Canadiens Outlook The Expected Impact Of Jacques Martin

A couple of days ago, I saw a reporter joking about Bob Gainey's first answer when he's eventually asked the question about who he thinks his best off-season acquisition was. The reporter suggested that there will be no hesitation and Gainey will offer the name of Jacques Martin.

It's a joke because that's what Bob Gainey said this past winter when asked about his best move of the summer – replying without taking a breath that it was Guy Carbonneau. No sooner had he said it, was Guy losing games like a southern expansion franchise and earning his multi-million dollar salary for relaxing days on the golf course in March.

I can hear Bob Gainey giving the anticipated response. For one thing, he has that kind of humour. For another, it means he doesn't have to choose between players – the diplomat's way. But you know what, if you really think about it, shouldn't it be the answer we're all hoping for anyway? I'm sure we all hope Gomez is a success and that Spacek replaces Streit, but if come January Gainey stands up and says any name other than Jacques Martin's, I have a feeling we're not going to be a happy bunch.


Bad rap

The reason people probably don't wish to be looking to Martin as the beacon of hope in the mid-season is because of the fear for what that will mean. Upon his hiring, the media (especially outside Montreal) made a big deal about the hiring. They also tended to focus very heavily on two distinct elements of Martin's history: a) the trap and b) playoff failings.

Fair enough. Take your shots when you can get them in (Toronto). However, when one looks back over the career of Jacques Martin as a coach, one can see that the criticism as it was back in June, was a bit unfair. For one thing, labeling him as a trap-man completely ignores what he did for Ottawa at the other end of the ice. For another, his playoff record is only bad when placed in the light of the regular season success he had. Few coaches did better over the save time period.

I thought it would be interesting to look at what happened to Ottawa when Jacques Martin joins and what this might mean for the Habs.


Wins/standings

The season before Jacques Martin's first complete campaign Ottawa were a pitiful outfit garnering just 41 points. In the space of that year, Jacques took largely the same team and made them a playoff qualifier for the next 9 seasons. His first season witnessed a 36-point jump in the standings to 77 points and by his 3rd full campaign, Ottawa were perennially hovering around the 100-point mark.

Season	Wins	Points
1995-96	18	41
1996-97	31	77
1997-98	34	83
1998-99	44	103
1999-00	41	95
2000-01	48	109
2001-02	39	94
2002-03	52	113
2003-04	43	102

The points serve as a comfort to us Habs fans, but they hardly tell the story. Many teams see jumps in points from one season to the next and many go on to sustain those jumps as well. What was more notable with Jacques' changes in Ottawa was the impact he had on the way the team played. And it was that that eventually led to the winning ways.


Defence

Here you have it trappers – evidence that Martin did indeed tighten up the Ottawa defence. The changes he made to the system were marked and it's no wonder they stick out in so many peoples' memories. In 1995-96, the last year that started without Jacques Martin as the Ottawa coach, the Senators allowed an astounding 291 goals. The very next season, without a real jump in save % (0.888 to 0.891) and very few changes to the overall makeup of the team, Jacques' Senators sliced 57 goals from that total to a "mere" 234. The story comes together when you look at shots against as well, which nosedived from 2493 in 1995-96 to 2,113 the next season.

The changes were sustained as well, with further improvements even to the point that Ottawa could be counted upon to be much better than average in the GA column and even flirt with Jennings contention into the latter stages of seasons.

Season	Goals against	Shots against
1995-96	291	2493
1996-97	234	2113
1997-98	200	2030
1998-99	179	2065
1999-00	210	2061
2000-01	205	2228
2001-02	208	2123
2002-03	182	2032
2003-04	189	2037

Offense

Just as striking as the defensive turnaround over Martin's time in Ottawa was the complete jump start of the offensive juggernaut that they were to become under Jacques' tutelage – an oft forgotten side effect of good trapping.

While it's clear that Jacques Martin seems to target defence first, and that he certainly tailors a plan to the players he has available (see Florida), there is also a definite part in his long-term planning, it seems, for generating offensive opportunity from out of the discipline.

From 1995-96 to 1996-97, the Ottawa offense didn't roar to its full potential, but it certainly put together an encouraging start with a boost of 35 goals for (from 191 to 226). There were fluctuations along the way, but by the 4th or 5th year of his tenure they were flirting with top 5 offense in the league annually, and in 2004, when Jacques eventually parted 2004, Ottawa were the top goalscoring team in the entire NHL.

Once again, the results came from a philosophy, as evidenced by the increased and then sustained number of shots for, making sure the team had every chance of scoring at a higher rate.

Season	Goals for	Shots for
1995-96	191	2204
1996-97	226	2347
1997-98	193	2401
1998-99	239	2503
1999-00	244	2584
2000-01	274	2472
2001-02	243	2469
2002-03	263	2442
2003-04	262	2421

Impact on Montreal

The parallel between Montreal 2008-09 and Ottawa 1995-96 is not perfect, to say the least, but there are some similarities. For one thing, Ottawa of that era moved to Jacques Martin out of a frustration with a less disciplined style that produced sporadic (and less than hoped for) results, just like our most recent Canadiens. For another, both defences can both be fairly categorised as atrocious by most standards. Both teams let up far too many shots for the calibre of goaltending they could rely on and both paid in goals against, and, to some degree, losses.

In what was a bad season for Montreal last year, the team allowed an astounding 2600 shots against. Quite a contrast with some of those numbers for Martin's Ottawa. Even if you take into account the inflation in shot totals since the lockout, there's no hiding form the fact that Montreal allowed more shots than 23 of their rivals and that most good teams see 300 or so less over a season. Surprisingly, it was an improvement on Carbonneau's system of a year before where the Habs let up 11 less shots, but in a more defensive league overall to put them 26th among their peers.

If Jacques Martin does nothing else but reduce the number of shots aimed at the Montreal end, he should succeed. If Ottawa is a relevant precedent, and the team cuts shots against by 300 or more, then Montreal could flirt with being an above average defensive team; and that's probably regardless of how Price and Halak fare.

Less goals against won't guarantee success, but they do often predict it. Specifically, a team that shoots more than they allow shots should score more than they allow. A team that scores more than they let up should (on average) produce more wins that losses. If it's about positioning yourself for wins and not losses, a cut deep into the heart of shots against is a good place to start.

From that point, if we're playoff bound, we can worry about coach Martin's other legacy when that time comes. If the regular season is negotiated with more ease than by his predecessor, I can't see him setting himself up to do any worse in the playoffs.

The Puzzling Case Of Alex Tanguay, Free Agent

Alex Tanguay fired his negligent agent last week (but reported yesterday). It's about time, don't you think?

Agents aside, there has to be some reason teams have not been orderly forming a queue to Alex Tanguay's door. I'm not saying the agent doesn't hold some responsibility here. But let's be honest, if an NHL team wanted Tanguay, really wanted him, they'd have been able to get in touch, circumvent a trouble-maker agent.

So just what are the alternative explanations? I'm can't be sure, but let me speculate:

Tanguay himself is holding up the process

1) Tanguay is being picky
Not an uncommon trait among NHLers. You'll all remember Mats Sundin. Before him there were others. If a player isn't blown away on day 1 with a big offer, what is the rush to sign really? Alex may be waiting for the right situation to fall into place, turning other offers away as he goes. We do know this much:

"Tanguay est fort intéressé à jouer pour le Lightning. On avance qu'il serait prêt à accepter un contrat d'un an juste pour avoir la chance de jouer aux côtés des Vincent Lecavalier, Martin Saint-Louis et Steven Stamkos."

Tanguay's very interested in playing for the Lightning. It's suggested that he'd be prepared to take a one year contract for the chance to play with Lecavalier, St. Louis and Stamkos.

