View From The Frontier
I got a transcript from a meeting at Versus Network home office this morning. It turns out they had to call for an emergency meeting today to discuss the results of Wild's 2-1 shootout victory over the Pittsburgh Penguins.
The theme of this meeting seems to read like this:
"This is why we can't have nice things..."

"Sir, we've got a problem."
"Who are you? What problem?"
"Last night's game sir...it..."
"Yes, I know, we had the Penguins and Sidney and Malkin and those guys on again last night. What happened, did they score too many goals and break the scoreboard?"
"No sir, quite the opposite."
"WHAT!? Why wasn't I notified sooner?!"
"Sir, weren't you watching the game?"
"Are you crazy? Dancing With the Stars was on last night and it's almost the end of the season! I figured with the Penguins playing we were guaranteed a score-fest. OK so what happened?"
"The final was 2-1 in a shootout and both of the goals were scored halfway through the first period. That means we had two and a half periods where there were no scores and not much else going on."
"All right, this sounds bad. How about fights? There had to be a lot of those. Minnesota's got some guy called Boogie Man, right? He's got to be exciting, right?"
"He didn't fight tonight sir, hell, he didn't even play. In fact, there was only one fight and it was between a couple of players we don't really care about. We sort of care about Jordan Staal, but he's no Crosby or Malkin."
"Dear Lord. Obviously Pittsburgh would never let us down like this so this has to be Minnesota's fault. At least we'll never have them on again the rest of the year, right?"
"Well, actually...."
Yeah, I know, fantasy is fun and I can enjoy creating phony dialogue like this. Sad part is, you know that at least the sentiment of this is exactly what's going on over at the hallowed halls of Versus programming in Philadelphia.
A Versus exec was quoted as saying: "Who the hell are these guys? I want Boogie!"
Like I talked about last week, the Wild seemed to be groomed to be the nationally televised patsy for the biggest and upcoming stars of the NHL according to Versus. This time they got the biggest fish in the pond in Crosby and the Penguins and the Wild showed the Pens, Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury...all of them, what it means to be a Jacques Lemaire coached team in the NHL and learned about something that Michel Therrien tried desperately to show his young Pens in the Finals last year:
Shut Down Hockey.
For the Wild, this is the exact sort of game they wanted to have against a highly talented and excruciatingly potent offense like Pittsburgh has. The pre-game checklist had to look like this:
- They wanted the shots to be kept to a minimum (Check: Pens had 25 shots).
- They wanted the Pens scoring chances to be kept to a minimum (OK not so great here).
- They needed to score more than one goal especially against the backup goalie Danny Sabourin (Nik Backstrom made one goal stand up well enough to win, otherwise fail for the offense).
For the Wild and Wild fans, this was the exact thing you were hoping for out of a game against a team like this. Low scoring, to hang around in it until the end and then get the opportunity to beat them the way you want to. While I'm sure the Wild would've preferred a win in regulation or overtime, doing it in the skills competition will hold up just fine.
For the NHL fans watching this game hoping for a Sid the Kid show or a Malkin Madness lovefest this was a bitter disappointment and this is where you folks will come to hate me, but the best thing for the NHL (financial success-wise here) would be to have them stomp a mudhole in everyone's rear-end and to do it while giving everyone the finger.
Of course, Jacques Lemaire would rather be eaten alive and set on fire than to allow that happen to any team that he's coaching and I can't fault him for that, it's not up to him to make the league look good, its up to him to win games. Period.
"See this? This is how I play defense from back here boys. Do it like I do - and growl too. GRRR!"
Then again, if the folks at Versus knew what hockey was, they'd probably try to force Gary's Fair-Haired Boy at us in games where his abilities would be better put on display instead of watching Crosby figure out where to dump the puck into the zone the correct way or dare to skate through defenders all night long.
This is where I respect the Wild, albeit begrudgingly, that they'll stick to their gameplan regardless of the situation. Call it stubborn, call it boring, call it whatever you want to - for Jacques and his disciples it's what works.
