Out With The Pride: In With A Real D

I know this organization values its own reputation more than anything, and that seems to extend to its reputation of hanging on to the wrong players while valiantly trying to make them play in ways they were never born to.

But as we are already hanging on to one massive project at the back to save face, would we be comfortable in saying that perhaps the project in trying to turn a man who happens to be 6'4" into an NHL defenceman?

Mike Boone wonders 'akey' about what it might take to sign Mike Komisarek.

Pardon me for looking right past Mike's name and to that of Jay Bouwmeester in the very same article. The way I see it, we should try dabbling with young defenders developed by competent defence coaches rather than hope another might slip through under our noses here like Markov did.

If Mike Komisarek is to be paid $5 million a year, I would happily see an extra $3 mil a year off to watch him try to set the all-time record for meaningless hits on another team while Jay-Bo forms the second partnership we crave in front of the Apprentice.

We like Mike K, but if he's going to be unreasonable about his value as Souray was before him, then we can do better things with our money. If the salary cap ever fell and Mike Komisarek was taking up more than 10% of our salary base, it would indeed be a sad day for the team.


Alternative solution

Bridesmaid Bob Gainey could anticipate losing that battle of tax-free salary right now, however, and simply set his sights on a minor upgrade at the back (whether or no he offers a savings on Komo's contract).


One I've had my eye on for a while, and who could be a UFA on the right date is Johnny Oduya. He's not technically as big as Mike Komisarek, but perhaps the fear that he'll play good defence will go further than the fear you might be checked just before celebrating your teammate's goal next year. One can only hope. He might also be amenable to playing for his true value.

Other ways to better spend $5 million: Matthias Ohlund, Alex Kovalev, part of Scott Niedermayer, and indeed Mike Komisarek plus the other $2.5 million player we could sign if he took a sane raise.

Habs Should Give Up? Why, We're Having Our Playoffs Early

The Canadiens fans are growing weary. It seems that everyone has forgotten just how long 82 games is. Many of our number seemed to be coming in Leaf (it is spring) and are calling for the TNT. I heartily disagree with them.

The reason: the team is still alive. Their situation has greatly suffered of late, sure. There have been ugly losses. But giving up on the season makes little sense. I feel the arguments from the other side are hollow and clutching at straws, like this via Mike Boone:

A postgame rant from the pressbox a few games ago:

"I hope they don't make the playoffs. That way, they can spend the off-season cleaning house and getting their s--- together.

"If they make the playoffs, that will just camouflage everything that's wrong. Maybe they'll win a couple games or fluke off a round and everyone will say 'Great! This team is on the right track.'"

No, the ranter wasn't me. It was a veteran beat reporter who has seen the Canadiens rise and fall through many more games than I.

Hope the team doesn't make the playoffs? Clean house and get their s--- in order?

The outlook is as knee-jerk as they come. And I don't care how many games this reporter has seen the Canadiens rise and fall through. My main question to him would be: "What do you expect Gainey will be able to in the off-season that he wouldn't be able to do if they made the playoffs?"


Nonsense

In my mind, there's absolutely no added benefit from missing the playoffs. None.

Nothing is preventing the team from making the identical changes they would make come a playoff exit as they would in the event they don't make the playoffs. Would the public outcry be harsher? I'm not sure – out in the spring is out in the spring to this and many fans. The only thing that has the power to gloss over Habs fans demands are Stanley Cups, not second round charades in Philadelphia. The season will not be forgotten, and a playoff round lost will only accentuate any feelings.

The only time it does make sense to lose is when you are going to do it properly and get the rewards of a sure thing draft pick like Tavares or Hedman. However, thanks to the pitiful efforts from Long Island, Phoenix and Atlanta (yet again), it's too late for that. In our situation, picking 20th is not going to be that different to picking 13th, I'm afraid. Deep drafts are the stuff of mythology. Guaranteed goods beyond pick 3, let alone pick 12, don't happen, ask Benoit Pouliot and Gilbert Brule.

Losing more now, besides placating the "guru" quoted above, would achieve nothing at all. It angers me that someone would utter the words, even more so that he be revered for it.


This year's chances in context

Personally, I think this year's team will have better chances than any team we can assemble for next year, or probably even a few years. Sure, the team has slumped hard since mid-January, but if we let Tanguay, Kovalev and Schneider go, who does reporter A see coming in to replace these guys?

Our rookies don't have a 20-goal man among them (maybe Pacioretty one day in the distant future), much less a Kovalev or a Tanguay. Our defencemen are regressing, will they be better than Schneider in a season?

What's more, we're not the only team to bid in this year's UFA market. The Islanders (armed with the additional jewel that is Tavares or Hedman) will also have almost all their space to play with. Other teams like Toronto, Ottawa and others will all be there to play with money. Going into July 1 in hope of coming out with one useful piece is bad enough, to think you'll replace 3 or 4 is far too optimistic for the perennial bridesmaids in Montreal. Last time I checked we had Hamrlik, not Rafalski or Timonen; Lang, not Hossa.


Think of the season like a game

I find that this approach helps. To win the "game", a team must place in the top 8 in their conference, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, it is disappointing that we all thought we'd be taking a few games off watching this team by now, singing some "Na, na, na, nas", but the game is not over. In this analogy, we blew the 4-0 lead we had coming out of the first, but we are still tied going into the last 5 minutes of the third. Perhaps it is a miracle that we are tied, perhaps there have been a few posts or wrongly disallowed goals, but a draw it is. No one complains about saves from the posts after a win.


The really funny thing is, just like a game, this is exactly the type of drama we all really crave. The scoreboard watching. The meaningful games. This is edge of the seat stuff. Everyone's favourite moment of last season was the 6-5 comeback. Everyone's favourite playoff series of late the 3-1 series turnaround. Nobody is harping on about the 5 goals we gave away to the Rangers cheaply or the 3 games we could have competed better for in 2004. And, let's face it, for this year the jubilation of clinching in game 82 will be a long-awaited OT-winner compared to the empty netter to go up 3-0 that the Bruins just scored with their clinch.

In my mind, the goal for this team hasn't changed: get into the playoffs. We'll worry about the rest later.

Right On CuePundit Panic Button Pressed

They lost. They panicked:

Is it time to panic yet? (Arpon Basu):

Um, yeah, I would say so.

About last night... (Mike Boone)

I hate to sound like an alarmist, but YOUR MONTREAL CANADIENS ARE IN TROUBLE!

They are six points out of eighth place in the Eastern Conference – and eight points out of 10th.

Predictable as a Brisebois' zone clearance strategies.

Had they read yesterday's post: Streak Three; then the illuminated ones would know that steaks happen. Streaks are good and streaks have to be endured.

All this blowing up the roster BS is nonsense. Pittsburgh didn't blow up the roster, and mark my words, they will be in the playoffs – despite that nasty losing spell of theirs over the holidays. The Habs have solutions at their fingertips, and are just waiting for their timing to get them streaking the other way again.


Bandwagon

I have been tracking the website traffic for more than 2 years now and I have been compiling a fairly good study on the bandwagon. It's better data this year with more readers.

I can tell you fairly definitively that about half as many people are reading this site now compared to the heady days of our past winning streak. Of course, the hysteria of the playoffs (first round) is still the pinnacle of game review viewing).

If you are reading this post, on a day after the fourth loss in a row, you can rest assure you are a getting dangerously close to the core of Habs fandom.

Sorry I don't have it today, my correlational study on bandwagon traffic is in the statistical gears for the moment...


Benoit Brunet

It's not all optimist from me. I'm annoyed too. If Benoit Brunet claims one more time that what the Habs must do to erase a 2-goal deficit and vast margin in play:

"N'est pas complique"

I think i will explode. It is complicated Ben. The other teams have plans to beat us and we are getting foiled by them. Someone will work them out, but it won't be a matter of dumping the puck in.

That my friend is just about the single easiest play to defend.


It's complicated, but it ain't dire.

In the illustrious words of The Hitchiker's Guide: DON'T PANIC

Blogging the NHLHabs Inside/Out A Rare Ally Among Mainstream Media

More than a week late on this one, but you'll have to forgive my oversight. A wedding and a wonderful winning streak had come in the way of this article and the blogsite.

As I often try to do when I notice conflict and contrast in hockey and its loyal media, I wanted to write a piece about two recent stories I had come across. The first, and most encouraging, was this one from Habs Inside/Out about adding new bloggers to the site and the second was this one from Puck Daddy about the Oilers losing a blogger.

I'll begin with the latter...

Blogger booted

It was during the Oilers first game of the season that blogger Dave Berry of Covered in Oil was accosted by press (gang) guys and asked to cease his blogging activities from the Oilers pressbox. I won't recount the whole story, but if you want to read the drama, read on at Dave's last entries here and here.


The fact that I neither read nor particularly have any inclination to read live blogs while I'm watching a game is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is, the Oilers have overstepped the mark on this occasion. Berry was doing nothing to contravene any oath he had taken or any law of society. He merely ticked off the brass, at which point they had to invent a set of rules which they would then go on to impose for all of 24 hours.

Their battle, as has been pointed by many a commentator, is rather futile. Anyone watching on TV, at the game with a blackberry or even still in the pressbox can easily live blog negative thoughts about the team if they want to. Covered in Oil, even, is still up and running, and will probably just replace Dave by someone else at some point.

What's more, even though the content was largely negative, how many people did the Oilers think this material was reaching. Judging by their comments, its probably only in the low thousands.

No, all the Oilers have ended up doing in this mixed up situation is anger a lot of very very vocal people. The story of the incident has been picked up by every hockey blogger under the sun (it must have if I'm in on it too) and every corner of the hockey playing universe. In terms of PR for the organisation, it was a -10 – I didn't read a single article taking the Oilers side here.

For me, as interesting as the saga was, what intrigued me more was who ratted Mr. Berry out in the first place.It must have been:

a) someone reading the blog that night (especially because it emerged the problem was content)

b) someone who doesn't like the idea of live blogging

c) someone who had contact with the Edmonton Oilers press guys


As big and popular as blogging is, I think it's a stretch to believe that anyone to do with the hockey team operation or ownership would be reading snide remarks instead of watching their team. This leads me to believe that it was either another blogger or someone from the traditional media.

Now, I thought that bloggers stuck together. And all the response in this case leads me to believe that is true, even though Berry did try to drag a couple of peers down with him belatedly.

So, that leaves the big bad media. Berry, a member of both fraternities himself, even expressed that were he not blogging he'd have had nothing to do while waiting for his quotes anyway. That throws the "too busy working" alibi right out the window. Yeah, I think the Edmonton media landed a scoring low here.

After all, there is a certain implicit agreement in the "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" arrangement between bloggers and media who work together. In the case of the Oilers organisation, it went to the extreme - the blogger was dissing his team and those "scratching his back". They decided to tell Mommy and Daddy.

Gosh, the media really do have their knickers in a twist over this new-fangled blogging thing, don't they...


... Well not all of them actually.

The progressive team @ Habs Inside/Out

Though I don't always agree with their take on matters involving hockey, I have to hand it to the boys from the Gazette and the blog they have nurtured over the past two seasons. I think they deserve acknowledgment for their efforts here.


For one thing the blog is done in the right spirit. It neither takes itself too seriously, nor does it take hockey too seriously. It simply provides an addendum to all the material that is published in its parent publication, the Montreal Gazette. This hasn't stopped the main page and Mike Boone's blog from being the most complete, up-to-date and reliable source for Canadiens material (in English, I should qualify).

The other thing the blog has done right has been to embrace the bloggers. I can't say that I have personally experienced their favour on too many occasions (there was a recent link attributed to another blog), but I still laud them for interacting and even linking with bloggers like Robert L, TC Denault, the Four Habs Fans and others. The step they have taken to formalise this relationship by serialising some of these authors on their Other Wing page, is either ahead of the times or right with them, depending where you're from. And the manner in which they interact with the bloggers does them credit too.

Habs fans should count themselves very lucky to have these guys. And, when you think about it, English Habs fans are the luckiest of all – with probably the most intense and disproportionate amount of coverage of any team in the NHL (given the size of our group).


So, in general, can bloggers and the media get along?
I think they can. Other than Habs Inside/Out, I think that there are countless examples showing that they can. In Long Island they fraternise, and in Washington they get along too. Thankfully Edmonton is one of a few teams who tread a more archaic path.

Personally, I don't think Tobalev or I would have any problem getting along with any of the professional Habs media (though as I said, we would have plenty to debate and disagree about – hockeywise).

Incidentally, I also wonder whether co-habitating is the right approach for everyone at the end of the day. I think the root of blogging and what makes it powerful and compelling is its independent nature. On this occasion, I tend to agree with Matt (the Flames fan) at Battle of Alberta, when he says:

There's a reason I've never attempted to contact the Flames organization, get a press pass, an interview, or the like. Actually, there's two reasons, the first of which is that I like this blog the way it is: it's personal, I don't owe anyone any favours, and I don't have to abide by anyone's rules and guidelines but my own.

It is certainly a dilemma that some lucky bloggers get to deal with. It's still all theoretical to me.

In any case, I am thankful I support Montreal, where the door to the halls of media discussion has been left wide open with a sign saying "Welcome bloggers".

