Yesterday's main story around Montreal revolved around the words spoken by Mark Recchi on Boston radio.
The second-hand account is that Recchi came out and flagrantly stoked the rivalry by questioning the severity of Pacioretty's injury.
I had no reason to doubt that that is what happened, but I thought I might as well do a bit of due diligence and listen to the radio interview rather than taking twitter's word for matters. What I heard from the Felger and Mazz, the "reporters" who question Canadiens reporting under the banner of "Fact. Not opinion" (in their opinion).
What I heard was typical sports "journalism". The two jockeys jockeyed by reading one article on the internet and speaking about it for 10 minutes. "Let me be more direct: Does it bother you that they embellished it?". Mark goes on to agree, that it bothered him. He even said the team embellished the extent of the injuries. I don't think he said that Pacioretty embellished anything. After all, one can't embellish a broken vertebrae or a concussion, and he was certainly told to lay perfectly still lest do damage to his spine.
Recchi was a bit irresponsible to make those comments. I certainly don't like them, but they are hardly worse than the extremely insensitive ones Patrice Bergeron made mere minutes after the hit, proving himself to be a hypocrite of the highest degree.
I think we've learned a few things from this whole debacle. The first is that fans and hockey players don't necessarily see things the same way. Just because Mark Recchi has been slammed into the turnbuckle 40 times in his career doesn't give me any more reason to want to see any player slammed into it in the future. There are certain plays that some hockey fans could do without. I can only speak for myself, and my own reaction, when I say that it is those future plays I wanted to see eliminated.
I'm no sure it's a learning, but we've also seen the depth of the hatred between Montreal and Boston. We revile what the Brutes refer to as "Bruins (Brutish) hockey". We watch enough games to know that their brand of hockey is not essential to the entertainment value of the sport. The hatred between cities goes deeper than that though., to the point that fans on both sides can explain away anything using their own particular bias. This is the root of the embellishment story, a long-time Boston mantra that protects them against hating their own bullying. If Montreal players and fans are embellishing the effects of their roughness, then it can't possibly be going too far. They cling to one example from Mike Ribeiro, not exactly a hero for Montrealers either.
Recchi partook in this game, just as other Bruins did, precisely because he is a Bruin and he is immersed in the thinking that engulfs that team's fans, and to some extent the whole underdog city (oh, New York is so close).
But let's not pretend that Montreal and its fans aren't on the hook here too. Some people have gone over the top. And because of that, it's easy to see where outsiders get these ideas about the cloud affecting the city's judgment. I don't think the Habs organization was anything less than sincere in wanting to eradicate violent hits in the wake of Max's injury. However, I do think a large portion of Habs fans were more concerned with Chara's suspension than any waves that might be sent through NHL rule-making circles. i can tell you this based on response we got before and after a suspension announcement.
And Montreal knows it's dealing with a sensitive underdog in Boston. And Montreal must recognize that it takes great joy from poking the dog to get a response. It is the custom for Sportswriters in our city to overdo things before a Brutes game. Everything will be payback, epic, better than ever before. This is the case again today. The Recchi story has been blown up to the size it has to make this game more significant.
Vezina trophy
And don't tell me Boston fans have no reason to suggest that Habs fans are a little bit self-centered. In the midst of Tim Thomas laying down some of the best statistics to be recorded since recording began, the call from Montreal is that Carey Price should get the Vezina instead.
I'm all for riling the Boston fans too. But let's recognize when we're doing it.
About hockey
The rest of Mark Recchi's intervew (most people no doubt tuned out to twitter long before) really emphasizes that Bruins desire to make the game about the result, to make the contest tonight about hockey.
I think Recchi recovered from the lapse to make a good point here. And it was one emphasized by Julien as he faced the rabid Montreal media: that the upcoming hockey game should be about the points, about the goals and the saves.
Let's not forget that amid our calls for justice and change those that went beyond hatred for the Bruins had this at the heart of our desires. We asked hockey games to be about hockey, to have hockey without the nonsense of staged fighting, unprovoked attacks and reckless hits.
Roy MacGregor of the Globe and Mail thinks revenge is going out of style and that the Pacioretty aftermath is proof of that. I would like to think he's right and that retribution and troglodyte codes can be filed for another sport to use.
It remains to be seen if the Bruins will toe the line being laid down by their coach and their elder statesman, whether the jumped-up forwards can subdue some of their natural urges. I for one hope they will. And then maybe we can talk about the Pacioretty hit and its aftermath changing the game for the better.
Showing posts with label Recchi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Recchi. Show all posts
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Canadiens As All-Stars
Montreal Canadiens have figured prominently since the modern NHL All-Star Game began in 1947. In the early years, when the game was a contest between the league stars and the Stanley Cup Champions (wow, I wonder how they could create more interest in the modern All-Star game?), it was the Canadiens as a team 8 times from 1953 to 1967.
1968 was the last using this format, as expansion meant the league had twice as many players to choose from.
Since the 1969 game (the first after expansion), the game has been staged 36 times (this year being the 37th edition). And since that time, there have been 96 players associated with the Canadiens taking part in the game proper and 100 taking part in the weekend. PK Subban, with his replacement selection will be the 101st Montreal Canadien to take part in the modern All-Star Game -- a game taking place in the very symmetrical 101st Montreal Canadiens season.
The most times in the Habs sweater
96 times since 1969 players have represented the Montreal Canadiens.
The most players the Canadiens ever sent to a post-expansion All-Star game was 7 in 1978, when Ken Dryden was accompanied by Serge Savard and Larry Robinson, together with forwards Lafleur, Shutt, Cournoyer and Gainey. Nobody probably batted an eye at the time because the Habs were setting points records, piling up Cups and sending at least 6 to the All-Star game every year anyway.
