Blackhawks win, and so did we

As the insane ending to game six of the Stanley Cup Final was playing out, my wife looked over at me as the seconds ticked down, a hint of a smile entering her face. "Wait, does this mean hockey is over?!" I have to say, I understand where she's coming from. With the lockout pushing the finals into late-June, it was way too nice outside to be thinking about a sport played on ice. Or whatever that slushy substance was in Boston.

I, on the other hand, felt a pang of melancholy, knowing it'd be three months before the pucks again are dropped. At least one good thing to came out of the lockout, and this is absolutely the only good thing: the offseason will be shorter than usual. In fact, that Blackhawks have hardly finished their parade and the focus of the hockey world is already moving on to buyouts, trades and the entry draft on Sunday.

I will get into some of that in future posts, but before that, here's a few last thoughts on the cup final.

I liked Chicago's kung fu better

I was not certain who I would cheer for before the final series began. In the end, it was Chicago, pretty much for the reasons I outlined. But another reason I'm happy the team won is because I like the hockey Chicago plays. They use speed, stretch passes and a mobile, attacking defense to create numerous and exciting scoring chances. I'd much rather watch teams try that than Boston's clogging/grinding style.

When parity rules, depth is the MVP

It was a curious year for the Conn Smythe trophy with no clear No. 1 on the Blackhawks. I saw quite a bit of Chicago's playoff run and I really think the two best players start to finish were Bryan Bickell and Patrick Sharp. Both players scored timely goals, and while much was made of Jonathon Toews and Kane being reunited on a line in game four, I think the true turning point was Bickell moving back to the top line. Had the series gone seven, I think you could have even made a case that Tuukka Rask could have pulled off the rare, losing goalie Conn Smythe steal. Since the votes were cast with 10 minutes left in the game, Bickell's final exclamation point of the playoffs was not taken into account. I had a feeling the select few voters would instead give the trophy to a star and so I'm kinda, sorta glad it went to Patrick Kane.

The reason? Part of me suspected they would somehow figure out a way to give the trophy to Toews. He was great defensively and his lack of scoring probably had more to do with bad luck than anything. But to be the MVP you have to score goals, play 30 minutes a night or carry your team to the cup with outstanding saves. And he just didn't do any of those. The other candidate I thought was possible was Corey Crawford. While he certainly did enough to win the cup and played very well, at no point did I feel like he was stealing games for the Blackhawks. Of course, that mostly had to do with the fact that the Blackhawks didn't put themselves in that position. So yay, Kane! Third consecutive American to win the MVP.

Rub some 'tussin on it

During the final, I kept thinking about this:



And this:



Obviously, you can't really compare NBA and NHL toughness. But I can't help thinking about these two moments every time I watch some hockey player tough it out with much, much more serious injuries. But are teams letting players go too far? If you haven't yet read Nick Costonika's excellent column on the topic, you really should. When guys are spending days in the hospital after playing in elimination games like Rocky and Apollo after their fight, it's time to consider whether someone should have stepped in before things went that far.

Who makes it back next?

With Boston and Chicago vying to be the first post-lockout 2.0 cup repeaters, I was wondering which team would make it back next. Both teams will need to retool a little bit. At this point, I'm assuming that Bickell and Bolland are both gone for Chicago, even with the buyouts to Steve Montador and Rostislav Olesz. After that playoff run, Bickell will have to leave a huge chunk of change on the table to stay in Chicago. He's saying he wants to stay and will take a discount, but I don't think he understands just how much money GMs are going to be throwing at him. There are five teams in the league right now whose 2013-2014 payrolls are below the minimum salary cap number, meaning they're required to spend more on salaries. On the flip side, with Chicago's expiring contracts they need to fill five roster spots and have just under $8 million in cap space to do so. And Crawford and Nik Hjarlmarsson and entering the final years in their contract and could be looking for raises a year from now. I don't think the roster overhaul will be as dramatic as the last cup run for the Blackhawks, but they will once again have to shed depth.

For Boston, I expect bigger changes. They have a little more cap space (almost $10 million), but need to add six players to the roster. And two of their unsigned players are two of their best: Rask and Nathon Horton. They've already said they will part ways with Andrew Ference and Jaromir Jagr, and I would expect Horton to follow. Perhaps of most concern for Boston is that Zdeno Chara finally started to look human these playoffs. This is not too surprising considering that he'll turn 37 next year. But if the not so gentile giant starts to break down, Boston is still stuck with big Z for five more years and $31 million. Could the captain be headed for a buyout after next season? Boston will need to make some tough decisions over the next year and it's going to be fascinating to see how it shakes out.

