Author Archives: Jay Menard

Stunting Our Juniors’ Development

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

As fans and supporters of the game of hockey, we’re all interested in protecting the game at all levels. But are we doing so at the expense of the players? And is it now time to recognize special players as such – and not hold back their development?

Currently, players with junior eligibility who don’t stick on a National Hockey League roster must be returned to their junior-level hockey club, as opposed to being sent down to a team’s minor-league affiliate. But is this really the best option for all of these players – and is it finally time for one of hockey’s sacred cows to be put on ice?

By sending a player back to junior, an NHL club is able to avoid having a year count against the player’s rookie contract. And, in consideration of the new collective bargaining agreement which sees players eligible for unrestricted free agency far sooner than before, that extra year can mean one more year that a player will suit up for the squad in the prime of his career. Essentially, they get a year’s development on a junior team that essentially provides them an extra roster spot for their minor league franchise. Think of it as the hockey equivalent of a tax shelter – you get all the benefits of the player’s development, without the necessity of losing a contract year.

For the junior squad, it’s a no-brainer. Generally, the players that are on the NHL bubble are the ones who will find their way on to the team’s top lines, turning what may be a moribund franchise into a Memorial Cup contender. The fans benefit by seeing their elite athletes and favourite skaters back in their local uniforms, up close and personal.

But what about the players themselves? Once all the business and financial interests have been met, where does the player’s development fit in? And who’s to say that sending a player down to the junior level isn’t simply wasting a year of development in a sport that offers notoriously short careers. Is it not time to admit that age ain’t nothin’ but a number when it comes to certain special hockey players and a one-size-fits-all approach to eligibility may, in fact, be hindering these players’ development?

At the end of this year’s NHL’s training camp, we’ve seen two players come agonizingly close to sticking with the big club, only to be among the very final cuts back to junior: Edmonton Oilers’ prospect Rob Schremp who was returned to the London Knights, and Montreal Canadiens’ highly-touted rookie Guillaume Latendresse who was sent down to the Drummondville Voltigeurs – both despite having outstanding training camps that almost found them on an NHL roster.

In the end, for both players, the numbers game had much to do with their demotion – unfortunately, it wasn’t the numbers they were putting up on the ice, it was the numbers on theirs and other players’ contracts. Whether there were other players on the cusp with guaranteed contracts, one-way deals, or simply the realization that these players would benefit from more ice time than what they would get on an NHL roster, both players found themselves back in the junior ranks — back in familiar haunts with markedly different results.

Latendresse, visibly disheartened by his demotion, struggled a bit at first but has picked up the pace to record nine goals and eight assists in 11 games. Conversely, Schremp has been toying with the opposition, registering 14 goals and 41 total points in his 10 games back in the green and gold. Which begs the question that if these players are either bored or dominating in the junior ranks, is their respective development being best served by playing with other 17-20 year olds? Will the Colorado Avalanche’s Wojtek Wolski progress as rapidly in Brampton following an impressive NHL stint that saw him rack up two goals and four assists in just nine games?

Or should these players be allowed to ply their trade in the American Hockey League – the NHL’s primary development league – against older and more talented players? Should they receive the benefit of developing their skills against a consistently higher level of competition, comprised primarily of other NHL wannabes and used-to-bes?

Yes, the fans in London, Drummondville, Brampton, and other junior cities would lose out on seeing some of these special players for another year. But junior hockey will survive. The loss of Rick Nash, despite remaining eligibility, didn’t hurt the Knights’ chances during last year’s Memorial Cup run – organizational depth, solid coaching, and astute management were as important to the team’s victories as any particular player.

The fans support the logo on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back. Junior hockey fans, who are remarkably devoted to these players who spend three years – maybe four tops – with their club, should want the best for these young players. And the best isn’t always a return to junior.