Underestimated And Underappreciated

Poor Mark Streit.

He plays in Switzerland – not good enough for the NHL.

He plays on the fourth line – not good enough for the NHL.

He scores 62 points – not good enough to keep around the Habs.


But then the punch in the teeth: he helps the Habs to the best PP and the highest goals scored totals in the league – he's compared to One-dimension Souray (by Mike Boone):

"If Canadiens adjusted to the loss of Sheldon Souray, they'll figure out how to get by without Mark Streit."

In my opinion, Boone's assertion is very naive. Souray's skill was shooting. Streit's is receiving a pass and distributing it. When you consider that PP success is dictated by time in the opposition's zone, not the number of individual PPs, you can see how shooting with a 10-15% chance of scoring, is a less valuable skill on the PP than control.

I suppose we'll have to lose Streit for some people to finally understand just what he was worth.

The World Through Rose-Tint

The Canadiens win the East.

8 wins against their first-round opponent already and a some wins to finish the season have people in Montreal a pretty positive state of mind. And, why not? After all, the Canadiens have played very well. they have finally learned ways to hang on to leads and beat teams they couldn't undo for years.

Mike Boone, in particular, is Mr. Positive. He calls the Canadiens last 3 games flawless.


Apparently the crown jewel was the Ottawa shutout where we held them to 27 shots. We let them take 32 on the night, but what's 5 shots once the rose-coloured glasses go on? It was also news to me (and Carey Price) that the Habs are now a defensive fortress thanks to Selke-winning coaches:

Ottawa was held to 27 shots and shut out. Buffalo and Toronto each scored once on 27 shots.

Earlier in the season, Canadiens routinely surrendered 35 to 40 shots a game.

That was then. This is now.

With a team assembled by Bob Gainey and coached by Guy Carbonneau – seven Selke Trophys between them, and Doug Jarvis won another – the Canadiens are stifling opponents.

I'm probably being a bit of a stickler, but it's been my role and duty all season to keep heads level when they are going too far one way or the other.

For the record, prior to their sub-30 shot last 3 games (of which one was actually over 30 shots), the Habs let up more than 35 shots in 5 straight contests. In March, they let opponents shoot on Price and Halak more than 35 times in 10 out of 14 games. That was then, but it was also now 3 games ago.

It's alright to be positive, but let's not kid ourselves: we won many more games due to offensive outburst and PP dominance than by holding opponents in some kind of shotless purgatory.


As it applies to Round 1

This lesson is important, and I hope the Habs know that. If the Canadiens suddenly fancy themselves defensive shutdown specialists, they will be playing into the hands of teams who can't run and gun, like say the Bruins. In my opinion, it will be critical the Habs press home their PP and offensive advantages and not slip into a playoff defensive cliche.

As you've heard, and worked out, the Bruins won a lot of games this year – more against teams not called the Canadiens than the Habs managed against teams not from Boston. Well, how did they do that? Not scoring. No 30-goal men here. Two 20+ goalscorers – one called Kobasew. Their goaltending has been stellar at times and has won them many games, but they let up the identical number of goals against that we did. What's the key then?

Well, something I would call caginess. This team has found ways to stay in games and win some tough ones, got points out of 13 losses too.

Always beware a cagey team. Habs fans should know this better than anyone. When we've met the Bruins in series past, with the situation reversed, we emerged with victory due to caginess of our own.

I'll leave with this as some food for thought ahead of Thursday:

In games after losses to the Canadiens:

- the Bruins got points in every game

- went 7-0-1 (the OTL was against the Habs)

- cranked up their D, only allowing 14 goals in 8 contests

- cranked up their O, 27 goals in 8 games


In contrast, the Habs went 4-4-0, allowing 31 goals in 8 games.


Also consider the only time we played the Bruins in back-to-back games, they got points from us.


If you've read this far, please know that I am positive. I like the Habs offense and defense better than the Bruins. If the Habs play their game, they are superior.

I would really guard, though, against changing style of play from the the formula for success thus far, and most all against wearing rose-coloured glasses...

Josh Gorges: A Forgotten Prospect

I don't always agree with Mike Boone, but this time I do. I think Josh Gorges has something to offer the Habs this year.

In a funny way, some fans are dismissing Gorges as some small Sharks cast-off. A veteran who couldn't cut it in the West. Well, he's no such thing. If Josh Gorges were drafted and bred in Hamilton, then I feel that Canadiens fans would be calling for him in Montreal.