2) Tanguay's being unrealistic
The past few seasons, Tanguay has been a near $6 million man. It may be that he fancies himself the same player as when he signed that contract. While he's probably right about his own skills, what he has to understand is that money has been pouring out into other players' pockets over the time he's been waiting.

You know what, he does realise this. He's no fool. I doubt this is the problem.


A negligent agent botched the process

3) Tanguay's agent missed or didn't return calls
Given Sauve's history and experience, you'd have to think that he didn't. Whether he did or not is something that we'll never know. We do know this: he's been fired. Someone named Tanguay thinks Sauve has something to do with this puzzling situation.

4) Tanguay's agent gave bad advice
Perhaps it was agent not player who misjudged the temperature of the water here with salary and term demands. With the speed at which the Canadiens and other teams filled their needs this July, it wouldn't take much bad judgment to get you to July 4th in a very bad position.


NHL GMs don't prioritise players like Tanguay

5) NHL GMs are waiting for Heatley, Kessel and Zherdev
Tanguay doesn't exist in a vacuum. Heatley and Kessel both represent hotter commodities than Tanguay. It may be that GMs don't want to tie their hands with Tanguay when the could be in the Heatley/Kessel game. The same is true, though to a lesser extent, for players like Zherdev.


6) NHL GMs see him as a complementary player
Early in his career, it would have been fair to suspect that Tanguay was merely a complement to those around him, albeit a very good complement. Really though, I say this because this is what I saw this season from Tanguay. From my limited viewings, I saw him as a very good potentiator for Koivu and/or Kovalev; but he looked like he needed skill to produce.

Perhaps NHL GMs spotted this as well. It could well be that this is holding up the process. For one thing, Tanguay would need a player to be a complement to. No use Nashville or Florida signing him – because why would you spend millions to make a Legwand or a Weiss line slightly more effective. Tanguay is at his best when he potentiates the Sakics, Iginlas and Lecavaliers of the league, where a 25% boost translates into many points and even extra wins.

7) NHL GMs think he's hard work
Again, pure speculation. But one fact that led me to this is the time he had in Calgary. Tanguay did not thrive when he was asked to adopt that system and it may have hurt his value.

When it comes to the Canadiens, I couldn't help but notice that he was a lot chattier when Carbonneau was dispatched. I'm guessing he didn't appreciate Carbonneau's style either.

Two coaches in two years. To an outsider that sometimes looks like the constant in the equation might be the problem, rather than the variable.

8) NHL GMs don't think he's value for money
This goes a little bit with all of the above and will change depending on the salary and term demand. I don't think there's much argument to be made about him not being worth his salary from last season anymore. In a world where you can sign Hossa for a lesser cap hit and lock up Zetterberg for the same amount, Tanguay just doesn't belong there.

But how far has he slid on demands? Let's say to $4 million. Is it possible NHL GMs would balk at that too? I'd suggest that many would.



When it comes to it with Tanguay, I am truly puzzled. His continued availability is baffling to me because despite the fact I call him complementary and even needy, he is still just a very very skillful player.

Back in December, when we played the Flames, I wrote a little treatise on Tanguay. I think it holds today. Yes, he floats, he's dependent on others and is laid back; but hockey is a team game. There is room for an Alex Tanguay on almost any team (I still don't see Nashville, Toronto or Calgary, but the other 27).

His numbers, after all, don't lie. He has 193 career goals to go with 387 career assists in 659 games. Since the lockout, he's assisted on 173 goals over 300 games – a great clip – and shown he can adapt to play with players other than Forsberg and Sakic. His skills are much rarer than a 6'4" frame with no defensive awareness, and are what GMs should be using their money to buy. I can see why 2 consecutive GMs have opted for Cammalleri to replace him, but Brian Gionta and Todd Bertuzzi – these I can't justify...

When it comes to reality and why he's still in limbo, I think it's probably a little from column A, B and C. Tanguay probably needs to be less picky and demanding, his new agent must be better than his old for his case and NHL GMs must meet him in the middle.

