McDavid’s Honest Conn Smythe Response Demands New Policy

Thanks to Matt Larkin for making a solid case for why the Conn Smythe Trophy should only be awarded to a member of the Stanley Cup-winning team. He quoted former winner J-S Giguere in a recent post on X.com and talked about just how awkward it is to win the award when you’re a part of the losing team in the Stanley Cup Final. Here is his post from yesterday.

Connor McDavid Wasn’t Dismissive, He Was in Solidarity

To repeat Larkin’s words, anyone claiming it was “poor form” for McDavid not to come out for the Conn Smythe Trophy presentation must read this excerpt from an interview he did with Giguere years ago. Giguere did go out to the ice to get the trophy, but then he had the wisdom to hide it.

Related: Panthers Win First Stanley Cup, McDavid Wins Conn Smythe in Loss

His memory explains how weird it feels to win on a losing team. Giguere said he enjoyed the Stanley Cup experience – except for losing. But the oddest thing was winning the Conn Smythe and having to go out alone to retrieve it.

When he went to the ice to get the Conn Smythe Trophy, none of his teammates knew he was getting it. When he returned to the room, he put the trophy on the training table and didn’t even bring it into the room. He knew no teammate would want to see it, and he felt bad about sharing it with the guys. Losing the Cup is a sad moment for everyone.

Both Sides of the McDavid Debate About Who Gets the Trophy

The situation with McDavid raises an interesting debate: Should the Conn Smythe Trophy, awarded to the most valuable player in the NHL playoffs, only be given to a winning team member? This question stems from the awkwardness and emotional complexity that arise when a player from the losing team receives this prestigious individual honor.

Arguments for Awarding the Conn Smythe to the Best Player on Either Team

Proponents argue that the Conn Smythe Trophy should remain true to its purpose of recognizing the most valuable player of the playoffs. Excellence should be celebrated regardless of the team’s final standing, ensuring that players who give outstanding performances are acknowledged.

The Conn Smythe is to recognize the true excellence of the Stanley Cup Final. It is meant to honor the most outstanding player throughout the playoffs, regardless of their team’s ultimate success.

Changing the criteria could undermine the award’s historical significance. Many past winners have been from losing teams, and their performances genuinely deserved recognition. Recognizing outstanding performances from all players, regardless of their team’s fate, can motivate future players to strive for excellence throughout the playoffs.

Arguments for Limiting the Conn Smythe to the Winning Team

Advocates for change believe the award should celebrate those who contribute to the ultimate victory, reflecting hockey’s team-centric nature. This approach aligns the Conn Smythe with the spirit of the Stanley Cup, focusing on collective triumph rather than individual glory.

Changing the Conn Smythe Trophy to award it only to a member of the winning team would move to celebrate team success more than individual success. The essence of hockey lies in teamwork and collective effort. Awarding the Conn Smythe only to a winning team member reinforces the importance of team success over individual accolades.

There are also pragmatic reasons for awarding the trophy only to a winning team member. Giguere’s experience and McDavid’s reaction suggest that winning an individual award while the team loses can feel hollow and disconnected. It’s more meaningful to celebrate when shared with the entire team.

Finally, limiting the award to the winning team would avoid the controversy and criticism often accompanying awarding the Conn Smythe to a player whose team didn’t win the Cup.

The Issue Is Complex, But …

This debate over the presentation of the Conn Smythe Trophy is complex. It touches on the heart of what hockey represents. For me, it’s about teamwork. Thus, balancing individual brilliance and team success makes good teams good teams.

McDavid’s situation highlights the emotional nuances of this issue. It suggests it is time to reconsider the criteria for one of hockey’s most prestigious awards. Whether the Conn Smythe Trophy should go to the best player overall or be reserved for a winning team member remains a topic worthy of discussion among hockey fans and analysts alike.

Thinking about how McDavid reacted and how much I appreciated his leadership, I decided to make a change: I would give the Conn Smythe to a member of the Stanley Cup-winning team.

Related: Celebrating the Oilers’ Remarkable Season of Resilience and Unity