than they were last year, they do still have the championship core, and were hurt rather significantly by Marty Turco’s abject awfulness (3.02/.897): if he’s even average, they’re division champions, so by no means will the Canucks be crushing them like some have predicted. Still, as much as I’d like to believe that Chelsea Dagger will be serenading Roberto Luongo in his nightmares for another year, I doubt the Canucks are so mentally fragile that history alone will get them down if they lose the first game or something. If they lose, it’ll be because the Blackhawks were the better team, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case this year, though no matter what, it’ll be a dandy. Vancouver in seven.

Hoop Says: God I hate the Canucks! Almost as much as I hate that stupid Chelsea Dagger song in Chicago. Lets be blunt Vancouver is better than Chicago everywhere on the ice except perhaps with the captains. Chicago lost all their depth this off season must importantly some large fellow named Byfuglien to Atlanta. Without the big man to cause Roberto Luongo a continuous nightmare I don’t see the Hawks doing much of anything. Vancouver in five.

Matt Says: Chicago in six. Maybe it’ll be third time lucky for Vancouver, but still going with the Hawks.

Gerard Says: Chicago in six. [Ed: You will note that once again, Gerard has provided no explanation for his picks. Is it because he has no justification, and just pulled stuff out of thin air, or because he likes appearing off the cuff, 'cause that's how he rolls? Only he may know for sure. Only I may actually care.]

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

(2) San Jose vs. (7) Los Angeles

Playoff History: None in the modern incarnation of the Sharks, but if you take the Sharks to be the continuation of the Seals/Barons franchise — and I do — then we have one meeting, all the way back in the summer spring of ’69.

1969 QF
4-3

Previously On…Survivor: The Sharks went all the way to the conference finals before getting swept by Chicago in a series that was closer than the result would indicate. The Kings got their first taste of playoff hockey in nearly a decade, and nearly upset the Canucks before ultimately falling in six.

Season Series: Tied at three. Three of the games were decided by three or more goals, and the other three were all one-goal affairs (two went to LA, both in the SO).

Doogie Says: I don’t actually have much to say about this series. I figure LA’s pretty well boned, what with no Kopitar, Williams fresh off injury, and Doughty struggling. Sure, I could try to cast aspersions on the suddenness of San Jose’s rise up the standings, but then again, I never believed they were that bad in the first place. Let’s just call it “regression to the mean,” say San Jose in five, and move on, because I have six more of these bloody things to write.

Hoop Says: What a great series this was going to be until Anze Kopitar went down with his broken ankle for the Kings. San Jose is rolling at the right time, and even though I think the Kings have the edge in goal between Quick and Niemi I don’t think the Kings can match up anywhere else right now. San Jose in five.

Matt Says: San Jose in five. Standard fare it appears…

Gerard Says: San Jose in four.

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

(3) Detroit vs. (6) Phoenix

Playoff History: Same as last year, except with one more column in the table. The Jets/Coyotes still haven’t beaten the Red Wings (or anyone other than the Flames) in the playoffs, and for the second time in a row, face the possibility of ending their time in a city with a loss to Detroit.

1996 CQF	1998 CQF	2010 CQF
4-2	4-2	4-3

Previously On…Survivor: The Red Wings ousted the Coyotes in a tightly-contested seven-game series, then promptly got booted by San Jose in five.

Season Series: Tied at two, with both of Detroit’s wins coming in OT and one of Phoenix’s two wins coming in the shootout. The remaining game was decided by an empty-netter. So, you know, close.

Doogie Says: The peril of using regular-season stats to predict the playoffs is that sometimes they’re not reflective of the current reality. I talked about this a little with the Canucks-Blackhawks series, and this is another example. Consider how close the season series was, and how close the last playoff series was, and then consider the fact that Shane Doan missed most of that playoff series, while Henrik Zetterberg will miss an indeterminate amount of this one. The Wings are another year older and have been beat up all year; at a certain point, something has to give, and Ilya Bryzgalov is a good enough goalie to withstand getting outshot pretty heavily, as all of Detroit’s opponents tend to be. While there’d be a certain historical symmetry if they were to go out to Detroit then get moved back to Winnipeg, I think this is finally the Coyotes’ time to break the Curse of Dale Hawerchuk and win their first playoff series in 24 years. Phoenix in six.

Hoop Says: Detroit is deeper than Phoenix. Detroit has more playoff experience than Phoenix. Detroit may have home ice advantage in all seven games over Phoenix in this series. So this should be easy right? Oh hell no! Phoenix has two things. The best coach in the league in Dave Tippett and they have an all world goaltender in Ilya Bryzgalov. I think Coach Tippett will have a game plan but Bryzgalov will have to have the series of his life for the Coyotes to win. Detroit in six.

Matt Says: Detroit in six. It’s Detroit.

Gerard Says: Detroit in seven.

	4	4	4	6	4
	2	3	2	3	0

(4) Anaheim vs. (5) Nashville

Playoff History: None. The Ducks are just the fourth unique playoff opponent in Predators history.

Previously On…Survivor: The Ducks missed the dance last year, but the year before, upset the Sharks in round one and nearly ousted the Wings in round two before falling in seven. The Preds, as they are wont to do, lost in six in the first round, though they were arguably one short-handed goal away from putting Chicago on the ropes.

Season Series: Nashville won 3-1, all games in regulation.

