Down Goes Brown Grab Bag: The Rumour Mill, Roman Vopat, and the Epic Avs-Wings Rivalry

(Editor's note: Welcome to Sean McIndoe's Friday grab bag, where he writes on a variety of NHL topics. You can follow him on Twitter.)

The third star: Scott Darling—The Blackhawks' backup goalie (and apparent super nice guy) got a hard dose of social media reality when the captain signed up for Twitter.

When — Scott Darling (@SDarling_33)February 22, 2016

The second star: Matt Duchene—Smooth, Matt. Real smooth.

now that's stealthy — Stephanie (@myregularface)February 21, 2016

The first star: Ben Hutton—I could explain what's going on here, but honestly, the whole thing is better if you go in blind and just enjoy.

MUST. SEE.#Canucks #DiceandIce #lypsyncbattle pic.twitter.com/PxAqu7ZyTR
— Vancouver Canucks (@VanCanucks) February 24, 2016

You can tell he's a Canucks defenceman, because you can undress him everywhere.

This week's debate: The trade deadline is now just days away. As the hours tick down and the rumour mill goes into overdrive, it's time to ask: Is this particular player going to be traded?

In favour: It is indeed possible that this particular player could be traded… but reports indicate that that will happen if, and only if, the price is right.

Opposed: OK.

In favour: His team has made it clear that they're not going to give him away. They will insist on getting something in return.

Opposed: Right, but…

In favour: So if another team out there wants the guy, they'd better be ready to meet the asking price. Because otherwise, no deal!

Opposed: Wait, I'm sorry. I'm supposed to be debating you here, but I'm honestly not sure which side you're taking. Is this guy getting traded or not?

In favour: Oh, he's available alright. But any deal will come at a cost.

Opposed: So… that's a yes? You're saying he's likely to be traded?

In favour: I'm saying that anyone who wants to acquire this player had better be willing to pay a fair price.

Opposed: See, this isn't actually helpful. You're just describing the fundamental nature of how transactions work in literally any kind of market-based system.

In favour: Asking price! No giveaways!

Opposed: Right, but…

In favour: And most importantly… and I really can't emphasize this part strongly enough… getting something in return.

Opposed: You don't actually have any idea whether this player is available, do you?

In favour: I most certainly do!

Opposed: Great. So is this guy likely to be traded, yes or no?

In favour: Well, let's put it this way: they're not shopping him, but they are listening.

Opposed (rubbing temples): What does that even mean?

In favour: It means that they're listening. But not, you know, shopping.

Opposed: Yeah, but what does that actually…

In favour: Look, let's say some other team calls. The GM will answer the phone. That's listening. But they're not making the calls themselves, because that would be shopping.

Opposed: So what you're saying is that during the most important time of the year, this GM is sitting back and waiting for other teams to do all the work for him.

In favour: You know, it doesn't sound as good when you put it that way.

Opposed: It just seems like we go through this every year. The trade deadline approaches, the rumour mill heats up, and fans desperately want to know who's going to be moved and who won't. But with the exception of the GMs involved and maybe the very small group of reporters who are true insiders, nobody actually knows what's happening. So we all keep finding creatively vague ways to say that somebody might get traded or might not, without ever actually admitting that none of us have any idea.

In favour: But isn't that all you can reasonably expect? We're all just speculating here.

Opposed: Right, but surely that doesn't mean we have to keep finding new ways to rephrase the idea of "A player might be traded but only if the price is right." We already know that. It's a truism, one that could apply to every player in the league. It's completely meaningless.

In favour: So just because something is self-evidently obvious and adds no value to a conversation, we shouldn't bother saying it?

Opposed: Pretty much.

In favour: Man, you have no future in sports writing at all.

The final verdict: Let's all stop giving updates on trade talks that don't contain any actual information. Unless we don't stop. But very likely one of those things, or otherwise something else. Further bulletins as events warrant.

Earlier this week, the Maple Leafs traded Roman Polak to the Sharks. It wasn't exactly a blockbuster. In fact, it wasn't even the biggest trade that saw a guy named Roman head to California. That's because, 20 years ago tomorrow, the Kings sent Wayne Gretzky to the St. Louis Blues for a package that included this week's obscure player: Czech center Roman Vopat.