I can only hope that folks who tuned in to see the Pittsburgh circus on ice took note of Mikko Koivu and Nik Backstrom because they are the real deal. I know Backstrom gives you fits sometimes, but every goalie in history has given the hometown fans ulcers. Just deal with it. Nik isn't like Manny Fernandez and he's not going to let you down.
That offense though... That might do the job. If TSN's Bob McKenzie's gut is right and Gaborik is on the way out sooner than later, that alone might be the lift this team needs.
Another scoring forward or two might do the trick as well but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Comments
Completely agree with you Joe
The offense without Gaborik, is mind-numbingly boring. For everyone who calls Gaborik out for not playing injured, questions his integrity or his manhood, you cannot argue with his results. When he plays, he scores. When he scores, the team wins. When the team wins, the fans are happy. Using the transitive property Gaborik playing = happy fans.
Now, the average NHL fan (and especially the below average ones in Vancouver, Colorado and Anaheim) dislikes Lemaire and the Wild for their defense-first game plan. However, what they fail to see, and what was on display last night, is that the Wild are a solid defensive team without being obstructionist and without holding guys along the boards or in the neutral zone. They play the body, finish the checks, and play a strong back-check game. It’s not the grabbing goons in Anaheim and Vancouver, but because it works, people hate.
And it doesn’t bode well for the marketability of the franchise, nor to lure in offensive talent.
by nathaneide on
Nov 19, 2008 1:58 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
The interesting thing heading into this game was the question of who was going to play whose game? In the end, Pitt still managed to get the chances but Minnesota shut down the rush, a style that works effectively for the Pens. On the other hand, Pitt played a disciplined game that didn’t allow the Wild to go on the power play that capitalized four times against the Coyotes a few games back.. That’s not to say the chances weren’t there, but the Pens’ PK was good enough to shut the Wild out.
I was a little annoyed with people who complained about the Penguins’ loused up goal in the first. As I’ve said before, that’s hockey. The Wild got theirs and one night this season the Pens will get one too. That’s just how it goes. But the sheer evidence to how evenly matched these teams really are is the fact that it was 1-1 for the whole game and went into a stalemate for the remainder of regulation and overtime. Plus, both teams were even at 25 shots a piece which, by the way, is pretty high for the Pens lately.
It was a good game that allowed me to get a good look at Backstrom in net. He’s an exciting goaltender to watch.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com
by FrankD on
Nov 19, 2008 2:06 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
neide makes a good point
No matter how many complaints I hear about the Wild’s game style (It is boring at times), it’s clean, and it’s effective. I recall many NHL fans lamenting the Ducks and their gooning ways, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the Wild continue to win games like last nights tow things will happen:
The fans will denounce this boring style of hockey and quit paying attention (even less than they all ready do)
Other teams will copy it, creating a fatal paradox for the NHL.
I don’t know the answer. I miss the free skating, wide open style of the ’80’s, and it wasn’t just the Oilers who did it. Teams like the Nordiques and the Islanders had that same buzz about them. I’m happy the Wild are winning, and proving themselves as players against potent offensive teams. It’s just not as much fun to watch.
Good read Joe :-)
by Wild4Hockey on
Nov 19, 2008 3:08 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Good To Hear
Wild4Hockey: That’s good to hear about your fandom of the Oilers and all the others like them that played Firewagon Hockey in the 80s. That’s what gets lost with the Wild and why I’d love to see them bring in more offensive talent because I think that mix along with Lemaire making sure they also play defensively responsible (both are possible today, look at what Detroit did last year).
I know I’ve certainly mixed it up with more than a few Wild fans chiding them about their style and my actual true dislike for Lemaire’s style, but neide and everyone else is spot on: They do it in a way that doesn’t make me want to punch the TV out nor punch a fan of that team in the face (the way Anaheim, New Jersey, Vancouver, Boston does). Even the AP writeup of this game laid claim to Minnesota about their “trapping style defense.”
Earth to morons: Everyone traps! The thing is, others just start it earlier and forecheck a hell of a lot harder than other teams do thus making you think they’re really not trapping since they’re spreading out more and not keeping everyone in the neutral zone.