Obviously, we don’t want NHL clubs decimating the junior ranks, populating the professional leagues with junior-aged players, but perhaps it’s time to offer clubs a special designation that can be applied to one prospect a year – should they so choose. This designation would allow NHL clubs to apply the tag to one borderline player and have him play in the AHL (or whatever minor-league affiliate).

That way, the truly special players who have learned all they can from junior, will be able to progress against more skill-appropriate competition. The junior ranks wouldn’t be devoid of all talent – and even the NHL teams may not choose to use the designation each year.

In the end, the NHL teams that have drafted these players have only one interest – to make sure that the player maximizes his development to become a functioning member of the NHL squad. They’re not going to take a kid who’s not ready for prime time and put him in a league where he’s over his head – but they should also be allowed to move him to a level where he’s not skating rings around the competition.

And that’s truly in the players’ best interests.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Cost of Doing Business

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

I’ve never been a knick-knack person. I don’t understand them, but I’ve grown to appreciate them. Despite my protests, I’ve come to realize that, beyond the depth and scope of my understanding, we have a need in this world for pretty things.

That’s why criticizing our elected and non-elected representatives for their spending can, at times, be counter-productive.

Recently former Royal Canadian Mint president David Dingwall and Governor General Adrienne Clarkson have been pilloried in the press for their questionable spending habits, ranging from lavish expenses on trips to seemingly petty reimbursements for coffee and doughnuts.

Yet, looking at the nature of business alone, these expenses warrant no more than a shrug. And, when you factor in the inflated cost of pomp and circumstance, then these expenditures are almost downright understandable.

Why does the average person get so angry at Dingwall’s spending, when we all do the same thing, when afforded the opportunity? When travelling on business, don’t we expense each and every item, meal, and out-of-pocket cost back to our company? I do. I’m doing business on company time, away from my home, without billing for extra time, so why shouldn’t my expenditures be compensated?

Or does the fact that this money is coming out of our own pockets in the form of tax dollars make all the difference? Ironically, many of us in the public have been demanding that government conducts itself in a more business-like manner – yet, here’s an example of business practices and we’re up in arms. And you don’t think those business expenses incurred in the private sector hit you in the pocketbook? Of course they do – they’re rolled into the cost of sales and are transferred to you in the purchase price of the product or service you’re buying. It’s just that we aren’t privy to the behind-the-scenes machinations of private enterprise.

When it comes to the office of the Governor General, there is a matter of pageantry that must be factored into any cost. Government officials, heads of state, and other elected and non-elected officials are not just selling Canada to the world – they’re selling an image of the country. You can’t do that on the cheap.

Throughout my life I’ve watched my father, who works for a major multi-national, travel on business meeting with vendors and various corporate interests. And, without getting into detail, I’ve been aware of the expense of doing business. Sure, you could take your clients to Taco Bell, but should you? Comping a fine meal may cost more initially, but the potential return on the investment is far greater. You don’t think that applies to anyone? Well, try taking your wife out to Burger King on your anniversary, justifying it by saying a meal’s a meal… Let me know how you make out when you regain the use of your fingers.

It sounds cliché, but in the world of business you truly do have to spend money to make money. Whether it’s communicating with clients, rewarding your staff, or travelling to trade shows or meetings, there is an expense that needs to be incurred for a business to have any chance of success. But, because it’s the government, we feel we have the right to do things on the cheap.

Unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, money does make the world go ‘round. We can’t expect to compete on our merits and merits alone. We need the flash and dazzle, we need the glitz and glamour, we need the pomp and circumstance – essentially, we need those little pretty things to draw attention to ourselves, so that the substance behind the style can stand out.

We live in a global marketplace and we have to move at the speed of business to compete. It’s an investment in our future where only the bottom line matters. Did Dingwall’s cost of doing business harm the Mint? No, in fact it turned a profit under his stewardship. We need to look at the return on investment and not just the initial expenditure when weighing our public representatives’ spending habits.

No, they shouldn’t go unchecked and there should be financial checks and balances to approve these expenditures just like in any private enterprise – which there were. But the public needs to strain their vitriol through a filter based on the reality of doing business.

