The NHL has endured "bush league" accusations for years, and often I've felt they were either undeserved or referred to incidents long past.

But I'm really starting to believe that I don't like this league.  I'm not even sure I want to follow the sport any more.  The Chara hit is, for all intents and purposes, a minor incident over the life of the league.  The league's reaction to it is another disappointment.

Like, really, how does a multi-billion dollar professional league NOT have a spec for something like stanchion pads?  Why do we have dangerous kinds of glass on the end boards?  Why did it take the death of a girl for netting to be put up so people don't get hit by wayward 100mph slapshots?  Because every ticket has a disclaimer claiming that the league/owner/operator/players aren't responsible for people not dodging 100mph slapshots.

And that's just the safety issues.

The league jumps in to bail out a franchise in a market that has lost money for FIFTEEN YEARS STRAIGHT - win or lose.  They can't sell out games with extremely cheap tickets.  They can't make money with a salary cap and revenue sharing.  They have a sweetheart deal for a brand new arena in one of the biggest markets in the US.

The NHL does absolutely everything it can to keep that franchise alive, even taking it over despite the fact that there are other buyers available.  Then it brokers a deal with the city that owns the arena, and tells the city to go millions into debt (and this city is already facing financial struggles.)  The deal is so bad, it stinks so hard, that even there - in sports-crazed America - people take offense to it and threaten a lawsuit.  The mere THREAT of this lawsuit destroys the deal, because apparently there's so much BS in it, a lawsuit would expose it all.  Bettman refuses to publicly meet with the group threatening the lawsuit.

And yet, the moment the city of Edmonton - a thriving market - tries to negotiate to get a better deal for an arena - Bettman throws the word "relocation" around.

How about this?  Remember the Heritage Classic?  The league doesn't!  No, the first meaningful outdoor NHL game - the ONLY game as far as they're concerned - is the Winter Classic.

Six Canadian teams - a mere 20% of the league in numbers - provided 31% of league revenues.  And that was in 2008, before the Americans flushed the world economy down the toilet.  What would the results be now?  35%?  40%?  Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver all have economies that are at least stable if not outright thriving.  Compare this to double-digit unemployment (severely under-reported since American unemployment figures discount those who've lost benefits, and American benefits don't last long), a second housing dip, and oil prices (combined with a pathetic dollar) punishing the car-dependent American worker and economy.

I'm sick and tired of following this anti-Canadian, incompetent, greedy, pathetic league.

Screw it, I'm done.  The loss of Gagner on top of Hall, Whitney, Hemsky, etc. isn't helping, but it's not the reason why I'm done with this crappy league.

The Centre of Attention

The center of attention, back for the winter
I'm interesting, the best thing since wrestling 

Taylor Hall being moved to centre, given the Oilers recent history of player development, would normally have a fan like myself in the hospital after choking on cereal after reading the news in the morning.  This year, however, there's not much to be concerned about.

Tom Renney is a smart coach.  So was Craig MacTavish.  The difference is in how they handle players, player mistakes, and their own.  MacT, for all his good qualities, was a quirky coach.  Toby Peterson on the first line power play is probably the best example of our dearly departed coach losing his marbles and not correcting the mistake.  Whether it's out of genuine mental error or spite for the skilled players denied power play time, we can't know.

We also couldn't know how he'd handle Hall at centre.  Would he shelter him with skilled players like Hemsky and Penner?  Would he stick him on the third or fourth line with low ice time so he wouldn't have opportunity to make mistakes?  Would he call him out in the media?  Would he shuffle Hall between centre and left wing constantly?  There's no way to tell.

Pat Quinn, if he would have bothered putting a rookie left wing at centre at all, would have a leash so short that Hall would likely be back on the left wing as soon as he got within earshot of Quinn's booming voice.  That's an exaggeration, but it testifies to the nature of Pat's coaching style.

Tom Renney is patient and calm.  He's afforded the luxury of this risky (for the team's record) move by virtue of not having to worry about the record.  But, as he's shown with Andrew Cogliano, he's also patient by nature.  We've seen some dividends with Cog's play, and by most metrics, Taylor Hall is a better player than Cogliano.  His combination of smarts, co-ordination, and size is hard to beat in and of itself.  Throw in pitbull-like tenacity, and Hall has a good chance of making the transition a la a certain former Oiler you may remember.

