Canadiens Season Preview Outgoing Forwards

After a long summer, the season is just about upon us now. And no season could possibly go forward without a season preview, could it?

Being as this was such a special off-season for the Canadiens organization, we have taken a slightly different, dare I say more factual, approach to the preview. By comparing like statistics against like and contextualizing with a sense of league standing, we hope to show how newcomers might fit in and even change the face of the team. I have done a legend and hidden it in the past.

Anyway, enough rambling, on to the preview.

As I said yesterday, we will begin from the top down, so to speak. From forwards to defence to goalies and each from the top of the depth chart to the bottom.


Outgoing forwards

No preview of a team undergoing such a massive refurbishment could possibly be complete without examining the rubble that were cleared away before the new foundation was laid. First up then is a brief look at the forwards from 2008-09 that will not be back to begin this season.


Saku Koivu

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	65	16	34	50	+4	5	5	0.87	2.71	123	13.0	44
07-08 (MTL)	77	16	40	56	-4	8	3	0.69	2.41	150	10.7	93
06-07 (MTL)	81	22	53	75	-21	11	4	0.90	3.07	154	14.3	74

Even-strength profile
	Top tier offensive performance at even strength Below average defence at even strength Bottom 20% in terms of preventing chances at even strength Negative CORSI: -4.5

Legend

There's plenty to lament with the loss of a teammate like Saku Koivu. It's simplistic to see him as just a captain, because he was also the link to a past generation, an icon in the community and the team. After last year's more pleasant end, I mused on handing Koivu a lifetime extension, something which I supported thus:

Players like Koivu are rare and cannot be obtained easily in this league. He is a leader, a consummate professional and an excellent forward to boot. His ability to elevate his play come big games is well documented and completely invaluable to this team.

Well that's Koivu the full package. What of Koivu the first line centre in regular season action?

What the statistics show me, and have just about always shown is that Koivu is first and foremost about generating offense. Though he flirted with the top of the scoring list in Montreal, both regular season and playoffs, he never came near a Selke trophy nomination. He, like many a first line centre, opted to create offense at the expense of leaving the door open at the back sometimes. As his even strength profile shows, he was a top tier producer at the attacking end, but allowed a raft of chances against. His best statistical season (of 75 points) drives home this lesson with the glaring -21.

Finally, it is this fact that will make Koivu the centre an easier piece to replace. Although Gomez or Plekanec may struggle to put out 3.00 goals for every 60 minutes his line is on the ice, the balance of their output may yet exceed Koivu's by tipping the defensive chances into the green.

Koivu will be missed. Of that I am certain. But until the playoffs kick off, his loss will be easier to cover than after.


Alexei Kovalev

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	78	26	39	65	-5	11	4	1.03	2.57	209	12.4	74
07-08 (MTL)	82	35	49	84	+18	17	5	1.31	3.14	230	15.2	70
06-07 (MTL)	73	18	29	47	-19	8	5	0.81	2.12	197	9.1	78

Even-strength profile
	Average offensive output at even strength Strong defence at even strength (among team leaders) Bottom 20% in terms of preventing chances at even strength Negative CORSI: -5.7

Legend

Kovalev was a master of puck control throughout his time in Montreal. His final masterstroke, however, was a PR deke that made him the man who will be most missed by Canadiens fans across Montreal. While Komisarek continues to be vilified for accepting a few hundred thousand more (several hundred thousand after tax), Kovalev makes the same move and comes out as the man hard done by. It really does speak to the skills he possesses to make something spectacular when given very little.

Making something spectacular out of little is the thing we will surely miss most about Alexei. When you talk about game-breaking skill or dam-busting moves, his were something we have come to count on in Montreal for years now. No longer can we necessarily be assured that the PP will take the zone as the defenders back off, no longer can we assume a man on the left will be left free as Kovy takes double coverage. His highest points will be missed.

But what about the average Alexei Kovalev?

Statistics tell us that the average Kovalev is actually not that gamebreaker, but that he's actually a bit of a dampener. Although his 26 team goals were team high, while he was on the ice, the Canadiens were actually less inclined to score than they were with many other options. Equally (and to Alex's credit), though, his dampening effect extended to defensive play – with among the best GA/60 on the team.

At its best, his patient puck control leads to years like 2007-08 where goals for him and linemates flow and wins naturally follow. At its worst, he is a very good player to have on the ice, though perhaps one getting too much ice time when chasing a lead.

Kovalev, like Koivu will not be easily replaced. But, by virtue of the fact that his game is not without cracks, it does leave room for alternative solutions. If I've read Gainey correctly this off-season, it seems like he hopes his team will be taking a lot more shots this season, and that is something that excluding Kovalev should help to accomplish, simply by vrtue of style.


Alex Tanguay

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	50	16	25	41	+13	5	3	1.19	3.06	76	21.1	34
07-08 (CGY)	78	18	40	58	+11	3	3	0.74	2.38	121	14.9	48
06-07 (CGY)	81	22	59	81	+12	5	0	0.92	3.39	107	20.6	44

Even-strength profile
	Outstanding (and team-leading) offensive performance at even strength Strong defence at even strength (among team leaders) Among league worst in terms of preventing chances at even strength Negative CORSI: -8.5

Legend

In the summer, I suggested that Tanguay's not signing was a puzzle. The more I look into this player, the more confident I am in saying that puzzle is a word that infuses his entire career.

There is no doubt that Alex Tanguay has top-line talent, and that he can fit right into that position on any team today. But why then have two teams in two seasons replaced him with Mike Cammalleri?

The answer is difficult to uncover. If you look at results, Tanguay is a stud. Last year, for example, his 3.32 GF/60 and 2.28 GA/60 when on the ice at even strength was head and shoulders above what anyone else came close to on the Habs. However, looking at chances (and if you extrapolate that to mean what should be happening nine times out of ten), Tanguay is a mess. His line barely generates an average output of shots, many of which don't reach the net, and he is among the very worst in the whole league while allowing 60 chances against per 60 minutes.

If we hadn't watched the player, we could only conclude that he got lucky – that his average shot generation led to more goals than it should and that goalies bailed him out of embarrassing defensive undressings. While I'd be comfortable saying his offensive contribution is not driven by luck, but rather an uncanny timing and skill. I can't remember anything he did on defence that made me think he would merit such high save percentages – I suspect he benefited greatly from missing the two-month goaltending meltdown in this regard.

All told, we are losing a great offensive contributor in Tanguay. But once again, the less than perfect all around package means he's not completely irreplaceable. We're about to find out whether his offensive skills, and those of the first line will be replaced or not.


Christopher Higgins

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	57	12	11	23	-1	2	1	0.74	1.42	151	7.9	22
07-08 (MTL)	82	27	25	52	E	12	5	1.10	2.12	241	11.2	22
06-07 (MTL)	61	22	16	38	-11	8	3	1.21	2.09	159	13.8	26

Even-strength profile
	Above average offensive output at even strength Average defence at even strength Bottom 20% in terms of preventing chances at even strength Negative CORSI: -4.7

Legend

It's hard to nail down Chris Higgins the player with just one stat. The NHL doesn't keep track of good foot positioning when going into the boards, nor good positioning after the break up of play. Equally, the league doesn't track unmissable opportunities misfired or absolute sitters banged wide.

What the stats from last year do show for Chris is that he was no special member of last year's team. His offensive production was above average with a decent defence, but he came out on the wrong side of chances taken and given (aka CORSI score), just like many of his teammates.

I think it's fair to say that the player we once called an untouchable and a bargain is not the player we traded back in June. And, while he was a great skater, a hard worker and a great penalty killer – the simple fact that his stats show how he let as many chances as anyone in the bottom 5th of the league get to Carey Price on his shifts, shows that his loss as a defensive forward is not one to be sulking over. I expect him to continue his career as a good 2nd line sub/third liner in his new home. I'm comfortable in attempting to upgrade on him.


Robert Lang

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	50	18	21	39	+6	8	3	1.28	2.77	101	17.8	36
07-08 (CHI)	76	21	33	54	+9	7	3	0.90	2.31	172	12.2	50
06-07 (DET)	81	19	33	52	+12	6	4	0.84	2.29	166	11.4	66

Even-strength profile
	Top tier offensive performance at even strength Below average defence at even strength Bottom 20% in terms of preventing chances at even strength Negative CORSI: -2.5

Legend

Like Koivu, Robert Lang is a red-blue type profile. That's to say, all the offense he provides comes while the back door is being left open. A positive balance in goals produced and another negative CORSI balance for Lang.

Replacing Lang at his 2008-09 best would be a difficult task indeed. However, take a look at his historical stats – last year was a bit of a departure for him. 1.28 G/60 and 2.77 Pts/60 were pretty massive jumps. His 17.8% shooting was not sustainable (as history showed).

Therefore, think not of replacing that Lang, but rather the Lang that may have been around this year. A 39-year-old with plenty of sense cunning to offer, but a player whose decline is probably set to continue this year and into the next. Even at his Chicago best, we may not have been too happy about him taking space that could be occupied by a learner like Chichura or Pacioretty, and hurting Plekanec's PP minutes.

Of all the free agents, Lang's release was the least surprising to me. I'm happy we got a good year from him, and I wish him the best in his recovery from injury. But as a unit moving forward, our assets are now better directed elsewhere.


Tom Kostopoulos

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	78	8	14	22	-1	0	0	0.43	1.20	121	6.6	106
07-08 (MTL)	67	7	6	13	-3	0	1	0.56	1.03	98	7.1	113
06-07 (LA)	76	7	15	22	-2	0	0	0.48	1.50	90	7.8	73

Even-strength profile
	Average offensive performance at even strength Average defence at even strength On the ice for a high number of chances at both ends Negative CORSI: -3.6

Legend

If you're like me, you look at Kostopoulos's ES profile here and think how did I get duped? We thought you were good Tom. I believe the fact we saw Tom Kostopoulos as such a bright light speaks not to how good he was, but rather how consistent his play was as those around him fell apart.

To be frank, a team like the Canadiens aspiring to better things is best not resting their laurels on players like Tom. Though he is a good guy and a hard worker, ultimately he is a tough guy that no one is afraid of, a shooter with below average success (7%), and a defensive forward with minus numbers.

If I believed, as Brian Burke does that 6 places on the roster should be reserved for players who can't play hockey going forward, then maybe I'd settle with Tom. But as it is, I don't. I think the fourth line can be a good staging ground for a youngster with the right coaching, and the third line can be as dynamic as you make it. As such, Tom needed to be let go at this time, if only to make some space after so many signings risked clogging the pipeline at the exit from Hamilton.


Mathieu Dandenault

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	41	4	8	12	+7	0	0	0.50	1.49	46	8.7	17
07-08 (MTL)	61	9	5	14	-11	0	0	0.79	1.24	69	13.0	34
06-07 (MTL)	68	2	6	8	-8	0	0	0.11	0.44	54	3.7	40

Even-strength profile
	Above average offense and defence at even strength Good chance creation, balanced with low chances against (among team best) Neutral CORSI: +0.8

Legend

Dandenault is another shocker. And after looking through all these pie charts, you'd be forgiven for thinking we've let a great one go.

The reality is, in many he will be missed. His versatility, for one thing, is something you can't teach. His French is something RDS will be longing for after two weeks of exclusive Max and Gui time. And his defensive play up front isn't replaced by anyone coming in, with a positive CORSI to boot. However, there are a few reasons he had to go as well. Not least among them is his habit of complaining at his ice time.



Turning the page

Statistically speaking, the players Gainey let go here were a solid bunch. Their offensive capabilities in particular will be hard to find from other sources. But by this point in time, I think we have all gathered that what Bob did on July 1 was two-fold:

1) To hollow out the core of a team he thought was rotting from within, and
2) Do his best to replace the skills he lost in the purge

I think his purge was pretty determined and unforgiving. In other circumstances, I'm sure Koivu could have been signed, Tanguay could have been given another chance, Higgins could have been taken more under the wing. But in Gainey's plan, this one time, the clear out had to be as deep as this or risk losing all assets across the organization.

Judging the decisions will be complex, since Koivu won't decline, Tanguay may thrive and Kovalev will probably be inspired by the damage to his pride. But try to remember May 2008 against Philadelphia and April 2009 against Boston when making your full assessment. Try to remember that all was not right – and that even if the diagnosis was not done with care, the intervention was warranted.

I go on next with a much more positive spin to preview the players we do have. First up will be the first line of forwards – that's tomorrow...


Statistics adapted from nhl.com, behindthenet.ca, Olivier

Did the Montreal Canadiens need to be overhauled?

It's been swept under the rug a bit, but I still think it's a very pertinent question

To headline writers, Bob Gainey has blown up a team that crashed and burned in 2009.

To anyone with a developed memory and a modicum of sense, Bob Gainey also blew up the team that won the Eastern conference, and were it not for one hot and one cold goaltender might have battled the Penguins for a place in the Stanley Cup finals. Not only that, the team was an example of well-oiled NHL machine for 18 of the last 24 months.

I think those facts make the question very valid.

My personal opinion on the matter was that the Canadiens as a unit of players were largely fine. In my opinion, they did not need an overhaul. In fact, on the eve of free agency, I mused that bringing in a couple of new defenders (to replace Bouillon, Dandenault, Brisebois and perhaps Komisarek) might be change enough. I longed for another scorer (as everyone always does), but didn't think the playoffs hinged on it. I think the captain was a keeper. I think that Kovalev and Tanguay have been great performers for Montreal, given the inevitable drop in goals from players who come here.

Obviously Gainey and I should have talked.

Gainey, who happens to be privy of all the pertinent facts (to my very limited idea), thought differently.


Let's assume change is/was necessary...

I have to stretch to accept this view, but with an effort I can see it. But in the end, one has to defer to those with the inside scoop and those with the experience in the business. The amazing thing is, once I did this, I began to understand what Bob Gainey did over the Canada Day break.

Once you see change is necessary, you can see why Koivu wasn't offered a contract, why Higgins was traded, why Bouillon, Begin and Dandenault were ditched, why none of the coaches are back and why Gainey signed the players he did.

I even start to think of reasons why the change might have been necessary, like the fact Koivu and Kovalev never wanted to play together, like assistant captains Higgins and Komisarek being apologists and excuse generators after losses, like Dandenault constantly complaining about ice time. The list goes on.


Change of culture

I think what Bob Gainey identified that the rest of us were kidding ourselves about was the reason the Canadiens were ultimately underachieving at this point of the team's progression. I think Bob found a deep rooted problem with work ethic, entitlement and laziness. And how else to purge that than to clean house.

Now, I'm not saying that Saku Koivu or Kovalev were slackers, but clearly they weren't able to rein in or convince the younger players, many of whom were and are still slackers to step in line.

It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if every player in the Canadiens organization (as well as all others) was a free agent this July, because that house cleaning might have taken a different direction. As it was/is, Gainey could only make changes to certain players, those whose contracts were under review.

The scorched earth approach that Gainey has favoured in his retooling has certainly made it possible for a change in culture. For one thing, it shows the young guys that what happened in the past is not acceptable. It also provides the team with new and willing additions who will come in and adopt the new system as if it has been the Habs way all along – they know no different.

In other words, Gainey has succeeded in changing the culture, if that was his goal.


I have been putting together an article for some time about the stomach for winning. There have been a lot of questions about the sentimentality and entitlement that was previously rife in Montreal – whether it be signing sub-par fan favourites or stubbornly sticking with prospects well past their due date. I won't get into the whole thing, suffice to say, i think Gainey has gone a long way to prove that he's willing to do what it takes to win now. He's fired his friends, he's alienated the press and making friends is nowhere near the priority on his list anymore.

You may not agree with his talent assessment re: players like Hal Gill and Brian Gionta, but you have to give the guy credit. He saw drastic change was needed and he made the difficult decisions it took to make the change drastic indeed. And he continues to face the all-knowing press...


Poll

I want to know what you all think. Did the Canadiens need to be overhauled to the extent that they were. Was Gainey's diagnosis right (regardless of what you think of his treatment course)?

Let us know.

The Gonchar clause

If you bar players from taking a shot in the shootout if they are in the penalty box, you may open a whole can of worms with intentional penalties.


For example, say we're playing the Leafs. With 1 second to go, someone who can't shoot well (pick anyone on the Leafs) shoots it over the boards and gets a delay of game penalty. Wade Belak jumps on Alex Kovalev and punches him outright. Kovalev doesn't retaliate, but Markov does and so does Komisarek. Hapless Leafs jump in (though none of their shooters).

