Next Retired Numbers (Baseball, Part II)

In our last installment, I began a series with who I think will be the next person to have his number retired for every team in Major League Baseball.  Whether this series will be expanded to the other sports is still up in the air, but, at the very least, I wanted to finish baseball.  I started with the AL and NL East.  Today, it's Part II--the Centrals.

As I mentioned in Part I, some of these were very easy calls.  The St. Louis Cardinals, meanwhile, have three worthy selections who I think will all have their numbers retired eventually.  But, the whole idea was that I can only pick one, so I had to choose.  And the Centrals also gave us some active players who should get the honor from their team once they retire.

For the most part, though, the Central Divisions might've been the toughest of the three groups of 10, simply because they've had the least success in recent years.  The Royals and Cubs won back-to-back World Series in 2015-16, but we haven't had a team from either Central make the World Series since then.  Sure, they've had some good players, but the legendary franchise-icon types have been few and far between.  So, the number of candidates to have their number retired has been fairly limited.

That doesn't mean there aren't any worthy candidates from the 10 teams, though.  While I don't think they're locks to have their numbers retired by any means, here are my best guesses for who could end up honored on each Central Division team's wall...

AL CENTRAL
White Sox: 13 Ozzie Guillen-Paul Konerko and Mark Buerhle are the most recent White Sox to have their numbers retired, and it seems likely that they probably won't be retiring anymore for a while.  However, Ozzie Guillen's No. 13 has been kept out of circulation and he was the manager of their championship team 20 years ago.  So, if the White Sox do decide to have another number retirement somewhere along the line, Guillen could very well be the one who's getting honored.

Guardians: 11 Jose Ramirez-Cleveland's a tough one.  There are plenty of Indians/Guardians who you could make the argument for based on what they did on the field, but had other off-field problems that make you think they won't.  And if they wanted to retire Albert Belle's No. 8 or Sandy Alomar Jr's. No. 15 (which should be retired already), they would've done it by now.  Which leads me to believe that the likely candidate to be next is their current switch-hitting third baseman who's been one of the best players in baseball for years.

Tigers: 24 Miguel Cabrera-Justin Verlander may never retire.  Once he does, he'll likely have his No. 35 retired by the Tigers (whether he wears a Tigers or Astros hat on his Hall of Fame plaque is an entirely different question).  Miguel Cabrera already is, and we're just counting the days until he's giving a speech in Cooperstown.  Since he'll go into the Hall of Fame first, the Tigers will likely retire his number first.

Royals: 13 Salvador Perez-Salvador Perez has been a Royal for his entire career, and he's the last one standing from their 2015 World Series championship team.  He's also been the Royals' captain for the past few years.  There's no question that he's one of the best players in franchise history, either.  Once he hangs it up, he'll join fellow franchise icons George Brett and Frank White as the only Royals players ever to have their numbers retired.

Twins: 33 Justin Morneau-Minnesota's list of retired numbers is a who's who of the greatest players in Twins history.  The only name missing is Justin Morneau's.  Morneau certainly isn't on the same level as franchise icons Tony Oliva, Kirby Puckett and longtime teammate Joe Mauer, who are all Hall of Famers.  He's more a Kent Hrbek to Mauer's Puckett.  And Hrbek had his number retired.

NL CENTRAL
Cubs: 44 Anthony Rizzo-You've gotta think somebody from their curse-breaking 2016 team will have their number retired by the Cubs.  Although, they're one of those teams that only retires numbers of players who eventually reach the Hall of Fame, which could limit the options.  Let's assume for a minute that you don't have to be a Hall of Famer, though.  That leaves everyone from 2016 on the table.  And from that group, it's really down to Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo.  Bryant was the Rookie of the Year and MVP, but Rizzo was more consistent in a Cubs uniform for longer, so he gets the nod.

Reds: 19 Joey Votto-Most of the Reds' retired numbers are from their Big Red Machine dynasty.  And understandably so.  Barry Larkin is the only post-70s player who's received the honor.  Joey Votto will undoubtedly join him.  He became the face of the franchise after Larkin and spent all 17 of his MLB seasons in a Reds uniform.  Votto is second in franchise history behind only Johnny Bench in most major offensive categories.  His Hall of Fame case will be an interesting one.  There's no question about whether his number will be retired in Cincinnati, however.

Brewers: 8 Ryan Braun-They took it out of circulation when Braun retired, and it's actually surprising they haven't officially retired No. 8 already.  Braun is widely accepted as one of the best players in Brewers history, and he won an NL MVP in Milwaukee.  This was an easy one.

Pirates: 22 Andrew McCutchen-No, Paul Skenes hasn't done enough to warrant having his number retired yet!  I'm not saying it won't happen, but he's only in his second season, so it's way too early to say.  It isn't too early to say it about Andrew McCutchen.  He played his first nine seasons in Pittsburgh, the Pirates became good for the first time in forever, and he won an MVP.  Then after bouncing around for a few years, he came back to Pittsburgh in 2023 and will almost certainly retire a Pirate.  He's the best position player they've had since Barry Bonds.

Cardinals: 4 Yadi Molina-This was the toughest selection of all teams.  Because the Cardinals have three recently-retired players who will definitely have their numbers retired.  Albert Pujols will have a plaque in Cooperstown.  Adam Wainwright won't.  Yadi Molina might.  But his number will absolutely go on the wall at Busch Stadium.  And I have a feeling he'll get the honor first.  Although, I can also see him and his buddy Albert having a joint number-retirement ceremony.

Next Retired Numbers (Baseball, Part I)

My post about Ahmad Carter yesterday got me thinking about retired numbers in general.  Specifically about which numbers might be retired next by each team.  Every team has its own criteria, some of which are stricter than others.  But, regardless of the team's selection method, there are players (both active and recently retired) who'll obviously have their number retired.  It's really just a matter of when.

I was initially going to just go through a few examples, but the more I thought about it, I realized this could easily be a series.  So, that's what I'm going to do.  I'll look at each of the four major men's leagues and offer who I think will be the next player to have his number retired for each team, starting with baseball.

For some teams, this is a very simple exercise.  For others, it's a little more difficult.  For two very different reasons.  Some teams have multiple players who are worthy of the honor, so narrowing it down to one could be challenging (for example: how do you pick between Albert Pujols, Yadier Molina and Adam Wainwright for the Cardinals?).  There are other teams that don't have an obvious candidate simply because they haven't had anyone whose career was particularly memorable or noteworthy enough to deserve number retirement.  We'll give it a shot anyway, though. 

Here are the rules: A player can still be active.  There are a handful of active players who've already done enough to warrant having their number retired once their career is over.  The next rule is that I'm only talking about the number here.  If two players wore the same number and both are worthy of having it retired, it can be retired for both of them.  This applies to two teams.  Finally, if a team already has plans for a player's number retirement at some point this season, that doesn't count.  In those situations, we'll go with the person who should be next in line.

OK, with all that in mind, here we go.  I broke it up by division since I think that makes things easier.  We'll get started with the Easts:

AL EAST
Orioles: 35 Mike Mussina-Baltimore hasn't retired a number since Cal Ripken Jr.'s No. 8 on the day of his final game in 2001.  Although, to be fair, the Orioles haven't had too many players to right home about since then.  A member of their current young core, whether it's Adley Rutschman, Gunnar Henderson or someone else, could certainly fit the bill eventually.  And you wouldn't get an argument from me against Adam Jones.  But I'll go with Hall of Famer Mike Mussina, who played 10 years in Baltimore and is arguably the Orioles' second-greatest pitcher all-time behind Jim Palmer.

Red Sox: 33 Jason Varitek-Boston used to have a rule that you had to be in the Hall of Fame and have ended your career with the Red Sox to have your number retired.  That's why they had so few retired numbers for such a long time.  They eventually dropped it, though, while vowing it would still be selective.  I think Jason Varitek and/or Dustin Pedroia are two candidates for whom an exception could be made.  I'm going with Varitek since he spent his entire career in Boston and was the captain of their 2004 & 2007 championship teams.

Yankees: 99 Aaron Judge-The Yankees have more retired numbers than anybody, and people like to get on them for how willy-nilly some of the selections seem.  I don't think anyone will have an issue with No. 99 going on the wall in Monument Park eventually, though.  Aaron Judge has already etched his place in franchise history, with plenty more likely to come.  He'll almost certainly be next.

Rays: 3 Evan Longoria-Wade Boggs and Don Zimmer are the only two men who've had their numbers retired by the Rays in Tampa Bay's nearly 30 years of existence.  Although, to be fair, they weren't very good for the first half of their franchise history.  Still, they have candidates.  Two in particular.  Joe Maddon's No. 70 could go up, but in terms of players, it's gotta be the Rays' first true homegrown superstar.  Evan Longoria.  He played in Tampa for 10 years, is the franchise's all-time leader in pretty much everything and was the first Ray to win a major award, the 2008 Rookie of the Year.

Blue Jays: 29 Joe Carter-Toronto has retired a grand total of one number in franchise history.  One!  That's it!  (Although, to be fair, Roberto Alomar's was un-retired.)  That's simply mind boggling!  Because there are plenty of deserving players who could.  Dave Stieb, for one.  But, seriously, how is Joe Carter's No. 29 not retired in Toronto?  The guy was responsible for the most famous moment in franchise history and is among the Blue Jays' all-time leaders in practically every offensive category.

Moving over to the National League now, we've got one whose owner is retiring numbers left and right, one whose candidates are all active but playing for other teams, and one that hasn't retired a single number in franchise history.  The Phillies, meanwhile, unofficially reserve it for Hall of Famers.  As for the Braves...

NL EAST
Braves: 5 Freddie Freeman-He may play for the Dodgers now, but, don't forget, Freddie Freeman wanted to be a career Brave until his agent screwed up his contract negotiations.  Nevertheless, his 12 exceptional years in Atlanta included an MVP and a World Series title.  Everybody from the 90s who deserves to have his number retired already has, so somebody from one of the more-recent Braves teams seems to be the most likely to be next.  Freddie's probably the closest to retirement from that bunch.

Marlins: 19 Jeff Conine-No player in Marlins history has had his number retired.  There's only one possible person who could be first.  Jeff Conine is called "Mr. Marlin" for crying out loud.  This is a guy who was on the team for its inaugural season, both of its World Series titles, signed a one-day contract to retire a Marlin, and currently works in the front office.  Nobody is more identified with the Marlins franchise than him.

Mets: 8 Gary Carter-Steve Cohen's number-retiring bonanza continues this year with David Wright, who absolutely should have his number retired by the Mets.  There's one more Cohen needs to put up on the Citi Field wall, though.  Gary Carter's No. 8.  He was the difference-maker that turned them into a championship team in 1986, is a Hall of Famer, and is beloved for his place in Mets history.  Sadly, he passed away in 2012.  That doesn't mean his number can't join the ranks of his 1986 teammates Dwight Gooden, Keith Hernandez and Darryl Strawberry.

Phillies: 3 Bryce Harper-This is a tough one.  That Hall of Fame requirement really is limiting.  And, without it, Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard could conceivably all be honored.  Although, it's worth noting that they retired Dick Allen's number in 2020 and he won't go into the Hall of Fame until this July.  But, with the Hall of Fame thing in mind, it seems to me that Bryce Harper is the most likely to meet that criterion.  He's in the midst of a 13-year contract that will keep him in Philadelphia until 2031, so he'll end up spending a majority of his career with the Phillies and likely have a Phillies hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.

Nationals: 31 Max Scherzer-When the Nationals moved to Washington, the Expos' retired numbers were put back into circulation.  So, Ryan Zimmerman's No. 11 is officially their only retired number.  As it should be for the impact he made on the franchise during its 20 years in DC.  Who'll be the first to join Zimmerman is a very interesting question, though.  Harper plays for a division rival.  So does Juan Soto.  Was Stephen Strasburg's career long enough?  Or, is the answer none of the above?  Because I'd actually say it should be Max Scherzer.  The future Hall of Famer's prime was in Washington, where he pitched two no-hitters, won two straight Cy Youngs, made the All*Star team every year, and helped the Nationals win their first-ever World Series title.  Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me.

Retired Numbers Are Retired For A Reason

Giants first round draft pick Abdul Carter wore #11 at Penn State, but can't wear it for the Giants because it's retired for Phil Simms.  So, instead, he decided that he wanted to wear #56 and even went so far as to ask Lawrence Taylor if it was OK.  Lawrence Taylor.  LT.  The greatest player in franchise history.  Is he out of his ever-loving mind?!  LT shot him down as expected.  As he should've.

The audacity to even ask that is mind-boggling!  Lawrence Taylor is a Giants icon.  Abdul Carter may become one.  Or he may be another first-round bust.  Either way, #56 is LT's number and always will be.  If Abdul Carter wants to have his own legacy, that's exactly what it should be.  His own identity.  Forged wearing a number that he can make his own.  Which is basically what LT told him when he wouldn't let him wear 56.

This is actually the second year in a row that the Giants' first round pick has asked for a retired number.  Last year, Malik Nabors asked the family of Ray Flaherty if they had a problem with him wearing Flaherty's retired #1.  They didn't, so the Giants allowed him to wear it.  So, the precedent's been set.  Frankly, I don't think Malik Nabors should be wearing #1 either.  But Ray Flaherty's also not Lawrence Taylor.  (And Ray Flaherty played in the 1930s, so there aren't many living Giants fans who remember him...if there are any at all.  Different story with LT.)

Meanwhile, Joe Namath is the Jets' Lawrence Taylor.  The revered franchise icon.  Aaron Rodgers was #12 with the Packers, but it was Namath's number with the Jets.  So, what did Rodgers do?  He switched to #8!  And Rodgers is a future Hall of Famer!  Same thing when Joe Montana was traded from San Francisco to Kansas City.  Len Dawson wore Montana's #16 in Kansas City, so he switched to #19 with the Chiefs.  Joe Montana, a four-time Super Bowl-winning Hall of Famer.

It's not just football, either.  When Shaq joined the Lakers, he couldn't be either #32 (the number he'd worn in Orlando) because it's retired for Magic Johnson or #33 (the number he wore at LSU) because it's retired for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  So, instead he wore #34 (which has since been retired for him).  Karl Malone famously wore #32 in Utah, but he had the same problem when he joined the Lakers, so he switched to #11.

Those are just two examples.  There are plenty more.  So many veterans have changed their number when they join a new team, whether it's because another player is already wearing their preferred number or because their old number is retired for someone else.  They understand the situation and know changing their number, even though they might not necessarily want to, is sometimes part of the deal.  It's also a sign of respect for the person whose number is retired.  They've obviously played a significant enough role in the franchise's history to warrant the honor.

That's why I used the word "audacity" when referring to Abdul Carter's request.  Because that's exactly what it is.  And it's really nothing more than another symptom of the entitlement that's running rampant throughout college football in the NIL era.  A sense of entitlement that, unfortunately, seems like it's only going to get worse.  (Just like how players will continue to transfer because they're "not making what they're worth" at their current school.) 

Now, it's not unprecedented for a number to be taken out of retirement after a player asked for it.  When Peyton Manning was traded to the Broncos, Frank Tripucka, whose #18 was retired in Denver, gave Manning his blessing to wear the same number he'd worn in Indianapolis.  It was the same thing when Jerry Rice went to Seattle at the end of his career.  Hall of Famer Steve Largent, arguably the greatest player in Seahawks history, wore #80 in Seattle, but graciously agreed to let Rice wear the number he'd made iconic in San Francisco for that half season with the Seahawks at the end of his career.  (Which rankled many Seahawks fans.)

There's a big difference between Peyton Manning and Abdul Carter, though.  When Peyton Manning and Jerry Rice changed teams, they were respected veterans well on their way to Hall of Fame careers.  They'd also become synonymous with that number.  As much as them giving up the number would've been a sign of respect, them being allowed to wear it was a massive sign of respect the other way.  Respect that Peyton Manning and Jerry Rice had earned.

Abdul Carter is a rookie.  He's not even a rookie!  He's a guy who was literally just drafted!  He's done nothing in the NFL!  The thought that he wanted to wear Lawrence Taylor's number on the Giants is simply asinine!  Now, Carter seemed to acknowledge the fact that the request was likely going to be turned down.  But why even ask?  As LT told him, don't you want to forge your own legacy and make it so that a number becomes synonymous with you?  So that when/if he were to leave the Giants, he and his number became so intertwined that he'd be able to keep it on his new team even if someone else is already wearing it.

We see that all the time, of course.  The veteran getting traded to or signing with a new team and buying his number from the player who's currently wearing it for some sort of gift.  There was actually a pretty funny story about the Hurricanes' Jack Roslovic.  When Mikko Rantanen got traded to Carolina in February, he bought Roslovic a Rolex in exchange for his #96.  When Rantanen was traded again to Dallas a few weeks later, Roslovic switched back to 96...and got to keep the Rolex!

Roslovic is also a veteran.  He didn't give up the number just for a free watch.  He did it because Mikko Rantanen is a superstar.  It's what you do when your team acquires one of those high-priced, respected veterans.  They've earned it.  Could Rantanen have taken a different number?  Of course!  He would've had to had Roslovic not been willing to give 96 up.  But that's not the point.  Some veterans don't just become attached to a particular number, they make it part of their personal brand.  So, the number's important to them in another sense, as well.

And let's not forget the fans.  The fans are going to associate a number with a particular player, especially if that player is beloved.  After Paul O'Neill retired, the Yankees didn't give out #21 until LaTroy Hawkins asked for it in 2008.  Fans didn't like that and let Hawkins know (the fact that he sucked didn't help matters).  Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera had to explain to Hawkins why fans hated him and convinced him to change his number.  The Yankees never issued it again before finally retiring it for O'Neill in 2022.

Likewise, #51 was Bernie Williams' number.  It was also the number both Randy Johnson and Ichiro Suzuki (who should have a joint #51 number retirement for the Mariners) wore for their entire careers...except for the time they spent with the Yankees.  Johnson and Williams overlapped for two years in 2005-06.  Johnson is the one who changed.  To #41.  When Ichiro was on the Yankees, he was #31.  Ichiro Suzuki, a future Hall of Famer, changed his number in deference to Bernie Williams, a player who's decidedly not.

I don't bring up these examples to pile on Abdul Carter.  Rather, I bring them up to show how misguided the request was.  I'm glad Lawrence Taylor was having none of it.  For Carter's sake.  Asking for the number of the greatest player in franchise history was dumb in its own right.  But imagine if he sucked while wearing it?  He'd never hear the end of it from pissed off fans wondering why the number of a franchise icon was taken out of retirement in the first place.

While some might argue this next point, franchises don't retire numbers willy nilly.  (A point that's generally true, although, I do concede that some number retirements are more questionable than others.)  Asking to wear a retired number is completely different than asking a teammate to switch numbers.  Teams retire numbers for a reason.  For them to even consider unretiring one, there needs to be extenuating circumstances.  And a rookie wanting to wear it doesn't qualify.  Sorry Abdul Carter.

Local vs. National Exclusive Playoffs

We've reached that point of the year when the Stanley Cup and NBA Playoffs overlap for weeks at a time.  As well as the awkward situation where they're on the same networks, so you have no idea which league is on which channel on any given night (a situation that will be made at least a little bit easier next year when the NBA's new TV contract...sans TNT...kicks in).  Fortunately, in the first round, you still have the ability to watch the team on their familiar local channel.  Which is something that has drawn totally different opinions from national broadcasters for each sport.

Mike Breen is the lead play-by-play voice for the NBA on ESPN/ABC, as well as the primary play-by-play man for the Knicks on MSG.  Which led to a very interesting viewing experience for Game 1 of the Knicks-Pistons series.  Breen was doing the game on ESPN while his backup was calling the game for MSG.  He was back on MSG for Game 2, when he mentioned that he likes it that fans are able to watch the game with their regular announcers.

ESPN NHL broadcaster John Buccigross has the complete opposite viewpoint.  He doesn't like it that local broadcasts are available for the first round of the playoffs because he thinks it cuts into ESPN's potential audience.  This is especially true in larger markets like Boston and New York (although, it should be noted, the Bruins and Rangers didn't make the playoffs this season, so it's not like people are watching their local broadcasts, either).  If given the option of watching "their" announcers or the national broadcast, it's pretty clear which will be the preference most of the time.

They both have a point, although I think their completely opposite opinions are based on their completely different frames of reference.  Breen is both a local and a national broadcaster, so he's more likely to see the value of the local broadcast because he knows how connected fans of a team feel to the announcers they hear every day.  Buccigross only works with ESPN, so he's coming from that national perspective and wants those national broadcasts to have the biggest audience possible.

What's interesting, though, is that the local and national broadcasts coexist in teams' home markets.  In the past, the national broadcast would be blacked out in local markets if it wasn't exclusive (in fact, all national broadcasts were blacked out locally until not too long ago, and the NHL didn't even broadcast every game of the first round nationally until fairly recently, which meant the local broadcasts were all you could watch).  That's still the case for any game in either league on ABC in the first round (of which the NHL has none).  For national games on cable, though, the national and local broadcasts are both available.  So, I'd argue that they might both siphon audience from each other.

It's also worth noting that local playoff broadcasts are limited to the first round.  This detail was probably written into the local contracts because they have minimum game guarantees, but it's also a practical consideration.  It's the place where fans know they'll be able to see their team.  That's an important thing to remember when the national broadcast of first-round playoff games depends on which network's turn it is to have coverage that night.  A seven-game series could be on as many as four different national broadcasters!  Once the second round hits, though, each series is on the same network for every game.  Which is obviously a heck of a lot easier to follow.

This phenomenon is also exclusive to basketball and hockey.  Come next year, it'll just be the NHL.  Baseball did away with local broadcasts during the playoffs decades ago, and the NFL, of course, has long been only on national TV.  Whether that continues in the NHL's next TV contract will be very interesting to see.  Because there's definitely value in having local broadcasts during the first round of the playoffs.

The NHL, in fact, was the last of the four major sports to go to exclusive national broadcasts during the playoffs.  It wasn't until the 1994-95 season that the Stanley Cup Final was only available via the national broadcaster.  Before then, there were both national and local broadcasts throughout the playoffs.  And you actually couldn't even watch the national broadcast if your team was in it.  Which is why my only memories of the Rangers' Stanley Cup run in 1994 are of watching Sam Rosen on MSG.

Local broadcasts of the Stanley Cup Final are completely unfathomable these days.  It seems crazy to even think about.  The playoffs and championship round are the biggest time of the year, which is what makes them the most valuable property for the league's broadcast partners.  Which is part of the point John Buccigross was making.  It makes sense that you'd want the most eyeballs on the most important games.  If those games aren't exclusive, though, that greatly reduces the value of the TV contract.

Keeping those playoff rights are just as important for local broadcasters.  The sports media environment is rapidly changing, and many RSNs have fallen victim to cord-cutting and streaming.  If those remaining RSNs lose access to playoff games, that could endanger them even more.  While it's probably a stretch to say being able to air first-round playoff games is what's keeping the RSN model afloat, it's easy to see cable providers wanting to reduce how much they pay for those channels if they suddenly aren't airing as many games.

So, for that reason, I really can see the benefit of letting the local broadcasters keep their first-round playoff rights.  I get why national broadcasters are irked the idea.  But, whether they're watching their local channel or the national broadcast, they're still watching the game.  That's the most important thing to remember.  And, yes, sometimes it's easier to put on the channel they watch all season than trying to find which network has the national broadcast that night.

Which brings me to another point about the opening weekend of the NBA/Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Phil Jackson complained about NBA playoff games being played on Easter.  Jackson also doesn't like it how the NBA plays five games on Christmas every year, but that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.  Nor does playing on Easter (the date of which varies and actually lines up with the playoffs very infrequently).  The NBA Playoffs drew great ratings for the Easter games, too, so I think Phil's probably gonna lose that argument.

Easter was a different story for the NHL, which had very justified complaints about something totally different during the first few days of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  TNT did a remote broadcast for Game 1 of the Jets-Blues series in Winnipeg.  They plan on doing the same thing for all games in Canadian cities that aren't Toronto or Montreal.  That's unacceptable!  Not only that, it's just plain lazy!  It also shows a lack of respect for both the viewers and the product.  Doing it during the regular season is one thing, but not having announcers on-site for a playoff game is a giant slap in the face.  At the very least, hire some local Canadian broadcasters if you don't want to fly your regular people up there.  (ESPN, it should be noted, is broadcasting all games from Canada on-site.)  I bet Blues fans appreciated having their local crew on-site.

In baseball, local broadcasters often get FOMO during the playoffs.  They do games all season, only to get shut out of the most important games of the year.  Meanwhile, the national broadcasters go from calling a handful of a team's games during the regular season to calling all of them in the playoffs.  Fans not only don't have that connection with them, they usually complain about not being able to watch the game on their local channel.  The NBA and NHL give local broadcasters that chance.  And, really, what's the harm in it?

LA's Iconic Venues

Last week, they confirmed the program for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.  Now, the venue plan has been finalized.  A lot of the venue announcements weren't a surprise.  They simply confirmed what everybody already expected.  But there were also some changes that were unexpected, some of which clearly copied what worked successfully in Paris.  They also announced where all of the additional sports will be held (with the exception of softball, which was already set for Oklahoma City).

Let's start with the least surprising venue selection.  Baseball at Dodger Stadium.  I mean, seriously, where else would it be?  Sure, it could be in Anaheim at Angel Stadium, but come on now?  As soon as it was announced that baseball would be on the 2028 Olympic program, everybody knew that they'd be playing at one of the most iconic venues in the sport.  Just like they did in 1984, when baseball was just an exhibition tournament.  It wouldn't become a medal event until 1992.

Two of the other added sports--flag football and lacrosse--will share BMO Stadium, the home of LAFC and Angel City FC.  As is typically the case when two different sports share an Olympic venue, one will take place during the first week and the other during the second week.  Which order is really the only question.  They'll be six-team tournaments, so, if the setup is anything like rugby, they'll be three- or four-day tournaments.  Whether they run the men's and women's events simultaneously or back-to-back, BMO Stadium will be a busy place for probably the entire Games.

Cricket will get a temporary venue at the LA County Fairgrounds in Pomona.  That answered my one real burning question about the venue selections since there isn't really a cricket facility anywhere in Southern California.  There doesn't really seem to be a pressing need to have one, either, so a temporary structure makes sense.  Early on, there was some talk that cricket might get moved to the East Coast so that the games could start earlier and be on in primetime in India, but that is still possible in LA and I'm glad they didn't go that route.

As for squash, its Olympic debut will at another temporary venue--and an iconic one at that!  They're setting up the court and seating in the Universal Studios lot!  That's one of the best things about squash.  You can put a court literally anywhere!  So why not put it somewhere that's been used as a backdrop for so many movies?  The Olympics will be in Hollywood after all!

In Paris, the boxing preliminaries were held at an arena on the outskirts of the city before moving to Roland Garros for the medal round after the tennis competition ended.  LA took a page out of that playbook.  The early rounds will be held at the Peacock Theater (which will be allowed to keep its corporate name during the Olympics for some reason...I guess NBC has that much influence!) before moving to Staples Center after gymnastics is done.

When boxing is finished, weightlifting will be in the Peacock Theater during the second week of the Olympics.  But, since the boxing finals will now take place at Staples Center, rhythmic gymnastics had to move and will no longer be in the same venue as artistic gymnastics and trampoline.  Instead, it'll be at USC's Galen Center after badminton is done.

Beach volleyball was originally supposed to be in Santa Monica.  That made complete sense and would've been a nice historical nod since Santa Monica is essentially the birthplace of the modern two-person game.  Except Olympic organizers weren't able to come to an agreement with the City of Santa Monica, so beach volleyball was moved to Alamitos Beach, which is literally next to the Pacific Ocean!  Just the latest breathtaking view for the Olympic beach volleyball venue!

Moving beach volleyball to Alamitos Beach creates quite a waterfront cluster in Long Beach, with the temporary beach volleyball stadium not far from where marathon swimming and the new event of coastal rowing will take place.  Long Beach will actually be one of the busiest places during the Olympics.  Sport climbing will be a temporary venue in the Long Beach Convention Center Lot, while, for the first time, a purpose-built temporary range will be set up for the target shooting events.  The shooting events are usually all together, but not this time.  The outdoor shooting competitions are set for the Shotgun Center in South El Monte.

Also in Long Beach will be rowing and flatwater canoeing at the same venue used for the 1932 Olympics (but not in 1984).  That's one of two 1932 Olympic venues that wasn't used in 1984, but will be in 2028.  The other is the LA84 Foundation Swimming Stadium, which will be the site of diving (a move that had already been announced when they moved swimming to SoFi Stadium).  The LA Coliseum and Rose Bowl are the only venues that will be used in all three LA Olympics.

And, this went without saying considering how popular the sport is and how many venues there are for it in Southern California, but surfing will actually be held in the same place as the rest of the Olympics this time!  The Trestles, which has some of the most consistent waves in the world and is a regular stop on the World Surfing League World Tour, was the selected spot.  Sailing, the other water sport that often gets shipped outside the host city, will also actually be held in Greater Los Angeles, too.  It's set for Long Beach, as well.

