Veteran U.S. forward Mike Modano, fresh off the decisive loss to Finland, offered the media this evaluation of the Americans' showing and what sort of remedy might be pursued: "Basically, we were on our own as far as arrangements, hotels, flights, tickets. Normally, that's something you don't have to think about. That's something that should be taken care of so we don't have to worry about it. We're [trying to be] focused on hockey, prepare ourselves to play and not have to deal with those things."
It's difficult to keep from laughing at Modano's assessment, and not just because his grievances amount to little more than pathetic excuses. In truth, Modano's very comments illustrate the problems with USA Hockey, which are much the same as the ills that USA Basketball has been working feverishly to exorcise by the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The Americans live in an NHL world where pre-arranged hotel accommodations and flight arrangements mark the tip of an enormous iceberg of indulgence. Take these pampered fish out of water and drop them in a foreign environment, with slightly altered rules and a talented pool of disciplined opponents, and this result is unsurprising. Modano and his teammates need to be coddled in order to succeed. Withdrawing NHL players from future Olympic tournments-which the league is presently considering-will not mask this predicament; it will only serve as a convenient back-out for a beaten and embarrassed USA Hockey organization.
Olympic hockey really ought to draw a more substantial audience in the United States. Athletic competition between nations can transpire on no greater a stage than an ice hockey rink, in which size, speed and skill are showcased, limited degrees of violence permitted and teamwork rewarded. The 1980 "Miracle on Ice"-the U.S. men's hockey victory over the Soviet Union -proved so poignant because hockey lends itself to drama. Curling and ice skating, no matter the tears of joy they may induce, cannot compare as a form of intensely compelling international competition. Why then has international drama on hockey's stage all but fizzled in the last quarter century? I think that the New York Times' Harvey Araton got it right in his Feb. 23 column when he wrote that dramatic Olympic hockey requires actual geopolitical standoffs to serve as a legitimizing backdrop. "Unless Iran or North Korea have a few young Gretzkys hidden in their nuclear reactors," Araton suggested, "Olympic hockey will never be the same."
High-priced players are worth the cash
The easy, popular reaction to Knicks President Isiah Thomas' acquisition of high-priced guard Steve Francis last week is to resort to any of the following arguments: the Knicks' backcourt now costs more than the entire Bobcats franchise, Marbury and Francis can't play together and taking on bloated contracts precludes the stockpiling of draft picks and the cultivation of young talent. I, for one, enlisted these very complaints in denouncing Isiah's bold move. To be sure, Marbury and Francis make too much money, and the Knicks roster is overloaded with guards who demand the ball. But I cannot, after much thought, endorse the argument that alleges the acquisition of high-priced veteran talent sets franchises back years and inhibits any sort of rebuilding effort.
The assumption here is that overpaid veterans cannot co-exist on a roster with young talent and draft picks, and that it is smarter to rebuild and suffer short-term futility in the interest of long-term success. The problem here is that the Knicks are not a normal franchise.
Cablevision, the company that owns the team, operates with no shortage of cash on hand. Further, the NBA salary cap is a soft cap, meaning that teams can exceed the cap as long as they pay a tax for doing so (under the NFL's hard cap, teams are forbidden from exceeding the cap). The point is this: as long as the Knicks have essentially an unlimited supply of money, and as long as exceeding the salary cap results in no punishment other than further expenditure, why not try to acquire, literally, as much pure talent as possible?
It is in this light that Isiah's work over the last two years has to be reevaluated. The only remaining valid criticism of Thomas concerns the similiarities and selfishness of his players, which is a fair point. But would you prefer a roster full of selfless scrubs, or selfish, overpaid stars? I'd choose the latter, and the burden falls squarely on Larry Brown to make these guys play together. If he can't in the next 2-3 years, then Brown's name should never again come up in discussions of the all-time greatest basketball coaches.
Adding insult to injury
As if two season-ending injuries to an already-weak throwing shoulder weren't enough, two weeks ago Chad Pennington learned in the New York newspapers that two of his Jet teammates urged the team to release him. The odds were already stacked against Pennington's success in 2006. With a completely new coaching staff, a potentially ravaged shoulder and a team throwing you under the bus, would you want to attempt a comeback with the Jets this season?