One of the wonderful benefits that the Score Sports Federation provides us with is a natural set of bloggers to argue and share thoughts with about hockey and the NHL in Canada. Ahead of only the second all-Canadian meeting for the Habs since LIW joined the Federation, I spoke with Sean of Down Goes Brown about the Leafs, our rivalry and the game tonight.
I put a few questions to Sean about some obvious topics and some that hopefully are not so obvious. Read on to see his responses.
Sean also put some very creative and cleverly worded questions to me, you can see my answers on his site now.
Q1) We look at your team a foreign fans and think Kaberle, Toskala and Antropov... Can you tell us from a Leafs perspective who the players to look for tonight will be?
Sean: Nik Hagman is just a solid, smart player who can skate and score and play defense. He's been the best of Fletcher's acquisitions. Jonas Frogren is a crazy Nordic viking on the blueline who doesn't score much, but is the sort of guy who likes to block shots with his face. Dominic Moore is having a career year on the checking line - he's got great wheels, and will continue to contribute until he's dealt at the deadline for a second round pick.
Also, this Grabovski kid isn't bad. You've probably never heard of him.
Q2) By the same token, who are the players you as Leafs key on when you think of a match up with the 2008-09 Canadiens (if you recognize anyone on our roster anymore)?
Sean: Well, the main guy we'll be keying on is Tom Kostopoulos. He's going down. You do not want to get into a "hitting-from-behind" battle with a team that employs Ryan Hollweg. Kostopoulos better hope that whichever purse he steals this week has a gun in it.
Other than that, we watch for the usual suspects: Koivu, Kovalev, Lang, and all the various other divers. And of course, we'll try to convince Carey Price it's a playoff game so that he'll completely wet the bed.
Q3) We have an interesting history between our teams. But in all honesty, is this rivalry petering out a bit? Do you hate the Canadiens as much as perhaps you used to?
Sean: The rivalry has been pretty dormant since it's been a while since both teams were good at the same time. But it's still easily the Leafs best rivalry. There have been occasional mini-rivalries like the Senators, but at the end of the day nobody cares about Ottawa. I get more excited for Habs games than any other team, by far.
All that said, here's the weird thing: I don't actually hate the Habs, or their fans. I hate plenty of other teams, but there's a grudging respect for Montreal. The Senators could fold tomorrow and no Leaf fan would care, but the Habs are different. The rivalry still feels like it means something, and I hope it heats up again soon.
Q4) Mats Sundin. Open wound, I know. Would you have taken him back if he turned down Vancouver?
Sean: Leaf fans don't agree on Sundin, but virtually nobody wanted him back. Half of us are too mad at him, and the other half know that this season is about a high draft pick and Sundin would only hurt that. If he had re-signed after the deadline, or even during the summer, we would have welcomed him back. But once he finished taking fishing trips or shilling for gambling web sites and got around to actually thinking about hockey in November, he was dead to me. I look forward to him faking an injury to get out of the Canucks/Leaf game in February.
Q5) If you're not in the playoffs, I'm assuming you hope for a lottery position. Let's say the chips fall for you: Hedman or Tavares?
Sean: After watching the World Juniors, I've been sporting a Tav-erection for two straight weeks. Besides, the Leafs have far more blue-chip defensive prospects than we do forwards. Which is to say, we currently have one blue-chip defensive prospect.
Q6) Will Justin Pogge crack it soon? How bad will the save percentages have to be to pull the trigger on that? It looks to us, the casual observers, like you have a David Aebischer situation on your hands.
Sean: Pogge should play regularly in the NHL when he's ready, and it suits his development path. That's the only criteria. Toskala has been shaky this year, and Joseph has been brutal, but that doesn't matter this year. It's about the future, so if Pogge isn't ready then he should be in the AHL. And that's especially true since he hasn't been all that sharp the past few years, and is starting to look like he may not be the blue-chip prospect we were hoping for.
And if Toskala is traded and Joseph plays so badly the rest of the year that we drop into last place overall, well, that's a risk we'll just have to take. Cough.
Finally, as with the Calgary preview, we had a look at some players, people and places that mean something to either side. I asked both Sean from Down Goes Brown and our own Tobalev to state whatever came to mind (in a word or two) when they read the following list (the answers are good):
a) Shayne Corson
Sean (Leafs): Head-kicker
Tobalev (Habs): Bar fights
b) Jonas Hoglund
Sean (Leafs): Sundin's excuse
Tobalev (Habs): How was he good on the Leafs?
c) Ken Dryden
Sean (Leafs): Stop talking
Tobalev (Habs): Could have been the best ever
d) LA Kings
Sean (Leafs): Kerry Fraser high stick gretzky scores ears bleeding can't stop cutting myself argh i hate you...
Tobalev (Habs): 1993 Finals collapse
e) Conn Smythe
Sean (Leafs): Maple Leaf Gardens
Tobalev (Habs): Patrick Roy
Never one to shy away from controversial statements, apparently. Thanks Sean for taking part. As for you dear readers, Down Goes Brown is a great blog to get the pre-game and post-game analysis from the Leaf perspective and to correct Sean about some of his wild claims regarding the Habs (or just generally mock because he had to mention Dominic Moore in an answer about best players).
Showing posts with label Mats Sundin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mats Sundin. Show all posts
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Friday, December 19, 2008
Mats Sundin
To Cement His Place Among Highest Paid Ever
Don't know if you knew, but Mats Sundin was a free agent. What's more he signed yesterday for some silly amount with the Vancouver Canucks (Little Sweden). I hadn't heard or read about him for so long that I'd nearly forgotten that he was the best player in the league and therefore deserved to earn more than Niklas Lidstrom, Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin.
In fact, I shouldn't have forgotten, because if pay is the way to judge (and it must be with Keith Tkachuk perennial cup winner so high up the list, then Mats Sundin is the third best player of all time.
OK, facetiousness aside, he is a good player. And in a salary cap environment you're not a good GM if you have $10 million spare at the end of the year. So, indeed, why not sign Sundin?
Am I bitter the Habs lost out? Well I'd rather have Sundin to Lang, but not overly bitter no.
Leafs fans on the other hand have reason to be bitter. My esteemed Score Federation compatriot at Down Goes Brown explains why here.
As for the Canucks, they are "happy". Some must be. Their fans (all proudly wearing their retired number 7) will expect a lot from the team that already has shutout machine Luongo. Cup or bust.
In fact, I shouldn't have forgotten, because if pay is the way to judge (and it must be with Keith Tkachuk perennial cup winner so high up the list, then Mats Sundin is the third best player of all time.
OK, facetiousness aside, he is a good player. And in a salary cap environment you're not a good GM if you have $10 million spare at the end of the year. So, indeed, why not sign Sundin?
Am I bitter the Habs lost out? Well I'd rather have Sundin to Lang, but not overly bitter no.
Leafs fans on the other hand have reason to be bitter. My esteemed Score Federation compatriot at Down Goes Brown explains why here.
As for the Canucks, they are "happy". Some must be. Their fans (all proudly wearing their retired number 7) will expect a lot from the team that already has shutout machine Luongo. Cup or bust.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Mats Scarlet Sundin
There Is Always Room For One More
Mats Scarlet Sundin
There Is Always Room For One More
As we're all into quoting the Pythons and cartoons, I thought a quote for me. Always a favourite to repeat in the forced British accent, and perfectly applicable for the latest Mats Sundin news: "There's always room for one more!"
According to reports of questionable reliability (given that Gaborik is looking so good in Bleu, Blanc, Rouge), Sundin and Gainey met this week in California.
Any self-respecting GM not lucky enough to ice Crosby and Malkin should be making tracks for Sundin too. Players like the big Swede are rare specimens indeed. The fact that players will have to be moved to make room shouldn't discourage anyone form adding Sundin (including Gainey) – it is hard not to see how he wouldn't upgrade most teams. Besides, a few favours to a bottom feeder in the future might tempt them to take a salary for a few months.