They even kind of look alike.  The eyebrows, the eyes, the big smiles.  They have somewhat similar playing styles, though Hall has as much of Glenn Anderson in him as he does of the Moose.

And now, a word from Mr. Adams

One of the best phrases in the Galaxy

I feel rather uncomfortable posting this, because I have my own doubts.  Yet I feel compelled to because I'm partly a contrarian out of nature, partly because I see merit in these points.

The 2000-2001 Penguins, with Jaromir Jagr, Alex Kovalev, Martin Straka, Robert Lang made it into the Eastern Conference Finals after a 96-point campaign.  Also chipping in for a stunning 76 points in 43 games was the Magnificent One, who hadn't played pro hockey in 3 and a half years.  I may be the only Edmontonian who believes Mario was better than Wayne, but that, like my appreciation for Brian Burke, is for another day.

The following season, they lost some key players - notably Jagr and Straka - and bombed to 69 points.  The year after was worse, with 65, despite a longer season from Mario (67 games, up from 24 in '01-'02.)  In 2003-2004 the Penguins were an unmitigated disaster, managing only 58 points - and remember, this entire discussion is the overtime loss era (though not yet shootout.)

With 2004-2005 a write-off due to the lockout, the Penguins got to draft Sidney Crosby.

In 2005-2006, Crosby's rookie campaign, he managed 39 goals and 63 assists.  Also on his team were Sergei Gonchar (58 points), and some of the last truly productive years for Mark Recchi (57 points in just 64 games) and John LeClair (51), along with an in-his-prime Ryan Malone and a great rookie campaign from Colby Armstrong.

The Pens were weak between the pipes, with rookie Marc-Andre Fleury shouldering the burden for 50 games and being the best option with a .898 save percentage and 3.25GAA.  Bad as those numbers were, they were by far the best on the Pens.  Somehow, he isn't ruined by that experience.

So this team, with some good offensive output, decent defenders, and shaky goaltending... repeated its 2003-2004 record, with just 58 points again.

The Pens, over four years, drafted first overall twice (Crosby and Fleury) and second overall twice (Malkin and Staal.)  Crosby is a generational talent.  We may not see another like him.  Malkin is "just" a superstar.  Fleury is good, he might even become great, but his name doesn't ring out with Roy, Brodeur, and Hasek - and probably never will.  Jordan Staal is Jordan Staal, sort of a unique entity at this point with no parallels I can come up with.  Is he overpaid?  Under-appreciated?    Limited by his role?

To get all that, the Pens went through 4 miserable years, seeing one superstar, one star, and one legend leave the team or even the game.

Should we, as Oilers fans, be in a panic over our scenario?  What were Pittsburgh fans thinking in January of 2006?

Patience

Confidence, determination, defiance - haven't seen much of that yet

I was one of those who fully expected Paajarvi and Eberle to make bigger overall impacts than Taylor Hall this year.  Paajarvi, especially, I thought would have a better all-around game.

He is defensively responsible, but seems somewhat confused and lost on the offensive end of the ice.  Shy?  Afraid of making a mistake?  Deferring to veterans?  Trouble understanding the coach (after all, English is not his first language)?  I don't know.

What I do know is that he's 19 years old and shows a lot of talent on the ice.  It's not as obvious or flashy as Hall, because Hall is utterly fearless and even when he does things that won't work, he plays like he expects them to work.  The only hesitation in Hall's game is when he's deliberately hesitating.

Perhaps he needs a little more one on one time, a talk inspiring confidence, telling him he won't be sent down.  Perhaps he needs 20 minutes of ice time in Oklahoma.  At this point, it's hard to argue that Magnus is a better option than Omark.  20 minutes in Oklahoma may be worth a lot more to him than 10 minutes in Edmonton.

The Oilers have shown miraculous levels of patience with Jean-Francois Jacques.  I'd like to see that with Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson.

More than that, I'd like to see the Oilers show that kind of patience with their lines.  Injuries haven't helped, and Tom Renney isn't Craig MacTavish, but the blender is in full effect so far and for the sake of the players, it would be nice if it stopped.  Paajarvi deserves a chance with Omark, and they deserve a better centre.  Trade for a Swedish centre.  Let them relax and build some chemistry, maybe use it as practice for working with Lander in the future.

I want to see the same look Magnus has in the picture, but in an Oilers uniform.  I know it will come in time.  More consistent lines and a legitimate centre will speed the process and cement it.

Silver Again

Ryan Ellis just confirmed in an interview what I and many others had been saying from the start of the third period:

Team Canada let its foot off the gas.  They thought they had the game won.

It sucks, it really does.  Russia was not the team to do this against.  The Russians, like the Canadians, were battle-tested and had their losses and close calls in the tournament.  They were a close-knit team and showed it by singing their national anthem after their semi-final.  Unlike a few Russian teams in the past, they had heart, they didn't quit, they kept fighting.

As soon as Canada eased up, the Russians struck.  Some luck was involved, but not too much - this is a skilled bunch the Canadians played against.  Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, and Orlov would have been drafted higher if not for the "Russian factor", the fear among NHL teams that the players will prefer to play in Russia.

When the score was 3-2, Team Canada got emotional and went into CHL habits, trying for the big hits, trying to intimidate physically.  This isn't the 70s, 80s, 90s, or even early 2000s.  International players don't get intimidated by being hit these days.  After the job Canada did on Ovechkin and Malkin years back, the lesson was well-learned by junior teams around the world.  Even then, it was solid checking - not big hits - that beat the Russians.

With the score 3-3, Canada returned to form but the Russians were flying high.  Of course, by this time, Mark Visentin was arguably shaken and playing deeper in his net, and Canada was tired.

I'm proud of the team.  They didn't let anyone down, just themselves.  It sucks not to have bragging rights, but really, for us, as fans and Canadians, that's all it is - bragging rights.  For two thirds of the game, Canada played perfectly.  They had perfect positioning and played as a team.  The Russians, like the Americans, couldn't use their speed down the middle or make fancy passes - our players were in the right spots.  Unlike last year, when Canada tried to dominate with size and skill, this year we had the right strategy.  We just failed to execute it at the most important point in the game.

For the players, it's a big, hard lump in their throat, like trying to swallow a handful of dice, whole.  But for them individually, it's perhaps the best lesson they can get for their pro careers - never, EVER give up.  Never look down on your opponent, 3-0 lead or not.  Winning feels great, but painful losses are the best teachers.

Old Age and Treachery

There are two threads to last night's loss to the Red Wings.

The first is best explained by the above.

The Red Wings got away with murder on the ice.  When you're a ref in the corner, looking down behind the net, and right in front of you is 6'4, 220lb Jonathan Ericsson, getting up off Hall after "falling" on him after a check, and that same Ericsson has an arm draped around Hall's neck and his hand is on his face and he is very reluctant to let go despite the puck being 20 feet from Hall... If you're the referee in that situation, I hope to God that you have some sort of explanation when Steve Tambellini calls the league office and shows them the video of that.

The Red Wings set pick plays and they mugged the Oilers.  I don't believe in conspiracy theories or anything like that, though I do believe in human nature.  It could be that the refs made mistakes.  Consistently.  In favor of the Wings.  Given our 5-on-3, I don't quite believe that.  More than likely, the Wings are just a sneaky, treacherous, old team that knows all the tricks in the book and exactly what they can get away with.

The other thread of discussion is the Oilers' seventh consecutive loss.  Yes, it was ugly.  So were, in fact, more than a few losses in this stretch.

But I don't despair.  I'd love to see Tambellini trade the first overall pick for a proven elite defenceman.  I make no secret of that.  I also know, however, how good Stu MacGregor is at his job and that while we have a ton of prospects in the system, few are centres, non project as first line centres, and after Marincin and Petry the defensive pipeline is thin.

