Latest news with #MarkLazerus
New York Times
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Times
Stanley Cup Final predictions, NHL playoff format, officiating, 2026 Olympics and more
By Sean Gentille, Shayna Goldman, Jesse Granger, James Mirtle, Mark Lazerus and The Athletic NHL Staff No, it's not 2024. It might feel that way, however, as the Florida Panthers continue their quest to win a second straight championship on Wednesday night when they open a rematch of the Stanley Cup Final against the Edmonton Oilers. Advertisement A familiar matchup calls for something different, which is why we knew we had to go deeper, make this more interesting, more fun than just picking the winner and who will get the Conn Smythe Trophy — don't worry, we do that, too. Beyond that, we had The Athletic's NHL staff give their opinions on playoff officiating, the idea of changing the postseason format, the 2026 Milano Cortina Olympics and next year's Stanley Cup champion. Here are the results of the survey, with analysis and critique from senior writers Sean Gentille, James Mirtle and Mark Lazerus, analytics know-it-all Shayna Goldman and goaltending expert Jesse Granger. Let's get into it. Figures are rounded and some staff comments have been edited for length and clarity. Lazerus: A coin flip sounds just about right, though I still lean Florida based on the Sergei Bobrovsky vs. Stuart 'Box of Chocolates' Skinner. Also, if Darnell Nurse or Evan Bouchard try to break anyone's foot in the final, something tells me Florida will actually respond. This will be a very different series for Edmonton than the Western Conference final. Florida is mean, nasty, physical, tested and remarkably rested for a team entering its third straight Stanley Cup Final — everything Dallas wasn't. Gentille: I told myself at the start of all this that whichever team won the first-round matchup between Florida and Tampa Bay would make the final, and that I couldn't trust Skinner to hold up over the course of a full postseason. That all still checks out — but most of all, I'm done picking against the Panthers until they lose another series. They have to show that they can't do it. Granger: Tampa Bay looked like perhaps the most complete team in the league entering the playoffs, and the Panthers steamrolled them. Carolina was playing so well, I believed in the Hurricanes more than ever before heading into the Eastern Conference final, and Florida demolished them. Edmonton is a great team, but this Florida squad has made a habit of making great teams look bad. Advertisement Mirtle: All right, I'll admit it, I'm going Oilers in seven. Something about the way Edmonton has decimated three good teams in a row just says team of destiny to me this year. Or more like a player of destiny, given how focused and determined Connor McDavid looks. Goldman: I have picked against the Oilers every round and have been wrong, but … I still am picking against them here. I think the series goes seven again, and maybe in less dramatic fashion than last year. The Zach Hyman injury is what holds me back, despite McDavid hitting that next level in Round 3 that I think we were all waiting to see. Lazerus: Sam Bennett leads the postseason with 10 goals and influences the game as much as any player on the Panthers. Perhaps no individual player is a better fit for his team than Bennett and the Panthers. If he pops a game-winning goal or two in this series, we're all going to look pretty silly when he wins the Conn Smythe. (And some GM is going to look even sillier when he gives him a seven-year, $77 million contract.) Gentille: I went with Aleksander Barkov. That took some degree of projection, but he's the leading scorer on the team I think is going to win the series, and he's a name-brand guy who's already had a couple of major moments in the playoffs thus far, most recently in the third period of Florida's clincher against the Hurricanes. Granger: Bobrovsky leads all goalies with 40 playoff wins over the last three seasons. The next-closest is Jake Oettinger with 29. He also leads all goalies with 36.71 goals saved above expected over that span, more than 10 clear of the next goalie. If Florida wins, he should get his Conn Smythe to sit next to his two Vezina trophies. Mirtle: Leon Draisaitl feels low to me, given how close he's been to McDavid for a lot of this run. And McDavid won last year, so maybe that sways a few voters to change it up a little if they're close. Goldman: Echoing Sean on this one with Barkov, but for a slightly different reason: if Florida wins again, it's likely because Barkov's line has slowed down McDavid or Draisaitl. That's what could separate him from someone like Bennett in voting. A bad call in the playoffs always gets big attention, and this year, the hockey world is buzzing every time the rule book seems to be ignored in a game. Our panel did not go easy on their grading. 