*Except the one you constantly ask.

Look, the future of Mike Hoffman is probably the most important question Bryan Murray has to answer in 2016. If they can lock him up long term, you do it. But if they can’t, or at least strongly suspect they can’t, Mike Hoffman might feature pretty prominently in a trade for Jonathan Drouin Kevin Shattenkirk or some such useful piece to improve the top-6 blueline. And while it’s the question most Sens fans want answered, I honestly don’t know how it’s going to go down.

So this post isn’t about Mike Hoffman, instead it’s about all the other burning offseason questions about which RFAs/UFAs the Sens should bring back.

But first, quick shout out to Bryan Murray. Whatever you might think of Bryan, he’d never royally screw over one of his players the way Arizona GM Don Maloney did yesterday. He’d never do the league’s dirty work the way Maloney, Nashville GM David Poile and Montreal GM Marc Bergevin did either. He hasn’t been perfect, but even in his most prominent disagreements with players, he’s never traded someone 4,000 miles away from where they want to be out of spite while calling it a hockey move.

All salary info from General Fanager

The burning questions

Chris Neil, Shane Prince, and Patrick Wiercioch

This is an odd sort of grouping of players, but I think for various reasons these three will cause the most stress on management and fans to work out (after Hoffman). A year ago, it seemed like the Sens would be moving on from Chris Neil, if not at the trade deadline when he suffered injury, then at the conclusion of his current deal. In all honestly, I started hearing Barbara Streisand’s voice sing “Mem’ries, light the corners of my mind, misty water-colored memories, of the way we were” when Neil was on the ice (the question remains, who was our Robert Redford!?) But then a funny thing happened. Neil opened the 2015-16 season strong and here we are, more than three months later, and he’s still going strong. Yes, much of the value the fourth line brings can be attributed to his linemates, but Neil has looked quicker, better, and more productive than in recent seasons. Sure he still leads the team in minor penalties, but he’s settled down since a not overly disciplined October. Does it make sense to lock up a fourth line player who will be 37 in the summer? No, but offering Neil another two-year deal was always more about his longevity with the team and what he’s meant to the community. If he can repeat his play from this season (a tall ask) it’ll be ok and any new deal will likely look a lot like his current deal.

Shane Prince is easy in some senses because he’s a young player who’s still an RFA. He’s part of why the fourth line has spent a lot of time in the opposition end and he produces points at one of the best rates on the team. No brainer. It’s going to have to be a one way deal and he’s going to get a bump in dollars. I wouldn’t be shocked if he gets a one year “prove it” deal and Prince strikes me as the type of player to bet on himself.

Patrick Wiercioch might be the most interesting Sens player to watch. He’s played better of late, but has had a disappointing season to date. Any perceived value he built up with his strong finish to 2015/World Championship appearance has been squandered. Wouldn’t be shocked to see him shopped (and have no takers) at the deadline. Why give up an asset for a guy the Sens have repeatedly offered when you think he might be available for less in the summer? Of course, he won’t come free, he needs a new deal. He’s still an RFA, but he made $2M this season and established NHLers in their 20s pretty much never take pay cuts. PW on a three-year deal with a salary ranging from $2.5M-$3.5M (especially when you bring the advanced stats into the negotiations) doesn’t seem too farfetched but does seem like a deal that might make Murray and co. pause (aka the Jared Cowen Effect^TM). I don’t know what the future holds for PW, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it takes place somewhere else.

The Automatics

Max McCormick, Cody Ceci, Fredrik Claesson, Chris Wideman, Matt Puempel

McCormick and Puempel have had decent looks at the NHL level this season (and last in Puempel’s case) and seem like decent enough bottom-six NHL players. McCormick is doing all the things on ice that the organization would expect from Neil’s heir apparent. Puempel also has the benefit of being a former first round pick. They’re controllable, won’t be making that much more, and are cheap, controllable replacements. I wouldn’t be shocked if one or both sign a contract that pressures the team to keep them at the NHL level in 2016-17.

Claesson is interesting in that he seemed completely overlooked by the organization until this past month and suddenly looks like he’s a natural and appreciated part of the blueline. Yes, he’s been sheltered with Karlsson, yes he’s made some bad giveaways, and yes he has the smallest of sample sizes in the NHL, but when it comes down to it, he won’t be commanding a huge raise. With the Senators hopefully moving on (dumping) Jared Cowen at the deadline (endless laughter) or in the offseason (likely our sad reality) and with Chris Phillips’ inevitable retirement, the blueline is less cluttered in 2016-17. Claesson easily fits a 5-7 spot on the depth chart but won’t be paid like a Cowen (more like a Boro).

Cody Ceci is where things get interesting. It’s clear the organization loves him and he’s a former first rounder and a local boy. Things are looking good for Ceci to get paid. And that’s fine, he deserves a raise on his ELC. He’ll probably have just over 200 NHL games when the season ends and is still only 22; these are things NHL GMs value. It’s not a question of if Ceci gets a raise, but rather how much and for how long. I think PW’s current deal (AAV $2M) is an acceptable range for Ceci (though I suspect 2 years instead of 3 more likely). The goal with Ceci’s new deal should be more like PW and less like Cowen.

Chris Wideman is going to get a raise and locked up for a couple seasons. He will be seen as a cheaper PW (in relation to the new deal PW is going to sign). I wouldn’t be shocked if Wideman replaces Wiercioch in the eyes of management.

The Alex Chiassons

I don’t really know what Murray is going to do here. I know a lot of Sens fans think he’s a lock to be re-signed because of his inclusion in the Spezza deal but I don’t know how much Murray cares about that. Chiasson isn’t dead weight or anything, doesn’t make a lot of money, and wouldn’t get too much of a raise. He’s a fine fourth line player, but they’re not really the type you should be going out of your way to sign. I think he’s been better this season, but his lack of goals and points in going to hurt him (like it hurts us). Would prefer a Bingo guy (Puempel or Schneider, who also needs to be re-signed) get his spot.

Bingo RFAs

I don’t follow Bingo closely and there are Bingo experts you should certainly be reading (Jeff Ulmer at Silver Seven for starters). All I can say is that if I was a betting person, Alex Guptill won’t be re-signed.

The quick and snarky answer for why I loved the trades that sent Trevor Daley to Chicago and then to Pittsburgh for Rob Scuderi is that the Senators, in need of defensive help, avoided acquiring one or both of these bad options. That’s terrific from an Ottawa perspective.

The longer answer for why I loved these moves is because these trades illustrate how difficult it is to both improve your team and trade from a position of weakness in the NHL. For all the talk about how NHL front offices still have trouble accurately assessing a player’s worth outside of traditional stats like goal and point totals, GMs are fairly adept at recognizing when another GM is in a bind.

Chicago was predictably in cap hell this past off-season and would need to move a few notable pieces to be able to dress more than 14 skaters when the season started. Patrick Sharp, a four-time 30+ goal scorer, with multiple Cup wins, and an Olympic gold, things GMs generally salivate over, was made available. Chicago GM Stan Bowman, who’s generally regarded as smart and a cap maven, knew this and set the bar high for Sharp: a first round pick in the most anticipated draft in years, an A-level prospect, and a top-six forward still on his ELC. Now Sharp, on the wrong side of 30 and making nearly $6M, wasn’t going to command such a lucrative haul, but it was a big ask designed to pry a prospect and high pick or some variation out of another team. It’s pretty standard practice. The problem was no one bit. What the other GMs saw was the Cup champs were in a bind and why help them out unless you get a sweet deal. In reality, Bowman had to give up one of his own well-regarded prospect in Stephen Johns to send Sharp to Dallas for Trevor Daley and Ryan Garbutt. A win for Dallas and not a good salary dump for Chicago.

