Canada's team, Canada's sport, Canada's national migrane

It was 35 degrees here the other day. A hot, sticky, humid trainwreck of a day. Summer has arrived and it's too late in the year for hockey, but here it comes, stealing headlines and keeping itself at the forefront of the Canadian sports media scene. The sport has led MacLean's for the previous two weeks, leads TSN's SportsCentre pretty much every day and has provided story after story after story. It hasn't, isn't and will not let up - not yet, not with the Finals just starting.

But the biggest story is Winnipeg's coup of the Atlanta Thrashers. True North Sports and Entertainment's purchase and subsequent move of the team to Manitoba's capital - and the amazingly rapid sellout of season tickets - has moved the media like a, er, Jet. MacLean's cover featured their old logo; the Toronto Sun ran picture of a pin-up girl in hockey paraphernalia above the fold. Each of the op-eds and columns reads like a gushing tribute to a national pastime, but nobody really wants to spoil the party by noting all the problems with the relocation.

The easy one is how tiny Winnipeg is: with a local population just under 700 thousand, it's the smallest market in the NHL, behind even Edmonton. Another is how it's not known as any kind of corporate showcase. If wikipedia can be believed, it's home to companies like Boeing Canada, Old Dutch foods and The Great-West Life Assurance Company; one hopes there's enough of a corporate presence to keep luxury boxes and expensive, lower-bowl seats full.

Let's not forget about the logistics which need to be ironed out. How will their schedule look? Will teams from the Southeast have to fly in for every game? And who's going to broadcast their games? It's easy to assume the CBC will pick up a few weekend games (and probably the home opener) and TSN will pick up a few during the week, but what of all the rest? Rogers Sportsnet looks like a likely source, but their West channel is already home to the Oilers and Flames; is there enough room for a third team?

While we're not forgetting, let's remember a column written by the Globe and Mail's Stephen Brunt, who tipped the nation off to the move with a column on May 19th. Wrote Brunt:

"Sources confirmed Thursday night that preparations are being made for an announcement Tuesday, confirming the sale and transfer of the Thrashers to True North Sports and Entertainment.

... some months back, the NHL board of governors quietly approved the sale and transfer of the team, pending the negotiation of a purchase agreement between Atlanta Spirit LLC, the Thrashers’ owners, and True North."

Brunt's column was correct in the most broad sense; the Thrashers are likely to move to Winnipeg. And the announcement was even on a Tuesday! Just, as it happened, on a different Tuesday.

There's a difference between being right and being almost right. As I learned back in my J-School days, the only thing you have in this business is your credibility and you get that by being right, if not by being first. Herein lies the problem with Brunt's column: he was wrong. There was no announcement that Tuesday, May 24. The Jets press conference was a week later. And every report, from the AP to the Toronto Sun is saying the board still hasn't approved the sale.

It's cool he was able to jump the gun on the announcement (one wonders if he burnt some source in running the story so early) and it's nice to see the team actually come, but it shouldn't rectify his column which was, essentially, wrong. He suggested that the move was finished, had been "quietly approved", would be annouced on a set day. It isn't, hasn't been and wasn't. He deserves to be held to that.

The Jets moving has also inspired talk from some rather odd angles. The other night, Toronto radio host Jeff Sammut had an hour of open lines asking if Toronto should get a second team, which is an issue nobody in their right mind talks about. Callers spouted nonsense like how Toronto can support up to five different teams, but they never will thanks to Big America. One I especially liked was the suggestion Toronto doesn't win because of American business interests.

Canada likes to think of itself as an independent nation. It is, but it so often seems to be defined in the oddest way possible, which is that we play up how different we are than the US. It's an oddly insecure kind of way to defend yourself: we're better because we're not. It lies through so much of our collective conscience (at least here). From the Avro Arrow, a jet scrapped for a missile defence system (but really because of UA big business) to the NHL (who are willing to throw the game to the wolves to sell it in the US), so much of our collective conscience seems to be about trying to play up how we're not them.

It goes to the Stanley Cup finals this year. For instance, TSN is billing it not as the 2011 Finals, but as Vancouver's quest to bring the Cup to Canada. Never mind that only 16 of their players are Canadian or that Boston has more Canadians on it's roster, this is somehow Canada's team. Never mind that in the past six Finals - from 2004 to 2010, minus the lockout year - there was three Canadian teams. This isn't a case of Canada making a stand against

It's silly. It doesn't feel like rooting for anything so much as it does feel like rooting against something. It's quickly become another political battle: us versus the US. It comes off from benign things like Boston Pizza crossing the Boston out it's name to nonsensical things like the above call-in talk shows. And TSN sure isn't helping when they bill the Finals in such a one-sided way.

How real is too real for athletes?

Social networking has brought fans, writers, bloggers and even athletes closer and more intertwined then ever before. We don’t live in an age where you mail a letter (with self addressed stamped envelope included) to an athlete and maybe receive something back a few months later, but one where we can see people like Chris Bosh shoot home movies or Shaq, Steve Nash or Brandon Jennings microblog on Twitter.

Well, we used to see Jennings anyway.

Jennings twitter account, Bjennings3, was taken down some point over this weekend, likely after an appearance on rapper (and friend of Jennings) Joe Budden’s webcast. There, an unguarded Jennings made several off-colour comments about the Knicks, Ricky Rubio and ESPN analyist Jay Bilas.

But what happened isn’t really a question about wither Jennings’ comments were right or wrong. It’s about if we’ve hit a tipping point, a moment where this free access to (and by) superstars has shown too much of what’s behind the curtain, was it were.

I do think that Jennings should have watched what he said. He’s a public figure and he should have realized that anything he says – even in a private conversation – could come back and bite him.

Granted, watching the video of his interview with Budden gives the impression that Jennings may not have known he was live. But he knew Budden hosted an online show and he had appeared on it previously. On June 22, he tweeted “Out with Joe Budden. Tryin get on Joebuddentv tonight. This finna be a funny night.” To me, that shows he knew Budden had a live show and by calling him, he should have at least thought in the back of his mind that whatever he says could end up online.

Really, though, Jennings made a dumb mistake. A small one. He talked some trash, said some things that I’d assume most every athlete would say in private. Remember, they say Jordan and Bird were legendary trash talkers, Tiger has a sharp, biting wit and Wayne Gretzky once told novelist Mordecai Richler he didn’t read his books because he didn’t have time to read stuff that didn’t happen.

As one writer put it, it’s a confidence thing. That’s how they got to where they are – their confidence in themselves. Of course they’re going to talk smack about the opposition. The question is where they do it. They can say whatever they want in private and in public they’re almost coached to never say anything remotely controversial.

But with the social mediums now out there, where is the line between public and private? Shaq and Charlie V made waves with twitter accounts that further reduced the gap between them and us, the fans. This isn’t somebody blogging through a ghost writing PR agent. And that’s the rub – with less barriers between them and us, it’s easier for them to slip up.

Which is what I think happened to Jennings: he either forgot or didn’t realize that his friend could have been broadcasting the conversation and he said some mildly regrettable things. He slipped up and when he did it was out there for all to see.

It’s regrettable, yes, but it’s also minor. It’s only another anecdote of how athletes need to balance their private lives with their social lives. There’s a fine line between being accessible and open to fans and exposing too much of your private self.

Still, if there’s a lesson to be learned from this, it’s that Jennings – and every other athlete, by extension – is a public figure. Anything they say, even in what they think is a private conversation, can come back and haunt them, be it over the phone, on Twitter or an email.

After all, it’s a lot easier to think about what you’re saying (and who you’re saying it to) then it is to try and un-say it.

Lakers share the wealth in game five win over Nuggets

When Nene fouled out late in the fourth quarter of game five of the Western Conference Finals on Wednesday night, he lay on the court, shaking his head as if in disbelief.

He wasn’t alone, as the Nuggets let another one slip away, losing 103-94 to the Lakers, ceding them a 3-2 series lead.

The Nuggets had every reason to be confident they could steal a win in LA. They had survived a close call in game four, when the team nearly self-destructed in a succession of fouls, yet hung on to win. Carmelo Anthony looked good and shot good early on, while their bench had been outplaying the Lakers throughout the series.

Besides, they had won game two and nearly won game one, both played at the Staples Center.

But the Lakers were just as determined and met them head on; this game was a lot closer then it’s score shows.

It was a defencive kind of game, but not in the recent Knicks/Heat or Pistons/Spurs styles. Both sides were throwing themselves to the floor – Odon made a wild lunge at a loose ball in the fourth that’s completely illustrative of this. Both sides were making the other take it strong to the hoop – witness Chris Anderson, the Birdman, stuffing Odon early in the game, deadening his attempted dunk. Both sides were playing pressure-packed D – Carmelo wasn’t just double teamed, but had three defenders on him late in the fourth.

Bouncing back from a lackluster game four, Anthony had a good night – he shot 9-23 for 31 points and grabbed four boards in the process. From the charity stripe, he was nearly perfect, hitting 12 of 13.

He was alone in his play tonight.

Most of the Nuggets finished the game in the negative, with only Nene and Dahntay Jones having a +/- in the positive. JR Smith cooled off considerably from his game four hot streak, hitting only 3 of 13 shots (including 9 missed threes). Chauncy Billups took only seven shots, six of them threes, and hit four for 12 points – tying him with Kenyon Martin for second highest scorer on the Nuggets.

It was indicative of Denver’s shot selection, which faltered and withered late in the game. Too many quick, ill-advised long shots, plays that either took too long to develop or didn’t at all… it felt at times like if they were going to pull off the win, it was in spite of how their shots weren’t dropping.

A neat stat from the fourth: at one point, the Nuggets had a streak where they hit only three of 21 shots.

The Lakers, on the other hand, played like Denver had on Monday night. They spread the ball around, with five players scoring 12 or more points. Odom played his best game of the series and probably the playoffs, scoring 19 and grabbing 18 rebounds – and had four blocks, too.

Kobe Bryant had a similarly good game, scoring 22 on 6-of-13 shooting. He was a big reason why the Lakers were able to win: because he wasn’t forcing his shots and because he shared the load, getting eight assists. For the best example, look to one of them, from late in the fourth:

Kobe’s on the perimeter, looking for a long shot. He goes up, the Nuggets defence turns and pulls towards him… but it’s not a shot, it’s a quick pass to Odon, camped in the low post, who grabs the pass and stuffs it home. It’s either an expertly designed play, one the Nuggets completely fell for.

Or maybe it was a shot, or at least it was going to be until Kobe saw how the defence shifted, saw where Odon was and made a quick decision to go for the easy two rather then risk an iffy three.

Was it a one-off play? Or was that the turning point of this series, where Kobe realizes that no, he doesn’t have to do this alone.

One more fact: Carmelo outscored Kobe tonight, but for the first time it resulted in a loss.

Maybe this is less of a duel then a chess match after all.

Nuggets bend but don't break in game four win

If they say there are no easy baskets in the conference finals, they’re wrong.

Game four of the Western Finals seemed to be an exercise of foul shooting at times, in a game that was constantly stopped by the officals.

In the fourth quarter, the game got a little chippy and the refs started to crack down, calling fouls all over the place: to Denver and to LA… plus four technicals, with two called to the Nuggets without a second of gameplay in between.

Hence, LA got a few uncontested shots from the line.

Mind you, Denver got more then a handful too. Combined, both sides had 84 chances from the line… and with all those stoppages, it wasn’t just a blowout, it was kind of a stinker.

It wasn’t as bad as some games have been in these playoffs – game seven between the Celtics and Bulls, I’m looking at you – but it was hard to keep a flow going with this many trips to the line. Yes, play was choppy, but this is the playoffs. Things are supposed to be tough here, aren’t they?

It’s a shame that’s the lasting impression from game four, too, because it was an important win for a few reasons:
- An injured Carmelo scored 15 points, even though he was hobbling around on the floor early on.
- The Nuggets bench contributed 42 points, led by JR Smith who had a great shooting night and hit some late three’s that broke the Lakers’ back.
- Chris Anderson gave a great Dennis Rodman impression, grabbing boards like a vacuum and even shot a wildly amusing – and off mark – three. In all, he had 14 in just 24 minutes.

But there was one more thing that’s extremely telling about this win: the Nuggets composure.

When the refs cracked down late, the Nuggets started to break. They were fouling and looking lost. Carmelo picked up a technical for a stupid shove, and while Kobe shot the corresponding free throw, Kenyon Martin picked up another technical foul for the Nuggets. As a team, they were close to complete self-destruction, the kind where they lose their composure, miss shots and blow a big lead.

You know, the kind of self-destruction that the Kings and Blazers have had against the Lakers in conference finals of years past.

After the refs got everything sorted out, Bryant hit his foul shots and cut the lead to 10.

That was as close as he’d get. The Nuggets didn’t fall apart, but rallied and had a strong finish to the game. Martin hit the bench and the team settled down. When JR Smith hit two consecutive threes and made the score 113-96, the Lakers were finally out of contention.

So, it’s an important win for the Nuggets. They showed that while they have the self-destruction potential, they also can keep their head (and their lead) when it matters.

Besides that, it means the Lakers don’t have a stranglehold 3-1 lead on the series and the Nuggets gave themselves a little bit of breathing room. They showed that even without Carmelo at his best, they can still win: Billips and JR Smith both had great scoring nights (24 each), while Martin, Nene and Anderson each grabbed double-digit rebounds. They showed how deep they are, especially compared to the Lakers: 42 bench points to LA’s 24. That’s important – in a long series, that depth can pay some serious dividends.

But as the series moves to game five, the Nuggets have to be at least a little worried: if this could happen in game four, what’s to say it can’t happen again? And what happens with a hostile crowd? What if Smith misses those shots? Do they still hang on?

Still, it was a good win for the Nuggets. One that raises some questions, yes, but compared to the ones that a loss would have raised, I’m sure they’ll take them.