Leave Petty Arguments Behind Laugh At 2009

Good work to Fred for spotting this gem.

It's Bob Gainey on Facebook.

The boys at Mauvais Oeil have done a nice job, but we must also acknowledge the perpetual genius of Down Goes brown who did this ages ago. Bob only copied Brian after all. It also happens to be a funny one... If only Brian did anything else worth emulating.

And more if you like status updates too much.

Andre Savard? Jack Todd's Man Made Gainey Look Like The Genius In The First Place

It seems each time I muster up the energy to respond to something Jack Todd is saying it begins something like this: "I remember when I used to like reading Jack Todd..."

I think it's probably time to admit that I must have been wrong and that perhaps it's not Jack Todd that has changed. Perhaps he's always done sensationalism with a hacksaw; perhaps he's always chased the headline while going short on the substance.

I hope not. I hope that my one time favourite Expos-booster was full of sharp and accurate observation. Clearly now he's running low on that.

The reason I bring this up today is because Jack is pulling an easy one – criticising Bob Gainey. Not only that he's criticising Bob while grandstanding Andre Savard, the Canadiens saviour we must have overlooked; the last GM to work here with a plan.

Jack suggests that Gainey's time, despite outward appearances, has been ruled by panic throughout. He suggests that trades, free agent wooing and contract renegotiations were all part of this frantic attempt to keep head above water. In contrast, he puts forward Andre Savard who (in retrospect) did everything with cold and accurate calculation.

But is this really the case? Or is Jack merely playing to an audience he knows will have forgotten the Czerkawski debacle and the Traverse trade as they fret about Game 8 of the season?


When I see wild claims with such questionable basis, it always prompts me to do a bit of investigating. So investigate I did. I thought you might all like to share in the investigation.


Drafting

At one point, Jack takes quite a liberty in exalting M. Savard as he credits him not only with his draft picks from 2000-2003 when he was GM of the team, but then also with the picks he made after he was shown his graceful redundancy package and lingered on in the organization from 2004-2006. Now, I don't want to belittle Savard's drafting in his own time, because it was a massive improvement on the previous regime, but I think we have to settle on whether it is the GM or the assistant GM who should get credit here.

Perhaps it would be different if Todd gave Gainey any due for the picks from 2003-2006 in his piece, but he doesn't:

"When you review Gainey's own draft choices after six years, you can find only one who is anywhere near star status in the NHL"

That's why I'll re-appropriate Gainey's fair dues from 2004 draft to present and credit him with the Mark Streit pick (NHL star), and for restocking the farm.

I think the alternative would be something like crediting Martin Madden with all those picks from 2001-2003, because, after all, he was assistant GM at the time. In building his somewhat shaky case for Savard better than Gainey, it seems Jack Todd employed the favourite technique of all spin-doctors in shifting the black and the white through the gray. I'll try to be fairer.

Rank	Andre Savard pick	Year drafted	Level attained	Bob Gainey pick	Year drafted	Level attained
1	Tomas Plekanec	2001	Offensive centre	Mark Streit	2004	All-star PP QB
2	Jaroslav Halak	2003	NHL goalie	Carey Price	2005	NHL goalie
3	Andrei Kostitsyn	2003	Offensive winger	Guillaume Latendresse	2005	Offensive winger
4	Mike Komisarek	2001	Average defender, worst NHL team	Mikhail Grabovski	2004	First line centre, worst NHL team
5	Chris Higgins	2002	NHL winger, can he score?	Max Pacioretty	2006	NHL winger, can he score?
6	Maxim Lapierre	2003	Some time 3rd line centre	Kyle Chipchura	2004	Some time 3rd line centre
7	Alex Perezhogin	2001	Disgruntled winger, in Russia	Sergei Kostitsyn	2005	Disgruntled winger, may go to Russia
8	Ryan O'Byrne	2003	Borderline NHLer	Matt D'Agostini	2005	Borderline NHLer
9	Konstantin Korneev	2002	Defensive prospect (Russia)	PK Subban	2007	Defensive prospect (Hamilton)
10	Corey Locke	2003	Minor leaguer	Yannick Weber	2007	Defensive prospect (Hamilton)

For me that's a push. Though Savard's picks only come from 3 drafts (2 really, if you account for his dismal 2002), he did well to select just about 10 NHLish players. Gainey has had more drafts, but really only 3 drafts (2004-2006) have produced any NHLers so far – simply because those younger than that are still in college or Hamilton.


Trades

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here. If you want a look at the complete list of trades, you'll get a start at GoHabs.com. If you want to fill in any omissions, there's more info at NHL Trade History for you.

Looking down the complete list of trades certainly puts an end to any illusion that Andre Savard might have been the GM this team needed to reconstruct it in the early years of the millennium. Apart from trading for just about every player that Michel Therrien had coached in junior, the only moves he made of any consequence were sideways or backwards. if I was to stretch for a big win, I'd have to hide a smirk and say Future considerations for Joe Juneau or even 4th round pick for Quintal, for such was his record.

Gainey on the other hand, seems to know that to deliver a winning trade one has to take a chance. And in taking chances, at least he has delivered some winners. There was the Alex Kovalev triumph of a trade (unmentioned by Mr. Todd since it didn't fit his argument?), and wins like Garon for Huet and Bonk, 2nd rounder for Lang and the Rivet deal which is a Habs winner (unless you happen to be developing a case against Gainey, in which case it's a push).

Unlike Savard, whose biggest moves involved sideways swaps of Linden and Zubrus for Zednik and Bulis, or Rucinsky and Brunet for Audette and Van Allen; Gainey has dealt in stars. He's brought in players like Kovalev, Tanguay, Gomez and Schneider and at times he's traded stars of his own like Theodore and Ribeiro. While Savard's trades might never look as bad because he was playing around the edges, he certainly never took a good swipe for the fences, and hence never came close to hitting one out of the park. And while he may never have really gone for, Savard did still strike out hard a few times, such as Weinrich for Traverse, Hackett for Sundstrom, Savage and a 3rd for berezin and Asham and a pick for Czerkawski.

Gainey may be the Henry Rodriguez of trading averages, but at least he's shown pop. Andre Savard is the 0.189 hitting Peter Bergeron who's hits meet applause if they clear the second base coach.


Free agent signings

This shouldn't take long.

When Savard was here, bless him, he did once pursue Brett Hull. And maybe he pursued others that we may never know about. But what did he deliver in free agent signings to the might Montreal Canadiens? Why, Yanic Perrault, Doug Gilmour and Randy McKay. Not great, considering the adulation for the draft wizard. You'd almost think he'd set himself a fifteen year plan with that glacial rate of signing and upgrade to the horrible 200o team.

Gainey, as Todd eagerly points out, does have some marks on his record in the free agent arena. However, just as in the realm of trades, the fact that Gainey has taken chances in order to rebuild is a good leg up on Andre Savard. Add to that the fact we now boast Roman Hamrlik and Jaroslav Spacek in lieu of the old guard and that Gainey just this summer won the lured the prized scorer Cammalleri to Montreal, the Brett Hul debacle gone right.


Contracts

Usually I wouldn't have touched on contracts in this rebuilding piece, because it seems the very minimum requirement of the GM job (i.e., if you can't do this, then what can you do). But since, Jack Todd slings mud at Gainey for some albatrosses he created, I have decided to remind everyone of Andre's own gaffes:

"From the panicky signing of José Theodore to a lucrative three-year deal to the decision to send everyone from Koivu to Komisarek to Kostopoulos and Alex Kova-lev packing, panic has been the rule of the day since Gainey took over.

Where to start? Well how about signing Patrice Brisebois to a 3-year contract extension with a no-trade clause for the highest salary ever paid to a Canadiens player in season?

Not enough?

Andre replicated that stellar form with a lovely 3-year extension to Dykhuis too and an extension to Traverse. Spotting the amateur talent might have been a strength but locking up these three while Francois Beauchemin slips through the cracks wasn't something to brag about. Maybe he's forgiven because there's no limit to the amount of money you could hand out back then. Might be more convincing if he'd made a free agent signing...


