Latendresse For Pouliot Meeting The New Hab

In a move that flies completely in the face of those who advocate deadline only trading, Bob Gainey has moved Guillaume Latendresse for Benoit Pouliot of the Minnesota Wild. Arpon Basu wonders whether it's a trade of untapped (or indeed non-existent) potential here...


While he's right and many may question the professional scouts read on the tentative NHL beginnings of Benoit Pouliot, Guillaume Latendresse's time in Montreal was beginning to try on the young man. Reports mere minutes after his trade talk of his relief to be dealt away from the furnace of Montreal hockey.

It's a hard trade to take for the biggest believers in Latendresse, but it would be hard even for them to deny what has become clear – that despite his talent, he will probably never acquire a taste for hanging out in front of the net, despite mentioning Tomas Holmstrom in every other interview. Seeing as he's opting not to go the route of power forward, it seems Gainey and the management have opted to put the stakes of just under a million on a player with a different complement of talents, and just about as much size. One of those talents does happen to be skating – which may just fit in better with a team that had to slow down for Gui at times.

Benoit Pouliot himself is a Franco-Canadian, and speaks French. So although the omission of Latendresse takes the number of Quebecers to the equal season low of three, it maintains the RDS correspondents at an equilibrium.

He was once judged to be a massive talent and in the Crosby draft was even considered to be the next man in the pecking order. Central scouting had him as the #2 consensus pick, scouts compared him to Lecavalier. Since that time, his progress has been rocky – rockier, it must be said than Latendresse's. However, Pouliot has been groomed the traditional way, and for the most part in a defensive system – two things that may help him to adjust better to life under Jacques Martin than Guillaume. If you want a taste of speculative good news, it is that his former coach (and hockey guru) Jacques Lemaire was supposedly plugging for the kid in Jersey as recently as last Tuesday, so take that for what it's worth. Thanks to Saskhab for pointing out my frantic misread of a headline – to make up for it, some speculation that actually did take place (Habs last year) and whatever he says today on his blog, Mirtle liked Pouliot second best in July 2005 – better than Ryan, Johnson, and Brule.

At the junior level, he was once an unknown who became a rookie of the year in the OHL (and the CHL!), and then a 4th overall pick. His biggest achievement post-draft to date has been a gold at the World Junior champs with 5 assists in 6 games – team that Latendresse also made (but didn't really play for) and Chipchura captained. Following that, another good year in junior with improved totals and then on to the AHL.

While he has certainly not set the world alight in the AHL, he has nonetheless put up 38 goals and 84 points in 143 games. Again, the Houston Aeros have been a mirror of their parent Wild club, stressing defence over all else, so his points may sell him short. The fact he made a prolonged playoff run last year may also have given him some experience of value in his apprenticeship, though now it feels like we're clutching at straws.

At the NHL level, it's also been a trial. When you consider Guillaume's 50-odd goals in the big leagues, it seems like a big step down to Pouliot's nine. And another big leap to call that potential equal to, or superior to, that of Guillaume Latendresse. However, his route to the NHL has been so divergent from Lats'. Never has he enjoyed the extended wing time with Saku Koivu or even Robert Lang that Guillaume did. Nor has he been reserved preferential treatment for development opportunities. That is until this season.

I could go on, but what you will all want to read on the new guy has already been written. Go fill your boots with: "The Ballad of Benoit Pouliot", an article that relays the Minnesota Wild fan's thoughts on our new ward very nicely.


Who wins the trade?

Well, some text from the article on Pouliot could have been lifted straight form the Guillaume Latendresse archives:

"With the regime change in Minnesota, many were expecting Pouliot to fall by the wayside. Certainly there would have been enough reason to. But Chuck Fletcher decided to give the youngster another shot. Pouliot came into camp this season ready to prove himself and, again, he has certainly shown flashes of what he is capable of."

However, never would anyone attribute the following to Big Gui:

"But what stood out most to me, was that he skated hard without actually looking like he skated hard. It dawned on me that maybe this is one of the reasons that he has been given the label of lazy. Because, quite simply, while everyone looks like they’re skating on the ice, he looks like he’s skating above it."

There's optimism in knowing that a player coming to play a game where skating is half the battle doesn't need summer courses to keep up with the slower half of his peers. There's optimism knowing that a broken player weighed down by unreasonable expectation will be replaced by one with expectations of his own. There's optimism in knowing that only 4 years ago about 30 men trained to evaluate players said the new guy was a better bet than the outgoing. If for no other reason than those, I find positive thoughts in this trade.

The Insufferable Gagnon Character Assassin At It Again

I've told you all about Francois Gagnon before, but let me assure you I wouldn't be writing this article today if I wasn't irate.

Yesterday, Gagnon on a slow news day once again took up his favourite topic: Andrei Kostitsyn. It's another in a long line of attacks on the player, as Gagnon slowly deteriorates into the tabloid caricature that he is now.

His piece begins:

La semaine dernière à Pittsburgh, j’ai mis table pour le match Canadien-Penguins en me posant des questions sur les chances répétées accordées à Andrei Kostitsyn et au fait que les sanctions qu’on lui imposait étaient vite levées.

Je me demandais pourquoi Guillaume Latendresse était «victime» d’une situation inverse.

L’une des raisons est certainement le manque de constance et l’impression de demi-mesure que démontre parfois Guillaume Latendresse. Trop souvent à mon goût si je peux me permettre d’en rajouter un peu.

Cela dit, le plus vieux des frères K n’est pas un exemple d’éthique de travail et de don inconditionnel de soi pour la cause et l’équipe...

While he asks whether Guillaume is suffering from a double standard while his sanctions are not lifted as promptly as AK46's, despite (what Gagnon says is) a virtual carbon copy career.

First off, I'll be clear here. I think both players should be within the top 6 players. I have been saying that since the summer, I have been consistent in my call for best hands on deck on offence. I can't say I approve of Jacques Martin's approach to teaching (punishing) young forwards, but I accept that he is probably trying to do it for rewards down the line.

I didn't want to get into an Andrei vs. Guillaume post, because who's 5 and 6 in the top 6 isn't really that relevant to me at the moment when our offence needs a 5 or a 6 to emerge at all. I approach this as a statement of the facts that have been misused, misquoted and used to mislead. Guillaume Latendresse and Andrei Kostitsyn have not, for a start, had carbon copy careers.


Opportunities

Throughout Gagnon's piece, the continual implication is that Latendresse hasn't been given a fair shake with the Habs. While, there may certainly be a case with Jacques Martin's one month of handling personnel decisions, to extend the conclusion to a career is ludicrous.

A little education on Latendresse for those (like Gagnon, and Latendresse himself!) who really can't remember past this September:

Latendresse's rookie year, he played 36 games on one of the top two lines. His longest stint was not limited to 3 or 4 games as Guillaume cries about now, but rather 18 consecutive games with Saku Koivu from game 14 to game 31 of 2006-07.

And he hasn't been deprived of chances latterly either. In 2007-08, Kostitsyn started with a 5 game audition on Grabovski's wing with Kovalev, but from games 6 to 13 in 2007-08, it was Guillaume who got first dibs on trying the Plekanec, Kovalev combination.

His single goal was to be typical of all his future auditions. Take last season for example. Far from a couple of games, Guillaume actually started the first ten games on the top line for the Habs with Koivu and Tanguay. The line was agreat success, but Carbonneau must have deemed that Koivu and Tanguay were the main catalyst (they were) as Guilaume for his 7 points, only managed one goal again.

In all, he's played 76 games on one of the top two lines, and that's to say nothing of the times he's played on Robert Lang, Bryan Smolinski and Maxim Lapierre's line and received top ice time. To say Latendresse hasn't had a fair shake, therefore, is more than a bit disingenuous, and Gagnon must know it. He's had many, at least 4 or 5 very extended long looks and each time the coaches in charge have decided against granting him the permanent freedom of that designation.

Kostitsyn isn't really so different. He too has been given chances. The main difference being that in 2007-08 he made it count to the tune of 20 goals in his last 46 games.

But know this, as well. Andrei Kostitsyn got his chance after serving an apprenticeship in the AHL of almost 3 seasons. He played 180 games in all down in Hamilton where he scored 51 goals and 71 assists. His final season was 2006-07 where (with Guillaume 2 years his junior already in the NHL) he scored 20 goals and 32 assists in 50 contests.

When he came up to the NHL and finally earned a top line position around Game 63 of the 2006-07 season, he seized his opportunity by earning 11 points in those last 18 games. What's more, for his decent points total, his line was a constant threat and Plekanec was set alight with Andrei at the side.