If I were entering a pool as to the next player to be signed in this league, my money would be squarely on Tanguay.

A Friendly Reminder

Anyone who needed a reminder why this May was highlighted by the Lost season finale – rather than any Kovalev OT goals or Guerrero home-run stealing throws – look no further.

Carey Price has rolled the explanantion into one mug shot:


He says he's not afraid of any challenge. I guess that's why he's making it extra hard on himself by coming into the season with a Nationals hat, a Bruins sweater and a framed poster of James Wolfe...

Pollockisms: On How To Run The Canadiens, For Those Listening

Yesterday Dennis Kane posted a very good collection of quotes from the late, great Sam Pollock.

Something of a hero of mine (as an armchair GM, he presents the ultimate example to strive for), I was very interested to read the list in its entirety. I recommend the Pollockites among you do the same.

Because Dennis left the door open and because I still find myself in awe of some of the common sense the man uttered, I picked a few that I reflected and elaborated on a bit further:

“You can’t pay 10 minor leaguers NHL salaries just to keep them. Giving a prospect $40,000 instead of the $25,000 he should make may not seem like much, and to some it didn’t, but 10 times $15,000 can put you in the red in a hurry.”

Sound advice for the salary cap era, and about 30 years earlier.

That whole piece I wrote about Chiarelli making his own mess in Boston could have been introduced or summed up by this very quote. What Pollock knew was that how you pay the minor leaguers throughout the organisation has a trickle down effect to everyone else.

If one extrapolates what he says here to depth, you may construe that depth, while important is not worth digging a deep salary hole for yourself. You can only ice 18 skaters and 2 goalies a game, so in effect having NHL quality depth beyond that is a luxury. It sounds to me like trader Sam would have been keeping a few spare parts about, but keeping a sensible lid on the situation.

Contrast this to the people out there who are still hollering for a Canadiens trade, or another signing just because it would fit under the cap. It's worth reflecting on the idea that depth is no more than a luxury and that having more than 18 NHL skaters around (even more so in the salary cap era) is a tactic to be questioned and not necessarily lauded. Yes injuries will happen, but I suspect Pollock would be one to deal with situations like that as they arise, rather than sacrifice something off the top-end talent in order to stock up on insurance.

The other concept in his quote is one of salary escalation. Some players nowadays come out of the gates with way too much earning potential, and for what? They'd all play for league minimum, I'd wager. If Pollock were around, I suspect he'd be a much bigger fan of the latest Latendresse signing than he would of the Tuukka Rask monstrosity.

"Long-term contracts are useless unless a reasonable form of renegotiation is built in. Otherwise, one side is bound to be unhappy somewhere down the line.”

Remuneration for services rendered. What a novel concept.

Again, the NHL has changed a bit since Pollock ruled the roost, but I suspect he'd stick by this.

Gainey had this almost right, but fell down when he misunderstood the unique chance to negotiate during a season. Short-term contracts to Higgins, Plekanec, Komisarek and co. were genius at the outset. The players were paid well within their talent bracket (Pollock would be proud). However, by letting them all go to free agency, he saddled himself with unnecessary risk.

In effect, the mid-term new contract offer is the re-negotiation built in to a long-term deal, isn't it? Playing well? How about a raise? Not playing so well? Would you sign on for the same again?

Though I'm hard on Gainey, I think he's been restrained. Paul Holmgren, the king of the long and unsophisticated contract would not impress Sam Pollock. As Sam said, how could one side of the arrangements he's meted out not be unhappy at one time or another. We've already seen it in Philly with Hatcher, Rathje and now Briere. Don't be surprised when Mike Richards or the Flyers sour on that deal, or when the Pronger behemoth goes belly up.


Pollock was more than a good manager for the Canadiens, he was a GM with as much fire for competition in the meeting room as his players had on the ice. The reason he was steps ahead of his colleagues is because the job was no jolly to him, but an arena where he was pitted against rivals for the ultimate goal – the Stanley Cup. If more GMs in the NHL today thought half as much as Sam Pollock did about the game and its future, this league would be a much better spectacle.

Here's to you Mr. Pollock.

Getting To Know The Habs "Getting To Know" Question Setter

Yes, yes. We know the summer's slow for news. Luckily the people with proper first hand access to the incoming stars of Nos Canadiens have been working tirelessly to put together some interviews to feed our incessant thirst for anything Habs.

I made up met up with the brains behind the series of interviews to see what goes into the making of the "Getting to Know" series of interviews (Gomez, Cammalleri, Gionta)...

LIW: You enjoy first, and pretty much exclusive access to the Canadiens players in the off-season. It's quite a privilege. As thousands of fans search the internet for news, how do you make sure you use that exclusive access to make yourself the top destination for true fans?

Canadiens.com: Besides re-reporting the news, what we like to do is do a little bit or old time reporting. You know, sit the players down and ask them a whole raft of serious questions to really get to know them better. Although the players have to talk to us (it's in their contracts) we want to make sure it's a fun time for them, not too serious, so they'll keep coming back.


Right. Sounds easy enough, I'm sure it's not. After all, how do you come up with your questions?

Well, basically, from a lot of inspiration, if you can call it that. Sometimes we have an internal meeting to come up with ideas – a brainstorm, I think they call it. We all sit in a room for an afternoon, eating steamies and throwing ideas at the wall. It's actually pretty crazy, the creative vibes that get flowing after the 8th hotdog slides down, and with all that Pepsi. We bring all kinds of source material to help in our planning – last year's questions, of course, notes from previous interviews, those free magazines you get at Famous Players...


Brainstorm, eh? Sounds fun. Can you tell which direction the ideas are going to go in? I mean one year you asked about the Simpsons, this year it could have been any TV show. It could be music, even sports, I guess, as well...

As I said, it's a bit manic. Everyone throwing out ideas like what's on your stereo? What's on your ipod? What concert was your first? Yeah, last year we asked about the Simpsons, which was crazy. This year, we took it way off piste with Seinfeld. Hold onto your hats for next season...


Seinfeld character, right – that's gold (Jerry). How did you know fans would be dying to know what the newest addition to the Canadiens would think of a sitcom that hasn't even been on the air for 10 years? To go off piste, but yet be so very on piste with public curiosities...

Well I like Seinfeld, so when we were doing the brainstorm I came up with that. I love them all – well except those ones where Elaine has really frizzy hair and flowery dresses, but all the late ones, anyway. I love the question because no matter who you ask no one ever says Jerry or Elaine – it's pretty much are you George or Kramer? The ultimate dichotomy. That's the brilliance, of course. That and how that naturally translates to hockey.


That's right, so clear that the connection can be left unexplained. Speaking of hockey, you do insert a couple of questions in there about the game. How do you think of those?

Well, believe it or not, we actually get those from the fans. The craziest fans submit questions all year long for when we actually get a chance to sit down and speak to the players. Unfortunately not all fans really understand what the internet is about – intertainment. We have to make sure we don't go too far off our plan from the brainstorm with random hockey questions from fans. So we choose a couple of hockey questions, but get back to the deeper and more lateral character probing questions to get the best insights for readers.


Isn't it hard, though, to do an interview with a hockey player without talking more about hockey?

You'd think it would be, but no not really. I mean at first the instinct is to veer off the course set out by the brainstorm and ask about Stanley Cups and interntaional experience, the new coach, first goals, expectations, linemates, style of hockey, off-season training, even what they think it will be like to play in Montreal. Or, to slack off and take all the questions from the fan submissions. But with a little bit of discipline, you get back to the script from the brainstorm.

Plus, you guys only see what is actually edited by me and the guys. If you could only see how much garbage about hockey we have to cut to get it to the sleek final product. Even when we ask them about ipods they want to digress to hockey. They're intolerable.


Wow, and it's like that all year too, isn't it? I mean getting all the ipod playlists, golf foursomes. You really do make sure the discerning hockey a fan a place to go for everything the negligent press skips over as they concentrate on hockey.

Indeed. We do try to make this a home away from home for the true Habs fan. Where else could you find out whether Tomas Plekanec prefers Primo or Ragu sauce on his spaghetti or if Brian Gionta has been contacted about a remake of Willow?


Finally, I have to ask. What was it like interviewing Henri Richard?

Who?


You know Henri Richard, Canadiens captain, Pocket Rocket, number 16, 11 Cups?

(stunned silence)


The guy who liked Paul Anka?

Oh yeah, that guy. My boss wanted me to do a piece on him. But you know what he didn't even know enough about Seinfeld to get into serious conversation – he didn't even know about the episode with the Cosmo Kramer Reality tour. Anyway, since he didn't own an ipod either, I just guessed how old he was and googled his birth year into Yahoo. I just picked a few from there and then added some from of my own favourites too.


Thanks for your time. I can't wait for tomorrow to hear which Adam Sandler movie Travis Moen patterns his life on...

Stanley Cup Heroes: Gary Leeman – Critical Piece?

Of all the stories passed down over the years about the 1993 Stanley Cup win, very few cast Gary Leeman as a central character. This is right. Gary was not a central character – he was benched in many playoff games and relegated to fourth line on many others. But at the time, Gary Leeman was a very important and significant player to me.

My first acquaintance with Gary Leeman was made in 1989-90. I had recently begun taking hockey very seriously and Stephane Richer was my favourite player. Back then, it was customary to think that the Canadiens would be in the running for awards and league leads in various categories. 1989 was laden in trophies for the Canadiens and Patrick Roy was setting standards.

For me the race to watch was the goalscoring lead. Gretzky could shut down the Art Ross competition in December, but since he wasn't a goal man, that race seemed open to me. What's more we had a horse, and his name was Stephane Richer. He'd done 50 goals before, so he was legit. Anyway, as the season went on and I watched for Richer goals and Habs wins on HNIC, it became clear that Stephane was going to have a little rivalry going with Gary Leeman.

Though I certainly kept tabs on Gary from that point (thinking back, I was probably unlucky enough to have picked him in the pool the next year), his career didn't really make that big an impression on me. The Leafs back then were in the West and I wasn't even aware that I was supposed to dislike them. They were sufficiently bad anyway, so there seemed little point. Any hockey fan would certainly cite the 10 player holiday season swap announced during HNIC as a big moment, but again it was Campbell conference fodder (Leafs:Flames), I was immersed in Habs:Bruins.


The next big Leeman moment in my life came on January 28, 1993. That was the day Serge Savard traded Brian Skrudland to the Calgary Flames for the now severely fading star.

Brian Skrudland, you see was a special player in my household. For one thing, he was my younger brother's favourite player. But for another, he happened to be the only NHL player I knew personally, as he was the only one on my paper route. I wouldn't say that Brian and I were friends or anything, but he was my best tipper and probably the best house to go collecting money from on a cold January afternoon. He'd always invite me in to warm up and talk about hockey, his car, or the very cold weather of course. He was a nice guy.

By 1993 I was no longer a paper boy, but the Leeman trade was a full dose of reality for a young impressionable fan. I knew that players were traded – I'd seen my favourite Richer traded and a few more. But I thought that certain players were Canadiens for life, players like Brian. Now I knew the truth.


Leeman as a Hab

My memory of Leeman as a Canadiens player is patchy at best. I'd be lying if I told you I remembered his storming 0.9 point-per-game introduction to the Canadiens faithful. And he doesn't figure greatly in my memories of the Stanley Cup run. Certainly not in the way that Lecalir, DiPietro, Dionne, Lebeau, and the star players did.

My lasting memory of him, if I'm honest, came during the Stanley Cup parade. When I got the chance to touch the Stanley Cup that day and get every Canadiens hockey card I owned signed by the corresponding new champion, it is Leeman I remember best. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that as the mob moved towards Roy and Damphousse that Gary was one of the less popular Canadiens autographs that day. When it came time for him to sign the card I gave him (a Leafs card as it was), he seemed to relish the occasion. With my permission, he took the card and promptly showed the back of it to everyone on his float that day. There was real glee on his face when combined with the Stanley Cup winner's aura he could now verify his 51-goal season to his teammates. Signed and handed back to me, Gary Leeman thanked me for the chance to show off a bit. It was a cool moment for me – even more so looking back.

As quickly as Gary came, he seemed to be gone. Obviously not a Demers player, Leeman was marginalised and then allowed to leave after the original lockout of 1994.


The 1993 Cup: the Leeman effect

Now, I wouldn't normally have been writing a section about the Leeman effect regarding a Stanley Cup run; but in my summer rambles I came across a very interesting piece that was lost in time about the Gary Leeman award (no, not the award for the least deserving 50-goal man).

The award (a bit of fun proposed by Chris Fell and his friends at the Meaford Express) is given to:

"recognize the season’s luckiest player, most fortunate player, or player that was in the right place at the right time."

Every year since 1993, the reporter and his friends have been picking a player who emulates Leeman's run of luck and every year, sure enough they find one.

It got me thinking that there may be something to it. Perhaps a requirement of winning the Stanley Cup is to bring along a player who might not otherwise have had the chance. Perhaps it's the hockey gods' way of doling out some good will here and there.

It certainly can't just be coincidence, can it, that every Stanley Cup winner back to 1987 has had their very own version of Gary Leeman on the squad. A player from a team with no shot who suddenly lands on his feet to get his name engraved. It would be hard to prove the opposite, with so many trades in the league, but there are examples of good teams falling to lesser ones, perhaps all because of their flaunting of the charity Cup winner tradition. The 1994 New Jersey Devils come to mind, as do the 2007-08 Montreal Canadiens.


My Gary Leeman award winners

Unfortunately, Chris Fell and his friends don't publish their rulings anywhere I can find them, so we don't know who has won the award officially each season. Instead, I have gone through all the seasons back to 1986 (the last one without a trade-in winner) to pick out a winner:

1987 Edmonton Oilers: Moe Lemay (from Vancouver)
1988 Edmonton Oilers: Dave Hannan (from Pittsburgh)
1989 Calgary Flames: Brian MacLellan (from Minnesota)
1990 Edmonton Oilers: Petr Klima (from Detroit)
1991 Pittsburgh Penguins: Peter Taglianetti (from Minnesota)
1992 Pittsburgh Penguins: Ken Wregget (from Philadelphia)
1993 Montreal Canadiens: Gary Leeman (from Calgary)
1994 New York Rangers: Nick Kypreos (from Hartford)
1995 New Jersey Devils: Danton Cole (from Tampa Bay)
1996 Colorado Avalanche: Dave Hannan (from Buffalo)
1997 Detroit Red Wings: Tomas Sandstrom (from Pittsburgh)
1998 Detroit Red Wings: Dimitri Mironov (from Anaheim)
1999 Dallas Stars: Derek Plante (from Buffalo)
2000 New Jersey Devils: Vladimir Malakhov (from Montreal)
2001 Colrado Avalanche: Steven Reinprecht (from LA)
2002 Detroit Red Wings: Jiri Slegr (from Atlanta)
2003 New Jersey Devils: Richard Smehlik (from Atlanta)
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning: Stanislav Neckar (from Nashville)
2006 Carolina Hurricanes: Doug Weight (from St Louis)
2007 Anaheim Ducks: Richard Jackman (from Florida)
2008 Detroit Red Wings: Brad Stuart (from LA)
2009 Pittsburgh Penguins: Mathieu Garon (from Edmonton)


To Gary Leeman.

Bruins GM Playing With Fire And We Habs Fans Like It

Montreal Canadiens fans know a thing or two about what can happen when you win the East one year and expect the world the next. We also know how losing one key player can change the face of a PP and a team.

So when I look at how the Boston Bruins (let's be honest – our chief rivals) are doing this summer, it's heartening to see them making some moves that bring aboard risk rather than remove it.

In the NHL news morass that is August, Phil Kessel's salary negotiation is one of the few stories that I will be keeping a keen eye on. I say that because I think Phil Kessel is a key player for the Bruins, and as such, a key player to watch for the Canadiens as they play the Bruins and chase or try to hold off the Bruins in the standings.


Phil Kessel's value

Projected to be a top draft pick because of his offensive skills, Phil cracked the NHL at age 19 and has been steadily improving ever since. Last year as a 21-year old Kessel scored 36 goals and in the process catapulted his ego into the upper echelons of the NHL.

I did not watch every Bruins game of last season, nor do I know much about Phil Kessel as a teammate; but from an outsider's point of view he seems like a pretty valuable player. Bad attitude or not, Phil Kessel is a baby in the NHL – a baby with 66 career goals before most his age are even out of college.

His value can also shown in the wins column. The Bruins success from last season (the extraordinary part of it, not the consistent part) came during a 27-game run through November and December where they amassed 24 wins and 49 points. Phil Keseel wasn't the only player to be firing during that stretch, but he was involved. Over the 27 games, he scored 17 goals and 15 assists. He also strung together a very respectable 18-game point streak during that time.

I've seen Bruins fans give him a hard time for his early production followed by months at a lesser clip. Some have even said he's not the playoff player they want. But I can tell you form watching 2 straight years of Kessel and Bruins playoff hockey that he was the Bruin I feared most. In 2007-08, the Bruins were a scoring comedy when he was benched and only came to life in the series when Julien baked down and put Phil back in. IN the 2008-09 sweep, he was always there – 4 goals and 2 assists not too shabby an output in my books.


The Bruins mistakes

If the Bruins did make mistakes (and I think they have done) they were in piling up so much salary that Phil Kessel's potential salary will push them over the top of this year's cap. To even risk losing a player like Kessel is playing with fire, to make it almost the most realistic outcome is not very good planning at all.

They are in this position thanks to some questionable moves over the past few seasons.

Their most recent move in question would be the addition of Derek Morris ($3.3 million) at the expense of Aaron Ward ($2.5 million). Morris is nothing bu a question mark himself after a couple of lacklustre seasons in Phoenix. The New York Rangers who desperately need an offensive boost decided Morris – a player they paid dearly for – wasn't worth keeping even at less money.

Prior to that signing, the Bruins were quiet, adding only the innocuous (salary cap-wise) Steve Begin. But in the spring, they broke the bank for David Krejci on what can only be termed an unnecessarily high contract. Yes, Krejci had a great season and yes he appears to be a good player. However, a player two years into an NHL career and one-year removed from a 6-goal effort does not need to be the recipient of a $4 million contract – especially in a tight cap situation.

Their woes are greater still when you consider they now have 3 buyouts on the cards for several million and have somehow managed to bring aboard a goalie with all of 244 minutes of NHL experience at the potential price tag of $3.2 millions a season.

None of these mistakes will mean anything next to the potential loss of Phil Kessel. Where overpaid backups and slumping 3rd years are a pain, they can be managed. Losing a 36-goalscorer when the alternatives are called Sturm, Ryder and Kobasew is downright dangerous.


Heartening to Habs fans

All of this, though it must be painful for a fan of said team, is great stuff for the Canadiens and their fans. While we have to question whether our own team will be better or worse, it's nice to know that relative improvement is still looking good.

I can tell you that last year's Bruins team was an absolute nightmare opponent. They knew how to blanket our team and had the power to counter attack with graceful ease. Any change was going to be good. Losing their most talented goalscorer and their most unpredictable forward (Kessel) would make games against the Bruins easier for Martin's Habs – and might just be the best news to come from Boston for a Habs fan since early 2008.