All the way to LA for a coffee?
Probably not. While I don't doubt Gainey is serious about Sundin, LA also happens to be home to said bottom feeders and goalie-less Kings and is close enough to a number of trading partners should salary need to be shed. The speculation has begun. Let's see where it takes us this time...
Another signing idea
Probably a bit late, but wouldn't it have been cool to have signed Patrick Roy for a game? Have him take the ice and make his last moment as a Montreal Canadien a little nicer?
A one game cap hit on league minimum wouldn't hurt, and Roy could flip it right to the Children's hospital.
Probably a bit too left field again for traditionalist management. Still, would be quite an event.
According to reports of questionable reliability (given that Gaborik is looking so good in Bleu, Blanc, Rouge), Sundin and Gainey met this week in California.
Any self-respecting GM not lucky enough to ice Crosby and Malkin should be making tracks for Sundin too. Players like the big Swede are rare specimens indeed. The fact that players will have to be moved to make room shouldn't discourage anyone form adding Sundin (including Gainey) – it is hard not to see how he wouldn't upgrade most teams. Besides, a few favours to a bottom feeder in the future might tempt them to take a salary for a few months.
All the way to LA for a coffee?
Probably not. While I don't doubt Gainey is serious about Sundin, LA also happens to be home to said bottom feeders and goalie-less Kings and is close enough to a number of trading partners should salary need to be shed. The speculation has begun. Let's see where it takes us this time...
Another signing idea
Probably a bit late, but wouldn't it have been cool to have signed Patrick Roy for a game? Have him take the ice and make his last moment as a Montreal Canadien a little nicer?
A one game cap hit on league minimum wouldn't hurt, and Roy could flip it right to the Children's hospital.
Probably a bit too left field again for traditionalist management. Still, would be quite an event.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Instead of Mats: Better Ways To Spend The Cap Money
I don't know about anyone else, but I am thoroughly impressed with Michael Phelps.
Early this morning in China, he became the best Olympic athlete of all time capturing his 10th gold medal. Oh, he then got his 11th an hour later...
Not astounded enough yet. He has set a world record in every event he has swam in. In 8 individual swims, he has set Olympic records in 6, before going of course to bettering all those for world records when he was going for the medal.
Now, obviously the Canadiens are running into trouble using up their $7 million in cap space. It would be a massive shame to leave it unspent just so the Colorado ski chalets could get bigger.
The Canadiens should get a hold of Michael Phelps' coach, psychologist, anyone. Any person associated with this guy must be a hell of a great motivator. To take nothing away from Michael himself, it does take some help to stay focussed through your long training 3 years ahead off an Olympics. But, the way he has revolutionised swimming and rewritten the rules of speed, he clearly didn't miss a beat over the last 4, 8, who knows how many years.
As good as the Scott Livingstone's of the NHL think they are, NHL athletes have come nowhere near the fitness of Olympians at any point in the history of the league. Heck, it was seen as a revolution a couple of years ago to see players doing fitness work on a game day. Get some serious coaching going and 45 second shifts could be a thing of the past.
Millions are a lot to spend on coaching, but it would be better than keeping it for deadline pipedream or throwing it at a couple of eighth defencemen...
Early this morning in China, he became the best Olympic athlete of all time capturing his 10th gold medal. Oh, he then got his 11th an hour later...
Not astounded enough yet. He has set a world record in every event he has swam in. In 8 individual swims, he has set Olympic records in 6, before going of course to bettering all those for world records when he was going for the medal.
Now, obviously the Canadiens are running into trouble using up their $7 million in cap space. It would be a massive shame to leave it unspent just so the Colorado ski chalets could get bigger.
The Canadiens should get a hold of Michael Phelps' coach, psychologist, anyone. Any person associated with this guy must be a hell of a great motivator. To take nothing away from Michael himself, it does take some help to stay focussed through your long training 3 years ahead off an Olympics. But, the way he has revolutionised swimming and rewritten the rules of speed, he clearly didn't miss a beat over the last 4, 8, who knows how many years.
As good as the Scott Livingstone's of the NHL think they are, NHL athletes have come nowhere near the fitness of Olympians at any point in the history of the league. Heck, it was seen as a revolution a couple of years ago to see players doing fitness work on a game day. Get some serious coaching going and 45 second shifts could be a thing of the past.
Millions are a lot to spend on coaching, but it would be better than keeping it for deadline pipedream or throwing it at a couple of eighth defencemen...
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Gaga for Gainey
Having recently read Richard Dawkins' latest foray, The God Delusion, I find myself being especially attuned to the ring of fundamentalism in the air at the moment. Whether it be the atheist fundamentalism of Professor Dawkins, the religious fundamentalism that he wrote about, or any other type passing my way.
In a time where most observers agree fundamentalism is on the rise (in world affairs, politics and in religion), Bob Gainey seems to be getting a significant fundamentalist following of his own.
Their mantra: "In Bob, we trust"
On the weekend, Gazette Sports Editor Stu Cowan, wrote a piece that Bob's devout, unquestioning devotees will just eat up. Some of the responses to the piece reminded me that the Gazette outlook was precariously close to the unquestioning "In Bob, we trust" camp.
In his article, Mr. Cowan gives a strangely rosy account of all things Gainey when it comes to salary. Towards the end, in what would become a mathematical nightmare over two paragraphs, Gainey's signing record just keeps getting better and better as you read. Or so the article would have you believe.
Take these lines to start with:
The error of equating good value signings and good team building is also common in conversation these days. While saving the money is good, the saved funds must be spent on necessary components (or bonus scoring maybe?) in order to have an impact in the standings. The fact that Gainey has been able to keep the top salary down to bottom-feeder levels (all apologies to Carolina and Nashville) is meaningless when the flexibility that fiscal responsibility bought the team has yet to pay many dividends other than Hamrlik.
The second criticism I have with the article is the runaround we get with Andrei Markov's salary, with a more positive outlook at every turn:
1) Markov's salary is a bargain, I can't argue with that. But, it is a bargain because he really elevated his play and the player we signed was only an unfulfilled version of the player we have now. Markov's salary over 4 years is $23 million. So, Markov is earning $5.75M at the outset.
2) Next we are told, Markov will earn $1 million more than Jeff Finger this season. Finger got 4 years at $14 million (or $3.5M a year for cap and fan purposes – do we care when their bank accounts get credited?). So, Markov is suddenly getting $4.5M a year.
3) Finally, we hear how Markov will earn a whopping $2 million less than Souray this year. Even if we take the money Souray is banking this year ($6.25M as quoted by Mr. Cowan), Markov is still well under his actual rate. A quick check on Souray, though, will reveal he signed a 5-year $27 million deal last summer, making his average salary $5.4M a year. So, if we are to believe the $2M savings, Markov is now earning $3.4M a year.
Now, I'm sure Mr. Cowan made honest mistakes here, both in using paid salary over cap hits and in his arithmetic, but after reading that book, this article smacked of the rhetoric I was at once being alerted to by Dawkins as well as reading through most of his chapters. The fact that few people will bother to check on the salaries of Finger, Souray and Michal Roszival is of little importance, but I would bet a hefty cap hit that I will hear about these comparisons again from Bob Gainey's staunchest. Rhetoric is nothing at all if not memorable.
Rightful criticism
When the praise in the piece ends, one doesn't have to go very far to find the criticism that both the account and the general manager of the Canadiens deserve. While most agree that having Bob as the general manager is a good thing on the whole, the critics do make several valid points about his record:
1) Bob Gainey is in charge of doling out the salary for one of the most profitable teams in the NHL. However, since the introduction of the salary cap, the Montreal Canadiens have never topped out. This season Gainey is carrying more than $7 million in space. Should Sundin be signed, we assume this space would be gone. Should he not be signed, will Bob spend the money? If not, shouldn't we all be asking why not? The money unspent will be profits for Mr. Gillett, nothing more.
