Sticking to the Debate - Much More Interesting

VANCOUVER

People are funny.

Rather than actually arguing a point, a favourite tactic is often to try and discredit the source. Don't take a persuasive point of view. Just try and accuse those who think differently of some kind of bias.

When I write something critical of the Leafs, some suggest I've only written it because I hate the Leafs. If I write something critical about the Ottawa Senators, I'll get emails saying I've only taken that point of view because I love the Leafs.

Sometimes I think I should introduce these people to each other.

So long ago I stopped worrying when people accuse me of some bias or another. It usually just means they have no intelligent argument to make.

Today, I'm dealing with all kinds of people criticizing a column I wrote that was critical of Mike Babcock's handling of the Team Canada goalie situation by writing - as though I somehow wasn't admitting it - that I'm only taking that point of view because I co-wrote a book with Brodeur four years ago.

To that I have two things to say.

One, if you believe I have a conflict, then why would you possibly care about what I think? There's no way I can argue the point, so I have to accept that some people believe that. That's part of being in this business, and its no more bothersome to me than those who say I write critical columns on the Leafs because I hate the Leafs, etc.

Second, I can make an argument that Brodeur should have continued as Canada's goalie. At the same time, I understand that some believe it's Roberto Luongo's turn. In fact, the majority of writers at these Games take that point of view. I don't agree, but I can certainly accept that point of view. And I never, ever mind being in the minority.

And you'll notice I didn't accuse Babcock of any kind of conflict because he coaches Detroit and Brodeur plays for New Jersey, or that he prefers Luongo because he's in the Western Conference.

I simply disagreed with his decision and the way in which he made it.

That's how it should work folks.

So fill your boots if you want to accuse me of conflict. All it means is you have no argument to make.

I do with Brodeur. I would have stuck with him because he has won three Stanley Cups, multiple Vezina Trophies and an Olympic gold medal, plus the fact he was brilliant against the Swiss and totally saved Canada from what would have been an embarrassing defeat by stoning each and every Swiss in the shootout. If he didn't have a strong game against the U.S., well, this is a Hall of Fame goalie who has proven time and time again his ability to bounce back.

Luongo? He didn't play his way into this start. He was handed it.

And you know what? If he backstops Canada to a gold medal Babcock's decision will have been the correct one.

And you'll read it here first. Then I'll probably get emails from Leaf fans accusing me of being a Canuck lover. . . .

Comments

[Josh]

The problem isn't your point of view, it's that there were no disclaimers in your chat yesterday or in your column today.

Years ago you could get away with that sort of thing, but in the age of the internet, people expect you to be upfront about your conflicts. You weren't. Next time, you should be.

[Keith]

It's not so hard to disclose that you wrote a book with him. I think that this column, and your "tweets" on Sunday night, show that you are pretty touchy about this. Brodeur did not play well on Sunday.

[Brian Boatman]

Babcock screwed up by starting Luongo in the first game, then going back to Brodeur in the 2nd. Either have the stones to say it's Luongo's time at the begining, or go with Brodeur. If not for Marty's big saves in the shootout against the Swiss, you would have dropped a game BEFORE the U.S. game. Brodeur is an easy scape goat after the dopey coaching non-decision to pick a goaltender for the start of the Olympics and let him go. Babcock has alot to answer for.

[Apollo]

In the eleven games leading up to the Olympics:

Martin Brodeur 4-5-2, 2.78, .884
Roberto Luongo 8-2-0, 2.22, .926

Luongo's last ten NHL starts in GM Place (now Canada Hockey Place): 8-1-1, 1.89, .937

I see the argument for staying with Brodeur, but the problem is it's the same argument for staying with the veterans in Turin 2006 and for keeping Niedermayer and Pronger on the team - they've been there before, they have experience, they'll get it done when it matters, even if their performance doesn't show that. Brodeur stopped four below average shooters in the shootout against the Swiss, and he let in three weak goals against the U.S. The big problem I have is the suggestion though that Brodeur would not be an option if Luongo is shaky against Germany. Does that mean he wouldn't play if called upon? It all reeks of a column that is written on behalf of Brodeur, rather than an argument in his favour.

[J]

Luongo was handed this opportunity by Brodeur and his poor play thus far in the tournament. Just the same way Brodeur was handed it in 2002 by Joseph. The glaring difference being that the road to gold this time around is infinitely more difficult than in 2002.

If this team does not win gold, look for Luongo to be the scapegoat. They would not be in this position had Brodeur not decided to try being ARod and bat that puck out of the air. What an absolutely idiotic move.

[Michael Williams]

Damien, you are talking about two separate issues here. We all agree that people will be people; you can't please everyone. But this isn't about Leafs Nation. What people are taking issue with is: you didn't disclose your bias given your relationship with Brodeur (we don't mind the bias, but stating it gives you more credibility); your judgment of events was clouded by this relationship and; you didn't quote Brodeur in the column.

Everyone involved with Team Canada said that if you played poorly, you're on the bench. Also, you could make the argument that Brodeur did not deserve to start, if based solely on play this year. Not past performance; that's Canada's problem- Niedermayer shouldn't be there either - they chose too many players based on legacy and not based on who was hot right now. As for me, I actually believe Fleury should start. He's the reigning Stanley Cup champ. Now do you think Babcock is biased because that's the guy who beat him? I don't think so. If anything, he's pandered too much to Brodeur. This is Quinn - Cujo all over again!

[Stan the man]

One of the commenters wrote that Damien should have written a disclaimer. LOL. Its not like he is a doctor giving you medical advice. He is a sports writer people. Get a grip!

[Rob]

I agree with the last comment that Fleury should be the starter, definitely over Luongo and maybe even over Brodeur. Time to hand the reigns over. Marty what have you done lately? Fleury just won the Stanley Cup. He's a proven big game player. Luongo is not and was smoked in last year's playoffs. Why you would start him over Fleury is beyond me.

[Jason]

Damien, why is there a different standard for Goaltenders? Rick Nash isn't playing well, so they took him off the top line. Bergeron was invisible...he became the 13th forward.

Brodeur looked awful against the US (and let in an iffy goal against the Swiss). Why not go with the guy who has the highest save percentage in the NHL among Canadian goalies?

[Kyle]

So are you supposed to write it ".. Babcock has benched Martin (I call him Marty now, since we wrote a book together) Brodeur, after throwing him under the bus.."??
I agree that he struggled a bit, but his defence were out to lunch on that one he dove at and missed. What in THE WORLD was Dan Boyle doing chasing his man out to the blueline (he did it again tonight on Germany's first goal)? That left Pronger back there to flounder by himself (not that he needed help in that).
For it all to be put on Brodeur (esp by Babcock) was/is just wrong.

Oh, and I must disclose that I have watched you on TV, heard you on the radio, read you columns and articles with The Star, but have not read your books.

[Malandro]

Hasek did not win anything important before 98 and look at how his performance was. Brodeur shared duties in 94, so you could argue the same about 02.

Fleury and Brodeur have struggled mightily this year, and Luongo looks like the best option given his stats and conservative play. If his defense gets better than in the US game, his choosing seems wise. Please be a true journalist and try to be as objective as possible, prove your decisions with some facts please.

[Weener]

Look at the bio of Cox on the side of the screen. It openly admits he "stirs up trouble".

When he writes articles like the one about Brodeur/Luongo, he's no longer a journalist - he's a hack trying to be an entertainer so he can be "edgy" and "stir up trouble". He wants strong opinions in return because, like entertainers, he wants ratings (and eyeballs) baby - it keeps you coming back for more.

That article was so savage that Cox should have realized people would raise a skeptical eyebrow if they knew he co-wrote Brodeur's book. They likely would have written off his "journalism" as a biased rant that wasn't worth taking seriously.

Anyhow Damien, mission accomplished. You got a ton of comments, an extra blog posting and more comments (including mine) as a result of that crap you wrote yesterday. I'm sure this will look nice when you try to get a promotion from Associate Sports Editor to Sr. Associate Sports Editor.

[angel guerra]

The hell with the goal tenders I just wish we could replace Babcock behind the bench. If it looks like a Moose and thinks like a Moose it is a Moose.

[Roger]

Damien,

Even if we put aside the whole conflict of interest, your column was still ridiculous. I can’t remember ever reading an article that was such a love ode to an athlete.

Get over it, Brodeur can no longer play at the level he did 5 years ago. He’s a guaranteed hall of famer, but Luongo is the obvious choice.

The time will come when Luongo can no linger do it, and there will be another young goalie ready to take over. Perhaps it will be Fleury at the next Olympics.

[Paul V]

Lighten up people, it was a sports writer's opinion - to my knowledge he wasn't testifying in any court. I very much doubt Damian was trying to selling more book with his article and believe it or not, opinions are based on previous knowledge and biases. If you don't take his words as coming down from the mouth of the hockey Gods, you'll do just fine.

Additionally you could argue that since he did write the book, he knows more about Brodeur than most and therefore not speaking from bias but from knowledge.

in my opinion, both goalies are top flight and either would do just as well.

[Rudd]

Damien,

no one cares about your book( Just a few wrote that). Yes Brodeur is probably the best goaltender of All-Time though he played in a defensive pesky Jersey style system the whole time. Other than the shootout Brodeur has looked shaky and cold. Luongo hopefully is the hot goaltender and in such a short tournament, thats what you need. You really cant go wrong with each of the three goalies.... Second, im pretty sure Babcock has a little more experience than you, and Stevie Y is on top of everything so its really not an issue.... Third, we read and care about your opinion because we are faithful Star readers and you are our insight to Hockey at the games... Our readers point of view is stop trying to stir the damn pot and add more uneeded pressure on to these guys and give us an article on say maybe(example)" Luongo's time to shine"

[Back in Black]

Luongo's won as many Stanley Cups as all the goalies here not playing for Canada put together. His playoff numbers are better than Nabokov or Lundqvist. If not winning the Cup takes him out of contention to start then he shouldn't be here at all.

Brodeur didn't "earn" the starting role either; he was given it as his to lose. Overall he played well against the US, but he screwed up big time twice and it cost them the game. I'm sure he's confident he wouldn't do it again, but Babcock's got the rest of the team to worry about as well. Why he'd go back to Brodeur when he's got someone _just as good_ on the bench is beyond me.

[Pat Ribble]

"I simply disagreed with his decision and the way in which he made it.

That's how it should work folks.

So fill your boots if you want to accuse me of conflict. All it means is you have no argument to make."

_________

That's a bit rich, Damien. You are the one who has no argument. Dime-store sophistry perhaps. Here are a couple of random samples of how you hard-hitting journo types don't necessarily call it as you see it, but instead skew to fit the space -- E.g. #1: Canada has not beaten Russia/Sovietski in 50 years in the Olympics . . . that's a completely meaningless stat and you know it. I need hardly say why, as any reader or scribbler of intelligence knows what I'm talking about. E.g. #2: Your lambasting Babcock for creating A GOALIE ISSUE since last summer. What? How did he remotely fumble it with the goalies, pray tell? He happily accepted Yzerman's choices, went with the longest-serving veteran (Marty) in the round robin, and has now gone back to the veteran in his prime (Luongo) when things didn't work out too well with M-Bro. What coach in his right mind would anoint a starting goalie the summer before the winter Olympics? I wouldn't even do that with Ryan Miller and he's the best stopper going the last few years.

Skew skew skew . . .

[David]

I'm with you Mr. Cox. Team Cananda fans--how's it going to feel if you lose to Russia and Luongo's not great? I'd rather live and die with Marty than Roberto.

[jjgp]

Your book with Brodeur was not the only reason people criticized your article, you were also criticized for the following:
1) Comparing switching from Brodeur to Luongo as being like the Swedes switching Lunquvist for Gustavsson. Luongo has been one of the top goalies in the NHL for a decade, Gustavsson is in his rookie year and has struggled at the NHL level, therefore it is a completely illogical analogy.
2) Stating that it would have been OK for Babcock to name Luongo or Fleury a starter in August, but switching goalies in the tournament is unfair. Imagine if the Americans had named Thomas the starter after his Vezina win in August and let Miller ride the pine. Once again, your arguement makes no sense.
3) Stating Babcock's only successes invloved sticking with 1 goalie, something that is factually wrong as the '08 Wings started the Playoffs with Hasek and and finished by winning the Cup with Osgood.
4) Microscopically breaking down Luongo's lack of a winning track record while trumpetting Brodeur's career accomplishments. Fact is, since the '03 playoffs, Luongo has the edge in playoff series wins over Brodeur (2-1), and Luongo spent a couple of those years with the Panthers! What does a Cup win in 1995 (15 years ago!), 2000 (10 years ago), or 2003 (7 years) have to do with how a goalie can perform in Feb '10? Michael Moore would admire how you twist the facts to suit your agenda.
5) saying Babcock disrespected Brodeur without including any quotes from Brodeur to directly support this notion. Did your work with Brodeur on the book give you the power to read Brodeur's mind? Otherwise, how do you know this to be the case? If Brodeur said this to you, it shopuld be included and he should have to be accountable for it. Otherwise the article is written from the perspective of a Brodeur spokesperson of Brodeur groupie instead of that of a professional journalist.
6) Not mentioning that switching goalies in '02 resulted in a gold medal
7) Claiming Brodeur was brilliant against the Swiss when the game was one way traffic; Hiller stood on his head and Brodeur was a non factor. Shootouts are determined by the players, not goalies because if a player executes, they score. If all 4 Swiss players were able to pick the top shelf or pull a couple of fakes and roof it, there is nothing any goalie can do about it. The Swiss attempts were very mediocre.

After looking at the above, is it any wonder that people feel your previous working relationship with Brodeur hinders your ability to be objective with issues concerning him. If Mr. Fitzgerald was seen at the Super Bowl openly cheering his son Larry while working as a journalist, and then gave a bunch of weak and illogical excuses in his article for why the Cardinals lost to the Steelers, people would naturally assume that his relationship with his son prevented him from being an onjective and professional journalist. You have an obvious relationship with Brodeur due to the book, so if you write frivolous excuses on his behalf, people are naturally going to think the book is the reason why you are taking that stance.

[Clarke, Saskatoon]

All Canada needs is average goaltending. Anyone of the three have the capability of winning games.

That being said 2 of the 3 are proven winners. Luongo is new Curtis Joseph. Never won anything and in the big games just can't seem to get it done. Fact. I don't care who starts but Luongo fans are blind to the fact he just isn't a big game performer. You want to start comparing the playoff resume's of Brodeur and Fleury compared to Luongo? That's pretty laughable.

Personally, my bias is toward Fleury. But I will stand behind Luongo... but I don't have to like it.

**Disclaimer: I never wrote a book with any of the goalies but I am still biased**

[other mark]

First off, I read your article (unlike some of the unwashed who have blogged). I believe the article was more about Babcock's handling of the goalies; and then your opinion as to who you would start (and stay with) and why. I don't see a 'conflict' ... I see informed opinion. And, for the record, I agree with your assessment of Babcock's handling of the situation (that he in large part actually created). Game to game decisions don't make sense in a tournment like this. Let's hope he's sticking to Luongo from here on in.

[Gary]

It's not that you disagree with Babcock, you are certainly entitiled to your opinion.

It's just that you conveniently left out a few facts about Brodeur's performance over the last 2 NHL first round exits.

Should perhaps Patrick Roy be the starter because of what he has accomplished?

[Chad Lacelle]

Mr. Cox, you mention that Luongo did not earn the start but could you not say the same thing from 2002 when Curtis Joseph was the starter and had one bad game and the next start was given to Brodeur, who did not earn the start but kept winning until the gold was won. Let's hope history repeats itself.

[Will Carson]

You can take any side you wish on whom you think should start in goal and who shouldn't, but at the end of the day Mike Babcock has to make moves that will help give Team Canada a chance to be successful. These decesions are tough enough to make for a professional hockey coach and management team, let a lone a writer or a fan. What we saw vs the USA was a performance that was not the norm from Martin Brodeur, a player who is usually in control of his game and the game itself, unfortunatley it was the opposite. While Brodeur was not the only player who performed below the norm, goaltending, especially in this event, is always under a microscope like no other position. For Canada to make a change, as they did in 2002, is not out of the norm, given the depth with all three goaltenders on the club. Friendships, loyalties and close ties aside, this tournament is about winning gold, not silver or bronze.