So it was a bad deal. But it also seems just as obvious that Bowman didn’t want to give up Johns and would have made a better deal if he could, but was stuck and took the lesser of two evils.

There are reasons Daley didn’t work out in Chicago (he isn’t that good, they expected him to fill a role he wasn’t capable of filling, Joel Quenneville wasn’t a big fan etc.), but at least Bowman wisely tried to move on from a player who wasn’t working quickly. Again, the asking price was set fairly high for a player of Daley’s age, calibre, and cap hit: a second round pick and a prospect/young player (of the Shane Prince and Matt Puempel ilk in Ottawa’s case). After being part of the rumour mill for weeks, Daley was eventually traded to Pittsburgh for 37-year-old and frequent healthy scratch, Rob Scuderi. While Pittsburgh retained a third of Scuderi’s salary (saving Chicago $1M off the cap) for this season and next, Scuderi is simply one of the worst defenders in the league at this stage in his career and he’s under contract until 2017.

How could this happen to a smart, with it, analytics-accepting GM and architect of the first, cap era NHL dynasty? Because other GMs knew he was up against it and wouldn’t budge an inch.

All of this reminds me of the Jason Spezza trade. Yes, the rumoured deal to Nashville (including Patric Hornqvist, Nick Spaling, and the 11^th overall pick, used by the Preds to select Kevin Fiala) would definitely have been better in the short term as Hornqvist is a legit top-six forward. It may still be better in the long term. But Spezza didn’t want to go there and he controlled the move. Unfortunately, Dallas was the only option.

Could Ottawa have made a better trade with Dallas? Sure. Could Bryan Murray have insistent on receiving a first round pick instead of a second? Sure, though I suspect Stars GM Jim Nill, generally regarded as a Very Smart Hockey Dude^TM in his own right, knew Murray had no other option unless he wanted to risk losing Spezza for nothing, so Nill obviously refused. Should Bryan Murray have asked for pre-NHL breakout John Klingberg? Absolutely! It’s possible he did! It’s also exceedingly possible, Dallas had some understanding of the players in their development system and didn’t want to give up a potential star on defense, deciding instead to give up a player from a position of depth.

It wasn’t a good trade. Could they have waited it out and tried to trade Spezza at the deadline? Sure but the fear of a Spezza injury probably prevented that.

Wanting a better outcome is understandable. Wanting your team to make trades that improve your team makes sense. But expecting a GM to win when they’ve been dealt a losing hand isn’t realistic. GMs know the score and can tell when a team’s in a bind. Stan Bowman knows it, Bryan Murray knows it. Sometimes they lose.

Creativity is an interesting concept in sports. Ottawa’s lineup over the past week might be confused by many as a creative solution by Dave Cameron to his team routinely being outshot. But it’s not. It’s a reliance on grit, toughness, and some sort of nebulous understanding of defensive prowess (plays in the bottom six/lower pairings, therefore he’s defensively-minded) in hockey that lots of coaches fall prey to. To truly think creatively about hockey requires a different understanding of what it is defenders and forwards do during the course of a game and how skill impacts how both groups work together to create offense. So this isn’t creative on Dave Cameron’s part. Zack Smith is not a top six forward nor is he a line one winger. He is, at times, a useful fourth line player, but for that designation to stick he needs to keep penalties to a minimum and his astronomical shooting percentage needs to continue to orbit Saturn. As neither of those things are likely, the case for him being effective in the right role isn’t a solid one, let alone an argument to give him more minutes. The case for Mark Borowiecki at forward is much like the case for Mark Borowiecki on defense: it shouldn’t be made. At least on defense Ottawa’s lack of depth makes it somewhat understandable that Boro makes his way into the lineup, but he’s simply not a forward at this or other professional levels.

Those who like to point out Dave Cameron only made appealing lineup choices last season because players like Chris Phillips, Chris Neil, and Zack Smith were injured are being a bit disingenuous. Those injuries took the burden of certain decisions off the coach, but there were interventions from behind the bench that played into the team’s short term success under Cameron. A somewhat elevated role for Mike Hoffman, increased playing time for Mark Stone, and riding the Andrew Hammond wave are all things I don’t think Paul MacLean would have done. Some key healthy scratches here and there and you have a historic winning streak.

While there’s no excusing current lineup decisions, especially the roles for Smith and Borowiecki, if Cameron had his whole roster available, we’d most likely see a preferred lineup with Clarke MacArthur and Milan Michalek in place and Smith and Boro as far away from the top six forward group as possible. Neither injured player is going to return anytime soon so the question becomes one of doing the best with pieces available.

So what is Cameron doing with Prince? I don’t know. For the record, I think he should be in the lineup, and I think with current injuries, he’s your best bet to fit with Ottawa’s top six group. That said he’s a rookie known for his offense, not necessarily his defensive game, and Cameron’s established a pattern of rightly or wrongly (wrongly) holding offensive players to a higher standard in this regard. That’s not to say I don’t think it’s ok to expect more from players like Mike Hoffman, I do, I just think you give them a role that lets them rise to the opportunity. I’ve written about this before in relation to Prince and Cameron’s apparent preference for Matt Puempel, but I still think that’s part of what’s going on here.

I think it’s also possible Shane Prince isn’t Ottawa’s favourite prospect. His waiver eligibility may have forced the team’s hand in training camp and his rumoured trade request last season probably didn’t sit well with Ottawa’s brass. I don’t think this means Ottawa treats its prospects poorly. I think they’re more in line with league averages than we’d like to admit. I mean, I can think of organizations where it’s a lot harder to get a shot (Detroit) and the team costs its young players two or three years of NHL salary in the process by marinating and slow cooking them in the AHL smoker like they’re a prize-winning bbq recipe. I think this is an organization that actually ‘rewards’ prospects for doing things the ‘Senators way’ (I guess that’s a thing). See the David Dziurzynski call up or that Boro contract. Puempel got a long look.

No, the biggest knocks against Cameron are moving Hoffman up and down the lineup, the Chris Wideman stuff, and this past week’s lineup. If his minutes are still top six forward minutes, I don’t mind moving Hoff around so much. He’s been one of Ottawa’s best this year, he’s a spark plug, he creates, he scores a lot, and he helps balance scoring. For this team to be successful they need more than one line going and Hoffman’s demonstrated he doesn’t need an adjustment period to click with various linemates. The Wideman stuff, from fans at least, was a bit much at the start of the season. Sure I’d rather have him in the lineup than either Cowen, Boro (or this season Ceci and Wiercioch) but I think it’s ok that a coach took a few games to decide if an NHL rookie deserved a full-time spot in the lineup. We’re not talking weeks or months, but a few games. Not ideal in the short term, but also not an international crisis. As for this week, yep, Cameron’s made some bad decisions, though resorting to grit and toughness game plans centering on players like Boro and Smith is a pretty conservative coaching move in some respects. Playing a player out of position when you realize something is out of whack and you’re getting outshot by a considerable margin may seem creative, but it’s not. Relying on guys with conservative games when things get tough is not exactly a unique solution in the NHL and is the type of strategizing I think many NHL coaches resort to.

