I got the issue at home today. Too long for the Clips and too long for a FanShot. The non-hockey questions are far more interesting than the hockey questions.

For subscribers, the interview can be found here.

This story appears in the Dec. 12, 2011, "Interview Issue" of ESPN The Magazine.

Editor's note: This interview was translated from Russian and conducted prior to the firing of Capitals head coach Bruce Boudreau and the return of Sidney Crosby.

ESPN: I know you speak English very well. But I'd like to ask you questions in Russian.

Alex Ovechkin: Oh. (Sighs) Excellent.

ESPN: Have you ever thought about playing in the KHL?

AO: In the league, no. I have a contract. I'm happy with everything here.

ESPN: But have you thought about it?

AO: Well, I'll play out my contract, and we'll see what will happen.

ESPN: In the last year of your contract you will be 36 years old. How will Ovechkin play at 36?

AO: I don't know how I'm going to play tomorrow. (Laughs) I never look forward. I live for today. And if you think about what's going to happen in a year, in two years, then you begin to plan. And plans never come true.

ESPN: Is the success of the KHL important to you?

AO: Well, of course. It's my native league. I played in it too, and my team plays there, my friends. If there's no league, many hockey players will be out of work. The growth of the KHL is a very important aspect for the development of Russian sports.

ESPN: Should the best players be playing in the NHL?

AO: Everyone makes their own choice about where they want to play. I want to play here. If I wanted to play there, I wouldn't have come here in the first season when I was 19 years old.

ESPN: You and Evgeni Malkin have raised money for the families of the players of Lokomotiv Yaroslavl [who perished in a plane crash], right?

AO: We have. I think each player had some kind of relationship with the guys, and has made some donations. It's a difficult situation.

ESPN: You and Malkin are friends again, I see. How did your feud start? You punched his agent in a club in Moscow?

AO: Yes, that's right. But that was a long time ago.

ESPN: Let's talk about your rivalry with Sidney Crosby. What do you think about his extended absence from hockey?

AO: It's a pity, of course, that he's not playing now. Because I think he's one of the best players in the league right now. May God grant him healing, and that everything will be fine. As I said before, I never plan what will happen in the future. You don't know what will happen. You go out tomorrow, you could get body-checked and you can be in the same situation as Crosby. But that's hockey, that's life.

ESPN: You're waiting for his return?

AO: Yes. I go to sleep and I pray that he will come back.

ESPN: You're known for taking offseason trips to places like Turkey. But Caps fans see pictures of you smoking a hookah and partying in clubs. Not to mention those photos where you had a bit of a stomach ...

AO: I have it now. (Pats his stomach. Laughs.)

ESPN: Fans are worried that you're not taking care of your body. What's your offseason regimen?

AO: The season is long. When I'm off, I try to distract myself from hockey. I don't do anything for four weeks. I rest. If you train 12 months a year, you won't have any strength for the important games.

ESPN: In the summer in Moscow, you appeared in a rap video by Sasha Bely, "Champion." How did this come about?

AO: We had sung karaoke together a few times, and we came up with the idea to record a song. He told me that he had a song and he asked me to sing one verse. We gave it a try, and I sang alright, and it turned out well.

ESPN: Are you a good rapper?

AO: I'm as good a rapper as Eminem is a hockey player.

ESPN: I heard that you have Vladimir Putin's home phone number. How often do you call him?

AO: Actually, I don't have his number. But I would like to have it.

ESPN: How is he, as a person?

AO: Well, I think he is the future president of Russia. And he's a clever man, a man who knows how to conduct himself, and he has the full respect of the Russian people.

ESPN: You have an interesting relationship with your coach, Bruce Boudreau. He is often criticized for having special relationships with talented players like yourself. However, at the end of the [Nov. 1] game against Anaheim, he benched you. The cameras caught your commentary about his weight. What kind of relationship do you have with Boudreau?

AO: We have an excellent relationship. But it's a working environment. It always feels that way. If we're not pushing each other, we won't be satisfied and there won't be any results. I think it's normal. Of course, it was regrettable that the cameras filmed it all. But again, this is a working moment.

ESPN: Many people have criticized Boudreau, especially after last year's HBO series, for being tactically naive. How would you defend your coach against this criticism?

AO: There will always be critics. On one hand, criticism can be positive. On the other hand, criticism can be negative. But critics will always be watching the game. If you listen to everybody, you can go crazy. I have my own point of view, and I always try to keep it.

ESPN: You saw how your teammate Jay Beagle was knocked out by Arron Asham earlier this season. This incident, along with the deaths of a couple of enforcers in the offseason has led to a discussion of banning fighting from the NHL. What's your position?

AO: Fighting is necessary in hockey. But if you fight, you have to choose your partner carefully. If you're an experienced player and you want to fight, you can't choose a player who has never fought in his life.

ESPN: I've heard that you are the most eligible bachelor in Washington. Is this true?

AO: No comment.

ESPN: How do you spend time with girls?

AO: I have a girlfriend. That's all. I won't say anything more.

ESPN: Who is more aggressive -- an American or a Russian woman?

AO: Well, again, it depends on what. Americans have a different mentality than Russians, both men and women. Therefore, there is no point comparing.

ESPN: Could you see yourself with an American girl?

AO: Anything can happen. For now, I can't predict these events.

ESPN: The Capitals have never won the Stanley Cup. Since you've been on the team, the Caps have experienced disappointment in the playoffs more than once. Why should we believe in you and in Caps?

AO: Well, as they say, you can believe, or you cannot believe, but we do everything possible to win. Therefore, we are here for one purpose, to get into the playoffs and make it through the first, the second round ...

Brett Forrest is a contributing writer for ESPN The Magazine. Interview conducted Nov. 7, 2011

Those of you who have read my posts on the Clips and GDTs or my few FanPosts know that my brain tends to work in a logical fashion, perhaps less emotional than others.  I tend to identify alternative solutions to a problem and think through the alternatives before responding.  My thought process likely comes from 10 years as a business consultant and nearly 10 more after that in corporate America, where everyday we're required to solve problems and justify the answers. Thus, I can relate better to the Capitals by putting them into a business context.  

Imagine, if you will, that you are the owner of the Capitals, which is a product business and not a sports franchise.  It doesn't matter the product you sell.  You've maintained a steady record of success in previous years, but you just haven't been able to pass your biggest competitors. Each year, you work with your VP of Human Resources to remove poor performing salesmen and add a few new salesman to cover underperforming territories, but you don't blow up the team.  You have a well-liked VP of Sales & Marketing, who is a great face for the company and has driven record revenues in the four years since you hired him.  The VP of Sales & Marketing has succeeded like few previous people in his position.  You sell enough to make good profits and improve the products, but have never closed the big deal. You started this selling season with a string on wins, but have now fallen on hard times.  You aren't even making the first cut on a few deals. It's a phenomenon you saw at the end of last year which you've tried to correct.  What do you do?  What are your options?

As I've thought through the options below, I've come to the conclusion that no drastic change is the right approach and gives the Capitals the best chance for a Cup this year.  Making dramatic change introduces too much risk and decreases the chance for a Cup in 2012.  Yes - I've changed my mind back since last night.