The triathlons were originally set for Long Beach, but will instead be in Venice.  Venice was also designated as the starting point for the cycling road races and marathons.  The course layout and finish lines will be announced later, but it seems unlikely they'll even attempt to recreate one of the most indelible images of the 1984 Games--Joan Benoit running down the Santa Monica Freeway all by herself for miles during the first Olympic women's marathon.

Equestrian won't be in Long Beach, either.  It will be held at Santa Anita Park, one of the most famous tracks in horse racing and site of the Olympic competition.  That's a bit of a surprise.  It was widely speculated that the 2028 Olympic equestrian events would be held at Galway Downs in Temecula, which has plenty of room and is capable of hosting all three disciplines.  They obviously felt comfortable enough with Santa Anita, though, and it gives them another gorgeous setting with the San Gabriel Mountains in the background.

A trend started in Atlanta that has continued in all subsequent Olympics is the use of a large convention center to host several sports.  I already mentioned Long Beach, but there are two others--one in Downtown Los Angeles and one in the San Fernando Valley.  The Los Angeles Convention Center is part of the L.A. Live complex and will host fencing, taekwondo, table tennis, judo and wrestling.  Fencing/taekwondo and judo/wrestling are common venue-sharing partners, so that'll be two of the three Olympic venues that will be created within the facility, with table tennis taking the third.

Another idea that was wisely modeled off of what they did in Paris was grouping all of the newer, "urban" sports together in the same area.  That's exactly what they'll do at the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area in the San Fernando Valley.  Skateboarding and both BMX disciplines were already set for that cluster of venues (I'm pretty sure they use the same course for park skateboarding and BMX freestyle).  They'll now be joined by 3x3 basketball, which fits in perfectly with the theme, and modern pentathlon, which is modernizing the competition by replacing show jumping with an obstacle course race.

That's just a sampling of where the 2028 Olympic competition will take place.  A nice sampling of historic and modern venues, with plenty of LA's beautiful views as the backdrop.  And, now that the sport program and venue plans have been finalized, LA28 organizers will get working on the schedule, which we already know will look a lot different than previous Olympics.

2025 Stanley Cup Playoffs

For the first time in NHL history, none of the four American Original Six teams made the playoffs. Both Canadian Original Six teams did, though.  In fact, five of the seven Canadian teams overall (including all three in the East) made it.  This is also the first time that the Rangers, Bruins and Penguins all missed the playoffs since Pittsburgh joined the league (an odd add-on to that Original Six stat).

Although, let's be honest here.  Nobody thought the Blackhawks would make the playoffs, and the Red Wings were going to contend for, at best, a wild card.  The Rangers and Bruins, though.  No one saw that coming!  They were both expected to be Cup contenders.  Instead, they'll both be sitting at home watching as 16 other teams play for the Cup.

This year's playoffs are so wide-open, too.  There are about eight teams that I can see lifting the Cup in two months.  And, with Dallas facing Colorado and Tampa Bay facing Florida, two of those teams are guaranteed to lose in the first round.  I also don't know how I feel about either 1-seed.  Frankly, I don't see how Washington had the best record in the Eastern Conference.  And Winnipeg has to overcome the Curse of the President's Trophy.  They do have the best goalie, though.

But isn't that part of the fun of the Stanley Cup Playoffs?  It's the most unpredictable postseason in all of sports!  Which is what makes it so great!  Even with so many teams coming into the playoffs as legitimate Cup contenders, it could easily be none of them.  We can just as easily see one of the lower seeds get hot and ride it to 16 wins.

Maple Leafs vs. Senators: Toronto loses Game 7 in the first round.  It's an NHL rule.  The Leafs have made the playoffs every year since 2016-17.  They've lost in the deciding game of the first round every year but one during that span (in 2023, they actually won a playoff series before losing in the second round).  Will this year be any different?  On paper, they're clearly the better team.  But Ottawa was on a mission after the Four Nations break and certainly earned its playoff spot.  I have no doubt they'll give the Leafs everything they've got.  Either way, a team from Ontario is advancing.  Except this time, Toronto wins Game 7.  Maple Leafs in seven.

Lightning vs. Panthers: It only seems like the Prince of Wales Trophy has retired to Florida.  These two have combined to win the last five Eastern Conference titles, and is there anyone out there who doesn't think this year can make it six?  Of course, they'll have to get by each other first.  There are so many things to like about this series between two very similar teams.  It really could just come down to who wants it more and/or which goalie has a better series.  Honestly, it feels like a coin flip.  Lightning in seven.

Capitals vs. Canadiens: All credit to Montreal for making the playoffs.  I'm still not entirely sure how.  They had a -18 goal differential during the regular season!  Yet, while teams like the Rangers, Islanders and Blue Jackets seemed completely disinterested in making the playoffs, the Canadiens very much wanted to.  And their reward was their first playoff appearance since their run to the Final in 2021.  That season, they were the lowest-seeded team in the entire field, but they upset Toronto in the first round.  Is something similar in store against Washington?  Frankly, I don't see it.  While I don't see the Capitals winning the Prince of Wales Trophy, they should get by Montreal.  Capitals in five.

Hurricanes vs. Devils: Carolina has won at least one playoff series in each of the last six seasons, but has only made two Eastern Conference Finals and zero Stanley Cup Finals in that span.  Talent-wise, the Hurricanes are certainly capable of doing it this year.  Although, they can't alternate goalies.  They need to settle on a No. 1.  If they do, look out!  As for the Devils, they were fortunate to build enough of a buffer before the injuries that really derailed their chances.  (Well, that and the fact that the Rangers and Blue Jackets decided they didn't actually want to make the playoffs.)  If this series were taking place a month ago, I think the result might be different.  As it is, Carolina is the much stronger team at the moment.  Hurricanes in six.

Jets vs. Blues: Jordan Binnington was Canada's starting goalie in the Four Nations Face-Off.  He was the only goalie to start every game, in fact.  Right after the season resumed, the Blues went on a 12-game winning streak to go from firmly outside the playoff field to snagging the West's second wild card.  And, of course, Team USA's starting goalie was Connor Hellebuyck, who's in line to win his second straight Vezina for a Winnipeg team that won the President's Trophy.  The Jets will have their work cut out for them, starting with a pesky St. Louis team that has ridden a hot Binnington to the Cup as an 8-seed before.  Jets in seven.

Stars vs. Avalanche: When the Avalanche traded Mikko Rantanen, I bet the last thing they expected was that they'd be going against him in the first round of the playoffs.  Yet, here we are, with Rantanen facing his former team in the first-round series that I'm looking forward to the most.  They've both got realistic Cup aspirations.  And expect this series to be a grind.  They'll take everything out of each other.  So, the question is, will whoever survives have anything left for three more rounds?  Stars in seven.

Golden Knights vs. Wild: While Vegas is the favorite in this series, don't count out Minnesota.  The Wild have a ton of offensive firepower, and they're getting some key players (Kirill Kaprizov, Joel Erikson Ek) back from injury.  Minnesota is very capable of winning this series.  In fact, I think the Wild will win this series.  And, even if they don't, how cool would it be if Marc-Andre Fleury's final NHL game is against the Golden Knights?  As it is, I don't see his career ending just yet.  Wild in six.

Kings vs. Oilers: The Kings and Oilers meet in their annual first-round series.  They're facing each other for the fourth straight year.  Edmonton has won the first three.  Will this year be any different?  Frankly, I don't think so.  The Oilers aren't just built for another deep playoff run after going to the Final last season, they're the more talented team.  They met the other day and the Kings won 5-0, but they also both knew that they were playing each other in the playoffs again, so I'm not reading much into that.  Oilers in six.

Once we reach the second round, it'll really become a crapshoot.  Any predictions are really about feelings.  What do you think of a particular team and do you think they have what it takes to go all the way?  Although, matchups can certainly be important, too, I think the playoff experience can't be discounted, either.  That's why betting against playoff regulars like Edmonton and Tampa Bay seems like a foolish mission.

And it's a feeling that I'm going with for my Stanley Cup Final pick.  It's just my gut telling me that the Conference Finals will be Toronto vs. Carolina and Dallas vs. Edmonton with Toronto and Dallas playing for the Cup.  The Leafs in the Final??!!  I must've lost my mind!  Quite possibly.  But, like I said, I just have a feeling.  They won't lift the Cup, though.  Dallas will.

Thank You Sam

While I've been a Rangers fan my entire life, my first memories of actually watching the team were during the 1994 playoffs.  That obviously was a magical season for the franchise, and it was made so much more special for Rangers fans because it was the last time local TV crews called every round of the playoffs (exclusive national coverage of the later rounds started in 1995).  Which meant that every moment of that run was called by Sam Rosen.  Which meant those moments would be immortalized by the only voice Rangers fans would want to capture them.

"Matteau!  Matteau!  Matteau!" in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Final.  "The waiting is over...the New York Rangers are the Stanley Cup Champions!  And this one will last a lifetime!" after Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final.  And so will the man who called them!  After 40 years in the MSG booth, Sam Rosen has called his final game.

For generations of Rangers fans, Sam Rosen provided the soundtrack.  His trademark "It's a power play goal!" call was one of the most recognizable in hockey.  His longtime pairing with John Davidson turned them both into household names.  They became such a legendary tandem that TNT had them reunite for one night only on the national broadcast of a Rangers-Flyers game last week.  Then, after JD left broadcasting for the front office, he was replaced by Joe Micheletti, who built a similar rapport with Sam.

Want to know how beloved Sam Rosen is around the league?  Just look at the showing of appreciation he received on every Rangers road trip this season.  He got the same type of send-off a retiring player would.  He was shown on the big screen and received a standing ovation from the crowd in each arena.  Not only that, each team presented him with a gift, too (he got a lot of bottles of wine!).  It was a farewell tour befitting the legend that he is.