This is not a creative league and those in coaching and management generally punish or at least don’t lend their full backing, to the creative (see Hoffman). Unfortunately, to solve what truly ails this team (incredibly crap defense and the loss of Mac and Michalek), coming up with a creative solution is necessary.

That such a solution hasn’t presented itself from a coaching stand point isn’t surprising. Our defense is a hydra, if you bench Cowen you still have to play three struggling blueliners. If Hoffman plays on the first line, then you still have a hole on the second. If you move Smith around, then your surprisingly effective fourth line is weakened.

While many among us now actively wish for a coaching change, a recent, cautionary tale out of Pittsburgh should give us pause. Penguins GM Jim Rutherford fired Coach Mike Johnson over the weekend as a result of the Pens season-long struggles. However, even Rutherford had to admit, he shared some of the blame for not assembling a better defense group. Dave Cameron’s in a similar position. It seems highly unlikely he’ll be fired if the Sens hover around a playoff spot, but if he does become the fall guy, it will make little difference. Most of his decisions are decisions most NHL coaches make and coaches still can’t bolster the blueline or add scoring depth.

(Content warning: 12&13 discuss Patrick Kane, domestic violence and sexual assault)

1. Matt Puempel was sent down today and joined the BSens. It’s hard to say that it was a move necessary to get Puempel additional playing time as he’s been consistently in the lineup and played decent minutes. It makes more sense that he was sent down because he hasn’t done much when in the lineup. Maybe Ottawa wants to bring up another winger from Bingo or something or get a different look at someone else. It’s clear that Puempel hasn’t made the most of his opportunities.
2. Why was Puempel a fixture in the lineup for so long if he wasn’t exactly noticeable? He’s essentially hipster Curtis Lazar. Puempel’s smiley, plays a two-way game, is responsible on the ice, and has been given leadership responsibilities in rookie tournaments and pre-season. The essence of coachable. Oh, and a first rounder too.
3. It’s not that I think Shane Prince isn’t coachable, but it’s not a stretch to suggest the organization isn’t enamored with him (that rumoured trade request out of Bingo probably doesn’t help). Think some of it is just style of play though. Last season Mark Stone was a darling and Mike Hoffman was inexplicably dropped down the lineup. The rational was Hoffman’s defensive awareness or lack of it and the preference for the two-way Stone suggests there are some rookies Dave Cameron and co are more comfortable playing.
4. Now, I don’t think there’s anything in Prince’s game to suggest he shouldn’t be playing and he’s at least been better than 25, 15, 90, and 27 when he’s been in the lineup. Prince even made the fourth line look good when he played with them. He’s absolutely someone who can help this team and with the various top-6 vacancies (McArthur, Stone, and Hoffman) is someone who can actually keep up as part of the top 6. However, he’s an offense-first type of player and given his inexperience at the NHL level, I’m not shocked he’s been kept out of the lineup. I think it’s the wrong move, but think that’s what’s going on here. Cameron has questions about his defensive game so he sits.
5. Craig Anderson needed to be better. And he is. Andy is a zone right now and that’s a good thing because Ottawa’s defense is still porous.
6. Excited to watch Ottawa play the Stars this week. I still have some questions about Dallas, but watching that high-powered offense play Ottawa’s defense should be…interesting. Good thing Andy is playing better.
7. Mike Kotska was called up after the unfortunate injury to Patrick Wiercioch. I don’t follow the BSens closely so what follows might be complete crap, but it seems like the right move regardless of whether he plays or sits in the press box. He’s a vet with ample NHL experience for a call-up (70 games) and he’s used to splitting time between the AHL, NHL, and press box. His development isn’t going to be harmed if he sits out a few weeks and it’s hard to imagine he’d produce worse results than some of the combos the Sens have put out there this season.
8. It’s got to sting if you’re Freddie Claesson though. He’s been in Bingo for a while now (it’s his fourth season with the BSens) without a sniff of NHL action. He’s a left-shooting defenseman and the Sens, like most teams, have a glut of those. He doesn’t have the offensive upside of guys like Wideman or Wiercioch or the size of someone like Cowen. He feels like someone who’s not really in the organization’s long term plans.
9. Ottawa’s fourth line had a really good game against Columbus. However, Ottawa’s bottom 6 hasn’t been as good this season as they were to finish the season in 14-15. There’s only so much you can do with that fourth line that must include Chris Neil and Zack Smith. Where it’s really hurting is on the third line. I think Michalek is having a decent year, but Pageau has slowed from his start and Curtis Lazar is still young I guess. During the run last season, Ottawa was a great three-line team and they need to get back to that.
10. Jared Cowen physically contained a slumping Voracek last night with a couple big hits which is an achievement for Cowen. But it reminded me of a lot of other “Cowen back in the lineup” games. Remember when he came back from injury against Carolina, had a big hit on Jeff Skinner and a fight? He makes a big physical statement then the physicality just sort of goes away, he doesn’t use his size effectively in his own end, and just reminds you of the old Cowen pretty quickly. It’s because Cowen doesn’t get so much of what’s going on around him and rejects the valid criticisms of his game. It’s an adrenaline rush, not an actual adjustment.
11. Don’t love Garry Galley in the booth. He celebrates a lot of things about hockey I don’t like. He was big on praising Cowen last night but failed to emphasize miscues like giveaways and failed zone exits. That’s not a criticism specific to Galley, lots of analysts don’t notice or comment on this stuff in real time. I get that it’s hard, but it’s also their job and just leads to more interesting and useful analysis.
12. Speaking of commentators, Nick Kypreos made some pretty offensive comments regarding Patrick Kane during Saturday night’s Chicago-Vancouver game. Kypreos was referring to Kane’s offensive totals this season when he said Kane “wants to shove it down peoples’ throats”. It’s a totally inappropriate phrase given the rape investigation surrounding Kane to start the season but it highlights larger issues in the hockey broadcasting community. For starters, those who go on TV to discuss NHL hockey on regional or national networks need more training for how to discuss topics such as domestic violence and sexual assault professionally and respectfully. Unfortunately, such incidents aren’t going away and it’s thankfully getting harder and harder for mainstream media to just ignore these cases. Do your job and do it better.
13. But it also illustrates what too many in the broadcasting community believe: that assault victims lie and the true victim is Kane in this specific case. I’m sure networks like Sportsnet are telling their employees not to discuss certain things about Kane’s rape investigation. But if employees like Kypreos really believed domestic violence and sexual assault are serious crimes and that victims (not just perpetrators) need to be treated fairly, they’d take steps to ensure they talk about assault and rape investigations differently. If they really stood with victims, with women, the unscripted parts of Hockey Night in Canada or weekly intermission panels wouldn’t refer to Kane shoving anything, they wouldn’t use language that suggests consent is optional. They wouldn’t use chicken shit terms like “incident” to describe violence and rape or talk about players like Kane overcoming “adversity”. But that’s what they do. If TV’s hockey experts didn’t think all women were liars, they wouldn’t frame excellence on ice as proof of Kane’s innocence off ice. But that’s what they do and that’s what Kypreos did last night. It matters not to pundits like Kypreos that Kane was on pace to win the Art Ross last season before his injury; that he’s contending to do so this year justifies all of Kane’s actions, Chicago’s gross incompetence and revolting behaviour, and the league’s continued negligence.