It’s the knick-knack theory of economics. While decorations aren’t integral to the existence of a home, they certainly make living there much more appealing – so why should we sell our country short? Politics is a business and we should treat it as such – there’s no difference between private expenditures that are rolled into your retail price and government expenses, except visibility.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Being Gay in Sports Tougher on Men

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Sheryl Swoopes, arguably the greatest female basketball player on the planet, has come out of the closet. But what must have been a trying and gut-wrenching decision for her to go public with her sexuality gets met with a collective yawn from the sporting public.

So why is it that female athletes can come out and be greeted with a “been-there-done-that” reaction from the world at large, yet the male sporting world remains suspiciously devoid of prominent gay athletes? It’s a combination of the public’s double-standard of sexuality for men and women, and the stone-age throwback macho mentality that permeates sports.

Swoopes, like others female athletes in the past like Amelie Mauresmo and Martina Navratalova, will continue her dominance of the sport. She’ll be lauded for her bravery and then relegated to the back pages of the sports section from whence she came. All the while, the clock continues to tick as anxious sports writers keep an eye on the closet door for that first high-profile male to peek his head around the corner.

Forget sports, homosexuality in male team sports is truly the final frontier. But why is it different? Why is it acceptable to the public for a woman to be gay and not for a man? It’s hard to say, but much of it has to go to public perception.

Lesbianism is almost chic these days. Modern media is rife with Sapphic sensuality. The male-dominated marketplace swallows up this imagery as titillation – despite the obvious fact that there are just two more girls who aren’t interested in them! Is it a penetration thing? Is the idea of women being with women more visually appealing to most than the thought of two men copulating – despite the acts being inherently the same at their root?

Or is it because we’re accustomed to displays of affection between women? Whether it’s holding hands walking down the street, dancing together, or calling each other “girlfriend,” women have been far more liberal in their ability to express affection. Now try picturing a man referring to his drinking buddy as his “boyfriend” or comforting each other after a sad movie – it doesn’t happen.

It’s why Ellen Degeneres can host a wonderful talk show that millions enjoy without her sexuality mattering, as it should be. But where are all those gay male hosts and actors? Why is it so much of a challenge to come out?

In a sporting environment it’s even worse. Locker rooms are rife with “fag” and “homo” jokes and comments, there are strict protocols of where your eyes can linger in the shower (keep ‘em above the waist), and overt displays of masculinity bordering on the puerilistic are considered essential for team-building — so much so that for many players, the idea of having a gay teammate is anathema.

It’s sad to think that the next person who comes out while playing professional sports like football, hockey, or baseball, will be considered a trail-blazer. It’s a poor commentary on our society that in 2005 we’re still not comfortable with the concept of love that we’ve yet to come to a time when a gay athlete can feel comfortable coming out of the closet, not because of the public perception – but rather because of the perception amongst the very people he’s gone to war with on the playing field.

Being gay or straight doesn’t affect your ability to play a sport any more than being black or white does. And in a sporting environment wherein even a comment that may or may not be misconstrued as being racist is met with swift and decisive action, rampant homophobia and borderline gay-bashing can run unchecked and be used as a source of humour.

We need to stop thinking that gay males are sexual deviants looking to ravage unsuspecting heterosexuals at the next available opportunity. The gay athlete that hasn’t taken any interest in his straight teammate is certainly not going to turn into a molesting deviant preying on his teammates once he comes out of the closet. He’ll just be like everyone else – a person looking for love.

And even if your teammate finds you attractive, what’s really wrong with that? Most of us aren’t running the risk of finding ourselves on the cover of GQ anytime soon, so we should be kneeling down and thanking whatever deity or spiritual force we believe in that someone – anyone – thinks we’re not half-bad looking. Hell, I thank my lucky stars that my beautiful wife thinks I’m attractive – anything else is just gravy! The fact is we’re all human, gay or straight, and we have the choice to say yes or no to suitors of either sex. It doesn’t diminish our sexuality in one iota – so where’s the problem?

