RALEIGH, N.C. — Listen, maybe Marty Walsh — who is leaving his position as President Joe Biden’s Secretary of Labor, after a rather underwhelming effort on behalf of union workers, to become the next leader of the NHL Players’ Association — is the right man for the job. 

Maybe the former two-term mayor of Boston, known as somewhat of a tub-thumper back in the day, has exactly the qualities needed to energize and educate the NHL’s union membership that has grown more apathetic and ignorant with each passing year. 

Maybe Walsh will become the first of the union’s executive directors since Bob Goodenow, who was overthrown following the disastrous outcome of the 2004-05 canceled season, to halt the steady progress by Gary Bettman and the NHL in collective bargaining. 

Maybe. 

But maybes are all we are left with, because Walsh was selected for the job by the 32-man executive committee, comprised of team player reps, without having articulated an agenda or a message to the group. At 55 and a career politician, he is a blank slate in this arena. 

Apparently, that is why he was hired. The search firm of Russell Reynolds Associates, which was hired by the NHLPA to advise and counsel, lobbied aggressively against candidates with prior relationships with the union or Bettman. 

That notably included Mike Gillis, the former player and agent who then became the Canucks’ general manager and has been under contract as a consultant for the PA. Gillis had been the leading candidate until Walsh appeared at a fairly late date in the process. 

We are told that Walsh had twice previously rejected the search committee’s overtures to apply for the job, but reversed course when he was not selected to become Biden’s Chief of Staff after Ron Klain resigned from the job. 

Russell Reynolds Associates warned against hiring anyone with a preconceived notion of and prior relationship with Bettman, but apparently not against hiring anyone with a preconceived notion of and prior relationship to Bruins’ owner and chairman of the NHL Board of Governors, Jeremy “Mr.” Jacobs. 

Jacobs contributed $13,000 to Walsh’s mayoral campaign in 2017, and also threw a fundraiser for him. The men have a prior relationship. Is that just a matter of doing business in Boston? Or should there be concerns? 

It is kind of odd that a preconceived — read, negative — notion of Bettman from prior experience would be disqualifying, but one with Jacobs would be an asset, isn’t it? 

Again, there has been no message conveyed yet from Walsh on what approach he will endorse for the next round of collective bargaining when the current agreement expires on Sept. 15, 2026. Walsh, who is not an attorney, is not familiar with the collective bargaining agreement. It is unclear whether he will retain current NHLPA personnel — including Gillis — who have institutional knowledge and memory of the union’s massive gains under Goodenow and ensuing give-backs. 

Maybe Walsh is the guy to rally the membership. Maybe he will take a harsher stance with the Board of Governors than he did with the railroads. Maybe he is the man to go toe-to-toe with the commissioner. 

For now, it is all a mystery. 

That seems to have been the idea all along. 

There is a rule for everything, isn’t there? 

Well, actually that is incorrect. Because, Slap Shots has learned, there is no rule covering a scenario that hypothetically could have occurred at the Garden in the Rangers’ wild throwback game against the Flames on Monday. 

It was late in the first period, when Sammy Blais was called for a delayed penalty after a crushing open-ice hit on Milan Lucic. Calgary netminder Jacob Markstrom went to the bench for an extra attacker while referee Kelly Sutherland’s arm remained in the air until the Blueshirts soon gained possession. 

After a fracas ensued, Blais took his place in the penalty box. But per Rule 20.6, Sutherland then reviewed the play, indicating that he had originally intended to cite Blais for a major. 

As stated, “On-Ice Video Review of Major Penalties — Referees shall review all plays that result in the assessment of any Major Penalty (other than a Major Penalty for Fighting) for the purpose of confirming (or modifying) their original call on the ice … 

“The Referee shall have the following options after video review of his own call: (i) confirming his original Major Penalty call; (ii) reducing his original Major Penalty call to a lesser penalty; or (iii) rescinding the original Major Penalty altogether.” 

In this instance, Sutherland recognized that Blais’ hit had been a legal one, so he properly rescinded the penalty altogether. But if the Flames had scored on the delayed power play, would the goal had been taken off the board since the call had been reversed? 

That is not addressed in Rule 20 (6). That, as I later learned upon contacting the NHL, is not addressed at all in the NHL rule book. 

Indeed, if it were to have occurred, Sutherland and partner Brandon Shrader would have kind of made it up on the fly. It seems pretty straightforward that the goal should be negated, as goals are negated if recorded on plays that are later ruled offside on a review, but unless there is a rule in place, it could become a matter of debate. Indeed, one fellow suggested it might be settled by whether the extra attacker had influenced the play. 

That is unacceptable. The NHL must address this immediately. 

I don’t get the marketing hook on the Devils’ reverse retro jerseys. Come celebrate the franchise’s early failed attempts in both Kansas City and Colorado? 

Maybe the next number that goes up at The Rock won’t be No. 15 for the deserving John MacLean, but instead No. 9 for both Wilf Paiement and Lanny McDonald. 

And reverse of what, exactly? 

Has anyone pointed out how the Canadiens’ RR’s look like pajamas John Tavares might have worn if he had grown up a Habs fan. 

Finally, the All-Star games that are not really games, are they? That is fine if the fans in the building are enjoying the event, but we could surely do without commentary analyzing goal-scoring plays at 65 percent speed that were not contested as if there had been a Wayne Gretzky-to-Mario Lemieux 1987 Canada Cup component to them.