'As bad as usual. Inconsistent rule book with the added bonus of prison rules in high-leverage games. By 'letting them play,' the officials create an advantage to the team that breaks the most rules when the games matter most. No other sport treats the rule book as optional.' 'They're officiating the score and situation, not the rules. A penalty is a penalty; it doesn't matter when it happened in a game or if a team is ahead or behind. This isn't new. It's always this way. And it's no secret the whistles will be in Saskatchewan and Cuba instead of Edmonton and Sunrise for the Cup Final. The 'let them play' motto is nonsense. Let them play under the rules.' 'The lack of consistency from game to game and series to series makes it very difficult for players to understand where the line is.' 'I don't know if following the rule book to the letter would actually create a game most people want to watch. Players do take advantage of that wiggle room in the playoffs, and when 'letting them play' goes against a team you're invested in, there are understandably intense emotions and reactions in such high-stakes games. But I think consistency is more the key measure to grading officials, and I haven't had major issues with the refs in these playoffs by that standard. It has been interesting to see some embellishment calls — that was not something I would have anticipated, and it feels like a particularly difficult call to be consistent on. The officials will never be perfect, of course, and there is usually a call or two in each game worthy of scrutiny. But that's part of the game and the fine margins of playoff hockey.' 'Don't we complain about officiating every year? And it's still bad? At this point, apathy has long set in over officiating.' 'It's far from perfect, but the officials have also become the whipping boys for every fan base that's sour about how the postseason went. 'We want consistency!' No, you want the calls to go your way, just like everyone else. At least own it.' Advertisement Lazerus: Hey! I wrote about this! Gentille: It's been worse. Also, after decades as a fan and then someone who covers the league, I've lost the capacity to get all that mad over officiating, barring something egregiously awful at a terrible time. Which means we're about to get something egregiously awful at a terrible time. Goldman: The problem is that the bar is so low with NHL officiating — we all expect a lot of mistakes, and this year is no different. There's been controversy in pretty much every series Florida has been a part of because of how they walk the line, and that conversation is bound to continue in the final. I think the big difference from years past is that there haven't been as many controversies surrounding things such as goalie interference because most of the challenges have been questionable in the first place. A first-round matchup of two heavyweights in this year's playoffs, the Avalanche and Stars, reignited the debate on whether the NHL should change its playoff format. So we polled our writers. Eight staff members simply wrote '1 vs. 8.' 'Bring back the 1 vs. 8 format. Never found an issue with it when it was changed to division-based to supposedly inject existing rivalries with rocket fuel. I like the occasional variance that playoff matchups brought with 1 vs. 8.' 'They should seed each side 1-8, and they never should have stopped doing that.' 'Everyone in the league and 95 percent of fans — I know this because I asked on social media — want the 1 vs. 8 format. It shouldn't be this hard.' 'I've been in favor of the divisional rivalries. But this format has led to too much repetition among conference finalists. NHL should adopt the NBA format, including the play-in for seeds 7-10. There's nothing wrong with stealing a good idea. It won't dilute the playoffs. And it rewards the top six teams with time off at the start of the playoffs.' 'I don't need a play-in or anything like that — there aren't enough good teams to justify that — but it should be seeded 1-8.' 'I never minded 1 vs. 8 when that was the format and don't have a huge opposition to it, but I think there's a little too much blame being placed on the format/seeding for certain teams' outcomes. Sure, Tampa and Toronto would have been better off not drawing the Panthers in the first or second round, but they were going to have to play them eventually to make a serious run. Going 1 vs. 8 in the West would have kept us from matching up two favorites in Dallas and Colorado in Round 1, but two of the Western Conference series would have remained the same, and a 1 vs. 8 format would have still pitted the Stars against the Oilers (the eventual conference final) in that first round as a 3 vs. 6 matchup. The eventual East final (Carolina vs. Florida) would have also been a first-round 4 vs. 5 matchup. In hindsight, the short series would indicate maybe that would have been better in this case. But with enough good teams, someone is always in what feels like 'too hard' of a first-round draw. Getting tough, dramatic series in the first round is a good thing, not something to be wished away, even though the short conference finals were disappointing. And while certain teams surely can get tougher early matchups than seems 'fair' based on the regular-season standings, the bottom line is if you can't win that matchup, you can't win the Stanley Cup.' 'The 82-game regular season should matter and the fans want a return to 1 vs. 8. The current playoff format has not worked. It's time to reward the work that players put into the regular season and to respond to the fans for a change.' 'The divisional alignment is pitched as rivalry-forming, but I don't think NHL players need an extra pretense to compete with each other over the course of a seven-game playoff series. In practice, it creates high-quality matchups earlier in the playoffs instead of saving them for the conference finals. Is this better for TV revenue? Is this better for selling outsiders on the wonder of playoff hockey? Or just a meaningless way of devaluing regular season performance in the name of a divisional rival storyline that few people seem to care about?' Advertisement Lazerus: Conferences mean so little these days. Let's just go 1-16 already. Gentille: I also want to see a test drive of a seeds 7-10, NBA-style play-in tournament. It rewards better teams, creates stakes down the stretch, adds revenue and works well as a TV event. Granger: I disagree with you both and want my old 1 vs. 8 back in both conferences. And while we're at it, move Detroit back to the West. Mirtle: Add the play-in, go 1 vs. 8, and suddenly there's a nice advantage to having a good regular season again. Goldman: Mostly on the same page as Mirtle; 1-8 is absolutely the way to go, but the play-in, I think, needs to be very limited: seeds eight and nine have a three-game wild card series. Any other playoff expansion waters it down way too much. Looking ahead, the 2026 Milano Cortina Olympics are scheduled for next year and after this year's 4 Nations Face-Off tournament, there is a lot of intrigue. Rosters will begin to roll out on June 15, with each country expected to name its initial six players, and the rest of the roster expected in December. Lazerus: I still don't trust Canada's goaltending, but Connor Hellebuyck in the second round and Jake Oettinger in the third round didn't exactly fill Americans with confidence, either. Gentille: Hellebuyck and Oettinger could've gotten their teams swept and I still wouldn't have picked against the U.S. here. Granger: After that 4 Nations Face-Off, I'm just pumped to watch the Tkachuk brothers as teammates again, and hope the Olympic-style rules don't dampen the fun. Mirtle: I'm outnumbered here! Until Canada loses a best-on-best, they're winning them all on paper. Especially while Sidney Crosby is around. Goldman: Maybe losing 4 Nations will light a fire under Team USA … but I can't see Crosby losing in what is likely his last Olympics. To close things out, we went back to where we started — Lord Stanley — and asked who will win the Stanley Cup next season? Lazerus: This was harder than I expected. While I'm sure Florida and Edmonton will be in the mix again, it's tough to pick yet another deep run for each of them. Picking Dallas or Carolina, as usual, feels like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football. And after that, every team has a lot of question marks. It could be a wide-open field next year. Or it could be between the same few teams again. Advertisement Gentille: Someday, we'll all be right about the Stars. Granger: The Panthers have some major pending UFAs this summer. Sam Bennett, Aaron Ekblad, Nate Schmidt and deadline rental Brad Marchand are all on expiring deals. Plus, Bobrovsky will be 37 before the season