There’s a double-standard of gayness in our society and it’s something that has to end. Male-male, female-female, either way we should accept the fact that two people have found happiness with each other, regardless of what they’ve got below the belt. The women have figured it out. Now it’s the men’s – and the rest of society’s — turn.

Sports is just a game, but until we live in a world where sexuality is irrelevant to judging a person’s worth on the field or off, then we’re all losers in the game of life.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Investing in a Dream

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Where else can you buy a dream for only $2? Over the past couple of weeks, the nation has been caught up in lottery fever – and, while the chances of any of us actually winning are slim, nationwide response to the exorbitant jackpot shows just how powerful the lure of a dream is.

Have you ever noticed that while we’re all fond of saying that there are only two types of people in life, we end up coming up with a myriad of different criteria to finish that statement? Well, here’s another one to add to the list – there are only two types of people in life, those who play the lottery and those who don’t.

Oh, sure there are subsections of each – such as the rabid fan who has the personalized pouch, an array of lucky numbers, and has subscribed to the advanced order program. And then there’s the self-denier who denounces those who play the lottery, but will indulge in the odd scratch ticket. Of course, there are the cynics who refuse to play the lottery and look down upon those that do.

However, my personal experience is that a large number of people are like me, occasional players who buy a ticket once in a while, when the lure of a potential payout is too much to resist. And apparently I dream big. I only play the lottery when the stakes get higher – like over $10 million.

It’s a fool’s wager, of course. The odds of winning are so astronomical that I’d be better off standing in my back yard waiting to get struck by lightning. The lure is too much to resist – not that I honestly believe I have any chance of winning, despite the placating “Well, somebody has to win…” sales pitch that lottery commissions love to trot out. But what draws me to throw a Toonie on the table is the investment in a dream.

That one little slip of paper with a few random, or not-so-random, numbers is your ticket to indulging in a fantasy for a couple of days. During the run-up to a big lottery drawing, we’re all winners in our minds. We happily while away some time fantasizing about how we’ll spend our soon-to-be-had riches: start by paying off debts, make a few big purchases, and invest some for the long haul.

For those few days, we’re able to dream about how a big windfall would help not only ourselves and our families, but all those close to us. We make deals with each other: “If I win, I’ll give you $1 million,” or “I’m going to buy all of our friends a car.” And, of course, there’s the dizzying array of worthy causes to which you can donate that get discussed. This is done partly out of caring, but also out of karmic negotiation – as if promising to give away a portion of future winnings increases our chances of divine or cosmic intervention when those numbered balls drop.

I remember, after adding a lottery ticket to a fuel purchase (and, let me tell you, that $2 magically disappears in the cost of filling up a tank), my wife and I passed a significant amount of time on the highway discussing trips we would take with the family and how we would distribute the money – leading to the ever-popular, “How much do we actually like that person game” when your friendship with people gets tested by a dollar value when the amounts to give away are broken down. By the end, we had planned a few trips around the world (scheduled around our kids’ school requirements, of course), purchased a new home, car, and a summer cottage, and had put aside money for our friends and family. That $2 bought enjoyment, laughter, and dreaming with my wife.

In the end, except for the exceptionally lucky few, it all comes to nothing. We walk away with maybe a free ticket won for our efforts, but more likely we’re simply adding another slip of paper to the recycling box.

But what can’t be thrown away so easily is the dream – and that’s what makes buying a lottery ticket so enjoyable. Cynics and critics will look down upon lottery players as throwing away their money or wasting their time – but the fact of the matter is that, for a minimal investment, lottery players are buying a dream. They’re engaging in some healthy escapism based on fantasy, which is no different than losing yourself in a movie, a sporting event, or a night at the theatre – only the stage that this fantasy gets played out on is in the theatre of your mind.