The verdict

If you've followed me this far in the piece, I trust I won't find you re-penning Jack Todd's opening words anytime soon:

"When a tall, dignified chap in a well-tailored suit came strolling into the press dining room at the Bell Centre before the Canadiens home opener, it struck me.

There was the best general manager the Canadiens have had since the early years of Serge Savard's reign, before Savard got too caught up in business activities to give the GM job his full attention.

No, I'm not talking about Bob Gainey. I'm referring to André Savard..."

I think if anything is clear after this little examination it is that no matter our current GM's faults and mis-steps, Gainey still trumps Savard. To be fair to Andre, he was a very effective talent spotter (probably still is), but in the other aspects of a GM's job, he was a massive disappointment for fans hoping for rebuilding. Gainey, by contrast has tried a few methods and failed, but he has also had his successes.

This season Gainey must take the slings and arrows as they come, because this new team was all his idea. But let's not mistake decisiveness and committing to a course for panic. I see more panic in resigning 3 underachieving hometown defencemen than I do in the Gomez trade. I'm glad Gainey didn't panic and trade Streit for nothing (aka Berezin) when his contract was coming up. And, quite the opposite of panic, I think Gainey finally does have a plan and is in the midst of putting his pieces together on the stage. Though, a losing streak offers a carrion-picking headline writer more reads, I still much prefer it to be bcked by some substance. Maybe in the future it will be. After all, we have Monday morning's column offering the possibility of a withdrawal with the proviso of 12 more impossible OT comeback wins.

Oh, and as a final note on lazy journalism. Though I'm sure we're all thrilled Glen Metropolit had a good game the day before Jack wrote his piece, the guy doesn't hold a candle to Steve Begin as a steal on the waiver wire (another Gainey era move, btw)...

Mike Who? The Forgettable Fifth Defender

Just before free agency opened I had set up my RSS feeds to aliment me with news on all the key free agents, both ours and those to be targeted as well. Call it laziness or morbid curiosity, but I've been keeping tabs on the same guys ever since. All Koivu news is served to me daily, same for Kovalev. All this despite not knowing the least about our actual players without some manual searching.

This past month has been a very quite one on many fronts and even the Koivu, Kovalev and Tanguay newsfeeds have started to taper off. But one feed keeps churning out the stories, albeit most unreadable. That feed is good old Mike Komisrek's, our former future captain, untradeable asset and defensive lynchpin – and now a traitor and instant enemy, of course.

As I said most of the stories are about the Leafs, and there's only so much a Canadiens fan can delve into the intricacies of Brian Burke's master "plan". But every now and again there's an article that pops out to file in the very worthwhile box. This week has seen a few on the big oaf.


Olympic camp

The first wave of interesting articles all dealt with the Toronto love triangle of Brian Burke, Ron Wilson and Mike Komisarek transposing their adoration on the stars and stripes. Mike, of course, was one of the invitees to the orientation camp (good article on that here) and had a swell time in Illinois. So swell, in fact, that it led the "ever-reliable" Steve Simmons to extrapolate from two comments that Mike Komisarek is in no danger of missing the Olympic cut:

Brian Burke admitted yesterday that more than two-thirds of the team has basically been selected and another Team USA source was clear that Komisarek would be on that list of sure things.

This interested me greatly because after watching Komisarek in Montreal, there were times where one would question his ability to avoid the NHL cut, let alone play for the elite of his country. At first I thought of nepotism, because after all it is Brian Burke. But then I had a look down the American options and thought again – the team doesn't look good. It can't be nice to look ahead to Komisarek and Scuderi marking Ovechkin, Malkin and Kovalchuk or the Canadian equivalent.

From this then two logical steps:

1) Mock the Americans – I quickly decided I couldn't do better than DGB's hilarious expedition

2) Start fretting about Timmins' propensity to take Americans over anyone else – when Scuderi or Komisarek clone is the pinnacle of likely achievement, you can stop ruing the loss of McDonagh


Komisarek on the Leafs

As the flood of articles on Komisarek from July onwards attests to, Leafs fans and writers have a lot to say about Mike. Some of what is being said is neutral, even, dare I say, realistic; but there's a big enough chunk of delusional prose to warrant my nausea.

That's why I was thrilled this morning when an article from The Hockey News: Komisarek More Common Than You Think found its way into my inbox.


This article is probably the article I wanted to write, but never did. It's certainly an idea that's been on the backburner for ages. I recommend you read it either to mash up the sour grapes in your gullet or just to enter into the spirit of mocking the newest of Leafs (I enjoy both). The spirit of the article I would have written can be found in this wonderful THN quote:

Just as Dion Phaneuf’s bombs from the point and bone-crushing hits mask defensive deficiencies, Komisarek’s willingness to tear after opponents and be the face of his team after a win or a loss belie the fact he’s not exactly from the Rod Langway school of defensive proficiency.

I couldn't agree more, nor could I have put it more succinctly. From September 2007 to April 2009, Mike Komisarek went from hopeful to emerging star to dependable to a man seemingly interested only his stats.

It all leads then to the interesting question, one that has nothing to do with how disappointed or pleased his new favourite fans will be: will we miss Mike Komisarek on the Canadiens?

I think I alluded to my answer in the title. Again, I draw a quote from a more inspired author:

Leaf fans could be disappointed to discover Komisarek’s game can often be comprised of more noise than nuance.

Fans of the Habs who hung around for April will know that by that time, will know this feeling well. By that time, Mike was a fifth choice defenceman playing a bigger role than we'd have liked him to. Never close to Markov or even Hamrlik in ability, he also made himself second choice to Gorges and Schneider and even Bouillon at times. His contributions all seemed to be recorded on the appendix stats sheet, as opposed to the win column.

Some will say that his descent in the depth chart was due to playing with injury. Some will say he was a hero for playing hurt. Maybe partly, but that theory dismisses the beginning of the season where he was in fact even less effective than he was when he was supposedly hampered by a shoulder/hand/upper body injury. It also ignores the fact his best stretch was actually post-injury, not pre.

Before his injury, Komisarek was already trailing Markov, Hamrlik, Gorges and Bouillon in the domes department – a deficit he would never recover from. His sorry season, injury or not left him with 8 domes (when most nights the second D spot was up for grabs by anyone who didn't shoot the puck over the glass or into their own net) and no game pucks. I remember several conversations about our lucky escapes, our "play with fire" style defence and Mike Komisarek's slide into 2004 form. Call us on bias if you want, but Komisarek was also a non-entity for the three-star selectors (despite his blocked shot stats) with a single third star to his name all season. The season before he had 26 domes to go with 2 second and 8 third star selections.

Last season he was very near the league in giveaways with 89, but unlike those who surpassed him (Markov, Ovechkin, Derek Roy, Souray, Green and Richards) who are victims of attempted breakout passes and creative plays gone wrong, he managed to get up there without ever trying to do more than pass squarely to Markov. His assist to giveaway ratio is the only thing more embarrassing than his giveaway to takeaway ratio. Add to that the fact he makes Markov a worse defender and attacking threat and the case builds.

So will we miss him? Well not in in 2008-09 form, we won't. Even at the pinnacle of his form (2007-08) Mike left us wanting in the playoffs as teams that saw our lineup on consecutive nights targeted the Komi side of the first defensive pairing with devastating effect. And given the likelihood that he's probably more the average of 2007-08 and 2008-09 than one extreme, I think Gainey's probably replaced him with Paul Mara at a fraction of the price.

Thank goodness for Google Reader, else I might not have got that off my chest.

Did the Montreal Canadiens need to be overhauled?

It's been swept under the rug a bit, but I still think it's a very pertinent question

To headline writers, Bob Gainey has blown up a team that crashed and burned in 2009.

To anyone with a developed memory and a modicum of sense, Bob Gainey also blew up the team that won the Eastern conference, and were it not for one hot and one cold goaltender might have battled the Penguins for a place in the Stanley Cup finals. Not only that, the team was an example of well-oiled NHL machine for 18 of the last 24 months.

I think those facts make the question very valid.

