Down Goes Brown's Grab Bag: Does A Patrick Roy-Montreal Canadiens Reunion Make Sense?

(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.)

This week's trivial annoyance is that the hockey world will, at least temporarily, not have Patrick Roy around anymore. The Avalanche coach and VP of hockey ops shocked everyone by quitting both jobs yesterday. That "everyone" apparently includes the Avalanche themselves, who only found out about Roy's decision that morning and took hours to so much as get a statement out.

Needless to say, this is all highly unusual. It's rare for coaches to quit with time left on their contracts, which Roy had. It's even rarer for it to happen this late in the offseason. And it's especially rare when it's a coach with the built-in security of Roy, who seemed all-but bullet proof in Colorado thanks to his legendary playing days, not to mention his Coach of the Year honors from just two seasons ago.

So what happened? Nobody knows, but it's not hard to piece together a theory. Roy had been critical of his team's young core at the end of the season, so much so that we all assumed that somebody like Matt Duchene was getting traded. But it never happened, making for one the offseason's most surprising non-stories. It sure looks like Roy may have pulled the old "either they go or I go" routine, and Joe Sakic chose his young stars over his longtime friend. And as history has shown, when Roy says he's out, he means it.

So what's next for the fiery coach? Despite the Jack Adams win, his coaching stint has had mixed reviews. He was always hard to categorize, sounding decidedly old school whenever he spoke while occasionally embracing cutting edge strategies. (He's pretty much responsible for the recent trend towards pulling goalies much earlier than usual.) He had one great year, and two disappointing ones. Under normal circumstances, you'd wonder if he would get another shot at an NHL job.

But these aren't normal circumstances, because this is Patrick Roy, so we might as well get to the elephant in the room: Montreal. Sure, there are other options, but come on. The Canadiens have a coach that nobody other than the GM seems to like, and a GM who's under a ton of pressure after a decidedly controversial offseason. If things continue to go south in Montreal, wouldn't the return of a beloved franchise player as coach, GM or both be just about irresistible?

It's almost impossible not to hope it happens. Whatever you think of him as a coach or executive, Roy is one of the game's most entertaining figures. We need him back. And if that return came in the league's craziest market… well, buckle up.

This week's debate: Earlier this week, a KHL preseason game was cancelled after a player went on a rampage, attacking opponents one-by-one. Do incidents like this give the sport a black eye?

In favor: Oh, without question. The whole incident was just inexcusable. Nobody could watch that scene and defend it in any way.

Opposed: Agreed. In fact, I'm even more outraged about it than you are.

In favor: Well, that would be pretty tough, because I felt sick when I saw the clip. There's no place for that at all in the sport, at any level. I hope the guy gets a lifetime ban.

Opposed: Absolutely. But more importantly, the whole thing is just further evidence of the stain that's left on the game by the continued prevalence of fighting, "the code," and the kind of eye-for-an-eye mantra that still governs so much of the sport's thinking.

In favor: Well, I'm not completely sure about that. A fair fight between two willing participants is one thing, but that KHL situation was a whole different matter.

Opposed: Just a natural extension of the same caveman mentality. When will the hockey world smarten up and do away with this kind of violence? Why do they insist on promoting any of this as "just part of the game"? I am just so outraged by all of this.

In favor: Yeah, you do seem pretty mad.

Opposed: I mean, just watch the KHL clip:

In favor: Yeah man, that's awful. No disputing it.

Opposed: It's worse than awful. It's everything that's wrong with what this sport is so often trying to sell.

In favor: Well, again, that may be going a little overboard, but I get where you're…

Opposed: Anyone who uses this sort of violence to promote anything is a soulless monster.

In favor: Agreed. It's just that…

Opposed: I mean, let's watch the clip again:

In favor: Yeah, actually I'm pretty sure we got it the first time.

Opposed: I will now stand on top of this soapbox that I brought from home, and deliver an extended monologue about how horrible hockey violence is, and how it needs to be eradicated forever.

In favor: I'm not sure anyone's really disagreeing with you here, but go ahead if you…

Opposed: But first, let's watch that KHL clip one more time:

In favor: Dude!

Opposed: What?

In favor: You know, for somebody who loves to thump their chest over how much they hate hockey violence, you sure seem to take certain glee in rolling the footage, over and over again, at every opportunity.

Opposed: Was I doing that? I hadn't noticed.

In favor: Kind of, yeah. You condemn violence, and rightfully so, but you sure seem to love promoting it. In fact, if I were a cynic, I might think that you know damn well that violence in sports sells, and you're playing both sides, getting all high and mighty about what happened while still driving as many eyeballs as possible by plastering the worst images everywhere you can.

Opposed: Well, I have to show what I'm talking about.

In favor: Sure, once or twice. But after you've had your fifth different angle roll by in the background, or run your third straight front page photo, or written your sixth different version of your original hot take, it all starts to feel a little hypocritical.

Opposed: So… does this mean I shouldn't use all those slow-motion GIFs I made?

In favor: Oh, I'll click the hell out of those.

The final verdict: Opposed wins the debate by brutally destroying In Favor, as you'll see in this replay I'm now going to show 18 times.

Last week, I went on TV and accidentally insulted the international sailing community. So this week, to make amends, I'm going to bestow Obscure Former NHL Player honors to an Olympic sailing competitor. Yes, there actually is someone who fits both categories.

That would be Hank Lammens, a lanky defenseman who was taken by the Islanders in the eighth round of the 1985 draft. He stayed in school until 1988, at which point he played three years in the AHL and another in the IHL. He never did make the Islanders over that span, but he did crack another roster: The Canadian national sailing team. Lammens won a pair of world championships in 1990 and 1991, becoming the first Canadian to earn that honor. This was a big deal at the time; he was even named a finalist for Canadian male athlete of the year.

Lammens would take a year off from hockey to focus on the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. But he had a disappointing showing, finishing well out of the medals and at one point earning a bizarre disqualification for not having a life jacket in his boat.

After Barcelona, Lammens resumed his hockey career with a year as the captain of the Canadian national team. His shot at the NHL finally came in 1993, when the lowly Senators gave him a free-agent deal. He'd play 27 games, recording a goal and three points in what would be his only season, making him one of a very small group of athletes to compete in both the NHL and the Summer Olympics.

According to reports, the new Las Vegas expansion team has narrowed down its search for a name to three candidates: Desert Hawks, Red Hawks and Nighthawks. There's been some pushback on that this morning, but for now it seems like that's where its headed.

Be it resolved that whatever the organization ends up deciding to call itself, we all agree to never call the Las Vegas team "the Hawks."

In the NHL, the Hawks are Chicago. That's it. Hawks is already a pretty generic nickname, and the rule is that each sport only gets to have one. I just made that rule up today, but that's the way it goes. (For reference, in the NBA the Hawks are Atlanta, in Seattle the Hawks are Seattle, and in MLB the Hawks are the room full of Andre Dawson clones we've stored away for when Tampa Bay moves to Montreal, but I've already said too much.)

You can understand why Las Vegas wants to go this route. They probably sat in on an NHL meeting to plan future outdoor games, marketing promotions, and the national TV schedule, and came away assuming that every NHL team must be called the Hawks. Still, this is lame. You can't show up and try to steal some other teams short-form nickname. You can't just waltz into the NHL and start calling yourself the Wings, or the Caps, or the Leafs. And you can't call yourself the Hawks, either. Sorry, Vegas.

(One tip: If you are dead set on going the Hawk route, maybe take a moment to figure out whether your new name should be one word or two. Wouldn't want to screw that up, sheepishly change it 60 years later, and just hope none of us noticed. Right, Chicago?)

After a brief break last week to watch a mascot almost die, let's get back to the genre this section was made for: Horrible early '90s parody songs. Move over "Moog" and "Habs Habs Baby", here comes "Bure Bure."

• According to the YouTube description, which I think we all agree would never lie to us, this video is from 1992. That seems about right, since it includes various highlights from Bure's rookie year but not subsequent highlights like his 1994 OT winner against the Flames or the time he murdered Shane Churla. So sure, let's go with 1992.

• The "they're not booing" scoreboard message is a reference to Don Cherry calling Bure a weasel late in his rookie campaign. They'd renew hostility three years later, until Pat Quinn showed up and smacked everyone in the head and told them to smarten up. Pat Quinn was the best.

• Just to get this out of the way: No, I have no idea why this song is being sung by Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, so don't ask me.

• Huh. We said this video wouldn't include the 1994 OT goal, but the one that comes 20 seconds in against the Flames is basically the exact same move. May want to scout that one, Calgary, it could turn out to be important.

• Seriously, Bure was ridiculous. Nobody outside of Vancouver appreciated him at the time because he was Russian and hockey fans were all xenophobic jerks, but man, he was fun to watch.

• By the way, this was one of two competing "Bure Bure" songs. The other one was set to the tune of "Louie Louie". I don't know which one Vancouver fans prefer, but I like to think that they feel very strongly about it. I really want this to be the Canucks' version of David Lee Roth vs. Sammy Hagar.

• "Vancouver's number one rookie." I don't know, guys, this seems kind of disrespectful to Shawn Antoski.

• Fun Bure fact: Despite being considered an elite prospect, he wasn't drafted until the Canucks grabbed him with the 113th overall pick of the 1989 draft. Why? Because the rest of the teams didn't realize he was eligible. The NHL is a fun league.

• After pausing to enjoy Bure's first career goal, we get to what's apparently a mandatory section in all these songs: The part where they just start listing random players. This one's actually far better than most, as they knock off almost the entire roster without breaking rhythm or making up fake names (cough, Moog, cough).
• Also, Ryan Walter shows up, making him the only player to get name-checked in both "Bure Bure" and "Habs Habs Baby." How is that fact not included on his Wikipedia page?

• We get a look at Bure edging out Nicklas Lidstrom to win the 1992 Calder. I like how this clip is edited to make it look like Bure jumped out of his chair and headed for the stage before they said his name. At least, I think this is edited. Come to think of it, that would be a pretty Pavel Bure thing to do.

• I'm oddly fascinated by the highlight that starts at 1:18. I'm trying to imagine the set of circumstances that leads to Bure having the puck all alone in front of Winnipeg's net while skating in the wrong direction. I'm assuming that defenseman down in the corner has just made a terrible outlet pass, but I'm not ruling out the classic goalie giveaway move from NHL '94.

• Did I mention that young Pavel Bure got a breakaway at least three times in every game he played in? He honestly did. How was that possible? Remember, this was the era where you were allowed to just flagrantly tackle anyone you wanted without getting a penalty.

• "Everyone's behind you with C-K-N-W." Don't be confused, that's just a typical Vancouver fan doing his best to spell "Canuck."

• Epilogue: I thought that the 2005 remake of this song really went in an unexpected direction.

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.