In the meantime, despite being down 3-1 at the start of the third, the Oilers fought back yet again.  If not for a flukey goal, this could have gone into overtime, or it could have been 4-3 on the Helm insurance marker (which may or may not have happened if not for the bounce off Smid's skate.)

Bad teams, they don't fight back.  Last year, we had a really bad team.  We've had bad teams since 2006-2007, so we should be familiar with them and see the difference.  The Oilers were soundly thrashed in the first period, as usual, and had a strong third - almost as usual.

They have fight, they have talent, and they're explosive.  You can never count this team out.  All this tells us that they have potential and the times when they do get it all together - rare as those have been lately - this can be a good team.  It would be better with some obvious upgrades (puck-mover for the third pairing, a couple of centres), but even with this roster, if they manage to finish on a good note this season, I'd expect a run at a playoff spot next year.

Patience, grasshopper.

Bruce Banner, Dustin Penner, the Hulks

Dustin Penner at Joe Louis Arena

Dustin Penner has been playing well lately, and I don't think that's by accident.

There's something about his mental make-up that changes when the team is struggling.  Perhaps he feels less pressure and performs better.  Perhaps the injuries to his teammates have forced him into a spotlight role.

I suspect the latter.  I wanted Penner to be given the A or even the C for this season.  Many of the criticisms against him are exaggerated; that he's disinterested, skates lazy, or isn't focused.  I think, however, there may be a kernel of truth to Penner being somewhat disinterested during an 82-game season.  He is human, and most hockey players, never mind us mere mortals, lose their motivation in a season.

Do you watch game 39 with as much interest as the first few or last few of the season?  What about the playoffs?  Everyone steps it up.  Yes, even Jumbo Joe.

Which brings us back to Penner.  Last year, he thrived for a long time when he was The Man on the team.  No Hemsky, no Souray, no Visnovsky, a Horcoff that couldn't be traded for a bag of cracked pucks - and that's when Penner played at his best.  He tailed off during the middle of the season, and then came on strong at the end.

The very best players in the world have great physical gifts and are able to challenge themselves daily.  Michael Jordan is the ultimate example for casual sports fans - he created massive grudges out of the smallest perceived slights.  He played angry, furious.  Sidney Crosby is the best current hockey example.  Every season he improves at some aspect of the game in a noticeable way, to the point where this year there's no Crosby vs Ovechkin debate.  There wouldn't be a debate even if Ovechkin was scoring at his usual torrid pace.

Penner has undeniable physical talents.  He is, despite appearances, a fairly fast player.  With his height and weight he'll never be as agile as an Omark or Gagner - the sheer physical stress of his skates on the ice make that impossible - but he is still above average.  His puck handling is quite good and he has a very good shot.

Where Dustin Penner falls from the superstar mould is in motivation.  Most players don't have superstar motivation.  Oilers fans pick on Penner because he clearly has the tools to be a superstar, or at least a physical power forward, but isn't.

Penner needs to be challenged, he needs to be angry.  Maybe Craig MacTavish realized this when he ripped on him every night in the media, but I never liked MacT's public approach and I think it did more harm than good in Dustin's case.

It doesn't seem like Tom Renney knows how to turn #27 from Gentle Giant to Beast Within, but I think over the next few weeks we'll see more of The Incredible Hulk rather than Bruce Banner.  Horcoff is still out, Eberle is down, Whitney (our most irreplaceable player) is a long term injury.  The spotlight comes on Penner naturally, it's not some coach blasting him publicly and focusing negative attention.  I believe Dustin will respond.

I also hope he manages to find a way to Hulk up on his own.

Against a team that can control the puck like Detroit, with their face-off and special teams expertise, the Oilers are extremely weak.  A mean, angry Penner playing on the edge can be like the mean, angry Canada the smooth-skating Americans saw at the 2011 World Juniors.  There's no slick pass or dangle that will peel your face off the glass once Penner's 6'4, 250lb frame leans into it, his elbow "slipping" from its pinning position on your back and sliding into the back of your head repeatedly.