Even then, nothing was earned for the young Belarussian. Leading the Hamilton Bulldogs in scoring, playing inspired hockey with the entrenched number 2 centre and already acknowledged for his talent was not enough to get a pass. Nor should it have been. As mentioned, once Grabovski sunk, it was Latendresse who auditioned for the wing to complement Pleks and Kovalev. Only after 8 games of Guillaume's tantalizing size, teamed with frustratingly few goals did Carbo shift Andrei in. Though Andrei did well, he like Gui didn't explode for points. But perhaps he was saved by the fact that Plekanec and Kovalev looked better with him at their side. Carbo's rare patience wasn't tested too much either, since Kostitsyn within a month of being given the opportunity was driving the line into December.


Stats play

One of the things that most frustrated me about Gagnon's thin excuse for journalism was this:

Kostitsyn qui a joué avec Plekanec et Alex Kostitsyn pendant une saison, qui est presque toujours au sein des deux premiers trios et qui profite d’une majorité d’attaques massives affiche 53 buts en 200 matchs dans la LNH.

Latendresse? Son but de samedi était son 48e en 223 parties.

Le Québécois n’a donc marqué que cinq buts de moins que son coéquipier en dépit d’une utilisation beaucoup plus timide.

It's a classic hatchet job on the stats. Opportunity to incorporate 34 games for Andrei where he largely did nothing during his adjustment (3 G in 34 games). Opportunity to ignore assists and what we can all see with our eyes altogether. Opportunity to put similar totals side by said and say they are the same.

It's a mess. Start with the goals. 53 in 200 is not 48 in 223. Andrei's scoring 0.265 goals a game, while Gui's clocking up 0.215. it may not seem like much, except over 82 games it's 4 goals – the difference between a proven 20 goalscorer for instance, and an aspiring one.

Next the assists. I think we know hockey is more than goals by individuals. Even with all the flaws of assists as a stat, I think we can appreciate that someone with an assist has contributed somewhat to a goal. I think we can appreciate how someone with 59 career assists has done a lot more than someone with 38. Pro-rate those and you get 0.295 vs. 0.156.

But let's all be sensible here. We have been watching as well. Until 2 years ago, Andrei Kostitsyn was a name to us, but not a player. In the two seasons since, he has actually been a 26 and a 23 goalscorer and had flashes of brilliance. Guillaume on the other hand has been about as good as the day of his promotion for the past 3 years. His rookie season he was a 16 goal man, the next season the same. Last season 14 goals. Seeing him as a one-day 20 goalscorer is debate enough, putting him the proven category is daydreaming.


Gagnon called out

The one thing I take heart from is the fact that Gagnon's blog generated a lot of commentary yesterday. And, while there were plenty of sycophants hoping for a pat on the back in return, a vast number (perhaps even the majority) of readers told him largely what I just told you.

Paul Bernier said this:

Quand on a plus rien à écrire, on parle de Latendresse.

Ceux qui connaissent un tant soit peu leur hockey voient indéniablement la différence de talent brut entre AK et Latendresse. AK est en court de changer sa façon de travailler, son implication au jeu. Quand ceci arrive, un joueur est déboussolé, déstabilisé, il perd ses repères.

Croyez-moi, son jeu se replacera très bientôt, et vous ne le reconnaitrez plus.

En ce qui concerne Latendresse, il ne peut donner plus que ce qu’il a présentement. Il se place encore à 10′ de la face du gardien malgré toutes les directives et se sort systématiquement du jeu à chaque mise en échec, comme un Peewee. Le talent ne s’apprend ou ne s’achète pas, malheureusement.

Jejol8 said this:

C’est très gentil pour Latendresse… mais Kostitsyn a beaucoup, mais là vraiment beaucoup plus de potentiel et c’est la raison pour laquelle on lui donne plus de chances.

“C’tivident” non??

Teamstef said this:

Lâchez-nous avec Guillaume! Non mais sérieusement, c’est fatiguant cette histoire qui revient toujours sur la table avec les médias franco. Guillaume la victime! SVP! Andrei a déjà montré qu’il pouvait dominer. Je n’ai pas encore vû ça de Guillaume.

De toute façon, quand on est rendu à dire que Guillaime Latendresse dervait être sur le deuxième trio d’une équipe de la LNH, c’est vraiment qu’on a pas de club!

It continues...


Francois Gagnon, in his unexplained character assassination attempt on the Kostitsyns is apparently only digging his own grave. I can only assume he's consumed with it and doesn't even realise. If I ever descend into this state, I implore you all – tell me.


The Habs top lines then

All this to say, it's all nonsense. If the Canadiens want to score more goals they must stop trying to choose between Kostitsyn and Latendresse and choose the two of them. Yes Kostitsyn is ultimately the more talented, but Guilaume has his merits and at his best offers the 6th best skill set on the team.

I suppose the day that Glen Metropolit and Travis Moen stop scoring from behind the goal line is the day the coach can put his best PP out and start forming lines that will last.

Playoff Hockey: The Talent Is Not Enough

Apparently everyone, talent is not enough.

Every time the playoffs come around, the pundits gather round a gaudy table in an overdone studio to explain in certain terms why the better teams lose. Rather than say something insightful or controversial they come up with the same old tripe year after year: talent is not enough.


What I read this morning from an unemployed coach who didn't see much talent beyond 2 or 3 players for a few years now is that, not only is talent not enough, it comes after the other four key ingredients for playoff success:

1. Intensity
2. Team work
3. Character
4. Discipline

To me, this recipe is omelet without egg. Talent is the primary, not a tertiary, ingredient for a successful hockey team. If a playoff round is an omelet-making competition, a team can mix intensity, team work, character and discipline together all they want, but without talent all they'll get is a pan full of fried garnish and spice .

If you don't believe me, ask yourself why Boston, a team that outplayed Montreal in all of Hartley's critical categories for 2 nights in a row, only won once, and needed to survive a real barrage in OT to do so. Ask why we're talking about how effective their PK is (with 4 guys pretty much standing still), but not about how great their winning goal was. Remind yourself about those years between 1999 and 2001.

When you look at an individual player, it amounts to the same thing: an intense player without talent would not be many peoples' choice when a goal is needed; and character is nice, but how many character 5-goalscorers can you possibly carry on a team. After all, isn't saying someone is a character player akin to saying someone is "a really nice person" after being asked what they look like? The 4 ingredients above only start to matter when you have players with talent – where those players can add little extra qualities to set themselves apart from other players of talent (think Koivu vs. Joe Thornton not Shawn Thornton).

While talent can be temporarily quashed with an overwhelming unbalance in all of the categories Hartley identifies above (see Game 3), ultimately talent will win. But you see, for coaches, talent can sometimes take a lower priority. I have coached people in a few different sports, and though I wish it were different, the one thing you cannot tell someone is: just be more talented.

In some ways, I think this is why talent scares people, and why unemployed coaches on TV will harp on about everything but talent. As a coach you are stuck with what you have. But don't try to tell me that Claude Julien is happier to have Shawn Thornton and Jeremy Reich to Patrice Bergeron and Brad Boyes. Or that Bob Hartley wasn't happier coaching talent in Colorado to muckers in Atlanta. Sure they'll work out plans for what they're given, and they'll talk up the value of character, but they'd have more talent if they could get their hands on it.

So, you see, despite fears of unstoppable momentum and a team that may be big and dirty and bad, Guy Carbonneau and his staff are still in the driver's seat here. The Canadiens roster, if you line it up next to the Bruins by talent, they are superior to a man. All they need to do is find ways to get that talent into play – put the Bruins into situations where talent will decide the winner. Not into situations where one of the other four ingredients will show the victor. It should be less about answering the Bruins and more about making them search for an answer they are incapable of providing.


New Habs strategy

We even spoke about the importance of the Habs setting the tone of this series right at the beginning. Here's the adjustments I think Carbonneau and his crew should be looking to make for Game 4 and to take the Bruins well beyond what they are capable of doing:

1. Hold the puck more (as a team that is) – even Pierre "Bright New Idea" McGuire has come around to this revolutionary idea. Must be time. This, of course, means no dump ins...
2. Be patient – goes hand in hand with holding the puck more.
   
3. Ignore the bodychecking – Komisarek is big enough to take a hit. Oh sure, hit when necessary to win the puck, but not for the sake of hitting.
   
4. Eliminate no-chance shots – that's you Michael Ryder. A shot that never has a chance of going in is a turnover.
5. Don't squander the Kostitsyns – both have been playing well, both should be put in situations where their talent shines
6. Choose the best team available – I think Dandenault should watch number 54 from the catwalk.

By holding true to what got them to this stage (that's talent pundits), the Canadiens have the best chance at regaining the momentum in this series. After all, the Canadiens hold the eggs, if the Bruins want to make an omelet out of this series, they'll need to wait for some more to be dropped. Let's fire up the pan for Game 4...