2) Bob Gainey doesn't move quickly enough. At the trade deadline this year he traded Huet, presumably to create salary manoeuvrability, but did nothing else. One could still argue that the price for Hossa was much too high, but there were plenty of other players available who could have played a role in the last games of the season in the playoffs instead of saving the salary for Mr. Gillett once again. Gainey was either too focused on one deal or too slow to put a plan B into motion.
3) His draft picks haven't been league best like some would suggest they have been. It is sometimes forgotten that the Canadiens core, while young, has nothing to do with Bob Gainey's drafting. He inherited Markov, Koivu, Komisarek, Higgins, Plekanec and Ryder. What's more, most of the groundwork would have been done for the 2003 draft prior to his hiring a couple of weeks before selections (hence the reason for Andre Savard staying on) – making Kostitsyn, O'Byrne, Lapierre and Halak Savard's legacy, too. The outright contribution to the Canadiens from Bob Gainey includes many a solid player, but not the current core.
To me, this criticism seems fair. A fair-minded person would be neglectful to disregard these considerations to stand beside all the positives.
Gainey is not beyond question
All this is not to say that Bob is not a good GM, or even a great GM. I believe he is. It is to show that he is not beyond question as some seem to want us to believe.
There are many reasons to like Bob Gainey. For one thing, he is the kind of role model you could only dream of having around for the players on the team. Soft-spoken, hard-working and sincere. He does the Canadiens organisation and its fans proud with the way he carries himself and the standard he sets for all members to follow.
But while he deserves to be praised for all the things he does so well, us fans deserve the right to question when things go awry. Or when $7 million dollars go unspent on a team supposedly vying to be the best.
Before heaping on too much praise this off-season, I will certainly wait to see where that $7+M ends up. If it's in Colorado, I'm hoping it will be an addition to a certain Mr. Sakic's house and not one of George's Vail ski retreats.
In a time where most observers agree fundamentalism is on the rise (in world affairs, politics and in religion), Bob Gainey seems to be getting a significant fundamentalist following of his own.
Their mantra: "In Bob, we trust"
On the weekend, Gazette Sports Editor Stu Cowan, wrote a piece that Bob's devout, unquestioning devotees will just eat up. Some of the responses to the piece reminded me that the Gazette outlook was precariously close to the unquestioning "In Bob, we trust" camp.
In his article, Mr. Cowan gives a strangely rosy account of all things Gainey when it comes to salary. Towards the end, in what would become a mathematical nightmare over two paragraphs, Gainey's signing record just keeps getting better and better as you read. Or so the article would have you believe.
Take these lines to start with:
According to salaries posted on the NHLPA website, only five other teams - the New York Islanders, Carolina Hurricanes, Florida Panthers, Nashville Predators and Los Angeles Kings - have their highest-paid player earning less than Markov. Of those five teams, only Nashville made the playoffs last season.For me, it seems these two lines of thinking are at odds with each other, while the wording is designed to make you think one comes from the other. I think the conclusion that the key to the "salary-capped NHL is to build through the draft" is a bit of a cliche, to be honest. While spending money wisely only works if you spend money at all. Detroit remains at then top with a combination of drafting, signings and trades – not drafting alone. New Jersey, the other perennial overachiever and contender has done nothing if not spend to the cap in efforts to win.
The key to success in the salary-capped NHL is to build through the draft and spend your money wisely, two things Gainey has done extremely well.
The error of equating good value signings and good team building is also common in conversation these days. While saving the money is good, the saved funds must be spent on necessary components (or bonus scoring maybe?) in order to have an impact in the standings. The fact that Gainey has been able to keep the top salary down to bottom-feeder levels (all apologies to Carolina and Nashville) is meaningless when the flexibility that fiscal responsibility bought the team has yet to pay many dividends other than Hamrlik.
The second criticism I have with the article is the runaround we get with Andrei Markov's salary, with a more positive outlook at every turn:
1) Markov's salary is a bargain, I can't argue with that. But, it is a bargain because he really elevated his play and the player we signed was only an unfulfilled version of the player we have now. Markov's salary over 4 years is $23 million. So, Markov is earning $5.75M at the outset.
2) Next we are told, Markov will earn $1 million more than Jeff Finger this season. Finger got 4 years at $14 million (or $3.5M a year for cap and fan purposes – do we care when their bank accounts get credited?). So, Markov is suddenly getting $4.5M a year.
3) Finally, we hear how Markov will earn a whopping $2 million less than Souray this year. Even if we take the money Souray is banking this year ($6.25M as quoted by Mr. Cowan), Markov is still well under his actual rate. A quick check on Souray, though, will reveal he signed a 5-year $27 million deal last summer, making his average salary $5.4M a year. So, if we are to believe the $2M savings, Markov is now earning $3.4M a year.
Now, I'm sure Mr. Cowan made honest mistakes here, both in using paid salary over cap hits and in his arithmetic, but after reading that book, this article smacked of the rhetoric I was at once being alerted to by Dawkins as well as reading through most of his chapters. The fact that few people will bother to check on the salaries of Finger, Souray and Michal Roszival is of little importance, but I would bet a hefty cap hit that I will hear about these comparisons again from Bob Gainey's staunchest. Rhetoric is nothing at all if not memorable.
Rightful criticism
When the praise in the piece ends, one doesn't have to go very far to find the criticism that both the account and the general manager of the Canadiens deserve. While most agree that having Bob as the general manager is a good thing on the whole, the critics do make several valid points about his record:
1) Bob Gainey is in charge of doling out the salary for one of the most profitable teams in the NHL. However, since the introduction of the salary cap, the Montreal Canadiens have never topped out. This season Gainey is carrying more than $7 million in space. Should Sundin be signed, we assume this space would be gone. Should he not be signed, will Bob spend the money? If not, shouldn't we all be asking why not? The money unspent will be profits for Mr. Gillett, nothing more.
2) Bob Gainey doesn't move quickly enough. At the trade deadline this year he traded Huet, presumably to create salary manoeuvrability, but did nothing else. One could still argue that the price for Hossa was much too high, but there were plenty of other players available who could have played a role in the last games of the season in the playoffs instead of saving the salary for Mr. Gillett once again. Gainey was either too focused on one deal or too slow to put a plan B into motion.
3) His draft picks haven't been league best like some would suggest they have been. It is sometimes forgotten that the Canadiens core, while young, has nothing to do with Bob Gainey's drafting. He inherited Markov, Koivu, Komisarek, Higgins, Plekanec and Ryder. What's more, most of the groundwork would have been done for the 2003 draft prior to his hiring a couple of weeks before selections (hence the reason for Andre Savard staying on) – making Kostitsyn, O'Byrne, Lapierre and Halak Savard's legacy, too. The outright contribution to the Canadiens from Bob Gainey includes many a solid player, but not the current core.
To me, this criticism seems fair. A fair-minded person would be neglectful to disregard these considerations to stand beside all the positives.
Gainey is not beyond question
All this is not to say that Bob is not a good GM, or even a great GM. I believe he is. It is to show that he is not beyond question as some seem to want us to believe.
There are many reasons to like Bob Gainey. For one thing, he is the kind of role model you could only dream of having around for the players on the team. Soft-spoken, hard-working and sincere. He does the Canadiens organisation and its fans proud with the way he carries himself and the standard he sets for all members to follow.
But while he deserves to be praised for all the things he does so well, us fans deserve the right to question when things go awry. Or when $7 million dollars go unspent on a team supposedly vying to be the best.
Before heaping on too much praise this off-season, I will certainly wait to see where that $7+M ends up. If it's in Colorado, I'm hoping it will be an addition to a certain Mr. Sakic's house and not one of George's Vail ski retreats.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
The Reshuffle: A Look At Recent NHL Moves
July is the time for player movement in the NHL. Just ask Tampa.
Bad teams make loads of manoeuvres to try and dig themselves out of the whole, Philly and the Rangers can't help themselves and other teams get involved when players that interest them come up. From a Canadiens point of view, things could have gone better, but let's not forget, things could have gone a whole lot worse as well.
Last week, I declared some winners and losers for moves made up to July 1. I had Phoenix , New Jersey, Chicago and Edmonton at the top of the heap. At the bottom, struggling for air, I put Atlanta, Ottawa, Nashville and LA. Well, another week and not too much has changed, the winners have not done so much damage as to fall from grace, nor have the losers done enough to dig themselves out from the bottom of the heap. It would be negligent not to tip the hat to Detroit, who once again took the best player available to bolster their champion roster and to note new loser addition, Philadelphia, whose GM is beginning to show he has absolutely no grasp on what it takes to build a team beyond moving players in and out.
Funny, though isn't it? There are only two teams in the NHL who one can truly look to and think dynasty – the Red Wings and the Devils. Both, despite not making 53 signings like Tampa, come out winners this off season. Both present the perfect example for any aspiring team to follow. New Jersey swooped in and added Holik and Rolston. Second line scoring and big centre checked off their list. Detroit, with few glaring holes, did correspondingly, very little – only moving to pick up the only scoring star with years ahead of him from the entire group. No bad signings, no changes for the sake of it.
Big stories
While looking at players in and out is interesting and fun, most teams make like for like changes and hope for the best. As such, the stories around the moves are few. This year was unique in some ways though, as free agency has offered up some very interesting stories and trends for comment:
1) Jagr signing in Russia
By far the most significant signing of the off-season was Jagr's move to Russia. Funny then that this move has been treated as a footnote in most accounts.
The reason I think it is so notable is because of the precedent it sets. Jagr is the first bona fide NHL star to sign in a different league. Forsberg and Naslund often threatened, but could never ignore the call of the greenback. Aleksey Morozov blazed a trail, but one would hardly class him among the stars of the league. Jaromir, on the other hand, was reasonably close to becoming the second leading scorer of all time, a perennial all-star and Art Ross threat and the core of his NHL team.
While Siberian winters don't meet with everyone's tastes, multi-million dollar contracts do. I think from here on, the threat of players moving to the rival Russian league is real. It is a worry for young prospects to full-fledged stars. What's more, the longer the NHL allows the festering wound of the partial IIHF agreement (without Russia) to linger, the greater this problem will likely become. It may not be within the decade, but at some point, it is reasonable to assume that the NHL and the Russian league will duke it out for players like the Premiership, la Liga and Serie A do in football.
2) Retirement decisions
Admittedly, the retirement precedent was set prior to this season. However, this free agent season is the first in memory where 3 of the top 10 catches would be considering retirement from the league.
By prolonging their indecision, Sundin, Selanne and Sakic have created a force in the market. The force is patient money. There are teams sitting on money at the moment that they are saving to spring on Sundin in particular, while making bit parters wait for their turn.
I am not 100% behind the opinion that Sundin has disrupted the whole league (like this guy), but you have to admit, the poor guys waiting to buy/rent their houses for the season (4th liners, minor leaguers and down) are being put through a stressful period. That being said, I don't think it is Sundin's fault team's are shaping their whole strategy around him. Besides, how sorry can I feel for a guy who is slightly disrupted in finding a house (while I live in a small apartment) ahead of playing hockey for a living for another year.
No, for me, the more interesting thing to come out of this has been the reaction of the GMs. Sather, rumoured to be in the running for Sundin, has gone ahead with what could be called makeshift moves, even in the wake of losing Jagr. Gillis in Vancouver has sat pat, dangerous considering who he's lost. Fletcher is trying desperately to fill cap space with anyone and anything to be sure there's no room for Sundin. And, Gainey has signed his RFAs and made minor deals. Fans may be frustrated with the patience their GM is showing (or not), but ultimately only patience will leave a team with enough space to sign Sundin. Nothing less.
In the future, players teetering on the edge of retirement could shape the free agent game significantly. Imagine for example that Sundin does sign, his team does well and even wins. In future years, the lesson to good GMs will be that waiting for the best player available is the best move there is. It could make free agency less of a one-day (laughably televised) extravaganza and more of a prolonged and patient game. From the money thrown in desperation at players like Malone and Finger, I wouldn't see it as a bad thing.
3) Questions about the salary floor
When I look at the Columbus Blue Jackets, I see a team with little or no plan. How could anyone rational explain the Commodore signing to me. How could signing a 14-goalscorer at first line money be spun positively. But you see, Columbus has their backs up against it. They have never drafted a great player (arguments could be made for Nash...) and rarely ever draft anyone good.
How can this team possibly be expected to pay $40+M to a team of players. It is an unreasonable request. Stack that next to the fact that the team has no history, no plan, no immediate hope for greatness and you can see why the Hossas of the world elude them. As such, the Blue Jackets are forced to throw money at subpar performers just to reach that lower limit.
In and of itself, this is not a problem, but consider that that Rick Nash contract has influenced money for 21 year-olds years on, and you can see the ripples a signing in an NHL backwater can make. Any reasonably intelligent agent will be toting Mike Commodore's contract status and statistics in his negotiations next spring. 20-goal men across the continent will want to see Umberger dough (hey Ryder got it!).
Besides forcing real talents to play in outposts, what can the NHL do to avoid this market force from creating imbalance of pay/talent ratios?
Remove the floor? Impossible, watch Nashville owners pile up the cash if they do...
I don't have the answer, I can only see the problem at the moment. I feel there must be a solution at some point though, otherwise this may create another catalyst for players to Europe.
And the Canadiens?
All that is very interesting. From an academic point of view. But, let's be honest, how does it affect the Habs?
I've mentioned the Sundin affair, and I think the Habs are doing the right thing in keeping some money for him should he become available, although he wouldn't be my first choice (Selanne, ahem). Basically, what's the rush to spend: there are no great players left, and the team is mostly in place. Gainey can finish the roster off in August or September if he really needs to.
The Jagr debacle has not affected the Canadiens yet, but it will be interesting to see where the deeply patriotic Kovalev ends after his contract expires. In 5 years, this could be an issue for Markov, too. I have voiced my opinion on creating a special team of scouts/negotiators to deal with Russia before, and it still stands. Even without the threat of player flight, the pickings from Russian draft years alone warrant this approach.
Like Jagr, small market disproportionate spending has not thrown a wrench into the works yet. But when Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Higgins are all up for their third contract, will they take less than Columbus' plumbers?
The Canadiens moves themselves have been middle of the road. The Tanguay trade was excellent, but ultimately they relieved Calgary of a headache, who has yet to prove he won't be one here (I actually think he'll be great, but am keeping my feet on the ground just now). The Grabovski trade was poor indeed – losing a potential scorer for a non-entity. The signings of RFAs have been outstanding, but the UFA activity has been lacklustre to depressing (where the balance shows Streit, Danis and Ryder in the red for Laraque and Denis in the black). The player math shows Tanguay has to replace Ryder at even strength and Streit on the PP, while we hope that the youngsters will step up to take even more responsibility.
Frankly, at this point, barring a Sundin/Selanne/Sakic signing, I'd almost hope Gainey would call it a day. I am with him and his staff about the quality of our young players. Andrei Kostitsyn in particular will be a real force to be reckoned with if he plays a full season at his post-December clip. At the back, the deletion of Brisebois almost makes up for the loss of Streit, simply by inducing the addition by subtraction trick (fingers crossed, that particular element of today's status quo is with us come October).
Looking down the list, is there anyone any of you would make a legitimate case for? Even after Samsonov?
