To win any games in the Stanley Cup playoffs, a team has to overcome another team just as hungry if not hungrier than their own. So it's a particularly telling thing to get words from a GM, a leader of a team, that spell out medium strength goals.
Reporters like to ask loaded questions. The one to Peter Chiarelli couldn't have been more loaded than:
"How far do you think the Bruins have to go in the playoffs for this season to be deemed a success?"
Round 3, in a roundabout way, was his answer.
Round 3? Where does one come up with such a response?
All fans of conference finalists know that going out in Round 3 is just as painful (no, more painful) than going out in Round 1 or 2. Everyone knows that the other team in Round 3 won't have those meek ambitions, and will have a nice time disposing of the team that is roundly patting themselves on the back for their successful season.
In one sense, Peter Chiarelli undercut the ambition of the Boston Bruins, which like any playoff team before a game has been played should harbour only one ambition - to win and win and win again.
To the outsider, Peter Chiarelli also managed to look like a fool. His team may have won the Eastern Conference two years ago, but last season they narrowly made the playoffs and then had the worst collapse in modern history in the second round. IN other words, coming into the season, they were well in the pack. And then a season in a division with Ottawa and Toronto and a Conference with plenty of weak teams, they put up a respectable, but not terrifying 103 points. This put them 4th in the East (not in the top 2), and with a legitimate case that Tampa is better, they don't make all lists as favourites for progression.
So his comments also managed to overestimate his team and in so doing put undue pressure on the group. Yes it would be disappointing to lose to a lower seed, but it would not be a surprise - Montreal has won the season and ages-long series. The second round would likely present a sterner challenge.
Chiarelli made a right mess with his comments. The quote that was made from his response was quite possibly the worst thing that could be attributed to the leader of a team on the eve of a playoffs. Over-evaluation and too little ambition all at once.
I'm not sure that what we saw from the Bruins was a response to this, but as those words loom over a team exhibiting their classic tendencies already, it may only be a matter of time anyway.
All successful playoff teams hope to get inside their opponents heads early, the head of the opposition coach to instill fear and doubt. Carey Price and Tomas Plekanec owe Peter Chiarelli a big thank you for starting that part of their task early.
Showing posts with label Chiarelli. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chiarelli. Show all posts
Friday, April 15, 2011
Monday, September 21, 2009
Pawning Kessel:
Habs Rivals Equalize Talent Levels
A few weeks ago I wrote with glee about the way the Bruins were playing with fire as they looked set to lose Phil Kessel. Well, it's done now, they've gone and lost him – albeit with some hefty compensation.
On the other side of the trade sit the Toronto Maple Leafs, whose GM decided that 4 months was enough time to rebuild a non-existent farm system and has given up on drafting in the first round for a few years.
Who won the trade?
Well, technically, Toronto did. They got a 22-year-old 36 goalscorer for 3 chances at landing an 18-year-old future 36 goalscorer. When you consider Toronto's actual drafting record, where promising (to be adequate) defenceman Luke Schenn stands out as a beacon of excellence, then Burke looks even more like a genius.
Ridiculing the Bruin aside, Kessel is a big fish to land for anyone. And should he continue to produce anywhere near the level he has so far for the next decade of his career, then this is a massive move for the Leafs. Even if he simply maintains his 2008-09 production for the next 5 years, this trade is a win for Burke.
I say Burke because Kessel is an asset to the new GM, while those 3 draft picks likely never would have been. If an average GM has a lifespan of 5-6 years, then Brian Burke is right to concern himself with what will be happening in that term.
Burke won, Kessel won, but did Toronto?
This question is harder to answer. The consensus opinion seems to be that the answer to this question is still up in the air and probably will be right until the end of next season when we can see how Kessel plays and how those draft picks fall in the order.
An optimist would say that Toronto landed a marquis player and someone to anchor their youthful offense for years. Someone with a more pessimistic (even realistic) slant on things may say they pulled out of the rebuilding mode very prematurely. Because nothing very positive happened until the 2008 draft, the Leafs essentially landed Schenn and Kadri along with a few college alums (who are getting far too much shine put on them from Burke, after all they’re all glorified Brock Trotters).
Yes, technically the Leafs did add young talent, but not to be missed is that teams like Pittsburgh and Washington already have better young talent, and the Islanders and Thrashers have added better talent than the Leafs. By pulling up light on the rebuild, has Burke taken a perennial 8th place battler and made another perennial 8th place battler? He certainly has risked that on Kessel’s progress.
Boston lost, but not this week
Though Toronto must be winners here, to say Boston lost this trade is disingenuous. They lost a long time ago when they priced Kessel out of their salary structure, yes. But to them Kessel had flown, so any return was welcome. To turn any return into two potentially very high first rounders and a second.
If I were a Bruins fan, (after patting myself on the back 300 times) I would be happy with my GM in so far as the trade goes. After all, Kessel was lost. He could have been lost to the Hurricanes or the Penguins, but instead Chiarelli squeezed a extra first pick out of it – and made sure the picks came from a pretty average-to-bad team (not a conference contender, even with Kessel).
The fact remains for Bruins fans, however, that their team is worse by a fair distance today than it was 4 months ago. Gone is the only innately talented goalscorer on the squad. Left is the hope that Ryder will repeat his very best, Wheeler will somehow develop and Lucic will be more than a teenager obsessed with creating a reputation for himself. It’ll be tough. The ripples of no Kessel will be felt, and the likelihood of a 30-odd game point streak happening again is slim.
Rivals are winners too
Rivals of these two teams are on balance also all winners. As mentioned, the Bruins are worse, and will have trouble repeating as they try to milk perfection from Thomas and Krejci again. Toronto are better, but being bad to begin with means they’re still well in the mix.
The biggest winners here are probably the Caps and the Penguins, who both now stand head and shoulders above their Eastern rivals in scoring and explosive potential. Teams like the Hurricanes and Devils also win as they now boast equal, if not greater talent to the Black and Gold.
Finally, teams in the Northeast will benefit from a Boston that’s more beatable and a lot easier to defend against for everyone. It should offset an extra Toronto win as a result of Kessel’s 60 games. The Habs among them, who never cared what Toronto looked like anyway (and would always allow 6 goals an outing to them), will like that Boston won’t have a player that can pick on Carey Price’s weak glove at will – perhaps a season sweep isn’t on the cards again this year.
The Mike Cammalleri effect
After famously failing to land his Toronto phenom on draft day, Brian Burke must surely have been looking to do something with his forward group on July 1 (else he's a much worse GM than even I thought). Rumours at the time led one to believe that the focus from Toronto's end would be turned towards Ontario native Mike Cammalleri.
Well we all know who won that race. But perhaps what we didn't appreciate at the time was the effect that it would have on our divisional rivals.
But Cammalleri is older you say?
Well yes he is. However, both he and Kessel are signed to 5-year contracts, not lifetime ones. Both have already shown their willingness (or drive) to change teams and neither looks like a lifelong anything. So when it comes down to it, the fact that Cammalleri might be 32 when his contract retires and Kessel 27 is pretty meaningless. Both will be playing some of their prime years with the teams as 30-goalscorers with aspirations of more.
Consider for a second that July 1 Brian Burke delivers 39-goal man Cammalleri to his team's faithful. He would have upgraded his forward corps (just as with Kessel), but for free. Burke would have retained his draft picks.
Instead, Gainey signs Cammalleri and creates the need in Toronto for Kessel (credit to those who signed Havlat, Hossa and Gaborik as well). His quick action for once on July 1, has led us to this trade where two division rivals both make significant sacrifice and take on risk. What Toronto is rejoicing over now could have been had for free two months ago. By creating the need for Kessel in Toronto, other GMs (including Gainey) also ensured that Phil’s lasting desire to depart would be met by a willing bidder – thereby ensuring Boston would be a weaker team this season.
Perhaps it wasn’t all as calculated as that. Whether it was or wasn’t, that is what has now happened. That is what we can now quietly smirk about.
On the other side of the trade sit the Toronto Maple Leafs, whose GM decided that 4 months was enough time to rebuild a non-existent farm system and has given up on drafting in the first round for a few years.
Who won the trade?
Well, technically, Toronto did. They got a 22-year-old 36 goalscorer for 3 chances at landing an 18-year-old future 36 goalscorer. When you consider Toronto's actual drafting record, where promising (to be adequate) defenceman Luke Schenn stands out as a beacon of excellence, then Burke looks even more like a genius.
Ridiculing the Bruin aside, Kessel is a big fish to land for anyone. And should he continue to produce anywhere near the level he has so far for the next decade of his career, then this is a massive move for the Leafs. Even if he simply maintains his 2008-09 production for the next 5 years, this trade is a win for Burke.
I say Burke because Kessel is an asset to the new GM, while those 3 draft picks likely never would have been. If an average GM has a lifespan of 5-6 years, then Brian Burke is right to concern himself with what will be happening in that term.
Burke won, Kessel won, but did Toronto?
This question is harder to answer. The consensus opinion seems to be that the answer to this question is still up in the air and probably will be right until the end of next season when we can see how Kessel plays and how those draft picks fall in the order.
An optimist would say that Toronto landed a marquis player and someone to anchor their youthful offense for years. Someone with a more pessimistic (even realistic) slant on things may say they pulled out of the rebuilding mode very prematurely. Because nothing very positive happened until the 2008 draft, the Leafs essentially landed Schenn and Kadri along with a few college alums (who are getting far too much shine put on them from Burke, after all they’re all glorified Brock Trotters).
Yes, technically the Leafs did add young talent, but not to be missed is that teams like Pittsburgh and Washington already have better young talent, and the Islanders and Thrashers have added better talent than the Leafs. By pulling up light on the rebuild, has Burke taken a perennial 8th place battler and made another perennial 8th place battler? He certainly has risked that on Kessel’s progress.
Boston lost, but not this week
Though Toronto must be winners here, to say Boston lost this trade is disingenuous. They lost a long time ago when they priced Kessel out of their salary structure, yes. But to them Kessel had flown, so any return was welcome. To turn any return into two potentially very high first rounders and a second.
If I were a Bruins fan, (after patting myself on the back 300 times) I would be happy with my GM in so far as the trade goes. After all, Kessel was lost. He could have been lost to the Hurricanes or the Penguins, but instead Chiarelli squeezed a extra first pick out of it – and made sure the picks came from a pretty average-to-bad team (not a conference contender, even with Kessel).
The fact remains for Bruins fans, however, that their team is worse by a fair distance today than it was 4 months ago. Gone is the only innately talented goalscorer on the squad. Left is the hope that Ryder will repeat his very best, Wheeler will somehow develop and Lucic will be more than a teenager obsessed with creating a reputation for himself. It’ll be tough. The ripples of no Kessel will be felt, and the likelihood of a 30-odd game point streak happening again is slim.
Rivals are winners too
Rivals of these two teams are on balance also all winners. As mentioned, the Bruins are worse, and will have trouble repeating as they try to milk perfection from Thomas and Krejci again. Toronto are better, but being bad to begin with means they’re still well in the mix.
The biggest winners here are probably the Caps and the Penguins, who both now stand head and shoulders above their Eastern rivals in scoring and explosive potential. Teams like the Hurricanes and Devils also win as they now boast equal, if not greater talent to the Black and Gold.
Finally, teams in the Northeast will benefit from a Boston that’s more beatable and a lot easier to defend against for everyone. It should offset an extra Toronto win as a result of Kessel’s 60 games. The Habs among them, who never cared what Toronto looked like anyway (and would always allow 6 goals an outing to them), will like that Boston won’t have a player that can pick on Carey Price’s weak glove at will – perhaps a season sweep isn’t on the cards again this year.
The Mike Cammalleri effect
After famously failing to land his Toronto phenom on draft day, Brian Burke must surely have been looking to do something with his forward group on July 1 (else he's a much worse GM than even I thought). Rumours at the time led one to believe that the focus from Toronto's end would be turned towards Ontario native Mike Cammalleri.
Well we all know who won that race. But perhaps what we didn't appreciate at the time was the effect that it would have on our divisional rivals.
But Cammalleri is older you say?
Well yes he is. However, both he and Kessel are signed to 5-year contracts, not lifetime ones. Both have already shown their willingness (or drive) to change teams and neither looks like a lifelong anything. So when it comes down to it, the fact that Cammalleri might be 32 when his contract retires and Kessel 27 is pretty meaningless. Both will be playing some of their prime years with the teams as 30-goalscorers with aspirations of more.
Consider for a second that July 1 Brian Burke delivers 39-goal man Cammalleri to his team's faithful. He would have upgraded his forward corps (just as with Kessel), but for free. Burke would have retained his draft picks.
Instead, Gainey signs Cammalleri and creates the need in Toronto for Kessel (credit to those who signed Havlat, Hossa and Gaborik as well). His quick action for once on July 1, has led us to this trade where two division rivals both make significant sacrifice and take on risk. What Toronto is rejoicing over now could have been had for free two months ago. By creating the need for Kessel in Toronto, other GMs (including Gainey) also ensured that Phil’s lasting desire to depart would be met by a willing bidder – thereby ensuring Boston would be a weaker team this season.
Perhaps it wasn’t all as calculated as that. Whether it was or wasn’t, that is what has now happened. That is what we can now quietly smirk about.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Bruins GM Playing With Fire
And We Habs Fans Like It
Montreal Canadiens fans know a thing or two about what can happen when you win the East one year and expect the world the next. We also know how losing one key player can change the face of a PP and a team.
So when I look at how the Boston Bruins (let's be honest – our chief rivals) are doing this summer, it's heartening to see them making some moves that bring aboard risk rather than remove it.
In the NHL news morass that is August, Phil Kessel's salary negotiation is one of the few stories that I will be keeping a keen eye on. I say that because I think Phil Kessel is a key player for the Bruins, and as such, a key player to watch for the Canadiens as they play the Bruins and chase or try to hold off the Bruins in the standings.
Phil Kessel's value
Projected to be a top draft pick because of his offensive skills, Phil cracked the NHL at age 19 and has been steadily improving ever since. Last year as a 21-year old Kessel scored 36 goals and in the process catapulted his ego into the upper echelons of the NHL.
I did not watch every Bruins game of last season, nor do I know much about Phil Kessel as a teammate; but from an outsider's point of view he seems like a pretty valuable player. Bad attitude or not, Phil Kessel is a baby in the NHL – a baby with 66 career goals before most his age are even out of college.
His value can also shown in the wins column. The Bruins success from last season (the extraordinary part of it, not the consistent part) came during a 27-game run through November and December where they amassed 24 wins and 49 points. Phil Keseel wasn't the only player to be firing during that stretch, but he was involved. Over the 27 games, he scored 17 goals and 15 assists. He also strung together a very respectable 18-game point streak during that time.
I've seen Bruins fans give him a hard time for his early production followed by months at a lesser clip. Some have even said he's not the playoff player they want. But I can tell you form watching 2 straight years of Kessel and Bruins playoff hockey that he was the Bruin I feared most. In 2007-08, the Bruins were a scoring comedy when he was benched and only came to life in the series when Julien baked down and put Phil back in. IN the 2008-09 sweep, he was always there – 4 goals and 2 assists not too shabby an output in my books.
The Bruins mistakes
If the Bruins did make mistakes (and I think they have done) they were in piling up so much salary that Phil Kessel's potential salary will push them over the top of this year's cap. To even risk losing a player like Kessel is playing with fire, to make it almost the most realistic outcome is not very good planning at all.
They are in this position thanks to some questionable moves over the past few seasons.
Their most recent move in question would be the addition of Derek Morris ($3.3 million) at the expense of Aaron Ward ($2.5 million). Morris is nothing bu a question mark himself after a couple of lacklustre seasons in Phoenix. The New York Rangers who desperately need an offensive boost decided Morris – a player they paid dearly for – wasn't worth keeping even at less money.
Prior to that signing, the Bruins were quiet, adding only the innocuous (salary cap-wise) Steve Begin. But in the spring, they broke the bank for David Krejci on what can only be termed an unnecessarily high contract. Yes, Krejci had a great season and yes he appears to be a good player. However, a player two years into an NHL career and one-year removed from a 6-goal effort does not need to be the recipient of a $4 million contract – especially in a tight cap situation.
Their woes are greater still when you consider they now have 3 buyouts on the cards for several million and have somehow managed to bring aboard a goalie with all of 244 minutes of NHL experience at the potential price tag of $3.2 millions a season.
None of these mistakes will mean anything next to the potential loss of Phil Kessel. Where overpaid backups and slumping 3rd years are a pain, they can be managed. Losing a 36-goalscorer when the alternatives are called Sturm, Ryder and Kobasew is downright dangerous.
Heartening to Habs fans
All of this, though it must be painful for a fan of said team, is great stuff for the Canadiens and their fans. While we have to question whether our own team will be better or worse, it's nice to know that relative improvement is still looking good.
I can tell you that last year's Bruins team was an absolute nightmare opponent. They knew how to blanket our team and had the power to counter attack with graceful ease. Any change was going to be good. Losing their most talented goalscorer and their most unpredictable forward (Kessel) would make games against the Bruins easier for Martin's Habs – and might just be the best news to come from Boston for a Habs fan since early 2008.
So when I look at how the Boston Bruins (let's be honest – our chief rivals) are doing this summer, it's heartening to see them making some moves that bring aboard risk rather than remove it.
In the NHL news morass that is August, Phil Kessel's salary negotiation is one of the few stories that I will be keeping a keen eye on. I say that because I think Phil Kessel is a key player for the Bruins, and as such, a key player to watch for the Canadiens as they play the Bruins and chase or try to hold off the Bruins in the standings.
Phil Kessel's value
Projected to be a top draft pick because of his offensive skills, Phil cracked the NHL at age 19 and has been steadily improving ever since. Last year as a 21-year old Kessel scored 36 goals and in the process catapulted his ego into the upper echelons of the NHL.
I did not watch every Bruins game of last season, nor do I know much about Phil Kessel as a teammate; but from an outsider's point of view he seems like a pretty valuable player. Bad attitude or not, Phil Kessel is a baby in the NHL – a baby with 66 career goals before most his age are even out of college.
His value can also shown in the wins column. The Bruins success from last season (the extraordinary part of it, not the consistent part) came during a 27-game run through November and December where they amassed 24 wins and 49 points. Phil Keseel wasn't the only player to be firing during that stretch, but he was involved. Over the 27 games, he scored 17 goals and 15 assists. He also strung together a very respectable 18-game point streak during that time.
I've seen Bruins fans give him a hard time for his early production followed by months at a lesser clip. Some have even said he's not the playoff player they want. But I can tell you form watching 2 straight years of Kessel and Bruins playoff hockey that he was the Bruin I feared most. In 2007-08, the Bruins were a scoring comedy when he was benched and only came to life in the series when Julien baked down and put Phil back in. IN the 2008-09 sweep, he was always there – 4 goals and 2 assists not too shabby an output in my books.
The Bruins mistakes
If the Bruins did make mistakes (and I think they have done) they were in piling up so much salary that Phil Kessel's potential salary will push them over the top of this year's cap. To even risk losing a player like Kessel is playing with fire, to make it almost the most realistic outcome is not very good planning at all.
They are in this position thanks to some questionable moves over the past few seasons.
Their most recent move in question would be the addition of Derek Morris ($3.3 million) at the expense of Aaron Ward ($2.5 million). Morris is nothing bu a question mark himself after a couple of lacklustre seasons in Phoenix. The New York Rangers who desperately need an offensive boost decided Morris – a player they paid dearly for – wasn't worth keeping even at less money.
Prior to that signing, the Bruins were quiet, adding only the innocuous (salary cap-wise) Steve Begin. But in the spring, they broke the bank for David Krejci on what can only be termed an unnecessarily high contract. Yes, Krejci had a great season and yes he appears to be a good player. However, a player two years into an NHL career and one-year removed from a 6-goal effort does not need to be the recipient of a $4 million contract – especially in a tight cap situation.
Their woes are greater still when you consider they now have 3 buyouts on the cards for several million and have somehow managed to bring aboard a goalie with all of 244 minutes of NHL experience at the potential price tag of $3.2 millions a season.
None of these mistakes will mean anything next to the potential loss of Phil Kessel. Where overpaid backups and slumping 3rd years are a pain, they can be managed. Losing a 36-goalscorer when the alternatives are called Sturm, Ryder and Kobasew is downright dangerous.
Heartening to Habs fans
All of this, though it must be painful for a fan of said team, is great stuff for the Canadiens and their fans. While we have to question whether our own team will be better or worse, it's nice to know that relative improvement is still looking good.
I can tell you that last year's Bruins team was an absolute nightmare opponent. They knew how to blanket our team and had the power to counter attack with graceful ease. Any change was going to be good. Losing their most talented goalscorer and their most unpredictable forward (Kessel) would make games against the Bruins easier for Martin's Habs – and might just be the best news to come from Boston for a Habs fan since early 2008.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Why Are The Boston Bruins Where We Want To Be?
As things currently stand, the Boston Bruins have clinched a playoff position and the division title, while our Canadiens battle for 8th. With the progress we made last season, one could be forgiven for thinking that the league mixed up the teams. Alas, the Bruins have overtaken us (for now) in their progression and throw another obstacle in the way of Bob Gainey's 5- (going on 8-) year plan.
Why is this? How did it happen?
The answer is fairly straightforward – through a combination of hard work, good decisions and lucky gambles, rookie Peter Chiarelli has outperformed our supposed ace GM. I've subdivided his victories over Gainey below:
Eyes on the play – Blake Wheeler
The Bruins made one of the best signings behind the Hossa deal on July 1st last season. Signing one of the youngest UFAs on the menu did not look like much at the time, but it has provided the Bruins with the +/- leader for the NHL. The Bruins met Wheeler's demands for a big contract by loading him up with bonuses. Of course, they'll probably have to pay those now, but I doubt Chiarelli will be complaining.
The Bruins were on the ball with this move, as it was a low-risk, high-reward maneuver. It has made a massive difference to their team this year, since Wheeler was great to start and has good chemistry with Krejci and Ryder.
When was the last time the Canadiens grabbed such a young player like this for free? I think the answer goes back a long way if you leave out Brock Trotter. The Red Wings picked up Ville Leino for free last season too. When you look at our young forwards coming through, the question about Wheelers and Leinos is certainly a pertinent one.
Don't mind the depths – Phil Kessel
The Bruins were absolutely terrible in 2005-06 following the Joe Thornton trade, losing an astonishing 53 games in all. Their reward, of course, for their futility was a place in the draft lottery. While it didn't pay off with a lucky first overall draw, they still had a top 5 pick in what looks in retrospect like a good crop.
The Bruins don't plumb the depths very often, but every so often they do. Unlike their middling Northeast rivals Montreal and Toronto, Boston has been able to survive as a franchise and get top 5 picks. The last time Montreal picked so highly with a pick of their own was, well, never (Price was a lottery win).
If you're missing the playoffs anyway, a high draft pick is another free way to improve greatly. Push for tenth and you get the 12th pick, a la Montreal/Toronto. It is possible to trade for those top picks, but the days where GMs are total buffoons trading with Sam Pollock are long gone – the price of a first from a bottom team is steep. To say that gunning for the top draft picks is a proven strategy for rebuilding in the NHL would be an understatement – just ask Pittsburgh, Washington and Colorado. Thus it is no surprise that it has paid off for a team like the Bruins once again.
Trade return – Brad Boyes and Paul Mara
When the Bruins scammed Brad Boyes off the Sharks for Jeff Jillson in 2004, the Bruins probably thought they were putting a building block in place for the future. The first season after the lockout, their move looked genius as Boyes was clicking with Patrice Bergeron and becoming one of the best young scorers in the game.
The next year it was sophomore slump time for Brad and the Bruins were playing poorly as a team. Trade deadline 2007 came and had the Bruins looking to trade their young scoring star. In what could have been another steal in a long line of Brad Boyes trades, was made palatable for the Bruins as they picked up their now number two defenceman, Dennis Wideman.
That same trade deadline, the Bruins (anticipating Wideman's role on the team) opted to unload underperforming Paul Mara. Instead of picking up a measly second rounder or something from the Rangers, they instead picked up an upgrade on defence with three time Cup finalist (2-time winner) Aaron Ward coming back the other way. Ward, from my assessment of the team vs. the Habs is a key defensive stalwart for the Bruins.
Think of similar opportunities with the Canadiens and you may come up with Rivet for Gorges. there are many more in the loss or lost opportunity column. Souray could have been traded but wasn't. Huet was traded for less than his value. Ribeiro was traded as a cast-off in what looks like an awful waste. Gainey's trades haven't been bad by any standards, but in being conservative all the time as he is, he misses on the big jump that winning a trade big can bring.
Goaltending – Tuukka Rask and Tim Thomas
Tuukka Rask was the number one rated goalie in the 2005 draft. He was taken 21st overall by the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Boston Bruins were lucky enough to acquire Rask as part of another JFJ special – Rask for Raycroft.
Tim Thomas bears little similarity to Rask in career path, prospect status in his youth, style or size. In fact, whereas Rask was touted, Thomas was written off completely. This season, Tim Thomas will win the Vezina trophy. He leads the league in GAA and Save%, has over 30 wins and 4 shutouts.
In addition to a top prospect and an all-star goalie, the Bruins have also chosen to carry a very expensive, yet effective back-up in Manny Fernandez. Though they probably had more reason to trade Fernandez for a second rounder than the Canadiens did to trade Huet, they chose to hold him – presumably because they want to take this chance while it is here.
The way the Bruins are managing 3 goalies as good or better than the Canadiens 2 goalies is interesting. For one thing, they seem to have learned the Price lesson already after a series of burnout goalie prospects like Raycroft and Toivonen. For another, it seems like they crave insurance at the back, almost knowing that goalies can go cold at times for seemingly little reason at all.
This strategy is certainly working well for them this season. And though the forward-looking among us might prefer to write off a season and develop a super-goalie at the top level through trial by fire; Boston seems to accept that playoff success is a tricky business and throwing away one year in the hope of 5 good ones in the future is not a plan they favour.
Here, Montreal has gambled and gone the other way. The problem is Gainey's planning vis-a-vis goalies does not coincide with his planning for other positions – scorers, for example. What's more, our team chose to fly in the face of a good situation one year by writing the playoffs off for a tutoring session. I don't know which technique will ultimately pay the most dividends (I suppose we'll need to count Cups in 20 years), but this piece does not try to answer that – only why Boston is 20-odd points clear of us now.
So, are the Bruins the better team?
Right now, yes. Going forward, probably.
Are these Montreal Canadiens that much worse than the Bruins?
The answer is probably a "no".
In fact, the whole reality to this answer is very clouded, I think. Sometimes, I feel the standings make you look better than you are (such as Montreal 2008 and Boston 2009), they may also make you look worse.
It is also difficult when you judge a team by results alone. I have watched the Canadiens 72 times this season – they have won games they should have lost, lost games they should have won and had many scores misrepresent their actual play. I have not watched the Bruins except for a handful of occasions, but I wouldn't expect their run to be any different. I don't think that any assessment I offer of the Bruins beyond the basics presented here could stand up to our assessment of the Habs.
If I'm to take a rather more positive stance on the Canadiens situation, I could say that I think the Bruins might have had a bit more luck on their side. Call it what you will, but the Bruins have a 10.9% shooting percentage, and it was even higher during the early months of the season. Their "good" players were those whose shots seemingly never missed (like Krejci). The Canadiens have a 9.6% shot accuracy. Our let-downs are players whose shots have been saved.
I bring this up because the Canadiens were the Bruins of 2008 – they snuck a few wins by everyone with some luck and good timing. However, when their timing ran out (in the playoffs). In the regular season, our shooting was a whopping 10.8%, but in the playoffs scoring dried up as we shot at the goalie nearly 92% of the time. The Canadiens made good teams look bad in the regular season and those same good teams look great a few months later in the playoffs.
The answer (and this text) may be rewritten in a month...
It's all in the complicated game of building a team in this ridiculously long competition. Once the rules are changed to suit the Western style of play in a few weeks, you can throw regular season stars out the window. Michael Ryder's 25 goals will most likely become a footnote on another playoff series in which he struggles to contribute. The Ottawa management hand a clear handle on how to dominate the 6 months of meaningless stuff, but only latterly got a grasp on adjustments to be made to get past Toronto.
That s why they say you need to make the dance (or Laraque did anyway). Players who float in and out in the regular season can be activated by simple utterance of the word playoff (we know of one), whereas Boston knows as well as anyone that regular season phenoms can wilt just the same.
The fact is, the Boston Bruins are where we wanted to be in March/April and that is in the playoffs. But this Canadiens team can still get there too. If that is the case, us Habs fans are exactly where we wanted to be too, if only waiting for Game 3 to express our adulation in person.
Why is this? How did it happen?
The answer is fairly straightforward – through a combination of hard work, good decisions and lucky gambles, rookie Peter Chiarelli has outperformed our supposed ace GM. I've subdivided his victories over Gainey below:
Eyes on the play – Blake Wheeler
The Bruins made one of the best signings behind the Hossa deal on July 1st last season. Signing one of the youngest UFAs on the menu did not look like much at the time, but it has provided the Bruins with the +/- leader for the NHL. The Bruins met Wheeler's demands for a big contract by loading him up with bonuses. Of course, they'll probably have to pay those now, but I doubt Chiarelli will be complaining.
The Bruins were on the ball with this move, as it was a low-risk, high-reward maneuver. It has made a massive difference to their team this year, since Wheeler was great to start and has good chemistry with Krejci and Ryder.
When was the last time the Canadiens grabbed such a young player like this for free? I think the answer goes back a long way if you leave out Brock Trotter. The Red Wings picked up Ville Leino for free last season too. When you look at our young forwards coming through, the question about Wheelers and Leinos is certainly a pertinent one.
Don't mind the depths – Phil Kessel
The Bruins were absolutely terrible in 2005-06 following the Joe Thornton trade, losing an astonishing 53 games in all. Their reward, of course, for their futility was a place in the draft lottery. While it didn't pay off with a lucky first overall draw, they still had a top 5 pick in what looks in retrospect like a good crop.
The Bruins don't plumb the depths very often, but every so often they do. Unlike their middling Northeast rivals Montreal and Toronto, Boston has been able to survive as a franchise and get top 5 picks. The last time Montreal picked so highly with a pick of their own was, well, never (Price was a lottery win).
If you're missing the playoffs anyway, a high draft pick is another free way to improve greatly. Push for tenth and you get the 12th pick, a la Montreal/Toronto. It is possible to trade for those top picks, but the days where GMs are total buffoons trading with Sam Pollock are long gone – the price of a first from a bottom team is steep. To say that gunning for the top draft picks is a proven strategy for rebuilding in the NHL would be an understatement – just ask Pittsburgh, Washington and Colorado. Thus it is no surprise that it has paid off for a team like the Bruins once again.
Trade return – Brad Boyes and Paul Mara
When the Bruins scammed Brad Boyes off the Sharks for Jeff Jillson in 2004, the Bruins probably thought they were putting a building block in place for the future. The first season after the lockout, their move looked genius as Boyes was clicking with Patrice Bergeron and becoming one of the best young scorers in the game.
The next year it was sophomore slump time for Brad and the Bruins were playing poorly as a team. Trade deadline 2007 came and had the Bruins looking to trade their young scoring star. In what could have been another steal in a long line of Brad Boyes trades, was made palatable for the Bruins as they picked up their now number two defenceman, Dennis Wideman.
That same trade deadline, the Bruins (anticipating Wideman's role on the team) opted to unload underperforming Paul Mara. Instead of picking up a measly second rounder or something from the Rangers, they instead picked up an upgrade on defence with three time Cup finalist (2-time winner) Aaron Ward coming back the other way. Ward, from my assessment of the team vs. the Habs is a key defensive stalwart for the Bruins.
Think of similar opportunities with the Canadiens and you may come up with Rivet for Gorges. there are many more in the loss or lost opportunity column. Souray could have been traded but wasn't. Huet was traded for less than his value. Ribeiro was traded as a cast-off in what looks like an awful waste. Gainey's trades haven't been bad by any standards, but in being conservative all the time as he is, he misses on the big jump that winning a trade big can bring.
Goaltending – Tuukka Rask and Tim Thomas
Tuukka Rask was the number one rated goalie in the 2005 draft. He was taken 21st overall by the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Boston Bruins were lucky enough to acquire Rask as part of another JFJ special – Rask for Raycroft.
Tim Thomas bears little similarity to Rask in career path, prospect status in his youth, style or size. In fact, whereas Rask was touted, Thomas was written off completely. This season, Tim Thomas will win the Vezina trophy. He leads the league in GAA and Save%, has over 30 wins and 4 shutouts.
In addition to a top prospect and an all-star goalie, the Bruins have also chosen to carry a very expensive, yet effective back-up in Manny Fernandez. Though they probably had more reason to trade Fernandez for a second rounder than the Canadiens did to trade Huet, they chose to hold him – presumably because they want to take this chance while it is here.
The way the Bruins are managing 3 goalies as good or better than the Canadiens 2 goalies is interesting. For one thing, they seem to have learned the Price lesson already after a series of burnout goalie prospects like Raycroft and Toivonen. For another, it seems like they crave insurance at the back, almost knowing that goalies can go cold at times for seemingly little reason at all.
This strategy is certainly working well for them this season. And though the forward-looking among us might prefer to write off a season and develop a super-goalie at the top level through trial by fire; Boston seems to accept that playoff success is a tricky business and throwing away one year in the hope of 5 good ones in the future is not a plan they favour.
Here, Montreal has gambled and gone the other way. The problem is Gainey's planning vis-a-vis goalies does not coincide with his planning for other positions – scorers, for example. What's more, our team chose to fly in the face of a good situation one year by writing the playoffs off for a tutoring session. I don't know which technique will ultimately pay the most dividends (I suppose we'll need to count Cups in 20 years), but this piece does not try to answer that – only why Boston is 20-odd points clear of us now.
So, are the Bruins the better team?
Right now, yes. Going forward, probably.
Are these Montreal Canadiens that much worse than the Bruins?
The answer is probably a "no".
In fact, the whole reality to this answer is very clouded, I think. Sometimes, I feel the standings make you look better than you are (such as Montreal 2008 and Boston 2009), they may also make you look worse.
It is also difficult when you judge a team by results alone. I have watched the Canadiens 72 times this season – they have won games they should have lost, lost games they should have won and had many scores misrepresent their actual play. I have not watched the Bruins except for a handful of occasions, but I wouldn't expect their run to be any different. I don't think that any assessment I offer of the Bruins beyond the basics presented here could stand up to our assessment of the Habs.
If I'm to take a rather more positive stance on the Canadiens situation, I could say that I think the Bruins might have had a bit more luck on their side. Call it what you will, but the Bruins have a 10.9% shooting percentage, and it was even higher during the early months of the season. Their "good" players were those whose shots seemingly never missed (like Krejci). The Canadiens have a 9.6% shot accuracy. Our let-downs are players whose shots have been saved.
I bring this up because the Canadiens were the Bruins of 2008 – they snuck a few wins by everyone with some luck and good timing. However, when their timing ran out (in the playoffs). In the regular season, our shooting was a whopping 10.8%, but in the playoffs scoring dried up as we shot at the goalie nearly 92% of the time. The Canadiens made good teams look bad in the regular season and those same good teams look great a few months later in the playoffs.
The answer (and this text) may be rewritten in a month...
It's all in the complicated game of building a team in this ridiculously long competition. Once the rules are changed to suit the Western style of play in a few weeks, you can throw regular season stars out the window. Michael Ryder's 25 goals will most likely become a footnote on another playoff series in which he struggles to contribute. The Ottawa management hand a clear handle on how to dominate the 6 months of meaningless stuff, but only latterly got a grasp on adjustments to be made to get past Toronto.
That s why they say you need to make the dance (or Laraque did anyway). Players who float in and out in the regular season can be activated by simple utterance of the word playoff (we know of one), whereas Boston knows as well as anyone that regular season phenoms can wilt just the same.
The fact is, the Boston Bruins are where we wanted to be in March/April and that is in the playoffs. But this Canadiens team can still get there too. If that is the case, us Habs fans are exactly where we wanted to be too, if only waiting for Game 3 to express our adulation in person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)