So you say you want a top-4 defenseman (or *gasp* two)? Cool. This makes a lot of sense. Ottawa’s sieve-like blueline has been a problem for a few years now (really since Zdeno Chara left, but who’s counting). The pairing of Jared Cowen and Mark Borowiecki have been predictably among the worst pairings in the league and unfortunately Cody Ceci and Patrick Wiercioch have modelled their current play on the example of 2 and 74. Don’t pine for Eric Gryba, if he was still here we’d be talking about having five defensemen who should be healthy scratches (an embarrassment of riches!). Even Erik Karlsson and Marc Methot haven’t hit their stride yet. Boro looks better playing on his natural side with Chris Wideman, who’s been decent, but this is more like that moment at the end of Titanic when Rose climbs on that door but Jack, despite his significant experience as a carefree outdoorsy American, somehow forgets that timeless lesson of how to climb on a dock with another person at the same time. Now one problem pairing is being kept afloat, but the water is still rising on another.

We don’t need more life jackets, we need some lifeboats (or not to hit the iceberg in the first place but you know). I’m not really one for trade speculation. I’m not into prospects for much the same reason. I’ll talk about them from time to time, but those things are beyond my control and not the most productive use of my time (but if you’re into it, cool, and Trevor at S7 had some potential targets). Still, this problem has lingered for so long that it’s now a common topic of discussion between me and industry experts (it’s Luke, I talk to Luke about this a lot). I’m all for trading for a top-6 forward if it improves on our current top-6, I’m a fan of the ‘improving the team is improving the team’ school of thought, though I’d still prefer this improvement happens on defense first.

The thing is, it’s going to cost a lot to get the necessary improvement. There are lots of teams looking for top-4 defensemen and few teams with a surplus of quality blueliners (maybe St. Louis, Calgary and Anaheim have suggested they’re willing to deal). Yes, there are still holdouts like Boston who don’t seem to think quality defensemen are something you want to stockpile, but generally, the league is starting to value these guys a lot more, both in terms of salary and trade value.

My point is, if your hypothetical trade packages hinges on Curtis Lazar being bankable, Jared Cowen’s involvement, or a depth player like Zack Smith, it’s not likely to fly. Maybe Cody Ceci and PW are appealing to another team, but neither player is going to get Ottawa a top-4 defenseman. Everyone’s forgotten about Colin Greening. Picks are an option, but given how the Sens misjudged their playoff chances after the Bobby Ryan trade, not sure they go this route. Shane Prince might be interesting as part of a larger deal, but it’s a reach to suggest a top-4 player for him. It’s hard to imagine another GM getting excited about Matt Puempel or most if not all the players, currently in Bingo. It’s not that they’re all bad (though that Bingo blueline is thin), it’s that other organizations are full of similar players/prospects. Nobody’s as high on Freddie Claesson and Tobias Lindberg as the Sens organization, that’s how these things go.

It’s going to take Mike Hoffman. I mean, maybe not Mike Hoffman, it could be Mika Zibanejad or Mark Stone (but not really because he is locked up for another two years on an affordable deal, the organization understandably loves him, and he’s a golden god), but it’s going to be a player who already has some decent NHL numbers, is youngish, and still has potential upside. So, no, not Milan Michalek. Hoffman makes the most sense because the organization, for whatever ill-conceived reason, doesn’t seem to value him as much as those other guys. Hoffman’s good, generates offense, has a terrific shot, and has a cheap deal that can easily fit into a lot of budgets, even at this point in the season (seriously, $2 million). He’s not the perfect option as he’s not locked up beyond this season but that’s not a huge problem as he’s still an RFA at the end of the year. He’s not a player you want to lose if you’re the Sens, but it’s probably going to cost a lot to sign him to his next deal and the blueline situation is critical.

If you don’t want to give up a player of value like Hoffman, trade with Colorado I guess. Joe Sakic and Patrick Roy are real winners.