Multiple roughing penalties get handed out: 5 to the Leafs and 2 to the Canadiens. Notably, the Leafs lose none of their successful shooters, but manage to shorten their shooting bench to 15, so if the shootout goes beyond 15, Sundin is up when Gorges is shooting for the Habs. The Habs lose Markov who was goaded into a penalty.

Or take this example. I'm the Bruins playing the Sens in March. Gerber has been tanking now for a while. Andrew Alberts runs Emery and gets him to take a swipe. Both get penalties. Alberts can't shoot (who cares), and Emery must watch Gerber face the shooters.

This time it happened to be Gonchar that took the penalty, but more often than not it is not a skilled player doing that in OT (or any part of the game for that matter). Therefore, on average, between shortening the bench, targeting players to instigate and the chance of goalies missing the SO, there are many implicaations for this suggested rule change.

I wouldn't suggest asking for it. That is unless the Canadiens are craftier than I thought and have all these gameplans of their own up their sleeves.


Here's my proposed solution to the problem:

If the team on the PP scores on their first penalty shot, the game is over and won. No chance to reply for the offending team.

Wouldn't see many penalties that way, I bet. Whaddya think?

Awaiting the revolution

You say you want a revolution, well...

I came to the topic of revolutions when I was browsing the battery of Habs websites on my daily list.

revolution

• noun 1 a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system. 2 a dramatic and far-reaching change. 3 motion in orbit or in a circular course or round an axis or centre. 4 the single completion of an orbit or rotation.

The first one: Dave Stubb's great piece on Paul Haynes, got me thinking about how playing a player on his off wing could have been a revolution in years gone by (see it doesn't necessarily take much). Then there were some other articles and posts here and there, which generally made me feel like everyone was pretty hunky dorey with the way things were going right at the moment (RDS, Mike Boone, this blogger)


I don't want a bloody revolution like Lenin's or Robespierre's. I want to imagine the possibility of change, without the casualties, more like say the internet revolution - a force of change so irresistible that it moves along of its own volition.

I don't think things are as bad as they've been for the Habs, but we're not "there" yet.

Where is "there"?

Well, I like to imagine it is possible for this team to go from battling for the playoffs every year (every other if I'm honest about it) to a team that wins the Cup 3 to 5 times in a ten-year span. A team fighting to maintain parity to fighting to form a dynasty. I want to watch a team that is light years ahead with their first Cup in many years and then works hard to stay in front.

Don't get me wrong an accidental Cup would be nice, but this is Montreal here.

We invent hockey, we invent 50 goalscorers, we invent draft day rip-offs, we invent playoff OT miracles, we invent the hockey dynasty.

NHL revolutions begin and end here. There's Richard; Geoffrion adopting the slapshot; Jacques Plante deciding to protect his mug; Patrick Roy playing the butterfly. And if another revolution comes along, we pooh-pooh it and win anyway, at least in time -think about Bobby Orr, Broadstreet Bullies or another team in Eastern Canada trying to be successful.

I don't know what the next revolution should be, and a good thing, since the frustration of knowing just what to do, and limited to yielding the power of this puny blog would drive me mad for certain. I just get upset with the complacency that creeps in every time we beat a hapless crew on a night in October. I also happen to know a non-revolutionary idea when I see one:
playing 7 defensemen, needlessly pursuing a goon, trading a veteran in March of his UFA year, listening to Don Cherry (eh, PJ?)...

Our team is good. It can beat any team most nights. But it still falls short of being able to beat every team most nights, most teams every night, or every team every night.

That's what you need if you start thinking like a revolutionary.

What if we started trading players as soon as they reach the height of their abilities (um, Theodore, Ribeiro maybe back when) for top returns. What if we started trading prospects we may see in 2 years for a ten year career for someone with a guaranteed value today for an 8-year stint. If done a few times over the course of one season might just turn the league on its head.

I'm not asking for Gainey and Carbonneau to go ahead and revolutionise everything by tomorrow, I merely ask that they think about being revolutionary sometimes.

I especially ask that the fans use a bit more imagination and expect something a little more revolutionary from this team - more revolutionary than benching every player who goes a game without a goal. Let's see some revolutionary ideas and be patient about their proper implementation, they just might work. And heck, they're a lot more entertaining to debate...

Once a week from now on, I'll try to come up with one revolutionary way in which I think the Habs could take steps become a dynasty again.

... don't you know it's gonna be. Alright.