ARTHUR:

As a Californian, I didn't grow up near a pond or a warming house.  I played outdoor pick up games, but that's not the same, even in the coldest of Pacific winters.  I did, however, play with kids who grew up on ponds.  Kids who would talk about the joys of shinny on a frozen lake.  As an adult, I've met people who haven't skated since they were ten years old but vividly recall their childhood pond hockey.  Their stories fed a fit of mystique in my brain, and they filled me with the desire to play on a pond the first time I visited Minnesota.

The purity of outdoor hockey is canon.  Ken Dryden, in his passage on LaFleur, wrote that that was the only place that LaFleur or anyone could "create" the game, the only place where you could break out of the jello-molded assembly-line product that came out of rinks, drills and practices.  And despite the Winter Classic and the dedicated dads that flood their backyards every December, the virtue of the outdoor game seems to be fading, along with the availability of the icy pond itself. 

To combat that, there is Pond Hockey, a documentary extolling the joys of this vanishing pastime.  The film is slightly Minnesota-flavored, with Sorem, Neal Broten and the Pond Hockey Championships in Minneapolis, but the filmmakers talk to their share of Canadians (including Gretz) and other International players.  

You can watch the film in its entirety here.  Or (I think) in the embedded object below (if I manage to get it working).  It's a great film.  I'm sure Daniel will agree once he watches it and returns my copy.

ARTHUR:

My review of Forgotten Miracle.

In the shadow of the 1980 Miracle On Ice, many of the US Olympic hockey teams have been deemed 'forgotten.' The members of the 1972 roster were the only men to bring a medal home from Sapporo. The 1956 team upset the Canadians to claim the Silver. And yet, the only US team that seems to have truly earned its 'forgotten' status is the 1960 team. They too needed to upset the Soviet Union in a complicated political landscape to earn the Gold. They too were conditioned by a ruthless task-master. And they too were largely written off despite being the host country.

To mark the 50th anniversary of America's first 'Team of Destiny,' Tommy Haines and Andrew Sherburne, the minds behind Pond Hockey, have crafted Forgotten Miracle, a documentary that tells the story of 1960's Team USA from the point of view of its surviving members. The directors use a charming mix of archival footage and animatics to illustrate the words of key figures like Coach Jack Riley, the Cleary brothers, John Mayasich, Jack McCartan and even Canadian captain Harry Sinden.  There are a couple of camera zoom flubs and the newspaper headline animations can be a bit much, but neither take away from a very well-done film and a truly compelling tale.  

Forgotten Miracle is ultimately the story of a much quieter Gold Medal, contested at a time before Olympic boycotts transformed the games into an analogue for the Cold War and a time when the level of Soviet puck dominance was known only to the players crushed by the hammer and sickle in international competition.  The film covers the well-known moments (cutting Herb Brooks and the oxygen tank in the locker room), but it also collects the little known anecdotes that defined the team as a group of a young men who understood the enormity of the task ahead of them and the context of the accomplishment, even if its importance was lost on the average American.

Despite a dearth of hockey documentaries covering the American tradition (really only Pond Hockey and New England Hockey: Life At The Rink come to mind), it's difficult to recognize Forgotten Miracle as an instant classic.  But in an era where every Olympic medalist is praised and profiled by mass media, it is a shame that this team never got its praise, its profile and its due.  And for that, this hockey doc is essential-viewing.

ARTHUR:
Anaheim calling to the hockey world...

If you're looking for something to do tomorrow, we just got an email from Reebok regarding a promotional fundraiser with the Anaheim Ducks street team at Monkey Sports. All proceeds go to Southern California Amateur Hockey Association. Here's a flyer for the event per the SCAHA.

The event goes from 10am-3pm at Monkey Sports in Santa Ana (1420 Village Way), and in addition to demonstrations for the Reebok 8.0.8 O-Stick, they'll be raffling off 2 autographed Ducks jerseys (signed by a full roster), 2 Ducks tickets on the glass, an autographed Hiller stick, an autographed Giguere stick and other assorted prizes. Raffle tickets are $2 apiece, and as we said, all proceeds go to SCAHA.

If you're in the mood to buy something, the first 50 people to buy a Reebok OPS stick will get a set of Ducks tickets with their purchase. And we hear from Monkey Sports that purchasing Reebok gear will make you eligible to win more Reebok gear and perhaps a trip to the Reebok Money Pit. You'll have to show up to get those details straightened out.

But if you're just in the mood to try your luck at a few raffle tickets and have a little fun, the Ducks street team will be there to offer their usual inflatable shenanigans. And there WILL be food. SCAHA says $1 hot dogs and $1 sodas.