1. Big news today is Mark Stone’s suspension. I was ok with the phone hearing and ok with the two games. Am I happy about losing Stone for two? Nope, he’s leading the Sens in scoring, is terrific to watch, and one of my favourite players. Ottawa’s better with him in the lineup. Do I think it was an attempt to go for the puck that was awkward more than anything else? Sure. Do I think the hit was intentionally targeting the head? No, but I also don’t really think that matters. Sometimes intent seems clear, but often it’s hard to judge what a player’s thinking, so remove that from the equation. What it comes down to for me is Landon Ferraro got hit in the head, Stone was responsible, admitted as much publicly, and there are consequences. The NHL’s frightening lack of consistency on matters of discipline is irritating but consistency has to start somewhere and Stone’s hit is as good a place as any to start.
2. Stone’s a clean player and doesn’t have a history of these hits and some argued that a fine should have sufficed. But I’m ok with suspending players for first offenses and for harsher penalties in general when it comes to NHL discipline. In real life, I appreciate more nuance and think things like mandatory minimums are crap. But the NHL isn’t real life. Fines don’t get the job done. Maybe we should spend less time worrying about whether a player or individual play is clean or dirty. It seems a bit counterproductive.
3. What about Henrik Zetterberg’s leaping elbow to the face of Jean-Gabriel Pageau? Well, yeah, I would have given him like 10 games for that (I would have given Stone more too; I’m draconian when it comes to safety), but I’m not Director of Player Safety (I could sure use the money though). Player Safety was wrong about Zetterberg and their explanation was inadequate. I suspect there are a variety of factors that contributed to this: Zetterberg’s star power, Pageau’s less than star power (how can they not know about the Pageau chant?!) and probably most significantly, Pageau wasn’t injured (thankfully). The NHL responds to the severity of the injury and while I think that’s not the most impactful way to eliminate dangerous play, it’s what they do. The Zetterberg case is unfortunate, but doesn’t change things for Stone. If you’re being honest about your desire for consistency, than you want that Stone hit punished even with the knowledge Zetterberg got away with something more flagrantly against NHL rules. Ultimately, that’s how you get to a league that would actually suspend for both infractions (also, hire less former players to do these decision-making jobs, but that’s not going to change anytime soon).
4. Two reactions from two fanbases on hearing the Stone suspension news were disappointing: Ottawa fans upset that Stone was suspended only because he’s a Senator and Montreal fans suggesting this is karmic justice for P.K. Subban getting suspended for breaking Stone’s wrist. Worst.
5. I would like to see more follow-up when teams and players break concussion protocol. Ferraro went down hard (rightly so) and was slow to get off the ice. He went to the dressing room as per concussion protocols to be evaluated (so far, so good). But he was back on the bench and playing in a few minutes. I’m not suggesting Ferraro was trying to trick the refs into punishing Stone (he wasn’t) and I don’t think he’s guilty of anything more than being an eager young player trying to do everything to secure his place in an NHL lineup. I just hope he really is ok, because if he’s not, it’s another instance of players, and more so the medical staff charged with caring for them, failing to protect their patients.
6. Detroit isn’t especially duplicitous in this either. Every team fails in this department. For an Ottawa example, look no further than Clarke MacArthur. He’s currently on the sidelines recovering from his third concussion in 8 months. I’m not a medical doctor nor am I privy to all the details of each incident and his recovery process, but it’s concerning. I don’t know if he was fully recovered when he returned to the Sens lineup late in the season for Ottawa’s playoff push and first round series against Montreal in the spring. I don’t know if his training camp concussion was handled properly in September and if it’s just an awful coincidence he was out with the same type of injury a few weeks later, but it’s certainly possible. I hope the Sens and MacArthur are taking the long view this time and are concerned more with his wellbeing for the rest of his career and post-playing days.
7. Andrew Hammond has only played two games and is coming off injury so I don’t really have any opinions on his play so far. He looked bad in his debut, he looked good in his follow-up. I don’t love his new mask. Intermission panels can stop asking if he can live up to a mark literally no other goalie achieved anytime though, that would be nice.
8. Craig Anderson has had the bulk of the starts. That’s good, that’s the way it should be and it’s nice to not have a goalie controversy. We have a clear starter and I’m comfortable with Anderson in that role.
9. He’s looked terrific in a few games and has been lit up in a couple others. In the games he’s let in 4+ he hasn’t exactly been supported by his porous and mystifying blueline. Still, there’s room for improvement with Andy.
10. I cannot get worked up about line combos in practice and before games anymore. I get it, things aren’t optimal, but this doesn’t seem like the best use of my rage.
11. Absolutely tired of discussing Jared Cowen and Mark Borowiecki. I get that this is the main topic of conversation for Sens fans right now, and whatever, have at it, I guess, but I’m out. It’s boring and tedious and no matter how many words I write about it, it isn’t likely to change Bryan Murray’s or Dave Cameron’s mind. So, I haven’t written about either player in a while and it’s likely to stay that way. I might get frustrated about their play during a game, I just can’t be bothered to debate it endlessly each day of the week. The topic is so tired, it’s almost a matter of consensus: they’re bad, we’d be better with other internal options, we should have made a trade. For me, it’s simply not interesting to talk about this anymore
12. I will say that I think each of Ottawa’s regular defensemen can be better.
13. Cody Ceci’s game is a bit different so far this season. He’s definitely more willing to not only join the rush, but lead it with speed through the neutral zone and into the other team’s end. This led to a Ceci goal against Arizona on a rush with Bobby Ryan. It might be the sign of a young player more comfortable in the NHL or with his role on the team, but it will be interesting to see if his game continues to grow in this area given his offensive flare with the 67’s and B-Sens.
14. Erik Karlsson hasn’t scored. He will.
15. Digging a bit further, Ottawa’s powerplay is struggling and EK hasn’t managed a PP goal yet. I have no doubt that he’ll pot a half dozen goals on the powerplay by time the season’s finished, but as it stands currently, he hasn’t. The Sens have been fairly good (especially the first unit) at building pressure but don’t have much to show for it yet. If you’ve been watching at home, you’ve no doubt seen a few clip sequences of EK not being able to get his shot through all the bodies in front of the net, EK having a shot blocked, and EK not being able to find a lane. Here’s the thing: one of Karlsson’s most underrated skills is his ability to get his slapshot and his wrist shot through traffic. The shots and goals will come.
16. That said, maybe a change on the powerplay isn’t the worst idea. Karlsson regularly can and does play the full two minutes with the advantage. There’s a few reasons for this (Cameron wanting to roll four forwards, no other overly offensive defensemen, EK is amazing etc.) and while it might be the best option for the powerplay, I’m not sure it’s the best option for even-strength play. Given the team’s depth issues, I’d rather have EK play more at even strength.
17. I also think, despite his struggles so far this season, that Patrick Wiercioch is capable of running the second unit. It’s not a move designed to break him out of his funk or whatever, but his strength is his passing ability/distribution and that’s what you need from your PP quarterback. Wouldn’t mind seeing Ceci here too. What’s the harm in keeping the pairing together on the PP?
18. Part of this is I’ve always hated the forward playing the point (or playing along the point/along the boards) on the PP. It’s not that defenders don’t get burned or make poor decisions that lead to odd-man rushes, they do, it just feels like this is something defending teams try to exploit when there’s a forward back there. The Sens might be ok if it’s Turris as the forward back there, but the first unit tends to oscillate between Turris and Ryan, with Karlsson as the fulcrum. When Turris is in an advanced position, it means Ryan is on the point. I’m less confident in Ryan’s defensive play and speed. The shorthanded team is more willing to challenge that forward. It’s entirely possible this is confirmation bias on my part. Still, not having a forward back there gives Cameron a chance to add some more skill to the second unit.
19. I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised by Milan Michalek of late. He seems to have his legs back and has found a home on the third line. He’s chipping in offensively and is spending a lot of time near the opposition net. He’s picking up penalty killing duties too. With all the Ottawa penalty issues the last few games he’s logged a lot of minutes recently and I do have questions about whether he can sustain it, but basically, he’s been a good third liner so far. But what about his contract? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s bad and not what you want to pay a third liner. But right now he’s not going anywhere and I’d rather him find a niche and contribute.
20. A lot of people felt like this would be Mika Zibanejad’s breakout year. There’s still plenty of time for that, but right now Kyle Turris and Pageau are doing more to get noticed. Turris’ hot start seems to be ending the silly “Is he really a number one centre, tho?” conversations. He’s getting noticed as a really good two-way centre on his own merits by more people around the league. Before the season started I had a chat with a fellow WTYKY member about whether Turris could hit 75+ this season. He was of the opinion it was too much of a jump, I thought it would be a lot, but doable, especially if he played with Stone all year (to be fair, I hedged a little too). I don’t think either of us expected a start like this (7G, 5A, 12P in 11G). When they’re all in the lineup, Turris-Hoffman-Stone look like one of the most dangerous lines in the league. Now, I don’t expect him to keep up this goal scoring pace all season; his shooting percentage is currently over 23% well above his career average of 10.7%. However, I do think Mark Stone will start scoring more and Turris will factor into that.
21. Pageau keeps getting better and better. We wondered how much Erik Condra stirred the drink on Ottawa’s excellent third line of Pageau, Condra and Curtis Lazar and while Condra’s departure hurts, Pageau seems like he’s taking another step forward this season. Ottawa’s had some great third line centres over the years and guys like Antoine Vermette and Chris Kelly really defined the role in Ottawa. Pageau’s taken a page from their books combining speed, enthusiastic forechecking, and strong defensive play to be a threat at both ends of the ice and on the penalty kill as well. He’s already got three goals, including one shorthanded and it would be great if he can keep building on that. A third line Dave Cameron can feel comfortable rolling out there is essential if this team is going to make the playoffs.
22. So what’s up with Mika Zibanejad anyway? There’s still plenty of time for his season to get rolling, but through the ten game mark things have looked a little shaky. The point totals are fine (2G, 6A, 8P, 11GP) but the advanced stats aren’t kind to him right now. Some of this is due to who’s on his wing and he’s really missed the speed of Mike Hoffman. He also seems hesitant (for some reason) to drive through the middle of the ice using his speed and size (both the neutral zone and his centre lane). I’d like to see him have at least one speedy winger (Hoffman most obviously, but maybe Shane Prince?) to work with in addition Bobby Ryan. I think Mika and Ryan can work as linemates, but if Cameron is going to do that, he needs to give Zibanejad some help stirring the drink.
23. Chris Neil looks better than he has in a few years. Like Michalek, I have questions about whether he can keep up this play all season and with everyone fit I’d still rather see someone else in his spot. That said, it’s a marked improvement from last year and the season before. It’s also helpful for him to have some jump if there’s any possibility he’ll be moved at the deadline (I’m holding out hope).
24. However, penalties remain an issue with him. He’s got 37 minutes already and while there’s misconducts and a fight mixed in, he’s taken 6 minor penalties so far and that’s too many in 11 games. It’s a liability and it’s hurting the team because the Sens only have one reliable PK defensive unit. Adding to the problem is linemate Zack Smith, who also has 6 minors (including 2 costly penalties against Detroit). This needs to change.
25. It’s not just fourth liners spending too much time in the box. Erik Karlsson has 6 minors so far (perhaps the best example that he’s not yet at midseason form, aside from the fact that it’s the start of November), Patrick Wiercioch, Alex Chiasson, and Mark Stone all have 5 minors. Ottawa needs some discipline. It’s not just as simple as discipline issues. Ottawa’s porous blueline means the team spends too much time defending and getting trapped in its own end. The result is an increase in minors.
26. Shane Prince. Like what I’ve seen so far from him. He’s chipped in despite the limited role (playing primarily with the fourth line). We got a chance to see him in the top-6 the last couple of games and I think we’ll see more out of him if he stays there. Given that Mac and Stone are both out of the lineup currently, seems like that’ll be the case.
27. Alex Chiasson is playing like someone who listened to his coach’s concerns, but it’s just not paying off so far. He’s trying to use his speed and size more and while he’s had some jump on a line with Milan Michalek and Jean-Gabriel Pageau and is a better option in front of the net than Chris Neil on the PP (not that this is saying much), the results haven’t come so far. He has just one goal and one assist in 11 games and the penalty minutes are accumulating (10 PIM). If I had to guess, he’s the most likely candidate to come out of the lineup if Dave Cameron changes things up.
28. The news that Mike Hoffman and Curtis Lazar are ready to return doesn’t exactly mean Matt Puempel and Max McCormick are headed back to Bingo (especially with the Stone suspension). Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m probably wrong, I don’t pay as that much attention to roster moves), but the Senators started the season with 22 players. Add to that the fact that Clarke MacArthur is still dealing with a concussion and both players might stay up since there’s room. There’s probably a procedure since both were emergency call-ups (I think?) but the point is, there’s room for an extra body once everyone’s in the lineup.
29. Given a choice between McCormick and Puempel, it seems Puempel is the clear choice. He’s chipped in a goal in his three games this season, had an extended look with the team last year, and Cameron has shown a willingness to move him up and down the lineup, sometimes pencilling him in on the second line, sometimes third, with some penalty killing duties. McCormick had a goal correctly called off against Detroit and hasn’t been bad or anything, just less noticeable. Part of that is playing on the fourth line but that’s also a result of not being as trusted as Puempel.
30. Daniel Alfredsson. When former players return to take front office jobs, their responsibilities are often nebulous or poorly defined (to the public anyway). Alfie’s back in the fold and while I’m still not clear exactly what his job entails, he’s not shying away from the hands on stuff. He was on the ice with the injured Curtis Lazar last week, talking and instructing. On a team that still has a lot of young players, it’s nice to have that kind of experience available. Hoping Chris Phillips can find a similar role with the Sens when he officially hangs them up.

According to one local sports writer, Erik Karlsson is tired. Tired because of his overall conditioning and his performance has suffered because he didn’t trained hard enough in the off-season or something. Sprinkle in a little “local boy looks primed and ready for bigger role because he worked hard over the summer” and you have a fairly standard, and at this point, expected hit piece from local sports media on Ottawa’s star player.

Karlsson shouldn’t feel alone in this treatment. Pittsburgh’s new sniper, Phil Kessel, having made his escape from the hellscape that is Leafs media this summer, was reminded last night that he has only achieve freedom in a physical sense, as the Toronto media still salivates whenever they glimpse him. No stranger to questions about his fitness, Kessel was held scoreless but had the last laugh, with his team securing the victory and a teammate’s hot dog themed Halloween costume.

Kessel and Karlsson are not the first nor the last elite players to be subject to the wrath of reporters and media types. It’s become one of the many customs of today’s NHL. Younger, creative, offensive players face a different kind of scrutiny. This is where the tiredness lies, not in strained hypotheticals about a player’s off-ice training that stretch credibility, but in the predictable, calculated, and clichéd writing and analysis which still dominates most of the popular channels. Lacking depth and insight, this type of writing is the equivalent of the Kerr’s molasses kisses candies in your kids trick or treating haul.

The fitness we need to question isn’t on the ice but instead the pages of the local papers. While it’s easy for fans to see the dubious nature of criticizing Karlsson’s training or Kessel’s alleged eating habits, the same goes for the local media. Sens fans seem mystified that local media shouldn’t be eviscerated because of their appearance. It fucking pisses me off whenever a new screen shot of Ottawa beat reporters circulates on twitter mocking the reporter’s weight, hair, or general attractiveness. Seriously, what the fuck? Why do you think this is ok? Why do you think it’s funny? It’s not. It’s Ottawa Sun-level antics. These are hockey writers who should be evaluated on hockey writing.

When I say fitness, I don’t mean health.

When I say fitness, I’m talking about writers who are up to the job of writing in today’s analytics and social media world of sports. There are a handful of reporters and writers who cover this team professionally, who take in every home game and practice, follow this team on the road, and deal with the deadlines of sports journalism. Some do their job quite well, others do not. Simply having done the job for many years does not mean you are fit to do so. Simply acting as a mouth piece for the organization does not mean your work should hold any weight with readers. Simply liking a rugged, physical style of hockey doesn’t mean your analysis is correct and will sway readers.

There are quality hockey writers out there, producing quality hockey writing. Let’s read and support them.

After two games Ottawa has two wins over division opponents ahead of tonight’s home opener against the Canadiens. There’s a lot to be thankful for on this holiday weekend but there’s also a few things to talk about. I have some thoughts that are by no means comprehensive (admittedly I was drawing during both games) but are worth a mention. Opinions on why the Turris-Stone-Hoffman line should only be used as a last resort, why the way the second line has looked means Ryan and MacArthur both need to be in and stay in the top six, and why Curtis Lazar isn’t ready for an increased role yet, but to simplify things, this will be about Patrick Wiercioch.

As much as Wiercioch’s play and Cameron’s faith in him have seemed to resolve the issue of whether he should be in the lineup (he obviously should and not just because of the Senators other options), with regular playing time comes increased scrutiny. Cameron elected to go with Wiercioch’s partner Cody Ceci on the second powerplay unit with Erik Karlsson in the third against Toronto (EK was on the point with a combo of Turris/Ryan on the first unit) and with Ceci as the second defenseman for 3-on-3 overtime. Ceci’s skating ability makes sense for the fast pace of OT (Methot too), but the powerplay time is more interesting. In the season opener, Ray Ferraro talked for some time about Wiercioch running a powerplay during his career and PW’s proven to be a good possession player, so why wasn’t he on the powerplay in the third?

I don’t think one period in the second game of the season is indicative of a larger trend or a sign that Dave Cameron has somehow lost faith in PW. More than most coaches, I get the sense that Cameron connects these mini demotions with actual coaching and development unlike some of his contemporaries who make quizzical decisions that seem vindictive or committed to various antiquated ideas in the game (the code, deferential to veterans, styles of play etc.).

If I had to guess what was problematic about PW’s game last night I would say it was his soft play. Calling PW soft isn’t meant to suggest that he should play a hard, physical game like Jared Cowen tries to play or hit like Mark Borowiecki. Rather, Wiercioch is a kind of defenseman increasingly valued in the game: one who facilitates possession and transition while having the passing skills to excel in a more fluid understanding of offense and defense. PW doesn’t need to hit, but he needs to play harder. By any definition, EK is a small man in the NHL, but his size doesn’t mean he’s easy to play against. He’s deft at using his stick; in lanes but also as part of a checking repertoire that leads to turnovers. Moreover, he’s able to absorb contact while maintaining possession of the puck. He also uses natural gifts like his speed and vision to keep the puck away from opponents and generate offensive opportunities. PW doesn’t skate like Karlsson (few do) but he does have some natural advantages he’s not using right now and that was on display against the Leafs. On the Leafs first goal, PW was hit behind Ottawa’s net and turned the puck over in front of his own net. He wasn’t the only player who deserved blame on that goal but he was part of the problem. There were also a few examples in the first two periods of PW turning the puck over. Turnovers happen and they’re not the end of the world and just part of the business of generating offensive in the NHL. But I think turnovers bother coaches more when they’re not part of something creative, or taking a risk to generate offensive, but when they’re the result of soft play. Wiercioch is 6’5” and while he’s a wiry 200 pounds, his size does give him leverage which he wasn’t using when the puck got taken away from him a few times with little more than a stick check. Focusing on this isn’t focusing on the negative, Wiercioch’s skills are fairly well documented at this point. But drawing attention to the holes in his game makes sense if you want him to take the next step.

He doesn’t need to be Scott Stevens, but he needs to be harder to beat in 1-on-1 battles when he’s in possession of the puck.

Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for reading!

(Content warning: post and links discuss harassment, assault, sexual assault, rape, murder, domestic violence, and sexism)

For as long as I can remember, there was just one answer: Bobby Orr’s defense partner.

Like most little kids, I wondered what my parents had wanted to be when they grew up. My mom repeated over and over that she wanted to be Bobby Orr’s partner. Not Bobby Orr, the superstar, but simply to play the game she loved in the presence of greatness. Now as an adult who eagerly anticipates every Erik Karlsson shift, I have a better understanding of that desire.

My mom never played organized hockey of course. Born in the late-50s, she played road hockey but was of an era of girls who were forever on the sidelines when the teams started keeping score and using real equipment. Not only was organized hockey too expensive for my grandparents, a little girl playing minor hockey with the boys was unthinkable in the small town and time she grew up in.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve always loved hockey, just like my mom. For as long as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to play hockey, just like my mom. I accepted that I couldn’t because there were no girls’ leagues anywhere near my hometown. In fact, as a little girl, I had never seen women’s hockey. The inaugural world championship was held when I was six years old and again two years later, but we had limited TV options and it wasn’t exactly on anyone’s radar. Girls weren’t in commercials about hockey and my love of the game was deemed unusual by more than one elementary school teacher and by many of my classmates.

When I was nine, the region got its first girls minor hockey league and my parents signed me up.

It was glorious.

But it wasn’t easy. Less than 300 girls played in that first season and several municipalities around the region were at best skeptical of the possibility of success and at worst actively contributed to its failure. In the local paper some openly questioned what we were trying to achieve. Women would never make the NHL or earn a living from hockey so what was the point of trying? As if potential millions or a chance at stardom were the only reasons to play or as if Manon Rhéaume hadn’t just played a preseason game for Tampa Bay. What they meant, and some actually said, was why are we wasting even a small amount of resources on girls’ hockey if it’s not going to lead to significant male achievement. I’m sure there were girls who wanted to play whose parents felt the same way. We were on the fringes.

Ice time was hard to come by as towns, boys’ leagues, and men’s leagues refused to share the ice or offer times appropriate for children. They argued that they should receive preference because they had seniority. And they had a point, the boys’ league in my hometown had been running and using rinks in town since the mid-50s and men’s beer leagues were common. But to use that as part of their attack required these men to ignore the systemic issues which prevented girls from playing and organizing for decades. As I look back as an adult more than 20 years later, I find myself even less sympathetic to their concerns. Men’s leagues who refused to give up post-dinner playing slots and municipalities who bowed to their wishes resulted in eight-year-olds playing well into the night. The preferential treatment they received would have been fine if those towns consisted solely of adult men, but they didn’t and still don’t.

We live in society with one another. Ideally, this means we consider how our actions and needs impact others. When I’ve played sports as an adult, I understood the late night time lots. As an adult I was able to make it to games on my own and didn’t need supervision. Yes, there are constraints on adults’ time too, but there are only so many hours in a day and so many sheets of ice available. Equitable solutions aren’t without some sacrifice. Children, so often seen as a burden and inconvenience by society deserve the same considerations as the adults who pay the bills.

The resistance to sharing arena space was about sexism, plain and simple. Couched in arguments about fairness and loyalty, men who saw hockey as their past time and theirs exclusively, did what they could to make girls know they weren’t wanted. There were occasions when men’s league teams found out a group of girls would be using the same dressing room after them and they made their feelings known. On many occasions we entered dressing rooms soaked in alcohol, or with urine all over the floor and benches, or with waste smeared on the walls. More than once with all three. We were jokingly told to “enjoy the room” when this happened. At the junction of arena corridors and dressing room doors, sometimes our two different groups would intersect. Lewd comments, explicit gestures, and mocking laughter were common greetings. This didn’t happen at every game and every practice but it wouldn’t have happened at all if we’d been more like them.

It didn’t last, but we did.

These things just seemed normal about playing hockey, but quickly we experienced them less and less. There were a few reasons for the change. Our numbers kept growing. More and more girls signed up to play and loved it. Our little sisters joined us. Our towns got used to us. Women’s hockey got a boost of both visibility and credibility in the mid-90s when the IOC announced women would play for gold in Nagano in 1998. Scholarships to colleges and universities followed. What seemed destined for failure in the early 90s was a sure thing several seasons later.

In a few short years, girls’ hockey became naturalized.

For a long time, hockey had been a defining feature of Canadian boyhood. Hockey’s cultural centrality in Canada still remains, but now reflects the experience of being any child in this country. The connections between Canadian identity and hockey can be problematic and still exclude some but it’s been opened to a lot more kids in the two decades since I started playing. It’s much harder to ignore young female fans now; however, to know that there have always been girls who have liked hockey, I need only ask my mom. Girls are featured in commercials about hockey, as part of the introductions on HNIC, and stand with NHL players on the ice before the anthems. We see them on Hockey Day in Canada broadcasts. There are still challenges facing girls who want to play hockey and yes, some are gendered. Others are issues of discrimination also faced by boys, like the economic cost of playing the organized game. But there are clearly defined roles for girls in hockey and these roles include playing the game and watching as a fan.

But what happens when those girls become women?

We’ve had a few generations of girls who have grown up playing hockey, cheering for female hockey stars, and advancing their careers by playing in college. The game continues to grow among girls and women. In Canada, female registration in minor and rec hockey has grown almost 1000% since the 1990-91 season, about the same time I started playing. Even after the 90s onslaught of new teams and leagues, female registration still increased 59% between 2001-02 and 2012-13. And yet mainstream hockey culture still actively discourages female fandom and resists cultivating spaces of inclusion.

The reasons are many. For starters, it’s a matter of representation. There are still not enough female sports reporters and women in sports broadcasting fewer still. Privileging male experience and frequent and extreme harassment of women in sports media contributes to keeping women out. Hockey’s contempt for women is seen in the NHL’s (and minor and junior leagues) atrocious handling of issues of violence against women and sexual assault. It’s illustrated plainly in hockey marketing and media.
Many men who love hockey hate what they perceive as the intrusion of women into their domain.

We continue to brand fandom space as male. Male fans create “man caves,” male-only bastions of fandom that suggest sport is the sole purview of men. Perhaps most insidiously, these spaces imply that women are to be escaped from and that the place to do that is in sports fandom.