Vopat was an odd candidate to be included in a trade for The Great One, given that he was less than two years removed from being a seventh-round draft pick. He'd made his NHL debut early in the 1995-96 season, scoring two goals in 25 games of part-time duty. Then came the Feb. 27, 1996, deal that saw Mike Keenan send Vopat to L.A. along with Patrice Tardif and Craig Johnson in exchange for what turned out to be a short (and mostly unsuccessful) rental of Gretzky's services. With the Kings, Roman became the team's second best Vopat, trailing only his brother Jan.

The Gretzky deal was certainly the most memorable moment of Vopat's otherwise unremarkable NHL career, but it wouldn't be the only notable trade he was involved in. On Oct. 29, 1998, the Kings sent Vopat and a draft pick to the Avalanche in exchange for Eric Lacroix. You sometimes hear overly dramatic GMs wax poetically about how a player was like a son to them, but in this case it was actually true: Eric's dad Pierrre was the Avalanche GM who traded him away.

Vopat never played a game for the Avs; they flipped him to Chicago a few weeks later, and the Hawks sent him to the Flyers just days after that. He spent two seasons as a part-timer in Philadelphia before heading to Europe in 1999. His NHL totals: six goals, 20 points, 133 games spread across four teams, and one trade for the greatest player who ever lived.

CATLAG (noun)—A scenario in which a team must trade a player before the trade deadline, because they Can't Afford To Lose A Guy without getting something in return. You hear this line of thinking all the time, right? So it's time we had a term for it. CATLAG works for me.

Great. So now that we've slapped a name on the concept, let's get everyone to stop using it. Because, good lord, we are beating this whole concept into the ground.

According to some people, literally every pending free agent is a CATLAG case. Any time a player in the final year of a deal makes it to the deadline without signing an extension, everyone goes into panic mode that his team is going to lose him in the offseason without getting assets back. And at some point, we all apparently decided that this was the worst sin that an NHL GM could possible commit.

But it's not. Look, asset management matters. In a salary cap league, it matters a ton. But that doesn't mean that every pending free agent must be traded. In fact, there's one and only scenario in which a team really can't afford to lose a player for nothing. That's when A) the team is definitely not going to make the playoffs; B) the player is good enough to actually bring back a solid return; and C) the player is a near-lock to leave via free agency.

That's it. If those three factors are all in place, then yes, the team really can't afford to lose him for nothing. That's not unheard of—Andrew Ladd was a good example of a true CATLAG player this year—but it's rare. And the rest of the time that you hear people banging this drum, the logic doesn't hold up.

Steven Stamkos? Not a CATLAG. Sure, it would be devastating for the Lightning to see him walk as a free agent this summer. But even in that worst-case scenario, they're not losing him for nothing—they're still getting six weeks of regular season Steven Stamkos, plus a playoff run. That's something! They could even win the Stanley Cup with the guy. For a team as close to contending as the Lightning. that's worth at least as much as the sort of hodgepodge of picks and prospects they could land in a trade at this time of year. (And, as ESPN's Corey Pronman points out, the CATLAG logic should travel with the player, forcing a ridiculous string of trades for each pending free agent.)

The same goes for other players on potential playoff teams, like Keith Yandle or Loui Eriksson or (maybe) Mikkel Boedker. That doesn't mean you shouldn't trade any of those guys. Value is value, and every GM has to weigh to present against the future. If a deal makes sense, do it. But you don't have to, and anyone who says otherwise is missing the point.

Welcome to the hockey dictionary, CATLAG. Now please go away.

With the Avalanche hosting the Red Wings in Saturday's outdoor game at Coors Field, we get the full slate of events that traditionally accompany the league's Stadium Series events. There will be fan gatherings, open practices, and of course, the alumni game. That one is scheduled to face off later this evening. The first bench-clearing brawl is scheduled for three seconds after that.

OK, that might be an exaggeration. Some of these guys have probably mellowed with age. But there was a time when Detroit-Colorado was the hottest rivalry in hockey, and probably all of pro sports, and seeing most of those same players on the ice together again will bring back plenty of memories. We'll look back fondly on all of those great displays of speed and skill, grace and precision, vision and… ah, who are we kidding, we'll look back on guys punching each other.