begins. Having said all of that, my money is still on Florida. Mirtle: Let us at least see free agency first … feels like mass upheaval is coming this offseason with so many teams with tons of cap room. Points to whoever was picking the Wild, as they're finally out of buyout jail. Goldman: I'll buy the Stars if someone else is behind the bench … until then, I'm super curious to see what a team like Tampa Bay does to keep its window open for another year. Here's how our first-, second- and third-round predictions held up, with the actual result of the series, the percent of voters who picked the right team and the percent who picked the right team and number of games: (Illustration: Dan Goldfarb / The Athletic; Patrick Smith, Harry How / Getty Images)
New York Times
20-05-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
NHL playoff predictions 2025: Conference final winners, Stanley Cup champion and MVP
By Sean Gentille, Shayna Goldman, Jesse Granger, Mark Lazerus and The Athletic NHL Staff The NHL's final four is set. The Florida Panthers continue their quest to win a second straight Stanley Cup on Tuesday night as they open the Eastern Conference final against the Carolina Hurricanes, and Connor McDavid and the Edmonton Oilers kick off the Western Conference final on Wednesday night against the Dallas Stars for a second straight spring. Advertisement The Stars opened the second round as The Athletic NHL staff's favorite to win the Cup. Are they still our top pick? And who do we see taking the East after our pre-playoff pick — the Tampa Bay Lightning — got eliminated? What about Conn Smythe favorites? Here are the results of our staff survey after the second round, with analysis and critique from senior writers Sean Gentille and Mark Lazerus, analytics know-it-all Shayna Goldman and goaltending expert Jesse Granger. Figures are rounded. Gentille: The Panthers are the defending champs, so I get why there's a gap … but they were also just pushed to the brink by the Toronto Maple Leafs. How good could they really be? (This is half a joke.) Goldman: Just like Leafs-Panthers, this is going to be a closer series than it was in 2023. The Canes are a better team, but so are the Panthers … who just so happen to be the reigning champs. It makes sense that they have the edge in voting, but at least we all think this one is going deep. Lazerus: As good as the Canes have been for the last several years, they haven't won a single conference final game in this era, having been swept by the Bruins in 2019 and by the Panthers in 2023. None of us expects that to happen again. But Carolina, relentless and impressive as it is, still can't measure up to the Panthers in terms of high-end finishers and goaltending. Granger: For once, I think Carolina actually does measure up well in the goaltending department. Frederik Andersen has been the best goalie in the postseason, and he's been exceptional on shots from right in front of the net (Florida's specialty). Given his history and the Panthers' tendency to be … physical … with the opposing netminder, it's a big 'if,' but if Andersen stays healthy, I like Carolina a lot in this one. Gentille: I like Dallas in this one, but a 54.8 percent edge seems high. Edmonton made pretty light work of the Golden Knights. It might be a case of 'out of sight, out of mind' for our voters. Goldman: I think it's been pretty easy to talk yourself out of the Oilers each round — it was the best version of the Kings, the Golden Knights are filled with shutdown talent, and the Stars are one of the deepest teams now that they're actually healthy. But Edmonton has come to play this postseason, and there are only four games separating them from a return to the Final. Advertisement Lazerus: While I went with Dallas, too, I'm a little shocked by this disparity. The Oilers have two very impressive series victories so far in this postseason and have reminded everyone why they were the trendiest Stanley Cup pick back in October. But there's just no world in which I can bet on Stuart Skinner or Calvin Pickard against Jake Oettinger. This is the spring in which Oettinger finally gets recognized as one of the game's truly great goaltenders. Granger: What a heavyweight bout this is to crown the best in the West. Not only is it a rematch of last year's conference final, but at least one of these two teams has played in this series in five of the last six seasons. Gentille: More proof that I jumped off the Stars bandwagon at the absolute wrong time. Also, Western Conference bias is clearly in effect. Goldman: It actually surprises me that voting for the Panthers is down after Round 2 — sure, it took them seven games, but look at how they dominated Game 7. Lazerus: I guess it comes down to whether you think it's a positive thing that Matt Duchene, Jason Robertson, Tyler Seguin and several others have not been producing at all in the playoffs (they're due!) or if you think it's a negative thing (Mikko Rantanen can't do it all himself against a team that scores at will like Edmonton!). Y'all believe. (I can say 'y'all' now, because I basically live in Texas now.) Granger: The Stars certainly feel like the most well-rounded team. They have the star power up front (with Rantanen delivering in a big way). The blue line is dangerous with Miro Heiskanen back in the fold and Thomas Harley currently second in the playoffs for points by a defenseman. Oettinger is rock solid in net. It's really hard to find a reason this team loses outside of 'Pete DeBoer has come close so many times and never won a Cup.' Maybe this is Pete's year. Gentille: The most impactful player and leading scorer is the overall favorite. No need to get cute here. Andersen is a decent dark horse, though. Zero Hurricanes skaters getting a vote is kind of wild, too. Goldman: I get the Andersen hype; he has earned it, but I think Andrei Svechnikov and Jaccob Slavin should be in the mix for the Canes. And if the Panthers claw their way to the top again, Brad Marchand probably is high up on that list. Advertisement Lazerus: Don't sleep on Oettinger here. Rantanen has one point in his last three games and one goal in his last five. That run he had was spectacular, but Oettinger was the key to the Winnipeg series, and he's been far and away the most consistent Stars player. Granger: I'm loving all of this goalie discussion for Conn Smythe, considering how this postseason has gone for the vast majority of netminders. With the league average save percentage sitting at a cool .898 in these playoffs, Oettinger and Andersen have more than earned the hype with their steady play. Here's how our first- and second-round predictions held up, with the actual result of the series, the percent of voters who picked the right team and the percent who picked the right team and number of games: (Illustration: Will Tullos / The Athletic; Jeff Bottari, Ashley Potts, Jared C. Tilton, Peter Joneleit / Getty Images)
New York Times
09-02-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
The 4 Nations Face-Off can't have any trades, obviously — but what if it did?
There are no trades in the 4 Nations Face-Off. There couldn't be. It wouldn't make any sense. Players play for their home countries, just like every other international tournament. Each team has a GM, but that guy's job is simply to assemble the best roster he can from the players available to him. Making trades with that roster? That would be dumb. Advertisement So let's be very, very clear: We acknowledge that what you're about to read is indeed dumb, and we're doing it anyway. Four of The Athletic's hockey writers have been assigned a 4 Nations team and told to make trades to improve the roster. What exactly 'improve' will mean is up to each GM, but the ground rules look like this: • Each team has to make one trade with each other team, for a total of three trades each and six overall. • In this very fake scenario, we assume that all trades are permanent, meaning any players acquired would remain property of that nation for the 2026 Olympics and beyond. • Any player who is eligible for a national team can be dealt. That means we're not limited to the players who are actually on a 4 Nations roster; the various snubs and near-misses and prospects are eligible too. • There are no draft picks in these trades. That would be unrealistic! Julian McKenzie will be GM for Team Canada. Mark Lazerus will handle Team USA. The two Seans get Europe, with Gentille taking Sweden and McIndoe getting Finland. This post is about fake trades that will not happen and can not happen, under any circumstances. We're hoping it will be fun and entertaining, but it's possible that it will be a complete waste of your time. The whole thing is completely ridiculous, and if you're the sort of person who'll be bothered by that, you can hit the back button right now. Nobody would think any less of you. Still here? Yikes. OK, you've got nobody to blame but yourself. Let's do this. Team USA I could win this tournament with Team USA: The Oops, All Goalies edition. Goalies at every position. Goalies up front. Goalies on the back end. Goalies quarterbacking