Boston v. Chicago: My series pick

I've long wondered why it is that Football and basketball can draw such strong ratings, mostly from fans who don't actually belong to any of the teams in the championship games, but hockey is unable to do so. Obviously, the two sports are more popular and much more widely played in the U.S. But what stumps me is why hockey fans, for the most part, stop watching hockey once their team is eliminated. I’m certainly not immune to this myself. Over the past few seasons I've tried to change this.

After a sufficient mourning period for Detroit's collapse against Chicago, I've emerged from my bunker. I did watch some of the conference final games, but have to say I was a bit let down by the one-sided results. However, the short round means we'll have two rested teams, looking like they're at the top of their game in the finals.

Before the playoffs started I thought Boston had the best chance to come out of the East, and that is was a coin flip between L.A. and Chicago in the West. I gave the Kings a slight edge, given their excellent possession numbers. However, by the time the conference finals rolled around, Chicago had moved ahead of the battered Kings in that area.

Now that my cup pick (L.A.) has been eliminated, I have to go with Chicago. It’s hard to say how the final will play out, given that the conferences did not play each other this year. Chicago was easily the best team of the regular season, in a year when they only played the West. Of course, with my West Coast bias, that simply makes Chicago's season even more of an achievement. But this also puts me at odds with most of the experts.

Boston’s dismantling of the Penguins was impressive and I think that’s what is driving the pundits to pick them. However, the Penguins have always been a very top heavy team. And more recently, prone to childish meltdowns. The Pens’ stars have to be the best players in the series for them to win. Chicago, on the other hand, has the depth to match, and exceed, Boston’s.

The biggest challenge of the playoffs for the Blackhawks came from the Red Wings. Detroit shut down the top stars for Chicago, in much the same way that Boston did to Pittsburgh. Boston may be able to better execute the Detroit game plan. Zdeno Chara and Patrice Bergeron will surely be giving Jonathon Toews flashbacks of Niklas Krownwall and Henrik Zetterberg. But Chicago prevailed despite their stars limited production by getting timely goals from Bryan Bickell, Andrew Shaw and the rest of the crew.

Boston has the edge defensively and in the net. But not by a mile. And Chicago has more players who can put the puck in the net, which ultimately is what wins games. It should be a closely contested series, but I believe Chicago will find a way to be the victor.

My hope is that the games are interesting. In my new effort to watch hockey for the pure enjoyment of the game I’ve struggled. I need a team to root for. But these two teams are not exactly easy for me to like.

The case for Boston

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you may recall that I outlined reasons to cheer against Boston at the start of the season. But here are some reasons to cheer for Boston.

• Yes, Mr. Burns still owns the team. But Boston is going against one of Detroit’s oldest rivals, which just happened to be the team to send the Red Wings home this year. Also, somehow Rocky Wirtz is sticking to the story that he is still losing money on the Blackhawks. Either Wirtz is an amazingly incompetent businessman (he does own an NHL team, so entirely possible), or he’s just lying and trying to make it look like the lockout was necessary (again, he does own an NHL team …).
• Wouldn’t it be great to see Tuukka Rask prove he’s every bit as good as Tim Thomas? Imagining Thomas sitting in his mountain bunker, considering how he gave up another cup ring and probably 10 percent of his total career earnings, (just to get away from, I don’t know, health care for poor people?) that is delicious.   
• Patrice Bergeron plays hockey the right way, and he may finally get some recognition as being the best all-around forward in the league.
• The Bruins got their biggest scare from the Toronto Maple Leafs, who happened to have traded them Rask in exchange for Andrew Raycroft (not to mention the trades that brought in Dougie Hamilton and Tyler Seguin). So at least the Cubs of the NHL could watch players they should have kept win the cup.

 

The case for Chicago

 

• On the other hand, an easy win by Chicago might give me some satisfaction knowing that my team pushed them to the brink. Might.
• I’ve got family who would be really happy with a Blackhawks win, so there is that.
• Another ring would pretty much cement Patrick Kane into his off-season training regimen of getting super wasted all summer. I have a feeling Deadspin is hoping for this too.
• Isn’t just about everyone tired of Boston teams winning championships?
• Chicago is a more important market for the NHL than Boston, so a second title in four years could be what’s needed to tighten up those seat belts on the bandwagon.
• I’m a Western conference snob and Chicago winning would re-enforce my bias.
• Marian Hossa would get another ring, making up for those back-to-back finals losses a couple years ago. I have a soft spot for this guy. Hossa learned by being traded from Ottawa to Atlanta to Pittsburgh that this is a business and the teams are more than happy to talk about loyalty right up until they hand you your ticket out of town. When Hossa finally had a say in where he wanted to play, he turned down tens of millions for a one-season shot at winning a title. He could have had a career ending injury and never recovered the money he passed up. He decided winning was more important than money.

Ultimately, I can reason all I want, but I won’t know who I really want to win until I start watching the games. Sports are irrational.