The key to this now is that people can’t lock on and interfere the way they used to. Trapping still makes puck carriers work just as hard to gain ground, but at least now they can skate deep into the zone and hunt down the puck and retrieve it. That wasn’t the case five years ago and why people were ready to kill (and rightfully so). You can’t do that now, you just have to work harder. It helps that teams like the Wild have it down to a science and can play it so that it’s not as dreadfully boring – something those other knucklehead teams haven’t learned.
by HockeyJoe on
Nov 19, 2008 3:46 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thank you
There’s a difference between a trap, a left-wing lock and clutching/grabbing along the boards and obstructing in the neutral zone. For hockey idiots: it’s the difference between a hard chuck at the line of scrimmage and pass interference or a double-team or trap versus hand-checking and reaching in basketball.
by nathaneide on
Nov 19, 2008 4:04 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also
The Wild counter-attack by (typically) gaining the zone rather than the dump and watch.
by nathaneide on
Nov 19, 2008 4:05 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lets not overdo it
about Gaborik. He really doesn’t score all that often. He creates the best chances (from a Versus Marketing The NHL perspective) with his sick wheels, but he is terrible at finishing them.
He has averaged 0.43 goals per game over his career. Even without factoring in his penchant for groin malfunction, that puts him in the same company as….wait for it…Jason Pominville.
His is the most obvious talent on the Wild, but he’s far from the best player. And he still doesn’t score that often…
NiNY
by Nick in New York on
Nov 19, 2008 6:21 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Time for a lesson
Nick, you shame me and other New Yorkers using silly statistics like goals per game.
Let’s use Gaborik’s post-lockout point numbers (when it was acceptable to play offense once again, even in Minnesota) In case you forgot Nick, points are goals and assists, the things that help set up others to score goals:
Gaborik’s last three seasons (2005-2008): 190 games played; 110 goals, 96 assists all good for a total of: 206 points
Correct me if I’m wrong here but it sure looks like that’s more than a point a game. A point means there was at least one goal scored in each of those games. I know these aren’t Gretzky or Lemieux numbers but when you compare them to everyone else on the Wild, Gaborik’s numbers are beyond staggering.
What rightfully gets Wild fans grumpy is that Gaborik was able to put these numbers up never playing a full season.
In 2005-2006, Gaborik was good for 38-28-66 in 65 games. In 17 more games played, Brian Rolston scored 79 points and was four goals behind Gaborik.
The following season, he played in just 48 games but put up a line of 30-27-57 and was tied with Pierre-Marc Bouchard (who played 81 games) in points and was seven points behind Brian Rolston and Pavol Demitra for the team lead and they both played over 70 games.
Last year, he was good for 42-41-83 in 77 games, and lead the team in scoring by 20 points over PMB who played in four MORE games than Gaborik. 20 points!
Saying that the Wild don’t miss Gaborik is lunacy at best. If Gaborik played 82 games a year, they’d be describing what the statue would look like that would eventually be built outside of the XCel Center.
Unfortunately, Gabbo has a tissue paper-like groin and now it’s starting to feel like he lacks the motivation to hurry back to the lineup. That’s a recipe for insult anddisaster. Throw in his refusal to sign an extension in Minnesota and you see why folks like you want to push him out the door and would rather forget about him.
Fact is, the Wild are a better team with him in the lineup and if they let him go without replacing him reasonably in the lineup or get nothing in return, this team will suffer for it – big time.
by HockeyJoe on
Nov 20, 2008 12:15 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
thanks, but I'm good
Fact is, the Wild are a better team with him in the lineup and if they let him go without replacing him reasonably in the lineup or get nothing in return, this team will suffer for it – big time.
Umm, like they are suffering for it this year?
My point is that Gaborik is not an elite level scorer, yet he clearly wants to be paid like he is. He’s a point-a-game, guy, sure. But does that really warrant top 5 or MAYBE top 10 money? (Hint: just because that’s how they roll in the Garden doesn’t make it right.) He has the most offensive skill ON THE WILD. But that hardly makes him all-world – as you pointed out in your piece above they are not the most dynamically offensive team. So it’s kind of like saying he’s the best of the worst.
Also, Risebrough himself used goals per even strength TOI as a stat to prove to Gaborik just how valuable he is when he went to Slovakia to woo him this summer. Does that shame you too?
I don’t care if you don’t like the Wild or the trap or whatever. Frankly there isn’t a whole lot more room on the bandwagon anyway. But why don’t you keep your rants about what is or is not best for the team to statements you can actually defend? Ask around: there are actual Wild fans that write for this website that are even more vehement than I am about not needing him back, at the money he’s asking for.
by Nick in New York on
Nov 20, 2008 7:09 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What are you going on about?
Shortsightedness is your thing, isn’t it – since seasons are always settled and hashed out in November, right?
So you’re arguing about Gaborik’s worth on a blog post where none of that was being talked about at all. You’re a brilliant tactician here Nick. So the Wild’s lack of offense isn’t hurting them now. That’s good. It’s better that the goaltending has been as underrated and stellar as it has been to this point.
So what about the end of the season? What about the playoffs? I don’t think I need to remind you or anyone else here that Jose Theodore was made to look like a future Hall of Famer and then in the following round was returned to his normal self.
If you’re looking for a fight over Gaborik’s worth, you came to the wrong guy – Risebrough has done all he can to retain him and Gaborik doesn’t want it. Fine, he can go, but it’s up to the Wild to get equal return for him. Letting him walk at the end of the season would be a huge failure of the front office.
by HockeyJoe on
Nov 20, 2008 8:01 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Indeed
It would turn Risebrough into Bill Smith in a hurry.
This team is still on pace to score 20 goals less than last year, but to earn 20 points more than last year. That stat says to me that they either need to get him in the lineup and sign him, or get him in the lineup, get him back up to his typical production and move him for talent that can play today and prospects for tomorrow. Anything less, and Risebrough should be raked over the coals.
However, all of the Gaborik bashing only shows me one thing, the team has done its job in turning the fanbase against him. Kudos, you’ve undermined your superstar to the point that there is absolutely no chance of him playing here long-term. You’ve saved yourself a lot of money, and Carl Pohlad would be proud.
by nathaneide on
Nov 20, 2008 8:53 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
neide:
My thing is, and has always been, this: I don’t care who suits up for the team. The team is more than Gaborik, or Lemaire, or Backstrom or whomever. I root for the team, not the player.
Coming out of camp, no one in their right mind thought the Wild would score as many goals as last season. Rolston, Demitra, etc were not replaced – offensively, on paper, anyway – during the summer.
I would take Gaborik back in a heartbeat – injuries and all – IF he sees the light and agrees to sign for a reasonable amount of money. Granted he’s not going to take a pay cut from his last contract, nor should he. But I have no interest in eating up a larger chunk of a potentially-decreasing overall cap number with a guy that is injury-prone and doesn’t score all that often when he manages to be able to play. I’d like to think most people who follow the Wild would feel that way regardless of any smear campaign by Riser or anyone else.
by Nick in New York on
Nov 20, 2008 9:50 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Gaborik is currently earning $6.33 million. Asking $8M isn’t out of line. Turning down $8M, if that’s what he was offered, is out of line, and he won’t get that here.
The problem is the smear campaign. The Wild have ruined any good will that Gaborik had in town. It’s dead for him here, and he needs to go, all I ask is that they don’t pull a Bill Smith.
by nathaneide on
Nov 20, 2008 10:17 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agreed. $8M is fine. Once this is all settled, I’d love to know exactly what was offered. Not going to hold my breath, though.
by Nick in New York on
Nov 20, 2008 11:03 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
try decaf
First, Joe, you wrote a piece talking about, among other things, how limited the Wild is offensively either on paper or in practice. You included some fancy creative writing bashing the Wild as bad for selling the game.
The first comment pertaining to your piece included discussion about whether or not Gaborik makes the Wild go. “When he plays, he scores. When he scores, the team wins.”
I responded saying that he really doesn’t score as much as people think he does.
You apparently took umbrage with my comment and offered to teach me a lesson.
