Bleacher Report - Articles by Kevin Morgan

Welcome to the Cheap Seats

Kevin Morgan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:32:02 -0400

Just when you thought the proceedings in Phoenix couldn't get any more petty. Now Gary and the happy henchmen are trying to drive the final nail in the coffin and have the players suffer too.

The Wall Street journal is reporting that the NHL is asking Judge Baum to require that the Phoenix Coyotes fly US Airways charters for all away games in the upcoming season.

The NHL does not believe that the team should use the same service as last year, as it happens to belong to Mr. Moyes and includes 68 first class seats and other amenities...

Unlike the Moyes jet, the US Airways planes are standard passenger jets and the majority of the seats are standard leg room.

So I guess the boys will have to decide how to divvy up the first class seats. Do they do it on a rotation? By height? I imagine Kurt Sauer at 6' 4" might have a bit of an issue getting his frame in a standard seat. Maybe they do first class as an incentive, get a shutout, goal or an assist, win a fight and move to the front of the plane.

As if the Phoenix players didn't have enough to worry about before.

It's not even Christmas yet and already Bettman has pulled a "Grinch." Hey Gary, why not make them ride a bus to all games in LA, San Jose, Edmonton, Vancouver and Edmonton too, that will save some more cash.

We understand though, the franchise was never in trouble. That's what you said right?

Phoenix Rising: The Truth About What's at Stake

Kevin Morgan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:37:39 -0400

It’s ironic that the predicament the NHL—and all major league sports for that matter—finds itself in is unfolding in Phoenix.

The Phoenix is a mythical bird that has a long life span. At the end of which it builds a nest of myrrh twigs, ignites itself, burns to ashes, and then is reborn or rises again.

I think one of the major motivators that most people miss when analyzing the situation is the cash cow that is public financing. The majority of the new facilities that have been built by the "fair weather" hockey franchises have come (at least partially, and in many cases totally) at the expense of taxpayers.

Without this money expansion of the NHL is not viable, and may even be impossible given the quality of some of the current ownership groups.

Bettman alluded to this in 2008 when addressing the Edmonton chamber of commerce. He essentially said that the Oilers "needed" a new facility to remain viable. He went on to say that he could not see how the project could be completed without public funding.

He again alluded to the fact that Canadian cities are reticent to spend public funds to support billionaires in his interview with Ron McLean on HNIC. After commenting that poor Bryden had to build his own exit ramp, he went so far as to say that Quebec and Winnipeg may have lost their franchises because the public was not willing to finance new buildings.

So how would it look if Gary and his band of blithering idiots watched a franchise disappear after taxpayers had funded a new mausoleum?

It's no wonder the NFL, NBA and MLB are all so worried.

It has less to do with moving a franchise from Phoenix to Hamilton, or the dissolution/circumventing of inadequate bylaws, and more to do with a critical multi-billion dollar revenue stream that just may dry up if Balsillie is successful.

The erosion of markets in Buffalo and Toronto is a red herring, meant to gain sympathy for the poor struggling billionaires. In Canada there is plenty of room for another team and they will have rabid fans like anywhere else.

No self-respecting fan in TO or Buffalo is going to switch allegiance. They are solid markets.

The character assassination conducted by the NHL and the owners is simply laughable. Bylaws can be changed to avoid a similar debacle in the future.

In the end, this is personal.

If Balsillie wins, it’s the end of an era when greedy billionaire’s build their sports franchise fortunes on the back of taxpayers. That is Stern’s vision in the NBA (sorry Seattle, no new stadium…we’re moving to Oklahoma) and it is Bettman’s in the NHL.

Neither MLB or the NFL have anything to worry about except the loss of public billions to build their shiny new stadiums—and that’s the only reason they care.

Gary is in the fight of his life. He sold the owners a “bill of goods” that he may no longer be able to deliver. So it’s personal alright, but Balsillie was simply the catalyst to a broken dream.

The difference between Bettman and the Phoenix is that it’s Judge Redfield T. Baum that has a match in one hand and a fire extinguisher in the other. But the nest is ready.

If indeed Balsillie wins and public money dries up, it will have a trickle down effect not only on the construction of new buildings but on the whole business of valuating sports franchises in North America.

From the ashes a new reality dawns.

NHL Playoff Referees: What a Debacle Yet Again

Kevin Morgan — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:25:20 -0400

I have to admit—I’m still bitter.

I had originally intended to write an article about one NHL referee in particular who has stood out this year as the worst of the bunch, Dan O’Halloran.

Honestly, I am still bothered by two egregious non-calls in Game Six between Vancouver and Chicago. The two were Andrew Ladd’s hit on Ryan Kesler (which resulted in Kesler suffering the loss of three teeth and a broken nose) and Ben Eager’s late hit on Alexander Edler that could very well have been assessed four minutes.

While everyone in the dressing room likes to say the right thing—"the referees were not the difference"—I can’t help but think eight minutes of power play time in the first period would have made a difference.

So how to make lemons into lemonade? Rather than continue to be bitter, I decided to look at the most prominent calls this year and suggest ways to have the NHL improve the situation.

Every year the NHL goes through the same embarrassment in the race for the Stanley Cup. Referees in the NHL have one of the toughest jobs in sports, to be sure. Each year, there are calls that have fans scratching their heads, and leave the head of officiating looking for creative ways to justify the on-ice foibles of his charges.