My personal opinion on the matter was that the Canadiens as a unit of players were largely fine. In my opinion, they did not need an overhaul. In fact, on the eve of free agency, I mused that bringing in a couple of new defenders (to replace Bouillon, Dandenault, Brisebois and perhaps Komisarek) might be change enough. I longed for another scorer (as everyone always does), but didn't think the playoffs hinged on it. I think the captain was a keeper. I think that Kovalev and Tanguay have been great performers for Montreal, given the inevitable drop in goals from players who come here.

Obviously Gainey and I should have talked.

Gainey, who happens to be privy of all the pertinent facts (to my very limited idea), thought differently.


Let's assume change is/was necessary...

I have to stretch to accept this view, but with an effort I can see it. But in the end, one has to defer to those with the inside scoop and those with the experience in the business. The amazing thing is, once I did this, I began to understand what Bob Gainey did over the Canada Day break.

Once you see change is necessary, you can see why Koivu wasn't offered a contract, why Higgins was traded, why Bouillon, Begin and Dandenault were ditched, why none of the coaches are back and why Gainey signed the players he did.

I even start to think of reasons why the change might have been necessary, like the fact Koivu and Kovalev never wanted to play together, like assistant captains Higgins and Komisarek being apologists and excuse generators after losses, like Dandenault constantly complaining about ice time. The list goes on.


Change of culture

I think what Bob Gainey identified that the rest of us were kidding ourselves about was the reason the Canadiens were ultimately underachieving at this point of the team's progression. I think Bob found a deep rooted problem with work ethic, entitlement and laziness. And how else to purge that than to clean house.

Now, I'm not saying that Saku Koivu or Kovalev were slackers, but clearly they weren't able to rein in or convince the younger players, many of whom were and are still slackers to step in line.

It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if every player in the Canadiens organization (as well as all others) was a free agent this July, because that house cleaning might have taken a different direction. As it was/is, Gainey could only make changes to certain players, those whose contracts were under review.

The scorched earth approach that Gainey has favoured in his retooling has certainly made it possible for a change in culture. For one thing, it shows the young guys that what happened in the past is not acceptable. It also provides the team with new and willing additions who will come in and adopt the new system as if it has been the Habs way all along – they know no different.

In other words, Gainey has succeeded in changing the culture, if that was his goal.


I have been putting together an article for some time about the stomach for winning. There have been a lot of questions about the sentimentality and entitlement that was previously rife in Montreal – whether it be signing sub-par fan favourites or stubbornly sticking with prospects well past their due date. I won't get into the whole thing, suffice to say, i think Gainey has gone a long way to prove that he's willing to do what it takes to win now. He's fired his friends, he's alienated the press and making friends is nowhere near the priority on his list anymore.

You may not agree with his talent assessment re: players like Hal Gill and Brian Gionta, but you have to give the guy credit. He saw drastic change was needed and he made the difficult decisions it took to make the change drastic indeed. And he continues to face the all-knowing press...


Poll

I want to know what you all think. Did the Canadiens need to be overhauled to the extent that they were. Was Gainey's diagnosis right (regardless of what you think of his treatment course)?

Let us know.

No Emelin: The Implications For A Weak D

Dreams of not seeing O'Byrne toss a few into Carey and Jaro's net?

Dream no more. It seems that the Canadiens have spent one of their more realistic chances at getting a professionally experienced replacement for the fumbling giant.

Emelin calls the Canadiens on their low ball
Marc De Foy of Rue Frontenac cites Don Meehan, who says his client was simply offered better remuneration and guarantees in the KHL. Read: the Canadiens low-balled Emelin with an AHL/NHL contract and he called them on it.

The immediate response is, oh no, too bad. My next response was to ask why?

Not why Emelin rejected the Canadiens low ball offer – that seems clear enough to anyone who can't count in dollars and rubles. Rather why the Canadiens didn't make a better offer. After all, this team was dismal on defence and need all the help they can get from guys not named in their 2008-09 media guide. The Canadiens also have a track record at coming up ludicrously short at free agent time.

The possible answers vary from:

1) The Habs management don't think Emelin is that good

to

2) The Habs management have a better option in place (i.e., Beauchemin or Oduya)

to the downright scary

3) They never expected him to turn them down


We probably won't know the definitive answer to this question for at least another month, but if a year in which Pavel Valentenko was allowed to fly and where Alex Henry played, a trade was made for Doug Janik and Brisebois played more than 50 games, then you might be forgiven for leaning towards option 3.

In principle, I agree with the policy of paying for value, and to avoid overpaying for unknowns. However, experience has shown me that the Canadiens are willing to pay for unreliable defence in the form of Dandenault, Patrice and even O'Byrne. I find myself asking why our managers couldn't take a chance on a young Russian known to be quite adept at defending with a rugged and tenacious reputation; why they couldn't commit to giving him a 1-year chance as one of their 5th/6th/7th defencemen.

Emelin would have been a rookie, but a mature one. Instead of promoting Subban who has played against juniors or Weber who has honed his skills against Jason Krog and the Manitoba Moose, Gainey could have employed an option who had faced Jagr, Radulov, Morozov and other grown men for seasons now. The signing would have been on a par with signing another team's 5th defenceman. The risk being that Emelin might not adapt. The benefit that he might in fact step into a bigger role.

This must surely be the end of this prospect.


Implications

The implications for the Canadiens defence do go beyond Emelin. The team currently has 4 defencemen with NHL experience under contract. One more (Weber) who could be tried. That leaves 2 spaces to be filled, and likely 3 for cover of injury.

My guess is that Gainey and co. will be signing some marginal defencemen to cover the work. After a good look around, it's more than likely that the managers will opt for familiarity and we'll be seeing Defence 2009 Edition once more.

The implications are wider than that, though. As others have suggested, this will likely leave a sour taste in the mouth of the contract makers. In other words, we shouldn't be expecting to see many Russian names come up during the draft in Montreal for our Habs. This might not be such a big problem, were it not for the fact that Russia have been perennially hanging around medal podiums in junior, youth and senior international tournaments; or that the very best players in the league at this point in time are coming from Russia – look no further than game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals.

What's more, as if the Canadiens need another geographic restriction to rule their draft day decisions – they already practice massive bias for an area that produces less hockey players than the attention suggests – Minnesota...


I have a feeling Gainey will have to shape up with his pitches, and indeed his offers, and quick if we are expecting a 100th season of play to exceed our 100th season in operation as a business.

Speaking Of 1993 Complexes

Fair's fair. Call out Toronto's fans on their unhealthy obsession with the year of the Kings and we must certainly point the finger to those in our own brethren who haven't latched onto anything else for 16 years.


Serge Savard, our prospective owner, Senator, good-will ambassador and one-time GM revealed yesterday that he has one of the unhealthiest. Second only perhaps to Jacques Demers. This article from RDS gives a little insight into why Bob Gainey might have moved so uncharacteristically in haste to sign Jacques Martin up. Lest he be saddled with the RDS broadcast team as his next-in commands.

Should he have been successful in championing the BCE money in their Canadiens venture, Serge Savard in his capacity as owner's spokesperson would have liked to put forward his coach from 1993, Jacques Demers, for the now filled head coach post.

Demers had no problem revealing the rumour himself (surprise, surprise) and even went so far to comment on his prospective staff for the upcoming year:

"Je voulais avoir Benoît Brunet, sans aucun doute, et Éric Desjardins, que j’admire et respecte comme défenseur. J’aurais probablement gardé Kirk Muller aussi. Je me serais entouré d’anciens gagnants de la coupe Stanley de 1993", a déclaré Demers, dont la carrière d’entraîneur a été mise sur les blocs après une deuxième saison difficile à la barre du Lightning de Tampa Bay en 1999.

Brunet as assistant, no doubt about that (feeling nauseous); Desjardins and Muller; to be supplemented by others from 1993 (of course). Might I suggest Racicot as goaltending coach and Roberge as special consultant?

