The No Movement Clause Of Laraque, Nylander And Sykora

Last week, apart from the losing, the disappointment of the week was Georges Laraque's failed transfer to Swedish club AIK. In what was a hopeful story, Georges had said that he'd be willing to play for free in Sweden. The Canadiens on their part jumped at this and instigated an international transfer request.

Alas it was denied by the NHL.

All the details of this story are a bit murky. For instance, we don't know for certain whether the request was instigated, who instigated it and why, if it was begun, it fell down.

The easy speculation on this is that Georges Laraque ran his mouth about playing in Sweden for nothing in typical fashion, but when it came time for action he bottled out. This is indeed the most logical scenario, since the whole transfer hinged on Laraque first waiving his no movement clause. As Georges never turned up on the waiver wire, it is safe to assume he probably didn't.


The timing of the Laraque banishment

Many questioned the timing of showing Laraque the door just after a Haitian catastrophe. Indeed, I was puzzled at first too. However, it didn't take much investigative journalism to work out what was behind the urgency.

Unreported in the whole affair was the closing of the IIHF transfer window, which was due to take place on January 31, 2010. Given Laraque had to be coaxed into waiving an NMC, then possibly clearing waivers, time was not on the Canadiens side. They needed a couple of weeks to get paperwork done (Ryan White knows how efficient they are at that) and finalize the deal. They couldn't in the end.


Transfer window closed

January has turned to February and the IIHF transfer window is now closed. Laraque cannot go to Sweden or Finland, or Switzerland or anywhere. Sorry, but it's true.

It's a shame that Laraque is either so full of it, non-compliant or unrealistic, because this move really would have been possible. The Washington Capitals faced the identical situation (albeit with a bigger salary and a legitimate gripe) in dealing with Michael Nylander. The critical difference with Nylander was that a) he wanted to earn his money and b) he waived his no-movement clause. Way back in November, the Capitals put Nylander and his $5.5 million salary through waivers on his way to Grand Rapids. The fact he is now playing in the Finnish league means that Nylander also followed through on his stated desire to play rather than collect a contract in stagnation.

A couple of lessons can be taken from this. One, know the player you are giving an NMC to, if he's a bit of a selfish self-promoter, probably negotiate a different clause as a cherry on top. Two, transfers take time to arrange. Perhaps leaving it till the 11th hour isn't the way to go.


Laraque can't come off the books now... Or can he?

With no IIHF transfers available, one has to think Laraque is hogging a roster spot and salary until the end of the year.

But then one looks around the league and sees other news coming out of Minnesota. Specifically, the alleged voiding of Petr Sykora's contract – which frees up the roster spot and the cap room for the Wild. One has to wonder whether there's something to be done with Laraque here.

A closer look reveals some pretty critical differences in the contracts, however. First, Sykora doesn't have an NMC. This means the Wild can freely demote him whenever they feel like it, which they did a couple of weeks ago when he appeared on waivers. Second, Sykora's contract is running out at the end of the season. So, while he'll lose plenty of money in voiding that contract, it wouldn't be as much as Laraque would lose from his buyout potential of $1 million and the hundreds of thousand left this season.

Is it possible that in this scenario the Wild and Sykora knew there would be no reporting to Houston and that any demotion would mean Petr not reporting and thereby voiding a contract? Is it possible they colluded to free Petr to pursue mid-season free agency on a lower contract that more teams would likely look at favourably? Could this all be construed as collusion? The commenters on Hockey Wilderness seem to see the same sort of shadiness as I.


It's not very fair is it? That there's a loophole for Sykora, but not for Laraque. But not all's fair in love and CBAs. At the end of the day, Gainey dug this NMC hole himself. And by not alienating Laraque soon enough (a la Nylander) he let the transfer solution become too frantic a rush. It was a mismanagement based on a bit too much hope, and little logic.

Still, I wonder if there is some grounds to show that Laraque hadn't fulfilled his contract, because goodness knows he totally flew in the face of the spirit of his contract. As a fighter who at times flatly refused to fight, he was grossly unethical, in effect holding on to his millions based on a known technicality. He must have known why he was signed, and it wasn't, as he seemed to latterly think, to make tape to opposition tape passes. Is there any chance to show that Laraque did not act in good faith to complete the terms of his contract?

In a land where unions see that players can be paid many millions years after they play a useful minute, I think not. But hope springs yet...

Free Agency II: Tanguay Finds Fit To Further His Career

After exactly two months in purgatory, bleeding earning power like a Harlequins rugby player with a sack of red dye, Alex Tanguay has signed with the Lightning.