Doogie Says: History would suggest that picking either Nashville or Phoenix to win a first-round series is foolish, and here I am, picking both. My reasoning here is pretty simple: Anaheim’s not very good. Their depth is weak, they have the worst outshooting numbers in the playoff pool, and until they put the wood to the Sharks in the final week of the year, they were the only minus team in the playoffs…and yet they have home-ice advantage. I thought this team’s D was bad going into the season, and even with Visnovsky and Lydman having strong years, that remains true. They were bailed out early by Jonas Hiller’s Vezina-calibre season and late by Corey Perry’s vintage Wayne Gretzky impersonation and Teemu Selanne’s vintage Teemu Selanne impersonation. Sure, Nashville’s boring and has no one you’ve heard of other than Shea Weber, who’s a favourite to win the Norris this year, but they’re solid and well-coached and have a Vezina-calibre goalie who hasn’t spent the past two months having dizzy spells. Against someone other than the Detroits or Chicagos of the world, that’s probably enough. Time to throw the catfish and get your party on, Music City. You’re goin’ to Round Two. Nashville in six.

Hoop Says: I will be watching every minute of this series that I possibly can! This series will be a knock ‘em down, drag ‘em out, all out war! Anaheim has the better top end scoring. The Predators have better depth up front. Nashville has the best defense pair. Anaheim’s D may be a little deeper. It comes down to Pekka Rinne vs whoever Anaheim throws into the net as they have a bunch of solid goaltenders. I think this is finally the year though. Nashville in seven.

Matt Says: Anaheim in seven. I may be completely wrong here (and the others’ picks certainly seem to indicate so), but can’t the Ducks continue to be mighty?

Gerard Says: Nashville in six.

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

Prince of Wales Conference Quarterfinals

(1) Washington vs. (8) NY Rangers

Playoff History: An old Patrick Division rivalry, though because Washington was kind of crap until the late ’80s, it didn’t have the traction some other combinations did.

1986 DF	1990 DF	1991 DSF	1994 CSF	2009 CQF
4-2	4-1	4-2	4-1	4-3

Previously On…Survivor: The Caps were stunned by Jaro Halak’s Montreal Canadiens in a seven-game upset, hocking up a 3-1 series lead in the process. The Rangers’ last playoff appearance was two years ago, when they hocked up a 3-1 series lead to these very Washington Capitals. Oh, symmetry.

Season Series: The Rangers won the last three meetings in a row, two in regulation and another in the shootout. The most recent match was a 6-0 drubbing of the Caps on February 25.

Doogie Says: I know a lot of people have looked at the season series, seen the scorelines, and called for the upset, but I think you have to discount that stuff, here. Never mind the fact that it’s only four games, anyway: when two of them are blowouts, and thus outliers, you might as well forget the whole thing and focus on what else you’ve got. That being: a Rangers team without one of their best forwards, which barely held on in the final week, versus a Capitals team that’s made real improvements defensively, even in the absence of Dennis Wideman, and seems to be taking a number of cues from Stanley Cup champion Jason Arnott, who came in at the deadline. King Henrik is always capable of stealing a series — though I wouldn’t dismiss the Caps’ young goalies, either — but otherwise, I don’t think the Rangers have the horses for this matchup. Washington in five.

Hoop Says: You are going to have a really tough time convincing me that the New York Rangers can match up anywhere on the ice with the Capitals other than between the pipes. I do think Henrik Lundqvist can steal a game or two in this series but he won’t be able to hold off the Caps long enough. I expect Ovechkin to have a huge series here. Washington in six.

Matt Says: Rangers in six. The Caps are still a big playoff question mark for me. Going with Gerard on this one.

Gerard Says: Rangers in seven.

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

(2) Philadelphia vs. (7) Buffalo

Playoff History: The Flyers and Sabres have one of the more storied rivalries amongst post-1967 teams, one which started out a little one-sided before the Sabres took three of the last four meetings, including the only one since the lockout.

1975 SCF	1978 QF	1995 CQF	1997 CSF	1998 CQF	2000 CQF	2001 CQF	2006 CQF
4-2	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-2	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: The Flyers snuck in on the last day, very nearly the last game of the entire NHL schedule, and went all the way to the Finals before falling to the Blackhawks in six. The Sabres won their division last year, but were ousted by Tim Thomas and the Boston Bruins in the first round in six games.

Season Series: Tied at two, with the Flyers getting the edge in points thanks to an OTL in their most recent meeting just a few days ago.

Doogie Says: I’ve been dreading this series, because I really have no idea which way to go, and it’s entirely due to our old friend, Chris Pronger. Since he went down, his Flyers have played like hot garbage, barely able to keep pace against bad teams, never mind the decent ones. On the other hand, if Pronger can come back early enough in the series, I’m not sure I’d want to be Buffalo. Speaking of Buffalo, their main advantage is probably goaltending: while Miller’s come back to Earth a bit this year, Enroth has played well during Miller’s recent injury, and their goaltending is probably more reliable than Philly’s, anyway. Buffalo can score enough to get by, though Philly’s one of the highest-scoring teams in the League, even with their recent swoon. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, it’s all about Pronger: if he’s gone long enough, the Flyers may wind up in a hole they can’t dig themselves out of; if he comes back early, then even the ghost of Taro Tsujimoto won’t save the Sabres. Split the difference, say Buffalo in seven, and pray.