Bad teams make loads of manoeuvres to try and dig themselves out of the whole, Philly and the Rangers can't help themselves and other teams get involved when players that interest them come up. From a Canadiens point of view, things could have gone better, but let's not forget, things could have gone a whole lot worse as well.
Last week, I declared some winners and losers for moves made up to July 1. I had Phoenix , New Jersey, Chicago and Edmonton at the top of the heap. At the bottom, struggling for air, I put Atlanta, Ottawa, Nashville and LA. Well, another week and not too much has changed, the winners have not done so much damage as to fall from grace, nor have the losers done enough to dig themselves out from the bottom of the heap. It would be negligent not to tip the hat to Detroit, who once again took the best player available to bolster their champion roster and to note new loser addition, Philadelphia, whose GM is beginning to show he has absolutely no grasp on what it takes to build a team beyond moving players in and out.
Funny, though isn't it? There are only two teams in the NHL who one can truly look to and think dynasty – the Red Wings and the Devils. Both, despite not making 53 signings like Tampa, come out winners this off season. Both present the perfect example for any aspiring team to follow. New Jersey swooped in and added Holik and Rolston. Second line scoring and big centre checked off their list. Detroit, with few glaring holes, did correspondingly, very little – only moving to pick up the only scoring star with years ahead of him from the entire group. No bad signings, no changes for the sake of it.
Big stories
While looking at players in and out is interesting and fun, most teams make like for like changes and hope for the best. As such, the stories around the moves are few. This year was unique in some ways though, as free agency has offered up some very interesting stories and trends for comment:
1) Jagr signing in Russia
By far the most significant signing of the off-season was Jagr's move to Russia. Funny then that this move has been treated as a footnote in most accounts.
The reason I think it is so notable is because of the precedent it sets. Jagr is the first bona fide NHL star to sign in a different league. Forsberg and Naslund often threatened, but could never ignore the call of the greenback. Aleksey Morozov blazed a trail, but one would hardly class him among the stars of the league. Jaromir, on the other hand, was reasonably close to becoming the second leading scorer of all time, a perennial all-star and Art Ross threat and the core of his NHL team.
While Siberian winters don't meet with everyone's tastes, multi-million dollar contracts do. I think from here on, the threat of players moving to the rival Russian league is real. It is a worry for young prospects to full-fledged stars. What's more, the longer the NHL allows the festering wound of the partial IIHF agreement (without Russia) to linger, the greater this problem will likely become. It may not be within the decade, but at some point, it is reasonable to assume that the NHL and the Russian league will duke it out for players like the Premiership, la Liga and Serie A do in football.
2) Retirement decisions
Admittedly, the retirement precedent was set prior to this season. However, this free agent season is the first in memory where 3 of the top 10 catches would be considering retirement from the league.
By prolonging their indecision, Sundin, Selanne and Sakic have created a force in the market. The force is patient money. There are teams sitting on money at the moment that they are saving to spring on Sundin in particular, while making bit parters wait for their turn.
I am not 100% behind the opinion that Sundin has disrupted the whole league (like this guy), but you have to admit, the poor guys waiting to buy/rent their houses for the season (4th liners, minor leaguers and down) are being put through a stressful period. That being said, I don't think it is Sundin's fault team's are shaping their whole strategy around him. Besides, how sorry can I feel for a guy who is slightly disrupted in finding a house (while I live in a small apartment) ahead of playing hockey for a living for another year.
No, for me, the more interesting thing to come out of this has been the reaction of the GMs. Sather, rumoured to be in the running for Sundin, has gone ahead with what could be called makeshift moves, even in the wake of losing Jagr. Gillis in Vancouver has sat pat, dangerous considering who he's lost. Fletcher is trying desperately to fill cap space with anyone and anything to be sure there's no room for Sundin. And, Gainey has signed his RFAs and made minor deals. Fans may be frustrated with the patience their GM is showing (or not), but ultimately only patience will leave a team with enough space to sign Sundin. Nothing less.
In the future, players teetering on the edge of retirement could shape the free agent game significantly. Imagine for example that Sundin does sign, his team does well and even wins. In future years, the lesson to good GMs will be that waiting for the best player available is the best move there is. It could make free agency less of a one-day (laughably televised) extravaganza and more of a prolonged and patient game. From the money thrown in desperation at players like Malone and Finger, I wouldn't see it as a bad thing.
3) Questions about the salary floor
When I look at the Columbus Blue Jackets, I see a team with little or no plan. How could anyone rational explain the Commodore signing to me. How could signing a 14-goalscorer at first line money be spun positively. But you see, Columbus has their backs up against it. They have never drafted a great player (arguments could be made for Nash...) and rarely ever draft anyone good.
How can this team possibly be expected to pay $40+M to a team of players. It is an unreasonable request. Stack that next to the fact that the team has no history, no plan, no immediate hope for greatness and you can see why the Hossas of the world elude them. As such, the Blue Jackets are forced to throw money at subpar performers just to reach that lower limit.
In and of itself, this is not a problem, but consider that that Rick Nash contract has influenced money for 21 year-olds years on, and you can see the ripples a signing in an NHL backwater can make. Any reasonably intelligent agent will be toting Mike Commodore's contract status and statistics in his negotiations next spring. 20-goal men across the continent will want to see Umberger dough (hey Ryder got it!).
Besides forcing real talents to play in outposts, what can the NHL do to avoid this market force from creating imbalance of pay/talent ratios?
Remove the floor? Impossible, watch Nashville owners pile up the cash if they do...
I don't have the answer, I can only see the problem at the moment. I feel there must be a solution at some point though, otherwise this may create another catalyst for players to Europe.
And the Canadiens?
All that is very interesting. From an academic point of view. But, let's be honest, how does it affect the Habs?
I've mentioned the Sundin affair, and I think the Habs are doing the right thing in keeping some money for him should he become available, although he wouldn't be my first choice (Selanne, ahem). Basically, what's the rush to spend: there are no great players left, and the team is mostly in place. Gainey can finish the roster off in August or September if he really needs to.
The Jagr debacle has not affected the Canadiens yet, but it will be interesting to see where the deeply patriotic Kovalev ends after his contract expires. In 5 years, this could be an issue for Markov, too. I have voiced my opinion on creating a special team of scouts/negotiators to deal with Russia before, and it still stands. Even without the threat of player flight, the pickings from Russian draft years alone warrant this approach.
Like Jagr, small market disproportionate spending has not thrown a wrench into the works yet. But when Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Higgins are all up for their third contract, will they take less than Columbus' plumbers?
The Canadiens moves themselves have been middle of the road. The Tanguay trade was excellent, but ultimately they relieved Calgary of a headache, who has yet to prove he won't be one here (I actually think he'll be great, but am keeping my feet on the ground just now). The Grabovski trade was poor indeed – losing a potential scorer for a non-entity. The signings of RFAs have been outstanding, but the UFA activity has been lacklustre to depressing (where the balance shows Streit, Danis and Ryder in the red for Laraque and Denis in the black). The player math shows Tanguay has to replace Ryder at even strength and Streit on the PP, while we hope that the youngsters will step up to take even more responsibility.
Frankly, at this point, barring a Sundin/Selanne/Sakic signing, I'd almost hope Gainey would call it a day. I am with him and his staff about the quality of our young players. Andrei Kostitsyn in particular will be a real force to be reckoned with if he plays a full season at his post-December clip. At the back, the deletion of Brisebois almost makes up for the loss of Streit, simply by inducing the addition by subtraction trick (fingers crossed, that particular element of today's status quo is with us come October).
Looking down the list, is there anyone any of you would make a legitimate case for? Even after Samsonov?
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.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Their Own Lafleur: Harsh Words From Leafs Alumnus
Was reading about Mats Sundin and came across this by Howard Berger.