the power play. Goalies in the shootout. Yes, I have too many great goaltenders; woe is me. Let's see if I can fleece some needy, struggling, second-tier hockey nation like, oh, I don't know, Canada, by dangling one of my umpteen world-class goalies in front of them, distracting them like a little kitten and stealing all their stuff. – Lazerus Advertisement Team Canada I want to improve Canada's depth in goal, not just for the present but for the future. I hope to move around some young talent to get some pieces that can help me at the 4 Nations, in 2026 and beyond. I'm pretty comfortable with my depth up and down the lineup and in my reserves, so I'm willing to listen to most offers. – McKenzie Team Sweden Are we the favorites? No. Can we still win this thing? Absolutely. I've got high-end pieces and quality depth at goaltending and along the blue line, and I'm trying to use both to improve at forward. I also want guys who can help next week, next year and in 2030, so I'm going to target players in their 20s. No need to be precious about prospects here; Sweden has won gold before, and we can do it again. – Gentille Team Finland With Finland already a big underdog before we found out Miro Heiskanen would miss the tournament, I'm focused on the future. I'm not throwing in the towel because we have Jusse Saros and anything can happen in a short tournament. But I'm going to try to add some younger pieces, especially on the blue line, that will help us contend for gold at next year's Olympics and (especially) beyond. With the other three GMs apparently in 'win now' mode, it's possible this could shape up as a seller's market. And no, I'm obviously not trading Aleksander Barkov. Well, unless somebody absolutely blows me away, he said, perhaps dropping some ironic foreshadowing into an intro nobody will read. – McIndoe It doesn't take long for Canada to address its goaltending. But it's not with the trade pairing we were expecting. The trade: Sweden trades Filip Gustavsson to Canada for Seth Jarvis. The Team Canada view: Losing Jarvis is going to hurt. But we have more than enough forward depth to make a move like this. Gustavsson is the bell cow for Minnesota and will likely see time for Sweden at this year's tournament. In this scenario, he'll be No. 2 to Jake Oettinger (stay tuned…). But if Oettinger needs to be relieved, Gustavsson can prove to be a more-than-adequate replacement. – McKenzie Advertisement The Team Sweden view: We like Gustavsson a lot. His ceiling is obvious — a .931 save percentage in 2022-23 says plenty, as does the bounce-back season he's having for Minnesota. The less said about 2023-24, the better. Down the line, though maybe not until in 2030, he'd have a shot at the permanent starting job. Right now? He's a backup. For a team with holes elsewhere, that's a luxury we can't afford. Jarvis, quite literally, could play throughout our lineup, and he's just 23 years old. Don't typecast him as an energy guy, either. He's well on pace for his second straight 30-goal season. In net, I'm fine to roll with some combo of Linus Ullmark and Jacob Markstrom for the next year and hope someone (Wild prospect Jesper Wallstedt, perhaps) steps up in the meantime to join Ullmark in 2030. – Gentille That's a big move, but will it be enough for Canada in the crease? We'll see about that, but for now let's move on to a smaller deal. The trade: Finland trades Roope Hintz and Kaapo Kakko to Sweden for Simon Edvisson and Axel Sandin Pellikka. The Team Finland view: Like I said, we're focused on the future. We move Hintz, who's a very good player now and still will be in 2026 but might be declining by 2030, for two defensemen with elite upside who can be part of three Olympics for us. Also, after years of dumping on the Yzerplan, landing two Wings prospects will ensure that Detroit fans don't call me an idiot in the comments for once. – McIndoe The Team Sweden view: We're cooking, folks. With William Karlsson out, my center depth chart for 4 Nations is now Elias Pettersson (an elite offensive player when he's right), Hintz (who works on scoring and matchup lines), Mika Zibanejad (give him easy minutes and watch him thrive) and Joel Eriksson Ek (a Selke-caliber player who can be thrown to the wolves). Jarvis is in the mix at center, too, and Leo Carlsson will be back for the Olympics. It's not North American-caliber depth, but it gets us close. Kakko helps solidify the bottom six and can play either left or right wing. Down the line, sending out the Red Wings prospects will hurt. Doesn't mean they're ready