Hoop Says: I really, really, really want to pick the Sabres to win this series but I can’t. Philly is just too deep and Chris Pronger will be back sooner rather than later and that makes the biggest difference in this series. Buffalo is going to put up a heck of a fight but it just won’t be enough. Philadelphia in seven.

Matt Says: Philadelphia in five. Completely off the cuff…

Gerard Says: Philadelphia in five.

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

(3) Boston vs. (6) Montreal

Playoff History: Welcome, friends, to the 87^th annual 33^rd meeting between the Boston Bruins and Montreal Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Not sure there’s anything more I can say here that I didn’t say in 2008, 2009, or even 2010 when it looked like it was gonna happen again.

1929 SF	1930 SCF	1931 SF	1943 SF	1946 SCF	1947 SF	1952 SF	1953 SCF
3-0	2-0	3-2	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-3	4-1
1954 SF	1955 SF	1957 SCF	1958 SCF	1968 QF	1969 SF	1971 QF	1977 SCF
4-0	4-1	4-1	4-2	4-0	4-2	4-3	4-0
1978 SCF	1979 SF	1984 DSF	1985 DSF	1986 DSF	1987 DSF	1988 DSF	1989 DF
4-2	4-3	3-0	3-2	3-0	4-0	4-1	4-1
1990 DF	1991 DF	1992 DF	1994 CQF	2002 CQF	2004 CQF	2008 CQF	2009 CQF
4-1	4-3	4-0	4-3	4-2	4-3	4-3	4-0

Previously On…Survivor: The Bruins held a 3-0 series lead in their second-round series against Philly, but gave it all back and became just the third team in NHL history to lose a series while up by three. Because of that, they lost the chance to face Montreal for the third straight year, this time in the conference finals; instead, Montreal went out meekly against the Flyers in that round, losing in just five games.

Season Series: The Habs won it 4-2. It’s worth pointing out that both of Boston’s wins were weird outliers — the 8-6 Tribute to the 80s and the 7-0 post-Pacioretty letdown — but at the same time, the Bruins nearly shut out the Habs on January 8 before they came back in the last five minutes to win in OT. So it’s been weird and either more or less even than it looks.

Doogie Says: The Bruins are, to put it mildly, a high-event team, both taking and giving up the second-most shots at even strength in the NHL this year. They were able to outscore the living crap out of teams in large part because of Tim Thomas’s NHL-record 0.938 SV% this year, and while normally, the stats guys are all over unsustainably high SV% values, it seems to me that Thomas has done this two or three times now, so maybe he’s really just that good. Regardless, the one team he’s historically had trouble against is Montreal, and that’s what I’m banking on pretty heavily: one weird, lopsided shutout isn’t enough to convince me that those daemons have been vanquished at this point, and with Carey Price now playing like the 5^th-overall selection in 2005, the goaltending matchup is going to be pretty compelling. The advanced stats actually like Montreal quite a bit, even with Markov and Gorges gone for half the season, though this is the time of year where a blood-and-guts guy like Gorges comes in really handy (Subban has made his presence felt enough on the PP, anyway, to make up for the offensive component of Markov’s loss, at least). I don’t think Montreal goes as far as they did last year, simply because I think Price is going to wear out at some point soon, but the homer in me is hoping that he holds out long enough to polish off da Broons once again. Montreal in six.

Hoop Says: I don’t think I have picked a Canadiens series correct since 1989 so Montreal fans should be thrilled with my pick. I just don’t see how the Canadiens are going to be able to push their way through the Bruins to get enough quality chances on Tim Thomas who just put up the best save percentage for a season ever. Chara will be a monster. This is easy. Boston in five.

Matt Says: Boston in six. As much as I’d like to see the Canadiens go somewhere, I still am siding with Boston.

Gerard Says: Boston in six.

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

(4) Pittsburgh vs. (5) Tampa Bay

Playoff History: None. These two teams have never really been even decent at the same time, never mind good, so there was never much chance of a playoff matchup.

Previously On…Survivor: The defending-champion Pens were the other team eliminated by Halak in seven in the second round. The Bolts, meanwhile, haven’t made the playoffs since ’07, when they were bounced by the Devils in the opening round in six games.

Season Series: Tied 2-2, though it’s worth noting that the Pens won big in both their victories (5-1 and 8-1) and lost small in their two defeats (5-3 and 2-1).

Doogie Says: You know, I was all ready to write off Tampa as another weak Eastern team outplaying its talent on the back of shitty opposition. But then I looked at the outshooting and possession stats, as best as I could figure out how, anyway, and it turns out they’re actually a pretty solid club with the misfortune of mostly-terrible goaltending. Before Roli showed up, team save percentage was deep into the 80s, which is no way to win hockey games; now, they at least have a guy putting up average numbers, which is a step in the right direction. In that sense, they remind me a little of the ’06 Oilers: great underlying numbers, horrifying goaltending, so they finish lower than you might expect. Still, I don’t know that it’s advisable to predict in favour of the Bolts based on the idea that Roli could recapture the magic, because what if he doesn’t, and continues to play to more-or-less regular-season form? What if Marc-Andre Fleury gets hot, too/instead? What if Roli goes down? What about the remarkable inconsistency he’s shown at times this year, alternating between shutout and blowout? There are too many questions about the most important position out there for me to commit to the Lightning train at this point, especially since the advanced stats still like the Pens, even without Crosby or Malkin. Let me say it here now, though: if Roli gets hot again, I’m not sure I’d bet against the Bolts making their second Cup Final. Pittsburgh in six.