Eberle's Ankle

The new Captain Canada, a worthy successor to Smytty

Jordan Eberle is one of the three (four? let's ask Omark) star rookies on the team and one of the better two-way players we have.  After the injuries to Ales Hemsky, Shawn Horcoff and Ryan Whitney, the loss of Eberle was terribly demoralizing to myself as a fan.  Fortunately, there may be good news.  Dan Tencer is tweeting that Jordan is out of the boot cast and that "the ankle feels great".

I don't see anyone from the AHL being able to replace Eberle.  Omark may have the offensive talents - indeed more than Eberle - but nobody plays that kind of two-way game.  Jordan is an uncanny player.

I remember watching him at the World Juniors of course, but in particular he stood out at rookie camp this year. He had this knack of being in the right place at the right time.  There were many moments where the play would come to Jordan Eberle, rather than the opposite.  I called it Gretzky-lite and I stand by it.

What I didn't see at the Juniors or at training camp was Eberle's speed.  He was clearly faster at camp than he was in the WHL, but he is now a quick player by NHL standards and capable of keeping up with Taylor Hall and Magnus Pajaarvi.

Update:

There's been some delay in arranging the MRI.

Omark, of the Beast

Linus Omark, adding to Dan Ellis' Problems

Dan Ellis' problems just keep getting funnier this season.  A day after being effectively replaced by a man a decade his senior, Dan Ellis hears about Linus Omark coming back to the NHL.

Omark belongs here.

Not because he's supremely talented.  Not because he's too good for the AHL.  Not because he has nothing to learn there.  He belongs here because he will learn here, and he won't learn in the American League.

Omark has attitude.  He has it in abundance, he reeks of it.  He has swagger, (over)confidence, and an undeniable will to succeed.  It remains to be seen if Linus Omark is an Edmonton Oiler or just Edmonton Omark, but that will come out in time and the Oilers will deal with it then.

Omark's attitude may help the Oilers win, especially right now.  But that, too, isn't particularly relevant at the moment.

The thing about Omark is that he has attitude and personality that transcend his size.  This isn't a particularly common trait and I suspect most hockey players, certainly Canadians, are taught to internalize their determination and stubbornness.  Sidney Crosby is the ultimate example.  Matt Duchene isn't far behind, and I'm sure we can throw Sam Gagner into that bunch.  They're small players.  Why?  A six foot tall player, like Taylor Hall, is a big body.  You take an inch - just an inch - away from him, and he becomes a five footer, someone who will struggle with physical contact, unless he "plays big" and has "heart".  Weighing 195-205lbs doesn't help.  Just ask any TV or radio commentator, or anyone on the forums.  In the silly American measuring system we're stuck with, an inch - the right inch, the last inch - adds a foot.

Omark may have grown up with metric but everything about him speaks of someone who's been told all his life "you're small" and "no", but unlike most of us, he didn't ignore it, and he didn't accept it, but he motivated himself with it.

There are many things he could learn in the AHL, but he can dominate in that league with speed and talent alone.  Whatever shortcomings he has, he overcomes with his production.  As someone who seems to have created himself by hearing every criticism and then smashing it right back into his accuser's face, Omark strikes me as the kind of player who wouldn't listen to a coach there.  Patrick Roy has two Stanley Cup rings plugging his ears.  Linus Omark has a 5-goal game and the knowledge that the Barons collapsed without him.  But an NHL coach, at what is the undeniably highest level of hockey in the world?  Especially when that coach can pop in video from a game and go over the regular doses of humility Omark faces on NHL ice?  That's a different story.

Will Linus be out of his depth?  Possibly, for a while.  Will he make mistakes with (and especially without) the puck?  Almost certainly.  Will he refuse to acknowledge them at first?  Likely.  But there's a Michael Jordan-esque intensity about Omark.  An anger.  A defiant will to prove everyone around him wrong, a need to find a challenge and beat it down until it's dust.

Jordan Eberle, Sam Gagner, Matt Duchene and Sidney Crosby had calmly, quietly fought through the stereotypes of being just "five feet" tall with determination and their play on the ice.  Omark, by contrast, is loud, brash, even arrogant, but seems lit on fire by the challenges thrown his way.  Here's to hoping his talent level continues to match his determination.