Here are your options -

Fire Your Vice-President of Sales & Marketing

This is an easy choice.  After all, you gave him the people he needed to be successful, and you upgrade his team every year.  However, this would also be a difficult choice.  He's popular among the salesmen. Heck, you like him, and the VP of Human Resources is a huge fan.  You just aren't happy with profits alone.  You want to be the leader in the industry, and the recent string of losses is very concerning.  Maybe the VP has run his course, and maybe the team isn't responding any longer.  Maybe it's time for a change there.  A new leader with a different style might be just what the team needs.  Your challenge, however, is that it's mid-season, and you've got customer meeting after customer meeting after customer meeting on the horizon.  How do you bring in a new VP, when he has no time to assess the situation or learn the products before being thrown into customer situations?  This is very difficult to do in the middle of the selling season, unless you can find someone with great experience.  You start to scan the market looking for an answer.

Move Salesmen to Different Territories to "Start Fresh"

You think you have the right salesmen.  They are talented. They know their products.  Incentives are clear and attractive.  Become number one, and they all get huge bonuses.  Maybe, just maybe, you've misaligned the territories.  If you switch Fred from the DC-metro area to Charlotte and Pete from Charlotte to Miami and John from Miami to DC, fresh faces could make a difference to customers.  Maybe the salesmen would be happier.  This could be a great way to spark customers as well.  However, you've done this before, several times, and it hasn't always worked.  The problem here is that you know developing a territory takes time.  If you move salesmen too early, you're restarting that development period.  Leaving them in place could result in longer term sales, even if this year is lower.

Fire the Underperforming Salesmen

Rather than waiting until the end of the selling season, maybe you eliminate the poor performers now.  One of your leading performers in past years seems to have hit a wall and is coasting a bit, taking only the easy sales.  Do you remove him as an example to others, to motivate them?  A few of the new salesmen aren't performing up to expectations either, and they are an easy mark.  Your challenge, however, is that it's not easy to replace any of these guys.  A new person will need time to learn the products and learn the territory.  A new person may not mesh with the rest of the team by joining in the middle of the selling season.  It's a risk.  Besides, you can only really find new salesmen from one of two places.  You can hire a young kid, right off the street with no experience, or you can poach someone from the competition.  If you do the latter, you'll have to overpay to get them to leave the competitor, thus forcing you to drop a high salaried salesmen to even out the salary expense.  That much said, your competitor may not let that person go due to a non-compete clause.  Nonetheless, you start to look around.  Maybe there is an experienced person you can get cheaply.  Maybe one of your competitors is ready for a similar shake-up.

Fire your VP of Human Resources

This would be a gutsy call.  You'd be admitting that the VP of Human Resources hasn't hired the right salesmen or the right VPs to take the company to market leadership.  You've been relying on him to staff the teams, to evaluate the performance, and to make difficult decisions.  He's hired a sales team that needs a good leader to be successful.  Is that the right way to go, or do you need more of a self-starting team?  If you think the root of the problem is in the overall hiring philosophy, then you make this move.  Not unlike the VP of Sales & Marketing, however, changing the VP of HR mid-season brings risk.  A new VP won't understand the team for a while.  The learning curve is steep, and there would likely be no impact this season.

Fire the VP of Product Development

Upon further review, you realize that it's not the VP of Sales & Marketing or the VP of Human Resources or the salesmen, but it's the products they are trying to sell.  They are good, but they aren't spectacular.  Salesmen have a difficult time selling the products.  Competitors have better products and are constantly identifying new products to offer the market when the old products get stale.  Your salesmen have new products, but they don't necessarily believe in them, and customers aren't really buying.  If you fire the VP of Product Development, you are admitting to your salesmen and to customers that you don't have the right product philosophy.  Thus, poor sales could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You'd essentially be retooling for next year now.

Bring the Entire Team Together for  Motivational Talk

It might be time for an all-hands, face-to-face meeting to discuss the problems.  Your gut says you have the right VPs, the right products, and the right salesmen in the right territories.  Something, however, is missing.  Your team isn't aligned and isn't acting as one.  You know everyone wants to succeed and getting them together to air challenges and prepare for the rest of the year will make the difference.

Do Nothing and Hope Things Come Together

Let's face it.  You've been profitable and successful and will be this year.  You know you've got good people in place.  Customers are buying, and don't appear to be going away.  Sales are coming in.  You've had bumps in the road previous seasons, but you always pull through.  Maybe this is the year that it all comes together in the end.  Why introduce more risk into the current season?  If you are going to make changes, wait until the selling season is over and then do it.  It's too late now.

Pretty easy to see the Caps here.  Boudreau is the VP of Sales & Marketing and the VP of Product Development.  GMGM is the VP of Human Resources.  The Caps players are the salespeople.  Territories are lines and pairings.

Translating this to a business perspective, underscores for me how risky and uncertain firing Boudreau, firing McPhee, and making drastic personnel moves are.  I know.  This is nothing new.  It is also clear to me now that, if you fire Boudreau or McPhee or gut the team through trades or cuts at this point in the season, you are admitting that failure this season is ok. A Fleischmann for Hannan trade makes sense.  That's not "drastic" in my opinion. 

We started this year saying that another playoff wash out spells the end for the current regime.  After thinking through the Capitals in a business context, I still think that's the right course.  I also think it's the course the Caps are most likely to take.  Quick changes now decrease the chance for a Cup this season.  They don't increase them.

As JP says - "Have at it, people."  Raise your hand, or the professor may call on you.

In the clips thread on Sunday, November 20, I wrote that, in my opinion, you should never, ever, ever bench Alex Ovechkin for a full game.  I am not alone in my thinking, but there appear to many (a vocal some?) that disagree.

I write this from three perspectives that I believe are relevant:  a parent (two kids, 13 and 16), a former coach in youth sports (seven years of hockey, five of softball), and a boss at work (for 15 of the last 20 years).  I've got some experience managing and trying to get the best out of people within various team dynamics.

Before I explain my thinking, allow me to add that, if Ovechkin is hurt or nicked up, he should be pulled from the line-up, even against his will.  The Capitals need a healthy Ovechkin later in the season.  There is no sense playing him hurt now and risking further damage.

Benching Ovechkin can and should only be viewed as a move for the long term.  Pulling a player of the caliber of Ovechkin will not make the team better in the short term.  If that was the case, then we'd be talking about cutting Ovechkin, trading Ovechkin, or sending him to Hershey.  We aren't.

The proponents of benching Ovechkin for a full game and not just a shift cite two primary reasons.  

Argument #1 -- Benching Ovechkin sends other players a message about accountability, resulting in better play and more success in the long term.

Argument #2 -- Benching Ovechkin sends him a message about accountability, resulting in better play and more success in the long term.

Neither, in my opinion, are valid for the simple reason that benching Ovechkin is a short term punishment with no long term repercussions.  When you punish a child, a player, a worker, it should be the first step in progressive discipline.  You need a plan, if the punishment doesn't work.  The Redskins were willing to bench Donovan McNabb last season, because they didn't really care what he thought and were willing to part ways.  The Capitals, I believe, feel similarly about Alex Semin.  The Capitals do not feel the same way about Alex Ovechkin.

What happens, I ask, if you bench Ovechkin for a game, he returns, and still stinks?  Do you bench him again?  Are you prepared to move him in and out of the line-up like Perreault, to release, trade or send him down?  Of course you aren't.  This makes the benching an idle threat and worthless action.

When you send a child to a corner to think about what they've done, it almost always come with a clear threat that doing the same thing again will bring a greater punishment. When you write up an employee for poor performance, there is a clear threat of termination. With Ovechkin, there is no threat of anything. 

And what does the benching say to the rest of the players?  It reeks of desperation and says that management is willing to make the team worse off.  You can't teach a lesson to NHL'ers.  You can teach a lesson to PeeWees, for a loss there is a life lesson, not a livelihood.  Even in PeeWee hockey, however, players want the best teammates out in critical situations. They want to win and don't care about punishments of the best players. 

Furthermore, benching Ovechkin doesn't teach the other players accountability, because they also see the future.  The Capitals cannot and will not gut their team by "teaching accountability" to multiple players simultaneously.  They won't sit Hamrlik, Schultz, and Erskine simultaneously, because it makes the team worse, as the players who would replace them (barring a trade) are likely less talented and certainly more inexperienced. 

I'm not blind to Ovechkin's challenges. Instead of benching, I think you take other steps. You call him out in post-game press conferences. You make him skate or stay for extra practice. You meet with him and extend an olive branch. You rely on players like Knuble to talk to him.  These are things you can do that don't make the team worse, don't reek of desperation to the other players, and don't paint the team in a corner in the long term, like benching does.

(Full Disclosure - simultaneously published on my blog "Life with Spidey.")

It's now been a few days since the NHL's Washington Capitals' season ended without raising the Stanley Cup.  This is the 36th season in a row that this has happened.  In fact, it's happened every single year of the franchise's existence.  As fans, we've come to expect that.

Unfortunately, for us fans, it's not just that the Caps have failed to win the Stanley Cup.  It's how they've done it.

They've made the playoffs 22 of their 36 seasons.  But, in those 22 playoff opportunities, they've lost to a lower seeded team 13 times and lost after leading in the series 16 times, include four losses when they were up three games to one in a seven game series.  For more about the futility, you can read about it here at Japers' Rink.

Somehow, we fans keep coming back each year with eternal optimism and hope that "this season" is our year.  We somehow sign up to suffer again.

Yes, it's just sports.  "At least you have your health," my grandmother used to say.  We've not lost our job, been hit by a tornado or lost our home to a flood.  Being a Washington Capitals' fan is frustrating and disappointing.

Want to understand?  Being a Caps' fan feels like:

• Drinking a delicious McDonald's egg nog or mint shake on the last day of their short Christmas and St. Patrick's Day availability, knowing you have to wait 11 months to get another.
• Getting a front row ticket for the last show of a limited run musical or play, only to have the understudies perform and ruin it.
• Driving from Miami to New York on I-95 at 10 mph over the speed limit and making the best time you've every made, but then getting a speeding ticket in New Jersey for going 56 in a 55 mph zone.
• Attending a mid-season baseball game and being stuck in a beer line while your team comes back from 10 runs down, but then returning to your seat just in time to watch them let the other team win by committing three errors in a row.
• Buying the latest DVR to record a show you've been dying to see and isn't on again for a few months, then returning home to learn a sudden thunderstorm ruined the satellite signal.
• Finally getting reservations at the best restaurant in town just before it closes for renovations, getting dressed up with your spouse, and then busting a fan belt on the way there.
• Buying an upper-deck seat to a concert, slowly moving towards the stage occupying empty seats, but then getting kicked out by security after the seatholder arrives 90 minutes after the concert starts.
• Waiting all summer with you group of best friends to visit your local amusement park on the last weekend of the season, then finding out that all of your favorite rides are closed for the season already.
• Watching a fantastic, suspenseful movie on DVD, having the DVD crap out 10 minutes before the end, and not having another copy when it's already too late to run back to the store.
• Getting hours or days deep into World of Warcraft or Portal 2 or Halo, only to have the Internet die and realize that none of your progress had been saved.
• Waiting four years of college to ask out the girl you first saw freshman year, having her say yes, planning out a spectacular date on the last night before you fly home, but then being forced to cancel because your mom needs you to take her to the doctor to get her boils lanced.

But, wait!!

Now imagine if any of those things happened to you, not once, but over again in 22 of the last 36 years.

That, my friends, is what it's like to be Washington Capitals' fan.

Eventually, Dennis Wideman is going to be healthy enough to return to the Capitals' lineup.  This past Monday, Wideman skated in full pads for the first time since suffering a severe leg injury when hit by the Hurricanes' Tuomo Ruutu on March 29.

When Wideman is deemed ready to play, the Capitals will have a decision to make.  I believe they will eventually choose from three options:

1. Leave Wideman out of lineup

2. Put Wideman in and take Jeff Schultz out

3. Put Wideman in and take John Erskine out

I submit that these are the only three options, because taking Carlson, Alzner, Green, or Hannan out of the lineup (assuming each is healthy) are not options that will be considered.

While I believe that Wideman will be inserted into the lineup, I don't believe it's a slam dunk.  Wideman, Schultz, and Erskine are three very different defenseman, as a quick view of their career regular season and playoff stats show.

Regular Season

Playoffs

Let's take a look at some defensive stats from this past season:

For good measure, their vitals:

• Schultz is 25 years old, 6'6", 230 pounds  and shoots left
• Erskine is 30 years old, 6'4", 220 pounds and shoots left
• Wideman is 28 years old, 6'0", 200 pounds and shoots right

We can see that, very generally:

• Wideman eats more minutes, is more offensive, and is the only right-handed shooter of the three.
• Schultz blocks more shots, tends to be more stay-at-home, and is the largest of the three.
• Erskine is more rough-and-tumble and closer to an enforcer - he was 2nd to Matt Hendricks in regular season penalty minutes.

So - what do the Capitals do?  

Leaving the lineup the same as round one and keeping Wideman out would be the gutsiest call.  Wideman was a +6 in 14 games with the Caps at ate up 24 minutes per game.  Wideman is not Scott Walker.  GMGM traded for him so he could play, not so he could be insurance. However, there will be voices that say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

As tempting as it might be to leave well-enough alone, I think they insert Wideman.  Right now, the Capitals have only 2 defensemen in the line-up that have would be considered offensive:  John Carlson and Mike Green.  Wideman adds nicely to the mix without sacrificing too much defense (he's not Marc-Andre Bergeron of the Bolts).  Wideman can spell Green on the powerplay or man the point with Green, putting Ovechkin on the halfboard or in front of the goalie.  Green and Wideman have never been in the lineup together, so we have no idea what the PP will be like when they are.  Wideman also gives Bruce Boudreau three right-handed defensemen and three left-handed defenseman, and we know he likes symmetry.  Lastly, as noted already, Wideman can eat minutes, which can come in handy in multi-OT games.

When they put Wideman in, I think they should take Jeff Schultz out.  I write this not to jump on the "Sarge is slow" meme.  I write this because I think that Erskine's toughness is needed more than Schultz's "stay-at-home" quality and blocked shots.  I think that Scott Hannan and Karl Alzner play that stay-at-home role very nicely, and Erskine is good enough in that area.  Schultz is just not a tough guy, and I think having a bruising defenseman will be important to set the tone in some games.  In addition, Schultz is averaging over 23 minutes TOI thus far in the playoffs, well above his career averages.  This season, he averaged just under 20 minutes per game. He could tire out.  Lastly, if you look at this season's statistics above, Wideman had more hits, more take-aways and nearly as many blocks as Schultz.  Wideman's effectively replaces any of Schultz's "toughness" and adds offense.

