As noted in the last post on this vein, January first this year marked the first day of the second decade of the millennium. Last time, we gave you some Habs High Points, this time I share with you what I thought were ten low points.
A decade that began inauspiciously enough with a roster that on a cold January day once sported Aaron Asham, Craig Darby, Chad Kilger, Eric Landry, Juha Lind, Gino Odjick and Patrick Poulin had its fair share of lows.
Here are the worst ten for me:
10. Bernie Geoffrion's passing
It wasn't anyone's fault. But although Bernie Geoffrion died knowing his #5 was to be retired by his team, he never got to see it happen - to experience again how much the city appreciated him. It was a terribly sad thing.
9. Expansion
Most of the expansion took place prior to 2001, but its effects were still felt into the pre-lockout years. The timing of expansion couldn't have been worse for the Habs. They had their worst management team in decades, scouts who weren't on the ball with player assessments (if you think it's bad now, spare a thought for your 2001 self). The Habs had been on the rebuild through a draft and had accumulated a small stable of good, if not great players. Guess who doesn't get protected in expansion drafts?
8. Not calling Larry Robinson
This one was totally avoidable. Last December at the Centennial game, Robinson feeling the nostalgia was told he'd be getting a call for later in the year re: possible ways to work together. No call. No call to a member of the all-time team, a valued alum. I don't care if there were no positions for the next 25 years, there's no excuse for not making this call. This, together with my estimation that a defenceman to coach our young defencemen might be a tonic to some ills down the road, and it still feels like a real low.
7. Randy McKay signing
In direct contrast with the Cammalleri signing is the McKay signing of 2002. It wasn't a big year for free agency, but Philippe Boucher might have looked nice. The Habs at he time dressed this up like it was big, as they were desperate that it would be. Doing nothing at all that July 4th would have led to better results.
6. Playoffs 2009
The 100th season in operation ended much like the first, and much like the early years of the Noughties - without a playoff win to speak of. It was especially disappointing considering it was the fifth year of Gainey's plan, and a year after winning the conference and challenging well enough in the playoffs. More important than the sweeping itself was the repercussions of the sweep, as those four losses became four nails in the career coffins of Koivu, Kovalev, KOmisarek, Tanguay and others. Regardless of what came later, the way those players were treated leading up to July 1 was a low point for a franchise that likes to think of itself as the embodiment of class.
5. The grooming of Mike Ribeiro
The mishandling of Mike Ribeiro began early. The Habs knew they had an egomaniac on their hands, and one that liked to party. What better way to bring him along than to play him in 19 games at the age of 19, boosting his idea of himself and burning a year of his contract in the process. The next season, he played a mere 2 games and was then on prolonged probation until he finally stopped being relegated to Quebec/Hamilton at age 23 in 2003. His grooming to that point was typical of the Canadiens approach with pure offensive players - play them with Aaron Asham and Jason Dawe. That's to say, he wasn't given much freedom. A breakout season in 2003-04 was seen as good news, but was the straw which broke the camel's back in terms of his later entitlement and corresponding work ethic. Traded for another tram's garbage, he has gone on to 5 consecutive good seasons as an offensive player. A true shame that the team could find neither the time for him on the ice, or the time for him off the ice, as he is exactly what this team craves in their Quebec recruitment program.
4. Therrien carry-on
A coach hired in the time-honoured tradition of simply looking at the QMJHL standings and nothing else, Therrien didn't have a very good time of it with the Habs. His low moment came during what had been his high moment. Following the 2002 knockout of the Bruins (courtesy, Koivu, Gilmour, Zednik, Theo), the Habs were rolling along nicely. The Habs had battled with the Hurricanes in three games to earn a 2-1 series lead. They were winning in Game 4 and looking to bury the Canes with a 3-0 going into the third. Quintal took a simple cross-checking penalty, Therrien's temper came out of check. Two-man penalty, Carolina goal, momentum shift, game slipped away, Canadiens lose in 6.
3. Brisebois contract extension, December 2001
At the time, the extension was going to make Brisebois the highest paid Montreal Canadien in all of history. Of course, he'd just had his -31 season and wasn't exactly able to hide his warts as much as previously. The contract made him untradeable even without the clause that said it in writing. It was a decision that hampered a rebuild from happening prior to the lockout.
2. Cristobal Huet trade
Probably the worst justification for any move the franchise has made since trading Patrick Roy. Huet, fresh off a hot start, an All-Star appearance, and a tiny wobble in February was traded so that Carey Price could be handed the reins without fear of losing them. We didn't even need retrospect to know this was a recipe for disaster. Starting Carey Price looks like a move of genius for a while, but then having a back-up the coach and GM are so reluctant to use they leave Carey to be dismantled by the Flyers shows why Huet should have been retained. Not even the return on the trade justifies the move. And now, with retrospect, nor does the experience Price gained.
1. The year with no hockey
There's not much to say. it was unfortunate and unnecessary. Nothing bottoms below this one. It remains the black eye of the decade for all teams (and players).
And again for those interested:
Blogs were less prevalent in 2001, this one wasn't conceived, i can assure you. But I did find one amateur account of the beginning of the decade. It's fun read.
Showing posts with label Huet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huet. Show all posts
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Friday, September 03, 2010
Price's Contract In Context
Yesterday the final big news of the summer for Habs fans marked a turning point, from watching chatrooms and runour sites to awaiting for play and game reports.
An initial scan of reaction shows a mix. There is plenty of relief that this contract is on the books before camp. There is fretting about its details. And thee is praise as well.
Before taking this any further, I just wanted to present the contract as I see. The signing as I see it in context of the league, the league's goalies and the Canadiens organization.
$2.75 million a season
In a summer of low-ball offers to goalies, this number seems a little high.
Since the 2009-10 season started, 30 other goalies signed contracts with NHL clubs. Realistically, 9 of those goalies can be considered starters: Halak, Rinne, Hiller, Niemi, Lehtonen, Turco, Ellis and Chris Mason. I suppose we need to throw in Leighton, as Philly will be counting on him too.
Of the 8, 4 teams signed starters for under $2 million (Turco, Mason, Ellis and Leighton). 4 teams signed goalies for over $3 million (Halak, Lehtonen, Rinne and Hiller). Antti Niemi is signed for $2 million on the nose.
Based on these 2 lists, I think it's fair to say that Price fits somewhere in between the two -- putting his value between $2 million and £3 million. Seeing as that's where he landed, I don't think there should be big surprise. Given, there's always the hope that Gauthier pries a $2.1 million deal out of this, but at $2.75, the fretting is for half a million.
I've said elsewhere that the Canadiens own salary structure is absolutely pivotal in evaluating this deal. It is. Carey knows what his teammates earn and he knows what his teammates do to earn that money. When Benoit Pouliot doubled his salary, that immediately set a low that Carey could not possibly go under, more like a low +$500,000. That's the £2 million right there. Then there's all those $5 million plus players, they factor in. Finally, Andrei Kostitsyn who won a contract as an RFA at a similar age, albeit under different circumstances. His $3.25 must have loomed in negotiations.
2 year term
On his conference call, Carey Price asserted that both sides agreed early on that 2 years was the right term. Horse hockey.
If possible, I think Carey would have liked to have come out of this contract as an unrestricted free agent. I think both he and his agent seeing this trend in goaltending contracts might have been happy to tack on years with modest raises per season. If they really thought last season was a horrendous anomaly, they'd have been all for a single season to come out an RFA again in 2011 rather than 2012 with the chance at cashing in at a higher rate then.
The 2-year contract seems more to me like a Canadiens stipulation, and a sensible one at that. 2 years does two things. For one thing, it means Price is locked up past next season, a critical one for other signings that don't need to be clouded by more decisions (Markov, Gorges). For another, it gives the team a short enough term to evaluate.
If Carey does well and grows into his role, the team gets a cheap starter for 2 years and then negotiates for market value when that time comes. If he stutters and is still learning in 2 years, the Canadiens have the leverage, as Carey will be an RFA with more than 200 games.
3 other things will have happened by that time. The first is that the CBA will in all likelihood expire that summer after the NHLPA extends it this season. Second is that carey will might played another season with a young rival if Karri Ramo comes over. The third is that other key goaltenders will potentially come available for signing at that time. Golatenders like Rinne and Cory Schneider will be UFAs. Tuukka Rask and Pavaelec will be RFAs.
I believe the Canadiens are entirely above board here. They obviously expect Carey Price to succeed, else they wouldn't have shipped Halak and Desjardins. However, in opting for 2 years, they avoid an uncomfortable agreement that drags long for no fruit while building in flexibility.
Halak
Finally, Halak.
As you all know, I'd have chosen Halak. But that's irrelevant now. Gauthier and Gainey didn't choose Halak. Rather, they chose Halak's trade return, salary savings and Price over Price's trade return, Halak and his extra cost.
In so far as this deal goes, though, we should be a little bit thankful to those who signed Halak. While it may seem like an overpay to some who prefer to cast him as a one-season wonder, his $3.75 million a season came under what a lot expected given past deals like Khabibulin's, Huet's and Ward's. If one thing must have been clear to both the Canadiens and Price's camp, it was that Halak had earned the bigger payday this time around, and so a real ceiling was set.
There will be fretting, of course, if Halak succeeds and Price doesn't. But that would have happened with either trade. This is Montreal.
Overall
The good things that can come out of this are numerous. If Carey plays well and really puts his stamp on the team, we will probably boast the cheapest quality starter in the league. If he plays at his 0.912 levels, we'll be OK and won't have been hoodwinked by any stretch
In all then, not the worst case scenario at all. Not even that far from the best outcome. It's somewhere in the middle.
An initial scan of reaction shows a mix. There is plenty of relief that this contract is on the books before camp. There is fretting about its details. And thee is praise as well.
Before taking this any further, I just wanted to present the contract as I see. The signing as I see it in context of the league, the league's goalies and the Canadiens organization.
$2.75 million a season
In a summer of low-ball offers to goalies, this number seems a little high.
Since the 2009-10 season started, 30 other goalies signed contracts with NHL clubs. Realistically, 9 of those goalies can be considered starters: Halak, Rinne, Hiller, Niemi, Lehtonen, Turco, Ellis and Chris Mason. I suppose we need to throw in Leighton, as Philly will be counting on him too.
Of the 8, 4 teams signed starters for under $2 million (Turco, Mason, Ellis and Leighton). 4 teams signed goalies for over $3 million (Halak, Lehtonen, Rinne and Hiller). Antti Niemi is signed for $2 million on the nose.
Based on these 2 lists, I think it's fair to say that Price fits somewhere in between the two -- putting his value between $2 million and £3 million. Seeing as that's where he landed, I don't think there should be big surprise. Given, there's always the hope that Gauthier pries a $2.1 million deal out of this, but at $2.75, the fretting is for half a million.
I've said elsewhere that the Canadiens own salary structure is absolutely pivotal in evaluating this deal. It is. Carey knows what his teammates earn and he knows what his teammates do to earn that money. When Benoit Pouliot doubled his salary, that immediately set a low that Carey could not possibly go under, more like a low +$500,000. That's the £2 million right there. Then there's all those $5 million plus players, they factor in. Finally, Andrei Kostitsyn who won a contract as an RFA at a similar age, albeit under different circumstances. His $3.25 must have loomed in negotiations.
2 year term
On his conference call, Carey Price asserted that both sides agreed early on that 2 years was the right term. Horse hockey.
If possible, I think Carey would have liked to have come out of this contract as an unrestricted free agent. I think both he and his agent seeing this trend in goaltending contracts might have been happy to tack on years with modest raises per season. If they really thought last season was a horrendous anomaly, they'd have been all for a single season to come out an RFA again in 2011 rather than 2012 with the chance at cashing in at a higher rate then.
The 2-year contract seems more to me like a Canadiens stipulation, and a sensible one at that. 2 years does two things. For one thing, it means Price is locked up past next season, a critical one for other signings that don't need to be clouded by more decisions (Markov, Gorges). For another, it gives the team a short enough term to evaluate.
If Carey does well and grows into his role, the team gets a cheap starter for 2 years and then negotiates for market value when that time comes. If he stutters and is still learning in 2 years, the Canadiens have the leverage, as Carey will be an RFA with more than 200 games.
3 other things will have happened by that time. The first is that the CBA will in all likelihood expire that summer after the NHLPA extends it this season. Second is that carey will might played another season with a young rival if Karri Ramo comes over. The third is that other key goaltenders will potentially come available for signing at that time. Golatenders like Rinne and Cory Schneider will be UFAs. Tuukka Rask and Pavaelec will be RFAs.
I believe the Canadiens are entirely above board here. They obviously expect Carey Price to succeed, else they wouldn't have shipped Halak and Desjardins. However, in opting for 2 years, they avoid an uncomfortable agreement that drags long for no fruit while building in flexibility.
Halak
Finally, Halak.
As you all know, I'd have chosen Halak. But that's irrelevant now. Gauthier and Gainey didn't choose Halak. Rather, they chose Halak's trade return, salary savings and Price over Price's trade return, Halak and his extra cost.
In so far as this deal goes, though, we should be a little bit thankful to those who signed Halak. While it may seem like an overpay to some who prefer to cast him as a one-season wonder, his $3.75 million a season came under what a lot expected given past deals like Khabibulin's, Huet's and Ward's. If one thing must have been clear to both the Canadiens and Price's camp, it was that Halak had earned the bigger payday this time around, and so a real ceiling was set.
There will be fretting, of course, if Halak succeeds and Price doesn't. But that would have happened with either trade. This is Montreal.
Overall
The good things that can come out of this are numerous. If Carey plays well and really puts his stamp on the team, we will probably boast the cheapest quality starter in the league. If he plays at his 0.912 levels, we'll be OK and won't have been hoodwinked by any stretch
In all then, not the worst case scenario at all. Not even that far from the best outcome. It's somewhere in the middle.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Salary Cap Issues In Need Of Change
By now, we're all up on the league's stance on long and unrealistic contracts. A lot of people are praising the league for their stance on this.
But from my point of view, this is only an important stance if solid action is taken in the form of rule changes, changes to the CBA, else interpretation becomes a bit flaky (see Pronger contract). While the league is at it, I think there’s a few other issues that have come to light that they need to address too.
Contract rules
It’s not only the length of a contract that’s important. In fact, it’s not the length at all. Everything hinges on the age at which the player will receive his last payday.
Yesterday, I saw a good suggestion on the matter. A simple and elegant solution that the league could implement tomorrow:
Don’t allow any long-term contracts to extend past a player’s 39th birthday.
Why 39? Well, the number was chosen based on league averages, but the number it self isn’t that important after all, another number (36, 37, 40) would work just as effectively in setting clear boundaries.
In addition to finishing age, it appears there’s also some concern about what a player is paid at the beginning and the end of the contract. This isn’t really an issue if the player plays those years (see Scott Gomez), as the cap treats every year as equal. It is an issue if the player retires,, though, since a false cap number was calculated with the lower salary which might never be paid out.
The Kovalchuk deal was new because it had so many years at league minimum to bring down the cap hit that it seemed disingenuous. I can see the problem with it. After all, if Kovalchuk was intending to play till then, he’d already have signed for $6 million every year until 44 by now.
There might be an easy-ish solution here too. Limits could be set on how much the top salary and bottom salary in a deal could vary (e.g., 50%, 30% or something) and there could be guidelines about how many seasons at less than say 60% of the average pay there could be.
Whatever, the eventual solutions, the point is that they need to be put to paper and made clear to everyone. Until that happens, the league’s whim will be seen as the rule.
Minor league duty
Just as outrageous as Kovalchuk’s contract is the idea that the Blackhawks can simply put Cristobal Huet in the minors in order to free up salary cap space. In the event they do that, the Hawks will erase Huet’s entire salary from their cap tabulation. Other teams will be on this boat too, as Jeff Finger may be helping Brian Burke from another cap overshoot by playing in the minors.
This situation is fraught with issues as well.
For starters, it seems quite unfair to the player. Huet may be in the minors for his sketchy play, but there will be others who suffer the same fate for their big payday alone. For another thing, the player can still play late on in the season when cap spae is clearer and is free as anyone else to play in the playoffs..
It’s an extreme example, but imagine Chicago opts to sign Kovalchuk and Frolov and gets them to commit to the minors. No matter what outlandish salaries they pay them, come playoff time they could insert the two of them and then Huet back into the lineup without consequence.
Clearly this issue needs to be revisited as well, as the loophole unfairly allows irresponsible GMs to correct errors at a players expense. It also creates an uneven playing field for people who play the cap as if it means something.
Salary cap penalty
While we’re on the topic, how about the salary cap penalty?
Because of bonuses, Chicago went way over the salary cap last season. While it’s causing them some headaches now (and Huet an NHL continuance), the penalty is less than a slap on the wrist.
In a way, I can see Chicago’s point of view. They exceeded the cap for playoff bonuses. That’s hard to account for.
But what’s Toronto’s excuse? And why do they get the same free pass? If it’s true that Toronto went over the salary cap last season, it must also be true that they did so in the regular season (there were no playoffs, after all). I think we all have to ask:
a) Why was this allowed to happen?
b) Why haven’t they been punished beyond the penalty on this year’s cap?
As it stands, with regular season cap busters exceeding the cap without consequence, does it not lead to the next logical question: What is there a salary cap for?
Here, I think the league needs to take action for the next time this occurs, or rather before it happens again. Forfeit of games, draft picks and funds are no brainers. Perhaps something more drastic, though, is what it would take.
Arbitration
Did anyone else see that Clarke MacArthur was awarded $2.4 million a season from the league arbiter? Did anyone else see Jamie Langenbrunner is making $2.8 million a season?
Maybe the MacArthur case is a one off, but I get the feeling it isn’t. Because teams are so terrified of arbiter rulings like this one, they avoid arbitration like the plague. And how do they do that? Well, by overpaying, of course.
An unbalanced arbitration system is good for escalating salaries and not much else. Maybe it too needs a re-look.
Lamoriello is taking some heat and mockery now for his attempt to circumvent the salary cap. However, it must be said that he did it because the laws are loose. If the NHL is at all serious about having this cap, it's high time they took the action to see that things like salary rules, minor league demotions and cap penalties are calibrated correctly. The salary cap was meant to level the playing field, not tilt it towards the unrepentant.
But from my point of view, this is only an important stance if solid action is taken in the form of rule changes, changes to the CBA, else interpretation becomes a bit flaky (see Pronger contract). While the league is at it, I think there’s a few other issues that have come to light that they need to address too.
Contract rules
It’s not only the length of a contract that’s important. In fact, it’s not the length at all. Everything hinges on the age at which the player will receive his last payday.
Yesterday, I saw a good suggestion on the matter. A simple and elegant solution that the league could implement tomorrow:
Don’t allow any long-term contracts to extend past a player’s 39th birthday.
Why 39? Well, the number was chosen based on league averages, but the number it self isn’t that important after all, another number (36, 37, 40) would work just as effectively in setting clear boundaries.
In addition to finishing age, it appears there’s also some concern about what a player is paid at the beginning and the end of the contract. This isn’t really an issue if the player plays those years (see Scott Gomez), as the cap treats every year as equal. It is an issue if the player retires,, though, since a false cap number was calculated with the lower salary which might never be paid out.
The Kovalchuk deal was new because it had so many years at league minimum to bring down the cap hit that it seemed disingenuous. I can see the problem with it. After all, if Kovalchuk was intending to play till then, he’d already have signed for $6 million every year until 44 by now.
There might be an easy-ish solution here too. Limits could be set on how much the top salary and bottom salary in a deal could vary (e.g., 50%, 30% or something) and there could be guidelines about how many seasons at less than say 60% of the average pay there could be.
Whatever, the eventual solutions, the point is that they need to be put to paper and made clear to everyone. Until that happens, the league’s whim will be seen as the rule.
Minor league duty
Just as outrageous as Kovalchuk’s contract is the idea that the Blackhawks can simply put Cristobal Huet in the minors in order to free up salary cap space. In the event they do that, the Hawks will erase Huet’s entire salary from their cap tabulation. Other teams will be on this boat too, as Jeff Finger may be helping Brian Burke from another cap overshoot by playing in the minors.
This situation is fraught with issues as well.
For starters, it seems quite unfair to the player. Huet may be in the minors for his sketchy play, but there will be others who suffer the same fate for their big payday alone. For another thing, the player can still play late on in the season when cap spae is clearer and is free as anyone else to play in the playoffs..
It’s an extreme example, but imagine Chicago opts to sign Kovalchuk and Frolov and gets them to commit to the minors. No matter what outlandish salaries they pay them, come playoff time they could insert the two of them and then Huet back into the lineup without consequence.
Clearly this issue needs to be revisited as well, as the loophole unfairly allows irresponsible GMs to correct errors at a players expense. It also creates an uneven playing field for people who play the cap as if it means something.
Salary cap penalty
While we’re on the topic, how about the salary cap penalty?
Because of bonuses, Chicago went way over the salary cap last season. While it’s causing them some headaches now (and Huet an NHL continuance), the penalty is less than a slap on the wrist.
In a way, I can see Chicago’s point of view. They exceeded the cap for playoff bonuses. That’s hard to account for.
But what’s Toronto’s excuse? And why do they get the same free pass? If it’s true that Toronto went over the salary cap last season, it must also be true that they did so in the regular season (there were no playoffs, after all). I think we all have to ask:
a) Why was this allowed to happen?
b) Why haven’t they been punished beyond the penalty on this year’s cap?
As it stands, with regular season cap busters exceeding the cap without consequence, does it not lead to the next logical question: What is there a salary cap for?
Here, I think the league needs to take action for the next time this occurs, or rather before it happens again. Forfeit of games, draft picks and funds are no brainers. Perhaps something more drastic, though, is what it would take.
Arbitration
Did anyone else see that Clarke MacArthur was awarded $2.4 million a season from the league arbiter? Did anyone else see Jamie Langenbrunner is making $2.8 million a season?
Maybe the MacArthur case is a one off, but I get the feeling it isn’t. Because teams are so terrified of arbiter rulings like this one, they avoid arbitration like the plague. And how do they do that? Well, by overpaying, of course.
An unbalanced arbitration system is good for escalating salaries and not much else. Maybe it too needs a re-look.
Lamoriello is taking some heat and mockery now for his attempt to circumvent the salary cap. However, it must be said that he did it because the laws are loose. If the NHL is at all serious about having this cap, it's high time they took the action to see that things like salary rules, minor league demotions and cap penalties are calibrated correctly. The salary cap was meant to level the playing field, not tilt it towards the unrepentant.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Olympic Implications
Seeing Nabokov yet again fall short in an important game brought back memories for me. Imagine what the directors of the San Jose Sharks must be thinking.
Coming up to the trade deadline, the Sharks are yet again flirting with the NHL lead, but yet again carry team members who prefer the December walks to the May slugfests. Between Joe Thronton, Patrick Marleau and Dany Heatley the Sharks have a lot wrapped up in their current edition, and in a salary cap world, one can't expect that to continue forever.
Do you think that Doug Wilson shrugs off a Nabokov loss in a critical test, or will he now be hoping to bolster his back line of defence as he sets for a run with this set of big contracts before they walk?
I tend to think he'll stick – more out of necessity than choice. However, there's no telling how scarred he is from seeing Nabokov underperform (or simply never overperform) when the time is asking.
