A month from now, we’ll be on the precipice of the 2022 Stanley Cup playoffs. And what a tournament that is shaping up to be.



This final month will tell us much about not just the teams that hope to be participating in the run to the Cup but also those whose off-seasons will begin in earnest when the final whistle blows on the regular season.



So, what’s on our mind? Glad you asked.



Now, where were we?



GM Meetings Ho-Hum



There was a time when the NHL GMs used to meet a week or two before the NHL trade deadline. It was exciting. GMs would chat, lay the groundwork for deals to come both big and small. The media came in big numbers. It was an event. But GMs complained that there was too much focus on the deadline and that didn’t leave them enough time to take care of the real business, discussing changes to the game and working on their short games. Whoa. Did we say that out loud? No doubt the business of the game is important and in many ways the GMs are the gatekeepers for the game, addressing problems, discussing ways to make the sport better for all concerned. It’s really Ground Zero for how NHL hockey looks. Yet as another spring GMs’ meeting held at a posh Florida resort miles from the nearest NHL game came and went this week, we couldn’t help but feel this was a missed opportunity. Why not create something of an event by pushing the meeting back before the deadline when interest in the game is at its peak, at least during the regular season? Why not have the meetings in an actual NHL city? NHL markets could bid for it a-la the draft and awards and All-Star weekends. You could even tie it to the deadline if you wanted to create a baseball-style winter meetings vibe. Have the GMs meet on a Thursday/Friday or Wednesday/Thursday before the Monday trade deadline. As we continue to try and rebuild life – including life as a it relates to the NHL – coming out of the pandemic, why not think outside the box? Just saying.<div class="injected-ad injected-video" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="0" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="365"></div>



World Cup of Hockey



The NHL, NHL Players’ Association and IIHF, along with officials from a number of individual nation federations, met last week in Paris to continue discussions about a World Cup of Hockey that is expected to be held during the 2023-24 season sometime between late January and the end of February. There is already significant anticipation about this event, which will serve as the first true best-on-best men’s tournament since the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi. League officials have confirmed there will be no made-up teams like Team North America and Team Europe, hybrid squads that were part of the largely unsatisfying 2016 World Cup of Hockey. Well, let’s amend that. The 2024 World Cup of Hockey will sort of be best-on-best because it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which there will be Russian participation in the tournament. Certainly if the tournament was being finalized now, Russians would be banned, as they should be, given Vladimir Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. Frankly, as long as Putin remains in power, there should be no place for Russia in any kind of international sporting competition, which would include the World Cup of Hockey. We’re also told it’s unlikely there would be a scenario where Russian NHLers would be allowed to compete in a World Cup of Hockey outside their national banner as has been the case in the Olympics with Russian athletes in the past. In short, it’s hard to imagine an outcome where players like Kirill Kaprizov, Nikita Kucherov and of course Alex Ovechkin are part of the World Cup of Hockey in 2024. It’s unfortunate on a hockey level but this is much bigger than hockey. The NHLPA and NHL are hopeful plans will be in place for the tournament by the end of the summer. Those plans may include a possible play-in competition for European teams, presumably held in Europe in the summer of 2023. There will also be a decision on locales in North America. The entire ’16 tournament was held in Toronto to more or less indifferent crowds. It’s likely the ’24 tournament’s games will take place in different cities in North America.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="1" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="360"></div>



Roman Josi, Hart Trophy candidate?



I’ve got no issue with Roman Josi being on the final Hart Trophy ballot and love the debate (in fact, I’m writing about how Josi became a Predator, so stay tuned for that). If I was voting, I’d be a bit flummoxed by the options, but my Hart ballot might look something like this; Auston Matthews, Johnny Gaudreau, and then perhaps Josi, although Nazem Kadri is high on my list, too given the freight he has pulled in Colorado this season. And then there’s Igor Shesterkin, who has hit a bit of a wobble recently but still looks to win the Vezina and will no doubt be in the hunt for a spot on the Hart ballot as well.



As for Josi, history tells us the Nashville captain has little shot of being on the final ballot let alone winning the Hart. The last time a D-man won was Hall of Famer Chris Pronger in 2000.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="2" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="161"></div>



Over the last 10 years, here’s how D-men fared in the voting process which is administered by the Professional Hockey Writers’ Association (PHWA). Last year the top defenseman in Hart voting was Cale Makar at 12th. The years before: Josi at 7th, then Mark Giordano at 9th, Drew Doughty at 15th, Brent Burns at 4th, Erik Karlsson at 9th, Erik Karlsson at 9th, Duncan Keith at 15th, P.K. Subban at 13th and Erik Karlsson at 8th.



You can find all those players but Makar on a list of Norris Trophy winners and Makar’s time is coming soon for that honor, so you know you’re talking cream of the crop among NHL defenders. But none of those elite blueliners got a real sniff at the Hart Trophy. In fact, since Pronger won the Hart in 2000, no defenseman has even gotten on the final ballot. Nicklas Lidstrom and Burns are the closest at 4th in voting, Lidstrom getting that close in 2007-08 and Burns, as noted, in 2017.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="3" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="167"></div>



This isn’t about bashing the voting process. I was president of the PHWA, which handles voting on most of the major awards outside the Vezina (voted on by NHL GMs) and the Jack Adams (voted on by NHL broadcasters).



There is a great deal of care that goes into the voting process (full disclosure: the duty of overseeing the voting process falls to the big man at Daily Faceoff, Frank Seravalli who is the current PHWA president). There is great care to achieve voting balance geographically given the preponderance of teams and hence voters in the northeast and in Canadian markets like Toronto and Montreal and making sure there is a body of qualified voters who see games across the league to complement the voters in specific markets. It’s an important task, and by and large the PHWA gets it right although the discussion about Josi does beg the question why it’s so hard for elite defenders to get a look at the Hart, considered the top individual prize in hockey along with the Ted Lindsay Award which is the league’s most outstanding player as voted on by the players. Speaking of the Ted Lindsay (formerly the Lester B. Pearson Award), the last time a defenseman won the players’ MVP was, wait for it, Bobby Orr in 1975, although Brent Burns was on the final ballot in 2017.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="4" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="228"></div>



One factor is that defensemen have an award dedicated to their craft with the Norris. So do goalies, of course, although goaltenders end up on the final Hart Trophy ballot a lot more frequently than defensemen do.



Maybe it’s just a mindset. There is invariably a plethora of forwards who accurately reflect the qualifications of a Hart Trophy winner as being the player judged to be most valuable to his team.



But it does seem paradoxical that, with so many dynamic defenders&nbsp;in this generation, none has managed to get a sniff of a Hart Trophy ballot. Maybe Josi upends that narrative, but we’re not holding our breath.



Who deserves the Jack Adams Award?



Speaking of awards handicapping the Jack Adams Trophy which is the purview of the NHL’s broadcasters, is always a bit of a crapshoot because it’s almost always given to a coach who does more with less as opposed to, well, the coach whose team is the best. I get it. I’d vote the same way even though it makes it harder for guys like Jon Cooper who has two more Stanley Cup rings than Jack Adams Trophy wins (i.e. 2-0) or Jared Bednar or, well, you get it. This year will be no easier for the NHL’s broadcasters, but I have to think defending Jack Adams winner Rod Brind’Amour is in the mix, as is Bednar who has put up with a ton of injuries and still has the Avs on pace to win the Presidents’ Trophy. Darryl Sutter has gotten tremendous buy-in from his troops in Calgary. There’s Andrew Brunette in Florida, who took over after Joel Quenneville was forced to resign in the wake of the Chicago Blackhawks sexual assault scandal and Gerard Gallant who has the Rangers thinking a long run in his first season as New York’s bench boss. But if we were voting right now we’d give it to Todd McLellan in Los Angeles. The Kings made only a minor move at the trade deadline bringing in Troy Stecher to bolster a back end that has been ravaged by injury. Still, as of Thursday, they’d open the playoffs at home against Edmonton. McLellan has slowly eased a next generation of Kings players into prominent roles while still relying on cornerstone players like Anze Kopitar, Jonathan Quick, Dustin Brown and Drew Doughty, although Doughty has been hard-hit by the injury bug. “He’s done a great job,” one longtime scout told us this week. The Kings are ahead of pace in terms of their evolution and they’ll be a tough out come playoff time.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="5" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="430"></div>



Hush-hush on officiating



Wish the NHL wasn’t so paranoid about its officiating which came up at this week’s GMs’ meetings in Florida. The fact that one of the reminders at the GMs’ meeting was not to speak out of line about officiating reinforces that the NHL is still a closed society in many ways. The implication is that there are ample reasons that GMs might have to complain about how games are called and the message is clear, “We’ll fine the crap out of you if you speak the truth about it.” The problem is the NHL has been working to get better at this critical aspect of the game. We attended the NHL’s officiating exposure combine a few years back, where former players, most from the minor-pros or collegiate hockey, are encouraged to become officials. It’s a great, innovative program and as of the start of the season 38 graduates have worked at least one NHL game. It’s a hard job. And the league is thinking outside the box trying to create a pipeline of new, capable officials. But there are issues. Lots more than there should be, probably. But why hide from them? Pull back the curtain. Don’t close it tighter. In fact, literally as I am writing this, I see the NHL announce that Wes McCauley, the best of the best right now in the NHL, will be interacting with fans on Reddit. How cool. Don’t stop there. Why not make head of officiating, Stephen Walkom, available at least periodically to discuss some of the issues? Or make playoff series supervisors, former officials for the most part, available to talk about calls. If mistakes are made, address it, admit it, then move on. This annual mantra led by commissioner Gary Bettman that “We have the finest officials in the world” does a disservice to the fans who are smart enough to know when there are issues on the ice and, frankly it does a disservice to the officials on the ice who know if they’ve done a good job or not.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="6" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="344"></div>



Farewell, Mr. Melnyk



And finally, we bid adieu to longtime Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk, who passed away at age 62 earlier this week. Controversial, polarizing, revered and loathed – all those qualities applied to Melnyk, who likely saved the Senators from relocation to the U.S. in 2003 but who later oversaw a critical disconnect with fans and some former players with his handling of the team’s business. His legacy is complicated, but for us the bigger question is, what now? If, as expected, the team will remain with Melnyk’s family including his two college-aged daughters ,the challenge in the short-term is whether they can repair some of the damage done by Melnyk’s sometimes incendiary behavior. And most importantly, can whoever is calling the shots shepherd the building of a new arena closer to downtown Ottawa, a move that is critical to the long-term success of the franchise? And if ownership in whatever form it takes cannot do so, or does not have the will to proceed down this path, then at what point can new ownership be found that can and will do so? It seems insensitive so quickly after Melnyk’s passing to be discussing these matters, but time really is of the essence for a promising young team to ensure that it has stable ownership to guide it through yet another critical time in its topsy-turvy history.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="7" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="229"></div>