From where I sit, Erskine has improved enough to earn a spot in the lineup.  He's more judicious with his hits and appears, IMO, to take fewer stupid penalties.  He appears to be in the right spot at the right time during games.  Most importantly, he fits the need for a 6th D more than Sarge does.

Thus - for my money, I'd like to see the Caps dress at defense:

Alzner-Carlson

Erskine-Wideman

Hannan-Green

Dear Santa,

It is a white Christmas Eve here in St. Louis.  Children are playing XBox, movies are queued up on Netflix for viewing, and reservations at our local Chinese restaurant are secured for tomorrow.

Please overlook the fact that I celebrated a Bar Mitzvah many moons ago and read this letter as you would any letter from a simple child of the Midwest (ignore my birth certificate from Washington Hospital Center too).  I'm writing this year with some requests not for myself, but for others, people I've never met but feel that I know.

Semyon Varlamov - A new groin muscle. Wait - how about a new groin?  Let's replace the whole thing.

Tom Poti - A full-cage on his helmet. It's the only way to stop bad things from happening.  If you don't have one, I'll run down to Play It Again Sports for you.

John Erskine -  The anonymity a solid 6D needs to succeed and continued fortitude to be a role player.

Alex Ovechkin - Health, luck, and a wife that will cook and clean for him, because we know he won't do it!

Matt Bradley - An all-access pass to the Red Cross Blood Bank to both give and receive.

Boyd Gordon - A new back, which I assume he's asked for year-after-year-after year.

Eric Fehr - A safety deposit box to hold the naked pictures of Boudreau and McPhee that were given to him by Tomas Fleischmann.

D.J. King - A vibrating seat cushion for his reserved spot in the press box.

Nicklas Backstrom -  A grown-up haircut, consistent linemates, and a return of last year's magic.

Brooks Laich - A way to stay in DC after this year.

Mike Knuble - Slippers (of course!) and a way to rub his leadership and professionalism off on his teammates.

Scott Hannan - Comfort playing in DC and massive car failure so he has to "stay at home." (See what I did there?)

Jason Chimera - Dove moisturizing lotion to get rid of those hands of stone.

Matt Hendricks - Vision a split second into the future so he can always be the first guy standing up screaming on the bench after a Caps' goal.

Karl Alzner - The Gillette endorsement deal that Ovechkin got.  C'mon.  This is a guy that can grow a beard between breakfast and lunch!

Alexander Semin - What else?  A new set of bongo drums.  Also, a force field that prevents him from dumb offensive zone penalties.

Michal Neuvirth - A new head shot for the NHL, ESPN, Versus and others that doesn't make him look 15 y.o.

David Steckel - Another spectacular hockey play so that I get that goofy image out of my head of him jumping up and down like a schoolgirl after beating the Pens in Game 6 2009.

Mike Green - A machine that stops time to give him a moment to rest. Also, an end to hockey pundits saying he has to play more defense.

Jeff Schultz - Recognition for how good he is.

Andrew Gordon - More time to show if he can make it in the NHL.

John Carlson - Permission from Mike Gartner to wear #11.  That number brought him magic in the WJC.  I say let him wear it for the Caps.

Jay Beagle - A trade to another team for a middle-round draft pick.  Good player, but no long term room here at the inn.

Mathieu Perreault -- The ability to score in consecutive games.  Wait - make that the ability to play well in consecutive games.  (We love you Matty, but you have to bring it every night.)

Tyler Sloan -- (see D.J. King)

Marcus Johansson - A steep learning curve that he can ride.

Bruce Boudreau - BBQ sauce, pants that fit him, and motivational speaker contract for the off-season.

George McPhee - Continued progress on his current course of team-building and the resistance to deviate out of panic.  Willingness to make a gutsy trade at the deadline, but fortitude not to sacrifice the future at the same time.

Ted Leonsis - A hairstyle that isn't reminiscent of Cruella DeVille.  Continued openness and fan communications that makes him a model for the 21st century sports team owner.

Caps' Fans - What the fuck else?  The fucking Stanley fucking Cup!!

Thanks and best wishes to Mrs. Claus,

Spidey

Trolling around a bit post lunch, I came across an article as SI.com ranking NHL players in four categories.  I think it worth debating whether an Caps would crack the top 5.

Top 5 goalies

1. Tim Thomas
2. Ondrej Pavelec
3. Carey Price
4. Jonathan Quick
5. Sergei Bobrovsky

Top 5 rookies

1. Logan Couture
2. Sergei Bobrovsky
3. Taylor Hall
4. Jeff Skinner
5. Kevin Shattenkirk

Top 5 MVP candidates

1. Sidney Crosby
2. Steve Stamkos
3. Dustin Byfuglien
4. Pavel Datsyuk
5. Brad Richards

Top 5 Defensemen

1. Dustin Byfuglien
2. Nicklas Lidstrom
3. John-Michael Liles
4. Kris Letang
5. Ryan Whitney

It is disappointing, but I don't believe the Caps crack the top 5 goalies, MVP candidates or defensemen at this point in the season.  I'm curious about the 5 top rookies.  Cazeneuve would appear to place a premium on forwards and scoring among rookies, which may cancel out Carlson or Alzner.

Overall, I think it is nearly impossible to argue against Thomas as the top goalies right now or Crosby as the top MVP candidate.  Byfuglien has made a massive impact on the Thrashers, but I'm not sure he'd be my first pick at D, and I'm definnitely not certain about Liles and Whitney.   Letang is having a tremendous season.

Thoughts?

Interesting article on ESPN.com today about rules changes they'd propose across all sports.  It got me thinking.

Article is here.

In their one rule on hockey, which is really five rules, they list:

#1 BAN ALL HEAD SHOTS.
Despite the recent ban on blindside hits, there's been no decrease in NHL concussions. Time to follow the lead of the International Ice Hockey Federation, which penalizes any head contact at all.

#2 INSTITUTE NO-TOUCH ICING.
Eliminating headlong races for first touch curbs colossal, end-board collisions between full-bore defensemen and forwards.

#3 DITCH THE TRAPEZOID.
If goaltenders can play the puck anywhere, and not just directly behind the net, D-men have to do less back-to-the-action puck retrieval, and thus are targets of fewer blindside hits.

#4 EXPAND THE ICE.
Increasing the playing surface to international dimensions (200 feet x 100 feet as opposed to 200 x 85) enhances the value of skilled players. But it also makes lumbering enforcers obsolete. Guys incapable of contributing with their gloves on will soon be out of the league. And, now, one more from these shores (okay, our office) ...

#5 MAKE MAJORS MATTER.
Players shouldn't have to subject themselves to concussions by fighting to keep pests in line. So how about this: For major penalties, the opposition selects which skater spends the five minutes in the box -- and the offending player has to stay on the ice for the first two minutes of the power play.

Suggestions #1, #2, and #3 aren't new to the casual hockey fan.  I can get behind them, but, unfortunately, the "no head shot" rule will still be incredibly judgmental.