Check out this quote from Jim Pappin – he who led the Maple Leafs in scoring with seven goals and 15 points in the 1967 Stanley Cup playoffs (before colour TV and all that):
Don't hold anything back, Jim.
My favourite part is: "I've watched the Marlies and the farm system, and I don't see anybody there that can make them better."
Even Guy sometimes minces his words sometimes.
One thing's for certain. Lose Sundin and they'll have very large skates to replace. They'll never go quietly through free agency though, right?
Check out this quote from Jim Pappin – he who led the Maple Leafs in scoring with seven goals and 15 points in the 1967 Stanley Cup playoffs (before colour TV and all that):
"I think Mats can obviously see that Toronto is re-building and probably will not have a very good team for the next three or four years. If none of the guys like Bryan McCabe or Darcy Tucker come back, the Leafs are going to be pretty bad. I've watched the Marlies and the farm system, and I don't see anybody there that can make them better. A player or two might make the team, but won't improve the situation. I think Sundin can see that. In fact, everybody can. The Leafs are trying to become a more competitive club by getting younger. As far as loyalty, I remember when Dave Keon was used up, the Leafs let him go, and he's probably the greatest centre to ever play for the team. But, Sundin is in a different situation. Montreal is a contender, and the Canadiens picked up Alex Tanguay, another top player, at the draft. They have as good a chance as anybody to win the Stanley Cup next season. If I was Sundin, I think that's where I would want to go. And, to be honest, I don't really think the Leafs want him that badly anymore. They might offer him a lot of money, but he can get the same amount, or more, and play on a better team."
Don't hold anything back, Jim.
My favourite part is: "I've watched the Marlies and the farm system, and I don't see anybody there that can make them better."
Even Guy sometimes minces his words sometimes.
One thing's for certain. Lose Sundin and they'll have very large skates to replace. They'll never go quietly through free agency though, right?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Sundin: A Move Too Far?
Lots and lots of hype around Mats Sundin at the moment. But, as time goes by, I find more and more reasons to hope Sundin will not end up with the Canadiens.
Let's be clear from the get go, Mats Sundin is a great player. He would still be a great player on the Canadiens. My qualms are not with Sundin, but how he would affect the Canadiens.
Chemistry
To start with, the Canadiens, for the first time in many years, seemed to come together as a team in the way they won games and the way they cored goals when they needed too – at least during the regular season. I believe that this was due to a critical mix of leadership from players who want to lead (Kovalev and Koivu) and youth who began to thrive with new responsibilities.
Adding Sundin would add two things: a) a first-line player and b) a very strong voice in the dressing room (I am assuming of course that Sundin isn't coming here to be a shrinking violet on the third line like Radek Bonk).
This will have direct repercussions. We can all count and know that there are only 6 available places on the top two lines, so the addition of Sundin after that of Tanguay, would mean that only 4 of the top 6 forwards from the number one offence from last season. As he will be deployed as a centre, Plekanec, or in all likelihood Koivu, will have to be demoted to the "third" line. In itself, this would not be so bad, as Koivu would likely keep his wingers from part of last year on the first line, but his ice time would have to suffer.
Then there is the issue of leadership. Was it only me, or did anyone else notice that Alex Kovalev really came into his own as a player once he started leading. He probably had the best year of his career in terms of his out and out value to his team. Stripping some of his voice (it will be a slow and insidious process, as Sundin wrestles his share loss by loss), would be a detriment to the team in my eyes. Koivu (everyone seems to forget he proved himself as a number one centre yet again in April) could be in the same boat. In any case, you can't add a 37-year-old superstar with a large personality without shifting the dynamic a bit. Too many cooks and all that...
Salary
Anyone who has been taking a practical look at the Canadiens situation has noted that adding Sundin will take money and cap space. In fact, many have questioned how it would be plausible at all. After all, Sundin will not be moving to his sworn enemy of 13 years for a discount, will he? Again, we have a situation where Sundin is added and the ground must be shifted. Someone will have to be moved. I suspect it will have to be someone with a decent salary: $4 million+.
Progress
The last season, we as fans were sold the promise that our youngsters were playing because they would gain hugely from the experience. They were deployed on the top lines, they were given responsibility, they grew. Add Tanguay and possibly Sundin – and what gives? Steps back is what. Take Latendresse. He won't see any first line time anymore, that is unless Sundin were to exhaust his choice of wingers as he often did in Toronto. Where does Sergei Kostitsyn then fit? Chris Higgins? These are players that will be around long after Sundin is gone. Aren't they important enough to nurture anymore? I believe that lots of the progress that has been made over the year could be set back so we can give the aged Swede the ice time he will demand.
Add it all up, and adding Sundin will take away ice time and leadership from a top player from the roster, and will probably necessitate salary shedding and indeed cost us a roster player. I don't think losing Grabovski, as some have speculated, would be sufficient. No, I think someone more significant will have to be marginalised and even jettisoned for us to make room for his time on the puck, his big personality and his sure to be massive salary.
The writing looks like it's on the wall. Add Sundin, and my bet is that Koivu's bid to become the longest serving captain in team history will be ended. How could it not? Would we lose Plekanec? A player with intelligence, skill and speed reminiscent of the younger Koivu (his salary wouldn't be enough anyway). I for one would hate to lose Saku Koivu to gain Mats Sundin, no matter the height difference.
Koivu is ours. He is our leader. He loves Montreal. He loves the Canadiens. Sundin may get there, but you can't gain 15 years worth of passion in a single season. Never mind that he would have to learn to stop hating the Canadiens first.
So, I'm going to be happy with our other addition: Tanguay. We find him the right fit at centre and a shooting RW and we'll be off. He may not be the top top superstar we had dreams of, but he is a very high quality addition and the team is already better off as a result. Sundin, in my mind, remains a move too far.
Let's be clear from the get go, Mats Sundin is a great player. He would still be a great player on the Canadiens. My qualms are not with Sundin, but how he would affect the Canadiens.
Chemistry
To start with, the Canadiens, for the first time in many years, seemed to come together as a team in the way they won games and the way they cored goals when they needed too – at least during the regular season. I believe that this was due to a critical mix of leadership from players who want to lead (Kovalev and Koivu) and youth who began to thrive with new responsibilities.
Adding Sundin would add two things: a) a first-line player and b) a very strong voice in the dressing room (I am assuming of course that Sundin isn't coming here to be a shrinking violet on the third line like Radek Bonk).
This will have direct repercussions. We can all count and know that there are only 6 available places on the top two lines, so the addition of Sundin after that of Tanguay, would mean that only 4 of the top 6 forwards from the number one offence from last season. As he will be deployed as a centre, Plekanec, or in all likelihood Koivu, will have to be demoted to the "third" line. In itself, this would not be so bad, as Koivu would likely keep his wingers from part of last year on the first line, but his ice time would have to suffer.
Then there is the issue of leadership. Was it only me, or did anyone else notice that Alex Kovalev really came into his own as a player once he started leading. He probably had the best year of his career in terms of his out and out value to his team. Stripping some of his voice (it will be a slow and insidious process, as Sundin wrestles his share loss by loss), would be a detriment to the team in my eyes. Koivu (everyone seems to forget he proved himself as a number one centre yet again in April) could be in the same boat. In any case, you can't add a 37-year-old superstar with a large personality without shifting the dynamic a bit. Too many cooks and all that...
Salary
Anyone who has been taking a practical look at the Canadiens situation has noted that adding Sundin will take money and cap space. In fact, many have questioned how it would be plausible at all. After all, Sundin will not be moving to his sworn enemy of 13 years for a discount, will he? Again, we have a situation where Sundin is added and the ground must be shifted. Someone will have to be moved. I suspect it will have to be someone with a decent salary: $4 million+.