One of the most infamous is the Stanley Cup winning goal by Brett Hull in 1999, when Hull’s skate clearly was in the crease. Throughout the entire season goals were routinely called off for “exactly” the same rule.

However when pressed for an explanation the NHL supervisor of officials cleverly came up with a definition for “deemed possession of the puck”. Unfortunately the only people placated by this explanation live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and I—along with every Buffalo Sabres fan—would gladly like to see and asterisk engraved on the Stanley Cup beside the Dallas Stars' name.

This year, the quick whistle by Brad Watson against Detroit and the phantom interference call by Dan O’Halloran (on the best hit of the playoffs so far) are just two examples. In both cases the NHL had to explain the rulings.

Now whether right or wrong, the problem is that when the NHL has to publicly explain the rules to justify the on-ice official’s rulings, there is a credibility issue. As a lifelong hockey fan, I can honestly say I have literally seen hundreds of hits like Kronwall’s (see almost every Scott Stevens highlight) without ever having seen such a ludicrous circus on the call. I can also assure you that there are dozens of times during a game when the referee cannot see the puck but does not blow their whistle.

So how can the NHL improve? It’s simple.

First, make all goal calls eligible for review—not just goals but goals that are called off. If Detroit had lost the series to the Ducks, it would have been a travesty. In fact, it can be argued that the blown call extended a series that was destined to be much shorter. Momentum is everything at this time of year.

Barring this, the league needs to allow all the officials (including linesmen) to conference after a no goal call to make sure they got it right. They do it in baseball on disputed home runs—one could argue it’s even more critical to hockey.

Second, quit justifying mistakes by officials by coming up with convoluted interpretations of the rules to suit the situation. If a player can be hit several seconds after they deliver a pass or dump the puck into the opponents zone, then a player who has the puck in his skates and decides not to play it should be fair game, period.

This is not a game of “hot potato”—it’s hockey. Havlat was the only player that could have controlled the puck. To say that Brad Stuart was “deemed” to have possession of the puck because he was the last player to touch it is ridiculous.

Thirdly change the way officials are chosen for each round. Currently, Stephen Walkom and his band of blithering idiots decide which officials move on to the next round. Here I have, two proposals.

1. Survivor style: Let the players, coaches and GMs of the beaten teams pick the officials for the next round. Nobody knows better than them which officials are on top of their game. The great thing about this is that officials who really blow calls are finally held accountable.

2. Jury style: Allow each team in the next round the opportunity to nominate candidates and mediate until they agree. Negotiations could be aired on FOX Sports with Nancy Grace as host airing all the dirty laundry! Just kidding….

Do the Vancouver Canucks Have What It Takes To Compete for the Stanley Cup

Kevin Morgan — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:08:31 -0400

So the question is do the Canucks really have what it takes to make it to the Stanley Cup finals. Of course the last time this happened was 1994. While reading a fanboy article, I was thinking about this year’s edition of the Canuck’s as a group and whether they had what it takes to make it to the finals like the 1994 team. I have been under the impression that this group was not as talented (scoring wise) as the 94 team with Bure, Linden, Courtnall, Ronning, Craven and Lumme but may be better defensively and in goal with Roberto Luongo. Of course there are the intangibles like luck, matchups and the indomitable spirit of Trevor Linden. But being the analytical sort I thought I would play with a few statistics and see what they had to say. What follows is what comes of an afternoon reminiscing and contemplating whether the 2009 edition of the Vancouver Canucks might be worthy of mention when compared to the 1994 Stanley Cup runners up.

Begin Slideshow

Time for Daniel and Henrik Sedin to Step Up

Kevin Morgan — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 03:25:54 -0400

Now that Alex Burrows has signed and Ryan Kesler is speaking about taking less money to stay in Vancouver, it's time for the Sedins to step up.

Rumours abound that the Sedins are seeking $6 million each for a new contract.

Really?

Comparables in that range are Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Enough said.

Right now the two best players on the Vancouver Canucks are Kesler and Burrows. They are tenacious, quick and talented (see Datsyuk and Zetterberg). They score goals and kill penalties, they can cycle the puck and score off the rush.

They make players around them better, period.

The Sedins, on the other hand, have been "looking" for a winger for years (Pyatt, Bernier, Naslund etc.). Why, you ask? Until now (with the exception of Anson Carter, scoring garbage goals) the Sedins were content to play four on five, because they would rarely pass the puck to anyone without the same last name.

The cycle became the most boring thing in the NHL since Jacques Lemaire employed the trap. The truth is "the sniper" Daniel does not possess a great shot, and Henrik seems afraid to shoot.

The truth is Kesler and Burrows play with the infectious energy that forces players to step up. Burrows has made the Sedins better, more effective. Kesler has given life to Sundin and Demitra.

Now the question remains—do the Sedins really believe they are worth three times the money that Alex Burrows is making? If so they may very likely be playing in a different city next year.

Mike Gillis has done a good job of turning the franchise into a place that young players want to play. When the Sedins were young, the city, the GM and the team gave them time to grow. They are very good hockey players, but now is the time for them to step up both in their play and in their commitment to a city that let them do what they like best, play together.

The truth is that both Kesler and Burrows have done something (in saying they are willing to take less pay) that may have negative implications. After all, guys who play like they do getting 60-70 points, getting paid $2 million per season will alter the comparables around the league. While fans may find this admirable, some of their union brothers may not.

So whatcha say, Daniel and Hank? Wanna stick around and win a Cup or are you ready for an obscure future in Florida, Atlanta, or Nashville?

Time to step up or step off.