It's not just fans and team executives who love Sam Rosen, either.  The tributes he got from the players were so heartfelt.  Former Ranger Mats Zuccarello wore a "Rosen 40" jersey during the pregame skate when the Wild visited Madison Square Garden earlier this month.  In the Rangers' finale against Tampa Bay, the entire Rangers team came out in "Rosen 40" jerseys.  Then the fans broke into a "Saaammm Ro-sen" chant after one last scoreboard tribute.  And, oh yeah, he was named the No. 1 star of the game!

My memories of Sam Rosen and Rangers hockey go far beyond just the 1994 Stanley Cup run.  As my dad's health was getting worse, I'd often go out and spend time with him.  Since it was winter, it was hockey season.  So, we ended up watching a lot of Rangers games together during the 2022-23 season.  Those are some of my last good memories of spending time with my dad.

Everybody's Sam Rosen/Rangers stories are different.  But they're also similar in many ways.  Watching their favorite team play with that familiar voice calling the action.  And, because he was the Voice of the Rangers for so long, he was the common bond between the generations.  If you watched the Rangers on MSG at any time over the past 40 years, you were listening to a legend.

Over the course of 40 years, he saw so many of the greatest players in NHL history.  He was there for Henrik Lundqvist's entire career.  Wayne Gretzky's final NHL game was in a Rangers uniform.  Mark Messier.  Brian Leetch.  Jaromir Jagr.  Those are just some of the greats who've played for the Rangers with Sam Rosen calling all the action.

And there were plenty of outstanding moments outside of the 1994 Stanley Cup run.  One of his favorites was Mika Zibanejad's five-goal game against the Capitals in 2020.  Prior to Sam's final game, Zibanejad gave him that stick as a going-away present.  There was also Artemi Panarin's overtime winner against the Penguins in Game 7 of the first round in 2022.  Messier's three-goal third period in Game 6 against the Devils in 1994.  (OK, maybe one more from that season.)

Naturally, there were plenty of ups and downs.  For as many good teams the Rangers have had, there have also been plenty of bad seasons.  There were also seasons like this one where the team underperformed and crumbled under the weight of expectations.  The quality of broadcasts never went down, though.  And it was refreshing to not have it sugarcoated.  Sam & Joe never hesitated to call the team or specific players out.  Which I actually think they respected.

"Respect."  That's the word that immediately comes to mind any time Sam Rosen's name came up this season.  If he wasn't respected, would he have gotten such praise around the league?  And the respect goes far beyond his professionalism.  In every interview, whoever was talking about him mentioned how much they respect Sam as a man.  That praise was real.  He's a genuine good guy. 

That outpouring of love throughout the season was simply a way of saying "Thank you" for being not just an excellent broadcaster, but an outstanding person.  He never took for granted the fact that he got to watch hockey games and talk about them for a living.  And he always took time for the fans.  Joe was telling a story during the game about how sometimes on road trips, if the hotel was near the arena, Sam would tell the rest of the TV crew to go ahead so that he could sign autographs and take pictures with anyone who asked.  The appreciation was always mutual.

The Rangers had always told Sam that it was up to him.  He could continue as their play-by-play man as long as he wanted.  So, it was his decision to retire after this season.  I don't think he did it so that he could have a farewell tour.  He did it because he knew it was time and he wanted to enjoy his final season in the booth alongside his friend Joe Micheletti.  I think he also respects the organization so much that he didn't want there to be any uncertainty surrounding next season.

Kenny Albert will take over next season, and there isn't a better person to fill those shoes.  Kenny has been the Rangers' radio play-by-play guy for 29 years and has spent that entire time traveling right alongside Sam Rosen to road games.  He's also the lead national play-by-play announcer on TNT, so playoff games will still have a familiar voice.  And, perhaps most importantly, this won't be the first time Kenny Albert is taking over for a legend.  When Doc Emrick retired as the voice of the NHL On NBC, it was Kenny Albert who replaced him.

But, still, next season won't feel the same.  It's like listening to the Yankees on the radio this season.  No offense to Dave Sims, but he's not John Sterling.  Yankees radio broadcasts sound and feel different.  It'll be the same thing with Rangers games on MSG next season.  Kenny Albert is one of the absolute best in the business.  The Rangers are spoiled in that regard.  He'll seamlessly transition from the radio booth to the TV booth.  But it'll still feel weird to not hear Sam go, "It's a power play goal!"

Next season is the Rangers' 100th anniversary, so Sam won't be completely gone.  He'll still be involved in the celebration in some way.  As he should.  Because, outside of the players, nobody has meant more to the organization over the past four decades.  For generations of Rangers fans, Sam Rosen's voice is all they know.  So, even though they're in very good, very capable hands with Kenny Albert, it won't be the same.  He's not Sam Rosen.  There's only one of him.

Captain America & His Teammates

Aaron Judge has been announced as both the first team member and captain of Team USA at the 2026 World Baseball Classic.  It's the same role Mike Trout had in 2023, although, you'll have to wonder if there's a place for Trout on the 2026 roster since he and Judge are both right fielders.  Frankly, I don't think we will see Trout next year (and Judge's participation isn't necessarily guaranteed, either, since circumstances can, of course, change). 

Assuming Judge is in there batting third and playing right field, who might join him on the Team USA roster?  It's obviously fairly easy to build what's essentially an All*Star team using just Americans.  Whether they'll actually want to play and their teams will make them available are different questions, but, for the sake of this exercise, let's assume everyone says "yes" and gets the go-ahead.  If that happens, here's how I'd like the see the lineup shake out...

1. Mookie Betts, 2B: If the Dodgers keep this "Mookie as an infielder" thing going all season, it's a safe bet that the move will become permanent (especially since the only thing the Dodgers seem to have more of than starting pitchers is outfielders).  Which actually works out perfectly for Team USA, since Mookie shifting to second base means he and Judge can both be in the lineup without issue.  Betts was the USA's leadoff hitter in 2023.  No reason to think he wouldn't be again.

2. Bobby Witt Jr, SS: Witt was on the team in 2023 mainly to get experience and serve as a pinch runner.  Three years later, he's blossomed into a superstar.  And, in 2026, he won't be there as a young guy there for the experience.  He's one of the best players in baseball, the face of the Kansas City Royals, and will be one of the faces of Team USA.

3. Aaron Judge, RF: We've already established that Judge will be the team captain and, most likely, the right fielder.  He goes back and forth between batting second and third for the Yankees, but I think the 3-spot behind Betts and Witt makes the most sense here.

4. Kyle Schwarber, DH: Schwarber's another returnee from the 2023 roster who I think should/will have a bigger role in 2026.  There are obviously plenty of DH candidates (really anybody whose bat you want in the lineup can DH on any given day).  But, I like having a lefty bat behind the three righties at the top, and I don't think Kyle Schwarber has any business even owning a glove.  And the Phillies have finally taken him out of the leadoff spot!

5. Pete Alonso, 1B: Alonso was on the team in 2023, when he and Paul Goldschmidt both saw time at first base.  In 2026, the position should be his.  The idea of Judge and Alonso in the same lineup really should be terrifying.  I'm at least giving pitchers a little bit of a break by sandwiching Schwarber between them.

6. Kyle Tucker, LF: This one comes with an asterisk.  Tucker is a free agent after this season, so his participation is the most up in the air.  If he leaves the Cubs, he may want some extra Spring Training reps with his new team.  Although, a veteran like Tucker shouldn't need much of an adjustment period.  So, changing teams shouldn't impact his ability to play in the WBC should he want to.

7. Adley Rutschman, C: You know this lineup is loaded when Adley Rutschman is batting seventh!  Since they'll still be in Spring Training, catcher is the one position where multiple people are likely to start.  In 2023, it was J.T. Realmuto and Will Smith.  For 2026, I've got Rutschman and Smith.  I could even see Rutschman DHing against a lefty if Smith catches that game.

8. Alec Bohm, 3B: Third base is perhaps the most wide-open position.  The starter in 2023 was Nolan Arenado, who I don't see making the team next year.  Instead, I'm going with the Phillies' Alec Bohm, although I can also see Boston's Alex Bregman getting the nod.  Either way, whoever plays third should be someone who's comfortable hitting lower in the order.

9. Jackson Merrill, CF: Believe it or not, I had a really tough time coming up with a center fielder!  I finally settled on Jackson Merrill, who made the All*Star team as a rookie last season for the Padres.  The amazing thing about that is how he was an infielder until Spring Training last year, and he's turned into a very good defensive center fielder.  That's all Team USA would need.  Although, he's surely capable with the bat, as well.

Next year's World Baseball Classic will have the exact same format as 2023 with four pools of five teams.  Which means four pool play games.  Which means you need four starting pitchers.  Finding four starters who are willing to amp it up to 100 in the middle of Spring Training is always difficult, and you usually don't get all of the frontline aces you want.  And the pitch count limits mean starters are probably only going about four innings before handing it over to what needs to be a solid bullpen.  But a four-man rotation that looks something like this wouldn't be too shabby...

Tarik Skubal: Why not go big and go for the Tigers' unanimous 2024 Cy Young winner?  Are there any better starting pitchers in the Majors right now?  If he follows up his incredible 2024 with anything close to that this season, this should be an easy pick.  He gets the ball in the opener against Brazil, which would then set him up to pitch in the USA's quarterfinal game.

Paul Skenes: Is there anyone people want to see pitching for Team USA next March more than Paul Skenes?  This would be a no-brainer selection!  Next season will be his third in the Majors and his second full season.  I bring that up since it's important that it won't be his first Spring Training followed by a full season.  If it was, I'd say it'd be more important for him to be in Spring Training.  Instead, I've got him pitching Game 2 against Great Britain and lined up for the semifinals.

Aaron Nola: The No. 3 starter may be the most important of the four.  Why?  Because the third game is against Mexico, which should be the toughest game in pool play.  Then his next start would be in the championship game.  So, you want a veteran with postseason experience who'd feel comfortable in that position.  Either half of the Phillies' outstanding duo would fit the bill, but I'm giving Nola the nod over Zack Wheeler.