Hoop Says: I’ve had a lot of trouble deciding who I think is going to win this series. This looks like it could be a great match-up and a fantastic series. Offensively the Bolts have the edge until some guy named Sid decides to return which could be soon if he’s needed. The Penguins have a far superior defense, and I think the Penguins have a slight edge in net and that to me is the deciding factor. Pittsburgh in seven.

Matt Says: Tampa Bay in six. Yeah, Tampa in six.

Gerard Says: Tampa Bay in six.

	3	1	3	3	2	2	0	3
	0	5	2	2	8	4	1	4

The companion ex-Oilers post can be found here.

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Kyle Chipchura		Draft (1/18, ’04)	Trade (ANA, ’09): for 4/??? ’11
Saku Koivu		Draft (1/21, ’93)	FA (ANA, ’09)
Paul Mara		FA (NYR, ’09)	FA (ANA, ’10)
Ron Hainsey		Draft (1/13, ’00)	Waivers (CBJ, ’05)
Mark Recchi		Trade (PHI, ’95): with 3/74 ’95 (M. Hohenberger) for E. Desjardins, G. Dionne, and J. LeClair	Trade (PHI, ’99): for D. Zubrus, 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig)
Michael Ryder		Draft (8/216, ’98)	FA (BOS, ’08)
Craig Rivet		Draft (3/68, ’92)	Trade (SJS, ’07): with 5/146 ’08 (J. Demers) for J. Gorges and 1/22 ’07 (M. Pacioretty)
Craig Conroy		Draft (6/123, ’90)	Trade (STL, ’96): with P. Turgeon and R. Fitzpatrick for M. Baron, S. Corson, and 5/122 ’97 (G. Razin)
Raitis Ivanans1		FA (AHL, ’04)	FA (LAK, ’06)
Alex Tanguay		Trade (CGY, ’08): with 5/138 ’08 (M. Trunev) for 1/25 ’08 (G. Nemisz) and 2/49 ’09 (S. Elliott, COL)	FA (TBL, ’09)
Tom Kostopoulos		FA (LAK, ’07)	FA (CAR, ’09)
Sergei Samsonov		FA (EDM, ’06)	Trade (CHI, ’07): for J. Cullimore and T. Salmelainen
Mathieu Garon		Draft (2/44, ’96)	Trade (LAK, ’04): with 3/95 ’04 (P. Baier) for R. Bonk and C. Huet
Mike Ribiero		Draft (2/45, ’98)	Trade (DAL, ’06): with 6/176 ’08 (M. Tassone) for J. Niinimaa and 5/142 ’07 (A. Conboy)
Stephane Robidas		Draft (7/164, ’95)	Waivers (ATL, ’02)
Doug Janik		Trade (DAL, ’09): for S. Begin	FA (DET, ’09)
Sheldon Souray1		Trade (NJD, ’00): with J. DeWolf and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for V. Malakhov	FA (EDM, ’07)
Christopher Higgins		Draft (1/14, ’02)	Trade (NYR, ’09): with R. McDonagh and P. Valentenko for S. Gomez, T. Pyatt, and M. Busto
Tomas Vokoun		Draft (9/226, ’94)	Expansion Draft (NSH, ’98)
Guillaume Latendresse		Draft (2/45, ’05)	Trade (MIN, ’09): for B. Pouliot
Jose Theodore		Draft (2/44, ’94)	Trade (COL, ’06): for D. Aebischer
Francis Bouillon		FA (IHL, ’98)	Waivers (NSH, ’02)
		Waivers (NSH, ’02)	FA (NSH, ’09)
Sergei Kostitsyn		Draft (7/200, ’05)	Trade (NSH, ’10): for D. Boyd, D. Ellis
Dainus Zubrus		Trade (PHI, ’99): with 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig) for M. Recchi	Trade (WSH, ’01): with T. Linden and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for R. Zednik, J. Bulis, and 1/25 ’01 (A. Perezhogin)
Mark Streit1		Draft (9/262, ’04)	FA (NYI, ’08)
Matt Carkner		Draft (2/58, ’99)	FA (SJS, ’01)
Alexei Kovalev		Trade (NYR, ’04): for J. Balej and 2/51 ’04 (B. Graham)	FA (OTT, ’09)
Michael Leighton1		Waivers (PHI, ’07)	Trade (CAR, ’07): for 7/192 ’07 (S. Kishel)
Matt d’Agostini		Draft (6/190, ’05)	Trade (STL, ’10): for A. Palushaj
Jaroslav Halak		Draft (9/271, ’03)	Trade (STL, ’10): for L. Eller and I. Schultz
Brett Clark		Draft (6/154, ’96)	Expansion Draft (ATL, ’99)
Dan Ellis		Trade (NSH, ’10): with D. Boyd for S. Kostitsyn	FA (TBL, ’10)
Dominic Moore		Trade (FLA, ’10): for 2/?? ’11	FA (TBL, ’10)
Francois Beauchemin		Draft (3/75, ’98)	Waivers (CBJ, ’04)
Mikhail Grabovski		Draft (5/150, ’04)	Trade (TOR, ’08): for G. Pateryn and 2/32 ’10 (J. Knight, BOS)
Mike Komisarek		Draft (1/7, ’01)	FA (TOR, ’09)

¹ Not currently on active roster.