Progress
The last season, we as fans were sold the promise that our youngsters were playing because they would gain hugely from the experience. They were deployed on the top lines, they were given responsibility, they grew. Add Tanguay and possibly Sundin – and what gives? Steps back is what. Take Latendresse. He won't see any first line time anymore, that is unless Sundin were to exhaust his choice of wingers as he often did in Toronto. Where does Sergei Kostitsyn then fit? Chris Higgins? These are players that will be around long after Sundin is gone. Aren't they important enough to nurture anymore? I believe that lots of the progress that has been made over the year could be set back so we can give the aged Swede the ice time he will demand.
Add it all up, and adding Sundin will take away ice time and leadership from a top player from the roster, and will probably necessitate salary shedding and indeed cost us a roster player. I don't think losing Grabovski, as some have speculated, would be sufficient. No, I think someone more significant will have to be marginalised and even jettisoned for us to make room for his time on the puck, his big personality and his sure to be massive salary.
The writing looks like it's on the wall. Add Sundin, and my bet is that Koivu's bid to become the longest serving captain in team history will be ended. How could it not? Would we lose Plekanec? A player with intelligence, skill and speed reminiscent of the younger Koivu (his salary wouldn't be enough anyway). I for one would hate to lose Saku Koivu to gain Mats Sundin, no matter the height difference.
Koivu is ours. He is our leader. He loves Montreal. He loves the Canadiens. Sundin may get there, but you can't gain 15 years worth of passion in a single season. Never mind that he would have to learn to stop hating the Canadiens first.
So, I'm going to be happy with our other addition: Tanguay. We find him the right fit at centre and a shooting RW and we'll be off. He may not be the top top superstar we had dreams of, but he is a very high quality addition and the team is already better off as a result. Sundin, in my mind, remains a move too far.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Hossa, Sundin and Higgins
If you believe the reports coming out of the media, then you will have noticed that Bob Gainey was an active player in trade deadline talks. Apart from the lacklustre Huet trade, he had legitimate offers on the table for Marian Hossa and evenhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif Mats Sundin.
While it's plain to see why anyone would want Hossa or Sundin on their side going into a playoff series, what I found unusual about the trades was the appearance of Christopher Higgins name in both rumours.
Trading the golden boy of Habs prospects would surely have repercussions, right?
This fan thought so:
Interestingly, though it was probably facetiously written, this is exactly the question Canadiens fans should be asking.
Why is Gainey willing to give up Chris Higgins?
Some might even ask: why was he desperate to get rid of Chris Higgins?
I believe the answer to this question is perceived value.
The GMs around the league, as well as the majority of fans, see Chris Higgins as a hard-working potential 40-goal scorer who's on the road to captaincy in this league. Bob Gainey knows this, and perhaps for a minute thought that they might not think that forever, maybe not even for very much longer.
Trading is a risk. To win a trade, you have to trade your assets at their highest point for assets you think could be on the rise. That way a trade that looks even on the day can look like a landslide for one team if the players progress in the way the GM gambled they would.
If you listen to the fans, there is no budge on Higgins. He is part of the future, and is well loved. Personally, I like the player, I like the man, I love the play.
But here's my problem: I have a feeling the Habs are not quite the dynasty team we are hoping for. We could possibly win a Cup like Tampa did, but miss out on building the New Jerseyesque or Detroit-like contender
we long for.
If we are looking for a big missing piece like Hossa, for example, we have to understand it doesn't come free. Look down the possible trade bait and you'll find players the Habs fans would be amenable to trading but a lot they would not. Along with Higgins, Plekanec, Kovalev, both Kostitsyns, Komisarek, Markov, Price, McDonagh, Pacioretty, Chipchura, Latendresse, Lapierre, etc. In such a balanced league, a team that is not winning but only aspiring to does not have the luxury of naming 10 players untouchable.
As a GM of a rebuilding team, you will be in direct competition with 24 GMs in the same position every year. Average GMs will languish. Good GMs will take risks. Great GMs will understand the timing of trades and know that few if any players should be untouchables.
So, why is Gainey willing to give up Chris Higgins then?
Perhaps that Higgins is a 25-goal man who may always experience long droughts. Perhaps that his unabashed style of speaking after the games rubs people the wrong way in the room. Perhaps he will be drafting an upgrade on Higgins this summer. Perhaps he's not as irreplaceable as once thought.
Rather than any of those things above to do with Chris, I believe it's all to do with Gainey here. I think it's precisely because he's one of those great GMs who knows he'll have to take risks to win. If the Huet trade put a dent in my faith in Bob, these two trades (even if only rumoured) show me he's as creative as we need him to be to get this dynasty assembled.
If the present is bright, the future with Gainey looks brighter still...
While it's plain to see why anyone would want Hossa or Sundin on their side going into a playoff series, what I found unusual about the trades was the appearance of Christopher Higgins name in both rumours.
Trading the golden boy of Habs prospects would surely have repercussions, right?
This fan thought so:
Why is it, that after having built this team through the draft and showing patience, Gainey would suddenly decide "Nah, I'm doing this all wrong. I need to give 3 draft picks in one of the best projected drafts in the last decade, as well of one my best and brightest young stars, who works his ass off, plays every night and shows great leadership, to get a 37 year old who might help me win the Stanley Cup and most likely won't be back in October."
Interestingly, though it was probably facetiously written, this is exactly the question Canadiens fans should be asking.
Why is Gainey willing to give up Chris Higgins?
Some might even ask: why was he desperate to get rid of Chris Higgins?
I believe the answer to this question is perceived value.
The GMs around the league, as well as the majority of fans, see Chris Higgins as a hard-working potential 40-goal scorer who's on the road to captaincy in this league. Bob Gainey knows this, and perhaps for a minute thought that they might not think that forever, maybe not even for very much longer.
Trading is a risk. To win a trade, you have to trade your assets at their highest point for assets you think could be on the rise. That way a trade that looks even on the day can look like a landslide for one team if the players progress in the way the GM gambled they would.
If you listen to the fans, there is no budge on Higgins. He is part of the future, and is well loved. Personally, I like the player, I like the man, I love the play.
But here's my problem: I have a feeling the Habs are not quite the dynasty team we are hoping for. We could possibly win a Cup like Tampa did, but miss out on building the New Jerseyesque or Detroit-like contender
we long for.
If we are looking for a big missing piece like Hossa, for example, we have to understand it doesn't come free. Look down the possible trade bait and you'll find players the Habs fans would be amenable to trading but a lot they would not. Along with Higgins, Plekanec, Kovalev, both Kostitsyns, Komisarek, Markov, Price, McDonagh, Pacioretty, Chipchura, Latendresse, Lapierre, etc. In such a balanced league, a team that is not winning but only aspiring to does not have the luxury of naming 10 players untouchable.
As a GM of a rebuilding team, you will be in direct competition with 24 GMs in the same position every year. Average GMs will languish. Good GMs will take risks. Great GMs will understand the timing of trades and know that few if any players should be untouchables.
So, why is Gainey willing to give up Chris Higgins then?
Perhaps that Higgins is a 25-goal man who may always experience long droughts. Perhaps that his unabashed style of speaking after the games rubs people the wrong way in the room. Perhaps he will be drafting an upgrade on Higgins this summer. Perhaps he's not as irreplaceable as once thought.
Rather than any of those things above to do with Chris, I believe it's all to do with Gainey here. I think it's precisely because he's one of those great GMs who knows he'll have to take risks to win. If the Huet trade put a dent in my faith in Bob, these two trades (even if only rumoured) show me he's as creative as we need him to be to get this dynasty assembled.
If the present is bright, the future with Gainey looks brighter still...
Friday, February 01, 2008
Some Thoughts on Loyalty
The NHL trade deadline is approaching and talk of waiving no-trade clauses is popping up all over the league again. The situation with Mats Sundin, in particular, got me thinking about the value of (as well as general lack of) loyalty to NHL teams from players around the league.