The good thing about Demers is that he would come equipped with a plan that we've all already read, which I commented on in the now hauntingly apt-again title "Sometimes You Thank Your Stars They Are Just On TV":

Wow, that was heavy. Jacques Demers, being the Don Cherry of French Canadian TV is prone to saying stupid things off the cuff. But these were some of the worst. I'm just glad he's no longer associated with the decision making for this team and that he is kept at a safe distance from the ice in the RDS press box...

His changes are here.

Koivu is out. Kovalev and Tanguay in. He'd resign Plekanec, but be willing to trade him. Latendresse and Lapierre make up two of the others in our formidable 6 remaining forwards according to Jacques. The Ds remain for the most part. He does then boot Halak to let Marc Denis reclaim NHL glory as a backup.

If his grip on the new administration stretched as far as the GM's office, he'd be pursuing loads of free agents to fill the gaps. He'd also trade the Kostitsyns, Plekanec, Gorges and Halak for Lecavalier and St. Louis (I'm surprised Tamps hasn't made this trade already!).


So we play along. We indulge, M. Savard and Demers.

Mesdames et Messieurs, vos Canadiens de 2009-2010:

Dirigeant general/General Manager, Bob Gainey
Entraineur des gardiens/Goaltending coach, Andre Racicot
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Kirk Muller
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Eric Desjardins
Entraineur adjoint/Assistant coach, Benoit Brunet
Entraineur chef/Head coach, Jacques Demers

(At this point, to the strained sounds of Queen's We Are The Champions, Demers parades a foil cup around the ice stopping to kiss it 93 times)

Numero 3/Number 3: Ryan O'Byrne
Numero 4/Number 4: Vincent Lecavalier
Numero 8/Number 8: Mike Komisarek
...

You get the point, but here's his depth chart:

Tanguay – Lecavalier – Kovalev
D’Agostini – Antropov – St-Louis
Latendresse – Lapierre - Neil
Laraque – Metropolit – Laperrière

Markov – Komisarek
Hamrlik – Beauchemin
Havelid – Leopold

Substitut : Weber, Stewart, O’Byrne


(Here's the balance sheet: +15 million over the cap)


Anyone think we chose the wrong Jacques now? Are we a bit relieved Rejean Houle never made enough money to buy this team?

Do You Trust Sportsnet?

If you do: the Canadiens seem to have found a coach

If not, welcome to the club.

Let's pretend we are expecting the press conference this afternoon...

There could not be a better candidate for the Canadiens head coaching job, considering the limitations, could there?

French-speaking? Check

Experience at shaping a body-checking brute into defenceman to look forward to watching? Check

Experience at teaching young forwards to take on a system? Check


Advocate of fitness? Check

Not a former failure in Montreal? Check



If it is true, it is a nice change in direction. An admission that this team is not ready to take on the league through firewagon games with two inexperienced goalies to back them up.

Let's see where this story goes...

Carey Price Segment

Introduction

Section 1: Are These Thoroughbred Trends? (Published and ready for critics)

Section 2: The Cost Of Betting On This Thoroughbred (Published and ready for critics)

Section 3: Getting This Horse Up And Running (Published and ready for critics)

Price For Luongo?

A chance at some fun.

Vancouver's not happy with their goalie either. Mike Boone link's to this article from CanWest, which suggests, among other things, trading Luongo for a goalie like (not specifically) Carey Price.

If I was Gainey, I would do this trade. Heck, I'd trade any young goalie (Varlamov, Fleury, Ward) for this guy.

My reasoning is this:

1) Yes, it's true that:

"The winning goaltenders of the Stanley Cup since the last time a "franchise" goaltender - Martin Brodeur in 2003 - backstopped the victorious team have been Khabibulin, Ward, Jean-Sébastien Giguère and Osgood, who has won two Cups already and could make it three this spring. Among the losing finalists' goalies have been Dwayne Roloson and Ray Emery."

However, you have to look at how many franchise goaltenders there even are. Given how few there are, I have a feeling that having someone as good as Luongo (provided you're not as organizationally pathetic as Florida) is probably enough to make the playoffs. He did get 9 shutouts this year (9 wins on his won, that is).

2) We already have Andrei Markov (Vancouver do not). He is signed for two more years and is at his prime. Markov in front of Luongo is better than he is in front of most. Heck, Komisarek might be decent again. Hamrlik would be more reliable. Gorges would probably thrive in an environment where he could afford to slip.

3) Having a franchise goalie fall in your lap is probably better than developing one. Developing a franchise goalie can be painful. He must get starts. He must learn lots. And what you get at the end is probably one contract at his zenith. Sign a guy at his zenith and you get the same thing without the learning. Where's the downside? It costs more, but there's value in being assured at one position like that.


Markov is our core, and he will be for 2 more years (possibly at most). Developing Price for 2/3 more years if it comes off burns those years after which point we have no guarantee of a top-notch defender.

What's more, our prospects are coming up duds, and we'd be lucky to pull a Markov out of the hat there. Fischer might never play a game, let alone be the big dream defender we thought he could be. McDonagh likely won't anchor a team like Chelios, despite the comparisons. That's our best depth, don't even ask about forwards...

Getting a top goalie in now, with Markov, would change our window of contention again. We should (health permtting) be in the game for the deep playoffs again. On top of that, it might actually help the UFA negotiations. Current Habs UFAs might be turned on by the move. League free agents might take notice too.


Chance of this being a straight up trade...

You'd have to think it's very very low. This is a Patrick Roy (not quite) for Jocelyn Thibault deal. Are trades like that made twice?

The chance of either team trading either guy is already miniscule, straight up would be highly unusual. I don't really see many packages sweetening this trade partnership either. It's sheer fantasy really, but is good fun for news-starved fans in the off season.

Carey Price: Thoroughbred In The Gates? The Cost Of Betting On This Thoroughbred

As promised, my third post on Carey Price will deal with the question of the management of Carey Price and his career trajectory has affected the Canadiens and members of the team.

This piece is not so much about Price as Gainey and the management. It is about how decisions on Price affected everyone else but #31.


Goaltending prospects

The people most directly affected by the decision to promote Price were the other goalies. The first to feel the repercussions of the decision were Yann Danis and Jaroslav Halak who, in effect, were leapfrogged in the depth chart.

Yann Danis, once first in line behind Theodore and Huet, then Aebischer and Huet, was already usurped in 2005-06 by the play of Jaroslav Halak down on the farm, so was not pipped for an NHL job as it happened. Even so, Yann had already had respectable stint in Montreal with 6 GP, a 2.69 GAA and a 0.908 Save %. And, considering all the hard work he had put in to get from a non-scouted program in the Ivy League to an NHL club, we were impressed. It has to be said, that surpasssed by Halak or not, by 2006-07, Yann’s seasons in Hamilton had proven his mettle. He could not have expected a junior to bump him so quickly and, had he been a lesser man, he probably would have been a bit more put out than he was to see Boy Wonder come in and take everything by right.

Jaroslav Halak was probably even more aggrieved. He had made a real mark in the Canadiens ranks while junior goalies were having their fun. In 2005-06, he put up stunning stats in the ECHL to earn a promotion, then in Hamilton he went on to replicate his form in 13 games with 7 wins, a 2.29 GAA and a 0.927 Save %. 2006-07 he was even better wresting the starting role from a pretty good Yann Danis, posting the best stats in the AHL over 28 starts (2.00 GAA and 0.932 Save %). As reward for his play, he was promoted to the Canadiens and got them into playoff contention with 10 wins in his first 16 NHL games under pressure cooker conditions. Not only that, he posted 2 shutouts in tight wins against the rival Bruins (1-0 and 2-0 – must be the last 1-0 win we’ve had) and did what it took in his typical fashion with a 0.906 save %.


2007-08 Training camp

It didn’t stop there, Jaro came in and performed best of the 4 goalies (including Huet) at training camp and looked to be restating a case he had made the last spring.

Alas, both Danis and Halak were demoted in favour of Price. At the time, I recall some ridiculous claims that Price had nothing to learn in Hamilton (which got me really angry at the time). I think, my friends, that if anything has been proven over the past two seasons it’s that carey price had plenty to learn in Hamilton.