ARTHUR:
Over Labor Day weekend, Daniel and I received an email from James Mirtle, journalist and hockey blog manager for SportsBlogs Nation. The substance of the email (How would we feel about moving to SBN?) wasn't a surprise. In fact, Daniel and I had discussed the matter shortly after Battle of California posted an informal want-ad for Ducks and Kings bloggers. We decided that we would say 'no' if we were asked.

We were asked. We said 'yes.' And in a couple of weeks, we'll be moving.

A number of things factored into my change of heart and my ensuing attempt to convince Daniel-- I'll get into that shortly. But first, Daniel, what do you really think about moving to SBN? Are we doomed, or was it the right thing to do?

DANIEL:
The potential for doom is somewhat unavoidable. My favorite thing about running a blog has been our complete freedom. We don't have deadlines or quotas, but we've somehow managed to generate decent traffic based solely on our posts. By "our posts," I mean your scouting reports.

I'm not looking forward to the ads and the influx of irrational fans who care more about talking trash than talking about hockey. I am looking forward to learning from all the legit fans that will be seeking us out for knowledge on Ducks hockey. By joining SBN, Anaheim Calling will be able to reach more readers and let them know that west coast hockey, and specifically Ducks hockey, has a strong fan base that takes the game seriously. We've talked a lot about why we got into blogging and came to the same conclusion: we wanted to show the rest of the hockey community that Ducks fans weren't pushovers, that we knew our hockey and that we cared about the sport. SBN goes a long way in helping us accomplish that goal.

I suppose, there will always be doubts, but there's only so much you can do with your own resources. I believe we've been doing good work covering our favorite team, and I see no reason why we shouldn't take the risk and see what we can provide to the hockey community at large.

ARTHUR:
First, I just want to say there ARE deadlines. Your failure to observe them doesn't make them any less real. I foresee you making it to page a lot less when we get to SBN. *stares blankly*

On the move, I think I ultimately weighed what we were losing against what we were gaining. I mean, we always knew we were going to leave Blogger; SBN just called us out of the minors before we knew if we could do it ourselves. At the end of the day, we came up with the name "Anaheim Calling" in, literally, 30 seconds, I built this page from random Blogger tips over a period of hours and the main product (us) is something we can pick up and take anywhere on the web. It just didn't seem that big a sacrifice to try our hand at the big leagues, not after spending a meager 6 months and 82 posts in the minors.

More than anything, I just feel this was the best time to try and get to the forefront of the Ducks blogosphere. Battle of California is already at SBN, Girl With a Puck has closed her doors and a lot of other Ducks blogs are still trying to find their footing, if they haven't settled into supporting roles already. The timing, while it feels too ear ly, is probably just right.

To all our readers, we'll be here a little longer, covering training camp and the preseason. We hope you'll come and join us at SBN and adjust your feed-reader and subscription accordingly.

ARTHUR:
We got a request from Mr. Plank of Fear The Fin in the comments of the last post. I guess our Contact Us email form is a bit deceiving. I'll add the email in plain text, though I hate to waste the form that I set up.

Anyways, Mr. Plank requested an analysis of the Kent Huskins deal. Ye ask and ye shall receive:

Today the Sharks signed Kent Huskins for 2 years, 1.7M/yr. Per the stipulations of the trade agreement with Anaheim, the signing will require the Sharks to transfer their Fourth Round pick in the 2012 Draft to the Ducks (unless Anaheim signs Moen).

Preliminary to any numbers discussion, I should say that, in my opinion, Huskins has a professional career for TWO reasons. One, he was solid in the ECAC. Two, he was drafted by Bob Murray.

Muray drafted Huskins 156th overall in the 6th Round in 1998. The 6'3" blueliner was coming off a successful freshman season for Clarkson of the ECAC. I never saw him play, but I remember when he made the All-Conference team the next two years. He was noted for playing solid defensive-defense, and his ability to gain the offensive zone and manage the puck on the power play. He won defensive-defenseman of the year his senior year, and moved on to the American Hockey League.

He spent six years as an AHL pro. I'm not really sure what happened in Norfolk. I know he had some key goals, but he was let go, signed by Florida and then Vancouver, where Bob Murray was a pro-scout. He and Bob were both with the Ducks midway through the 05-06 season, and Huskins took on a leadership role with the Portland Pirates, similar to the one he had at Clarkson. He was team captain, and played well defensively, while still capable of timely situational scoring.

In his time in Anaheim, Huskins was usually the skater in a pairing. He has the size to put on some serious checks, but the team usually depended on him to help on breakouts. His instincts are probably to go for the puck and not the man, but that could be preferrable if San Jose remains a skating team next year. Huskins WILL jump into the play if he has the puck (though removing the threat of going back to the AHL might cure that), but generally, he can be relied on for safe defensive-defense plays. He took an injury (I believe it was a mild concussion) at the beginning of last season that seemed to affect his confidence with the puck, but I doubt that that will continue to affect him this year.

On his numbers, it's hard to make an argument for or against. The Ducks generally relied on three players to eat their ice time, but Huskins did beat out Shane O'Brien and Sean O'Donnell on the Depth Chart (though he WAS cheaper than each of them). His average Time-On-Ice was 14:04 in 06-07, 16:05 in 07-08 and 18:47 in 08-09.

I don't have the time to make a table right now, but if you take a look at the detailed plus/minus on his hockey-reference profile, you'll see that he played up to the level of his teammates.

On the bottom pairing in 33 games in 06-07, Huskins contributed on 20% (3A/15GF) of his lines' offense while facing 17 Goals-Against (2 PPG) for a minus-3. In 07-08, with some time on the Top 4, Huskins had 19 points (4 G) with 48 Goals-For and 17 Goals-Against (8 PPG) for a plus-23 in 76 games. Then, this season, bouncing around the depth chart for 33 games, he had 6-points (2 G) with 29 Goals-For (4 PPG) and 29 Goals Against (10-PPG) for a plus-6.

I would never say he was shielded by his partner (who was rarely Pronger or Niedermayer). Huskins tends to play his own game, but he can contribute offensively if he's given a little room. I can't vouch for his checking, but the size is there. And on a bottom pairing, the Sharks should find his skating an asset.

As far as the price, I think he compares well with the 1.7M journeymen from this year: Marc Bergeron, Mathieu Dandenault, etc. When you consider he'll be taking the ice as 5th or 6th cheapest on a nightly basis, he's pretty solid at that price. He offers skating ability and experienced defensive-defense with the potential to use his 6'3" 215 lb frame more effectively. San Jose can find a first-contract guy with more upside, of course, but I don't think they want to take any risks going into another playoff run. As far as the loss of the draft pick, I know the Sharks were virtually pick-less this year, but they tend to pick a lot of netminders (something I wish Anaheim did more often). Chalk it up to one less goalie in the system. Nothing to worry about if you saw Stalock play this year. Beast.

Ultimately, though, I think the choice to re-sign him is related to the choice to acquire him in the first place. There's a level of trust between Doug Wilson and Bob Murray that stems from playing on the blueline together all those years. If Bob says he's a solid guy, Doug's going to hear him out on that one.

Hope this helps without being too lengthy, Plank.

ARTHUR:
So, checking the Anaheim Calling inbox this morning, I found a message from a Versus rep, inquiring into whether or not Daniel and I would like to be pimped-

DANIEL:
--ahem --

ARTHUR:
That is, whether or not we'd like to participate in an NHL on Versus promotion. Rather than give them a straightforward 'yes' or 'no,' Daniel and I thought we'd do an honest write up, and then take it from there.

So, Daniel, as someone trying to watch the Ducks games from an Illinois grad school-- who ended up missing the 1st period of Game 6 on Monday --what's your beef with Versus?

DANIEL:
Well, first let me start by saying that I had prepped a meal for puck drop and everything. So, here I am with taquitos and guacamole that I made from scratch-- God that sounds so stereotypical --rocking my Ducks sweater, only to have the Blackhawks on Versus AND the local channel. Now, I can understand feeding the Blackhawks game to Illinois if there is no local coverage, but if there IS local coverage, why am I watching the Hawks game on two channels when there's a deciding game in another series? I could have been on Hockey overload. My cable guide said I should have been watching the Ducks game. I'm just wondering how Versus is going to let me know, as a fan, which game I will be watching.

ARTHUR:
Yeah, there's a lot of that sort of mismanagement. I also don't see how their advertising campaign was "Don't Miss A Second," and then on the night playoffs start, we missed the 1st period of the last two games. They missed 2,400 seconds on the first night of play!

Though, in their defense, they're a startup cable network with ONE channel trying to manage the rights to air three hockey games in one night. But let me just say this, and you know what I'm going to say: hockey fans were spoiled by the TV deals in the '90s.

DANIEL:
Oh, here we go. Are you going to be preaching for long? Should I get a drink and come back?

ARTHUR:
When they signed with FOX in '94, the NHL hadn't been on network TV from 1981 to 1989, and they hadn't signed a long-term deal since they left CBS in 1972. That's 22 years out of the spotlight.

Now, I grew up in the Bay Area in the 80s. We had no team, and I had no cable. No USA network. No ESPN network. Certainly no Sportschannel America. And so, no NHL. And there was a time when that was the story: if you moved away from Canada/the Canadian border or a major hockey market, then you lived in a hockey-less world. Even if you had cable, you got a handful of games and the channel that carried the NHL kept changing.

So, you can't convince me that no coverage is better than coverage. The NHL went a long time without any kind of TV deal, at all. And since Bettman scorned FOX and refused to give ABC a discount, he's stuck with NBC and Versus. He may end up putting every non-Finals game on Center Ice or NHLTV, and out-of-market fans will have to pay just to watch the playoffs.

DANIEL:
Okay, I'll admit that hockey fans have come to expect a little more from hockey TV coverage after the 90s, but is that really an excuse for Versus not to get their act together?

I grew up on ESPN double headers and NHL2Night. I think Versus can do a lot more in terms of coverage. Even a nightly show a la NHL2Night would go a long way in keeping more viewers interested in the few games they can actually watch. I'm saying that Versus may have limited resources, but there's certainly more they can give us to make sure fans see a little more hockey related content on a regular basis. Plus, it'll increase general traffic for their channel and possibly raise viewership for the more obscure sports the station airs.

ARTHUR:
Well, I definitely agree that it does wonders for the NHL and its stars to show Ovechkin's and Malkin's highlights every night, and break them down for the casual fans. I don't know how much it would cost to produce an NHL2Night. Maybe not more than that Sports Soup show that Versus has, and maybe it's a wise investment with how much they're paying for their TV contract with the league. But that's all assuming Versus WANTS to invest in its NHL coverage.

Let me break you off with a little trivia, here. First of the major sports broadcast on ESPN? NHL games. They negotiated TV contracts with the Whalers and Capitals. Versus is probably using the NHL the same way that ESPN did back then. They're just trying to show the other major sports that they can handle a broadcast. I'm sure they don't want Bettman any more than he wants them.

DANIEL:
That's a fair observation; I certainly don't think Versus treats hockey like a flagship sport. Not the way a TNT treats the NBA. I know TNT doesn't have a nightly NBA show, but they have programs other than sports. Versus advertises itself as a sports channel. They don't have to go ad nauseum like ESPN, but give me something.

TNT at least has a great personality that mixes things up for the rest of the group, one Sir Charles Barkley. That's the main difference between what happens with other sports and what happens with the Versus coverage. The Versus crew doesn't have a lot of personality. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a bunch of guys who know nothing about hockey. Not because the info isn't good. Engblom, Clement and Jones know their stuff. They just never seem comfortable in front of the camera. They laugh awkwardly and just aren't engaging. I teach public speaking, and I'm not convinced these guys took it in high school or college. They stare at the camera and they seem to get excited about all the wrong things. I don't know. I'm just never excited when I watch the games, and I don't feel like I get the insight into the game that I do when I listen to Hayzie (Brian Hayward for those of you unfortunate enough to not know who he is). I know a lot of fans don't like Hayzie, and think he's a homer, but you haven't heard these midwest commentators. These motherf***ers are something else.

ARTHUR:
[laughing]
I agree that the Versus crew needs a Barry Melrose-type, but here's the thing, how easy was it for ESPN to replace Barry Melrose this year? Suddenly, Scott Burnside *shivers* is a hockey expert? Maybe there aren't a lot of old NHL coaches/players that have personality.

At the end of the day, Versus is not avoiding those basic scheduling mistakes that plague an upstart cable network and they need to invest in more NHL programming and better color guys. BUT I'm glad someone's carrying hockey, and really, it's not their fault that a fledgling network has to carry the majority of the NHL programming. It's Bettman's.

DANIEL:
That is the truth, and we, as Hockey fans, just have to deal with Bettman's mistakes...all the time. I hate that guy.

Okay. Keep this in mind, folks, Arthur and I will be doing a split experience for Game 3 at the Ponda Center (eat it Honda that stadium will forever be the Pond and y'all just piss me off) for CLS. That is, I will be talking about what it's like watching the game on Versus, and Arthur will be providing you with his analysis as a live fan. It's gonna be different-- we hope --and hopefully you all will enjoy it. This was Anaheim Calling to the Hockey world. Enjoy your playoffs.

ARTHUR:
As we're likely experiencing a bump in readership, I thought I'd revisit a question on the "9: A Problem Like Kariya" post. One of our readers asked me why I was so quick to believe the rumor that Kariya wanted to leave because he wasn't being protected, but so quick to dismiss the rumor that Kariya reneged on a verbal agreement.

First, let me say that I'm sure Don Baizley, Kariya's agent, put the 'protection' rumor out there. As a negotiation tactic, leaking that kind of information works very well, whether it's true or not. After the Suter crosscheck, it took on a life of its own. At the time, I agreed with it, and I still do, but I'm fully aware that it's the sort of rumor born on the bargaining table and not in the locker room.

Now, on to the 'verbal agreement.' I'm going to accuse the Kariya-haters of a little linguistic gymnastics here. I did not read EVERY piece covering Bryan Murray's comments on Kariya in 2003, but I believe I read the piece in question and I don't recall Murray attempting to depict the telephone conversations as a 'verbal agreement.' The verbal agreement that burned Murray came 6 months later when he traded Corey Perry for Mike Comrie, and Kevin Lowe tried a little Saskatchewan Shakedown. Murray had never claimed his talks with Kariya amounted to a verbal agreement, only that Kariya had no reason to be surprised that the qualifying offer was not tendered.

I declined to delve into the He-Said/He-Said between Kariya and Murray before because I don't consider any of that factual, but this is the gist of it: On June 30, 2003, Murray claimed Paul was "obviously disappointed" that the Ducks did not make a qualifying offer. After signing with the Avs, Kariya told (I believe it was) The OC Register (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that he was surprised not to receive a qualifying offer, or something to that effect. Bryan Murray took offense to that characterization, and he recounted, to The Register, the details of the offseason telephone conversations between him and the star forward. Murray claimed he'd informed Kariya of his plans not to make the qualifying offer and his plans to pursue Teemu or another free agent, and that Paul was receptive to everything, saying he understood and that he didn't need another $10 million. Murray further explained that none of this could be disclosed to the press until Teemu entered free agency because of tampering issues. Murray's tone in the article was very gracious, and never implied that Kariya was bound to an agreement in any way, only that the parties had discussed things and seemed to arrive at a meeting of the minds. If someone can find this article, please send it to us, but from memory, that's all I think it said.

Now, let me start by saying that I love Bryan Murray. Even after he left the Ducks, he and I tend to agree on Draft day and when we look at the free agency market. But I don't automatically believe anyone just because they continued to cash checks that said "Disney" and the other guy didn't. Here are my three reasons for dismissing Murray's claims outright:

1) If Kariya had really burned him, Murray would have publicly shamed him the way he did Kevin Lowe. Six months after Kariya left, the Ducks finalized a trade for Mike Comrie off-paper, but Oilers GM Kevin Lowe attempted to insert an unprecedented clause that obligated Comrie to make a one-time cash payment to the Edmonton organization. Murray immediately went public with Lowe's actions. When Bryan was on the right side of a raw deal, he stood up for his position and tried to turn the other guy into an untouchable in the hockey community. I remember being struck by the fact that his comments on Kariya were so careful and gracious and only attempting to refute the alleged 'surprise.' To me, those were the words of a guy who wanted to keep his job and let his bosses know that he didn't make their franchise player a UFA without some kind of plan. If Murray had really justifiably relied on Kariya resigning with Anaheim, he'd have publicly shamed him without fear of backlash from the NHLPA.

2) Murray's story changed. Somewhere between "disappointed" and "surprised" the Ducks GM became uncomfortable. On June 30th, Kariya was allowed to be disappointed. After he signed with the Avs, he wasn't allowed to say he was surprised. I'm not really clear on the difference if Kariya, as Murray insists, knew ahead of time that the qualifying offer would not be made. One could blame the confusion on the verbal black-ops that Murray alleged were necessary to reunite Paul and Teemu, but I can't keep up with that. Any time I'm asked to keep track of when someone is supposed to be lying to me and when they're supposed to be telling me the 100% truth, I get confused. I'm weird that way.

3) Paul Kariya likes money. It may surprise you that that's my reason, but I never said that it was a misconception that he wanted to get paid, just that that wasn't why he held out in '97. Of course he wants to get paid. Add to that the fact that he took another major concussion in 2003, and may have been staring at a shortened career, and I can't imagine Paul Kariya the way Murray described him, just nodding along and talking about how he didn't need the money. That's not the Paul I knew. Maybe Stevens hit him harder than we thought. Or maybe the Ducks GM wanted us to believe that Paul grifted him, but I can't imagine that Murray is the kind of fool to be taken in by those cartoony sentiments when the clash between Kariya and Ferreira was so well-publicized. If the conversations were not completely fabricated, I have to assume they were exaggerated or that some deep miscommunication happened.