For the Lightning, the deal was a steal. They get a player who has proven he can play with talented guys (which Tampa can provide) and at a price that is very un-2008 free agency for their parts.

For Tanguay, the deal makes a lot of sense too. He could do worse than Stamkos at centre, and he may ride with Lecavalier if he keeps his game up to the right standard. Either way, he'll be wingman to someone who can finish his crafty centering efforts. What's more, he won't be asked to do the labour on the line of carrying the puck, digging it out and other elements of hard work.

The details of the story have emerged with stories of other offers, interest and intrigue. Pierre Lebrun covers it well as he answers the pertinent Alex Tanguay question:
Why did Tanguay choose Bolts over Isles, Wild?


Salary win-back

It's Tanguay's needs being filled here that really answer Lebrun's question most fully. If he's to scale back into the salary zone he covets, he must have a good year. He can't very well risk that on John Tavares or Martin Havlat, for that matter.

If Tanguay signs with the Wild, sure he's a first line player, but he has to cobble out a living with Mikko Koivu and Cal Clutterbuck. He'd be part of a project with a new GM and a team without Lemaire for the very first time. In other words, it could be an adventure.

Ditto for the Islanders. After Tavares, the talent reads remarkably like last year's AHL mirroring squad. Tavares has a lot to gain from playing with a smoothe game reader like Tanguay, but teaching John isn't going to make free agent season in 2010 a bigger bonanza than 2009 was for Tanguay really.

It's interesting to read in Lebrun's piece that Tanguay did indeed take less than he was offered from the two rival bids from the Lightning. Lebrun floats many reasons to suggest the fit: Lecavalier and St. Louis, Rick Tocchet's time as an assistant coach in Colorado, a wealth of linemates. All are plausible. All are likely. But it's Tanguay himself who sums up his reasoning best:

"Last year, I was hurt and didn't perform like I wanted," said Tanguay, who still put up 41 points in 50 games with the Habs. "The year before in Calgary, it wasn't my best year. I'm 29 years old and it's really important for me to have a good year and play at the caliber I know I can play at."

It's really important for him to have a good year. Not put himself in a winning situation. Not give himself a new challenge after riding some pretty hefty coat-tails. No, having a good year.

And make no mistake, he means a good year statistically. He means a year getting back above his average point totals. No mention of Cup, no mention of team having a good year. He's playing 2009-10 as a $2.5 million player in an effort to re-emerge with a $5 million contract.

Were I an agent, a wife, a child, a parent, an advisor I wouldn't blame him. As a fan of his former team, I have a different conclusion.


Gainey did the right thing

Up to this point, I've been pretty ambivalent about Tanguay. From an academic point of view, I knew we lost a very useful piece. His skating is good, his passing is at times sublime. And his timing is uncanny. He has the pieces.

Emotionally, however, it was less painful to see him go, simply because his loss pales compared to Kovalev, Koivu and even Bouillon for me. I never made a connection with the player beyond that academic curiosity, that superficial admiration. He did things proficiently and smoothly, but rarely got me up from my seat.

Reading what I've read from his mouth now, though. All that about having a good year and the importance of it happening this season for him -- it gives me a sense of relief to know he won't be around.


Why?

That does sound crazy doesn't it? Relief to have lost a player that wishes to rebound to new heights, a player that craves success. A player who I fully acknowledge has talent oozing from the pores.

Maybe it is. In fact, it probably is. But let me reason with you.

I think Tanguay has salary very much on the mind. Too much so. Salary, at least for this season may well take precedence to a Cup for the guy.

Oh sure, maybe once he's restored his reputation as a 75-point scorer, he'll turn his thoughts to a championship; but I find that to be too late.

You see, to win a Stanley Cup, I think it takes a burning desire from quite a number of players on the same team. It's not chance that sees Cupless veterans produce the form of their lives when they get their opportunity at a run late. It's not coincidence that teams celebrate scrappy (and unexpected) heroes year on year. The thirst for victory is that added dimension that makes the Saku Koivus of the world find two more notches in elimination games. The lack of that drive is what stifles gold-gilded and salary-bolstered teams when they face an opponent who plays with energy.

For this season at least, I think Tanguay seems to have lost the plot. Sorry, not the plot, rather my plot -- he has found a very different one to mine, and indeed I think to many fans.


Had the Canadiens signed Alex, there'd have been none of this you know. We'd never have known what he'd choose given the chance to select his own destination. He'd have been a very good winger pencilled straight in next to Scott Gomez.

But what might the season have held for Tanguay and the Canadiens? What if Alex and Gomez didn't hit it off? What if Alex looked at the prospect of his third season of decline in succession and thought first of years 30-40 for Tanguay and not games 83-99 for his Canadiens?

That's why I think Gainey did the right thing. After all, Bob may well have known of Tanguay's propensity to look out for #1, given that he'd just coached the player during the stretch of his first potential free agent win fall. What's more, he filled the vacancy he created with similar expertise.

A couple of months and a few interviews later and I'm resolved that the puzzling case of Alex Tanguay has ended the right way for this Habs fan.

The Reluctant Checkers

"I'm just trying to do exactly what they want. I'm becoming a checker," he said with obvious displeasure after Monday's practice. "We're just doing what we have to do to win games. I'm not complaining. It's important to win the games. I just don't feel as important as I did before when they were riding me. I don't feel they use me as much as they did before. If they don't give me the confidence or trust me, I will never be playing the way I was before, the way they want.


Who said it?

Could have been anyone.

Could have been Andrei Kostitsyn after Bob Gainey decided that 7 games without a goal (for a guy whose career best pace gives him a average of 3 games drought between goals) means he must transform from poacher to digger.

Could have been Sidney Crosby as he tried to play the trap Michel Therrien so cleverly decided upon the trap as his strategy (probably since he didn't have any supremely talented scorers on his squad).

Could have Alexei Kovalev as he turned in some of the best defensive efforts for a forward under Guy Carbonneau.

Could have been anyone to play for Jacques Lemaire (even Guy Guy Guy Lafleur). Marian Gaborik?


It is an insight into how some players' views on hockey (particularly those that feel what they can offer does not originate from a dump and chase) can differ drastically from coaches' views.

Hockey is a team game, yes. But not all components of a team have been selected and brought in to get the job of winning done in the same way. When a GM signs a scoring winger for $6 million a year, it is understandable that said GM would be upset if coach X uses the winger like he would use, say, Trent Klatt. It is understandable that said winger might be a bit perplexed too. When a team is evaluated on the eve of the playoffs and the overriding concern is lack of scoring, does it then seem to make sense to turn the only players who might score into third line troopers?

The key phrase from the quote for me comes at the end (when he clearly starts complaining, a mere two sentences after saying he wasn't complaining):

"I will never be playing the way I was before, the way they want"

Good coaches understand this. Good coaches understand the value of playing a player the way they like to play and the way they were expected to play in October. Good coaches try to maximise their assets. Ultimately, you can win a Stanley Cup when you convert your Steve Yzerman into a shadow, but not if you don't have a Sergei Fedorov.


As it happens, the quote comes from Ales Hemsky, not one of ours. Ales, who some guy in the video below once said some nice things about:



What does he know?

And will the Oilers make the playoffs? Not sure. But take Hemsky out of the scoring equation, and I don't think San Jose will be upset about it.


Just a reflection. Let's see how this Kostitsyn thing goes...

Gaborik in Montreal?Not Impossible As Some Suggest

If gaborik is going to be given away, then I am hoping Bob Gainey is listening.

For all the bad press he receives about his injuries, he only really had one fantastically long injury. I suspect bitter journalists like myself must have had him in their pools that year. He picks up niggling stuff as well (like at the moment). But let's not forget he has been a pont-per-game player on Jacques Lemaire's team since we returned from the lockout and that he has scored 30 goals in all but two of his NHL outings - even impressively during that 48 game season he had.

At the tender age of 26, Gaborik will be a major piece to any franchise who can lock him up.

He is a true talent and to dismiss him off hand because the Canadiens would have to get creative with the cap or even trade a player we currently like is silly. To say things like this:

There might come a day when the Canadiens are forced to deal Halak, but I suspect he'll fetch more than a talented, but injury-prone winger who is in a position to bolt next spring.

as Pat Hickey did today, is just downright inane. Especially if we all can force ourselves to recall the going rate for all-star Canadiens goalies from last spring. Quotes like that offend me, because, although I can appreciate the attempt at glib, it is homerish to suggest that a goalie who has played 26 NHL games is better than a 26 year-old 200 goalscorer. I like Halak as much (and probably more) than the next guy, but Gaborik is being paid $6 miilion + for a reason.

If we made the Slovak swap and were forced to get a little bit creative to open up $4 million in cap space by December, I'd be OK with it. Of course knowing that Gaborik, Koivu, Tanguay, Markov, Price and Kovalev would not be on the same team coming out of summer 2009, I'd be lamenting the impending loss of a favourite while probably learning to love the young sniper. At the end of the day, I'd still love the Habs more than teams where player 1 and 2 from the list above ended up.

So, as I see it, a Gaborik trade with the Canadiens, though probably too much work for any GM to take on, could happen. As per my earlier post, I simply don't believe that Gainey or his staff would have ever admitted to being in on the dealing - not their style.

Also for my own piece of mind, I'd be hoping that the second salary shedding trade or deal yielded someone to shield us from Cedrick Desjardins, rookie backup.

So, we're back where we started. A rumour and some fun. Nothing more.

Gaborik RumoursRDS Playing Eklund This Time

In a story that smacks of insincerity, RDS is claiming they have the inside track on negotiations between Bob Gainey and Doug Riseborough.



Since when do we hear about tight-lipped Gainey's dealings? Ditto Riseborough?

The trade makes a lot of sense to Canadiens fans and not much anyone else. It's the old Eklund technique - tell em what they want to hear...

So, for the sake of amusing ourselves, let's give them credit and say it's true. Does anyone else feel queasy about the alleged trade?

Our bargain basement 25 goalscorer and back-up (super-efficient) goalie, and a first round pick (I couldn't care less about a 29th pick...) for Marian Gaborik?

Gaborik is a huge star. He is a huge talent. But do we really bet on Carey Price all the way again? No matter how many scoring lines we have? Plus, pay Gaborik what he's asking and that's the end of Kovalev in Montreal. Both 80+ point men last year, but $3 million apart in what could be tight times for NHL salaries coming up.

I'm overreacting obviously. My reservation is mostly about Halak. If we could pry Harding out as well, then we could be talking. Gosh, rumours are fun.

What do you all think?

Go Habs Go.

Streit Ahead: Of Scouting and Gambles

Mark Streit is definitely the surprise of the season for me on the Canadiens. I'm not the only person to have noticed. The league is noticing too.

Andrei Kostitsyn becoming a highlight reel stalwart and 20-goal man in February, I might have imagined. Carey Price as a starter, it may be soon, but we all knew right from training camp that it was coming. Patrice Brisebois hanging on - nothing about him and the Habs could surprise me anymore after the re-signing.

If you would have told me Mark Streit's 2006-2007 was not a flash in the pan, I would have laughed. If you would have told me that he would have the same number of goals and points as Koivu in March, I would have asked if we'd ever have thought Koivu would be on pace for 25 points.


12 goals, 37 assists. In sync with Markov and Kovalev on the PP. Plays any position but goalie. Wow!

We are lucky to have him and we were lucky to ever get him. Streit's career prior to 2005 said anything but NHL PP quarterback and second-line winger.

Take the fact that Mark comes from Switzerland. Oh sure, we're happy to call the Swiss a hockey nation now (after they beat Canada and the Czechs at the last Olympic tournament), but when Streit was coming through the ranks a Swiss hockey prospect was akin to a Canadian ski jumping prospect.

Consider also that he made the jump to North America on his own in 1999 to improve his chances at cracking the big leagues. He didn't fail miserably. But he hardly did enough to sway the cantankerous old boys of the NHL to open their minds to players from the shadows of the Alps. Perhaps in the end it was his last game in North America before packing up for the Swiss A league - a one-game stint in Utah that would turn fate in his favour as Habs scouts overseeing their own slow-cook prospect projects may have noticed his skating and skills that day.

A further 4 seasons in Switzerland would see Mark temporarily resign himself to making his winter home in Europe and if nothing else helped him to develop his game further offensively. In 2004, some lucky scout earned a bonus when he advised Bob Gainey that Swiss hockey had come far enough to merit a 9th round pick for the best Swiss player of a generation. The following season with some NHL competition (and indeed help), Mark Streit would go on to justify the draft pick as he outshone a vast number of established pros in his own backyard during the lockout follies in Europe.

Looking at all I've written, I ask whether I'd be surprised if Streit were a Swedish or Canadian prospect blooming late. In fact, I'm sure many of the GMs in the league share the same attitudes.

So, while we thank our lucky stars for Mark Streit falling right into the laps of the Canadiens for nothing more than a late afternoon afterthought on draft day 2; there are lessons to be learned from the case of Mark Streit:

1) Hockey players can come from anywhere (even Switzerland, Austria, Belarus and Slovenia now).

If the Habs want to maintain a competitive advantage, continuing to look to these relatively untapped resources for bargains. It looks like the trend will continue for a while as we watch Yannick Weber develop and accept that Janne Lahti was a worthwhile gamble, if not an NHL player. We could also stay a step ahead by asking where is next for hockey players to emerge unnoticed.

2) It's worth taking a chance on standouts from "weaker" leagues.

As other teams trawl the third lines of WHL teams, picking a star from Switzerland, Germany or Austria is worth the gamble. You can always sign those fourth liners later.

3) Make place for talent on your team

As Streit battled for a 7th defenseman place, it was judicious to allow him to play forward where he could develop his skills at a high level. A talented skater and puck-handler is always valuable to a team no matter what way his stick is curved or what letter appears beside his name on the gamesheet.


A potential gamble for 2008

Thinking about Streit and how eyes should be peeled for the next unheralded NHL breakthrough I decided to take a quick look at the Swiss A League standings and statistics.

Nothing but the best for the Habs, of course, I looked up Erik Westrum.

So, he's from Minnesota. Check.
He played for the Springfield Falcons and Utah Grizzlies like Streit. Check.
After trying to make it in North America, he turned to the Swiss League, where he picked up his offensive numbers. Check.


What's even more interesting is that Erik's Dad is Pat Westrum, the Montreal Canadiens hotshot scout. We look no further than Minnesota for first round picks anymore, since Pat knows his stuff.

Could he be submitting a positive report on a wayward overage Minnesota boy this summer? We'll have to wait and see.

Wild Imagination

Mr. Szporer at Les Glorieux want to tell us that the Habs should start sending a few scouts to Minnesota this winter.

The Habs and the rest of the league need to take note how much depth the Minnesota Wild have for the upcoming season.



An article questioning the depth of the Habs I can take (and have written actually), but did he pull the Wild out of a hat. The Habs will not:

continue to serve as doormats to the Minnesota Wilds of the league

as he put it. First of all, the Wild haven't exactly set the league on fire themselves, and secondly there must be some paralax when it comes to seeing their depth, because I for one can see the bottom of their pool pretty clearly.


Let's compare:
Higgins, Koivu, Ryder, Kostitsyn, Plekanec, Kovalev vs.
Gaborik, Koivu, Demitra, Rolston, Bouchard, Belanger

The Wild have an edge here. But in reality, while the names look good, the Wild don't exactly tear up the record book. Our top scorer outscored their's, and Souray tied them (Rolston and Demitra) in points. Sure Gaborik scores at a crazy rate, but he gets injured a lot, I should know from suffering with him on my team year after year in the pool.

Now onto the juicy bit:
Smolinski, Latendresse, Lapierre, Begin, Chipchura, Kostopoulos vs.
Belanger, Moore, Boogaard, Radivojevic, Walz, Veilleux

Can anyone else see the gulf? I can't. Wily veteran who started his career with the Bruins in the 90s? Check. Apparently, Radivojevic can step up to first-line production (as he did last year with Gaborik and Demitra when he got 11 goals and 24 points) at any time.

I think we have a better group here to be honest. We're not carrying a dopey fighter. We have youngsters who give a great effort, not to mention Begin for effort. We don't have Moore "one of the fastest and shiftiest talents in the game". Really? - sorry Jamie... but we have a 20 year-old who scored 16 goals last year. We have Lapierre who outpaced Moore for points last year anyway. In any case, the gulf is not wide...

Then there's the D:
Markov, Komisarek, Hamrlik, Streit (forgotten by Szporer), Bouillon, Gorges, Dandenault, O'Byrne, Brisebois vs.
Johnsson, Burns, Skoula, Foster, Schultz, Carney, Nummelin, ...

I don't like considering Brisebois depth, but everyone else on our list is better than or equal to Skoula. Also take into consideration not one of their defenders is as good as Markov, and it's looking like Hamrlik would be their number one as well. You can't vaunt Brent Burns as an up and coming D and put down Komisarek for being the same. Can you?

Lastly our triple headed goalie:
Huet, Halak, Price vs.
Backstrom, Harding

To me, in letting Fernandez jump, let their Huet go in favour of their first year sensation (Halak anyone). The Wild envy us here, no doubt. Backstrom is good, but Harding is no Price.

In fact, the Wild goalies tell you a lot about their team. They opted to bet on young goalies in order to spend their money elsewhere. This is something we haven't done in Montreal, obviously. To say it hurts our depth is a stretch.

Now compare the Habs to a team that's actually done something, you may be talking. The Wilds of this league and the Canadiens of this league look the same to me.


On an aside, Szporer, not one day earlier made the bold prediction of 6th for the Habs. So get out the champagne in St. Paul, 6th place doormats will be watching the Wild drafting 30th in June.