Back to the point. The effect that initial demotion had on Danis and, unitl then, ultra-confident Jaroslav Halak could have been devastating. In fact, it was devastating for Danis as he slipped lower than any previous form would suggest he would and for Halak, at least initially, it seemed it was bad news as well. He was devastated:

“Firstly, there was no doubting Halak’s disappointment about being sent down to Hamilton this fall at the conclusion of the Canadiens training camp. Not only was it widely reported in the Montreal Gazette but his coach in Hamilton, Don Lever commented on it as a possible reason for Halak’s poor start with the Bulldogs.”

The fact he bounced back was lucky and good news for the Canadiens. It proved that Jaroslav Halak had backbone and determination. But one has to wonder how much more the guy can take.

The training camp demotion, after all, proved to be a harbinger for things to come. First, there was his call up for five games in December 2007 where he didn’t get a start, and only saw 20 minutes of action after Carey had let in 4 and lost the game. It was during a stretch where the Habs were struggling all around, so it looked hopeful for him – but he was sent back down empty handed. The next stint was worse. Called up for 12 games as Golden Balls nursed his wounds (and waited out his time where he had nothing to learn) in Hamilton, Jaro managed a mere 20 minutes again. The fact that Huet was purported to fatigue and the Halak posted 20 minutes of shutout hockey did nothing to win him a call. The slap in the face would come as Carey Price started in his second game back.

The next time Halak would see the light of NHL day was after the Huet trade. At that time, Gainey declared he was going with Price (not Price and Halak). Jaro would get his long-awaited permanent position in Montreal, but nary a start. Carey played well, but for someone who was so convinced of his tired excuse in May, one might have thought caution and a few Halak starts could have paid off. Jaro instead continued to get brow-beaten and played 4 more games before Price’s playoff meltdown.

We know the story from there. Although he gets the nod in September 2008 to be the #2 guy, when the chips are down, Halak is always passed over, and only an injury to Price really afforded him a decent chance.

I will listen to a lot of reasonable arguments about how Price and Halak differ and compare in terms of potential. But, I will not be moved from thinking that 2 full seasons of outright favouritism have not harmed the Slovak. Where once he was the man who came in and confidently won 10 virtual playoff games in March, he is now so nervy that he can’t put two periods together.

If you ask me, the Canadiens have done a horrible job at managing the man who probably should have been treated as the #2 or #3 prospect in the organization. And for what?


Cristobal Huet

Another man greatly affected by the decisions on how to manage Carey Price’s career was Cristobal Huet. It must be said that at times he benefitted, while at other times he suffered.

There was no question that Huet would be coming out of the 2007 training camp on the Canadiens team, so the decision to promote Price was of limited impact for him. If anything, it probably gave him more starts initially as the coaches tried to wean Carey onto his NHL diet. The same would be true when Carey was demoted. Halak could not play, because if he did, and played well, there would be a dilemma – one good goalie would have to be moved to make way for Carey Price when he was to be reinstated as per the plan. This period gave Cristobal another chance like he had in 2005-06 to take the bull by the horns. He did. That January was a defining moment for the Habs and Cris made it happen with an 8-3-1 record.

But Carey would not wait. Cristobal who was an all-star, played like an all-star in January, would slip in February. Not much, but enough for Gainey to move. There was a game that Huet and the Canadiens blew a 3-0 lead against the Rangers to lose 5-3, a game where he let in 3 goals on 4 shots (over the first 5 minutes) and a final 5-4 loss to Pitsburgh. That combined with Carey’s three consecutive wins (and convenient omission of the fact he too dug a 3-0 first period hole on 11 shots over 14 minutes – which Huet and the Habs would overcome) meant Carey was ready and Cristobal was done.

We knew pretty well at the time that the decision was mostly for Price’s benefit, because who trades an all-star goalie from a first-place contending team when the new back-up would have 40 minutes of NHL play that year for a second round draft pick? We know now for certain, because Gainey has said as much in his end-of-season interview.

The decision was a blessing in some ways to Huet as he surged and outplayed his protégé to vault the hot Capitals into the playoffs. It would be the streak that won him a massive contract, and he has Bob Gainey’s Carey Price fixation to thank for lifetime financial stability.

But in another way it took Cristobal from a team due to contend at that time and onto one that wouldn’t be ready – not with the defensive corps they had, and one which Ovechkin was still dragging largely without Semin and Backstrom’s help. It took a chance at a long playoff run away from Cristobal (the man who’s first into the third round this season). It also removed him from the teammates he had grown close to and cared most for.


Guy Carbonneau

It’s difficult to tease apart just how much say Guy Carbonneau had in the Carey Price situation. In the good times, I’m sure he was as much a Price advocate as anyone. What we do know is that Carbo, fresh off assisting for Halak’s sweet run was pretty keen on keeping the young Slovak around for the start of the 2007-08 season. He was quoted on it, and it was well aired at the time.

One doesn’t know how much his decisions over the rest of that season were dictated from above, but it seems unlikely that a coach who at one time is happy to stick with a goalie for 12 straight games during the tough part of the schedule would then turn around, suggest that goalie be traded and go al the rest of the way with the boy demoted then promoted from Hamilton.

This season, I’d suggest the same. Carbo showed a tendency for sticking with the “hot hand” and when it was working for the team, he didn’t care what their mother tongue was. I personally think it’s quite telling that Carbonneau and his coaches turned the team around (or rather were there when the team turned around), but was dismissed the very minute that Jaro recovered from his flu.

At the time, I wrote this:

“Carbonneau and Gainey are known to have disagreed about Halak and Price in the first place. Halak was finally playing, and then suddenly (boom) Golden Glove is back in. I don't know if it was the coach's decision (I'm guessing not) or the GM's. I suspect we will find out when the starter for the Edmonton game is announced. Is this enough for dismissal. If the rift has been going on ever since it started, and the GM is tired - then quite possibly, yes.”

What we know now is that the reasons for Carbo’s dismissal were compound. It’s worth noting that Price, not Halak, started that Edmonton game, though; as well as 14 of the 19 remaining games for the season. Good games were no longer guarantees for next start, nor bad games guarantee of the hook. It’s questionable whether 3 wins in 10 would have trumped 2 wins in 5 if Carbo were calling the shots. Based on precedent, he wouldn’t have.

If Carbonneau wasn’t affected day-to-day by meddling, he was definitely broadly affected by the GM’s consecutive decisions to promote and develop Price, come what may. It is said that a GM is paid to work with a 5-year window, whereas a coach is paid to work with a 1-game window. In this case, I don’t think the two strategies meshed. I also think the words that were likely thrown around about that fact played at least some part in Carbo’s fate.


The other coaches

While the other coaches are all gainfully employed by the Canadiens at this moment in time, odds say they won’t be in September.

Of all decisions taken, the Huet trade probably affected the assistants most. From that point, they had to deal with goalies whose confidence was fragile and whose puck control was, well below the standard they were used to. Plying games to get Carey Price big league experience doesn’t fit well with the winning that is required from coaches on the ground.


Roman Hamrlik

Roman Hamrlik is the biggest free agent signing the Canadiens have made since Kovalev. Being both a veteran and a defenceman, he likely chose his destination carefully – looking at organizational strengths, potential partners and even goalies.

When he signed up, he was joining a team with an all-star goalie, the number one PP and a very solid #1/2 pair of defencemen. Things looked good in Montreal. He probably thought: out-perform Souray (easy) and we’re in with a chance.

Well, that’s exactly how it went. But it all looks a bit differently today doesn’t it?

As it stands right now, with 2 years left on Hamrlik’s contract, the Canadiens have multiple free agents who probably won’t be back. And given the factors like less bring-home pay, they are unlikely to upgrade in the UFA market. What’s more, the GM has committed to Carey Price, which even the GM has finally realised is a waiting game.

I use Hamrlik as an example because, frankly, does anyone think he would have signed up had he known that he would be part of the Carey Price tutoring program. Nevermind how Price or Halak played, does anyone think he or any other veteran D looking for a potential contender would have gone with a team that opted to go with a 20-year-old and a 22-year-old and no one behind them? Didn't think so...


UFAs

As an extension on the Hamrlik theme, I think Gainey’s pronouncements on Carey Price will likely send stirs into the UFA signing period as well.

To put it simply, I think Gainey pressed reset on his 5-year plan. Don’t you?

Now the message is out there though – our GM is willing to be make decisions that favour the 5-year career projection of one man vs. the next game’s performance for the team. Some players might rightly call it what it is – a rebuilding stage.

My feeling on this is that it will affect not only new talent we are trying to attract, but also remaining talent who have experienced one rebuilding process too many. Building a championship team is about timing, and I think even the most optimistic won’t be betting on Carey Price’s progression to take him from January 2009 form to Roy 1989 form. This group includes players we won’t find equivalents for like Saku Koivu, Alexei Kovalev and others (thank goodness Markov is signed). From outside, why would Bouwmeester, Lecavalier or Marian Hossa pay so much more tax to hope for the best?


Fans like you and me

Bob Gainey has to start appreciating the concerns of fans. The fans were told to be patient because Gainey would be implementing a 5-year plan. The end of our best chance at a Cup in spectacular fashion: patience. Carey Price is young: patience. The end of this season: patience.

Last year was the 5th year of his grace period you know, which actually for the most part looked to be coming to fruition. He preaches patience, which is fine; but no one asked him to press reset in the fifth year of the plan when the team is on the verge of vanquishing Ottawa’s hold on first. No one gave him permission to lower the bar for himself, yet again.

Personally, after giving him the 5-year benefit of the doubt, I felt a little bit cheated when the 2008 playoffs were earmarked for Playoffs 101 class for our young apprentice.

It was all the more puzzling that it would have happened anyway (with patience), given that we would have been very accepting of losing Huet in a bidding war that ended up with Cristobal vastly overpaid. At that point, we’d have all accepted the need to proceed with our two promising youngsters.

As it is, I feel like the organization didn’t give their best shot last season. I feel disgusted when I hear Bob Gainey say he expected the playoff loss in 2008 (and even 2009, now) and that we should have all accepted it too.


Gainey’s mess

Though this piece revolves around young Carey Price; the implications have nothing to do with him, thoroughbred or not.

The onus on evaluating his talent and demeanour (and fatigue levels if we’re still giving him that excuse) fell at the feet of the GM. It seems to me that in this regard Bob Gainey made errors here, many of them. Worse still, he seems to have tried to cover his tracks by making more errors and not admitting a temporary defeat.

Jack Todd, on form as if he were nailing it to Loria said:
“If Gainey does come back, he is going to have to accept that, after running this team since 2003, he can no longer pawn off his failures on Réjean Houle or André Savard. For better or for worse, this was the Gainey show, and so far it has produced more failure than success.”
He’s right. For me, his handling of this prospect (thrown to the wolves, as Jack put it) is first and foremost among his mis-steps.

Luckily, I do have some advice for Bob (if he’s reading). I’m actually relaying this to him from a comment more than a year ago – I can't remember which commenter hit the nail on the head – the advice went something like this:

"It is Bob Gainey's job to manage the Montreal Canadiens. It is not his job to manage Carey Price's career."

I think a little reminder, considering all now left in the wake, might be in order.

Carey Price: Thoroughbred In The Gates? Are These Thoroughbred Trends?

As promised, my second post on Carey Price will deal with the question as to whether he is a thoroughbred or not. This piece is not a debate about Halak or Price (that may come later), just the thoroughbred issue.


Carey Price 2008-2009

This season is touted as a season to forget for Carey Price, but I don't think that on the whole is being very fair. I only have to look at my own writings for reminders, like this from the mid-term analysis:

Carey Price: A+
Top ten in multiple categories in NHL rankings, his contribution to the Habs has been undeniable so far. His value to the fan, as we've seen during Halak's reign, is that he positions himself so well and so far ahead of the play that many saves look too easy. Only a year into his career, to be A+ on a 56-point team midway through the season is an impressive feat. Tough tests to come though, no doubt.

But it wasn't 20 minutes of play after that post before Carey began an atrocious stretch of the season that lasted an unacceptable 14 starts and 6 weeks in all. The beginning of the downfall may have been to injury or, if you buy my pet theory, may have been the How-to-score-on-Price seminar, aka the Youngstars game, in January.

His statistics over that 14-start stretch include a 3.91 GAA, an Aebischeresque 0.862 save percentage and a paltry 5 points from a possible 28 for his team. Conversely, the other 38 games look quite acceptable indeed with a 2.46 GAA, a 0.919 save %, with a contender-like 21 wins and 9 OTLs.

Consider also that in the 14-games of putridity he had a save % under 0.900 on 8 occasions, whereas in his first 25 games that only happened on 6 occasions.

As though letting in nearly 4 goals a game weren't bad enough, it was the style in which he did it in the confidence-sapping stretch of the season that killed the team's morale almost completely by early March. It was goals within the first ten shots ten times and within the first five shots on five occasions. It was goals on consecutive opposition shots (3 times). And it was the untimely way he faltered, such as after the team got a lead or clawed back to tie it up.

All of these things happen to Marin Brodeur once in a while (see playoffs 2009) and to the next tier down a little more. And they happen to average goalies for long stretches.

But isn't that the point? Is he or is he not above average? (A thoroughbred does not conjure thoughts of running in the pack) Perhaps more pertinent, do great goalies start as average/below-average goalies (do thoroughbreds)? To get to the bottom of it, I had a look at some nice stats.


Quality shot stats

Anyone who has been watching Carey Price over the last year (starting specifically at the Philadelphia series) must surely have noticed that good shooters with a good amount of time seem to be able to beat him more than we'd like them to. Anyone who gets sight of the top of the net seems to score. Of course, the defence is heavily to blame for letting so many good shooters get so many good shots away, but there comes a point when you have to wonder -- is Umberger a good shot. If he is, who isn't?

From a subjective point of view, once you get this idea in your mind you start seeing what you want to see. That can be a problem if a goalie lets in high shots game after game. Witness Kostadis' point in the comments to the introductory portion of this series. He notes that Carey Price makes plenty of outstanding saves in some games where we end up un-doming him. Usually because we see the eventual gamewinner as a misplay. So a more objective approach is required from someone so tainted as me, stats...


Quality of shot analysis

For this part of the analysis, I sought some evidence of shot quality from statistics to probe the question properly. The first ones I found were the Behind The Net analysis based on shot quality at 5-on-5.

Here Carey proves himself to be better than average (first pleasant surprise). Based on the average ability to save shots form the positions they came from, we should have expected Carey to let in 93 goals (92.7 actuall) on 1027 shots at even strength. In play, he only let in 88 even strength goals - saving 5 goals more than he should have - good news.

I took it a step further to do some save percentage on these numbers. Basically, I calculated how many goals each goalie saved over and above the expected and divided by the number of goals expected. What this gives us is a statistic that I have called clutch saves; it gives some guide as to what's been happening with "clutch" goaltending this season.

Carey's 4.7 goals saved over 92.7 expected goals means he saves 5.1% of shots that he would have no business saving (if he were average). Very good, I thought.

Furthermore, this percentage puts Price about 32nd among goalies who play enough to warrant consideration. If you look at NHL starters, he's 18th. And if you chuck in Varlamov for good measure, Price is 19th.

The top 5 in the league are all still alive in the playoffs:

Tim Thomas (29.2%)
Simeon Varlamov (26.6%)
Roberto Luongo (26.6%)
Nikolai Khabibulin (26.4%)
Jonas Hiller (22.6%)

Others worth noting:

Henrik Lundqvist (20.8%)
Tomas Vokoun (20.7%)
Martin Brodeur (20.5%)
Pekka Rinne (15.5%)
Steve Mason (13.7%)
Jaroslav Halak (13.4%)
Cristobal Huet (13.2%)
Yann Danis (12.3%)
Cam Ward (12.2%)
Marc-Andre Fluery (3.2%)
Chris Osgood (-6.7%)
Mikka Kiprusoff (-10%)

What does this mean?

Well, it means he's average - or at least he was for the enire season.

The problem here is that averages include all goalies who play in the NHL, not just the 30 starters. So when Pogge (worst in the league, btw) steps in an lets up 9 more goals than expected in 7 games, Carey is compared to that. What's more, for me, where he currently sits is not thoroughbred territory - too many thoroughbreds are ahead of him (some almost as young).

His save percentage, though, at even strength is still a plump 0.914, so no decisive knock-down here. Based on this analysis, his toroughbred status hangs on.


Penalty-kill save %

Behind the Net also has a whole raft of other stats if you're that way inclined. For the second look, I decided to show you goalie performance while his team is a man down. The reason I choose this is because the shot quality analysis isn't done for anything but ES, also it seems logical that shots are better set up on the PP than at ES.

These stats offer a bit of a quick and rude awakening for all those people who support Carey's thorough breeding. If you look across the season for the whole league, Carey Price is in fact the worst starter across all teams in terms of save percentage on the PK. On an average of 38.6 shots per 60 minutes of PP time, Carey Price allowed an average of 7.61 goals. That means his save % was a rather embarrassing 0.803 at 4-on-5.

Now, PP shots are harder to save you say. Of course they are. But the average NHL goalie has a save % of 0.852, and that includes every weak link there is (like Mathieu Garon who saves just over 75% of PP shots in 20 games). Some good goalies have low save percentages here (Brodeur, for example at 0.816), but many don't. Thoroughbreds shouln't, I say.

The top 5 starters in the league here are:

Nicklas Backstrom (0.923)
Henrik Lundqvist (0.918)
Martin Biron (0.894)
Simeon Varlamov (0.893)
Tim Thomas (0.888)

Others to note are:

Craig Anderson (0.910)
Jaroslav Halak (0.890)
Mikka Kiprusoff (0.888)
Pekka Rinne (0.887)
Steve Mason (0.870)
Marc-Andre Fleury (0.867)
Cristobal Huet (0.866)
Jonas Hiller (0.862)
Cam Ward (0.862)
Jose Theodore (0.845)
Yann Danis (0.833)
Roberto Luongo (0.833)


What does this mean?

Well not much on its own. If Carey had been Halak-efficient it would have meant a mere 2 goals less. It's not a case on its own, but as things add up, it certainly seems to follow the pattern. It's another hit against the thoroughbred hypothesis.


Giving a chance to win

In response to Kostadis' case that LIW is wrong about Halak > Price (which is not the point of this piece, rather whether Price = thoroughbred), I thought I could take a similar approach.

He claims, that Carey Price gave the Canadiens a chance to win in 33 games of 49 (so 67.3%), whereas Halak only gave them 52.9% chance. I'll start by pointing out neither goalies stats are based on starts, which I thought they should be. Price goes up and so does Halak, with this tweak. Halak, for his part, gave opportunity for wins in 19/33, or 57.6%.

I thought I would look at things a bit closer. For can we really say that a goalie who loses in OT always gives his team a chance to win. In reality, you say, we can. And I concede on that. But for us at Lions in Winter, we generally look at how many goals a goalie allows to decide whether that would allow a win on most nights (i.e., those where his team doesn't win 6-5). While each goalie loses a couple of games this way, this subjective method actually works in the goalie's favour, since games that are lost 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1 can be counted as games he gave his team a chance to win.

By this criteria, nothing really changes. But if you get generous and say that 3 GAs is a reasonable amount for a goalie in a league where average GAA is parked in between 2 and 3 year-upon-year, then it gets interesting.

Carey Price, by the 3-goal criteria, actually gave his team a chance to win 73% of the time. And, lo and behold, Jaroslav Halak gave his team a chance to win an incredible 73% of the time. Funny that it would be equal.

By this criteria, Carey has to win. But only against Halak. It doesn't really prove that anyone is or isn't a thoroughbred. After all, no one has ever accused 9th round QMJHL alum Halak of being thoroughly bred. For that we need to look at goalies on other teams - ones that actually win.

Quickly for illustration I looked at Tim Thomas, Roberto Luongo, Cam Ward and Pekka Rinne.

Tim Thomas by the first criteria (W and OTLs) gave his team a chance to win 79.6% of the time. If you guve him the 3 goal benefit of the doubt that's 83.3% of the time.

Roberto Luongo gave 74.1% and 74.1%.

Cam Ward gave 64.7% and 76.5%.

Rinne gave 67.3% and 81.6%.


This is not a random sample, but I think it's a fair group to sample if you want to look at thoroughbreds. While Carey Price and Halak look OK in isolation, in the light of day they don't stack up to Thomas or Rinne. They come close to Luongo, but to be fair to Roberto, he did have 9 shutouts which mean automatic points (not just chance at), both our guys mustered only 1 of those. I think this category shows Carey in a much better light than the other two. What's more, given his age, I think you could argue that giving his team a 73% chance to win is pretty darn goosd. Is it thoroughbred stuff? Let me just say, I'd rather have Rinne based on this season... (is he a thoroughbred?)


One streak to skew all stats

There's a very very solid case to be made that it was all due to one bad streak. But was it just a bad streak? Did 14 games destroy everything? It's a valid argument, I concede.

For me it's about trends, though. If this were the very first slump from Carey Price, then I'm sure it would be water off a ducks back. It's not though, and a responsible scientist like myself has to ask whether the good is the aberration, or the bad. Those of us counting will note that Carey Price has had a few breakdowns since his arrival with the team. To be generous (and a bit facetious) I'll call these non-thoroughbred episodes, or NTEs. The more research-minded among us will note that he also had a pretty long NTE the season following his selection in the first round, not to mention his blow-up in the WHL playoffs that year. So to enumerate the NTEs:

1) 2005-06 Tri-City Americans
2) January 2008 Montreal and Hamilton
3) April 2008 Round 2 Montreal vs. Philadelphia
4) January and February 2009 Montreal (the aforementioned 14 games)
5) April 2009 Round 1 Montreal vs. Boston

That of course allows us to paint every stretch in between as one where the opposite position is held (i.e., a thoroughbred stretch):

1) 2006-07 All teams (Tri-City, Canada, Hamilton)
2) October to December 2007 Montreal
3) February to April 2008 Montreal (including Round 1 vs. Boston)
4) October to December 2008 Montreal
5) March 2009

On balance there are as many good games as bad in there, and most games are probably just adequate or average (less than 3 goals, saving 90% of shots). What we have is a pint glass with half a pint of beer and half a pint of air. If you go for the glass half full approach, you see the Gold medal for Canada the Calder Cup, the end of the 2007-08 season and Round 1 and the very sturdy beginning for this last season. It all adds up for you. The glass half empty perspective notices the floundering in the playoffs, the 14-game stretch to forget and the easy goals, and starts to question whether sub-NHL success will ever be translated.



I've come to the end of this and realise that despite a lot of stats, not much has changed. I haven't proved that Carey Price is not a thoroughbred, nor can we look and say that he is one. I think I would conclude that there is plenty of reason to question whether his progression will be as smoothe as some assure us it will be. I think there's enough evidence to suggest that anyone who says he's not a thoroughbred is at least as sane as someone who purports he is. I think that's all I wanted to do - prove our point of view on this isn't as crazy as some make it out to be.

What I can say with some assurance is that this season he was not a great goalie. On average he was an average goalie. Is that good for 21? I don't know.

I think we'll have to wait and see what happens by next season on this one. Maybe even wait until the next playoff test. Given that Gainey is basing our team around this guy come hell or high water, I'd recommend to anyone that hasn't already dedicated 50 blog pages to this to take the glass half full approach -- it'll be better for your sanity.

Canadiens Must Not Allow Bruins To Paint Themselves Victims

The Boston Bruins are in the process of taking a large page from John Stevens' ultra-successful contra-Canadiens playoff strategy book:

Play on the feeling that the league may just favour the Canadiens

After all, how else did this team win so many Cups? How did they scout and recruit better than everyone else for 30 years? Why did French Canadian stars want to play for this team exclusively?