to contribute, though, and neither is going to fill the Victor Hedman-sized hole that'll be in the lineup come 2030 or so. Say it with me: We're trying to win gold medals right now. – Gentille Advertisement That leaves Sweden with just one more deal to make, and they move quickly to make one more big addition. Literally. The trade: Sweden trades Leo Carlsson to Team USA for Tage Thompson. The Team Sweden view: Whoops. Add Thompson to that center depth chart. We believe in him and his one-of-one skill set, whether that's down the middle or on the right wing. Carlsson is going to be great, and he probably would've had a full-time spot by 2030 if Hintz, Thompson and Jarvis weren't added to the mix. They were, though. Tough luck. Also, NHL teams seem to love Anton Frondell; Scott Wheeler said in December that he's still on the periphery of the No. 1 overall discussion for the 2025 draft. That makes Carlsson even more expendable. – Gentille The Team USA view: My original plan to spice up this tournament was to scatter the Hughes brothers to the wind. A Hughes in every pot! But while trading Luke would have been simple, trading either Quinn or Jack seemed awfully stupid. Speaking of stupid, Tage Thompson is not on my roster. He's 27, and the powers that be seem to have made up their minds about him, so I might as well get something for him. So I looked to the future and picked up my fourth-line center (Matthews, Eichel and Hughes aren't going anywhere) for 2030, 2034 and 2038 in Carlsson. We'll bring the kid along to 4 Nations to get him the experience, but he likely won't play now or in Italy. – Lazerus We're waiting for GM Lazerus to address the media about this move, but he's delayed. It doesn't take us long to find out why, as a genuine goalie blockbuster hits the wire. The trade: Team USA trades Jake Oettinger and Jake Sanderson to Canada for Anthony Cirelli and Brandon Hagel. The Team Canada view: I just got back from a meeting with Canada head coach Jon Cooper. He's really upset that I had to part ways with Anthony Cirelli and Brandon Hagel, his guys, to make this trade. But he understood when I told him we'd be getting a No. 1 goaltender and a talented puck-moving defenceman who can run a power-play and defend. If Sanderson somehow isn't good enough to play at the 4 Nations, he's certainly on the radar for 2026. Advertisement Also, there was a much bigger proposal on the table but the American GM wouldn't budge. I'm talking four players on each side and tons of star power, including a superstar player Lazerus wouldn't move. Would've been fun to do if ML wasn't so scared. But we settled on this one instead. I'm still content. – McKenzie The Team USA view: The simple fact here is the Team Canada GM is a coward and didn't bite on my Connor Hellebuyck for Cale Makar proposal. The trade was one-for-one. That would have soothed my concerns about Quinn Hughes' health considerably for 4 Nations, and would have given me perhaps the best top pairing in the history of the game for the next couple of Olympics. I've got elite goaltenders coming out of my ears, so I tried to go for broke by dealing away the best of the bunch. Alas. But if there was one minor weakness on my ridiculously stacked roster, it was in the shutdown/energy roles. Cirelli is as good as it gets, and he and Hagel can lead my penalty-killing unit. And just as important, I can scratch Chris Kreider, who's on my team instead of Tage Thompson for reasons passing understanding. – Lazerus With fans across North America reeling from seeing Team USA help their biggest rivals address their weakest position, we quickly find out that the Americans aren't done. The trade: Finland sends Patrik Laine to Team USA for Dylan Larkin, Chris Kreider and Luke Hughes. The Team Finland view: I don't need a powerplay specialist like Laine in this tournament because the refs are already going to be in the bag for Gary Bettman's pre-ordained Canada-USA final. So I keep one eye on the future by obtaining another blue-chip young defenseman, while also improving my forward depth. Is Larkin actually the best player in this three-for-one deal? He might be, and even if not, it's close enough to make this deal worth doing. – McIndoe The Team USA view: Every team needs a little tension to keep everyone's edge, and J.T. Miller is merely one man. So throwing Patrik Laine and Zach Werenski back in the same locker room is just the jolt this roster needs. I don't want my team — which is clearly orders of magnitude better on paper than any of the other three — getting too