Some things you should know about Josh:



1) His last name is Gorges (not Georges)

2) He is younger than bona fide prospect O'Byrne

3) He cracked the Sharks at age 21, youg for a defenseman and already has 104 games in the NHL under his belt at 23

4) He was the captain of his junior team

5) He led a team with only one current NHLer (Shea Weber) to a Memorial Cup (2003-04)

6) He was born the same day (one year earlier) than Weber his Kelowna teammate

7) He posted 15 points in 17 games in that Cup run (2003-04)

8) He was better than point-per-game in 2002-03 in both the regular season and in the playoffs (20 points in 19 games in the playoffs)

9) Played for Team Canada at WJCs

10) Mike Boone likes him to make the team this year

11) So do I

Boone, Souray and Pollock

Mike Boone, Sheldon Souray and the late Sam Pollock. Three names that probably have never been in the same sentence, and probably never shoud be again.

Yesterday in his online (eeeee)mail (what does that mean??), Mike Boone asked what Mr. Pollock would have done differently from Mr. Gainey on the Sheldon Souray dossier. Hi assessment:

After making a cool, unsentimental assessment of Souray's value, Pollock would have traded him, on or before the Feb. 27 deadline, for prospects and/or draft choices.

He goes on to say that this is because:

Pollock – who played three-dimensional chess and thought five moves ahead – would have known that he couldn't re-sign Souray for a number with which the team could live.

If Mr. Pollock would have been five moves ahead, why Mr. Boone do you insist on playing right into the checkmate?

Trading a player at the trade deadline is neither worthwhile nor clever. it is what every current GM does, and only that. A GM who is five steps ahead of his rivals would have traded Souray years before Mike Boone thought it was a good idea.

First off, consider who the Habs could have traded with at the deadline.

The first condition is a team that is going to make the playoffs (why would any other team bother trading for a three-week rental?). So eliminate Washington, Philly, Columbus, Chicago, St. Louis, Phoenix, LA and Edmonton. Gone with them are all the best draft picks - probably for the next few years too.

Next, the Canadiens would not be trading to an Eastern rival who they could potentially pip for the playoffs. So eliminate Florida, Boston, Toronto, Islanders, Rangers, Tampa, Carolina and Atlanta (based on the teams at that point).

Divisional rivals aren't usually trading partners, especially with decent prospects and draft picks going one way, so eliminate Buffalo and Ottawa.

So that now leaves us with New Jersey and Pittsburgh in the East. It leaves us with the 9 teams in realistic contention in the west.

However, next, we should eliminate teams that already have a PP quarterback (with equivalent offensive or superior defensive skills). This probably takes Detroit, Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado and Nashville out of the equation.

We're down to New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Vancouver, Dallas and San Jose. Take out Minnesota, since they probably aren't keen on the -28 burden, maybe even NJ for that matter.

So who are we going to trade with out of Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Dallas and San Jose?

San Jose you say? But they want Rivet...

Pittsburgh? They would rather keep their youngsters for a future run thanks...

Vancouver and Dallas? I'm not exactly marvelled at their prospects.


So, I've made a lengthy point there I think. I don't thik a trade was on at the deadline. Not without San Jose. Good draft picks also come from non-playoff teams, not deadline dealers. If we want those plum picks that Trader Sam would be trading for, then we'll need to get a bit braver. Trade Chris Higgins? Trade Mike Komisarek? Trade a Kostitsyn?

Personally I'm not in for the draft pick trade. For one things it's now a lottery, so forget Backstromesque moves, Pittsburgh wins the lotteries either way. Plus, I'd rather trade for known quantities and keep known quantities. Players, the best ones, now plug away until their 40s. Get a star at 28 for a number of picks as far as I am concerned, and take his last 12 years...


Are these the heirs to Sam Pollock?

The list of NHL general managers with Pollockesque acumen would include Brian Burke, Ken Holland, Lou Lamoriello, Glen Sather, Darcy Regier, Ray Shero, Doug Wilson, Dave Nonis, Doug Risebrough, Jacques Martin, Dean Lombardi and the new kid on the block, Paul Holmgren.

I'm afraid not.


As much as it pains me to say it, the only GM taking the risks necessary to even be remotely associated with our greatest GM is Kevin Lowe. Lowe unloaded his most popular player for 3 propects. He traded his captain in a deal for Pitkanen (who was touted to be the next big thing once before). He quietly signed Mathieu Garon (who we all still like, right?). He signed Souray. Then he went for the players he wanted, everyone else be damned.

Bob Gainey beware. Don't trade with Kevin Lowe, he's no Frank Selke Jr...