The current rendition of the story has the league and their henchmen (that'd be the refs) turning a blind eye to the despicable and dangerous play form the dirty dirty Canadiens (or Europeans, if you prefer the xenophobic take).

As a ploy from the opposition coach, it is top notch. In theory, at its best it can distract the refs and make them see every Canadiens tumble as a dive. In practice, it seems to have done just that so far.

After all, how do we come out of a game where the Canadiens were assessed 5 of the discretionary penalties (I classify high-sticking as non-discretionary) to the Bruins zero with the Boston coach ranting about how his team has been cheated and treated unfairly?

There is no doubt that Sergei Kostitsyn, Glen Metropolit, Alex Tanguay and Kovalev all hooked, but as was pointed out in the broadcast, many of the calls were recognising plays that had just happened 50 times over in the preceding minutes. Even if the Canadiens were guilty of two thirds of the offenses, their rate of penalization was still disproportional.

The rate of penalty calls was also out of balance in Game #1, where we were all a bit perplexed to see the 47th crosscheck of the game called mid-way through the third period of a pivotal tie hockey game. And Plekanec was certainly the only player called for stick touching opponent's hip.


What should the response be?

This is much tougher than it seems. The Canadiens cannot simply stop taking penalties. They cannot stop hooking or interfering either quite simply because the vast majority of that stuff is not called and so not doing it would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

No, what I think they must do is meet the Bruins at their level. Feel a crosscheck in your back, go down. Player through the crease, flop out. Not quite getting around the player in the corner, go to the ice. If diving is a new standard of play, we should not be left behind. After all, the worst that happens when you dive is no call, or worse a coincidental minor?!?

It's not the high standard the ambassadors of the teams discuss with youngsters in schools, but desperate times call for desperate measures, eh? Besides, teams of the 60s and 70s couldn't have won so much without a little flex in their interpretation of the rules.


In addition, I feel someone from the organisation needs to meet Claude Julien head on and address the media in the following way:

"We feel that Milan Lucic got the suspension he deserved, because intentional or not sticks to the head need to be removed from the game. We also feel that it is insulting to have to listen to the coach of a team that enjoyed all the powerplays of the previous game insinuate that we are being favoured."

All of this nonsense comes out of the very gray area the league has left itself in with regard to calling penalties int he playoffs. In some circles, there is an understanding (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that the rules from the season are put away from now on. And on certain nights, that seems to be the case.

Obviously, the league needs to be more consistent. I see only two ways to do that: 1) call everything, or 2) call nothing. All this in between leaves no one satisfied and more than a few with a sour taste in their mouths.


Anyway, here's to a better spectacle this evening. Go Habs Go.

Canadiens Trade Deadline Catch-all

This is a temporary post to serve as a kind of menu bar for you all. I'll post links to trade deadline related articles here.

UFA Dump (March 4, 2009)
Deadline Day Fun (March 4, 2009)
Montreal Canadiens Deadline Profile (March 3, 2009)
Top 6 Deefenceman? Target Sydor (March 2, 2009)
Trader Bob (March 2, 2009)
Every Local Boy's Dream (February 27, 2009)
Gainey's Hands Tied? (February 17, 2009)
Lecavalier Talks Sense (January 15, 2009)

Oh, and let's not forget there's a game to win tonight. Hockey, that's what we do, right?

Trader BobNot Unless This is Dallas '96...

The trade deadline always brings a load of expectations, triumphs and disappointments.

For the supporters of down and out teams, it brings something to cheer about (at least until the fans realise they were fleeced 5 years on...). And for the supporters of contenders, it brings hope of filling all those gaps that we've been discussing ad nauseum for months.

Fans of the Montreal Canadiens are used to rolling out the lines "In Bob We Trust" for just about any move that comes from the GM's office. Usually that trust refers to the faith we have in his do little or nothing approach. Two years ago with the Canadiens looking down and out and ready to claim some draft picks (thanks, Swiss Dave); Gainey responded by making a single trade – well ahead of deadline day (Rivet and pick for Gorges and pick). He did not cash in on demand for league sweetheart and Montreal defensive millstone Sheldon Souray. Last year, with Habs fans gagging for some reinforcements for the Cup run, he instead traded our number one goalie (and UFA) for a second round pick.

In fact, if recent history is to be a lesson to Habs fans – it would be to enjoy March 4th outdoors and catch Toronto's trades the next day. Gainey makes few moves a season, and this one, he's exceeded his usual quota already.

Nevertheless, Gainey is a top GM. He rarely gets blown out in a trade, but has been known to blow his witless peers away. On the eve of the deadline, here's a retrospective on his trading record as a GM – with evidence to throw behind "In Bob We Trust" (and for the cynics, to cast doubt over all that hoopla).

Full career

Trades as a GM: 79

Trades 1992-1996: 42 (8.4 moves per year over 5 seasons)
Trades 1997-2009: 37 (3.7 moves per year over 10 seasons excl. lockout)
Trades 2003-2009: 21 (4.2 moves per year over 5 seasons excl. lockout)

Trades for cash: 2
Trades for future considerations: 5
Trades for draft picks: 5
Trades for minor leaguers: 20
Trades for NHL players: 47
Trades for NHL stars: 12


Montreal Canadiens

Trades as a GM: 21

Trades for cash: 0
Trades for future considerations: 1
Trades for draft picks: 2
Trades for minor leaguers: 6
Trades for NHL players: 12
Trades for NHL stars: 5


Top 10 trades

1. Kevin Hatcher for Sergei Zubov (1996)
2. Josef Balej and 2nd for Alexei Kovalev (2004)
3. Shane Churla and Doug Zmolek for Darryl Sydor (1996)
4. Jon Casey for Andy Moog (1993)
5. Mathieu Garon and 4th for Radek Bonk and Cristobal Huet (2004)
6. Jarome Iginla and Corey Millen for Joe Nieuwendyk (1995)
7. Bob Errey, Todd Harvey and 4th for Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland and 6th (1998)
8. Craig Rivet and 5th for Josh Gorges and 1st (2007)
9. 1st and 2nd for Alex Tanguay and 5th (2008)
10. 2nd for Robert Lang (2008)


Worst 10 trades (No real horror stories here)

1. Mike Ribeiro and 6th for Janne Niinimaa and 5th (2006)
2. Cristobal Huet for 2nd
3. Brian Bellows for Russ Courtnall (1992)
4. Ulf Dahlen for Mike Lalor and Doug Zmolek (1994)
5. Mikhail Grabovski for Greg Pateryn (2008)
6. Richard Jackman for Cameron Mann (2001)
7. Jarome Iginla and Corey Millen for Joe Nieuwendyk (1995)
8. Trent Klatt for Brent Fedyk (1995)
9. James Black for Gord Donnelly (1994)
10. Neal Broten for Corey Millen (1995)


Finally, proof he believes in Montreal Canadiens development of defensive forwards:

1. 5th for Mike McPhee (1992)
2. Todd Elik for Brent Gilchrist (1993)
3. Paul Broten for Guy Carbonneau (1995)
4. Bob Errey, Todd Harvey and 4th for Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland and 6th (1998)
5. Juha Lind for Scott Thornton (2000)
6. Donald Audette and Shaun Van Allen for Martin Rucinsky and Benoit Brunet (2001)


If Gainey doesn't make many trades, he makes even less bad trades. While he stole Sydor and Zubov from under the noses of opposing GMs, he has never been stung the same way himself.

If there is a word of caution, it is that he makes his worst trades from positions of weakness (i.e., those trades where he feels addition by subtraction is the way to go). Given that KOvalev has been rejuiced, the danger of him doing this again in the next couple of days is low. However, as he showed last season – he's capable of surprising with a reeking poor trade near the deadline for no reason.

Realistically, Gainey signalled his completion when he picked up Metropolit (asking prices for centres rising too high for his liking). Add to that he made a trade that almost pushed his top 10 all time (and could with more observation). It seems unlikely that anything bigger than big would happen from Bob – even if the frenetic Hockeybuzz does want us to believe it for hits.