comfortable. Complacency topples dynasties at any stage, even the first one. And while this trade might have made my team a little worse, it made it a lot funnier. That's got to count for something. Granted, this is not a deal I was eager to make, but the rules of this exercise mandated I humor Finland with a trade. I tried simply pawning off Luke Hughes for cash to cover tariff expenditures, but was rudely rebuffed by Mr. McIndoe. – Lazerus With only one combination of teams left in play and the countdown to the 4 Nations trade deadline ticking, we figure we've already seen the biggest moves. We're wrong, because a buzzer-beater hits the wire, and it's a blockbuster. Advertisement The trade: Finland sends Aleksander Barkov to Canada for Connor Bedard and Evan Bouchard The Team Canada view: Canada's strength is through the middle. If you look through their most successful tournaments, the men's team has prided itself on having strength at center. Team Canada could easily build a forward roster of players who can play center and still be competitive. We all know of the star potential Connor Bedard has and this is very much a roll of the dice. But if he doesn't get better in his own end as he develops, he'll be a winger at future tournaments. Barkov becomes a must-play at center for Team Canada and you could put him alongside Sam Bennett and Sam Reinhart at the 4 Nations and create a mega-shutdown line. Parting ways with Bouchard may hurt, but Canada is deep enough with puck-moving defensemen to make up the difference. I'm trading for the sure thing here. – McKenzie The Team Finland view: Look, I said it would take a ton for me to move Barkov, and Julian stepped up. In Bedard, I get a guy who could develop into my team's best forward for a decade or more. And Bouchard adds yet another blue-chip defenseman to my now completely remade blue line. Does that add up to enough for one of the best forwards in the world right now? I hope so. Does it all but eliminate my version of Team Finland from contention in this year's 4 Nations? Probably. Could it more than pay off down the line? That's the gamble I'm taking. Is it a blatant conflict of interest to let a Canadian GM trade Finland's best player to Team Canada? This press conference is over. – McIndoe (Note: Players added through trade are highlighted. Some teams are over the roster limit now but we'll deal with that later, which is to say, not at all.) Mission accomplished. Skill influx complete. I still have a Vezina winner in net and the second-best defensive group in the tournament, and I now can roll these lines. They're calling it the best Swedish chess match since 'The Seventh Seal.' Do not explore that comparison any further. – Gentille Admittedly, my approach ended up feeling less like a scalpel and more like a sledgehammer. I realize that some Team Finland fans may not love that, especially if they'd already bought tickets to the championship game in two weeks. Still, these are bold moves that could pay off, and at the very least I feel like I've raised our ceiling significantly for next year and beyond, especially with the return of a healthy Heiskanen. – McIndoe What did I lose? A goalie who wouldn't see any action, a forward and two defensemen who aren't even on my team, a good-but-replaceable fourth-liner, and a player who never should have been on my roster to begin with. What did I gain? Two playoff-tested, two-way standouts and penalty-killers, a power-play specialist who, when hot, is one of the best pure goal-scorers in the world, and a 19-year-old two-way center who'll be a fixture in my lineup for three or four Olympics to come. I mean, my god, look at this lineup. Ridiculous. Of course, I could have stood pat and said the same thing. – Lazerus I improved my goaltending without sacrificing any of my core guys, who I need to win games. I also added the heir apparent to Patrice Bergeron. Even if I sacrificed parts of my future to win, it's Canada. They still have incredible depth up and down the lineup and in their reserves. Put my centre depth against anybody at this tournament. We're winning. Advertisement Speaking of reserves, I've called on John Tavares and Carter Verhaeghe (!) to make up some losses on the left wing. Tavares can play alongside Mitch Marner on a line. And while I'm dead set on my shutdown line, Bennett and Verhaeghe are interchangeable. Canada still has a chance to win at the 4 Nations, in 2026 and beyond. – McKenzie (Top photo of Connor Bedard and Aleksander Barkov: Chris Arjoon / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
