Team(s) of the Year
With all due respect to the Red Wings, the NHL team of 2008 has to be the Chicago Black Hawks. Setting aside the fact that the Hawks have yet to prove a damn thing on the ice – and I grant that this is a big set aside when nominating a team of the year – they emerged as an exciting team that is going places. More importantly for the NHL, they’ve recaptured the heart of the Chicago sports fan.
I don’t think that anyone could imagine a better story for the NHL or for hockey. The only thing that might have rivaled a Hawks resurgence in Chicago would have been a Ranger run to the Finals. Even that probably wouldn’t have done what adding Chicago as a hockey town does to help the league. And that couldn’t come at a better time.
On the flip side, the shocking collapse of the Ottawa Senators is surely the on-ice story of the year. The difference between the way this team performed in 2007 and the way it performed in 2008 must represent an unprecedented drop. I don’t think anyone can explain it.
The Hawks have become a fun team to follow with so many great young exciting stars.
The Sens though, it is weird. The metaphor that keeps coming to mind for me is critical mass.
Watching Havlat vs Hossa in the outdoor game between 2 successful big markets, while Chara is leading one of the leagues hottest new resurgent big market teams, and knowing all 3 would still be rfa’s in ottawa with a high trade value under the previous system, it hurts. Add in Redden gone for no return, which is only really a loss relative to his old value to us, and we finally lost the critical mass required to be an explosive team.
Murray and Hartsburg have to rebuild from scratch almost, what was once one of ottawa’s key strengths – defence. Picard, Lee, Bell, Schubert, and last years first 2 picks being young defence prospects, would seem to be the start of a long road back for us.
I like the metaphor because it works both ways. A lousy team can add two or three good players and look just as lousy. Add a fourth and critical mass is achieved. The team leaps forward. We’ve seen it happen in reverse with the Sens.
Still, I’ve never seen this kind of collapse. Elite to mediocre in a year? That’s nothing. But elite to out of the playoffs by a mile in a single year?
In light of all those pre-lockout debates about whether the salary cap/27 year old free agency would help or hurt the Senators I expected a reference to those debates in this thread.
As a fan of the old CBA, I’m not going to say it was 100% the new CBA’s fault because the Sens had other issues. Last Spring I looked at the Sens and thought they were a tired team that hadn’t had a good practice in a while. I don’t know how much credibility to give the party atmosphere that a certain 4 individuals brought to the dressing room, but seeing McGratton enter into the substance abuse program has me thinking that it contributed to the problem.
This Fall’s collapse demonstrated it was more than that. The Sens lack depth behind their forward line of Spezza/Heatly/Alfredsson. In many respects they lost a lot when they lost the Mike Comrie, Peter Schafaer, Wade Redden and Tom Preissing. In many respects they remind me of the Tampa Bay Lightning who went from Stanley Cup winners to Lottery Winners all because they lacked talent behind their top forward line.
I really don’t have a good remedy other than to hope that the draft/farm system treats them well. With $20 million tied into 3 forwards there’s not going to be much room left for free agents and the trade value of most players is at a historical low. Perhaps we can hope for a Washington level surge.
Speaking of collapses I’m not sure what to make of Pittsburgh sitting 9th in the East after going to the finals last year. A friend of mine blamed it on the Gonchar injury, but even that’s a touch one to wrap by head around.
In light of all those pre-lockout debates about whether the salary cap/27 year old free agency would help or hurt the Senators I expected a reference to those debates in this thread.
Someone else involved in those debates sent me a link to Duhatschek’s column about the resurgence of the original six with a similar comment. I think the new CBA is working out pretty much the way it was designed and it was designed to deliver up the best opportunities to the most important markets. The small markets got money in revenue sharing and the promise of more if resurgence in Chicago, Boston, New York and LA drove higher TV ratings. I think it is very obvious that the old CBA was better for teams in small markets in the hockey sense if not the business sense.
All that said, is there any point in rehashing old arguments? This CBA – with minor variations – is here for the long term.
I don’t think anybody has solved the problem it creates for teams that had (or developed) a raft of talent. Detroit put off the day of reckoning because they had a raft of aging stars to jettison. They are going to have to dump talent next year.
We’ve seen Tampa, Buffalo, Ottawa and Pittsburgh have to deal with it, none of them very successfully. Chicago is going to have to dump talent before that team really matures, too.