 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Stars dimming Posted: Thursday March 28, 2002 6:01 PM
A nice batch of letters, folks, and surprisingly free of apoplectic Rangers fans. Here's something: If the Coyotes take first place in their division, the Great One is going to walk away with Executive of the Year. That's not even counting his Olympic success. The guy has a knack, eh? And now on to your mailbag ... My question is about our Dallas Stars. Yes, we've had a bad year, but that
can be said of the entire team. So why does the media only single out Eddie
Belfour? Rick Wilson benched him in favor of Marty Turco for a few games, but
Turco's inexperience eventually came through. Belfour has carried this team on
more than one occasion, so why the knock?
I don't think Eddie's getting more than his share of the blame, but largely because of the position he plays, he is disproportionately responsible for the Stars' struggles. (Similarly, he was largely responsible for their success.) The guy is having a flat-out bad year. His save percentage is among the worst for starting goalies and when you play as tight a game as Dallas does, you must have a goalie who is making big saves. The fact that Belfour is an isolationist on the team also contributes to his bad press. He doesn't have a lot of close friends on the team -- most Stars find him a big wiggy -- so there aren't a lot of teammates rallying in support of him. The Stars sealed their fate this season by firing Ken Hitchcock. Dallas has struggled with chemistry and hasn't gotten the production it has needed from key players (Brenden Morrow and Pierre Turgeon to name two) but I have no problem with Belfour taking his share of the blame. Who in your opinion are the three MVP candidates this year? And please don't
say Mike Modano, Jeremy Roenick and Bill Guerin.
I like Mats Sundin and Patrick Roy and Jarome Iginla. You can make a case for Alexei Yashin. Before Joe Thornton went down he was a leading candidate in my eyes, but by now he's missed too much time. Which team is your darkhorse pick to go the furthest in the playoffs?
These things are very hard to predict at this point because you don't know who'll play whom, and matchups play a huge role in this kind of prognostication. Would New Jersey qualify as a darkhorse? It's hard to call the Devils that, but they're a seventh seed and have scored the fewest goals of any playoff team. That makes them underdogs. But I could see them in the conference finals. If the Capitals make the playoffs, they'll throw a scare into some team. If Washington rallies to catch Carolina for the third seed, the Caps could well win a round. As for the Western Conference, if the playoffs began today I'd like the Kings to get into the second round and maybe to the finals. Not sure how much attention you pay to Canadian media, but I was wondering
about your thoughts on how Toronto coach Pat Quinn spoke only to LeafsTV, a new
channel with limited carriage on cable or satellite, at the trading deadline.
The reporter lobbed awful softball questions and they then passed out the tape
("a scoop" for LeafsTV, the team said) to other news outlets, who were
all quite angry. What does this say about sports journalism and do other teams
in the U.S. resort to this?
It says that the Maple Leafs have very thin skin. It reiterates the fact that Quinn abhors doing media interviews; he really doesn't like answering tough reporters' questions. (That said, he's invariably thoughtful and insightful when he does answer.) There may have been other similar incidents, but this sort of censorship is, thankfully, not prevalent. Occasionally, you get a team that wants to screen interviews with a coach or a player -- that is, have the coach or player talk "through" the club's p.r. person. But this is rare and usually doesn't fly. It's a disservice to the fans, that's what it is. If the Leafs have a problem with irresponsible journalism, they should address it. But hiding behind a few easy questions on LeafsTV is ridiculous. Don't the people who shell out for game tickets deserve full media coverage? You made some interesting remarks about Martin Brodeur, that a Vezina would
change your mind about his Hall of Fame status. I would say this is unfair; over
the past couple years it has appeared that the voters haven't been willing to
let anybody but Dominik Hasek (yawn) win the Vez. I don't even bother anymore to
look up who won the Vezina because the voters are so stubborn. I know there have
been other winners, but they're few and far between. And you even referred to
Hasek as the best goalie in the world (I would strongly disagree, my obvious
choice is the Saint -- and I don't think I'll have to remind you of his
achievements). So please, do Brodeur and Patrick Roy some justice and let Hasek
get his name on the Cup before you label him the best. And, besides, what would
his chances be to make the Hall without a Cup or two? I'm looking forward to
your answers.
Roy has unquestionably had a better career than Hasek or, for that matter anyone else. Roy was great when he broke in and he's still great. Still, during his prime years, Hasek was the best goalie in the world. (I could still see him outplaying Roy in a playoff series -- but that could go either way.) Hasek is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame whether he wins the Cup this year or not. His domination of the Vezina (not to mention the Hart) races ensures that, as does the fact that he carried Buffalo as far as he did, and he won a gold medal for the Czechs by beating far more talented teams. Brodeur was born at the wrong time; it's rough to have to go against Hasek. But to me, if you're a Hall of Famer, it means you've been the best or one of the best at your position for a period of time. Other goalies (Olaf Kolzig, Belfour) have won Vezinas during Hasek's reign. Now, I'm not saying Brodeur would never get in without a Vezina on his shelf. A couple more superb years, one more Cup run, or a Jennings Trophy and he'll be in, Vezina or no Vezina. What I am saying, though, is that at this point, looking at the sweep of his career, I think a Vezina trophy is glaringly absent. And, for now, that still keeps him shy of the Hall. Let's stay on the subject of future Hall of Famers, shall we. Do you see any
of the many current Europeans going into the Hall? I read in last week's mailbag that you think players need at least
one major individual award to be considered. That makes Nicklas Lidstrom a
candidate, but what do you think of players like Mats Sundin, Teemu Selanne,
Jaromir Jagr and so on?
Lidstrom will get in. So will Jagr, easily. Both of those are easy choices even if they never played another shift. Sundin's not there yet, but at 29, he could get there. He needs a couple of more playoff runs -- he's only taken a team deep into the postseason once. Sundin has developed extremely well as a player, filling out his game over the year and once he gets to 500 goals (which could happen by 2004 or 2005) he should be Hall material. Selanne is a pure goal scorer and because of that he'd need to jack up his numbers quite a bit. He's had very little playoff success and if he settles into being nothing more than a 30-goal a year sniper, it's going to take him a while to get the numbers. Let's see Teemu go over 40 a couple of more times, then we'll talk again. Sports Illustrated senior writer Kostya Kennedy covers the NHL for the
magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. To send a question to his
Mailbag, click here.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
