You know this is the absolute peak of Habs fan excitement and anticipation, hours away from a game that makes a putrid Stanley Cup playoffs (wrong champs) irrelevant again. Fans have been very excited about the waiver wire moves.
What happened today was that Pierre Gauthier took an honest look at his prospects and admitted none was quite ready, turned around and saw Blair Betts sitting on waivers only to claim him.
The waiver wire pick up was not an indictment of Engqvist or Palushaj, they did that to themselves with their play. It's just a simple little addition that means we fans can expect a more honed game from a 4th liner.
The news of the addition did little to stir my own emotions. If that feeling wasn't indifference then I'm not sure what it was. Betts is big sure, but he's pretty one dimensional. I mean we're getting some pretty straight forward hockey here.
The good news is that 4th liners shouldn't stir the emotions. That line will hopefully be made up with guys everyone is comfortable with leaving off the ice for 51 minutes a night. What's more, Betts himself does have some intrigue about him. He played in 23 Stanley Cup playoff games about 16 months ago (that has to mean something) and he usually scores more goals than Gomez did last season.
No he's not Dominic Moore, but that ship has now sailed. He's no Engqvist either you know.
Showing posts with label waivers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waivers. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Monday, November 08, 2010
Dustin Boyd Demoted
The news out of Montreal today is that Corsi's nightmare, Dustin Boyd has been put on the track for relgation to Hamilton.
Of course, he has to clear waivers to do it, so most outlets have taken the chance to headline this move with "Boyd placed on waivers" sometimes to stir up a Kostitsyn for nothing discussion. The reality he has to clear waivers to be sent down. This headline doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it did pre-lockout.
I think we all thought that getting Dustin Boyd was a good idea in the summer. Team Canada junior, learned other defensive systems, plays a simple game, meant to be physical. I think we all thought it was an even better idea after a single game when he left the ice on pace for 82 goals.
So 8 games of play later have we overturned our verdicts?
I can only speak for myself when I say. Not really, and I don't really know.
Dustin has been an OK addition to what has at times been a good team. I never thought he stood out as exemplary, nor did I ever expect he would. He pretty much fulfilled my expectation. His demotion can probably be viewed trough the classic Darchian lens where not all player moves are entirely to do with the player in question. In this case, the Montreal Canadiens can't score, Boyd probably never would have anyway, so in order to promote someone who might, they need to demote someone.
Promotion coming?
There's no word yet, but putting a player through waivers to save his salary would be a bit miserly from the Molsons. I think we all think this is the smoke before the promotion fire.
Here's the Hamilton scoring list for consideration.
Like for like enthusiasts have put their money behind Ryan White, whom I like. Wishful thinkers look to Desharnais. And those who remember Martin's fixations of September suggest Palushaj. Apart from not doing anything, which i still think is possible, i would only add that the possibility still remains of promoting another defender. Yannick Weber is NHL tested and AHL heated.
What do you all think will be the associated promotion if any?
(See poll adjacent)
Not entirely related (paraphrased, out of the context of the thread, that's a warning for you PF), but I found this quote from a fan funny:
Of course, he has to clear waivers to do it, so most outlets have taken the chance to headline this move with "Boyd placed on waivers" sometimes to stir up a Kostitsyn for nothing discussion. The reality he has to clear waivers to be sent down. This headline doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it did pre-lockout.
I think we all thought that getting Dustin Boyd was a good idea in the summer. Team Canada junior, learned other defensive systems, plays a simple game, meant to be physical. I think we all thought it was an even better idea after a single game when he left the ice on pace for 82 goals.
So 8 games of play later have we overturned our verdicts?
I can only speak for myself when I say. Not really, and I don't really know.
Dustin has been an OK addition to what has at times been a good team. I never thought he stood out as exemplary, nor did I ever expect he would. He pretty much fulfilled my expectation. His demotion can probably be viewed trough the classic Darchian lens where not all player moves are entirely to do with the player in question. In this case, the Montreal Canadiens can't score, Boyd probably never would have anyway, so in order to promote someone who might, they need to demote someone.
Promotion coming?
There's no word yet, but putting a player through waivers to save his salary would be a bit miserly from the Molsons. I think we all think this is the smoke before the promotion fire.
Here's the Hamilton scoring list for consideration.
Like for like enthusiasts have put their money behind Ryan White, whom I like. Wishful thinkers look to Desharnais. And those who remember Martin's fixations of September suggest Palushaj. Apart from not doing anything, which i still think is possible, i would only add that the possibility still remains of promoting another defender. Yannick Weber is NHL tested and AHL heated.
What do you all think will be the associated promotion if any?
(See poll adjacent)
Not entirely related (paraphrased, out of the context of the thread, that's a warning for you PF), but I found this quote from a fan funny:
"So long Justin, nice to have known you."I think that pretty much sums up the impression he has made on a lot of fans.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
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...
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...
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Latendresse Vs. Pouliot
Season Preview All Over Again
In the style of the beloved season previews, I offer to you Benoit Pouliot's belated preview next to the now very optimistic-looking one we did for Latendresse in September. While it certainly shows we lost a good player who many of us thought had some promise, it also reveals some surprises about the new Canadiens forward.
Guillaume Latendresse
Legend
Stats notes
You could go many ways in interpreting these stats. Many numbers show clear decline, despite the progress that Gui is touted for. On the other hand, there is some stability within them too. The things to note:
1) Gui shoots straight
It's perhaps not that surprising that the skill that got him to the NHL is the one that stands out. 12.0% in an off year is not a stat I'd ever sneeze at.
2) Good production at even strength, considering
About a goal every 60 minutes of ice time is a good average to carry in you NHL career. Considering Gui's been bumped around lines a lot, not been given primo PP time and played with chance sink Kostopoulos a lot last year, then I find that encouraging. Hopefully he keeps up the pace.
3) Wonky even strength profile
As much as I'd like to think that Gui is one of the best defensive forwards on the team, the fact that I do have eyes helps me over the feeling. His profile shows us the danger of taking things out of context. Last season, Gui played at all the right times and missed the worst Price/Halak had to offer. Has it skewed the profile? Is Guillaume really 2nd best in Corsi? Perhaps the Canadiens lost all those games because he was injured? Impossible to tell for certain in a one-off experiment, but again, we do all have eyes, and sense.
As we've mentioned, 2009-10 is a big season for Latendresse. Because let's face it, another 14-16 goal campaign, while fine, certainly doesn't add to the lustre of the future 30-goal man argument. And, if it is to be 15 goals a year from here on in, then someone, somewhere is bound to surpass him, at least in terms of potential.
His shooting accuracy teamed with a new approach to shooting more should help. His defensive game and any improvement in the purpose of his hitting will make this line a very threatening one.
Tobalev on Latendresse
For some reason I am excited about Latendresse this year. Maybe it is because I see him as the best of the players from my home province, maybe it's because he is one of the longest serving Habs, or maybe it is because I actually sense a big season coming on. Whatever happens with goals and assists, Latendresse is still a player that wants to play for the Habs and generally tries pretty hard, despite some talent shortcomings.
Unfortunately for Gui, however, nothing is guaranteed. There are signs, after all that point to him not having that great of a season. His production levels have been stable for 3 years, he seems to be getting slower and he may very well get crowded out of the top-6/PP.
On the positive side, I think his new status on the team (best Quebecer) will help him, especially early in the season. Many fans and new teammates will look to him now as a leader and not just a prospect. If he can get in Martin’s good books and get himself onto a scoring line early on then I could see him there all year. If he makes the most of these chances when provided, the outlook could brighten in a hurry – I really think he could score 25 goals.
The more likely scenario, however, is that he gets bounced between the top 3 lines and into/out of the PP (thanks to injuries, slumps etc.). This will hurt his production and that is why I think he’ll likely top out at 30-35 points with most of those coming as goals.
Where Latendresse will start 2009-10: Carrying the torch for millions
Where Latendresse will end 2009-10: With a new appreciation for what he can do in this league
Points: 21 G, 24 A, 45 Pts
Benoit Pouliot
Legend
Stats notes
The first impression when looking at these stats side by side is something like: "My goodness, we were fleeced..." But as we know statistics do need interpreting. And, as we all recall, Guillaume's stats from last year flattered him. As this was a trade, we'll do this a bit differently, pointing out a few differences I think it is absolutely vital to note. Note also, that being a Habs fan who wants to view this trade in a positive light, I'll leave the negative comparisons to you readers to make:
1) Shot totals
Prior to this season, Benoit Pouliot managed a measly 45 shots in 51 games. Guillaume had that many shots in his NHL career well before his 20th birthday. It's worth noting because whether it be linemates, coaching or something else, Pouliot has just never had the chance to let loose his shot (of similar accuracy based on %) compared to Gui. Is he a Sergei Kostitsyn who holds and hold and holds? Perhaps, but the scouts in 2005 didn't think so.
2) Defensive numbers
Guillaume from his profile showed a good defensive player (though we mentioned this was puzzling to those who had observed him). Pouliot really does one up him. Now before you go and say that Benoit has benefited from being on the Wild, do first consider that his 1.53 GA/60 was third on the team after Boogaard and Kolanos. Other young forwards like Clutterbuck (2.11) and James Sheppard (2.84) lagged behind his defensive responsibility greatly. What's more only Pouliot came out positive on +/- from the youngsters. Not all bad from the guy with 14 previous games under his belt.
3) Games played
I alluded to experience in shots. Well, Pouliot (from the same draft year as Latendresse) has played 167 less games in all. This is also critical for waivers. Benoit Pouliot signed his first NHL contract in May 2006 at age 19. As such, it set the clock on his waiver exemption to 4 seasons or 160 games (whichever came first). Given that he's nowhere near reaching 160 games anytime soon, it means the time limit on him seeing waivers will be the outset of next season. Of course, for the Canadiens, this provides another player they can ship up and down to Hamilton (like Sergei Kostitsyn, Pyatt, White, etc.). Guillaume Latendresse would have had to clear waivers to go to Hamilton, which had been the case since his 160th game early last season. No matter how few goals he scored, how badly he sulked or how much he needed a wake up call – Gainey's hands were tied on Guillaume. Don't underestimate this factor in the trade that just occurred.
A simple glance at the stats says loss for Gainey in this file. But under a bit more scrutiny, Gainey has manufactured a bit more flex with his roster by simply trading one 2-goalscorer with potential to do more for another. When injuries heal, I truly think this flexibility will tip the balance in the Habs favour, espeically if Sulkatron-2000 was going to react to benching anything like he reacted to be being traded.
Statistics adapted from nhl.com, behindthenet.ca, Olivier
Guillaume Latendresse
| NHL Season | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | PPG | GWG | G/60 | Pts/60 | Sh | S% | PIM |
| 08-09 (MTL) | 56 | 14 | 12 | 26 | +4 | 1 | 2 | 1.10 | 2.05 | 117 | 12.0 | 45 |
| 07-08 (MTL) | 73 | 16 | 11 | 27 | -2 | 2 | 3 | 1.07 | 1.81 | 116 | 13.8 | 41 |
| 06-07 (MTL) | 80 | 16 | 13 | 29 | -20 | 5 | 3 | 0.95 | 1.73 | 121 | 13.2 | 47 |
| Even-strength profile | |
 |
|
Stats notes
You could go many ways in interpreting these stats. Many numbers show clear decline, despite the progress that Gui is touted for. On the other hand, there is some stability within them too. The things to note:
1) Gui shoots straight
It's perhaps not that surprising that the skill that got him to the NHL is the one that stands out. 12.0% in an off year is not a stat I'd ever sneeze at.
2) Good production at even strength, considering
About a goal every 60 minutes of ice time is a good average to carry in you NHL career. Considering Gui's been bumped around lines a lot, not been given primo PP time and played with chance sink Kostopoulos a lot last year, then I find that encouraging. Hopefully he keeps up the pace.
3) Wonky even strength profile
As much as I'd like to think that Gui is one of the best defensive forwards on the team, the fact that I do have eyes helps me over the feeling. His profile shows us the danger of taking things out of context. Last season, Gui played at all the right times and missed the worst Price/Halak had to offer. Has it skewed the profile? Is Guillaume really 2nd best in Corsi? Perhaps the Canadiens lost all those games because he was injured? Impossible to tell for certain in a one-off experiment, but again, we do all have eyes, and sense.
As we've mentioned, 2009-10 is a big season for Latendresse. Because let's face it, another 14-16 goal campaign, while fine, certainly doesn't add to the lustre of the future 30-goal man argument. And, if it is to be 15 goals a year from here on in, then someone, somewhere is bound to surpass him, at least in terms of potential.
His shooting accuracy teamed with a new approach to shooting more should help. His defensive game and any improvement in the purpose of his hitting will make this line a very threatening one.
Tobalev on Latendresse
For some reason I am excited about Latendresse this year. Maybe it is because I see him as the best of the players from my home province, maybe it's because he is one of the longest serving Habs, or maybe it is because I actually sense a big season coming on. Whatever happens with goals and assists, Latendresse is still a player that wants to play for the Habs and generally tries pretty hard, despite some talent shortcomings.
Unfortunately for Gui, however, nothing is guaranteed. There are signs, after all that point to him not having that great of a season. His production levels have been stable for 3 years, he seems to be getting slower and he may very well get crowded out of the top-6/PP.
On the positive side, I think his new status on the team (best Quebecer) will help him, especially early in the season. Many fans and new teammates will look to him now as a leader and not just a prospect. If he can get in Martin’s good books and get himself onto a scoring line early on then I could see him there all year. If he makes the most of these chances when provided, the outlook could brighten in a hurry – I really think he could score 25 goals.
The more likely scenario, however, is that he gets bounced between the top 3 lines and into/out of the PP (thanks to injuries, slumps etc.). This will hurt his production and that is why I think he’ll likely top out at 30-35 points with most of those coming as goals.
Where Latendresse will start 2009-10: Carrying the torch for millions
Where Latendresse will end 2009-10: With a new appreciation for what he can do in this league
Points: 21 G, 24 A, 45 Pts
Benoit Pouliot
| NHL Season | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | PPG | GWG | G/60 | Pts/60 | Sh | S% | PIM |
| 08-09 (MIN) | 37 | 5 | 6 | 11 | +1 | 2 | 1 | 0.68 | 1.51 | 34 | 14.7 | 18 |
| 07-08 (MIN) | 11 | 2 | 1 | 3 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1.24 | 1.86 | 10 | 20.0 | 0 |
| 06-07 (MIN) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Even-strength profile | |
 |
|
Stats notes
The first impression when looking at these stats side by side is something like: "My goodness, we were fleeced..." But as we know statistics do need interpreting. And, as we all recall, Guillaume's stats from last year flattered him. As this was a trade, we'll do this a bit differently, pointing out a few differences I think it is absolutely vital to note. Note also, that being a Habs fan who wants to view this trade in a positive light, I'll leave the negative comparisons to you readers to make:
1) Shot totals
Prior to this season, Benoit Pouliot managed a measly 45 shots in 51 games. Guillaume had that many shots in his NHL career well before his 20th birthday. It's worth noting because whether it be linemates, coaching or something else, Pouliot has just never had the chance to let loose his shot (of similar accuracy based on %) compared to Gui. Is he a Sergei Kostitsyn who holds and hold and holds? Perhaps, but the scouts in 2005 didn't think so.
2) Defensive numbers
Guillaume from his profile showed a good defensive player (though we mentioned this was puzzling to those who had observed him). Pouliot really does one up him. Now before you go and say that Benoit has benefited from being on the Wild, do first consider that his 1.53 GA/60 was third on the team after Boogaard and Kolanos. Other young forwards like Clutterbuck (2.11) and James Sheppard (2.84) lagged behind his defensive responsibility greatly. What's more only Pouliot came out positive on +/- from the youngsters. Not all bad from the guy with 14 previous games under his belt.
3) Games played
I alluded to experience in shots. Well, Pouliot (from the same draft year as Latendresse) has played 167 less games in all. This is also critical for waivers. Benoit Pouliot signed his first NHL contract in May 2006 at age 19. As such, it set the clock on his waiver exemption to 4 seasons or 160 games (whichever came first). Given that he's nowhere near reaching 160 games anytime soon, it means the time limit on him seeing waivers will be the outset of next season. Of course, for the Canadiens, this provides another player they can ship up and down to Hamilton (like Sergei Kostitsyn, Pyatt, White, etc.). Guillaume Latendresse would have had to clear waivers to go to Hamilton, which had been the case since his 160th game early last season. No matter how few goals he scored, how badly he sulked or how much he needed a wake up call – Gainey's hands were tied on Guillaume. Don't underestimate this factor in the trade that just occurred.
A simple glance at the stats says loss for Gainey in this file. But under a bit more scrutiny, Gainey has manufactured a bit more flex with his roster by simply trading one 2-goalscorer with potential to do more for another. When injuries heal, I truly think this flexibility will tip the balance in the Habs favour, espeically if Sulkatron-2000 was going to react to benching anything like he reacted to be being traded.
Statistics adapted from nhl.com, behindthenet.ca, Olivier
Friday, July 31, 2009
Canadiens Waiver Confusion
I'm not sure if the confusion was all mine, but I took some time to look into the Canadiens waiver exemptions for the upcoming season as a remedy.
I thought I'd share on another slow news day.
You'll remember that post I wrote about Latendresse the other day. I wrote it to point out that it was make or break time for the guy. What I probably didn't fully consider was that his situation may be more critical than I originally thought.
The reason is simple. The current Canadiens roster is stacked with veteran (and young) players who do not carry a waiver wire exemption. I didn't quite understand how this could be, but with a bit of a rummage around, I think I do now.
1) Waiver eligibility has nothing to do with age really – it has much more to do with experience and being paid at the pro level
2) Unlike the old NHL, waiver status under the 2005 CBA is determined by professional games, not just NHL games. That means players who've played 160 games for Hamilton, Cincinnati, Montreal or some combination are all exposed to other teams on demotion during the season.
The question is particularly pertinent when it comes to Latendresse and his rivals. Now, I assumed (and rightly so) that Pacioretty and Sergei Kostitsyn were waiver exempt. They both come under the cap for games and years since their first pro contract. Matt D'Agostini and Kyle Chipchura, however, who I thought were in the same boat are not at all. Because of their prolonged attachment to the Bulldogs both have easily amassed more than 160 professional games and are full-fledged NHL bait now. And, when you do some Kostitsyn math (and I could be wrong) one comes to the conclusion that he has one game of exemption left – so he's not really at all. This impacts on Latendresse (and others, but I have a fixation) because I thought he would benefit from being one of a few who could not be shunted to Hamilton. He's one of many. You can imagine that Glen Metropolit might also be thinking about trying to put in a big training camp if he'd like to stay with the Habs.
Here is a somewhat complete list of the Canadiens players as they fall into the waiver eligible or exempt pots:
Waiver eligible
Scott Gomez, Brian Gionta, Mike Cammalleri, Tomas Plekanec, Andrei Kostitsyn, Guillaume Latendresse, Maxime Lapierre, Georges Laraque, Glen Metropolit, Travis Moen, Greg Stewart, Matt D'Agostini, Kyle Chipchura, Andrei Markov, Roman Hamrlik, Jaroslav Spacek, Josh Gorges, Hal Gill, Paul Mara, Ryan O'Byrne
Waiver exempt (and for how long):
Sergei Kostitsyn (until 2010-11 or 1st game this year), Max Pacioretty (until 2011-12 or 89th game this year), Yannick Weber (until 2012-13 or 84th game this year), Ben Maxwell (until 2011-12 or 74th game this year), Mathieu Carle (until 2012-13 or 31st game this year), Subban (undetermined length as of today)
The interesting finding was initially D'Agostini, but certainly Kostitsyn (if I'm not off base) is a big deal. Either one of those players could be a legitimate waiver target for other GMs, so Gainey will be wary. It should also say something to Paccioretty backers – as the only NHL trialled forward who can commute, you shouldn't be too hopeful of his guaranteed place on a top line.
The final group of interest here to me are the Swedes. Because of their newness to the league, they carry with them the exemption. What looked like a couple of experimental pick-ups in Johansson and Engqvist might turn out to be very valuable filler if short-term injuries occur. Marks to Gainey on that front.
Maybe now that I understand this a bit better, I'll stop calling for Shawn Belle to be promoted and risking waivers. Then again, maybe not...
I thought I'd share on another slow news day.
You'll remember that post I wrote about Latendresse the other day. I wrote it to point out that it was make or break time for the guy. What I probably didn't fully consider was that his situation may be more critical than I originally thought.
The reason is simple. The current Canadiens roster is stacked with veteran (and young) players who do not carry a waiver wire exemption. I didn't quite understand how this could be, but with a bit of a rummage around, I think I do now.
1) Waiver eligibility has nothing to do with age really – it has much more to do with experience and being paid at the pro level
2) Unlike the old NHL, waiver status under the 2005 CBA is determined by professional games, not just NHL games. That means players who've played 160 games for Hamilton, Cincinnati, Montreal or some combination are all exposed to other teams on demotion during the season.
The question is particularly pertinent when it comes to Latendresse and his rivals. Now, I assumed (and rightly so) that Pacioretty and Sergei Kostitsyn were waiver exempt. They both come under the cap for games and years since their first pro contract. Matt D'Agostini and Kyle Chipchura, however, who I thought were in the same boat are not at all. Because of their prolonged attachment to the Bulldogs both have easily amassed more than 160 professional games and are full-fledged NHL bait now. And, when you do some Kostitsyn math (and I could be wrong) one comes to the conclusion that he has one game of exemption left – so he's not really at all. This impacts on Latendresse (and others, but I have a fixation) because I thought he would benefit from being one of a few who could not be shunted to Hamilton. He's one of many. You can imagine that Glen Metropolit might also be thinking about trying to put in a big training camp if he'd like to stay with the Habs.
Here is a somewhat complete list of the Canadiens players as they fall into the waiver eligible or exempt pots:
Waiver eligible
Scott Gomez, Brian Gionta, Mike Cammalleri, Tomas Plekanec, Andrei Kostitsyn, Guillaume Latendresse, Maxime Lapierre, Georges Laraque, Glen Metropolit, Travis Moen, Greg Stewart, Matt D'Agostini, Kyle Chipchura, Andrei Markov, Roman Hamrlik, Jaroslav Spacek, Josh Gorges, Hal Gill, Paul Mara, Ryan O'Byrne
Waiver exempt (and for how long):
Sergei Kostitsyn (until 2010-11 or 1st game this year), Max Pacioretty (until 2011-12 or 89th game this year), Yannick Weber (until 2012-13 or 84th game this year), Ben Maxwell (until 2011-12 or 74th game this year), Mathieu Carle (until 2012-13 or 31st game this year), Subban (undetermined length as of today)
The interesting finding was initially D'Agostini, but certainly Kostitsyn (if I'm not off base) is a big deal. Either one of those players could be a legitimate waiver target for other GMs, so Gainey will be wary. It should also say something to Paccioretty backers – as the only NHL trialled forward who can commute, you shouldn't be too hopeful of his guaranteed place on a top line.
The final group of interest here to me are the Swedes. Because of their newness to the league, they carry with them the exemption. What looked like a couple of experimental pick-ups in Johansson and Engqvist might turn out to be very valuable filler if short-term injuries occur. Marks to Gainey on that front.
Maybe now that I understand this a bit better, I'll stop calling for Shawn Belle to be promoted and risking waivers. Then again, maybe not...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)