The Rebuild, Episode Nine: What About Us?

Dear Mr.Molson. Geoff. (Can I call you Geoff?)

    I recently travelled to Montreal to watch your team play hockey. It was a Tuesday night and the opponent was the Seattle Kraken, so I really wasn't expecting much in the way of thrills. Still, I dusted off my trusty #33 sweater, paid way too much money to a ticket reseller for a seat at press box level and convinced my trusty group of fellow fans to come along. I even brought my non-hockey-watching teenage daughter for her first NHL game, just for the experience of being there at the Bell Centre.

    The experience, as it turned out, was not good.

    We had barely taken our overpriced seats when the Kraken scored their first goal. There were three more goals against before the first period was half over. Things did not get better, barring a rare tally by Josh Anderson and a brief ray of sunshine from Cole Caufield. By the time the third wound down, two thirds of the spectators had abandoned the game in favour of beating traffic home.

    So, there we were, the stragglers of what had been 21-thousand strong, disappointed, discouraged and considerably poorer, wanting something to take away from this night.

    However, instead of acknowledging the fact that we had spent our time and money to witness a truly terrible hockey game, the players slunk away to the dressing room when it ended. It's lovely to see them skate to centre ice and salute the crowd after a win, but it would have been even more impressive to see them do it after stinking up the joint. Even if the gesture puts them at risk of getting booed and jeered, they should show a little appreciation for those of us who travelled long distances to even be there, on top of paying the ridiculous ticket prices.

    So, here's the problem, Geoff.

    You spent a lot of time and money on the eight-part series The Rebuild, which was supposed to give us a behind-the-scenes glimpse of your executive team and its plans, with the purpose of keeping us patient and understanding as the players and coaches muddle their way toward future (hopefully) success. We've been sticking with the program for the last three years because we love this team, but at this point, we need a little more from you.

🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒

    You know how La Cage aux Sports offers free wings if the team scores five or more goals? Well, how about Molson offers a free beer or snack if the team gives up five or more? That way, when the game stinks, people would at least leave with some kind of concrete reward for showing up.

    And what about those ticket prices? For many people, the exorbitant cost of attending a game means they can only go once a year. So, if they put all their hopes on that one game and it ends up being a blowout, they should be entitled to at least a partial refund. A "sorry we ruined your night" refundable fee. If the team wins, you can keep it. If it sucks, we get our money back.

    You could even offer a small prize with ticket purchases. A signed player photo or a little bit of team swag like a pin or something would be enough. These days, with virtual tickets, we don't even have a paper stub to save as a keepsake, so a concrete gesture of your appreciation would go some way in convincing fans you value us. 

    I know these proposals are silly when you're in the business of making money, but the point is, in the end fans want to feel like part of the process. We want to know our support means something more than just bankrolling the corporation. We love this team, and we're willing to wait (a little) longer for it to be competitive, but we want to know you don't take us for granted and you love us back.

    Even if that love takes the form of a player salute after a blowout, we deserve some acknowledgement that we're part of the rebuild too.

Sincerely,

A (still) Supporter of the Rebuild

Preseason Blues

    

     Once upon a time, when NHL training camps started, players would show up relaxed and tanned, fresh off a summer of beer-league softball and rounds of golf. Many of them worked summer jobs too, driving trucks or taking shifts in local factories. One thing they weren't doing was spending hours in the gym every day. 

    There's a particularly striking contrast in the CBC TV docuseries about the '72 Canada-Russia tournament. It shows video of the Russian players preparing for the games by running fields carrying teammates on their backs and performing intense group calisthenics. In contrast, the video of the Canadian players' prep mostly consists of a sequence of Tony and Phil Esposito playing croquet in their backyard while smoking big stogies. 

    Now players consider two weeks off from training after the season ends a luxury. They work out with trainers, physiotherapists and nutritionists all summer. When they arrive at camp, they compete to see who can jump the highest, lift the most and break the exercise bike. These guys are in shape.

    So one of the main reasons...easing players back into game form...for preseason games isn't really applicable anymore. (Phil Kessel notwithstanding.) The other reasons, like trying out new line combinations, integrating new players and working on systems can certainly be done in-house and in scrimmages.

                🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒

    In short, there's really not a good reason for teams to risk injuries in preseason that can cripple them when the real season starts. We have only to see David Reinbacher and Patrik Laine out for months when it matters, because they had to play meaningless preseason games.

    While there's not a good reason for those matches, there are lots of reasons why they're problematic. Aside from opening players up to unnecessary injuries, the hockey in those games is often unwatchable. Teams fill their lineups with scrub prospects that likely won't make the big time, but they take their five minutes of fame to throw stupid hits instead of playing the actual sport. And, faced with an 82-game season plus playoffs, the real players don't need the extra demands on their bodies.

    Prior to NHL expansion in 1967, the league hosted the occasional charity or tribute match, but a whole preseason wasn't a thing. Now that these pointless games are normalized, owners are making money and they don't want to give that up. 

    There's some talk at the NHL Board of Governors meetings this week about cutting down the number of preseason games and adding an extra two to the regular season schedule instead. The problem with that is the regular season is already too long. The only reason to extend from 82 games to 84 is to keep that cash flowing.

    And at some point, the league is going to have to acknowledge that the only people who really benefit from those pointless games are the ones who cash the cheques. They're certainly not in the best interests of the players or the fans. 

    It's time to send the preseason back to 1966, where it belongs.