Now you’re calling me names and continuing the internet muscles chest thumping act, which frankly does nothing for me. But don’t try to pretend like my comments have been out of context: “arguing about Gaborik’s worth on a blog post where none of that was being talked about at all” (well, other than your link to McKenzie’s blog talking about….Gaborik’s worth.)
*You talk about seasons always being settled in November. What about your assertion that one game on Versus is bad for the whole league? Isn’t that just as obtuse a statement?
*You brought up how sweet Theodore looked against the Wild in the playoffs. Wait, I thought you were in the “Saying that the Wild don’t miss Gaborik is lunacy at best” camp? Gaby sure didn’t get in Theodore’s way at all in that series. Can’t have it both ways, bud.
*You mentioned Riser doing all he can to retain him but Gaborik doesn’t want it. Totally agree, and that’s actually part of my point. If Gaborik has turned down offers from the Wild in the reported neighborhood of just north of $8M per, then A) he’s crazy and B) it tells me that her really just doesn’t want to stay in Minnesota. Why, then would the Wild want to keep a player that doesn’t want to be there?
*You say “but it’s up to the Wild to get equal return for him. Letting him walk at the end of the season would be a huge failure of the front office.” Now THAT’S enlightenment, thanks.
by Nick in New York on
Nov 20, 2008 9:45 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You’re off the reservation here Nick.
I didn’t bash anyone or anything in what I wrote and your axe to grind with Gaborik is the size of Paul Bunyan’s.
I’d suggest to you to take a walk outside, soak in the cold air for a while and let it go because you’re fighting windmills at this point.
by HockeyJoe on
Nov 20, 2008 10:08 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
dude, seriously. You’re embarassing yourself.
by Nick in New York on
Nov 20, 2008 11:05 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t think so here Nick, I’m not the one making up arguments out of nowhere.
As far as I can tell, you’ve got a big problem with me contributing to the site here and that’s what’s bothering you the most and you’re taking the “this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he’s not one of us” argument to a whole new level because, no one else here seems to know what you’re railing on about either.
by HockeyJoe on
Nov 20, 2008 11:41 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
wow…don’t flatter yourself!
My issue with you isn’t really any of those things. It’s that you, in the course of this little conversation, appear to be one of the the dime-a-dozen “I’m Tough Because It’s The Internet So I’m Anonymous” wannabe Mad Dog Russos that thinks you can say something, get called on it and then not have to back it up.
Look, I’m sure you’re a really great guy and all. And judging by your last comment what you’re really looking for is acceptance, so, frankly, I pity you. You certainly have a well-endowed ego, which makes it surprising that you seem to care so much about what other people think about you. Unless, of course, it’s all just a show.
I’ve tried to bring this back to hockey, and you continue to run away from that and are choosing to try to make it personal instead.
I’m over you.
by Nick in New York on
Nov 20, 2008 1:02 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ll enjoy your comments again next week.
by HockeyJoe on
Nov 20, 2008 2:44 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ok
Joe’s really not an internet tough guy, and NiNY, I know from reading Russo’s Rants, you are typically a rational poster, so I’m going to chalk this up to miscommunication on everyone’s part.
That being said, I love the passion and the back and forth. Let’s keep that part up and everyone take this as a reminder to save the vitriol for the Canucks.
by nathaneide on
Nov 20, 2008 2:59 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
All flash no substance
Pittsburgh, while filled with lots of young talent doesnt have the heart to make a deep run. I mean they have all the offense in the world but they are easy to get on tilt and when they do they turn the puck over Chris Harrington-style. ( ;) ) They are fun to watch play but if they play a team that has any semblance of defense and willing to stick to their guns and not try and run and gun they will fold like a cheap card table.
As for Gabby, yes when he plays he is phenomenal but the problem is he never plays. Last year was the only season his groin didnt cause him issue. When he is on the ice he is dynamic, the problem is he is never on the ice.
Oh and the sooner they get Brent Burns back on the blue line the better, watching him at forward made me physically ill.
by Dave Handler on
Nov 19, 2008 6:26 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs













