8.29.2006

What doth you covet?

A recent look into what appears to be many team battles going into training camp seems rather over-generous to the Canucks:

First-line right wing: The most coveted available job in the NHL, with the winner playing on a line with Daniel Sedin and Henrik Sedin. Contestants include Jesse Schultz, Taylor Pyatt, Matt Cooke, Jozef Balej, Jan Bulis and Jason King.

Second-line right wing: The second-most coveted available job in the NHL. Contestants are as above, with the winner playing alongside Markus Naslund and Brendan Morrison.

Perhaps I am overly cynical...scratch that I know I am. But considering the Canucks track record in the past few seasons, is their top RW position the MOST coveted job in the game? I suppose it depends on how you define it; one could easily argue Scott Clemmensen had a plum job backing up Brodeur (great seats at every game, solid chance at the post season and maybe even your name on the Cup! All for being a patient, team-first guy!).

But this seems to suggest that whoever gets to play with the Sedins is most likely to have a career year above playing with any other line in the league. While it's ironic that old linemate Anson Carter doesn't want the gig (I suppose he would if he removed his head from his own ass) I don't think one year of success is enough evidence to have the lofty title of "most coveted job". If they have another solid year, then maybe...and as for the "second most coveted job", that's assuming that whoever gets that slot will have the same chemistry with Morrison and Naslund that Bertuzzi did. That, also, seems generous and ill-founded.

In fact, what if Naslund/Morrison have career years in 2006-7 and the Sedin's remain more or less the same type of line...then isn't the fractured WCE the most coveted?! I guess it comes back to how you define it. For me, I want to be near the player's wives. Can you blame me? In case you were curious, from left to right, that's Brandy Blake, Angelica Bridges, Dina Arnott and Stacin Robitaille. Lucky Luc indeed.

0 comments: