If you’d watched Ron Hextall’s superb career as an NHL star – the man was basically a human pulsing neck vein of intensity and sheer desire to win – you might have a tough time envisioning him becoming the voice of reason later in life. But this is exactly what’s happened, and the latest example of his progressive mindset came Tuesday night in a pre-season game between his Philadelphia Flyers and the New York Islanders – a game in which veteran winger Wayne Simmonds was wearing a visor.
Now, this wasn’t the first time in his nine-season NHL career that Simmonds had worn eye protection during a game. He’d played with a visor as a member of the L.A. Kings a handful of years prior, but since arriving in Philly in 2011, Simmonds had taken it off and lived with the risk in the name of comfort and competitive parity. The Toronto native is known and celebrated for his robust physical game, and so when he took to the ice Tuesday against the Isles, people noticed the change, and asked him about it.
The first, erroneous (and perhaps even a little bit misogynistic) presumption from some media types was Simmonds’ mother and girlfriend were the ones most relieved by and responsible for his decision to wear a visor. But Simmonds shot down that notion by revealing that it was Hextall, the team’s GM, who’d asked him to wear one. The 28-year-old was under no obligation to do so; he was covered under the league’s grandfathered clause mandating visors for rookies beginning in 2013-14. But he obliged his GM, added the plastic to his helmet, and went about his business. And though he noted it took some minor adjustments before he could settle in with the altered equipment, Simmonds couldn't deny business against the Islanders turned out to be very good: he scored twice as Philadelphia pulled off a 4-0 victory.
It was almost as if Hextall had called in a favor from the Hockey Gods. After the game had ended, how could Simmonds, or anyone else, argue that wearing a visor negatively effected your impact as an on-ice force? Of course, not every player would or could have a similar imprint on the scoresheet simply because they’d gotten smarter in protecting two of their more valuable body parts. But here was a competitor known to play rough, continuing to play rough with a visor on, and he was none the worse for it.
More importantly, he’d avoided needlessly raising the risk on his eyesight for some perceived advantage. And Hextall recognized it was in the best interest of the organization and the player himself for management to broach the subject with him and request he put on a visor. From an asset management perspective alone, it made all the sense in the world for Hextall to speak to Simmonds about it. It wasn’t solely or primarily about Simmonds’ family – although that’s not a reason to be mocked or dismissed, either – it was about understanding the game’s chaotic dangers and the irreversible damages they can inflict.
In the salary cap era – and with another round of expansion not far away – NHL teams can ill afford to lose a talent like Simmonds in the short or long term, and doing everything in his power to keep his players as safe as possible is inherent in Hextall's job. And that’s what Hextall was probably thinking of when he made his request. Indeed, how haunted would you be as an NHL executive if something happened to a player you know could’ve been better-protected? You’d lie awake at night for the rest of your days consumed by a bitter case of the what-ifs. It’s true GMs aren’t naive enough to pretend they can safeguard talent from any and all catastrophes, but there’s a clear line drawn now with eye protection, and even those who employ the last visor holdouts are very aware they're still taking more of a chance than they should.
And really, for what good reason? It’s not as if the league’s top 10 point-producers all do their jobs without visors. It’s not like any of the Chicken Little talk you heard from people who desperately wanted players to remain visor-free ever materialized into reality.
No, what happened was that visors became a fixture and the game got safer for the betterment of the athletes who put their bodies on the line night after night. There’s no shame in striving to protect them as best we can. Hextall knows this. Simmonds, loathe as he may be to admit it, probably does, too. And they ought to be acknowledged for taking the steps necessary to ensure the best players continue playing the game for as long as the fates allow.