I haven't thought much about expanding the ice size.  It would, perhaps, get us closer to the international game for the WC and Olympics, but it probably isn't feasible due to existing arena size and the lost revenue.

As far as #5, that's a bit radical for me.  Plus, not distinguishing between fighting and other majors could be a problem.  In their idea, if Matt Hendricks fights Eric Godard, then Crosby and Ovechkin sit?  It also puts tremendous pressure on the refs.  They know if they call a 4-minute high stick, the offender sits.  If they call a 5-minute high stick, the superstar sits.

What do you all think and what rules might you change? 

I like the notion of choosing between a power play or a penalty shot, when a penalty shot is called.  I would like helmets to come off during fights and not taking them off to be a penalty.  I would like the instigator call refined and called more.  I'd like to distinguish in the rules between embellishing and diving.  And - if you are diving, then the offender doesn't go to the box with you.

Lastly, I'd like to expand instant replay to cover all black-and-white calls that have an impact on the game.  This would add goalie interference, off-sides, and too many men penalties, for example.  I'd also like to add the coach's challenge.  Calls that are judgmental, such as interference or boarding or charging, wouldn't be subject to instant replay.

(FYI - Wanting to respect the rules, I debated Fan Post vs. Fan Shot, and ended up here.  My apologies if some of you feel this is more Fan Shot.  It was on the border for me.  You can disagree, but please don't call me "stupid.")

I work in corporate America for a very large company and have for the last eight years and 7 months.  With this perspective, I started to consider whether I might fire Bruce Boudreau today.

As some of you have picked up, I have consistently been against firing Boudreau, but am starting to come around that firing Boudreau may be what we need.  Although the Caps are not bound by the same rules as corporate America, I used that perspective to help make a decision.

So - why might we fire/release or find another job for Boudreau if he worked at my company?

1. Gross Misconduct.  As the many lawyers on this board will attest, there are many things an employee can do to be subject to summary termination.  This includes things like failing a drug test, surfing port, stealing a computer, cursing out the CEO, etc.
2. Technology/Outsourcing. We find a cheaper/more effective way to do what someone does.
   
3. Repeated Failure to Meet Performance Objectives:  I used the word "repeated" for a reason.  We typically won't fire someone for one quarter or sometimes even one year of missed objectives.
   
4. Poor People Leadership.  If you have direct reports, you need to be a good people manager.  You need to develop people, get their best efforts.  If a person was meeting goals, but just wasn't a good people manager, we'd move them into a position without direct reports.
   
5. Person Isn't Adding Value:  This is more vague, but if removing someone has zero impact on team performance, then we have to ask why they are there.  This typically happens over time, but I have seen it happen.  When it does, their team usually then reports directly to their old boss.  This is the definition of "addition by subtraction."
   
6. We Know We Can Do Better:  This doesn't happen often, but sometimes we have an opportunity to move someone else into an occupied role, knowing we'll get better results.  The person being removed (usually transferred) may have done nothing overtly wrong.
7. We Made a Hiring Mistake:  This happens to us all, but you usually figure it out quickly.  Talk that John McLean should be fired in New Jersey is in this category.  It could be that Lamoriello just made a bad hiring decision.

With the exception of #1, #2 and #6, we usually will put the person on a Performance Improvement Plan (a PIP), which outlines where they need to improve and the time frame in which we need to see the improvement.

#3 assumes that we have worked together to define scorecards in the appropriate time frame.  For some jobs, monthly metrics are important, for others it might be quarterly or annual.

In terms of Boudreau, let's presume that #1, #2 and #7 are off the table:

• (#3) Has Boudreau repeatedly missed performance objectives?  I'm not sure.  It depends on what the objectives are.  If it is winning the Cup, then he's missed for two years, but is also one of 29 coaches to do so.  If he's judged based on quarterly or monthly records, that could be different.  Right now, he can still win the Cup, if that's how he's judged.
• (#4) I think you can question his people leadership, by asking whether he's getting the most out of his team.  What none of us can see from our vantage points is whether his players listen to him, respect him, play for him, etc.  If they don't do any of those, you may need to make a change.
• (#5) This is also abstract.  Does GMGM think he could coach better?  If BB wasn't there, would the team play better without a coach?  Tough to say.  I'd vote no.
• (#6) Does GMGM have someone in mind that he knows is better for this team right now.  Hitchcock?  Keenan?  Hartley? Hunter?  Hard to say.  If the answer to #4 is that he is getting the most out of his players, it's harder to justify #6.

Based on this quick analysis (and from my vantage point), I don't see grounds for firing him now.  I see grounds, perhaps for putting him on a PIP, which I assume GMGM is doing in his own way.

In closing, let me add one final thought which I gleaned from a Jack Welch (ex-head of GE) in the past.  Welch believes that you don't fire anyone without immediately putting in a viable replacement.  I agree for a number of reasons, not the least of which are continuity and reduced uncertainty.  I don't like "interim" tags on coaches.  So, regardless of an objective analysis, if GMGM doesn't have an immediate replacement that he thinks will last for a few years, I wouldn't make the move now.

But - talk to me again in late December, if the poor performance continues.

For the most part, Japers' Rink is not a place where users come and go.  The site is frequented by a group of regulars that probably number from thirty to forty, based on my own observations.  Although we share a love for the Capitals, we are far from a uniform population.  I don't mean gender or age or geographic home.  I mean we approach the Capitals and our participation here differently.  It makes for great discourse and someday might be fodder for a sociology, anthropology or, perhaps, psychiatry thesis.

After a particular thread that rubbed me the wrong way, I gave some thought to why I was frustrated.  I realized that I was "arguing" or "discussing" a topic with a few folks that simply didn't think they way that I do.  It's not that they were more or less intelligent.  They just approached the topic from a different perspective.  This got me thinking about all the different types of people we have here and, with my marketing experience, I came to segment them as a fun exercise.  And, yes, I may have no life.

Imagine you are participating in the recap of a Caps' victory like the Leafs' game Wednesday night.  Here's how the conversation goes:

The Optimist:  No question they are going to build on this win. Good teams pull through when they play bad  It takes a lot of fortitude to come back after losing a two-goal lead late.  Neuvy looked great, and Sasha just wouldn't be stopped in the shootout.  Bring on the B's!

The Pessimist:  This just goes to show you that the Caps aren't ready to compete for the Cup.  How can they let a team like the Leafs come back in the third period.  OV didn't look like himself, and how GMGM thinks Fahey is a viable NHL D is beyond me.  Look for a big "L" on Friday when the B's come to town and more to follow. 

The Self-Described Pragmatist:  That wasn't a great game, but I'll take the two points.  No one will remember this down the road.  We have work to do, but there are 70 more games to get ready for the Cup.

The Statistician:  Objectively, this wasn't the Caps' best effort.  The Leafs won 25% more defensive zone face-offs than the Caps, which can't hold up.  Green and Ovie exceeded their season averages in TOI, which doesn't bode well.  Erskine had zero hits in the last 30 minutes, which is a trend we've seen all season long.  The Leafs give-aways in their defensive zone in the end of the third period exceeded their norm, giving the Caps the opportunity they needed, but they couldn't do it.

The Hockey Expert:  Since it's clear Flash isn't the solution at 2C, we might want to look (player) from (team) who is on their 2nd line but is expected to excel.  Alternatively, we could consider (player) from (minor league team) who has shown promise since he came over from Slovakia as a junior.

The Homer:  We got nothing from those refs tonight.  Miracle we won again, given that the NHL has it out for us.

The Overreacter:  We may have won, but Ovie just sucked.  I say trade him for Kessel.  There's a guy we could use.  And fire BB now.  My grandmother can coach better than him.

The Innuendo Police Officer:  "Green just couldn't poke his stick through the defense."  Hahaha.  Isolate that.

The GIF Patrol:  (Insert your favorite animated gif here.)

The Newbie Mistakenly Trying to Fit In:  Wow, can you believe Cyndy got into another fight?  That pansy.  I hope he and Philthy just self-destruct this year.

The Shit Stirrer (aka The Can't-Leave-Well-Enough-Alone Person):  Crosby is better than Ovechkin and this game against the Leafs proved it once again.

The Recurring-Themer:  Schultz is too slow.  We need a stay-at-home D to win.  Our 2C situation sucks - we should have signed Belanger.  The ice at VC is awful.

The OT'er:  Did anyone see The Next Iron Chef on Sunday?  I'm rooting for Chef Forgione myself.

These are by no means mutually exclusive.  You might find yourself in different segments on different nights.

Any other types I've missed?

On my drive to work this morning, I heard Pete Weber the Preds' PXP man talk with Mike Ross of Hockey This Morning on NHL Home Ice on XM.

They chatted about the woes of the Calgary Flames, and Weber speculated that, at some point, Jarome Iginla might receive the "Ray Bourque" treatment and leave Calgary is his quest for the Stanley Cup.  Weber went on to point out that Iginla's contract runs through the 2011-2012 season, the same contract length the Avs assumed when they received Bourque from the Bruins.

So I started to think about Iginla coming to the Capitals.  He's a RW, which would fit nicely with Ovechkin and Backstrom, putting Semin back on the 2nd line.  When I had a gap at work, I went back to look at the Bourque trade, so see if we might repeat something similar.

To refresh your collective memories:

On March 2, 2000, Boston traded Ray Bourque to Colorado with Dave Andreychuk for Brian Rolston, Martin Grenier, Sammy Pahlsson and New Jersey's 1st round choice (previously acquired, Boston selected Martin Samuelsson) in 2000 Entry Draft.

• Bourque was 39 and had been with Boston for 20 seasons, having started full-time in the NHL as a 19-year-old.  He ended up playing out his contract with the Av's, winning the Stanley Cup in his second season in Colorado.
• Andreychuk was a 36-year-old center and was set to become a free agent at the end of the 2000 season.  At that point in his career he was roughly a 20G, 20A player.  At the end of the season, Andreychuk did in fact leave Colorado, signing with Buffalo.
• Rolston was a 26-year-old center, destined to become a 30G, 30A player with several teams.  His is still in the league, currently fighting through injuries with New Jersey.
• Grenier was a 20-year-old minor league defenseman. He is a big man - 6;5" and 245 pounds.  He was a 2nd round pick of the Avs in 1999.  In his last full QMJHL season, 1999-2000 with the Quebec Remperts, Grenier racked up 302 PIMs in 67 games.  He ended up playing a total of 8 NHL games in his career, for three teams, although none with Boston.
• Pahlsson was then a 22-year-old center in the minors.  He was a 7th round pick.  He is still playing, now with Columbus, having a bit of a non-descript career, with only one season above 10 G.
• The pick ended-up being the 27th overall.  (FWIW - Samuelson played 14 games for the B's and is now out of hockey).

So - a standout, but aging D and a burly 2C for an up-and-coming center, a massive PIM-collector of a D, a serviceable center and a low first round pick.

If the Caps made a similar run at Iginla, the trade could look something like this:

Calgary sends Iginla to the Caps for Eric Fehr, John Erskine, Andrew Gordon and a 1st round pick.  A veteran for an up-and-coming wing, a burly D, a minor leaguer with potential, and a 1st rounder.

The biggest hurdle would be salary today.  Iginla = $7M annual salary.  Fehr + Erskine = $3.45M annual salary.  Assuming Holtby and Fahey go back to Hershey, this trade would leave the Caps barely under the salary cap.  The ability to acquire other players this season would almost certainly disappear.  GMGM doesn't like to tie his hands like that. Salary cap reasons prevent me from throwing in a center such as Brendan Morrison, Olie Jokinen or Craig Conroy to truly mimic the B's-Av's deal.  

(I am not a salary cap expert, so the above could be dead wrong.)

The next hurdle would be salary 2011-2012.  Assuming Iginla's $7M in 2011 would almost certainly spell the end of Alexander Semin's career in D.C.

The more I stare at the trade, the more I think I would do it, if I were the Caps.  I doubt, however, that the Flames would take just this.  They would likely ask for one of our two young goalies.

Nonetheless, it's intriguing to consider.

I'm posting here to get thoughts and I hope support from the Blues Fan Community for some changes in St. Louis High School Hockey.  I want the largest possible audience to understand how the folks that control high school hockey are not open to changes that make it a better environment for all kids.  Thanks for allowing me to post this.

(This FanPost is copied from my blog "Life with Spidey.")

My son Joey, his teammates Will, Andy and Brandon played varsity ice hockey for Parkway Central High School last year in Chesterfield, Missouri. The team finished 17-4, but was upset by Pattonville in the first round of the season-ending tournament. As we begin planning for next year’s season, they are the only remaining players from last year’s roster of 16 players. Eight seniors graduated, one junior is focusing on his AAA team, one junior is focusing on academics, one player’s knee problems have ended his hockey career, and a final player is from out-of-district and hasn’t committed. There is but one incoming freshman outskater interested in playing.

If they want to continue playing high school hockey, Joey and his teammates will almost certainly be forced to separate and play for different schools in the St. Louis area — unless the Mid-States Club Hockey Association, the governing body for high school hockey in St. Louis, finally recognizes the problem and makes some changes. These changes are easily implemented and will not upset the competitive balance within the league.

Sadly, this situation is but one example of declining participation in high school hockey in the St. Louis metropolitan area. This is, even more sadly, not just a St. Louis phenomenon, but something happening in many parts of the country. When I read articles like this one from Minnesota Public Radio about declining participation Minneapolis High School Hockey, an area known for hockey fervor, it’s clear the problem is widespread. The decline in youth hockey is due to factors including more club hockey teams for the top players, cost, travel and practice/game times, but also due to the rise in popularity of soccer and off-season baseball (fallball), not to mention the myriad of other activities available to high school students.

In the St. Louis metro area, schools that once had enough players to fill three rosters just a few years ago, now struggle to field a varsity team, with the notion of a junior varsity long since forgotten. Without rules changes, I estimate that 5 to 7 of the 36 schools that fielded teams for the 2009-2010 season may not return, and more will fold the following year. This will likely mean that some kids, perhaps my son, will decide not to continue playing a sport that they love and have been playing since mini-mites.

The solution lies with the Mid-States Club Hockey Association rules, but the individuals with the power to change the rules won’t budge. I don’t really understand why they won’t budget.

The changes necessary lie in roster size changes or in allowing team mergers.

Today, Mid-States requires a minimum of 12 rostered players to create a team, not including goalies. Once that roster is filed with Mid-States, the school may increase the roster to 16 players, either through a draft of players cut from their high school team or through free-agents, players whose schools do not have a team. It’s not clear how many players were added through either mechanism last year, but I know that demand far outstripped supply.

The rules create some situations where seemingly easy solutions to allow kids to play together can’t be implemented. For example, two schools might have 8 players each. Neither can form a team, because they can’t get to 12, although combined, they’d be 16. Or, one school might have 12 and a school like Parkway Central has 5. Our five can’t be added to the 12, because it exceeds 16. (I could go on indefinitely about the logic of combining teams that have 15 each to allow for a varsity and junior varsity, but I won’t.)

The Mid-States leaders have steadfastly refused to address this situation through lowering minimum roster sizes, increasing maximum roster sizes, or allowing schools to merge teams. Somehow merged teams work in Minneapolis (see the article noted above), but they can’t work in St. Louis.

We asked Mid-States within their rules change process to decrease minimum roster size to 9 and increase maximum roster size to 20. This was rejected, although we got no feedback and, therefore don’t know why. Candidly, if they were to implement these changes, we believe most kids that want to play with their schoolmates will be able to.

Mid-States’ fear, we believe, is upsetting the competitive balance of the league. I’d be happy to set up practice games between some of the top teams and teams created from schools with less than the minimum number of players to allay their fears. It won’t be a problem.

We are reaching out to other teams in St. Louis to get their support. We are writing the Board Members directly. However, I am now posting here and have broadcast on Facebook and through Twitter, as a way to push Mid-States to act.

I am asking for readers’ help. If the Mid-States Board will not respond to us, perhaps they will respond to other parents who understand this situation.

If you are sympathetic to our cause, drop a note to Jeff Hayes, the President of Mid-States (jeffhayes@midstateshockey.org), or John Nichols, the Vice President of Mid-States (discipline@midstateshockey.org) to let them know how you feel. If you are very ambitious, let me know, and I’ll send you the email addresses of the whole Mid-States roster.

St. Louis High School Hockey needs to change with the times.

I want Mid-States to live up to its by-laws which list as one of its purposes: "To develop, encourage and regulate the game of ice hockey as a High School sport, in the State of Missouri for the benefit of, and exclusely for, students and their respective schools, and so the sport is made available to more students at the lowest possible cost."

Dear Ted:

I didn't get much sleep last night after the Caps' loss in game seven to the Canadiens, but I imagine that you got even less.  What a disappointing end to a fantastic season!  It is indeed sometimes gut-wrenching to be a Washington Capitals fan, yet you have a very loyal and knowledgable fan base.

I am not only a Capitals fan, but I am a Ted Leonsis fan.  I have read "The Business of Happiness" and have purchased the book as a gift for several colleagues.  Seeing the Capitals win the Stanley Cup is near the top of my life list, and you are reading now one of my outlets of self-expression.  From my vantage point here just west of St. Louis, I see how you have packed the Verizon Center with a sea of red-clad fans.  I have faith that you will finally bring a Stanley Cup to D.C.

I offer you some thoughts below not only as a fan since the Caps' early days (my Dad has season tickets in section 108, row T of the Capital Centre), but also as a denizen of corporate America, like you were.  I was a consultant to several large companies for 10 years, before joining my current company in 2002, which is in the Fortune 100.  I will not be telling you to acquire specific players that are free agents, proposing trades, or detailing your salary cap numbers down to the thousands.  The ideas below are more general and some are very high level.

1. Get on the public relations bus NOW.  Get Paul or Nate or anyone else to book you (not George, not Bruce, not OV- but you) on channels 4, 5, 7, and 9, and on CSN.  Appear on Versus with Bill, Keith and Brian during the Wings-Sharks game tonight.  Get on XM Home Ice and on NHL on the Fly.  Smile during those interviews and offer your apologies to the Capitals Nation. Congratulate the Canadiens and wish them well, admit that we could have done things better, talk about how nothing ever comes easy, and vow to get farther next year.  Be honest about the negatives, but don't dwell on them.  Your fans need to see you, and it would show a tremendous amount of professionalism and maturity.
2. Get the players out to meet their fans NOW.  Do this before the players scatter.  Don't wait until the fall.  We all know that the Verizon Center has some open dates (sorry).  Invite fans in at no charge (but give priority in line to season ticket holders).  Get OV up on a stage to apologize to the fans and thank them for their support.  Set up tables where the players can meet fans, take photos, sign things.  The fans need this closure and they'll remember how, even in a moment of defeat, the team faced its public and, to a certain extent, its demons.  The players need this closure as well and need to hear "It's ok.  We'll be back in October" from the fans.  Who knows?  You might even find some new fans as well with this type of outreach.
   
3. Don't get lulled into a quick fix mentality through massive change.  Don't fire BB.  Don't cut Semin or Green or Fleischmann in rash moves.  Talk to your friend Dan Snyder about how those high-priced free-agents and multiple coaches worked out all these years for the Redskins.  You haven't gone there yet, so don't now.  You have built a team, and I urge you to continue to do so.  I know you will add some free agents, but this team does not need to be blown up, nor should you give up on the great young talent and the strong coaching you have.
4. But -- sign Backstrom NOW.  What another great sign to your fan base.  Don't come close to the deadline.  Get it done and let the public know that, alongside their #8 jersey, they can add a #19 jersey and wear it for years to come.
5. Aggressively seek outside input to improve the capabilities of current players and coaches.  You are an experienced corporate executive.  When you have a talented executive who is rough around the edges, you might invest in an executive coach.  When someone needs financial skills to go to the next level, you might send them to training.  Many corporations, including AOL, I bet, have comprehensive training programs.  Follow this idea with the Caps.  Bring in experienced coaches to review the season with Bruce and offer outside opinions.  Maybe Bruce trusts John Anderson, or you bring in Mike Keenan or Andy Murray or Ken Hitchcock - not as assistants, but on a consulting engagement.  Maybe you get Dale Hunter or Joe Sakic down over the summer to teach Ovechkin about leadership.  Maybe you get Rod Langway or Ray Bourque in to help Mike Green with defensive coverage.  There are certainly other examples.  Again - I'm not suggesting they come in as permanent assistants, but as consultants, perhaps on retainer, just as corporate America does.
6. Build on the asset you have in Alex Ovechkin.  He just doesn't have the same image as other high profile players (e.g., Crosby), and I am concerned that the negative press weighs on him.  I know it weights on the fans.  There was a tweet last night that counted how many times OV answered "I don't know" to questions last night in defeat - suggesting that's a negative.  That's how ridiculous it is.  He is the face of your franchise.  Whether this starts with getting him to put a fake tooth in or with classes on how to deal with the press or even a campaign to highlight his charitable activities, you need to work on this.
   
