When the Canadiens had locker room problems, they excommunicated a player. yet neither his salary nor his roster spot were gained in the transaction. It was a great PR move, but a nothing from a hockey point of view.
Calgary has been bombing in the standings of late. Possible explanations include their lack of scoring, and that old losing streak favourite – a rift in the locker room.
Considering the issues facing Darryl Sutter, the task must have seemed monumental. A second number one defenceman, but one with an attitude (and not one that helps the team). How to get value in a trade. Next, a one-dimensional attack, hampered again by an anchor of a personality. Both problem players are paid as if they're not problems, as if the order wasn't tall enough already.
Yet Sutter seems to have pulled off a coup.
In his first trade, he seemed to manage to get value for his promising, yet troublesome young defenceman. Not only that, he actually got a second line in return. Matt Stajan and Niklas Hagman are among the Leafs top scorers and come in ahead of most Flames but Iginla in the scoring race. The fact he also replaced Phaneuf with Ian White, a pretty adept blueliner, without the salary or the ego, was the winning shot as he parted the negotiation.
This first trade allowed him to turn around and jettison Jokinen, which reports say he did in a trade for Ales Kotalik and sudden journeyman and trade throwaway Chris Higgins.
All in all, not a bad remake.
From the Leafs point of view
I'm not sure another pundit needs to get into this from the Leafs point of view. TSN has a month ahead of them here. But I thought a couple of thoughts wouldn't kill anyone.
Bringing in Phaneuf was a coup for Burke as well, no matter how you look at it. On the Leafs at the moment, it makes no difference who is sipped out, since it's a losing formula anyway. Phaneuf may not be a winner, but being the top dog will surely stroke his ego again, the way he likes.
It also fulfills Burke's one ask this season – improve the team for next season. In acquiring Phaneuf, he claimed a piece that will be harder to grab in July. Presumably he'll replace the forwards then, as forwards of the Stajan stature, though valuable now, are not July 1st material usually.
If I want to take a negative view on the Leafs, it's losing Ian White. But that's a case of giving to get, it doesn't happen any other way.
Habs implications
Many Habs fans are getting antsy after this. In the land of consecutive losses, a big trade would at least stem the break between Feb 1 and the Olympics with some excitement.
My feeling is that is a bad reason to make a trade. There's no way the Habs missed out too much yesterday. Phaneuf, even if he matures into a man one day, is still an offensive defenceman. With Markov and then every prospect worth the paper his name is written on being an offensive defenceman, the addition wasn't on the radar. The Giguere move would be a disaster here – we already have two goalies better than his current self. The forwards exchanged, perhaps with the exception of Jokinen were extra pieces in trades, not the key pieces. I suspect Burke doesn't trade Stajan unless he's part of a big one. Jokinen himself seems to burn a lot of bridges. Maybe he'd fit. perhaps not worth the gamble.
In terms of future trades, I don't think it changes much. Not for the Canadiens anyway. New York would have always been looking for a centre, but we wouldn't give them Plekanec, and they wouldn't have Gomez. Calgary may be finished, but a team with forwards who can't score and offensive defencemen who trip on their own feet is not one we should be mining to correct a problem.
Yes, I'm envious that Toronto fans get to dream for a few days about a better backline while we await an MRI, but ultimately, I'm fairly comfortable that we didn't get into this affair.
Showing posts with label Hagman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hagman. Show all posts
Monday, February 01, 2010
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Needs And Wants
In the build-up to the ever-disappointing watershed that is 12:00 noon on July 1st in NHL circles, I have been reading more and more rumours. More and more speculation.
Not wishing to be the one blogger to shy away from putting forth my lopsided opinion, I wanted to weigh in on the issues of Canadiens needs.
A commonly held notion is that the Canadiens will lose Brisebois, Streit, Smolinski and Ryder and therefore need to find replacements for all of these players (JT said as much in his article on the topic a couple of days ago). While this notion is not altogether wrong – obviously someone will have to play those empty positions – replacing them with outsiders may be an unnecessary leap, at least in my humble opinion.
Brisebois – signed (for some reason) as a 5th-6th defenceman, he gradually slipped to 8th on the depth chart over the season. His place as 4th Dman was due to Carbonneau's folly and had little to do with merit. Replacing him is a matter of calling Hamilton. Any number of rookies could fit at number 8 for us.
Streit – a unique commodity, it would be nice to replace him, but also virtually impossible. If we need to replace him as a forward (I don't think we do) then it is a 4th liner now that we carry Tanguay. No need to get excited about signing a 4th liner today. If we replace him as a defenceman, then we could be stuck. Anyone who will offer as much offense (Campbell) will be far too costly, anyone who fits into the 2nd pairing as the 5th best D will be challenged to get even half those totals. Ron Hainsey is the only real match here, and signing him would beg the question: "Why didn't Gainey just sign Streit?" If he is to be replaced on the PP, finding the right free agent here is difficult. You might think Sergei Fedorov or Brian Rolston, but neither is an out and out Streit replacement. My thinking is basically that Streit cannot be directly replaced, so Gainey should not trouble himself trying to fit a round peg into a Streit-shaped hole.
Smolinski – call him insurance or veteran presence or whatever, but he was hardly a third line centre. I don't think Bryan Smolinski would need to be directly replaced at all. I think Lapierre has earned his stripes and Chipchura will have learned what it takes to stick this time around.
Ryder – if we accept he had a bad season and played little part in getting the Habs to top in the East, and remember that he didn't even set foot on the ice when we were getting outscored by Philly, then a case could be made that Michael Ryder doesn't need to be replaced. I, however, would beg to differ. I think Michael Ryder (at least the one from rookie to year 3) is the player we most need to replace. A scorer with scoring on his mind.
Needs/wants
I hear it bandied about every few minutes (or seconds these days): What Montreal really needs is a number one centre.
I think there needs to be some clarification here. Montreal does not need a number one centre in the way that Columbus, Vancouver or Atlanta do. With a bit of analysis, in fact, there could be 10 or more teams in the NHL that would be glad to have either Koivu or Plekanec as their number one pivot.
No, Montreal would really really like a "number one/two/three" centre who's bigger than Koivu – that's all.
While signing Sundin would unquestionably be an improvement for the team, it would be silly to break up Kostitsyn and Plekanec, for example, just to make him the de facto number one. Would Sundin still be the number one with Latendresse and Sergei? Would it matter?
Furthermore, how much evidence do we need that Koivu can hold his own anyway as an offensive force in tough situations?
At the end of the day, a big centre would be nice – possibly even great for the team – but I don't think it falls under the heading of need.
Apparently, we are also in dire need of a veteran back-up goalie.
Even more ludicrous than the aforementioned, any team would be thrilled to have two good young goalies. Why should we be looking for someone on the downside of their career. I laugh when I read about Toronto signing (ahem) future hall-of-famer (ahem) Cujo. We should all be...
So what is it the Canadiens need, then?
At the risk of becoming very repetitive: A scorer who can shoot. That which makes Andrei Kostitsyn the biggest priority bar none this July.
As for a new guy, what we need is Higgins with hands, Ryder with drive, Tanguay with lower propensity for sharing.
Hossa, were it not for his looming multi-year 9 million+ deal, might be worth a look. Committing that kind of money to Hossa would mean committing the future to Hossa. Something which, we should note, neither of the two previous Stanley Cup contenders from the East, and even a team who looked like they would have nothing to lose in doing so, would do. Obvious alarm bells ring. Loud as those that were buzzing through this blog at Briere time last seaosn.
Yesterday, I think I suggested Miroslav Satan as a possible option (an obvious risk). Niklas Hagman is another, as is Rolston. And Teemu Selanne continues to scream out in the way he so obviously fits the position we need to fill. These are the next tier, the possible bargains.
If it's not one of those, what Gainey needs to look for anyone who can shoot over 10% with more than 200 shots (sorry Ribeiro). Check out the guys who meet that criteria on this list, and you'll see why. Getting a big centre who passes golden chances to others will not help while Higgins is shooting for crossbars all season. A sly point-man to feed pucks around the goalmouth on the PP will add nothing if Latendresse is expected to be the one to punctuate the plays.
I hope Gainey doesn't confuse needs with wants once the frenzy begins. Needs lead to desperation and desperation contracts (see Samsonov, Sergei). Fulfilling wants creates great feeling around the team, may even allow the team to progress that much quicker, but may just not be worth mortgaging the future (contracts beyond this year) for.
Not wishing to be the one blogger to shy away from putting forth my lopsided opinion, I wanted to weigh in on the issues of Canadiens needs.
A commonly held notion is that the Canadiens will lose Brisebois, Streit, Smolinski and Ryder and therefore need to find replacements for all of these players (JT said as much in his article on the topic a couple of days ago). While this notion is not altogether wrong – obviously someone will have to play those empty positions – replacing them with outsiders may be an unnecessary leap, at least in my humble opinion.
Brisebois – signed (for some reason) as a 5th-6th defenceman, he gradually slipped to 8th on the depth chart over the season. His place as 4th Dman was due to Carbonneau's folly and had little to do with merit. Replacing him is a matter of calling Hamilton. Any number of rookies could fit at number 8 for us.
Streit – a unique commodity, it would be nice to replace him, but also virtually impossible. If we need to replace him as a forward (I don't think we do) then it is a 4th liner now that we carry Tanguay. No need to get excited about signing a 4th liner today. If we replace him as a defenceman, then we could be stuck. Anyone who will offer as much offense (Campbell) will be far too costly, anyone who fits into the 2nd pairing as the 5th best D will be challenged to get even half those totals. Ron Hainsey is the only real match here, and signing him would beg the question: "Why didn't Gainey just sign Streit?" If he is to be replaced on the PP, finding the right free agent here is difficult. You might think Sergei Fedorov or Brian Rolston, but neither is an out and out Streit replacement. My thinking is basically that Streit cannot be directly replaced, so Gainey should not trouble himself trying to fit a round peg into a Streit-shaped hole.
Smolinski – call him insurance or veteran presence or whatever, but he was hardly a third line centre. I don't think Bryan Smolinski would need to be directly replaced at all. I think Lapierre has earned his stripes and Chipchura will have learned what it takes to stick this time around.
Ryder – if we accept he had a bad season and played little part in getting the Habs to top in the East, and remember that he didn't even set foot on the ice when we were getting outscored by Philly, then a case could be made that Michael Ryder doesn't need to be replaced. I, however, would beg to differ. I think Michael Ryder (at least the one from rookie to year 3) is the player we most need to replace. A scorer with scoring on his mind.
Needs/wants
I hear it bandied about every few minutes (or seconds these days): What Montreal really needs is a number one centre.
I think there needs to be some clarification here. Montreal does not need a number one centre in the way that Columbus, Vancouver or Atlanta do. With a bit of analysis, in fact, there could be 10 or more teams in the NHL that would be glad to have either Koivu or Plekanec as their number one pivot.
No, Montreal would really really like a "number one/two/three" centre who's bigger than Koivu – that's all.
While signing Sundin would unquestionably be an improvement for the team, it would be silly to break up Kostitsyn and Plekanec, for example, just to make him the de facto number one. Would Sundin still be the number one with Latendresse and Sergei? Would it matter?
Furthermore, how much evidence do we need that Koivu can hold his own anyway as an offensive force in tough situations?
At the end of the day, a big centre would be nice – possibly even great for the team – but I don't think it falls under the heading of need.
Apparently, we are also in dire need of a veteran back-up goalie.
Even more ludicrous than the aforementioned, any team would be thrilled to have two good young goalies. Why should we be looking for someone on the downside of their career. I laugh when I read about Toronto signing (ahem) future hall-of-famer (ahem) Cujo. We should all be...
So what is it the Canadiens need, then?
At the risk of becoming very repetitive: A scorer who can shoot. That which makes Andrei Kostitsyn the biggest priority bar none this July.
As for a new guy, what we need is Higgins with hands, Ryder with drive, Tanguay with lower propensity for sharing.
Hossa, were it not for his looming multi-year 9 million+ deal, might be worth a look. Committing that kind of money to Hossa would mean committing the future to Hossa. Something which, we should note, neither of the two previous Stanley Cup contenders from the East, and even a team who looked like they would have nothing to lose in doing so, would do. Obvious alarm bells ring. Loud as those that were buzzing through this blog at Briere time last seaosn.
Yesterday, I think I suggested Miroslav Satan as a possible option (an obvious risk). Niklas Hagman is another, as is Rolston. And Teemu Selanne continues to scream out in the way he so obviously fits the position we need to fill. These are the next tier, the possible bargains.
If it's not one of those, what Gainey needs to look for anyone who can shoot over 10% with more than 200 shots (sorry Ribeiro). Check out the guys who meet that criteria on this list, and you'll see why. Getting a big centre who passes golden chances to others will not help while Higgins is shooting for crossbars all season. A sly point-man to feed pucks around the goalmouth on the PP will add nothing if Latendresse is expected to be the one to punctuate the plays.
I hope Gainey doesn't confuse needs with wants once the frenzy begins. Needs lead to desperation and desperation contracts (see Samsonov, Sergei). Fulfilling wants creates great feeling around the team, may even allow the team to progress that much quicker, but may just not be worth mortgaging the future (contracts beyond this year) for.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Absolutes In The New NHL
A couple of days ago, I was told (via a Gazette article) that I could stop thinking about Vincent Lecavalier ever coming to Montreal.
Today, I am being told (via a Gazette article) that we should forget about courting Brian Rolston for a contract.
What will they tell me next?
It seems to me that the hockey media (including the Gazette) are having a harder time than some understanding the changes that have happened in the NHL over the past few seasons. They can't seem to wrap their minds around some of the salary cap issues some of the time.
Take Lecavalier:
Now I am not saying that it would improve our chances of ever seeing Lecalaier in Bleu, Blanc, Rouge were he to sign a 9-year deal with the Lightning, but let's be honest, don't we all know by now that a no-trade clause doesn't mean you can't be traded. A no-trade (or recently no-movement, for some reason) clause simply means that a player will be asked to approve a trade or his eventual destination, instead of having it thwarted upon him and his family.
There are precedents now from around the league where players will gladly waive their no-trade clause to move when the circumstances suit them.
It would certainly put the onus on Montreal to talk to Lecavalier and offer him something ahead of offering his GM something in return, but this is not an impossibility. Merely a little bit more work.
In the case of Rolston and other players whose rights are traded for a few hours before free agency, I feel it is almost an insult to our intelligence to suggest that the deal is done. It is almost certainly an insult to Rolston's intelligence. After all, why would he accept a deal just because his (former) GM might get a draft pick if he does.
As this business of trading for a potential draft choice becomes more commonplace, we will see more and more deals never come to fruition. Look no further than Sundin for proof of that.
So too the unsigned UFAs. Just because Ryder hasn't received an offer yet, does not mean he will be gone necessarily. Last season, Souray was not tendered an offer until after Gainey tried for Rafalski. A few days later, he could have (had he chosen to) been back in Montreal. I can see this happening with Ryder if both he and the Canadiens are jilted in the open market.
So you see, things are not as absolute as they seem in the NHL. Since we had a saying already – "If Gretzky could be traded..." – I thought we all knew this. Hardly anything about free agency is predictable, except that a few players will be grossly overpaid at the end of it (hopefully by Philly and Toronto). It is with this in mind that I would offer a short synopsis of my thoughts on tomorrow's free agency.
What (I think) the Canadiens need
Personally, I'm not restricting myself to a center here. Nor will I restrict myself by a player's stature (physical or reputation).
In my eyes, all this team needs is one more forward – one who prefers shooting to passing. Koivu is a passer, Plekanec is a passer, The Kostitsyns seem to prefer passing, strangely Kovalev does a lot of time, too. Higgins and Latendresse prefer to shoot, but it'd be nice if the preference to shoot came with a bit of whereabouts as well – someone who can shoot on target, or heaven forbid at a certain part of the net.
I think we were beaten by Philly in this area more than any other. Carter for all his unearned millions sure can pick a corner and Umberger did as well. Their shots were answered by chest-high specials from Latendresse, Begin and co. and unfinished 3-move passing plays from the passing boys.
Paradoxically, if we were another set of fans, I think we would look at Michael Ryder and call for (Gainey) to sign him. Ryder equivalents on other teams are few and far between, but realistic and fairly affordable shooters could include Selanne, Satan and Rolston. Hossa and Sundin being other obvious, yet less affordable choices. The wildcard entry in this list could be the Finn Niklas Hagman who ripped 27 goals while posting a Rick Nashesque 14 assists. He could be Koivu's long-lost outlet...
What (I think) the Canadiens don't need?
The Habs could very well improve this offseason by simply subtracting a few pieces of dead (or even broken) wood.
Lightening the roster of Brisebois would at once mean more playing time for developing (and frankly superior) defencemen and rid Carbonneau of the option to do something really stupid in the playoffs after a lot of regular season success. It would also make the burden of carrying Dandenault that much lighter.
Similarly, dispensing with Smolinski, who provided a nice veteran to look at on the roster sheet, but very rarely did so on the icesheet. Chipchura or Lapierre would benefit from that omission.
Finally, the main thing the Habs don't need in my opinion is a big multi-year contract just for the sake of it. I can't imagine malone for 7 years, for example. I hope we're not left to rue this July for Brunette 4 years, Vrbata 5 years or any of those guys I mentioned (for that matter) for more than couple to start with.
While the trend at the moment may seem to be long-term contracts. Lessons from the Canadiens own salary cap era show how prudent one- and two-year deals may create more work, but don't necessarily mean less success. Ryder detractors will be well aware of this valuable tidbit.
Who for a bargain?
Another well learned lesson is that a bargain in free agency goes a long way to improving the team and assets. Finding the biggest bargain of this year's crop is difficult.
Among the UFAs, I look down the top of the list and see a lot of overpriced older stars and overachieving contract year guys (e.g., Vrbata). Of the forwards, I don't see any phenomenal steals, but feel that Hagman would likely be had for a bargain and that Satan whose been a consistent shooter for a decade would accept less to reestablish hiimself for a year. Demitra could be looking for less nowadays, but I'd shy from another link in the never-ending passing play.
On defence, I see Redden. Potentially, Wade Redden is the absolute bargain of this unappealing crop. Sure, he had a bad second half, but who didn't in Ottawa? On the other hand, he is one year removed from being a Stanley Cup finalist. His stock has plummeted like nearby Nortel's did in Ottawa this past little while and could be a very nice piece of a 4-man all-star unit in front of Price. Get 4 D-men of that calibre and no one will be wondering about Sundin or Rolston anymore...
What will I be saying in a week?
I have no idea. Really none. If it's "Sundin could fit well in between Latendresse and Sergei...", then I'll be happy enough. Equally, if it's "Koivu finally gets a replacement for Mark Recchi..", I wouldn't complain.
My nerves are not concerned with what positive moves we might try and fail at, it's about which moves we might live to regret if Gainey gets swept along and signs someone who doesn't fir the plans.
Fingers are crossed here. Bob be sensible.
Today, I am being told (via a Gazette article) that we should forget about courting Brian Rolston for a contract.
What will they tell me next?
It seems to me that the hockey media (including the Gazette) are having a harder time than some understanding the changes that have happened in the NHL over the past few seasons. They can't seem to wrap their minds around some of the salary cap issues some of the time.
Take Lecavalier:
Now I am not saying that it would improve our chances of ever seeing Lecalaier in Bleu, Blanc, Rouge were he to sign a 9-year deal with the Lightning, but let's be honest, don't we all know by now that a no-trade clause doesn't mean you can't be traded. A no-trade (or recently no-movement, for some reason) clause simply means that a player will be asked to approve a trade or his eventual destination, instead of having it thwarted upon him and his family.
There are precedents now from around the league where players will gladly waive their no-trade clause to move when the circumstances suit them.
It would certainly put the onus on Montreal to talk to Lecavalier and offer him something ahead of offering his GM something in return, but this is not an impossibility. Merely a little bit more work.
In the case of Rolston and other players whose rights are traded for a few hours before free agency, I feel it is almost an insult to our intelligence to suggest that the deal is done. It is almost certainly an insult to Rolston's intelligence. After all, why would he accept a deal just because his (former) GM might get a draft pick if he does.
As this business of trading for a potential draft choice becomes more commonplace, we will see more and more deals never come to fruition. Look no further than Sundin for proof of that.
So too the unsigned UFAs. Just because Ryder hasn't received an offer yet, does not mean he will be gone necessarily. Last season, Souray was not tendered an offer until after Gainey tried for Rafalski. A few days later, he could have (had he chosen to) been back in Montreal. I can see this happening with Ryder if both he and the Canadiens are jilted in the open market.