Hockey culture reinforces the centrality of men at the expense of women. Women exist on the fringes, the periphery, marginalized by the toxic masculinity that is pervasive in fan culture.

The fact that there have always been women who love hockey is frequently erased. The strides girls have made in hockey have not translated to greater visibility for women. The rise of women’s leagues like the CWHL and NWHL, which have led to an increase in online coverage of the women’s game, haven’t altered how these same networks cover issues impacting women in the larger hockey world. The rise in girls’ organized hockey has not corresponded with an increase in or diversified roles for women in the sport.

The girls who feature in TV ads, whose perspectives and love of the game are centered as children are pushed to the periphery of advertising as women. Beer commercials seen during hockey games show women in crowds or as sexual objects, but rarely as the focus of the ad. Gambling commercials depict men hanging out and joking with other men, as the sources of hockey expertise and the possessors of sports guts. Women are pushed to the fringes.

The most visible female labour in NHL hockey are the female-dominated ice girls/crews, which also represent the margins of employment in hockey. Ice girls aren’t valued as labour, and labour, both paid and unpaid, impacts the extent to which women can participate in the sport, both as players and fans. While both men and women do valuable, unpaid work every day, the division of this labour is still unequal. The demands of raising children and running a household impact our fandoms. Many women just want a break to watch the game too.

When hockey appears in a novel, on a TV show, or in movies it’s rarely about a woman playing or a women who are fans. This kind of representation continues to grow for girls but remains elusive for women. Women are often depicted as secondary characters, such as wives are girlfriends, without the same depth and agency afforded the male leads. A lot of the time, women are typically depicted as hockey moms. There’s nothing wrong with that role and women who volunteer their time to coach, as team moms, and to drive to every practice and game help keep minor hockey going. But the stereotype just doesn’t capture the many ways women enter hockey and the diversity of ways their love of hockey manifests. There are parents at the rink who behave in negative and detrimental ways, but hockey moms in particular are singled out and endlessly mocked as intense and crazy. Not only is this ableist, it plays into dated tropes of the hysterical woman. It also serves to marginalize both the contributions of women in hockey and also their love of the game. Women who love the game are crazy, men who love the game are passionate fans, so the belief goes. When female points of view are present and central in media like novels and movies, these works are derided and their importance minimized. Romance novels featuring hockey plots and players are dismissed in part because they disrupt the belief that the male gaze is the default perspective of hockey fans. Good romance novels are, at their core, explorations of consensual female sexual desire and are mocked, in part, because of this fact. Again, women are pushed to the perimeter.

Existing on the margins of a sport is dangerous. When that existence replicates the marginalization experienced in life more generally, it’s threatening, hazardous, and deadly.

Many male fans think discrimination in the game has decreased in recent years. To think discrimination is slowly leaving the game, one must ignore the gendered discrimination that’s rampant in the hockey played by boys and men. Many male fans see objections to the NHL’s handling of cases of domestic violence and sexual assault in its midst as abstractions and secondary concerns. Some refuse to acknowledge domestic violence and sexual assault at all. But violence and sexual assault are part of the lived experience of many women and many female hockey fans. Domestic violence and sexual assault are taking many women who love the game from us.

When I was a teenager there was one girl I played with for a few seasons in a row. She was an average player but an exceptional person. A positive force in the dressing room, she was always smiling and friendly. She volunteered at tournaments and was always at the rink. She continued playing in women’s leagues and added coaching to her volunteer commitments in adulthood. She mentored young girls and older women who were learning the game. We played hockey together and worked at the same store. We were friendly but didn’t hangout outside of those spheres and I lost touch with her when high school ended. She continued to live in the area, playing hockey and volunteering. Several years later her ex-boyfriend stalked and harassed her before murdering her. She was 27.

I want so much for her death to be an example of an extreme, but it’s not. It’s the tragic end of a straight line which begins in our society and our game with the erasure of women. The line is shorter than you think. That we resist seeing every day, common examples of sexism as examples of discrimination and as contributing factors to this violence helps perpetuate it and obscure solutions. She was unique in life and we are lesser for her loss but in death she joined a vast sisterhood of women terrorized by men.

When I think about what happened to her and some of the other girls – now women – that I played with, the violence they experienced from the men in their lives, it’s hard to draw a line separating the toxicity of hockey’s masculinity from that of the country’s. Hockey’s masculinity is synonymous with Canadian masculinity. Both versions of masculinity erase women and jeopardize their safety. It happens at our rinks and in our communities. The stereotypical good Canadian boy loved by Don Cherry and his cohorts, plays a physical game, through pain, adheres to an antiquated code designed to humiliate and eliminate difference, and above all, he is a character guy. But with shifting attitudes and the pervasiveness of social media, it’s getting harder and harder to hide the criminal, violent behaviour of hockey players.

They’re not all good guys. Some abuse, some assault, some rape. Virtually all the others stand with their teammates. Sometimes we characterize NHL and NHLPA inaction as silence on the issues facing women, as silence on violence against women and sexual assault. But inaction is anything but silence, inaction loudly proclaims that goals, wins, and television contracts are more important than women’s safety and women’s lives.

The issues hockey fans are now beginning to confront aren’t new but it’s the first time many male fans have received any pushback on attitudes and behaviours that harm women. Girls deserved space and a role in this game and hockey and its fans have adapted. That some men who refuse to make space for women have accepted girls because they want their daughters to have every opportunity seems likely. It’s not the respect girls deserve, but it has resulted in increased acceptance. That these same men can’t acknowledge women who love hockey is due at least in part to the changes that reality requires. It would require acknowledging women as people deserving of respect because they’re people and not because they are daughters, sisters, mothers, wives, girlfriends, sexual objects, or because they have a relationship of some kind with men. When girls started to organize, our leagues were peripheral parts of hockey culture and as a result we were subject to abuse. Until women’s experiences are recognized as central to hockey culture, they will continue to exist on the dangerous margins of the sport with serious consequences.

1. Sing Pageau’s name when he scores a goal
2. Make a donation to the arts and ensure the money leaves your bank account.
3. Watch a game at one of the many restaurants and bars of Sens Mile.
4. Come in hot at least once.
5. Go on the California or Florida road trip with the team.
6. Go to a costume party dressed as Cory Clouston.
7. Decorate for the playoffs.
8. Eat a burger before an Andrew Hammond start.
9. Work Radek Bonk’s name into conversation daily.
10. Make a homemade gladiator costume out of aluminum foil.
11. Take a 400 series bus to and from a home game. Make it a true Senators Daily Double and do it for a Leafs game.
12. Forget to attend a Spezza rally.
13. Stand by the door at the end of the day and fist bump all your co-workers as they leave like Chris Phillips.
14. Shout Alfie’s name when the game clock hits 11:11.
15. When you visit Montreal, sing out Pageau’s name just for fun.
16. Giggle awkwardly.
17. Live everyday like a Mark Stone celebration.
18. Mock all team slogans but secretly enjoy them.
19. Watch a game in a different city with Ottawa ex-pats.
20. Experience the joy that is exiting the largest parking lot in eastern Ontario after a game.
21. Watch a Battle of Ontario game at the ACC.
22. Drive to a playoff game at the CTC and enjoy how some fans have shown their support for the Sens by decorating the sound barriers and fencing in their backyards.
23. Spit water through the gap in your teeth like Chris Neil.
24. Paint your nails in team colours or better yet, go gold.
25. Watch Erik Karlsson live at least once in your life. Tell everyone else about it for the next 75 years.