7. Recognize the asset you have in John Carlson.  I can see Carlson now, more than Green, as a core face of the Caps, alongside OV, Backstrom and, perhaps, Varlamov, for years to come.  Here at the Rink, he's been called Captain America and the Greatest American Hero.  He's close to beloved already.  He's the early leader for the 2010-2011 Calder.  You need to build on that.  Make him a better defenseman with training.  Call Mike Gartner and ask for permission for Carlson to wear #11 as a link to the Capitals' past.  Maybe give him an "A" next year.  Don't lose this opportunity.
8. Make roster decisions as early as possible.  Tell Alzner and Carlson that they will be in DC next year permanently.  Decide early whether you are bringing Theo back, bringing in a different veteran goalie, or going with some combination of Varlamov, Neuvirty or Holtby.  If you want to resign Belanger or Corvo or other RFAs and FAs, get it done now.  Greater stability and fewer unknowns will improve the team.  You know in your businesses that a more stable team usually translates to greater success.  No doubt the same can be said for hockey.
   

As painful as it might be, today is the first day of the 2010-2011 season.  It starts with talking about 2009-2010 as a way to put closure on the season and, despite the awful circumstances of the season's end, leaving with your heads held high.  You know you need to improve.  Don't be afraid to think this as you would at AOL or any other company and take similar steps. Look ahead with optimism and continue to go in the right direction.

I strongly believe that loyal fans here at the Rink and in the Verizon Center will be behind you as you figure it out.

Thanks for reading.

Since Marion Hossa knocked Dan Hamhuis into the boards the afternoon of April 24, the question of whether he should be suspended or not has been debated from up at NBC to messages board like Japers' Rink.  Nearly all of the conversation focused on a comparison between the hit by Alex Ovechkin of the Capitals on Brian Campbell of the Blackhawks back on March 14. 

This comparison is appropriate, for it is an examination of a precedent situation that it deemed to be similar and for which punishment has already been determined.  There is a general notion of fairness in our society that suggests that similar punishment be meted out for similar "crimes."  This FanPost is not intended to be survey of all the discourse on the comparisons, but a separate discussion of the case.

First - the evidence:

Ovechkin's Hit

Hossa's Hit

Some information regarding Ovechkin's hit on Campbell and the rest of his season:

1. Ovechkin was given a 5-minute major for boarding and a game misconduct. 
   
2. Campbell broke his collarbone and did not play again until game 4 of the Blackhawks Western Conference Quarterfinal series versus the Predators.  He was absent for just under six weeks.
   
3. This was the 3rd ejection for Alex in the 2009-2010 season. On November 25, he received a major penalty and game misconduct for boarding Patrick Kaleta of the Sabres.  Kaleta left the game, but return for the Sabres next game against the Flyers.  On November 30, he received a major penalty and game misconduct for kneeing Tim Gleason of the Hurricanes.  Gleason returned for the Hurricanes next game on December 5 against the Canucks.
4. Following his penalty against the Hurricanes for his hit on Gleason, Ovechkin received a 2-game suspension from the league office as a "repeat offender." 
   
5. As a side note, in the other 69 games in which he played in the regular season, Ovechkin amassed 22 minor penalties for 44 minutes.

Here is some background on Hossa's hit on Hamhuis and his season:

1. Hossa received a five-minute major for boarding, but no game misconduct.
2. He received a total of 9 minor penalties for 18 penalty minutes in 51 games.
3. Hamhius did not return for the remainder of the game.  While he hasn't officially played in Game 6 of the Hawks-Pred's series, he was quoted by Tennessean.com as saying, ""I'm fine. I'm a little shaken up."

Ok -- so considering the debate on the two - let's look at what Colin Campbell said in the official announcement that Hossa would not be suspended, in which he clearly, albeit not by name, compares the incident to Ovechkin's:

I have made the decision that this play does not warrant supplemental discipline after considering all of the facts, including reviewing the video and speaking with Mr. Hossa. This play is distinguishable from recent incidents by a number of factors, including the degree of contact involved; the fact that the consequences of the play do not appear to be as severe; that this was a hockey play involving a race for the puck; that Mr. Hossa is not a repeat offender; and that the call of a major penalty by the referee was significant and appropriate.

Let's take each point one-by-one:

Degree of Contact Involved

Campbell must be saying that Hossa had less contact on Hamhuis than Ovechkin had on Campbell.  To me, visual evidence is inconclusive.  Both Hossa and Ovechkin were coming from behind.  Both used outstretched arms to make the hit, as opposed to hitting body-to-body.

Consequences Not as Severe

This would appear to be accurate, if, by "consequences," Campbell means injury.  Hamhuis practiced with the team the day after the hit, while it was known about Campbell's collarbone before the suspension to Ovechkin was meted out.  Some have argued that injuries don't matter; that the hit is what should be viewed.  I find it difficult to disagree with this logic.  However, the injury situation is relevant if that was part of the reason Ovechkin was suspended, and we are looking for equity with that situation.

Play Involving a Race for the Puck

This is a little gray to me.  Ovechkin hit Campbell after Campbell passed the behind him up the boards and visuals clearly show the puck away from Campbell when Ovechkin hits him.  Ovechkin most likely thought Campbell was going to take the puck around the net, rather than pass it, and made a decision to hit him to prevent his progress.  Although the puck is closer to Hamhuis than it was to Campbell, I'm not clear that Hossa was racing to the puck in the sense that he truly had a chance to outskate Hamhuis.  I believe he pushed Hamhuis when it was clear he wouldn't get the puck as a way to dislodge it. 

Not a Repeat Offender

Not even debatable.  Accurate.

Major Penalty by the Referee was Significant and Appropriate

Yes, a major penalty was called in both.  Ovechkin got a game misconduct.  This is where it gets a bit interesting.  According to NHL rule 42.5:

When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a [boarding] foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

So -- did Campbell hurt his head or face?  Articles appearing afterward confirmed he had a concussion.  Did Hamhuis hurt his head or face?  If he can play in game 6, it's hard to say that he had a severe head injury.  Hamhuis stood up and skated off the ice under his own power.  Campbell was assisted off the ice.

In the end, I think this is a bit of a red herring.  I think that, had the referees given Hossa a game misconduct, Colin Campbell could have said the same exact thing about the appropriateness of the penalty.  Might the existence of a game misconduct have figured into Campbell's decision? Perhaps.  We'll never know.

There is one final factor we haven't considered, and which Campbell doesn't mention -- regular season versus playoffs.  For obvious reasons, Campbell can't allude to that.  In truth, according to the rules, it doesn't matter.  I can't get into Campbell head, but I believe it did matter and was considered.  The damage to the Hawks, one could argue, would be more significant now if Hossa was out than the damage to the Caps for two mid-season games against lowly SE division rivals.  Personally, I do believe it's fair that the threshold for suspension be a bit higher in the playoffs.

So -- in the end, the key differences in my opinion were a) Ovechkin's history, b) Campbell's injury, and c) playoffs versus regular season (even if unspoken).  In my opinion, every other factor cited by Campbell is a wash.  Does that result in a one-game suspension or no-suspension for Hossa?  That's a judgment call.  It seems clear that Campbell didn't want to send a message to Hossa and, arguably, he doesn't need to.  It would also seem like Hossa's punishment indeed should have been less than Ovechkin's.

(Caps fans will point to Donald Brashear's suspension in the 2009 playoffs for his elbow to the head of the Rangers Blair Betts as inequity.  I disagree using the same criteria as above. First, Brashear had just a wee bit of a history.  Second, Betts had a clear concussion.  Third, I don't think the Caps were hurt without him.  Using those factors, Brashear's suspension seems reasonable in comparison with Hossa and Ovechkin.)