Monday Morning Halfback: Hellebuyck’s trade demand and the contract that could change the NHL

Jamie Ross is the Sports editor at the Globe and Mail; Cathal Kelly is the national sports columnist.

J.R.: Hey Cathal, we’ve got lots to play with this week.

Let’s start with Connor Hellebuyck, the star American goaltender who asked to be traded away from the Winnipeg Jets. This follows the departure from Canadian teams of two other U.S. superstars, Brady Tkachuk, who was traded to Florida from Ottawa, and Quinn Hughes, who left the Canucks in a trade to Minnesota last year.

Should the Maple Leafs be worried? Is Auston Matthews next?

C.K.: Jamie, vis a vis the American – what is like a brain drain, but doesn’t affect aggregate IQ? A torso drain? – I think every Canadian NHL team should be worried. That’s a positive development.

Cathal Kelly: Latest reporting on the dangers of football offers a revealing look at the American psyche

Canadian teams are used to stacking money despite being terrible. Doesn’t matter how bad they are, they still pack the arena and lead the local sports section.

You think the Lightning or the Hurricanes get that benefit? I’d be amazed if Carolina made the front page of the Charlotte Observer the day after they won the Cup.

But now a wrinkle – American NHLers are developing discernment. They’re not feeling welcome (because they’re not). They don’t want to be aggressed in their second homes. Not unless they are winning.

You’ll notice that the Montreal Canadiens are not facing a reverse flow of secretly MAGA types. Cole Caufield isn’t publicly pining for the familiar shores of the Wisconsin River.

There’s a simple way for the Leafs to head off this problem – be as good as the Canadiens. Unfortunately for Toronto, goodness eludes them. Ditto Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and (maybe) Edmonton.

Either be good or draft more Germans. They like being outdoors in rough weather.

Do you have any problem with athletes under long-term contract demanding trades a couple of weeks before camp starts?

J.R.: In the case of Hellebuyck, it sounds like he’d previously made the request but only publicized it last week. And yes, I do have a problem with it. It’s flaky.

Winnipeg has been his professional home his entire career. He signed a seven-year deal, making him a Jet until 2031. He was happy to take their money at the time, but suddenly when things are going poorly, he wants to pull the chute?

By making his wishes public, he’s forcing Winnipeg’s hand, and now everyone knows he wants out. Doesn’t exactly put the Jets in a strong position from a trade standpoint.

C.K.: He’s got them in one of those Ronda Rousey arm bars.

The knee jerk here is to say, ‘If he doesn’t like it, he can watch the games from his home, in Winnipeg.’

But that will only turn the club inside-out and get the GM fired. After that’s done, the next guy gives Hellebuyck what he wants. So you might as well give it to him now.

If it’s bad now, it will get worse. The typical Jets fan isn’t going to be delighted at what they get back in this trade. So the GM may be getting fired anyway.

I’m surprised more NHL stars don’t use this contractual doomsday weapon. If Matthews says he wants to be traded tomorrow, what can the Leafs do but trade him?

On the topic of leverage, Cale Makar just showed everyone how to deploy it.

Makar’s not a star in the sense that Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin or even Connor McDavid are. People in other cities are not buying tickets just to see him. That’s partly the position he plays, and partly that he has the public personality of a trout.

When you sign him, you’re not getting a pitchman or a natural entertainer. You’re purchasing a performance widget.

Yet Makar has still managed to make himself the highest paid player in league history. I hope he’s buying his agent a case of champagne, and then buying him a share in the winery.

If US$20-million is the new normal for a No. 1 defenceman – which is what every No. 1 defenceman will think – what’s a No. 1 centre worth?

J.R.: I happen to think watching Makar is worth the price of admission.

I am not so good with numbers so I don’t know what a No. 1 centre is worth, and the price is changing monthly by the look of it. But I do think there are more of them out there who do what you need a No. 1 centre to do than there are generational defenceman that can quarterback your team.

Given that scarcity, that’s why teams value players like Makar, Hughes and Lane Hutson.

The Makar deal is the fourth time this summer a new record contract has been set. Are we finally seeing the NHL have its A-Rod, paradigm-shift moment, 26 years later?

C.K.: I’ll believe the paradigm has shifted when players are able to leverage for top money, without giving away years and years of eligibility.

So it’s all eyes on Hughes. He apparently wants a short-term deal with Minnesota – the equivalent of an opt-out clause.

If Hughes can force the Wild into a deal that is north of Makar’s in terms of annual dollar value, but for only three years, then we are in a new world. That’s when a tightly controlled market becomes something more like an annual bazaar.

And it’s obvious that Hughes can do that. What’s the Wild’s leverage? They’re going to say no and let him walk? As long as Hughes has the steel, he can have what he wants.

That’s the overarching paradigm shift – will hockey stars start thinking like soccer stars? I’m for anything that introduces more chaos into the system.

Another big talker this past week was the influencers at Good Good Golf. As best I can tell, they are a bunch of brotastic bros who bro out while making bro-y golf content.

But they bro’d too hard, upsetting the bros in corporate. Or something. Can you explain what’s going on here, and why anyone should care?

J.R.: Golf, more than any other sport, has been permeated by influencers. It’s all trick shots and celebrity tournaments and dilettantes making unfunny golf-related memes and skits.

They legitimize their existence by getting Bryson DeChambeau or John Daly to play a round with them, which they film and post to social media.

Good Good is one of the bigger brands in the space. The company caught serious heat last week when it produced an ad that showed one its male personalities shoving one of its female personalities to the ground as she reached for a forbidden driver. The company said it was a parody of the movie, Obsession. The public felt it was making light about violence against women. When the dust settled, Good Good gear had been dropped from retailers across America, the PGA Tour distanced itself, and even Callaway (which co-sponsored the ad, and approved the content) backed away. I feel dumber for having typed any of that, but you asked.

C.K.: Feel better knowing I feel wiser for knowing it. Aaaaand … there, I’ve already forgotten it.

You get why companies and leagues prefer this sort of media environment. The new media are not their critics. They’re not even their partners. They’re their dispensable, volunteer advertisers.

For as long as they’re useful, they can be monetized. The minute they aren’t, they can be jettisoned from the mother ship like an escape pod. Will they survive atmospheric re-entry? Probably not.

I see that after rolling over for the first little while, Good Good is promising to fight back. The problem is that there are a million Good Goods coming up. All you need is a phone camera and a head shaped so that you can turn a ball cap backward on it.

So, good good luck to them. They’ll need it.