Sports Logic

Should the NHL participate in the Olympics beyond 2010 in Vancouver?

SHAUN SAYS: In an ideal situation, the NHL would be able to pick and choose to participate in the Olympics. Since you can't be half pregnant, I will say that yes, the NHL should continue their Olympic participation.

Sure there will be some Olympics, like Japan in 1998 and Italy in 2006 where hockey won't be the featured attraction, but look at the crowds in Salt Lake and undoubtedly how they will react in Vancouver.

The NHL will get the necessary exposure from these Olympics to deem it necessary to continue their participation, even if they only reap the direct benefits every eight years instead of every four.

WAYNE SAYS: Absolutely. This is the fourth edition of the Olympics Games with NHL players and the second time in a hockey country. With no disrespect to Nagano or Turin/Torino, the support for the hockey aspect is at its best in countries like Canada, Russia and the US where fans are (or in the case of the US, can be) rabid.

The NHL already has a shaky arrangement with Russia over NHL players, and it would not get any better to decide that Sochi is the time to bow out. On top of that, the three biggest Russian stars are already saying they would take whatever discipline necessary from the league to participate in the Olympics at home. The fact that Ilya Kovalchuk, Evgeny Malkin and Alex Ovechkin all play for pay in the US, it would be a nightmare to have all three suspended at the same time…while they get the hero's welcome in Russia on the biggest stage in sport.

For a league that has a rather dubious record in the public image department outside of Canada, it would be yet another factor relegating hockey to second citizen status among the major sports. But then again, we all know the geniuses running the NHL also thought cancelling an entire season was necessary.

2. Which player, currently deemed a candidate to make Canada's Olympic hockey team would you leave off the team?

SHAUN SAYS: As noted in Pierre Maguire's Team Canada version 33.2, you can clearly see the depth of the team will be on defence. With that in mind, it's most likely that a deserving defenseman will be left at home. If I were in charge of the team, that man would have to be Scott Niedermayer.

I know what Niedermayer brings to the table; he has speed, smarts, is excellent both ways, and he has experience. While he still might possess all of those traits, they aren't what they used to be and Niedermayer's Olympic time has come and gone. By my count, Niedermayer could be as low as 9^th on the depth chart behind Pronger, Doughty, Seabrook, Keith, Phaneuf, Bouwmeester, Weber, Boyle and Green.

If Niedermayer does make the team, it will be on past accomplishments, and not on present play, which I believe is what led Canada to a 7^th place showing in Torino in 2006.

WAYNE SAYS: I agree with Shaun here, but in the interest of making this a better read, I'll offer another option. As good as he's been this year on the Sharks, Patrick Marleau is my pick. I know Don Cherry says that line should make it and stay together, but as Elliotte Friedman said, the trio of Marleau, Thornton and Heatley haven't exactly excelled in big game situations.

So why do I single out Marleau? Because I don't think he's all that valuable when he's not scoring and he's not nearly as lethal a shooter as Heatley – who isn't exactly great away from the opposition's net either. The other issue I have with Marleau is that the Sharks stripped him of the captaincy to start the season after years in that role. We've seen plenty of great players not win the big one in their prime finally win it later in their careers under diminished roles. But Marleau isn't Ray Bourque or Dave Andreychuk.

After the debacles of 1998 and 2006 where veterans were the name of the game, I think it's time to see what the younger group of Canadian players can do on the big stage. I'd rather see a player like Jonathan Toews – who brings the same skills as Marleau without the history of underachieving at the wrong time – make this team.

3. Which player currently not on Team Canada's radar would you include on the team if you were the General Manager?

SHAUN SAYS: To preface the question, this is pure fantasy. Obviously there are 30 or so players who are being watched on a nightly basis. But if I have to go off the board and pick someone who Steve Yzerman should strongly consider, I'm going to the best team in the league (in my opinion) and taking Patrick Sharp.

While he's not quite a point per game guy, Sharp has the skill to play on a top 6 forward line, or he can have the grit and tenacity to play on a shutdown line. It's that kind of versatility that has been the key to Canada's success in international competitions in the past. Whether it's Brent Sutter in the 1987 Canada Cup or Ryan Smyth, Shane Doan and Michael Peca in 2002, the role players have always played an important role.

I think a "4^th line" of Mike Richards, Shane Doan and Patrick Sharp would cause fits for opposing countries, especially guys like Malkin and Ovechkin, who as the 2003 World Juniors proved, can be erased if you stay in their face for 60 minutes.

WAYNE SAYS: To continue off Shaun's earlier point about Niedermayer being left off, I'd say the young player who most closely resembles what Niedermayer was for years should make the team: Drew Doughty.

On top of that, he's a better all-round player than Dan Boyle and could team well with Jay Bouwmeester on a fast, smart blue line along with Keith, Seabrook, Pronger, Weber, Niedermayer/Boyle.

The Olympic Games are a different animal than the NHL season, where teams don't have anywhere near this kind of blueline depth and as a result play their horses for up to 30 minutes a night. With the mobility, skill and youth of this group, Canada would be able to balance out the minutes…which keeps everybody fresher in a short tournament.

4. Which country poses the biggest threat to Canada at the 2010 Olympics?

SHAUN SAYS: I'm not the most patriotic guy you'll find, but Canada is going to be tough to beat in Vancouver if they pick their team properly. Most of the other teams in the tournament are going to have some kind of deficiency that will hinder their success. Sweden and Russia have questions on the blueline, Finland is aging up front and might have problems scoring goals and the other usual countries don't have the depth to get the job done.

You'll notice one country I neglected to mention above...The United States have everything and more to cause Canada a headache at these Olympic games. In goal, the Americans have an embarrassment of riches. When reigning Vezina winner, Tim Thomas might not even make the team, you know you're stacked. Their defence is gritty and skilled enough to compete with Canada, and their forwards, led by Zach Parise and Patrick Kane could run roughshod over the less skilled defensemen in this tournament.

Adding to this is the fact that American hockey players never lack the confidence needed to play at a high level tournament, and it could very well end up being Canada vs. The United States in the gold medal game in February. And honestly, who doesn't want to see that?

WAYNE SAYS: The European teams all seem to have the most depth in the crease, which is a strength…except only one goalie can play at a time. Sweden's core players are suddenly much older with few young stars replacing them. Finland doesn't seem to have the high skill level of the other teams in the tournament, the Czechs have a good balance at every position, but their goaltending isn't as good or proven as it used to be. The United States will be much better than 2006 and could be back in the medal hunt. But for my money, it's Russia.

I agree that their defence is a bit of a question mark, but there are a few factors that make me worry as a Canadian hockey fan. First, they have the most dangerous offensive attack along with Canada. They're also pulling half their talent from the KHL, which is a second rate league to the NHL, but still has several of the best Russian players toiling their trade in their home country. The third factor goes back to my response to our first question. The Russians will be very motivated in Vancouver to show off why the NHL should attend the Olympics in Russia in 2014.

The stakes are high for Canada on home ice, and with these teams breathing down their necks; we're in for a hell of a tourney.

5. What's bugging you?

SHAUN SAYS: I'm going to step away from hockey for this one. What's really bugging me this week is people who couldn't be bothered to even flip on a CFL game during the regular season, but the second the Grey Cup comes around, they act like they are lifelong fans.

I make no bones about it; I don't like the CFL. I never have watched it and I never will. The CFL has a minor league feel to it, and I don't care to get caught up in all the canadiana around it. I don't care if the game is Canadian, Ukranian or Burkino Fasoan, compared to the NFL, the CFL game stinks.

So when I go on facebook or twitter and I see people commenting on the Grey Cup game when I clearly know they haven't watched more than 2 quarters all year, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I could rant further, but I'm sure everyone gets my point by now, the CFL to NFL comparison is honestly like comparing to a Senior A hockey league to the NHL. And how many people watch the Allan Cup game? What's that, it's not on TV? My point exactly.

WAYNE SAYS: Mine is a combination of two things: the rigidity of the salary cap structure, and the stupidity of some GM's at managing it. I like the idea of a hard cap to keep spending fair and having a salary floor so teams can't spend nothing and collect revenue sharing dollars, but the current structure makes trading key players virtually impossible.

Combined with GM's trying to lock players into huge money, long-term deals, the art of improving your team via trade is virtually dead. I think the league needs to provide a specific trade buffer that does not kick in until a third of the way through the season. Say the salary cap is $55 million, under the trade buffer, teams could spend $50 million by training camp and would have $5 million of trade space to use throughout the season to address needs and deal with unanticipated shortcomings.

The unfortunate thing about this kind of a rule is the league's GMs seem unable to leave themselves any trade space and require such a rule to help them do their jobs. I understand the pressure they feel to improve their teams in the offseason, but I don't recall a trophy for being the best preseason team.