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.

Hart Trophy Follow-up: Offense vs. Defense

It seems like fans have spoken - some on this site, some elsewhere. If the Habs were to have a legitimate shot at the Hart trophy, our best chance would fall to Kovalev.

Despite mine and Tobalev's arguments for Andrei Markov, it seems that history, at least, would be on their side not ours.

If you put aside Bobby Orr who was outscoring all the forwards anyway, it seems giving this trophy to a defenseman went out of style before the end of World War II, about 65 years ago. Other than "Number 4", Chris Pronger is the only defenseman to win the trophy over that period. Interestingly, if you look back to 1999-2000, the scoring was down and the top scorers were either on teams having a mediocre seasons (Jagr, Selanne, Kariya) or probably a little further than the league would want to go (Pavel Bure, Mark Recchi).


I think one thing is relatively clear: Hart trophy voters in general love scorers.

This is probably because it fits better with the image the league wants to put out: a high-flying, fast-paced game with exciting goalscoring galore. This is all well and good, but most hockey fans at least recognise, if not endorse, the idea that a good defenseman is not only valuable, but invaluable for a team to move forward and succeed.

In fact, no one other than Dominik Hasek (who was a human highlight reel and league advertisement on his own) has been able to beat a forward who has more than 100 points. With Ovechkin very close already and blowing the league away with goalscoring, he looks to be a trophy frontrunner. Malkin is there too, with close to 100 points himself, but on a team that threatens to play past April.

Considering defensemen log the most minutes, often direct the PP and the PK, start the majority of plays and (the best ones) score relatively well, it is puzzling to see them get so little recognition.

Take only the example of Niklas Lidstrom. He now has first right of refusal to the Norris trophy, it seems. Detroit, a perennial regular season giant would always seem to be a place to look to find a Hart trophy winner. Alas, Lidstrom has no Hart trophies. Perhaps this is the year to finally honour the man many would put forward as the MVP of the past decade. In retrospect, it looks like the league missed its golden opportunity when a flight of fancy gave the trophy to a goaltender who dragged his team into the playoffs while Lidstrom led his team to top of the table, 15 points clear of any other team, 28 points clear of Theodore's bunch, and ultimately to a Stanley Cup.


In keeping with my thinking on Markov, I think Lidstrom must win the trophy. He leads all D in scoring (again) and leads the league in +/- with an incredible +39 (not rare for him either). What's more, his team is once again the class of the league, as in 2002.

Would you Kovalev supporters get behind a Lidstrom for Hart push, or are you Ovechkin or Malkin folk, through and through?


Around the league this story repeats itself over and over. Look at a successful team and most of the time you will find a successful forward and a successful D or G. For me, I look at the sucess and many defenseman led teams:

Anaheim: Niedermayr more so than Getzlaf
Dallas: Zubov more so than Ribeiro
Detroit: Lidstrom more so than Datsyuk
Montreal: Markov more so than Kovalev

And a number of goalie led ones:

New Jersey: Brodeur more so than Parise
San Jose: Nabokov more so than Thornton
Boston: Thomas more so than Savard
New York: Lundqvist more so than Jagr

There are of course many "team" teams and those led by superstar forwards like Pittsburgh and Ottawa, but I don't look much further than Detroit, Dallas, Anaheim and think we would be in the right company...

Up the defensemen! Go Habs Go.

Force of Nature Kovalev for Hart Consideration – Gretzky

Last week, the peerless Wayne Gretzky took the opportunity of a "once-in-a-lifetime" match up against the Canadiens to heap praise on the team and some of its key players. The player whose virtues he seemed to be extolling the most was one-time teammate Alexei Kovalev (now called Alex).

What Gretzky actually said via translation into French in La Presse and the back into English on Eyes on the Prize:

"Kovalev is one of the most complete players I've ever seen. He's having an exceptional season and should be considered for the Hart because of the success he's had."

As for completeness, Gretzky is only saying what Habs fans have been saying all season, and what some astute hockey observers have been saying for longer than that.

But the Hart trophy?

Now, i think Robert L. was clear in his post, and I will reiterate, Gretzky only said he would get votes, not that he would win. However, all this talk about Kovalev for MVP got me thinking about how good his chances really were:

1) How does Kovalev stack up against the league in this regard?

I think in general he stacks up quite well. But there are many elements to consider in the decision for the Hart trophy. The way I like to think of it is how would that team be if the player in question is removed from the lineup.

In that regard, we can only speculate. We know from the past that when we lose Markov we are worse, when Brisebois is gone we are better and if we lose Koivu in the playoffs, we are done for. Some would argue that we missed Kovalev for most of last season. But I don't agree with that.

Looking around the league though, there are certain players who seem to carry their teams even more than Alex Kovalev does. One could name Alexander Ovechkin and Martin Brodeur as the obvious candidates. Other candidates based on this year's play might include Iginla, Lidstrom, Niedermayr (based on the turnaround he caused, though he should be counted out for sitting so long), Nabokov, Sundin, Thomas and even Malkin (this year). You could even make arguments for Lecavalier and Kovalchuk, but their teams couldn't be too much worse than they are right now.

Hart trophy voters also take the positioning of the team into account when they vote, hence Wayne Gretzky's reasoning for Kovalev. If the Devils, Penguins or Sens squeak past the Habs, their Hart candidates would earn just as many votes.

If the Habs do top the division say, would that make a Canadiens player a serious contender for the Hart trophy? Would Kovalev even be the number one choice from the Habs?


Habs MVP

All this MVP talk led me naturally to thoughts about our own team's most valuable element. I should mention, that, once again, Eyes on the Prize spurred my thoughts on matters with an article on the Habs most indispensable element.

Robert's article was well thought out and as comprehensive as ever, but disappointingly (for me at least) was written as an extended question with no conclusion on the part of the author. On prompting, Robert even then seemed reluctant to commit, but opted for Bob Gainey as his choice.

A good choice to be sure. It would be hard to argue against Gainey at this point, as he assembled this team and many of the players are his draft picks and wards.

How about players then? Who is the MVP from amongst the ones who are actually responsible for fighting for and holding onto the points that are making everyone so positive about Gainey and his team right now?

Well, to be honest I only see two realistic candidates for most valuable player for 2007-2008: Mr. Kovalev and his countryman Andrei Markov.

The readers of the same blog believe that Kovalev is the one, garnering 76 votes. Next among players comes Johnny-come-lately Carey Price, the choice of 46 fans (possibly with short attention span). Markov comes next, but only in combination with Mike Komisarek (45 votes).


You can see where I'm going here, I think the populous is a bit off here. The race is close, but Andrei Markov is my choice for Habs MVP by a nose. Here's my thinking:

1) Kovalev has made Plekanec into a first-rate point producer, but Andrei Markov has made Mike Komisarek into an award nominee and top tier defenseman (this year he's been passing on the final lessons which have been in session for a couple of years).


2) While Kovalev is the shooter and the foil of the league's number one PP, Markov's steady play at the back and sharp vision and passing is the lynch pin that holds the unit together.


3) Kovalev has been on fire lately, but Markov was on fire for just as long early in the season, even when the Habs goalscoring was being called into question. Prior to Xmas, he was heralded in the same way Kovalev is now – top vote getter among East Dmen,


4) Markov plays the most minutes on the team and does more dirty work than Alex in general. he still found time to rack up a gaudy 54 points already.


5) The Habs goalies have looked great most times this year, seemingly no matter who it is. What's consistent about them? How about the defenders in front of them. Sure we let up a lot of shots, but many times Markov has been one of the tandem making sure those shots come from the oppositions lesser lights.


6) If you look at wins following losses or losing streaks, Andrei Markov is by far the most prominently featured Habs name. I would call these games crunch games, must-wins or "statement games" as Mike Boone put it for last night. They are important.

While Kovalev has been consistently great in the offensive end win or lose, Markov has been good and also able to find extra in the crunch games. In 21 of these types of wins, Markov has been player of the game 3 times and among the top performers of the night 16 times.

Kovalev is no slouch with 3 player of the game honours himself, but took a back seat in slightly more of those games too, making the top performers an only slightly less impressive 11 times.


At the end of the day, both players have played enormous parts in helping this team take the steps it has this year, both as players and mentors. The point of choosing here is an academic issue. So since you won't be held to account for any of this:

Who is your MVP so far?

Are any of you the Carey Price crew? Would Huet get some residual votes as well?


As always, look to 96 points and the playoffs where that would lead. Go Habs Go.

Changing the ethic

After reading up a bit on the Canadiens last draft, I can see where the latest picks fit in the scheme of things.

I'll be up front about it, I would have picked Esposito if I had the chance, but that was when I was overlooking the overarching theme going through the current Canadiens team.

What I believe Gainey and Timmins have been moving to do since they arrived is to build a more mature group of players. A group who have wide experiences and are adaptable thanks to both their experience and maturity. This is where drafting the Americans comes into it – in my opinion. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but American hockey players give the best interviews. They can articulate, and thank heavens, think of original things to say. Higgins, a Yale man, is our current embodiment of a mature youngster, some of the recent picks may come and show the same qualities.

I don't think Americans have a monopoly on these qualities, not by any means. I think Chipchura for example has those qualities among our prospects. Also, players like "Gretzky, Niedermayr, Yzerman, Lemieux, Brodeur and Iginla all have (had) these same qualities. The thing with the Americans is that when you are taking a bet on them (as in the draft), their route to the NHL lends itself to building more mature players. For one thing they have to stay in school – balancing studies with hockey. Many junior players finish at high school, if they get that far.

Why maturity counts in championships is leadership. Everyone touts the big leaders, the overt and outspoken guys. This was Souray last year from what I hear. But there are also deputies. These guys are critical, they lead by example. theymay voice an opinion in a disagreement, but will be mature enough to focus their energy in the right direction (helping the team win) at game time. This would be Saku Koivu in his younger days (he's gone furthere than that now), and Higgins and Plekanec now. These guys earn respect from their play and can get through to the ones who have lost touch with the leader or coach. They help hold the team together – something vital to a championship (unless the Habs plan on winning all their games and everyone stays happy all the time...)

I also think a lot of emphasis is placed on the interview. We can all see how Esposito, Cherepanov and McDonagh play on the ice, but how they answer questions in that important interview is not information us armchair enthusiasts are privy to. I liken it to the interviews I have done in hiring. CVs can look good, even tests, but an interview can change the whole impression of a person. In a draft, the team is looking for someone that could potentially be in the fold for the long haul, so personality and perceived work ethic, etc are very important. For the Canadiens, I think they also want players to represent them well, while playing well of course.

McDonagh, Mr. Hockey Minnesota, may or may not be that mature now. I have no idea. But the Canadiens minders seem to like the maturing process that can be gained from a few years at a decent hockey playing university like Wisconsin. Same goes for Pacioretty at Michigan. Esposito would either be entrusted to the Habs, Hamilton or Patrick Roy again in Quebec. I get the feeling the Habs would like the maturing to be someone else's responsibility.

I believe the maturity of the top prospects is a big reason why the Habs seem to have soured a bit on the QMJHL. It is no longer producing the classy forwards it once did in Beliveau, Lafleur, Lafontaine and Savard. Nowadays it seems a lot of the bigger stars are brats, at least for a few years. Ribeiro was, Theodore to some extent (especially in Ribeiro's company), Lecavalier was for a long time. Even Sid the Kid has his moments, though on most nights he puts in an honourable effort to be very mature. Gems like Simon Gagne, who seems very mature, come few and far between. Hopefully Latendresse can follow that path. he already seems mature.

I do, however, believe that the Canadiens would be well served (and indeed very eager themselves) to add a French Canadian star with the maturity and qualities they are trying to encourage. Lecavalier seems to have grown up now, and would be a fine addition. I mentioned Gagne, and he would be quite an acquisition too. Briere would be fine, but as long as Koivu is here just does not fit the need. The list isn't endless, but is long enough that they might be able to grab a player who fits both the new ethic of the team and the local star ticket.

Wouldn't it be nice to just buy the league with the Quebec Aces and bring in Beliveau? The perfect fit and with Art Ross talent too. Those were the days. As we're stuck with the draft, at least it seems our guys have a plan.