More and more, players at the end of their careers waive no-trade clauses or request trades to teams they view as Stanley Cup contenders. It is a strange thing. I'm sure the tradition goes back a long way, but for me all this one last throw of the dice for the Cup came to a head after Ray Bourque was traded to the Colorado Avalanche in 2000. It was Ray Bourque, the heart and soul of the Boston franchise for 20 years, who requested the trade. And it wasn't just to get out, it was to a limited number of teams who he thought had a chance of winning.
This has led to a boatload of trades every year to teams like Detroit and Colorado (formerly). The teams that players will gladly waive their no-trade clauses for.
Aside from the trend of asking for trades, there has also been an annoying trend in the media to pick a player who is thought to be so deserving of the Cup, that all others should roll over and clear the way.
The press loved the Bourque win. They ate it up. It was a Cup for Ray Bourque, though it took a year, courtesy of a team who probably would have won it anyway as they had the best 2 centres in the league and the best goalie. Since 2001, there have been a number of players with long to intermediate length careers who became the feel-good heroes of the playoffs. Players who should win the Cup, just by virtue of being in the league so long:
2002: Dominik Hasek and Luc Robitaille, who found ways to miss by a couple of years in NYR and Pittsbrugh
2003: Adam Oates, who still hasn't won...
2004: Dave Andreychuk, who strangely was traded to make way for the "more deserving" Ray Bourque
2006: Rod Brind'amour
2007: Teemu Selanne
Looking at this list, there's no question that all the players had great careers (well you could question Brind'amour there...), but since when does that equate with a Cup.
So many players toiled in the league without the reward of a Cup for many years before Brind'amour came along. Many many more deserving than he. I'm picking on Rod, but really I would say that no one is outright deserving of a Cup, and it gets my back up when the media turn it into a story like that.
Apart from Selanne (who I identify with the Ducks and the Jets), the last time I was truly happy for an aging, tireless star to win a Cup was Steve Yzerman. Both players did thing the right way and won with the teams they were associated, even synonymous, with. Ray Bourque on the other hand may as well have just bought the Cup for all I'm concernned. he should have been trying to win with Boston for those last years of his career and not jumping ship.
Players like Todd Bertuzzi last year who make special requests to be on "Cup contenders" should be banished to first round upsets as far as I am concerned...
This brings me to the current Mats Sundin scenario.
I guess, first things first. No one owes Mats Sundin a Cup.
He has had a good career. he is the best player the Leafs have probably ever had. He has had some playoff success. But all that equates to nothing. the only thing that makes you deserving of the Cup is an unquenchable desire to win it. And, the only person who can give a player that is the player himself.
But you have to give the guy loads of credit. He knows that. He is still 100% focused on making the playoffs, on winning the Cup. But, he wants to win for his fans, his friends, his neighbours of more than a decade.
When you talk about a captain, isn't that exactly what you want? This kind of loyalty has to be recognised and applauded, I think. Fans of teams around the league should envy players like Sundin and his commitment to the cause.
If you're a Habs fan you don't have to look any further than Saku Koivu to see the same type of class. I'd hazard a guess that Daniel Alfredsson is the same with Ottawa. To win a Stanley Cup you need Mats Sundins and Saku Koivus. Players who play for pride in the sweater they wear.
Sure you can carry a Ray Bourque or two, but too many and you threaten to make that sweater meaningless, and take away the very fuel that fires those long Cup runs. Look to Joe Sakic in Colorado, Steve Yzerman in Detroit, Martin Brodeur in New Jersey to play big when Cups are on the line. These are one franchise players – with very good reason.
I hope the Maple Leafs can find a way to honour Mats Sundin's wishes and hold onto him. As a Habs fan, I certainly hope they don't win the Cup, but will be sure to applaud Mats if he manages to retire with the team he loves.
As for the Habs, I hope we can find ways to hang to players who want to play and win in Montreal. Ultimately, that will be where success will come from. And success will be so much the sweeter if it does come.
More and more, players at the end of their careers waive no-trade clauses or request trades to teams they view as Stanley Cup contenders. It is a strange thing. I'm sure the tradition goes back a long way, but for me all this one last throw of the dice for the Cup came to a head after Ray Bourque was traded to the Colorado Avalanche in 2000. It was Ray Bourque, the heart and soul of the Boston franchise for 20 years, who requested the trade. And it wasn't just to get out, it was to a limited number of teams who he thought had a chance of winning.
This has led to a boatload of trades every year to teams like Detroit and Colorado (formerly). The teams that players will gladly waive their no-trade clauses for.
Aside from the trend of asking for trades, there has also been an annoying trend in the media to pick a player who is thought to be so deserving of the Cup, that all others should roll over and clear the way.
The press loved the Bourque win. They ate it up. It was a Cup for Ray Bourque, though it took a year, courtesy of a team who probably would have won it anyway as they had the best 2 centres in the league and the best goalie. Since 2001, there have been a number of players with long to intermediate length careers who became the feel-good heroes of the playoffs. Players who should win the Cup, just by virtue of being in the league so long:
2002: Dominik Hasek and Luc Robitaille, who found ways to miss by a couple of years in NYR and Pittsbrugh
2003: Adam Oates, who still hasn't won...
2004: Dave Andreychuk, who strangely was traded to make way for the "more deserving" Ray Bourque
2006: Rod Brind'amour
2007: Teemu Selanne
Looking at this list, there's no question that all the players had great careers (well you could question Brind'amour there...), but since when does that equate with a Cup.
So many players toiled in the league without the reward of a Cup for many years before Brind'amour came along. Many many more deserving than he. I'm picking on Rod, but really I would say that no one is outright deserving of a Cup, and it gets my back up when the media turn it into a story like that.
Apart from Selanne (who I identify with the Ducks and the Jets), the last time I was truly happy for an aging, tireless star to win a Cup was Steve Yzerman. Both players did thing the right way and won with the teams they were associated, even synonymous, with. Ray Bourque on the other hand may as well have just bought the Cup for all I'm concernned. he should have been trying to win with Boston for those last years of his career and not jumping ship.
Players like Todd Bertuzzi last year who make special requests to be on "Cup contenders" should be banished to first round upsets as far as I am concerned...
This brings me to the current Mats Sundin scenario.
I guess, first things first. No one owes Mats Sundin a Cup.
He has had a good career. he is the best player the Leafs have probably ever had. He has had some playoff success. But all that equates to nothing. the only thing that makes you deserving of the Cup is an unquenchable desire to win it. And, the only person who can give a player that is the player himself.
But you have to give the guy loads of credit. He knows that. He is still 100% focused on making the playoffs, on winning the Cup. But, he wants to win for his fans, his friends, his neighbours of more than a decade.
When you talk about a captain, isn't that exactly what you want? This kind of loyalty has to be recognised and applauded, I think. Fans of teams around the league should envy players like Sundin and his commitment to the cause.
If you're a Habs fan you don't have to look any further than Saku Koivu to see the same type of class. I'd hazard a guess that Daniel Alfredsson is the same with Ottawa. To win a Stanley Cup you need Mats Sundins and Saku Koivus. Players who play for pride in the sweater they wear.
Sure you can carry a Ray Bourque or two, but too many and you threaten to make that sweater meaningless, and take away the very fuel that fires those long Cup runs. Look to Joe Sakic in Colorado, Steve Yzerman in Detroit, Martin Brodeur in New Jersey to play big when Cups are on the line. These are one franchise players – with very good reason.
I hope the Maple Leafs can find a way to honour Mats Sundin's wishes and hold onto him. As a Habs fan, I certainly hope they don't win the Cup, but will be sure to applaud Mats if he manages to retire with the team he loves.
As for the Habs, I hope we can find ways to hang to players who want to play and win in Montreal. Ultimately, that will be where success will come from. And success will be so much the sweeter if it does come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)