The current tally, as of October 31:

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

First, regarding the distribution, a lot fewer teams as a whole have ex-Habs, and there are more concentrated in a few places (four teams with at least three, instead of two last year). This is usually due to either call-ups not yet happening (Jay Leach, Shawn Belle), or retirements (Tucker), though a lot of guys are in European or free-agency exile. Francis Boullion remains the only two-time Canadien on the active list, so long as Mathieu Schneider doesn’t have work. (And at this point, it’s even money or better he just retires.) Other notable omissions from the NHL: Christobal Huet and Glen Metropolit (SUI), Steve Begin (AHL), Donald Brashear and Robert Lang (UFA, may retire), and Marc-Andre Bergeron (UFA, has no business retiring). I figure Begin will get called up soon, because unless the game has completely left him at 32, he’s Nashville’s kind of player: cheap and won’t fuck you over on the fourth line. Bergeron…I said it in the Oilers post, and I’ll say it here. I don’t fucking get it. I mean, for Montreal, sure, they have a younger, better player in P.K. Subban. But the rest of the NHL? You can carry a goon you only play 20 nights a year for four minutes a pop, but you can’t carry a PP specialist for a similar price? Which one helps you win more hockey games in their tightly-managed ice time?

Expect another update to this list after the trade deadline, once we’ve seen everyone we’re likely to see for the year.

Yes, I know, all the hullabaloo is about the Flames and Habs playing the Heritage Classic on the 20^th, complete with Ronald McDonald-inspired jerseys¹, but really, the most exciting news of the day for me is that the Hitmen will be following it up with a game against Jordan Eberle’s alma mater, the Regina Pats, the next night. I believe this will be the first outdoor game in WHL history, so I’m incredibly excited that I could be a part of that. I mean, there’s every possibility that the weather could be crappy, because either a) it’s 15 C out and Chinooking or b) it’s -20 C out like it was in Edmonton seven-plus years earlier, and hey, it’s Alberta, so why not have both? But I digress. Outdoor hockey. Not every day you get to be a part of that kind of spectacle or atmosphere. I wonder if the Hitmen will reach back into Calgary’s WHL/WCHL past and play with the sweaters of the Calgary Buffaloes or something like that; goodness knows the Pats have the history to bring to bear for this thing. I also wonder how well-attended it will be, especially by people without the money or interest in going to the NHL event.

Speaking of, what’s even more exciting is that there might be a possibility I could go to both games. I mean, I’m purely speculating here, so don’t go running off saying this is a done deal, but it sure would be nice if there were some sort of package for Hitmen season ticket holders to get good seats to the Monday game and shitty high seats to the Sunday game. Again, I’ll get to be part of a once-in-lifetime event, seeing an outdoor Habs game with my Montreal-born-and-raised mom, and furthermore, I’ll get to laugh when the Habs beat the Clownshoes Flames while non-ironically wearing that Godawful barberpole the Habs put out a couple of years back when the Centennial celebration began. (As an aside, thank God the Habs went conservative and settled for bringing back the late Forum-era numbering as their only “throwback.” I liked some of those designs, but the barberpole across from the McDonald’s jerseys would’ve been too much. Though if you’re going to recall ’24, why not go all out and bring back the globe jersey?)

Regardless of how it turns out, though, this is a very exciting time to be a hockey fan here in Calgary. I’m already anxious for February.

¹ – Yes, yes, I know that they’re based on the 1924 Calgary Tigers, who played in the city’s first Stanley Cup Final against the Canadiens. I figured this would happen, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Flames for actually reaching that far back into the city’s hockey heritage, which most people probably didn’t even know existed. Note, however, that hockey sweaters used to have a million stripes, whereas now they don’t, because they look awful in new materials with more vibrant dyes and lighting and white ice. So it was with the Habs, so it is with the Flames.

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Kyle Chipchura		Draft (1/18, ’04)	Trade (ANA, ’09): for 4/??? ’11
Saku Koivu		Draft (1/21, ’93)	FA (ANA, ’09)
Chris Chelios		Draft (2/40, ’81)	Trade (CHI, ’90): with 2/39 ’91 (M. Pomichter) for D. Savard
Ron Hainsey		Draft (1/13, ’00)	Waivers (CBJ, ’05)
Steve Begin		Waivers (BUF, ’03)	Trade (DAL, ’09): for D. Janik
Mark Recchi		Trade (PHI, ’95): with 3/74 ’95 (M. Hohenberger) for E. Desjardins, G. Dionne, and J. LeClair	Trade (PHI, ’99): for D. Zubrus, 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig)
Michael Ryder		Draft (8/216, ’98)	FA (BOS, ’08)
Craig Rivet		Draft (3/68, ’92)	Trade (SJS, ’07): with 5/146 ’08 (J. Demers) for J. Gorges and 1/22 ’07 (M. Pacioretty)
Craig Conroy		Draft (6/123, ’90)	Trade (STL, ’96): with P. Turgeon and R. Fitzpatrick for M. Baron, S. Corson, and 5/122 ’97 (G. Razin)
Christopher Higgins		Draft (1/14, ’02)	Trade (NYR, ’09): with R. McDonagh and P. Valentenko for S. Gomez, T. Pyatt, and M. Busto
Tom Kostopoulos		FA (LAK, ’07)	FA (CAR, ’09)
Sergei Samsonov		FA (EDM, ’06)	Trade (CHI, ’07): for J. Cullimore and T. Salmelainen
Christobal Huet		Trade (LAK, ’04): with R. Bonk for M. Garon and 3/95 ’04 (P. Baier)	Trade (WSH, ’08): for 2/45 ’09 (J. Morin, ATL)
Brett Clark		Draft (6/154, ’96)	Expansion Draft (ATL, ’99)
Darcy Tucker		Draft (6/151, ’93)	Trade (TBL, ’98): with S. Richer and D. Wilkie for P. Poulin, M. Vukota, and I. Ulanov
Mathieu Garon		Draft (2/44, ’96)	Trade (LAK, ’04): with 3/95 ’04 (P. Baier) for R. Bonk and C. Huet
Mike Ribiero		Draft (2/45, ’98)	Trade (DAL, ’06): with 6/176 ’08 (M. Tassone) for J. Niinimaa and 5/142 ’07 (A. Conboy)
Stephane Robidas		Draft (7/164, ’95)	Waivers (ATL, ’02)
Doug Janik1		Trade (DAL, ’09): for S. Begin	FA (DET, ’09)
Sheldon Souray		Trade (NJD, ’00): with J. DeWolf and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for V. Malakhov	FA (EDM, ’07)
Tomas Vokoun		Draft (9/226, ’94)	Expansion Draft (NSH, ’98)
Raitis Ivanans		FA (AHL, ’04)	FA (LAK, ’06)
Guillaume Latendresse		Draft (2/45, ’05)	Trade (MIN, ’09): for B. Pouliot
Francis Bouillon		FA (IHL, ’98)	Waivers (NSH, ’02)
		Waivers (NSH, ’02)	FA (NSH, ’09)
Ben Guite1		Draft (7/172, ’97)	FA (NYI, ’01)
Yann Danis		FA (NCAA, ’04)	FA (NYI, ’08)
Dainus Zubrus		Trade (PHI, ’99): with 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig) for M. Recchi	Trade (WSH, ’01): with T. Linden and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for R. Zednik, J. Bulis, and 1/25 ’01 (A. Perezhogin)
Mark Streit		Draft (9/262, ’04)	FA (NYI, ’08)
Donald Brashear		FA (QMJHL, ’92)	Trade (VAN, ’96): for J. Cullimore
Corey Locke1		Draft (4/113, ’03)	Trade (MIN, ’08): for S. Belle
Matt Carkner		Draft (2/58, ’99)	FA (SJS, ’01)
Alexei Kovalev		Trade (NYR, ’04): for J. Balej and 2/51 ’04 (B. Graham)	FA (OTT, ’09)
Michael Leighton		Waivers (PHI, ’07)	Trade (CAR, ’07): for 7/192 ’07 (S. Kishel)
Robert Lang		Trade (CHI, ’08): for 2/32 ’10 (J. Knight, BOS)	FA (PHX, ’09)
Mathieu Schneider		Draft (3/44, ’87)	Trade (NYI, ’95): with K. Muller and C. Darby for P. Turgeon and V. Malakhov
		Trade (ATL, ’09): with 3/65 ’09 (J. Nattinen) for 2/45 ’09 (J. Morin) and 3/87 ’10 (J. Melchiori)	FA (VAN, ’09)
Jay Leach1		Waivers (NJD, ’09)	Waivers (SJS, ’09)
Matt d’Agostini		Draft (6/190, ’05)	Trade (STL, ’10): for A. Palushaj
Alex Tanguay		Trade (CGY, ’08): with 5/138 ’08 (M. Trunev) for 1/25 ’08 (G. Nemisz) and 2/49 ’09 (S. Elliott, COL)	FA (TBL, ’09)
Francois Beauchemin		Draft (3/75, ’98)	Waivers (CBJ, ’04)
Andre Deveaux		Draft (6/182, ’02)	FA (TBL, ’04)
Mikhail Grabovski		Draft (5/150, ’04)	Trade (TOR, ’08): for G. Pateryn and 2/32 ’10 (J. Knight, BOS)
Mike Komisarek		Draft (1/7, ’01)	FA (TOR, ’09)
Jose Theodore		Draft (2/44, ’94)	Trade (COL, ’06): for D. Aebischer

¹ Not currently on active roster.

The final tally, at the end of the playoffs:

• 1 team has four (TOR)
• 1 team has three (BOS)
• 11 teams have two (ANA, ATL, CGY, CAR, COL, DAL, NSH, NJD, NYR, OTT, PHX)
• 14 teams have one (BUF, CHI, CBJ, DET, EDM, FLA, LAK, MIN, NYI, PHI, SJS, STL, TBL, WSH)
• 3 teams have none (MTL, PIT, VAN)

A much more even spread than we saw with the Oilers, excepting the fact that the two teams with the most ex-Habs are the team’s two traditional rivals, Toronto (four!) and Boston (three). Worst of all, all four ex-Hab Leafs are Habs picks, though to be fair, two of them (Beauchemin and Deveaux) combined for one game in le tricolore, so it’s not so bad. Additionally, only two active players have recorded two separate stints as a Hab: Francis Bouillon, who did a bit of waiver-swapping with Nashville back in ’02, and Matheiu Schneider, who came “home” after nearly 15 years as a nomad to play a supporting role in the ’09 playoffs, before returning to his roaming ways for at least another season. At some point in the summer, I may yet look back on how players left each team, and see if there’s anything useful to be learned from it (probably not without a bigger sample, but I’m not sure I’m interested in doing this for a third team). I may keep on keeping track, so…check back in October? Maybe?