Two bucks to enjoy a dream for a few days – that’s an investment I’ll make every time. And win or lose, I come out ahead.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Honour on the Field of Play, Not in the Rafters

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It’s a practice long held sacred in our sporting environments. We honour our greats by retiring their numbers and hoisting commemorative banners. But we’ve come to a time when we need to re-examine this practice and bring about a new way to recognize our past heroes – by celebrating them in the present.

Instead of shining a light on our athletic greats, the process of removing their numbers from circulation only serves to keep today’s fan in the dark about past exploits. Instead of keeping these players at the forefront of our thoughts, retiring their numbers only creates an out-of-sight, out-of-mind scenario.

It’s time to honour our past by embracing it and making it a part of us – not hanging it in a corner only to collect dust. Whether your favourite game is played on ice, grass, turf, or hardwood, embracing its past and learning about its greats enables fans to gain a greater appreciation of the sport. That’s why Halls of Fame are so popular – the past comes to life again, memories are rekindled, and we can celebrate our history in living colour (or black and white, as the case may be.)

Most casual fans – the ones that sporting leagues covet and woo – aren’t steeped in the history of the game. They know what they see and, if their interest is piqued, they’ll go on to learn more about the game. But watching on TV or listening on the radio, you’re not going to be exposed to the uniform numbers that aren’t there. Most fans don’t get to an arena, stadium, or court – their exposure to the game is no closer than their living room – so they don’t get the benefit of seeing the banners or commemorative photos.

That’s why we need to bring these numbers down from the rafters and back to the playing field – with a twist. Teams should allow players to wear honoured numbers, but something should be done to the uniform to make it stand out from the crowd. Whether it’s using gold or silver numbers instead of the team’s normal colour, or the addition of an insignia or border, something should be added to the uniform to draw attention to it.

Really, what greater honour can we give to our retired greats than the gift of relevance for future generations? Is Maurice Richard best served by hanging a dusty piece of cloth from the rafters of the Bell Centre or by a young boy or girl asking their father why that player’s number 9 is different from the rest?

For the players, what greater honour would there be than to don the number of the heroes they emulated growing up. A few years back, Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning expressed a desire to don retro footwear to honour Johnny Unitas – but imagine how much more impact it would have been for him to run out of the tunnel wearing Mr. Football’s number 19.

And while many may say that keeping the uniforms in circulation may allow present and future players to tarnish the memories of the past, they’re forgetting that it wasn’t the uniform that made the player great – it was the player who brought honour to the uniform. The number on the back was often a matter of circumstance or luck – but the player who wore it – that’s what was truly special. No dishonour could ever be brought to the players’ names by new competitors bearing their numbers. While the curmudgeons among us will look at a player’s number and say, “Well, he’s no…” what’s lost in the negativity is the simple beauty of that sentiment. For that brief moment, we’re able to remember the past, to see our favourite player in our memory as if they were right in front of us.

It’s a win-win situation all around for players and fans alike. The exploits of retired players will continue to be retold each and every time a new fan asks for the story behind that specially designated number that a modern player is wearing. They’re no longer on the shelf, simply to be overlooked like any other decoration, but rather they get taken down and become a vibrant part of today’s game.

The players get to honour their idols on the field of play. While many of these players have chosen uniform numbers to pay homage to their heroes throughout their lives, now they can do the same on the largest stage possible. And, if their exploits warrant it, they can have the ultimate honour of being recognized alongside their heroes in perpetuity.

For the fans, it gives them a chance to relive their memories, stir up debate, and swap stories with friends and families. And, for the new fans and the kids, it allows them to learn and appreciate the history of their game. It gives generations an opportunity to bond through the sharing of stories about a common love. And, most importantly it gives the gift of memories that will last a lifetime and will be passed down from generation to generation.

Our hearts have long been in the right place when it comes to honouring our athletic greats. But their greatness was exhibited on the field of play and that’s where they would best be honoured – on the very stage that they once owned and in the hearts and minds of the fans that appreciated them.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved