Breadcrumb Trail Links
Cult of Hockey
Article content
A fast-building controversy around Evander Kane has erupted on social media, with no small number of Oilers fans wondering if internal dissension around Kane isn’t part of the what’s gone wrong with the team so far this year.
I was perplexed by such claims, not seeing any evidence of it, but I was pointed in the direction of this interview between Evander Kane and Hockey Night in Canada’s Scott Oake during the second period of the Jets-Oilers game on Saturday.
Article content
For context, Kane had been bumped down to the third line for the game. It was the first time, if I am recalling correctly, that he’d been taken off one of Edmonton’s top two lines.
Due to the high number of penalties in the game, Kane had ended up playing little in the first period, a bit more than three minutes, well below his usual ice-time.
In the second period, he got into an old-fashioned fist fight — with both players agreeing to take off their helmets beforehand — with Brenden Dillon of the Jets. Kane landed several wicked blows on Dillon’s face in the scrap.
Advertisement 2
Article content
The key moment came at the start of the interview, with Oake asking: “Evander, you had some jump in the second. Would it be fair you say that the scrap with your former teammate Brendan Dillon was part of you finding your game?”
Kane’s response? “Uh, yeah, I didn’t play much in the first period. So I thought I might as well get into a fight and take seven or eight minutes in the box.”
Numerous fans took this as Kane complaining about playing time, about being dropped to the third line, which would essentially make his statement a shot at Oilers coach Jay Woodcroft.
But at Monday’s practice when sensible Ryan Rishaug of TSN asked Woodcroft about how some folks were saying this was Kane complaining about ice time, that’s not how Woodcroft saw it, not even close.
Woodcroft saw Kane’s comments in a good light.
“I see that as a positive,” he said. “I saw somebody that was frustrated with the way the first two periods went in terms of the amount of penalties taken. If you look at that first two periods I think both teams took five penalties each that led to power plays. So that’s 20 out of the 40 minutes. As soon as you scrape off half of the available game in terms rhythm and stuff, you’re not getting into a rhythm so, like I said, I saw some positives in his game as the game wore on. As I said, he got physical, he got in a fight. I thought the team responded to some good things and, you know, I don’t see that as a negative at all. I see it as someone who’s passionate and wants to get into a rhythm and wants to play.”
Headline News
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
Rishaug then asked Kane about the notion some fans hold that his statement was a complaint about his ice time: “How did you mean it?”
Said Kane: “It’s really easy to view that complaining about ice time when they don’t clipthe question, and they just clip my answer, right. So like a lot of the times you know I’ve talked about the media, there’s always a lack in context, and that was a great example of something being taken, a quote from me,without even there being a question involved, so people can take it as they may. And to be honest, even if youjust look at the question, or the answer I just laid out the facts. I did play three minutes that period. I did getinto a fight and I did sit in the box for eight minutes. So I was just laying out the facts.”
My take
1. First of all, great questions from Rishaug. Many fans were making this kind of comment, some online pundits were blowing it up into full-blown internal dissent on the team, so it was worthwhile to dig into it with Woodcroft and with Kane with a pair of straight ahead questions. It was fair to both the coach and the player and being fair to people is a big part of any reporter’s job. Excellent work here.
Advertisement 4
Article content
2. It was also fair for fans to wonder what Kane meant. I wondered myself. It sounded like it might well be a shot at the coach. That said, I couldn’t be sure. The danger here was attempted mind-reading, being certain that you knew what Kane meant with his cryptic comment, and then running with that.
No one knows what he meant, save for Kane himself. None of us can read his mind. To run with it and suggest he was unhappy with being bumped down the roster and that this is evidence of internal dissent is not just a step to far, it’s a step off a cliff into nonsense.
We’re all guilty of mind-reading and putting the worst spin on statements by politicians and athletes and others, especially if we’re not fans of a particular individual, but it’s important to keep in mind how offside we can be when we attempt to mind-read. It’s easy to hallucinate someone is saying something when that’s not in their mind at all.
3. Kane has plenty to be upset about with the media. He’s had a controversial and dramatic life, with numerous personal issues that have been reported on, but with many of the accounts one-sided, such as news reports leaving out or downplaying the hugely significant fact that in his ugly he said/she said dispute with his ex-wife, a Californian judge sided with Kane and awarded him custody of the child’s couple.
Advertisement 5
Article content
4. All that said, I didn’t find Kane’s response to Rishaug that enlightening, other than it’s more proof the guy thinks for himself, says what he likes, is hugely confident and isn’t going to bend over backwards to please anyone with a response. He’s his own man, obviously.
He’s done well in Edmonton both off and on the ice. He’s become a massive fan favourite, though his play since he came back from his terrifying wrist injury hasn’t been at his previous level. He’s struggling with his dexterity with the puck, struggling to make plays. At the same time, he’s still fast, still aggressive, still a hugely intimidating force, and even with less offensive skill, he can help this team win if he plays a strong defensive and hitting game, adding offence where he can, quite possibly in a third line role.
5. Bottom lines: I put most weight in this new not-so-great, fake controversy around Kane on Woodcroft’s words and demeanour. The coach — who has all the access and authority he needs to clear the air in private with Kane over Kane’s comments — had zero problem with Kane’s words.
None whatsoever.
Advertisement 6
Article content
In fact, as he stressed, Woodcroft liked what he heard. He sees Kane as a passionate competitor, he saw Kane’s comments in that light, end of story, much ado about nothing.
P.S. The Bakersfield Condors have signed Oilers favourite Sam Gagner to a new contract. Good luck to Gagner in his comeback. Will we see him in Edmonton this year? That would be something.
STAPLES ON POLITICS
Trudeau pulls off the impossible, raising from the dead the possibility of an Alberta Pension Plan
At the Cult of Hockey
McCURDY: McD out one to two weeks. What does it mean?
LEAVINS: Answering some burning questions about McDavid’s injury — 9 Things
STAPLES: Oilers can not sustain lead in Game 5 loss to the Winnipeg Jets
McCURDY: Kane’s play has become a major concern
Article content
Share this article in your social network
Comments
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.