Finally, since the playoffs, we’ve already had movement on two guys:

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Jaroslav Halak		Draft (9/271, ’03)	Trade (STL, ’10): for L. Eller and I. Schultz
Sergei Kostitsyn		Draft (7/200, ’05)	Trade (NSH, ’10): with futures for D. Boyd, D. Ellis, and futures

Doogie	Hoop	Matt	Gerard	Result
4-2	4-1	4-2	4-2	4-3
4-3	4-2	4-2	4-1	4-3
4-2	4-3	4-1	4-3	4-1
4-2	4-2	4-3	4-1	4-2
1-3	3-1	0-4	2-2	W-L
10	7	15	10	GO
6-6	9-3	4-8	6-6	W-L
28	20	31	28	GO

Actually, to be perfectly fair, Matt’s picks were identical to those of one Robert McKenzie, so it’s a bit unexpected to see things blow up that badly. Also, given how Boston-Philly turned out, I actually don’t feel totally bad. I mean, if at any point the Bruins had pulled their heads out of their asses and stolen a game, it’s much more even down the stretch. As it is, Hoop has essentially won by default, Matt has been mathematically eliminated, and Gerard and I are playing for second prize. Still, as a lapsed Canadiens fan, I can’t complain about the outcome too terribly much, except to say that I’d rather have seen the 33^rd installment of Habs-Bruins, and third in a row, simply as an expression of sheer cosmic will that these two teams face each other all the fucking time.

Who will win the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny out West (or as many cynics have called it, “The real Stanley Cup Final”)? Who will win the skirt-tearing slap fight of Cinderella teams out East? Answers to these questions, and many more, after the jump.

Your Stanley Cup finalists are Philadelphia and Chicago. Series starts Saturday. Go Hawks.

Wales Conference Final

(7) Philadelphia vs. (8) Montreal

Playoff History: This will be the sixth meeting all-time between the Flyers and the Habs, and the fourth to decide who plays for the Cup. Most recently, the Flyers knocked off the top-ranked Habs in just five second-round games, based in no small part on the poor showing of Carey Price.

1973 SF	1976 SCF	1987 CF	1989 CF	2008 CSF
4-1	4-0	4-2	4-2	4-1

Last Time They Were Here: For Philly, just a couple of years ago after they beat the Habs, only to get ousted by Pittsburgh in five. For Montreal, it was 1993, when they creamed the Cinderella Islanders in five games.

Season Series: Tied 2-2, all in regulation with Montreal winning the first and last meetings.

Doogie Says: Part of me kind of wants to puss out and take a pass on this one, because really, how do you pick between two Cinderella teams? I mean, really, what’s your poison? The team riding an absurdly hot goalie and winger, which has played all 14 games, and has a defence full of walking wounded, and has offed the President’s Trophy winners and the defending Stanley Cup champions? Or the team with half their top six on the DL or playing through serious injury, which just completed the greatest comeback in professional sport, as only three other teams in the history of North American pro sport have ever accomplished, and did so for the most part with their third-string goalie? How the hell do you make that kind of choice?

Well, since looking at stats is probably useless at this point, you go back through history, look for patterns, and make an educated guess. I stated in the comments to the last predictions post that I think the 2010 Canadiens look superficially an awful lot like the 2003 Anaheim Mighty Ducks, at least in terms of accomplishment and method thereof, so figure on Hal Gill to ride Simon Gagne back onto the IR and little Danny Briere right into the ice, Halak to continue to make Big Saves, and Cammalleri to continue his assault on the record books. Habs in six.

Hoop Says: Both teams are incredible stories this year in the post season. Philly was the first team in 35 years to come back from 3-0 down. While Montreal has taken out the President’s Trophy winners and the defending Stanley Cup Champions. When I look at this matchup it boils down to one major difference to me and that is goaltending. Michael Leighton did not look sharp in game 7 and was fortunate that his team came back. In fairness it takes time to get your feel back after a long injury. However that is time Leighton will not have, while Jaroslav Halak has been the MVP of the playoffs I don’t see that changing. Montreal in 6.

Matt Says: Had this been the MON-BOS series I was expecting after the Habs moved on, I would have went back to my roots as a hockey fan, but while Halak has been amazing, I think they’re going to get beat down by Philly. Besides, when as Montreal ever relied on a (pseudo-)rookie goalie to get anywhere? Flyers in six.

Gerard Says: Did you know that the winner of the last two Winter Classics lost the Cup in the Finals? That would likely have continued without the epic FAIL of Boston Friday night. But since that train got broken by the loser of this year’s Winter Classic…oh, fuck it. If Philly wins this series, that means Chicago will win the Cup. But that can’t happen, because of Hossa [ed: See below]. Montreal in 7.

Wait a sec…did I just predict the Habs to win the Cup? Madness. See Boston? This is what you reduce me to.

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

Postmortem: You know, I had a bad feeling about my Montreal pick, and I even expressed some reservations on the admin forum, but I couldn’t place it, and I figured since the Habs had done away with two teams vastly superior, on paper, to the Flyers, they should be able to overcome some stylistic differences over the course of the series. Then CBC put up a graphic during game one that flipped the switch: “No team has ever won two Game 7s and gone on to win a third series.”

Oh. Oh, fuck. Well, never mind, then.