Roenick thinks Chicago has a dilemma, I wonder what he thinks of his former mates in SJ.
Coming up to the trade deadline, the Sharks are yet again flirting with the NHL lead, but yet again carry team members who prefer the December walks to the May slugfests. Between Joe Thronton, Patrick Marleau and Dany Heatley the Sharks have a lot wrapped up in their current edition, and in a salary cap world, one can't expect that to continue forever.
Do you think that Doug Wilson shrugs off a Nabokov loss in a critical test, or will he now be hoping to bolster his back line of defence as he sets for a run with this set of big contracts before they walk?
I tend to think he'll stick – more out of necessity than choice. However, there's no telling how scarred he is from seeing Nabokov underperform (or simply never overperform) when the time is asking.
Roenick thinks Chicago has a dilemma, I wonder what he thinks of his former mates in SJ.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Top 100 Habs By Decade:
10. 1999-2009
In 5 short days from now, the Centennial that the Canadiens have been promoting for the last 4.5 years will actually arrive. Though this celebration has inevitably lost some steam due to relentless marketing and pre-game ceremonies for all of living memory, it would be a shame to let it pass unnoticed just because Mr. Gilett wanted to cash in before he cashed out.
In recognition of the occasion, we at Lions in Winter have been doing what we like best – making lists. As a precursor to publishing the definitive LIW top 100, we will be couting down the decades from least successful to most successful and naming our LIW top 10 players for the ten-year span. You should expect a few each day for the next few days.
Sorry young fans, but 1999-2009 has without much doubt the worst decade in the hisory of the Montreal Canadiens. Whether you want to look at Cups, standings, scoring or personal awards, things have been pretty thin on the ground for the Habs. Chalk it up to expanded competition, sure, but this organization has lofty standards and a middling playoff team is bottom of the barrel by most counts.
The decade has nonetheless had some very big and notable highs, and we have been lucky enough to watch some very good players grace the ice in Montreal since the turn of the Millennium. here are the LIW cream of the crop. If you don't do anything else, at least check the profile links out – the Habs have done an outstanding job with their history site.
10. Richard Zednik (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
A stretch of reliable goalscoring peppered with promising goals. 2001-02 playoffs were the high point.
9. Tomas Plekanec(Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
Growing into offensive role from solid defensive forward roots. This season gives him a boost.
8. Craig Rivet (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
Stalwart on the Canadiens blueline. A generally reliable character on some shaky back ends.
7. Cristobal Huet (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
One of the best single seasons in Canadiens history and saving 92% of shots the rest of the time.
6. Sheldon Souray (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
Single-handedly revived the PP after years of toil. Never mind that he couldn't play his position very well – this is the 2000s...
5. Patrice Brisebois (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
Tenure gets him consdieration. Despite some very rough seasons, his contribution over nearly 900 games was worthy of recognition.
4. Alexei Kovalev (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
Thrilling skill and some thrilling gamechanging nights. The best offensive player of the decade by a good margin.
3. Andrei Markov (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
The core of the current team. His steady improvement over the years may have seen him reach the pinnacle here with a couple more years time.
2. Jose Theodore (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
Probably the best single stretch of goaltending I've ever seen and may ever see in 2002. Hart trophy, Vezina trophy – the main trophies won this decade by the Habs. Steady in other years (until the flop) with sold dave percentage and good shutout numbers.
1. Saku Koivu (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
Captain for the decade, as well as offensive engine throughout. Played better than his numbers seem to indicate, and his ability to ratchet it up in the playoffs will be missed.
* Awards: H = Hart trophy; V = Vezina trophy; RC = Roger Crozier trophy (save %); BM= Bill Masterton; KC = King Clancy; AS= All-star; SC = Stanley Cup.
In recognition of the occasion, we at Lions in Winter have been doing what we like best – making lists. As a precursor to publishing the definitive LIW top 100, we will be couting down the decades from least successful to most successful and naming our LIW top 10 players for the ten-year span. You should expect a few each day for the next few days.
1999-2009
Sorry young fans, but 1999-2009 has without much doubt the worst decade in the hisory of the Montreal Canadiens. Whether you want to look at Cups, standings, scoring or personal awards, things have been pretty thin on the ground for the Habs. Chalk it up to expanded competition, sure, but this organization has lofty standards and a middling playoff team is bottom of the barrel by most counts.
The decade has nonetheless had some very big and notable highs, and we have been lucky enough to watch some very good players grace the ice in Montreal since the turn of the Millennium. here are the LIW cream of the crop. If you don't do anything else, at least check the profile links out – the Habs have done an outstanding job with their history site.
10. Richard Zednik (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 2001-06 | 322 | 98 | 85 | 183 | +2 | 18 | |
| Decade best (Season) | 2003-04 | 81 | 26 | 24 | 50 | +5 | 9 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2002-06 | 21 | 9 | 7 | 16 | +10 | 1 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2001-02 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | +7 | 1 |
A stretch of reliable goalscoring peppered with promising goals. 2001-02 playoffs were the high point.
9. Tomas Plekanec(Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 2004-09 | 336 | 83 | 125 | 208 | +28 | 9 | |
| Decade best (Season) | 2007-08 | 81 | 29 | 40 | 69 | +15 | 6 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2006-09 | 21 | 4 | 9 | 13 | -4 | 0 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2007-08 | 12 | 4 | 5 | 9 | -1 | 0 |
Growing into offensive role from solid defensive forward roots. This season gives him a boost.
8. Craig Rivet (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1994-2007 | 653 | 39 | 112 | 151 | -1 | 5 | |
| Decade best (Season) | 2001-02 | 82 | 8 | 17 | 25 | +1 | 0 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1997-2006 | 39 | 1 | 10 | 11 | E | 0 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2003-04 | 11 | 1 | 4 | 5 | +2 | 0 |
Stalwart on the Canadiens blueline. A generally reliable character on some shaky back ends.
7. Cristobal Huet (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | W | L | GAA | S% | SO | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 2005-08 | 117 | 58 | 39 | 2.53 | 0.920 | 11 | RC, AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 2005-06 | 36 | 18 | 15 | 2.20 | 0.929 | 7 | RC |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2005-06 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 2.33 | 0.929 | 0 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2005-06 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 2.33 | 0.929 | 0 |
One of the best single seasons in Canadiens history and saving 92% of shots the rest of the time.
6. Sheldon Souray (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1999-2007 | 324 | 62 | 98 | 160 | -44 | 11 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 2006-07 | 81 | 26 | 38 | 64 | -28 | 6 | AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2002-06 | 29 | 3 | 5 | 8 | -7 | 0 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2005-06 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 5 | -1 | 0 |
Single-handedly revived the PP after years of toil. Never mind that he couldn't play his position very well – this is the 2000s...
5. Patrice Brisebois (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1990-2009 | 896 | 87 | 284 | 371 | +5 | 18 | |
| Decade best (Season) | 2001-02 | 71 | 4 | 29 | 33 | +9 | 1 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1992-2009 | 89 | 9 | 22 | 31 | -8 | 3 | SC |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2007-08 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 6 | -3 | 1 |
Tenure gets him consdieration. Despite some very rough seasons, his contribution over nearly 900 games was worthy of recognition.
4. Alexei Kovalev (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 2004-09 | 314 | 103 | 161 | 264 | -11 | 20 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 2007-08 | 82 | 35 | 49 | 84 | +18 | 5 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2004-09 | 33 | 17 | 14 | 31 | +1 | 2 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2003-04 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 10 | +2 | 1 |
Thrilling skill and some thrilling gamechanging nights. The best offensive player of the decade by a good margin.
3. Andrei Markov (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 2000-09 | 572 | 74 | 255 | 329 | +18 | 11 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 2008-09 | 78 | 12 | 52 | 64 | -2 | 3 | AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2002-09 | 41 | 3 | 11 | 14 | +3 | 2 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2003-04 | 11 | 1 | 4 | 5 | +3 | 1 |
The core of the current team. His steady improvement over the years may have seen him reach the pinnacle here with a couple more years time.
2. Jose Theodore (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | W | L | GAA | S% | SO | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1995-2006 | 353 | 141 | 158 | 2.62 | 0.911 | 23 | H, V, RC, AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 2001-02 | 67 | 30 | 24 | 2.11 | 0.931 | 7 | H, V, RC, AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1996-2004 | 28 | 11 | 15 | 2.54 | 0.921 | 1 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2003-04 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 2.39 | 0.919 | 1 |
Probably the best single stretch of goaltending I've ever seen and may ever see in 2002. Hart trophy, Vezina trophy – the main trophies won this decade by the Habs. Steady in other years (until the flop) with sold dave percentage and good shutout numbers.
1. Saku Koivu (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1995-2009 | 792 | 191 | 450 | 641 | -10 | 35 | BM, KC, AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 2002-03 | 82 | 21 | 50 | 71 | +5 | 5 | AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1996-2009 | 54 | 16 | 32 | 48 | +11 | 1 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 2003-04 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 11 | +1 | 0 |
Captain for the decade, as well as offensive engine throughout. Played better than his numbers seem to indicate, and his ability to ratchet it up in the playoffs will be missed.
* Awards: H = Hart trophy; V = Vezina trophy; RC = Roger Crozier trophy (save %); BM= Bill Masterton; KC = King Clancy; AS= All-star; SC = Stanley Cup.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Letting Players Go For Nothing Vs. The Desperate Grab
Because I took some shots at Jack Todd, and I guess Andre Savard, I have found myself in several arguments on the merits and pitfalls of various moves across the years.
While I can't really argue when there's a clear disagreement about the worth of a player, there are places where I think my point of view needs better airing. One area that keeps coming up again and again in arguments (and it's really getting my back up now) is faulting the GM for all the players he lets go for "nothing" – supposedly in contrast to the massive yields he could have reaped in a last minute trade. I have never accepted this line of thinking, nor will I ever, probably.
But in the interest of at least seeming open-minded, I will lay out both sides of the case as I see it.
What is nothing?
"He let the player go for nothing..."
Ah, that old chestnut. Some people would accept it outright, not me. To start with, I think we have to be clear about what we actually mean by nothing. I'll take trade vs. no trade at the deadline to provide the example. Since we have such a convenient recent example in Cristobal Huet, I'll illustrate using his case.
Cristobal Huet was not let go for nothing, not in the immediate sense of the word. Bob Gainey traded him to avoid that eventuality. He was let go for a 2nd round draft pick that eventually became Mathieu Schneider (when combined with another pick) who then became nothing.
The initial trade
What is hardly ever mentioned in this trade is that another team was involved – the Washington Capitals. The Capitals (a team behind the Canadiens in the standings) needed a goalie to sure themselves up for a playoff run. Just like the Canadiens, the Capitals in taking on Huet would be taking on a player who might amount to nothing come July 1st. In fact that is what ended up happening.
So why did the Capitals trade a 2nd round pick for nothing?
Well, they didn't. Did they? What they traded that 2nd round draft pick for was 2 whole months of Huet's services – something which amounted to 13 regular season starts and 7 in the playoffs. They traded for an 11-2 finish to the season and an being an OT goal away from the second round. It's hardly nothing. In fact, it could be argued that the latter portion of the season and the playoffs is when you most want a star player like Huet was that season.
Now, in fairness, when Huet was traded Gainey was not trading away an 11-2 record with league-leading goaltending to be followed by taking Philly to the limit. What Gainey was trading was probably more like 6 or 7 starts as a back-up and an insurance policy against a rookie who might falter or crumble under fatigue (what a radical concept). He traded a back-up option that his coach might actually use, vs. the other young guy who hadn't earned any trust yet. Not, perhaps, 11-2 and playoff heroics; but hardly nothing.
At the time it seemed a lot to give up for a 2nd round pick. In retrospect, it looks like even more.
Speculating on returns
The other trading scenario in this game is the trade unmade – hanging onto a player for 20+ games of service, all in the knowledge that come July that player might leave town.
Here things get even more interesting, because unlike Huet, Recchi and Damphousse who have values attached that we can measure and evaluate after the fact, the hypothetical trade only gets imaginary value. It tends to get very interesting indeed because often what we imagine a GM can get and what he actually can get is separated by quite a gulf.
Here take the oft-cited (frustratingly often now) example of Mark Streit.
In 2006-07, Mark Streit had a breakout season scoring 10 goals and adding 28 assists to float well up the defenceman scoring leaders list for the year. While this misleading statistic made him a hockey pool favourite, those who didn't have wool over their eyes remember that a lot of those points came as a sometimes 1st, sometimes 3rd line forward (several with Koivu as his centre).
The trend continued in 2007-08 as Streit racked up a whopping 62 points. But again at the trade deadline, it was hard to dissect whether he was a forward playing at a good second line clip 58 GP, 43 Pts or whether he was actually an elite offensive defenceman being misused by his coach. Though it was clear he was a good player, I don't think anyone could have predicted the 19 points in 18 games that followed the Huet trade – a period that vaulted him to all-star contender.
So to those who lament losing the 62-point PP wizard for nothing when we could have traded big, I ask first for you to wind back the clock and remember the time spent at forward. Seeing as Mark himself had made it clear his goal was to make his next NHL season one spent on the blueline, what Gainey had on that day was more like a 50-point defenceman with inflated stats thanks to shifts with Koivu. He had value, but a couple of notches below.
So instead of being able to fetch what free agent defender Brian Campbell did, for instance (Steve Bernier and a first rounder), Mark was in a more unproven zone. He probably fell into the league of Brad Stuart 2007-08 (a season removed from being a pretty reliable 30-point D) and Marc-Anre Bergeron (an offensive PP specialist coming off seasons of 35, then 46 points with no time at forward). Neither of these players was had for nothing (it was 2nd/4th and 3rd round picks, respectively), but neither did they return the moon.
Even assuming a generous and slightly deluded GM like Holmgren (who paid a 3rd for Modry that day), I don't think Streit would have fetched Gainey more than a 2nd round pick and a dead-end minor leaguer. Not a really franchise-changing moment lost for the Habs then.
Those last 20 games...
I have already touched on the idea that keeping a player beyond the deadline is not nothing as the infuriating ones imply it is. But there's more here. ot only is that 20+ games, it is also often the most important 20 games of the entire season.
Why? Because as frustrating as it is for fans of teams other than the Red Wings, nobody cares about anything other than Cups. And, as we know playing for the Cup isn't an open invitation, but an honour won by edging out rivals. Therefore, to trade a player, a good player, in the closing stages of the season, while the jockeying for position continues could result in missing an opportunity to luck all the way to a final (like the 2006 Oilers, say).
The 2006 Oilers might well have been on the mind actually when Bob Gainey stared down the barrel of the 2007 playoff race. That year, Sheldon Souray and Craig Rivet were both coming up for free agency and amateur capologists the world over could see that room was not there for both to be signed, not with Markov the priority.
We do know that Gainey had an eye on the future, because the smoke that indicated fire was all there to see. He was talking up his defencemen to any ears that would listen in hopes that he could get some return.
So to trade Rivet or Souray?
My choice would have been Souray, but it appears the GMs who were hearing both names chose Rivet. And like him they did, because that trade now looks like the best Habs deal in years.
Once Rivet goes a few days before the deadline, the question is no longer Rivet or Souray, but just trade Souray or not. At the time, views were mixed. Very much in the hunt for a place in February, Gainey must have wrested with the notion of trading one more of his most valuable players and risk missing the playoffs completely.
In the end, the Canadiens did miss the playoffs – a fact that makes the job of critical naysayers easy now. However, they missed on the very hurdle, on a 2-goal comeback by the Leafs in the final 20 minutes of the Canadiens season.
So you tell me, should Gainey really have given up his main offensive engine (who contributed 5 goals and 12 points over the 18 games post-deadline) when a playoff berth hung in the balance? Would we all really be talking up his-long-term vision then? Or might we, just might we criticise Gainey for giving up on a season where even the Ottawa Senators managed to finally get their playoff act in gear and become the third consecutive Canadian team in the final?
I wonder...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
I think the reality of being the GM in Montreal is that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. With exception of that Gorges trade, which we all like now (but not so much back then), it's hard lot to please, these Montrealers.
But even in the uber-critical world of Canadiens fandom, talking about losing players for nothing is a petty game. A game I'd like to see the end of. I hope my case will convince at least a few of you of the same.
Summary of notable trades and non-trades
On a final note, I provide (because I did the research anyway) a list of some UFA dump trades and some stats from people who weren't traded – just for fodder:
UFA dump trades
Non-trades
While I can't really argue when there's a clear disagreement about the worth of a player, there are places where I think my point of view needs better airing. One area that keeps coming up again and again in arguments (and it's really getting my back up now) is faulting the GM for all the players he lets go for "nothing" – supposedly in contrast to the massive yields he could have reaped in a last minute trade. I have never accepted this line of thinking, nor will I ever, probably.
But in the interest of at least seeming open-minded, I will lay out both sides of the case as I see it.
What is nothing?
"He let the player go for nothing..."
Ah, that old chestnut. Some people would accept it outright, not me. To start with, I think we have to be clear about what we actually mean by nothing. I'll take trade vs. no trade at the deadline to provide the example. Since we have such a convenient recent example in Cristobal Huet, I'll illustrate using his case.
Cristobal Huet was not let go for nothing, not in the immediate sense of the word. Bob Gainey traded him to avoid that eventuality. He was let go for a 2nd round draft pick that eventually became Mathieu Schneider (when combined with another pick) who then became nothing.
The initial trade
What is hardly ever mentioned in this trade is that another team was involved – the Washington Capitals. The Capitals (a team behind the Canadiens in the standings) needed a goalie to sure themselves up for a playoff run. Just like the Canadiens, the Capitals in taking on Huet would be taking on a player who might amount to nothing come July 1st. In fact that is what ended up happening.
So why did the Capitals trade a 2nd round pick for nothing?
Well, they didn't. Did they? What they traded that 2nd round draft pick for was 2 whole months of Huet's services – something which amounted to 13 regular season starts and 7 in the playoffs. They traded for an 11-2 finish to the season and an being an OT goal away from the second round. It's hardly nothing. In fact, it could be argued that the latter portion of the season and the playoffs is when you most want a star player like Huet was that season.
Now, in fairness, when Huet was traded Gainey was not trading away an 11-2 record with league-leading goaltending to be followed by taking Philly to the limit. What Gainey was trading was probably more like 6 or 7 starts as a back-up and an insurance policy against a rookie who might falter or crumble under fatigue (what a radical concept). He traded a back-up option that his coach might actually use, vs. the other young guy who hadn't earned any trust yet. Not, perhaps, 11-2 and playoff heroics; but hardly nothing.
At the time it seemed a lot to give up for a 2nd round pick. In retrospect, it looks like even more.
Speculating on returns
The other trading scenario in this game is the trade unmade – hanging onto a player for 20+ games of service, all in the knowledge that come July that player might leave town.
Here things get even more interesting, because unlike Huet, Recchi and Damphousse who have values attached that we can measure and evaluate after the fact, the hypothetical trade only gets imaginary value. It tends to get very interesting indeed because often what we imagine a GM can get and what he actually can get is separated by quite a gulf.
Here take the oft-cited (frustratingly often now) example of Mark Streit.
In 2006-07, Mark Streit had a breakout season scoring 10 goals and adding 28 assists to float well up the defenceman scoring leaders list for the year. While this misleading statistic made him a hockey pool favourite, those who didn't have wool over their eyes remember that a lot of those points came as a sometimes 1st, sometimes 3rd line forward (several with Koivu as his centre).
The trend continued in 2007-08 as Streit racked up a whopping 62 points. But again at the trade deadline, it was hard to dissect whether he was a forward playing at a good second line clip 58 GP, 43 Pts or whether he was actually an elite offensive defenceman being misused by his coach. Though it was clear he was a good player, I don't think anyone could have predicted the 19 points in 18 games that followed the Huet trade – a period that vaulted him to all-star contender.
So to those who lament losing the 62-point PP wizard for nothing when we could have traded big, I ask first for you to wind back the clock and remember the time spent at forward. Seeing as Mark himself had made it clear his goal was to make his next NHL season one spent on the blueline, what Gainey had on that day was more like a 50-point defenceman with inflated stats thanks to shifts with Koivu. He had value, but a couple of notches below.
So instead of being able to fetch what free agent defender Brian Campbell did, for instance (Steve Bernier and a first rounder), Mark was in a more unproven zone. He probably fell into the league of Brad Stuart 2007-08 (a season removed from being a pretty reliable 30-point D) and Marc-Anre Bergeron (an offensive PP specialist coming off seasons of 35, then 46 points with no time at forward). Neither of these players was had for nothing (it was 2nd/4th and 3rd round picks, respectively), but neither did they return the moon.
Even assuming a generous and slightly deluded GM like Holmgren (who paid a 3rd for Modry that day), I don't think Streit would have fetched Gainey more than a 2nd round pick and a dead-end minor leaguer. Not a really franchise-changing moment lost for the Habs then.
Those last 20 games...
I have already touched on the idea that keeping a player beyond the deadline is not nothing as the infuriating ones imply it is. But there's more here. ot only is that 20+ games, it is also often the most important 20 games of the entire season.
Why? Because as frustrating as it is for fans of teams other than the Red Wings, nobody cares about anything other than Cups. And, as we know playing for the Cup isn't an open invitation, but an honour won by edging out rivals. Therefore, to trade a player, a good player, in the closing stages of the season, while the jockeying for position continues could result in missing an opportunity to luck all the way to a final (like the 2006 Oilers, say).
The 2006 Oilers might well have been on the mind actually when Bob Gainey stared down the barrel of the 2007 playoff race. That year, Sheldon Souray and Craig Rivet were both coming up for free agency and amateur capologists the world over could see that room was not there for both to be signed, not with Markov the priority.
We do know that Gainey had an eye on the future, because the smoke that indicated fire was all there to see. He was talking up his defencemen to any ears that would listen in hopes that he could get some return.
So to trade Rivet or Souray?
My choice would have been Souray, but it appears the GMs who were hearing both names chose Rivet. And like him they did, because that trade now looks like the best Habs deal in years.
Once Rivet goes a few days before the deadline, the question is no longer Rivet or Souray, but just trade Souray or not. At the time, views were mixed. Very much in the hunt for a place in February, Gainey must have wrested with the notion of trading one more of his most valuable players and risk missing the playoffs completely.
In the end, the Canadiens did miss the playoffs – a fact that makes the job of critical naysayers easy now. However, they missed on the very hurdle, on a 2-goal comeback by the Leafs in the final 20 minutes of the Canadiens season.
So you tell me, should Gainey really have given up his main offensive engine (who contributed 5 goals and 12 points over the 18 games post-deadline) when a playoff berth hung in the balance? Would we all really be talking up his-long-term vision then? Or might we, just might we criticise Gainey for giving up on a season where even the Ottawa Senators managed to finally get their playoff act in gear and become the third consecutive Canadian team in the final?
I wonder...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
I think the reality of being the GM in Montreal is that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. With exception of that Gorges trade, which we all like now (but not so much back then), it's hard lot to please, these Montrealers.
But even in the uber-critical world of Canadiens fandom, talking about losing players for nothing is a petty game. A game I'd like to see the end of. I hope my case will convince at least a few of you of the same.
Summary of notable trades and non-trades
On a final note, I provide (because I did the research anyway) a list of some UFA dump trades and some stats from people who weren't traded – just for fodder:
UFA dump trades
| Season | Playoffs? | From Habs | To Habs |
| 98-99 | Not close | Mark Recchi | Dainnius Zubrus, 2 conditional picks |
| 98-99 | Not close | Vincent Damphousse | 1st (2000), 5th (1999) |
| 00-01 | Not close | Eric Weinrich | Patrick Traverse |
| 01-02 | 8th seed | Brian Savage, 3rd (2002) | Sergei Berezin |
| 02-03 | Missed by 6 points | Jeff Hackett | Niklas Sundstrom, 3rd (2003) |
| 02-03 | Missed by 6 points | Oleg Petrov | 4th (2003) |
| 02-03 | Missed by 6 points | Doug Gilmour | 6th (2003) |
| 06-07 | Missed on last day | Craig Rivet | Josh Gorges, 1st (2007) |
| 07-08 | 1st seed | Cristobal Huet | 2nd (2009) |
Non-trades
| Player | Season | RegS GP | G | A | Pts | PlOff GP | G | A | Pts |
| Alexei Kovalev | 08-09 | 17 | 11 | 8 | 19 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Saku Koivu | 08-09 | 19 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Alex Tanguay | 08-09 | 17 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mark Streit | 07-08 | 18 | 3 | 16 | 19 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Sheldon Souray | 06-07 | 18 | 5 | 7 | 12 | – | – | – | – |
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Carey Price: Thoroughbred In The Gates?
The Cost Of Betting On This Thoroughbred
As promised, my third post on Carey Price will deal with the question of the management of Carey Price and his career trajectory has affected the Canadiens and members of the team.
This piece is not so much about Price as Gainey and the management. It is about how decisions on Price affected everyone else but #31.
Goaltending prospects
The people most directly affected by the decision to promote Price were the other goalies. The first to feel the repercussions of the decision were Yann Danis and Jaroslav Halak who, in effect, were leapfrogged in the depth chart.
Yann Danis, once first in line behind Theodore and Huet, then Aebischer and Huet, was already usurped in 2005-06 by the play of Jaroslav Halak down on the farm, so was not pipped for an NHL job as it happened. Even so, Yann had already had respectable stint in Montreal with 6 GP, a 2.69 GAA and a 0.908 Save %. And, considering all the hard work he had put in to get from a non-scouted program in the Ivy League to an NHL club, we were impressed. It has to be said, that surpasssed by Halak or not, by 2006-07, Yann’s seasons in Hamilton had proven his mettle. He could not have expected a junior to bump him so quickly and, had he been a lesser man, he probably would have been a bit more put out than he was to see Boy Wonder come in and take everything by right.
Jaroslav Halak was probably even more aggrieved. He had made a real mark in the Canadiens ranks while junior goalies were having their fun. In 2005-06, he put up stunning stats in the ECHL to earn a promotion, then in Hamilton he went on to replicate his form in 13 games with 7 wins, a 2.29 GAA and a 0.927 Save %. 2006-07 he was even better wresting the starting role from a pretty good Yann Danis, posting the best stats in the AHL over 28 starts (2.00 GAA and 0.932 Save %). As reward for his play, he was promoted to the Canadiens and got them into playoff contention with 10 wins in his first 16 NHL games under pressure cooker conditions. Not only that, he posted 2 shutouts in tight wins against the rival Bruins (1-0 and 2-0 – must be the last 1-0 win we’ve had) and did what it took in his typical fashion with a 0.906 save %.
2007-08 Training camp
It didn’t stop there, Jaro came in and performed best of the 4 goalies (including Huet) at training camp and looked to be restating a case he had made the last spring.
Alas, both Danis and Halak were demoted in favour of Price. At the time, I recall some ridiculous claims that Price had nothing to learn in Hamilton (which got me really angry at the time). I think, my friends, that if anything has been proven over the past two seasons it’s that carey price had plenty to learn in Hamilton.
Back to the point. The effect that initial demotion had on Danis and, unitl then, ultra-confident Jaroslav Halak could have been devastating. In fact, it was devastating for Danis as he slipped lower than any previous form would suggest he would and for Halak, at least initially, it seemed it was bad news as well. He was devastated:
The fact he bounced back was lucky and good news for the Canadiens. It proved that Jaroslav Halak had backbone and determination. But one has to wonder how much more the guy can take.
The training camp demotion, after all, proved to be a harbinger for things to come. First, there was his call up for five games in December 2007 where he didn’t get a start, and only saw 20 minutes of action after Carey had let in 4 and lost the game. It was during a stretch where the Habs were struggling all around, so it looked hopeful for him – but he was sent back down empty handed. The next stint was worse. Called up for 12 games as Golden Balls nursed his wounds (and waited out his time where he had nothing to learn) in Hamilton, Jaro managed a mere 20 minutes again. The fact that Huet was purported to fatigue and the Halak posted 20 minutes of shutout hockey did nothing to win him a call. The slap in the face would come as Carey Price started in his second game back.
The next time Halak would see the light of NHL day was after the Huet trade. At that time, Gainey declared he was going with Price (not Price and Halak). Jaro would get his long-awaited permanent position in Montreal, but nary a start. Carey played well, but for someone who was so convinced of his tired excuse in May, one might have thought caution and a few Halak starts could have paid off. Jaro instead continued to get brow-beaten and played 4 more games before Price’s playoff meltdown.
We know the story from there. Although he gets the nod in September 2008 to be the #2 guy, when the chips are down, Halak is always passed over, and only an injury to Price really afforded him a decent chance.
I will listen to a lot of reasonable arguments about how Price and Halak differ and compare in terms of potential. But, I will not be moved from thinking that 2 full seasons of outright favouritism have not harmed the Slovak. Where once he was the man who came in and confidently won 10 virtual playoff games in March, he is now so nervy that he can’t put two periods together.
If you ask me, the Canadiens have done a horrible job at managing the man who probably should have been treated as the #2 or #3 prospect in the organization. And for what?
Cristobal Huet
Another man greatly affected by the decisions on how to manage Carey Price’s career was Cristobal Huet. It must be said that at times he benefitted, while at other times he suffered.
There was no question that Huet would be coming out of the 2007 training camp on the Canadiens team, so the decision to promote Price was of limited impact for him. If anything, it probably gave him more starts initially as the coaches tried to wean Carey onto his NHL diet. The same would be true when Carey was demoted. Halak could not play, because if he did, and played well, there would be a dilemma – one good goalie would have to be moved to make way for Carey Price when he was to be reinstated as per the plan. This period gave Cristobal another chance like he had in 2005-06 to take the bull by the horns. He did. That January was a defining moment for the Habs and Cris made it happen with an 8-3-1 record.
But Carey would not wait. Cristobal who was an all-star, played like an all-star in January, would slip in February. Not much, but enough for Gainey to move. There was a game that Huet and the Canadiens blew a 3-0 lead against the Rangers to lose 5-3, a game where he let in 3 goals on 4 shots (over the first 5 minutes) and a final 5-4 loss to Pitsburgh. That combined with Carey’s three consecutive wins (and convenient omission of the fact he too dug a 3-0 first period hole on 11 shots over 14 minutes – which Huet and the Habs would overcome) meant Carey was ready and Cristobal was done.
We knew pretty well at the time that the decision was mostly for Price’s benefit, because who trades an all-star goalie from a first-place contending team when the new back-up would have 40 minutes of NHL play that year for a second round draft pick? We know now for certain, because Gainey has said as much in his end-of-season interview.
The decision was a blessing in some ways to Huet as he surged and outplayed his protégé to vault the hot Capitals into the playoffs. It would be the streak that won him a massive contract, and he has Bob Gainey’s Carey Price fixation to thank for lifetime financial stability.
But in another way it took Cristobal from a team due to contend at that time and onto one that wouldn’t be ready – not with the defensive corps they had, and one which Ovechkin was still dragging largely without Semin and Backstrom’s help. It took a chance at a long playoff run away from Cristobal (the man who’s first into the third round this season). It also removed him from the teammates he had grown close to and cared most for.
Guy Carbonneau
It’s difficult to tease apart just how much say Guy Carbonneau had in the Carey Price situation. In the good times, I’m sure he was as much a Price advocate as anyone. What we do know is that Carbo, fresh off assisting for Halak’s sweet run was pretty keen on keeping the young Slovak around for the start of the 2007-08 season. He was quoted on it, and it was well aired at the time.
One doesn’t know how much his decisions over the rest of that season were dictated from above, but it seems unlikely that a coach who at one time is happy to stick with a goalie for 12 straight games during the tough part of the schedule would then turn around, suggest that goalie be traded and go al the rest of the way with the boy demoted then promoted from Hamilton.
This season, I’d suggest the same. Carbo showed a tendency for sticking with the “hot hand” and when it was working for the team, he didn’t care what their mother tongue was. I personally think it’s quite telling that Carbonneau and his coaches turned the team around (or rather were there when the team turned around), but was dismissed the very minute that Jaro recovered from his flu.
At the time, I wrote this:
What we know now is that the reasons for Carbo’s dismissal were compound. It’s worth noting that Price, not Halak, started that Edmonton game, though; as well as 14 of the 19 remaining games for the season. Good games were no longer guarantees for next start, nor bad games guarantee of the hook. It’s questionable whether 3 wins in 10 would have trumped 2 wins in 5 if Carbo were calling the shots. Based on precedent, he wouldn’t have.
If Carbonneau wasn’t affected day-to-day by meddling, he was definitely broadly affected by the GM’s consecutive decisions to promote and develop Price, come what may. It is said that a GM is paid to work with a 5-year window, whereas a coach is paid to work with a 1-game window. In this case, I don’t think the two strategies meshed. I also think the words that were likely thrown around about that fact played at least some part in Carbo’s fate.
The other coaches
While the other coaches are all gainfully employed by the Canadiens at this moment in time, odds say they won’t be in September.
Of all decisions taken, the Huet trade probably affected the assistants most. From that point, they had to deal with goalies whose confidence was fragile and whose puck control was, well below the standard they were used to. Plying games to get Carey Price big league experience doesn’t fit well with the winning that is required from coaches on the ground.
Roman Hamrlik
Roman Hamrlik is the biggest free agent signing the Canadiens have made since Kovalev. Being both a veteran and a defenceman, he likely chose his destination carefully – looking at organizational strengths, potential partners and even goalies.
When he signed up, he was joining a team with an all-star goalie, the number one PP and a very solid #1/2 pair of defencemen. Things looked good in Montreal. He probably thought: out-perform Souray (easy) and we’re in with a chance.
Well, that’s exactly how it went. But it all looks a bit differently today doesn’t it?
As it stands right now, with 2 years left on Hamrlik’s contract, the Canadiens have multiple free agents who probably won’t be back. And given the factors like less bring-home pay, they are unlikely to upgrade in the UFA market. What’s more, the GM has committed to Carey Price, which even the GM has finally realised is a waiting game.
I use Hamrlik as an example because, frankly, does anyone think he would have signed up had he known that he would be part of the Carey Price tutoring program. Nevermind how Price or Halak played, does anyone think he or any other veteran D looking for a potential contender would have gone with a team that opted to go with a 20-year-old and a 22-year-old and no one behind them? Didn't think so...
UFAs
As an extension on the Hamrlik theme, I think Gainey’s pronouncements on Carey Price will likely send stirs into the UFA signing period as well.
To put it simply, I think Gainey pressed reset on his 5-year plan. Don’t you?
Now the message is out there though – our GM is willing to be make decisions that favour the 5-year career projection of one man vs. the next game’s performance for the team. Some players might rightly call it what it is – a rebuilding stage.
My feeling on this is that it will affect not only new talent we are trying to attract, but also remaining talent who have experienced one rebuilding process too many. Building a championship team is about timing, and I think even the most optimistic won’t be betting on Carey Price’s progression to take him from January 2009 form to Roy 1989 form. This group includes players we won’t find equivalents for like Saku Koivu, Alexei Kovalev and others (thank goodness Markov is signed). From outside, why would Bouwmeester, Lecavalier or Marian Hossa pay so much more tax to hope for the best?
Fans like you and me
Bob Gainey has to start appreciating the concerns of fans. The fans were told to be patient because Gainey would be implementing a 5-year plan. The end of our best chance at a Cup in spectacular fashion: patience. Carey Price is young: patience. The end of this season: patience.
Last year was the 5th year of his grace period you know, which actually for the most part looked to be coming to fruition. He preaches patience, which is fine; but no one asked him to press reset in the fifth year of the plan when the team is on the verge of vanquishing Ottawa’s hold on first. No one gave him permission to lower the bar for himself, yet again.
Personally, after giving him the 5-year benefit of the doubt, I felt a little bit cheated when the 2008 playoffs were earmarked for Playoffs 101 class for our young apprentice.
It was all the more puzzling that it would have happened anyway (with patience), given that we would have been very accepting of losing Huet in a bidding war that ended up with Cristobal vastly overpaid. At that point, we’d have all accepted the need to proceed with our two promising youngsters.
As it is, I feel like the organization didn’t give their best shot last season. I feel disgusted when I hear Bob Gainey say he expected the playoff loss in 2008 (and even 2009, now) and that we should have all accepted it too.
Gainey’s mess
Though this piece revolves around young Carey Price; the implications have nothing to do with him, thoroughbred or not.
The onus on evaluating his talent and demeanour (and fatigue levels if we’re still giving him that excuse) fell at the feet of the GM. It seems to me that in this regard Bob Gainey made errors here, many of them. Worse still, he seems to have tried to cover his tracks by making more errors and not admitting a temporary defeat.
Jack Todd, on form as if he were nailing it to Loria said:
“If Gainey does come back, he is going to have to accept that, after running this team since 2003, he can no longer pawn off his failures on Réjean Houle or André Savard. For better or for worse, this was the Gainey show, and so far it has produced more failure than success.”
He’s right. For me, his handling of this prospect (thrown to the wolves, as Jack put it) is first and foremost among his mis-steps.
Luckily, I do have some advice for Bob (if he’s reading). I’m actually relaying this to him from a comment more than a year ago – I can't remember which commenter hit the nail on the head – the advice went something like this:
"It is Bob Gainey's job to manage the Montreal Canadiens. It is not his job to manage Carey Price's career."
I think a little reminder, considering all now left in the wake, might be in order.
This piece is not so much about Price as Gainey and the management. It is about how decisions on Price affected everyone else but #31.
Goaltending prospects
The people most directly affected by the decision to promote Price were the other goalies. The first to feel the repercussions of the decision were Yann Danis and Jaroslav Halak who, in effect, were leapfrogged in the depth chart.
Yann Danis, once first in line behind Theodore and Huet, then Aebischer and Huet, was already usurped in 2005-06 by the play of Jaroslav Halak down on the farm, so was not pipped for an NHL job as it happened. Even so, Yann had already had respectable stint in Montreal with 6 GP, a 2.69 GAA and a 0.908 Save %. And, considering all the hard work he had put in to get from a non-scouted program in the Ivy League to an NHL club, we were impressed. It has to be said, that surpasssed by Halak or not, by 2006-07, Yann’s seasons in Hamilton had proven his mettle. He could not have expected a junior to bump him so quickly and, had he been a lesser man, he probably would have been a bit more put out than he was to see Boy Wonder come in and take everything by right.
Jaroslav Halak was probably even more aggrieved. He had made a real mark in the Canadiens ranks while junior goalies were having their fun. In 2005-06, he put up stunning stats in the ECHL to earn a promotion, then in Hamilton he went on to replicate his form in 13 games with 7 wins, a 2.29 GAA and a 0.927 Save %. 2006-07 he was even better wresting the starting role from a pretty good Yann Danis, posting the best stats in the AHL over 28 starts (2.00 GAA and 0.932 Save %). As reward for his play, he was promoted to the Canadiens and got them into playoff contention with 10 wins in his first 16 NHL games under pressure cooker conditions. Not only that, he posted 2 shutouts in tight wins against the rival Bruins (1-0 and 2-0 – must be the last 1-0 win we’ve had) and did what it took in his typical fashion with a 0.906 save %.
2007-08 Training camp
It didn’t stop there, Jaro came in and performed best of the 4 goalies (including Huet) at training camp and looked to be restating a case he had made the last spring.
Alas, both Danis and Halak were demoted in favour of Price. At the time, I recall some ridiculous claims that Price had nothing to learn in Hamilton (which got me really angry at the time). I think, my friends, that if anything has been proven over the past two seasons it’s that carey price had plenty to learn in Hamilton.
Back to the point. The effect that initial demotion had on Danis and, unitl then, ultra-confident Jaroslav Halak could have been devastating. In fact, it was devastating for Danis as he slipped lower than any previous form would suggest he would and for Halak, at least initially, it seemed it was bad news as well. He was devastated:
“Firstly, there was no doubting Halak’s disappointment about being sent down to Hamilton this fall at the conclusion of the Canadiens training camp. Not only was it widely reported in the Montreal Gazette but his coach in Hamilton, Don Lever commented on it as a possible reason for Halak’s poor start with the Bulldogs.”
The fact he bounced back was lucky and good news for the Canadiens. It proved that Jaroslav Halak had backbone and determination. But one has to wonder how much more the guy can take.
The training camp demotion, after all, proved to be a harbinger for things to come. First, there was his call up for five games in December 2007 where he didn’t get a start, and only saw 20 minutes of action after Carey had let in 4 and lost the game. It was during a stretch where the Habs were struggling all around, so it looked hopeful for him – but he was sent back down empty handed. The next stint was worse. Called up for 12 games as Golden Balls nursed his wounds (and waited out his time where he had nothing to learn) in Hamilton, Jaro managed a mere 20 minutes again. The fact that Huet was purported to fatigue and the Halak posted 20 minutes of shutout hockey did nothing to win him a call. The slap in the face would come as Carey Price started in his second game back.
The next time Halak would see the light of NHL day was after the Huet trade. At that time, Gainey declared he was going with Price (not Price and Halak). Jaro would get his long-awaited permanent position in Montreal, but nary a start. Carey played well, but for someone who was so convinced of his tired excuse in May, one might have thought caution and a few Halak starts could have paid off. Jaro instead continued to get brow-beaten and played 4 more games before Price’s playoff meltdown.
We know the story from there. Although he gets the nod in September 2008 to be the #2 guy, when the chips are down, Halak is always passed over, and only an injury to Price really afforded him a decent chance.
I will listen to a lot of reasonable arguments about how Price and Halak differ and compare in terms of potential. But, I will not be moved from thinking that 2 full seasons of outright favouritism have not harmed the Slovak. Where once he was the man who came in and confidently won 10 virtual playoff games in March, he is now so nervy that he can’t put two periods together.
If you ask me, the Canadiens have done a horrible job at managing the man who probably should have been treated as the #2 or #3 prospect in the organization. And for what?
Cristobal Huet
Another man greatly affected by the decisions on how to manage Carey Price’s career was Cristobal Huet. It must be said that at times he benefitted, while at other times he suffered.
There was no question that Huet would be coming out of the 2007 training camp on the Canadiens team, so the decision to promote Price was of limited impact for him. If anything, it probably gave him more starts initially as the coaches tried to wean Carey onto his NHL diet. The same would be true when Carey was demoted. Halak could not play, because if he did, and played well, there would be a dilemma – one good goalie would have to be moved to make way for Carey Price when he was to be reinstated as per the plan. This period gave Cristobal another chance like he had in 2005-06 to take the bull by the horns. He did. That January was a defining moment for the Habs and Cris made it happen with an 8-3-1 record.
But Carey would not wait. Cristobal who was an all-star, played like an all-star in January, would slip in February. Not much, but enough for Gainey to move. There was a game that Huet and the Canadiens blew a 3-0 lead against the Rangers to lose 5-3, a game where he let in 3 goals on 4 shots (over the first 5 minutes) and a final 5-4 loss to Pitsburgh. That combined with Carey’s three consecutive wins (and convenient omission of the fact he too dug a 3-0 first period hole on 11 shots over 14 minutes – which Huet and the Habs would overcome) meant Carey was ready and Cristobal was done.
We knew pretty well at the time that the decision was mostly for Price’s benefit, because who trades an all-star goalie from a first-place contending team when the new back-up would have 40 minutes of NHL play that year for a second round draft pick? We know now for certain, because Gainey has said as much in his end-of-season interview.
The decision was a blessing in some ways to Huet as he surged and outplayed his protégé to vault the hot Capitals into the playoffs. It would be the streak that won him a massive contract, and he has Bob Gainey’s Carey Price fixation to thank for lifetime financial stability.
But in another way it took Cristobal from a team due to contend at that time and onto one that wouldn’t be ready – not with the defensive corps they had, and one which Ovechkin was still dragging largely without Semin and Backstrom’s help. It took a chance at a long playoff run away from Cristobal (the man who’s first into the third round this season). It also removed him from the teammates he had grown close to and cared most for.
Guy Carbonneau
It’s difficult to tease apart just how much say Guy Carbonneau had in the Carey Price situation. In the good times, I’m sure he was as much a Price advocate as anyone. What we do know is that Carbo, fresh off assisting for Halak’s sweet run was pretty keen on keeping the young Slovak around for the start of the 2007-08 season. He was quoted on it, and it was well aired at the time.
One doesn’t know how much his decisions over the rest of that season were dictated from above, but it seems unlikely that a coach who at one time is happy to stick with a goalie for 12 straight games during the tough part of the schedule would then turn around, suggest that goalie be traded and go al the rest of the way with the boy demoted then promoted from Hamilton.
This season, I’d suggest the same. Carbo showed a tendency for sticking with the “hot hand” and when it was working for the team, he didn’t care what their mother tongue was. I personally think it’s quite telling that Carbonneau and his coaches turned the team around (or rather were there when the team turned around), but was dismissed the very minute that Jaro recovered from his flu.
At the time, I wrote this:
“Carbonneau and Gainey are known to have disagreed about Halak and Price in the first place. Halak was finally playing, and then suddenly (boom) Golden Glove is back in. I don't know if it was the coach's decision (I'm guessing not) or the GM's. I suspect we will find out when the starter for the Edmonton game is announced. Is this enough for dismissal. If the rift has been going on ever since it started, and the GM is tired - then quite possibly, yes.”
What we know now is that the reasons for Carbo’s dismissal were compound. It’s worth noting that Price, not Halak, started that Edmonton game, though; as well as 14 of the 19 remaining games for the season. Good games were no longer guarantees for next start, nor bad games guarantee of the hook. It’s questionable whether 3 wins in 10 would have trumped 2 wins in 5 if Carbo were calling the shots. Based on precedent, he wouldn’t have.
If Carbonneau wasn’t affected day-to-day by meddling, he was definitely broadly affected by the GM’s consecutive decisions to promote and develop Price, come what may. It is said that a GM is paid to work with a 5-year window, whereas a coach is paid to work with a 1-game window. In this case, I don’t think the two strategies meshed. I also think the words that were likely thrown around about that fact played at least some part in Carbo’s fate.
The other coaches
While the other coaches are all gainfully employed by the Canadiens at this moment in time, odds say they won’t be in September.
Of all decisions taken, the Huet trade probably affected the assistants most. From that point, they had to deal with goalies whose confidence was fragile and whose puck control was, well below the standard they were used to. Plying games to get Carey Price big league experience doesn’t fit well with the winning that is required from coaches on the ground.
Roman Hamrlik
Roman Hamrlik is the biggest free agent signing the Canadiens have made since Kovalev. Being both a veteran and a defenceman, he likely chose his destination carefully – looking at organizational strengths, potential partners and even goalies.
When he signed up, he was joining a team with an all-star goalie, the number one PP and a very solid #1/2 pair of defencemen. Things looked good in Montreal. He probably thought: out-perform Souray (easy) and we’re in with a chance.
Well, that’s exactly how it went. But it all looks a bit differently today doesn’t it?
As it stands right now, with 2 years left on Hamrlik’s contract, the Canadiens have multiple free agents who probably won’t be back. And given the factors like less bring-home pay, they are unlikely to upgrade in the UFA market. What’s more, the GM has committed to Carey Price, which even the GM has finally realised is a waiting game.
I use Hamrlik as an example because, frankly, does anyone think he would have signed up had he known that he would be part of the Carey Price tutoring program. Nevermind how Price or Halak played, does anyone think he or any other veteran D looking for a potential contender would have gone with a team that opted to go with a 20-year-old and a 22-year-old and no one behind them? Didn't think so...
UFAs
As an extension on the Hamrlik theme, I think Gainey’s pronouncements on Carey Price will likely send stirs into the UFA signing period as well.
To put it simply, I think Gainey pressed reset on his 5-year plan. Don’t you?
Now the message is out there though – our GM is willing to be make decisions that favour the 5-year career projection of one man vs. the next game’s performance for the team. Some players might rightly call it what it is – a rebuilding stage.
My feeling on this is that it will affect not only new talent we are trying to attract, but also remaining talent who have experienced one rebuilding process too many. Building a championship team is about timing, and I think even the most optimistic won’t be betting on Carey Price’s progression to take him from January 2009 form to Roy 1989 form. This group includes players we won’t find equivalents for like Saku Koivu, Alexei Kovalev and others (thank goodness Markov is signed). From outside, why would Bouwmeester, Lecavalier or Marian Hossa pay so much more tax to hope for the best?
Fans like you and me
Bob Gainey has to start appreciating the concerns of fans. The fans were told to be patient because Gainey would be implementing a 5-year plan. The end of our best chance at a Cup in spectacular fashion: patience. Carey Price is young: patience. The end of this season: patience.
Last year was the 5th year of his grace period you know, which actually for the most part looked to be coming to fruition. He preaches patience, which is fine; but no one asked him to press reset in the fifth year of the plan when the team is on the verge of vanquishing Ottawa’s hold on first. No one gave him permission to lower the bar for himself, yet again.
Personally, after giving him the 5-year benefit of the doubt, I felt a little bit cheated when the 2008 playoffs were earmarked for Playoffs 101 class for our young apprentice.
It was all the more puzzling that it would have happened anyway (with patience), given that we would have been very accepting of losing Huet in a bidding war that ended up with Cristobal vastly overpaid. At that point, we’d have all accepted the need to proceed with our two promising youngsters.
As it is, I feel like the organization didn’t give their best shot last season. I feel disgusted when I hear Bob Gainey say he expected the playoff loss in 2008 (and even 2009, now) and that we should have all accepted it too.
Gainey’s mess
Though this piece revolves around young Carey Price; the implications have nothing to do with him, thoroughbred or not.
The onus on evaluating his talent and demeanour (and fatigue levels if we’re still giving him that excuse) fell at the feet of the GM. It seems to me that in this regard Bob Gainey made errors here, many of them. Worse still, he seems to have tried to cover his tracks by making more errors and not admitting a temporary defeat.
Jack Todd, on form as if he were nailing it to Loria said:
“If Gainey does come back, he is going to have to accept that, after running this team since 2003, he can no longer pawn off his failures on Réjean Houle or André Savard. For better or for worse, this was the Gainey show, and so far it has produced more failure than success.”
He’s right. For me, his handling of this prospect (thrown to the wolves, as Jack put it) is first and foremost among his mis-steps.
Luckily, I do have some advice for Bob (if he’s reading). I’m actually relaying this to him from a comment more than a year ago – I can't remember which commenter hit the nail on the head – the advice went something like this:
"It is Bob Gainey's job to manage the Montreal Canadiens. It is not his job to manage Carey Price's career."
I think a little reminder, considering all now left in the wake, might be in order.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Game #76
2 More Habs Fall in Crucial Win
The Canadiens Game in Review
Date: Tuesday March 31st, 2009
Opponent: Chicago Blackhawks
Venue: Bell Centre, Montreal, QC
Team Stripes
Final Score: 4-1 - Win
Date: Tuesday March 31st, 2009
Opponent: Chicago Blackhawks
Venue: Bell Centre, Montreal, QC
Team Stripes
Final Score: 4-1 - WinHabs starting goalie: Carey Price (W)
Opposition starting goalie: Cristobal Huet (L)
Habs goalscorers: Alexei Kovalev, Guillaume Latendresse, Andrei Markov, Mathieu Schneider
Opposition goalscorers: Patrick Sharp
Play of the game
The play you're straining to see on the press catwalk monitor...
This play started with Higgins and a few minutes later ended with him. There was 4 minutes to go in the game and our 2-goal lead was not looking like it would hold up. Chicago was all over Montreal and 2 more goals (maybe even 3) looked like a very possible outcome. In a moment of attack Higgins hit Kostitsyn with a nice pass and he was then more or less alone in on net. Andrei got off a quality shot despite being slashed; that put us on the PP. 2 minutes of clock-wasting would have probably done the trick, but scoring a 4th seemed like an even better plan. Chicago thought that they had a clearance along the glass, but there, as he always is, was Markov putting up both hands and keeping the puck in. He quickly played it to Schneider who one-timed a shot by a screened - courtesy of Higgins - Huet. There is too great of a chance at 1 point only in OT - I like this approach much better.
Game puck
Trophies are for the end of the year, play well in the game, you get a lovely puck...
Andrei Markov
After Hamrlik went down we started seeing more of Andrei as he was at times being double-shifted. It should also say a lot for Hammer's ability as Markov was the only defenceman that Gainey trusted to mop up Patrice's mistakes after he left. Markov moved the puck very well all game and out-did all of Chicago's big-name (big-money) defencemen. It proves that over-paying on July 1st is a great way to pay too much for a player who wants to make as much money as possible, but that isn't exactly the way to get the best in the league. I would much rather have a player playing for me for less money because he loved the city and the team and not because I offered him the biggest contract.
Dome hockey team
We're going into the last minute with these 6 (and they're attached to the ice, so they're not coming off)...
Forwards
Guillaume Latendresse
Gui and Max played very well tonight and either player could have found their way in here. The clincher was Gui's goal and his fight to get it. It was a great example of how you should always stay with the play and never give up until the whistle. The shot was lucky to go in, but it does take a true scorer to get two quality shots on net back-to-back like that.
Andrei Kostitsyn
Kostitsyn did everything but score tonight and I really liked what he brought. It was his first game in a week and I felt that he came back a bit better than when he went out. He definitely added some punch to our second line and I believe it was him who set the tone for the whole game. Andrei uncharacteristically dropped the gloves to come to the rescue of his injured brother and, though it cost us him for 19 minutes and the team for 4, it was the right play. After missing most of the second period he came back to be an offensive force in the third as he got off two high quality shots and drew a crucial penalty.
Alexei Kovalev
His goal, 25 seconds in, was a great way for him and the Habs to start the game. That goal showed how alert the Habs were tonight and was also a nice example of, what I believe is, a more aggressive fore-check. He also added an assist on Markov's goal and now all of a sudden has 56 points. He has amassed 17 points in 15 games since his break and 8 in 4 games since being put on a line with Saku and Tanguay.
Defencemen
Andrei Markov
Andrei's career year continues and we still have 6 games to play. Like Kovy, Markov picked up a goal and an assist and now has 62 points - he continues to lead the Habs. If Hamrlik is to miss any time then we will have to rely on this pillar even more (which I am sure will be no problem for him). I hope, however, for the team's sake that isn't the case. I am confident that Markov will pick up the slack, if needed, but not as confident that Brisebois, Bouillon, Dandenault or O'Byrne can do what Roman does.
Mathieu Schneider
A few defensive zone giveaways for Mat tonight ruined an otherwise solid effort. Like Markov, Mat will be needed for more if Roman is out, but I think the veteran can do it. This is the time of year when you need guys with experience to help the younger players and I think Schneider has done a formidable job. He scored a late insurance goal tonight and now has 8 on the year. With Atlanta he had 4G, 11A, 15Pts and was -10 in 44 games. Since coming home he has added 4G, 10A, 14Pts and is a respectable -2 (lets not forget he lived through Carey's troubles) in only 19 games.
Goaltender
Carey Price
Carey had an excellent game tonight as he made some crucial saves and played with a supreme amount of confidence. His teammates rewarded him with some solid play of their own as they not only scored 4 goals, but also only let up 29 shots. He faced shooters at the top of his crease, often stood up, if the butterfly was not needed, and controlled his rebounds very well. He got a bit lucky with some near misses and posts, but then again, what goalies don't.
Eye-Openers
In this new section we are going to try and shed some light on certain plays or events that would otherwise go unnoticed
A lot was made before the game about whether the Habs were back on the right track after a decent haul last week. The main argument was that we were only able to beat Tampa and Atlanta while only getting a single point against the Sabres. Maybe the 'experts' who were doubting us failed to recognize that those are the types of teams that we usually lose to. Those are the types of teams that, had we beaten, would have given us enough points to avoid much of the slump talk. If you wanted to know if we had turned a corner you could have done what few actual experts do and that is to watch a full game. The way the Habs played last week was clearly an improvement from previous games and that continued tonight. Against the 'Hawks we beat a team that most people consider great and that was supposed to be a hard test. In the eyes of those on TSN and RDS we are back, we passed the 'good-team' test. In my eyes, however, we played as well tonight as we did last week and that is the evidence that tells me that we are back to being our old selves.
Overall CommentsThe game couldn't have started better for as we scored a goal after 25 seconds. Poor old Huet was hung out to dry after his defenceman made a brutal giveaway. The Habs kept it coming despite a pretty constant parade to the penalty box. We didn't, however, sit on our 1-goal lead and by the end of the 2nd period we were up by 3. Then Chicago turned it on and got some (disappointingly predictable) help from the refs. Playing the puck from the bench, tripping, holding Higgins' stick and obstructing Kovalev all got over-looked as the refs let 'them play' - Don Cherry style. The refs of course claim they don't want to influence the game at this point which means that there is a huge advantage for the team who is cheating (Chicago). How on earth they don't think allowing a team to cheat and thus get the puck and more chances isn't a form of influencing the game I'll never know. Luckily for us though our hard work resulted in a penalty that the refs simply had to call (although I wouldn't have been too surprised had they not) and that killed any hope that Chicago had. The 2 points turned out to be essential as Florida also won tonight. We hold a game in hand, a one point lead and the advantage (for the time being) in the event of a tie between the two teams. With 11 games left to be played by the two teams, however, all of this will surely change. All we can do is win our remaining games; I think 2 more points this week is a must and 3 or even 4 would come in extremely handy.
I have a few questions that maybe some people can answer. Tonight we were supposed to wear our barber-shop 1912-1913 jerseys for the second time of the year, but instead we wore the 1915-1916 reds for the 3rd time overall and 2nd time in 11 days. Any idea why they changed this after it had been published? Also, why are we booing every ex-Hab? I am not as naive as I once was when I thought we were the classiest team in the league, but now I think we may have the worse fans, worse that Toronto. We boo every player who ever played for us (despite their excellence with us and the fact that they would have done anything to stay), we also boo every other team's best player (Bertuzzi can be booed, as can Samsonov and Briere, but Chara, Alfredsson, Sundin and Iginla? Really? Those are all great players who should be respected) and we also jump on and off the bandwagon more than Alouette fans. It is becoming a disgrace and even though I know that the boos aren't representative of what we are all thinking, I still ask the question as to why so many people feel that way? To think that I used to be annoyed by the D-Fence (this isn't football) cheer and that was it.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Trader Bob
Not Unless This is Dallas '96...
The trade deadline always brings a load of expectations, triumphs and disappointments.
For the supporters of down and out teams, it brings something to cheer about (at least until the fans realise they were fleeced 5 years on...). And for the supporters of contenders, it brings hope of filling all those gaps that we've been discussing ad nauseum for months.
Fans of the Montreal Canadiens are used to rolling out the lines "In Bob We Trust" for just about any move that comes from the GM's office. Usually that trust refers to the faith we have in his do little or nothing approach. Two years ago with the Canadiens looking down and out and ready to claim some draft picks (thanks, Swiss Dave); Gainey responded by making a single trade – well ahead of deadline day (Rivet and pick for Gorges and pick). He did not cash in on demand for league sweetheart and Montreal defensive millstone Sheldon Souray. Last year, with Habs fans gagging for some reinforcements for the Cup run, he instead traded our number one goalie (and UFA) for a second round pick.
In fact, if recent history is to be a lesson to Habs fans – it would be to enjoy March 4th outdoors and catch Toronto's trades the next day. Gainey makes few moves a season, and this one, he's exceeded his usual quota already.
Nevertheless, Gainey is a top GM. He rarely gets blown out in a trade, but has been known to blow his witless peers away. On the eve of the deadline, here's a retrospective on his trading record as a GM – with evidence to throw behind "In Bob We Trust" (and for the cynics, to cast doubt over all that hoopla).
Full career
Trades as a GM: 79
Trades 1992-1996: 42 (8.4 moves per year over 5 seasons)
Trades 1997-2009: 37 (3.7 moves per year over 10 seasons excl. lockout)
Trades 2003-2009: 21 (4.2 moves per year over 5 seasons excl. lockout)
Trades for cash: 2
Trades for future considerations: 5
Trades for draft picks: 5
Trades for minor leaguers: 20
Trades for NHL players: 47
Trades for NHL stars: 12
Montreal Canadiens
Trades as a GM: 21
Trades for cash: 0
Trades for future considerations: 1
Trades for draft picks: 2
Trades for minor leaguers: 6
Trades for NHL players: 12
Trades for NHL stars: 5
Top 10 trades
1. Kevin Hatcher for Sergei Zubov (1996)
2. Josef Balej and 2nd for Alexei Kovalev (2004)
3. Shane Churla and Doug Zmolek for Darryl Sydor (1996)
4. Jon Casey for Andy Moog (1993)
5. Mathieu Garon and 4th for Radek Bonk and Cristobal Huet (2004)
6. Jarome Iginla and Corey Millen for Joe Nieuwendyk (1995)
7. Bob Errey, Todd Harvey and 4th for Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland and 6th (1998)
8. Craig Rivet and 5th for Josh Gorges and 1st (2007)
9. 1st and 2nd for Alex Tanguay and 5th (2008)
10. 2nd for Robert Lang (2008)
Worst 10 trades (No real horror stories here)
1. Mike Ribeiro and 6th for Janne Niinimaa and 5th (2006)
2. Cristobal Huet for 2nd
3. Brian Bellows for Russ Courtnall (1992)
4. Ulf Dahlen for Mike Lalor and Doug Zmolek (1994)
5. Mikhail Grabovski for Greg Pateryn (2008)
6. Richard Jackman for Cameron Mann (2001)
7. Jarome Iginla and Corey Millen for Joe Nieuwendyk (1995)
8. Trent Klatt for Brent Fedyk (1995)
9. James Black for Gord Donnelly (1994)
10. Neal Broten for Corey Millen (1995)
Finally, proof he believes in Montreal Canadiens development of defensive forwards:
1. 5th for Mike McPhee (1992)
2. Todd Elik for Brent Gilchrist (1993)
3. Paul Broten for Guy Carbonneau (1995)
4. Bob Errey, Todd Harvey and 4th for Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland and 6th (1998)
5. Juha Lind for Scott Thornton (2000)
6. Donald Audette and Shaun Van Allen for Martin Rucinsky and Benoit Brunet (2001)
If Gainey doesn't make many trades, he makes even less bad trades. While he stole Sydor and Zubov from under the noses of opposing GMs, he has never been stung the same way himself.
If there is a word of caution, it is that he makes his worst trades from positions of weakness (i.e., those trades where he feels addition by subtraction is the way to go). Given that KOvalev has been rejuiced, the danger of him doing this again in the next couple of days is low. However, as he showed last season – he's capable of surprising with a reeking poor trade near the deadline for no reason.
Realistically, Gainey signalled his completion when he picked up Metropolit (asking prices for centres rising too high for his liking). Add to that he made a trade that almost pushed his top 10 all time (and could with more observation). It seems unlikely that anything bigger than big would happen from Bob – even if the frenetic Hockeybuzz does want us to believe it for hits.
For the supporters of down and out teams, it brings something to cheer about (at least until the fans realise they were fleeced 5 years on...). And for the supporters of contenders, it brings hope of filling all those gaps that we've been discussing ad nauseum for months.
Fans of the Montreal Canadiens are used to rolling out the lines "In Bob We Trust" for just about any move that comes from the GM's office. Usually that trust refers to the faith we have in his do little or nothing approach. Two years ago with the Canadiens looking down and out and ready to claim some draft picks (thanks, Swiss Dave); Gainey responded by making a single trade – well ahead of deadline day (Rivet and pick for Gorges and pick). He did not cash in on demand for league sweetheart and Montreal defensive millstone Sheldon Souray. Last year, with Habs fans gagging for some reinforcements for the Cup run, he instead traded our number one goalie (and UFA) for a second round pick.
In fact, if recent history is to be a lesson to Habs fans – it would be to enjoy March 4th outdoors and catch Toronto's trades the next day. Gainey makes few moves a season, and this one, he's exceeded his usual quota already.
Nevertheless, Gainey is a top GM. He rarely gets blown out in a trade, but has been known to blow his witless peers away. On the eve of the deadline, here's a retrospective on his trading record as a GM – with evidence to throw behind "In Bob We Trust" (and for the cynics, to cast doubt over all that hoopla).
Full career
Trades as a GM: 79
Trades 1992-1996: 42 (8.4 moves per year over 5 seasons)
Trades 1997-2009: 37 (3.7 moves per year over 10 seasons excl. lockout)
Trades 2003-2009: 21 (4.2 moves per year over 5 seasons excl. lockout)
Trades for cash: 2
Trades for future considerations: 5
Trades for draft picks: 5
Trades for minor leaguers: 20
Trades for NHL players: 47
Trades for NHL stars: 12
Montreal Canadiens
Trades as a GM: 21
Trades for cash: 0
Trades for future considerations: 1
Trades for draft picks: 2
Trades for minor leaguers: 6
Trades for NHL players: 12
Trades for NHL stars: 5
Top 10 trades
1. Kevin Hatcher for Sergei Zubov (1996)
2. Josef Balej and 2nd for Alexei Kovalev (2004)
3. Shane Churla and Doug Zmolek for Darryl Sydor (1996)
4. Jon Casey for Andy Moog (1993)
5. Mathieu Garon and 4th for Radek Bonk and Cristobal Huet (2004)
6. Jarome Iginla and Corey Millen for Joe Nieuwendyk (1995)
7. Bob Errey, Todd Harvey and 4th for Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland and 6th (1998)
8. Craig Rivet and 5th for Josh Gorges and 1st (2007)
9. 1st and 2nd for Alex Tanguay and 5th (2008)
10. 2nd for Robert Lang (2008)
Worst 10 trades (No real horror stories here)
1. Mike Ribeiro and 6th for Janne Niinimaa and 5th (2006)
2. Cristobal Huet for 2nd
3. Brian Bellows for Russ Courtnall (1992)
4. Ulf Dahlen for Mike Lalor and Doug Zmolek (1994)
5. Mikhail Grabovski for Greg Pateryn (2008)
6. Richard Jackman for Cameron Mann (2001)
7. Jarome Iginla and Corey Millen for Joe Nieuwendyk (1995)
8. Trent Klatt for Brent Fedyk (1995)
9. James Black for Gord Donnelly (1994)
10. Neal Broten for Corey Millen (1995)
Finally, proof he believes in Montreal Canadiens development of defensive forwards:
1. 5th for Mike McPhee (1992)
2. Todd Elik for Brent Gilchrist (1993)
3. Paul Broten for Guy Carbonneau (1995)
4. Bob Errey, Todd Harvey and 4th for Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland and 6th (1998)
5. Juha Lind for Scott Thornton (2000)
6. Donald Audette and Shaun Van Allen for Martin Rucinsky and Benoit Brunet (2001)
If Gainey doesn't make many trades, he makes even less bad trades. While he stole Sydor and Zubov from under the noses of opposing GMs, he has never been stung the same way himself.
If there is a word of caution, it is that he makes his worst trades from positions of weakness (i.e., those trades where he feels addition by subtraction is the way to go). Given that KOvalev has been rejuiced, the danger of him doing this again in the next couple of days is low. However, as he showed last season – he's capable of surprising with a reeking poor trade near the deadline for no reason.
Realistically, Gainey signalled his completion when he picked up Metropolit (asking prices for centres rising too high for his liking). Add to that he made a trade that almost pushed his top 10 all time (and could with more observation). It seems unlikely that anything bigger than big would happen from Bob – even if the frenetic Hockeybuzz does want us to believe it for hits.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Huet for Schneider
Oh, And That Year In Between...
Don't hope for Patrick Roy to coach this team now: Mathieu Schneider is back.
Schneider left in one of my favourite trades in Canadiens history (getting Turgeon was very exciting at that time); but he was still missed. He was defenceman 1a or 1b, depending on who you talk to, in 1993. This should finally put to rest any idea that a certain other veteran of that year should be some kind of torch bearer.
I approve of this trade today, but it is only reparations really, isn't it. We could have signed Schneider in the summer. We could have traded Huet for a defenceman in the first place.
Alas, it is today. And we are where we are, so we must look forward. This move should help an immense amount. Not because Schneider will step in at number 1 or even number 2; but because Mathieu Schneider is an immense improvement over 6th on our list, a good improvement over 5th and a decent step up on 4th. This is both offensively and defensively of course.
His stepping in should bump others into loads they can manage. Gorges can go back to D and PK. Hamrlik can work with a better partner. Bouillon won't have to approach 20 minutes of ice time.
Mathieu is now the second highest paid player on the Canadiens – so I can get off George Gillett's case for letting his Liverpool loans strap the Habs for cash.
Schneider left in one of my favourite trades in Canadiens history (getting Turgeon was very exciting at that time); but he was still missed. He was defenceman 1a or 1b, depending on who you talk to, in 1993. This should finally put to rest any idea that a certain other veteran of that year should be some kind of torch bearer.
I approve of this trade today, but it is only reparations really, isn't it. We could have signed Schneider in the summer. We could have traded Huet for a defenceman in the first place.
Alas, it is today. And we are where we are, so we must look forward. This move should help an immense amount. Not because Schneider will step in at number 1 or even number 2; but because Mathieu Schneider is an immense improvement over 6th on our list, a good improvement over 5th and a decent step up on 4th. This is both offensively and defensively of course.
His stepping in should bump others into loads they can manage. Gorges can go back to D and PK. Hamrlik can work with a better partner. Bouillon won't have to approach 20 minutes of ice time.
Mathieu is now the second highest paid player on the Canadiens – so I can get off George Gillett's case for letting his Liverpool loans strap the Habs for cash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)