• So it's April 1, 1998, and the Avalanche are visiting the Red Wings. So far, it's been a mostly unremarkable game. We've made it through 53 minutes without anybody snapping and doing anything crazy, because it really is possible for these teams to play each other without some sort of crazy brawl. April Fools!

• Just to correct a common misconception, this is not the same game that started with a Darren McCarty/Claude Lemieux rematch right off the opening faceoff. That was from the same season, but it came back in November. Did I mention this rivalry was amazing? This rivalry was amazing.

• Things start innocently enough, with what appears to be a minor shoving match near the Colorado bench after the puck is shot out over the glass. Just think, if this happened today everyone would be too busy wildly pointing and arguing over a delay-of-game penalty to cause any trouble.

• The Wings/Avs rivalry was notable for how many future Hall of Famers featured prominently, but this particular scrum is basically a who's who of "Wait, I don't remember that guy playing for them." I think my favourite random participant is Tom Fitzgerald, who'd only been acquired a week ago and is playing one of just 11 career games for Colorado, or maybe Detroit, nobody actually remembers.

• Warren Rychel immediately drops his gloves and starts circling the pile, pausing only to drop a Heisman-eque straight-arm on Vyacheslav Kozlov. He wants to get at Bob Rouse, but can't remember which team he plays for.

• Now Sylvain Lefebvre has his gloves off. Uh, careful guys, I hear that guy can throw a little.

• Still, at this point everyone is so tangled up that there's not much threat of anything really breaking out. The linesmen are breaking things up, tempers seem to be cooling, and we're ready to get back to hockey as soon as… wait, did anyone just hear the Undertaker's gong music start?

• I'm not even kidding: This may be the greatest single shot in NHL broadcasting history:

• A few guys start wrestling around on the ice, which is notable only because it causes referee Terry Gregson to break out his arms-crossed "I'm not mad, just disappointed" stance. Might want to glance behind you, Terry.

• "What's Patrick doing?" Gee, I wonder.

• Patrick Roy, now mysteriously devoid of his gloves, heads over to the pile. As per the hockey code, that forces Chris Osgood to wander out of his crease. We all know what comes next, because Roy reacts to the sight of other goaltenders near center ice the way an ornery dog reacts to the site of a friendly puppy appearing at the park.

• The announcers mention March 26, 1997, which of course refers to the previous season's epic Wings/Avs brawl that featured Roy's fight with Mike Vernon. That meltdown was even better than this one, and if you're wondering why I'm not using that clip for this week's breakdown, it's because we've done it already. If you've somehow never seen it before, you need to get over there faster than a speeding bullet a bolt of lightning Patrick Roy attacking a Red Wings goalie.

• Yep, there he goes.

• This is Roy's big chance to avenge his loss to Vernon, which you know had to be eating at him. You can have your statue-of-liberty goal or the whole Canadiens debacle, but if you hooked Roy up to a lie-detector test and forced him to name his biggest career regret, it's definitely the Vernon fight, right?

• To this day, there's some dispute over who actually won this bout, although most give Roy a split decision. Still, Osgood holds his own, which is impressive considering it's his only career fight and he's giving away about 20 pounds. It's not quite a Potvin-bloodies-Hextall level upset, but it's pretty good.

• There's Brendan Shanahan, talking trash to Roy while casually holding back Scotty Bowman from jumping on the ice. This whole rivalry was the best.

• By the way, after initially declining his invite, Shanahan is now going to suit up for the alumni game. I wonder if Steve Yzerman will pass him the puck, or whether Shanahan will just wait until July 1 and take it from him.

• Roy waving the crowd as he skates off is so great. Crazy Patrick Roy was the best.

• We close with a few replays, including a great one of Roy calmly undoing his equipment before heading over to the pile, as well as Gregson's comical reaction when he realizes that Roy just snuck in behind him.

• We also get a replay of the fight itself, which is pretty darn good. Patrick Roy's fights against Red Wings goalies was basically The Godfather Trilogy. The first was amazing and redefined the genre. The second was almost as good, and maybe even better depending on who you ask. And the third one NEVER HAPPENED.

• By the way, one of the Red Wings goalies in the alumni game is Ty Conklin. You know, this guy. No reason.

Have a question, suggestion, old YouTube clip, or anything else you'd like to see included in this column? Email Sean at nhlgrabbag@gmail.com.