While the series likely would’ve looked different with a healthy Andrei Markov, the bottom line is, the Habs looked tired. Their plays in both ends of the rink were sloppy, their attention to detail, their awareness, was gone, and they lost probably 80% of the puck battles and races outside of Game 3. Meanwhile, Leighton out-Halaked Halak, putting up three shutouts in a series for the first time since Marty Turco blanked the Canucks three times in 2007 (bizarrely, Turco’s Stars lost that series, anyway: they couldn’t win a single game without him posting a clean sheet). Plus, unlike most teams in playoff history, the Flyers actually got healthier. After getting Gagne back in the Boston series, they added Ian Laperriere and Jeff Carter in Game 4, and they were both solid contributors, in their respective ways, to Game 5, with two blocked shots for Laperriere and two goals for Carter. Still, I have to think they’re in tough against a Chicago team that dispatched the Red Wings and Sharks in a total of nine games. Meanwhile, congratulations to the Canadiens for reaching the semifinals for the first time since ’93, causing the experts to tear their hair out for a month and a half trying to figure you out in the process.

Campbell Conference Final

(1) San Jose vs. (2) Chicago

Playoff History: None. By the time the Sharks shook off their expansion shittiness, Chicago was on the verge of turning into hot garbage for about twelve years.

Last Time They Were Here: For the Sharks, their only prior appearance in the conference final was in 2004, when they hocked up the first two games at home against Calgary and ultimately lost in six, thus birthing a legend of playoff chokery. The Hawks, meanwhile, were here just last year, getting shown up by the Red Wings in five.

Season Series: 3-1 Chicago, with a pair of OT wins and a pretty sound clobbering at the Tank to their credit.

Doogie Says: This series is difficult to call for an entirely different reason than the Wales final is. While the Wales final consists of two teams that were kind of bad during the regular season but who got hot at the right time, the Campbell final consists of two teams who were pretty much expected to be here. San Jose has defied expectations simply by showing up here, after so many years of disappointment, while Chicago seems to be right on schedule in their development. Rest vs. Rust probably isn’t a huge factor at this point — and probably wouldn’t be beyond the first ten minutes anyway — since both teams have been off for days. That also means they’ve had time to rest up what bumps and bruises they have. In looking desperately for an advantage, I eventually turned up the following justifications: a) a slightly tougher road to the conference finals, b) the appearance of slightly better depth, and c) if you want to use the tables from here, better 5-on-5 and score-tied play throughout the year, and d) the season series. As last one should make clear, I’m going with my initial gut reaction of Hawks in six.

Hoop Says: The Sharks have been rolling even since the game 3 OT loss to Colorado in the 1st round. My concern with San Jose is who have they beaten? A Colorado team that was just happy to make the playoffs and a Detroit Red Wings team that had been worn down with a rookie goaltender that was incredibly lucky to get by an average Phoenix Coyotes squad. While Chicago got lucky in round 1 against Nashville, they really took the game to Vancouver in the 2nd round and showed their depth. The depth will likely be the deciding factor here so I am taking the Hawks. Chicago in 6.

Matt Says: I was wishing the Sharks would get buried by the Avalanche, and I honestly figured that the Wings wouldn’t have that much trouble with them, but they started swimming straight. I’m still not sure about them though, so it should be long, and definitely drawn out, but one of these times, the Sharks have to sink, right? Hawks in seven.

Gerard Says: Chicago will win in 7 games. Why? Hossa has been in the last 2 finals and has caught “Conklin Fever” (Conklin having been on the losing team in the finals 3 of the last 4 seasons while losing in the conference final the other season) having lost the cup the last 2 years.

	1	2	2	2	0
	2	4	3	4	4

Postmortem: A bit of a surprising result, not in terms of who won (note that we all had the Hawks), but in how quickly they’d do it. The series score paints a deceptive picture, though: the Sharks scored the first goal in three of the games, all of which ended in one (non-EN) goal victories for Chicago. Even when the ‘Hawks played like dog turd, as they did for the first half of Game 4, they still found a way to flip the switch when the time was right and get the goals they needed. I’m not sure if that’s more of a credit to the ‘Hawks or a deficit for the Sharks: it didn’t seem to be like they were playing badly, they just got straight-up beat by a better team. And now that better team is going on to face a team that made the playoffs on the last day, by a shootout goal, but which also staged one of the greatest comebacks in pro sport history and handily dispatched the presumed Cinderellas of 2010. They’ll have their hands full, but if this series is any indication, I don’t see any reason why the Flyers should present more than a temporary problem for these ‘Hawks. It took a while to rev ‘em up, but now that they’re going at full power, this club is a buzzsaw.

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

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.

It is yet to be determined whether the Facebook group will have any effect on the Hall’s selection committee.

The fact that both TSN and CBC have reported on this in the last few days might suggest otherwise.

Oh, and it’s up to almost 18,000 members as of this writing.

Update (10:16 AM, 4/1): No April Fool’s joke (Stillnoname.com is a bullshit-free zone on Liar’s Day), now NHL.com‘s reporting on it. I have to admit, I’m surprised at how quickly this thing’s gained traction: membership has doubled since the TSN story went up yesterday. I understand Gerard’s concern in the comments about the optics of public pressure, but I’m not sure how this is necessarily different than any other letter-writing campaign or petition: public support for an idea is nice, but the HHoF committee’s still gotta vote him in, and while they’re obviously aware of the public pressure, I think if he gets in now, he was getting in regardless. Like with Roger Neilson in 2002, it’s simply a matter of doing it while it still matters to the man himself.