Max Fried: Finally, there's Max Fried.  The No. 4 starter would only be scheduled to make one start in the final pool play game against Italy, and it really can be anybody.  Somebody who's available to pitch out of the bullpen in the elimination round would be a bonus, too.  But, I'm opting for a more traditional starter.  And I want a lefty to balance it out after the two righties (which, granted, is less significant in a short tournament like this).  So, Max Fried it is.

Who's to Blame

Last season, the New York Rangers set franchise records with 55 wins and 114 points, won the President's Trophy and made the Eastern Conference Final.  With most of that team returning this season, expectations were understandably high.  And they got off to a great start.  They were 11-4-1 in their first 16 games.  Then they lost a game in Calgary in mid-November and everything came crashing down.  The end result?  Missing the playoffs.

This season was a colossal disappointment on multiple levels.  There are plenty of reasons why, and there's plenty of blame to go around.  From the players to the coaching staff to the front office, everyone is responsible for this dumpster fire.  Some more than others.

Peter Laviolette sure seems like somebody who knows he's about to get fired.  Earlier this week, after one of the Rangers' many uninspired losses, he was asked what he would say to the team after that type of performance.  His response was that he doesn't go into the locker room after the game.  That tells me two things: 1. He's completely checked out, and 2. He's completely lost the locker room.  When that happens, a coach is as good as gone.

After Laviolette did seemingly everything right last season, seemingly every move he's made this season has gone wrong.  There were plenty of questionable lineup decisions.  Healthy scratches that didn't make sense, guys in and out of the lineup, changing lines every game (it's hard for players to develop chemistry with each other when they're playing with different linemates every game!), in-game adjustments that only made things worse.  And some baffling decisions regarding playing time.

Then there are the things that were problems all season, yet were never fixed!  The defensive lapses that led to easy goals in seemingly every game.  The power play, which went from one of the best in the league last season to one of the worst this season (with the same guys!).  The late-game collapses that cost them points.  And just think of how much worse it would've been if not for the exceptional goaltending of Igor Shesterkin and Jonathan Quick!

So, yes, Laviolette deserves plenty of blame for what happened this season.  As I said, he lost the locker room somewhere along the way, and he clearly never got it back.  Beyond that, though, whenever a team underperforms, especially to this degree, the head coach is the scapegoat, whether it's his fault or not.  Laviolette knows that.  Which is why I fully expect him to be the latest in a long line of Rangers coaches who only lasted two seasons.

I'm not letting the players off the hook, though.  If you want to talk about being checked out, there have been plenty of games this season where the players have looked just that.  Too many uninspired performances, too much lack of effort.  Too many bad periods that ended up costing them.  Too many losses to bad teams.  Too many points left on the table.  Too many games where they just mailed it in or got behind and simply gave up.  They have the talent.  That was never a question.  Which is what makes the whole thing so frustrating!

Where was the chemistry?  Where was the leadership?  Something wasn't clicking in the locker room.  You can't expect everyone to have a career year every season, and you obviously can't do anything about injuries.  Effort, though.  That's something you can control.  And there were too many games where the effort either wasn't there or wasn't enough.  That's on the players.

While Peter Laviolette and the players both bear their share of responsibility, they aren't the most to blame for what happened to the Rangers this season.  One person and one person only is.  General Manager Chris Drury.  When Laviolette is shown the door, I hope Drury is told to go with him.  Because his fingerprints are all over the Rangers' failures this season.  And we maybe should've seen it coming.  Because it started over the summer.

At the end of last season, Drury wanted to move Barclay Goodrow.  Goodrow had a no-trade clause and didn't want to leave, but Drury finagled it so that he'd be able to trade Goodrow to the Sharks, putting him on waivers before completing the trade (thus nullifying his no-trade clause).  It caught Goodrow completely off guard.  Then, during the season, he did the same thing to team captain Jacob Trouba.  He tried to trade Trouba to Columbus, but Trouba blocked it.  So Drury threatened to do the same thing to Trouba that he had done to Goodrow.  Trouba relented and allowed a trade to Anaheim, but he admitted after the trade that it was hard for him to act like a captain amidst the constant trade talk.

Drury's shenanigans with Goodrow and Trouba didn't sit well with those still in the locker room.  Nor did his declaration in November that the Rangers were "open for business" and publicly dangling pretty much everyone on the roster not named Igor Shesterkin.  He specifically mentioned career Ranger Chris Krieder, who's been a franchise cornerstone and fan favorite for more than a decade.  The players don't trust him.  And, frankly, why should they?

And, as it turns out, Trouba wouldn't be the only one.  Kappo Kaako was traded to Seattle.  Ryan Lindgren and Jimmy Vesey were sent to Colorado.  Reilly Smith, who he got from Pittsburgh during the offseason to play on the Kreider-Zibanejad line, was a healthy scratch in several games (for "roster management" purposes) before getting shipped to Vegas.  Kaako was flipped for defenseman Will Borgen, who's been good as Ke'Andre Miller's partner on the No. 2 pair and actually signed an extension with the Rangers.  And Urho Vaakanianen, who they got for Trouba, has also been a regular in the lineup.  The players he got from the Avalanche don't even play, though!  That trade was solely to get rid of Lindgren and Vesey.  And for what?

One trade that Drury's made this season has worked out.  J.T. Miller wanted out of Vancouver and wanted to go back to the Rangers.  Drury had to give up somebody worthwhile to get him, so he sent Filip Chytil and rookie defenseman Victor Mancini to the Canucks.  Miller seamlessly fit right back into the lineup and actually provided a bit of a jolt after the trade.  That obviously didn't last, but he'll still be around next season and will figure to be a key piece moving forward.

Some of these moves were ostensibly for salary cap-related reasons.  It's true that the Rangers were flirting dangerously near the cap, but the cap is also set to go up next season, so it's clearly more than that.  It was also evidently to make room for some of the young players in the system.  Guys like Brett Berard and Brennan Othmann.  And Gabe Perreault, who signed his rookie contract and made his NHL debut just days after Boston College lost in the NCAA Tournament.  But, if that was the case, why were those young guys constantly moving in and out of the lineup?

There's also this.  Drury became GM prior to the 2021-22 season.  He's about to hire his third head coach in four years.  (I'm still not entirely sure why Gerard Gallant was fired after two 100-point seasons.)  At what point do you realize maybe the coaching isn't the problem?  Especially when the players don't trust the front office?  If you don't have the players' buy-in, you're not gonna win regardless of who the coach is.

Of course, Rangers fans looking for a silver lining can point to the franchise's history.  They won the President's Trophy in 1991-92, then missed the playoffs in 1992-93.  And, in 1993-94, after a coaching change, they won the Stanley Cup.  With the talent on the roster, not much is needed for the Rangers to turn things around next season.  So, would it surprise anybody if history repeats itself in 2025-26?

The Biggest Olympics In History

When Los Angeles hosted the Olympics in 1984, there were a then-record 221 events in 21 sports.  When the Games return to LA in 2028, there will be 351 events in 36 sports.  That's 22 more events and four more sports than in Paris, and a whopping 140 events and 15 sports more than the last time LA hosted.  So, for the second time, 44 years apart, Los Angeles will be the site of the largest Olympic Games in history.  They'll also be the first where the amount of female athletes is greater than the number of men.

The expanded event program and increased number of women are just two of the massive changes we'll see in LA.  The finalized program was approved by the IOC on Wednesday, confirming that there will be approximately 100 more quota spots for women than men (5,655 to 5,543) while keeping the 10,500-athlete limit.  They also allowed for an additional 698 athletes in the five sports added just for 2028.  And, with all of these changes, the LA Games will look a lot different!

Perhaps the biggest change was also one of the most surprising.  Since 2008, the women's Olympic soccer tournament has featured 12 teams, while the men's soccer tournament has been 16 teams since 1980.  In 2028, that will be flipped.  The women's tournament will be the one with 16 teams, while the men had four teams cut and will only feature 12.  (Which pretty much accounts for the difference in quota spots.)

While this was a little shocking when I first saw it, the reasons for it make total sense.  The women's Olympic tournament is a senior-level event, second in importance behind only the Women's World Cup.  The men's tournament, of course, is an under-23 tournament (with three overage players).  Very few of the biggest names in men's soccer play in the Olympics.  This is FIFA and the IOC's acknowledgement that the women's Olympic soccer tournament is bigger than the men's.  The fact that the United States will be the home team sure doesn't hurt, either!

It's not just in soccer where the number of women's teams has increased.  They also expanded the women's water polo tournament from 10 teams to 12, matching the size of the men's field.  Every team sport will have either an equal number of men's and women's teams or, in soccer's case, more women's teams.  That also includes the four team sports added by the LA organizers (baseball/softball, cricket, flag football and lacrosse), all of which will feature a six-team tournament.

In 3x3 basketball, meanwhile, both tournaments will gain four teams, going from eight to 12.  The additional quota spots for 3x3 were taken directly from breaking, which might've been a one-and-done in Paris.  I would imagine that they'll change the format of the tournament from a single round robin to two groups of six.  Regardless, it shows the IOC's commitment to 3x3, which only debuted in Tokyo.

Another big winner was swimming.  Six events were added to the swimming program, with the 50-meter distance being added in all three strokes that didn't already have a 50 (the 50 freestyle has been a part of the Olympics since 1988).  With the 50 backstroke, breaststroke and butterfly being added, that brings the total number of swimming events to 41.  Surprisingly, they didn't add the mixed 4x100 freestyle relay, as well.  That seemed like a natural addition, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's included at Brisbane 2032.

Track & field will have a second mixed relay added.  The mixed 4x100, which is a brand-new event that won't make its international debut until next month's World Relays, will be contested at the World Championships for the first time in 2027.  It'll then make its Olympic debut a year later.  With the success and popularity of the mixed 4x400 relay, the addition of a mixed 4x100 wasn't a surprise.  Neither was dropping the mixed marathon race walk relay, the event that the mixed 4x100 relay replaces.

Mixed events have become popular with the IOC, the sport federations and fans.  Part of their appeal for the IOC and the federations is that they provide extra medal opportunities while not requiring any additional athletes.  And, with the success of mixed team events in the sports that already have them, it was only a matter of time until they added them in others.

Gymnastics and golf are among the sports that will have mixed team event for the first time in LA.  How that'll work, I have no idea.  But the thought of a gymnastics mixed team event is certainly compelling.  Table tennis will also debut a mixed team event in LA.  So will rowing, where it'll be one of three events in an entirely new discipline--coastal beach rowing.  And archery, which already has a mixed team event, will add another, as compound archery will make its Olympic debut (all other Olympic archery events are with the recurve bow).

Surprisingly, the mixed team event in diving was not added.  It's been a part of the World Championships for a while and really did seem like a no-brainer for Olympic inclusion.  Each team consists of one man and one woman, one diving off the springboard and the other diving off the platform.  With eight diving events already on the Olympic program, maybe they couldn't figure out a way to squeeze a ninth into the schedule?  But I'm hoping mixed team diving is something we see at the Olympics in the future.

There have also been changes to the program in existing sports.  Perhaps the most significant of those is in sport climbing, which will see the combined event split into separate boulder & lead disciplines.  Yet another example of the IOC showing its confidence in a newer Olympic sport.  Sport climbing was first contested in Tokyo with only one gold medal available.  Then in Paris, they separated the speed event, while keeping boulder & lead together.  In LA, each of the three will have its own gold medal for the first time.

As I already mentioned, rowing will have three new events in a totally different discipline--coastal beach rowing.  There will be men's and women's single sculls, as well as the mixed double sculls.  This is completely unlike the existing Olympic rowing events.  In coastal beach rowing, they have to run out from the beach, row in the open water, then sprint back to the finish line on the sand.  It looks awesome!  And they cut the two lightweight events from the traditional rowing program to make room.

After all the back-and-forth about boxing's international federation and whether it would even have a place in LA, it was confirmed as an Olympic sport for 2028 a few months ago.  The boxing program will look different in LA, though.  They actually added an event.  The new event is the women's heavyweight class, giving each gender seven weight classes.  Women's boxing didn't even debut at the Olympics until 2012.  Just 16 years later, Olympic boxing will be evenly divided between men and women (both in terms of number of athletes and weight classes).

They also confirmed what we already knew--that softball and slalom canoeing will be in Oklahoma City, not LA.  When they first announced this change over the summer, the initial reaction was overwhelmingly negative.  I, personally, have no problem with it.  It won't be the first Olympics to move events outside the host city (surfing in Tahiti, anyone?), and it's only a three-hour flight from LA to Oklahoma City.  Plus, there are two events out there, not just one, so they'll seem a lot less isolated than when a single sport is moved outside the host city.

Whether it's Oklahoma City, LA or elsewhere in Southern California, Olympic history will be made in 2028.  And not just because there will be more events than ever.  There will be more mixed events and more gender equity, while women will be in the spotlight more than ever before.  Which is only fitting.  Since this will be the first Summer Olympics helmed by the first-ever female IOC President, Kirsty Coventry.

Busy Days Ahead

Last week, FIFA confirmed the hosts for the 2031 and 2035 Women's World Cups.  The 2035 edition will be hosted by Great Britain (I'm saying "Great Britain" since the entire UK will be involved).  The 2031 tournament, meanwhile, will be in the United States.  Adding another tournament to a loaded calendar of major international sporting events being held in the United States over the next decade.

In fact, 2031 alone will be very busy with major international sporting events in the United States.  The U.S. was already set to host the Rugby World Cup for the first time that year.  There have been some questions about the timing of the Rugby World Cup, which is typically held in September/October, but will also presumably want to use NFL stadiums that will obviously be in use at that time.  However, with the Women's World Cup now set for June/July of the same year, I guess that answers the question about when in the year the Rugby World Cup will take place.

Now the question becomes which cities will host both.  More importantly, which stadiums will host both.  I suppose they could probably get away with using the smaller venue for the early rounds in one or both tournaments (Red Bull Arena instead of MetLife Stadium, whatever they're calling the StubHub Center now instead of SoFi Stadium, FC Dallas' stadium instead of Jerry's World are just three examples), but you know they'll obviously want to use the NFL stadiums for the knockout rounds.  And how will the NFL teams feel about their stadiums potentially being used for two major international tournaments a few months apart?

It's also worth noting that in 2031, the Women's World Cup will be expanded to 48 teams.  Whether that's too many is an entirely different debate.  The point is it'll be just like next year's Men's World Cup with 108 games.  Whether Mexico and/or Canada steps in to co-host, that's a lot of games that'll be in the U.S.  And the Rugby World Cup, while only 24 teams and 52 games, will still use probably 7-8 stadiums.

The Summer/Fall of 2031 really is just the tip of the iceberg, though.  Between now and 2034, the United States will host both the Summer and Winter Olympics, both the Men's and Women's FIFA World Cups and both the men's and women's Rugby World Cups.  That's six major international events on American soil in a nine-year period!

Next summer, of course, it all starts with the men's FIFA World Cup.  The U.S. is co-hosting with Mexico and Canada, but will be the primary host country, with 78 of the 108 games being played in the United States.  And the year 2026 is obviously the nation's 250th birthday, so hosting the World Cup is an appropriate celebration.

Then in 2027, the U.S. takes a year off from international hosting.  But in 2028, it's the biggest event of them all.  The Olympics return to Los Angeles for the third time and the U.S. for the first time in 32 years.  The two biggest sporting events on the planet two years apart.  And that's just the warmup!  Because there'll be four more on tap from 2031-34.

We've already gone over how busy 2031 will be with both the Women's World Cup and Rugby World Cup.  The 2031 Rugby World Cup was part of a package deal, though.  The United States will also be the host country for the 2033 Women's Rugby World Cup.  That's the smallest of the six events (only 16 teams), as well as the least prestigious, which makes it the most likely to be overlooked.  However, it's still a major international event that'll be in the United States during that span.

That run of international hosting will end in February 2034, when the Winter Olympics are in Salt Lake City for the second time.  Just like when they hosted in 2002, it'll be only six years after the Summer Olympics were also in the U.S.  That's about the only similarity the 2034 Olympics will have with the 2002 Olympics.  The Winter Olympics have grown so much (both in terms of stature and the number of events) since the last time Salt Lake City hosted.  More importantly, this time it's the finale of an incredibly busy stretch for the United States.  In 2002, that wasn't the case.  Only the transcendent 1999 Women's World Cup was between the two Olympics.

For an American fan of international sports, especially someone who lives in or near a major city that'll likely be chosen as one of the sites, it really is a dream scenario.  European countries have had similar runs, but some of those were continental events.  As far as I can tell, no country has ever hosted so many major global events in such a short span--let alone two in the same year!

Of all the countries in the world, though, the United States is one of the few that's capable of pulling off such a feat.  Hosting major international events is a massive undertaking.  And a costly one.  So many countries are hesitant or unable to make that financial commitment, which is why so many sporting organizations have had trouble finding hosts in recent years.  So, to have a nation (especially a nation like the United States) be willing to step up to the plate so many times in such a short span is huge.

Will the interest level in all six events be the same?  Of course not!  It's pretty much a guarantee that people will care about the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics, and the 2031 Women's World Cup will probably draw pretty well because of the U.S. women's team's success and popularity.  And the 2034 Olympics will still be an Olympics, but, thanks to the NFL schedule, will have the Super Bowl fall right smack in the middle of them.

I'm curious to see how well the two Rugby World Cups will do, though.  I can only speak for myself here, but I'm psyched for the 2031 Rugby World Cup!  It now seems likely that it'll take place during football season, though, which could definitely have an impact.  I don't see how it can't.  I do think there will still be the curiosity factor, and I'm sure people will want to see teams like the All Blacks, Springboks and Wallabies live.  But it won't have nearly the appeal it would have if it were being played in the Summer.  Especially now that the Women's World Cup will also be in the U.S. that year.

Regardless of how much fan interest they generate at home, it's a big deal that all of these major events will be in the United States.  For the two Rugby World Cups it'll be the first time ever, too.  Which just goes to show how much of an important destination the United States has become.  The U.S. is about to be the sports capital of the world.  And the world will keep coming to America for the next decade.

Two Final Fours

Over the weekend, a topic that had first been discussed a few years ago before going dormant was revived.  Florida's head coach was even asked about it in his press conference on the practice day before the National Championship Game.  And, while he didn't exactly endorse the idea, he admitted that having the Men's and Women's Final Fours in the same city could be "cool."  It wouldn't be.  It's actually a pretty terrible idea.

Now, it's not like this is being seriously considered at the moment.  Even if it was, nothing would be imminent.  The NCAA has already announced the tournament and Final Four sites for both the men and women until 2031, and they'll continue to be at different sites at least until then.  And hopefully beyond.  Because they're two distinct events that should be treated as such.

Those in the "pro" camp see combined Final Fours as a celebration of basketball, which it undoubtedly would be.  They've also made the argument that it would be easier on media and school representatives, who'd then be able to cover both Final Fours instead of having to choose.  Likewise, if a school's men's and women's teams both made it, their fans wouldn't have to decide which team to support/Final Four to attend and could all congregate in the same place instead.

And the Final Four schedules are already staggered, so there's no issue there.  The women play Friday night and Sunday afternoon.  The men play Saturday night and Monday night, which causing grumbling among college basketball fans every year, but has been the same for 40 years and won't be changing anytime soon.  So, schedule-wise it would definitely work.

However, the Men's and Women's Tournaments are aired by different networks.  The men's games are on CBS and Turner.  The women's games are on ESPN.  Whose cameras/crew would be used?  Because having each network use their own and set up/break down after each game would just be stupid.  And I doubt either would be willing to cede to the other. 

There's also the issue of the actual venue.  The Men's Final Four is played in a football stadium.  The Women's Final Four is played in an NBA/NHL arena.  As a result, the Women's Final Four is able to go many more places than the men can.  Upcoming Women's Final Fours are in Columbus, OH (2027) and Portland (2030), two places that don't have the domed football stadiums necessary to host the Men's Final Four.  If they were combined, it would limit the number of places the women could go.  They'd have less options and, like the men, end up going back to the same places over and over.

Of course, proponents of the combined Final Fours would likely propose one of two solutions to the dome vs. arena thing.  The first is playing in the same city, but two different venues.  The men stay in the dome, while the women play in the NBA/NHL arena in that city.  How would that look, though?  It would make the women look like second class citizens who aren't as important as the men.  And, while those venues are close to each other in some cities, in others, they're in completely different parts of the city.  Which would defeat the whole idea of a Fan Fest.

Likewise, having the women also play in the dome is risky because of the attendance.  They can sell out a 20,000-seat arena.  Can they sell out a 70,000-seat football stadium?  Any empty seats, regardless of how many, wouldn't be a good look, either.  And not to mention all of the branding and how counterintuitive it would be to either (A) go back-and-forth or (B) co-brand two completely distinct events.

My biggest issue with the idea of combining the Men's and Women's Final Fours is much simpler, though.  It's because of the very real risk that the Women's Final Four would be completely overshadowed.  Of course, those advocating for this would argue the exact opposite, but they'd be wrong.  It wouldn't help the women's game the way they imagine to be paired with the men.  In fact, the women would likely become an afterthought.  Which they don't deserve at all.

Not only do the women not deserve to be overshadowed, they've proven they can carry the spotlight all on their own.  They don't need the men to garner media coverage and fan interest, let alone sustain it.  The women's tournament has always existed as an independent entity and done just fine for itself.  And women's basketball is hotter now than it's ever been.  They should continue taking advantage of that momentum.  Having both Final Fours in the same place isn't the way to do that.

Frankly, it would be a slap in the face to the women.  It wouldn't be promoting them and the women's game.  It would be telling them that the NCAA/media/fans are either too lazy or don't care enough to follow both events separately, so they're making it easier for them.  Never mind the fact that it would completely erase all of the progress that has been made or that the event has clearly proven it can stand by itself.

It's also worth noting that, while we'll see the same school reach both Final Fours every once in a while, it's not exactly a common occurrence.  So, we're usually talking about eight different schools here.  And, even if a school does make a deep run in both the men's and women's tournaments, it's not like they're playing in the same place throughout.  The men will be in once place and the women will be in another the entire time, so whatever decision has to be made about which team they'll support will be made long before the Final Fours.  (And school administrators would likely have no problem traveling between cities to support both.)

That's the thing, too.  They're two completely separate, distinct events that exist independently.  The men play at all neutral sites in NBA arenas with eight teams per site.  The women play on campus with the top seeds playing home games and only four teams per site.  Likewise, the Regionals are played in different places.  So, why would the Final Fours, the culmination of these two tournaments be combined?  Especially when there's no reason for it?

For me, it's really that simple.  The Men's and Women's Final Four are totally different events.  Which is why they should remain as such.  Combining them is as unnecessary as it is stupid.  Neither side needs it, and it would hurt the women's game more than it would help either.  So, suggesting a combined Final Four is just looking for the "solution" to something that isn't a problem.  What it would do, however, is create one.

The Impossible NHL Quarter Century Team Vote

Voting just closed on the NHL's Quarter Century Team.  It started with a Quarter Century Team for each club, with only those players eligible for the league-wide fan vote.  That fan vote, however, wasn't the easiest task!  There will be 25 players on the Quarter Century Team, but fans could only vote for 10.  And voting for only 10 was nearly impossible!

For starters, they didn't break it down by position.  If you wanted to vote for 10 goalies, you could.  Ditto about 10 defensemen.  Or 10 forwards.  And, since forwards are the ones who get the most points, they're the most likely to get votes.  I really wish they'd broken it down by position (say, two goalies, three defensemen and five forwards).  That way, it would've been easier to narrow it down.  Because I have a feeling the final team will end up being very forward-heavy.

Although, there are two forwards who absolutely deserve every vote they received.  Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby have been the faces of the NHL for the better part of two decades, ever since they were taken No. 1 in back-to-back drafts and had a shared rookie year.  If fans were only able to vote for one six-player starting lineup, they'd be two of the three forwards.  It's not even close.  They're Top 25, Top 10, Top 5, Top 2 among NHL players in the 2000s.

I also think there's no way Patrick Kane couldn't be included.  Kane is arguably the greatest American player of all-time, but that's not the reason why.  It's because he was the best player on the Blackhawks dynasty that won three Stanley Cups in six seasons, scoring the Cup-winning goal against Philadelphia in 2010 to snap Chicago's 49-year championship drought.  That was a few months after he won Olympic silver with Team USA.  Oh, yeah, and he's got nearly 500 goals in 18 NHL seasons, too.

Like Crosby and Ovechkin, I don't see any possible way Patrick Kane isn't included on the Quarter Century Team.  I wouldn't be surprised if he's joined by two of his Blackhawks teammates, although I wouldn't consider either one of them a lock.  I'm, of course, talking about Jonathan Toews and Duncan Keith.  Toews has a ton of competition at forward, but Keith should be on there.  There's no doubt that he was one of the top defensemen over the past 25 years.

Speaking of top defensemen over the past 25 years, there are two other Stanley Cup winners who deserve to be selected as much as Keith.  One is Crosby's Penguins teammate Kris Letang.  The other is Drew Doughty, the backbone of those two Kings championship teams.  If I were limited to three defensemen, they'd be my choices.  Although, I think recency bias may work in Cale Makar's favor.

Recency bias could very well come into play with the forwards, too.  Which isn't to say Connor McDavid doesn't deserve a spot.  In fact, I had him among my 10.  He's the best player in the NHL and has been for almost his entire career.  When he's done, we'll be talking about him as one of the all-time greats.  So, yeah, McDavid goes on there.

Nathan MacKinnon, Leon Draisaitl and Auston Matthews could easily make the cut, too.  And MacKinnon has won a Cup, which certainly works in his favor.  But let's also consider some of the other forwards who've been major contributors to Cup-winning teams: Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand, Nikita Kucherov, Brayden Point, Corey Perry, Evgeni Malkin, Henrik Zetterberg, Anze Kopitar.  See what I mean?  I'm already over 10.

That doesn't even include the non-Cup winners.  Guys like Daniel Alfredsson (who began his career in 1995-96, but played the bulk of it in the 2000s), Joe Thornton and the Sedin twins.  Teemu Selanne's a tough one since his career was pretty much half-and-half between the 90s and the 2000s.  And what to do about Jaromir Jagr, who played in the NHL for approximately 85 years?  Frankly, I'm not sure the post-Pittsburgh portion of his career makes the cut.

Let's go back to defensemen since so far I've only mentioned three (four if you count Makar).  Alex Pietrangelo hasn't just played for Cup-winning teams in St. Louis and Vegas, he scored the clinching goal for the Blues in Game 7 against the Bruins in 2019.  Meanwhile, Nicklas Lidstrom won the Norris Trophy every freakin' year during his prime!  Zdeno Chara captained Boston's Stanley Cup team and was the most fearsome defenseman in hockey when he played.  Erik Karlsson's a three-time Norris winner.  And, while there may not be room for them on the Quarter Century Team, Brent Burns and Victor Hedman sure deserve consideration.

We're 31 players in and I still haven't mentioned any goalies.  And picking the goalies, frankly, is the hardest part!  Although, no team featuring the best NHL players over the past 25 years would be complete without Martin Brodeur and Marc-Andre Fleury.

Brodeur is another one whose career straddled the 90s and the 2000s.  He didn't win his first Vezina until 2002-03, though, which is also the year the Devils won the Cup (and the year after Canada won gold at the Salt Lake City Olympics).  Brodeur ended up with four Vezina Trophies in a five-season span and, oh yeah, he's the NHL's all-time leader in goalie wins.

Meanwhile, what's there to say about Marc-Andre Fleury's career that hasn't already been said?  After winning three Cups in Pittsburgh, he was the No. 1 pick in the Golden Knights' expansion draft.  Vegas immediately had a franchise goalie, and we all saw how that worked out!  They had arguably the greatest season by an expansion team ever, getting all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  The only goalie in NHL history with more wins?  Martin Brodeur.

So, Brodeur and Fleury are locks.  What other goalies should be considered?  And how many will ultimately be selected?  Because how can you really choose between Roberto Luongo, Henrik Lundqvist, Sergei Bobrovsky, Andrei Vasilevskiy, Tuukka Rask, Jonathan Quick and Connor Hellebuyck?  I'd say you have to include Luongo (who somehow never won the Vezina Trophy), but which of the others?

Of the 40 players I just mentioned, I'd say there are eight who without a doubt need to be among the final 25: Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith, Drew Doughty, Martin Brodeur, Marc-Andre Fleury and Roberto Luongo.  To get to the 10 (aka the number people were allowed to vote for online), let's add in Connor McDavid and Nicklas Lidstrom.

In making some sort of attempt to have this Quarter Century Team be position-balanced, I'm gonna have my final team include 12 forwards, eight defensemen and five goalies.  My Top 10 has four forwards, three defensemen and three goalies.  Rounding out the team, I've got Corey Perry, Nikita Kucherov, Daniel Alfredsson, Henrik Zetterberg, Patrice Bergeron, Nathan MacKinnon, Joe Thornton and Evgeni Malkin at forward.  My additional defensemen are Zdeno Chara, Erik Karlsson, Alex Pietrangelo, Kris Letang and Victor Hedman.  Meanwhile, I've got just two goalies left.  They're both two-time Cup winners (which is what I used as the tiebreaker).  Jonathan Quick and Andrei Vasilevskiy.