So you see, things are not as absolute as they seem in the NHL. Since we had a saying already – "If Gretzky could be traded..." – I thought we all knew this. Hardly anything about free agency is predictable, except that a few players will be grossly overpaid at the end of it (hopefully by Philly and Toronto). It is with this in mind that I would offer a short synopsis of my thoughts on tomorrow's free agency.
What (I think) the Canadiens need
Personally, I'm not restricting myself to a center here. Nor will I restrict myself by a player's stature (physical or reputation).
In my eyes, all this team needs is one more forward – one who prefers shooting to passing. Koivu is a passer, Plekanec is a passer, The Kostitsyns seem to prefer passing, strangely Kovalev does a lot of time, too. Higgins and Latendresse prefer to shoot, but it'd be nice if the preference to shoot came with a bit of whereabouts as well – someone who can shoot on target, or heaven forbid at a certain part of the net.
I think we were beaten by Philly in this area more than any other. Carter for all his unearned millions sure can pick a corner and Umberger did as well. Their shots were answered by chest-high specials from Latendresse, Begin and co. and unfinished 3-move passing plays from the passing boys.
Paradoxically, if we were another set of fans, I think we would look at Michael Ryder and call for (Gainey) to sign him. Ryder equivalents on other teams are few and far between, but realistic and fairly affordable shooters could include Selanne, Satan and Rolston. Hossa and Sundin being other obvious, yet less affordable choices. The wildcard entry in this list could be the Finn Niklas Hagman who ripped 27 goals while posting a Rick Nashesque 14 assists. He could be Koivu's long-lost outlet...
What (I think) the Canadiens don't need?
The Habs could very well improve this offseason by simply subtracting a few pieces of dead (or even broken) wood.
Lightening the roster of Brisebois would at once mean more playing time for developing (and frankly superior) defencemen and rid Carbonneau of the option to do something really stupid in the playoffs after a lot of regular season success. It would also make the burden of carrying Dandenault that much lighter.
Similarly, dispensing with Smolinski, who provided a nice veteran to look at on the roster sheet, but very rarely did so on the icesheet. Chipchura or Lapierre would benefit from that omission.
Finally, the main thing the Habs don't need in my opinion is a big multi-year contract just for the sake of it. I can't imagine malone for 7 years, for example. I hope we're not left to rue this July for Brunette 4 years, Vrbata 5 years or any of those guys I mentioned (for that matter) for more than couple to start with.
While the trend at the moment may seem to be long-term contracts. Lessons from the Canadiens own salary cap era show how prudent one- and two-year deals may create more work, but don't necessarily mean less success. Ryder detractors will be well aware of this valuable tidbit.
Who for a bargain?
Another well learned lesson is that a bargain in free agency goes a long way to improving the team and assets. Finding the biggest bargain of this year's crop is difficult.
Among the UFAs, I look down the top of the list and see a lot of overpriced older stars and overachieving contract year guys (e.g., Vrbata). Of the forwards, I don't see any phenomenal steals, but feel that Hagman would likely be had for a bargain and that Satan whose been a consistent shooter for a decade would accept less to reestablish hiimself for a year. Demitra could be looking for less nowadays, but I'd shy from another link in the never-ending passing play.
On defence, I see Redden. Potentially, Wade Redden is the absolute bargain of this unappealing crop. Sure, he had a bad second half, but who didn't in Ottawa? On the other hand, he is one year removed from being a Stanley Cup finalist. His stock has plummeted like nearby Nortel's did in Ottawa this past little while and could be a very nice piece of a 4-man all-star unit in front of Price. Get 4 D-men of that calibre and no one will be wondering about Sundin or Rolston anymore...
What will I be saying in a week?
I have no idea. Really none. If it's "Sundin could fit well in between Latendresse and Sergei...", then I'll be happy enough. Equally, if it's "Koivu finally gets a replacement for Mark Recchi..", I wouldn't complain.
My nerves are not concerned with what positive moves we might try and fail at, it's about which moves we might live to regret if Gainey gets swept along and signs someone who doesn't fir the plans.
Fingers are crossed here. Bob be sensible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)