The most times that any one player has represented the Habs since expansion is Larry Robinson. The standard he set of 9 games looks virtually untouchable, especially when one considers the next closest are no great slouches: Patrick Roy (6), Guy Lafleur (5), Yvan Cournoyer (5) and Ken Dryden (5). Carey price is on the right path, with two selections at this early stage. But 8 more to surpass Robinson is asking a Hall of Fame career from him.
The most appearances by a Canadiens alum
If we count games where a Habs alum skated, regardless of which team he was on, the numbers change. In all, Former, Present and Future Habs have played in 246 games (96 Present, 95 Former, 55 Future).
The players of note here are Patrick Roy and Chris Chelios. Both appeared in 11 All-Star contests over their careers. Robinson is next, with 10 (he had one honourary skate around with the Kings). They're followed by two players at 7 (Mark Recchi and Denis Savard) and a big group at 6.
The most consecutive appearances
There's a lot to be said for consistency. Consistent selection to the All-Star game is Hall of Fame stuff.
The most consecutive selections to a post-expansion game by a former, present or future Hab was 8. Chelios achieved this from 1990 to 1998. Unfortunately for the Canadiens, 7 of these appearances came after the famous trade to Chicago.
The most consecutive appearances by a player at the time he was with the Habs was 5 selections. This was done by Patrick Roy and Guy Lafleur.
All-Star traded away
It happens, to get you have to give. Chelios is mentioned above. But one hops that in trading an All-Star calibre player, one might at least just it at the tail end of a career.
The most All-Star seasons after leaving the Habs is a dubious record which is held by Chris Chelios at 9. You'd be wrong in thinking that Roy was next. His 5 were painful to watch, but Carol Vadnais and Tony Esposito both had 6 All-Star appearances after leaving Montreal.
At least Patrick also had some All-star years in Montreal. Neither Vadnais or Esposito did. Nor did John Leclair or Red Berenson, who each went to the All-Star game 5 times after leaving Montreal.
Bringing in an All-Star
Getting stars in the yes, it's happened to us all. We all dream up trades. Some people make a website empire out of it.
The perils of trading an All-Star can be balanced with getting an All-Star, if timed just right. Players who later became Habs dressed in 55 All-Star games since 1968.
The best acquisition here has to be Frank Mahovlich. He appeared in the first two post-expansion All-Star games as a Red Wing before being brought in to Montreal. Following that acquisition, he suited up for 4 more games, all consecutive from 1971-74. The next best is possibly Mark Recchi, who was three times an All-Star in Montreal before Rejean Houle discharged him for the sake of profit margins.
Other than Recchi, only Kirk Muller, Pierre Turgeon, Denis Savard and Alexei Kovalev ever replicated their All-Star form after being brought in to help the Habs.
Aging vets
At the last Stanley Cup parade, I had Gary Leeman sign his hockey card. As if to show his teammates that he once wore All-Star colours, he passed that card around the whole float to show his 51-goal season.
Unfortunately for Habs fans, Leeman wasn't the only star to ever be brought in after his All-Star days were behind him. 19 players in all fit this bill. There's still time for some (Hamrlik and Gomez among them).
Prospects lost
In the expansion era, losing prospects was an inevitability. Losing All-Stars too. But what's the excuse for GMs now? Ribeiro, Streit and Robidas are all recent alums that have gone onto recognition in other towns.
Years of shame
Someone was commenting the other day on Dadonov as the only Florida player at this weekend. They have no representation in the game itself. The Habs came mighty close this year too, with price the lone Canadien at the game proper.
Twice, though, 2001 and 2003, the Habs sent no one at all to the All-Star game. At least, Koivu was selected in 2003. 2001 was just a horrid year to be a fan of this team.
1968 was the last using this format, as expansion meant the league had twice as many players to choose from.
Since the 1969 game (the first after expansion), the game has been staged 36 times (this year being the 37th edition). And since that time, there have been 96 players associated with the Canadiens taking part in the game proper and 100 taking part in the weekend. PK Subban, with his replacement selection will be the 101st Montreal Canadien to take part in the modern All-Star Game -- a game taking place in the very symmetrical 101st Montreal Canadiens season.
The most times in the Habs sweater
96 times since 1969 players have represented the Montreal Canadiens.
The most players the Canadiens ever sent to a post-expansion All-Star game was 7 in 1978, when Ken Dryden was accompanied by Serge Savard and Larry Robinson, together with forwards Lafleur, Shutt, Cournoyer and Gainey. Nobody probably batted an eye at the time because the Habs were setting points records, piling up Cups and sending at least 6 to the All-Star game every year anyway.
The most times that any one player has represented the Habs since expansion is Larry Robinson. The standard he set of 9 games looks virtually untouchable, especially when one considers the next closest are no great slouches: Patrick Roy (6), Guy Lafleur (5), Yvan Cournoyer (5) and Ken Dryden (5). Carey price is on the right path, with two selections at this early stage. But 8 more to surpass Robinson is asking a Hall of Fame career from him.
The most appearances by a Canadiens alum
If we count games where a Habs alum skated, regardless of which team he was on, the numbers change. In all, Former, Present and Future Habs have played in 246 games (96 Present, 95 Former, 55 Future).
The players of note here are Patrick Roy and Chris Chelios. Both appeared in 11 All-Star contests over their careers. Robinson is next, with 10 (he had one honourary skate around with the Kings). They're followed by two players at 7 (Mark Recchi and Denis Savard) and a big group at 6.
The most consecutive appearances
There's a lot to be said for consistency. Consistent selection to the All-Star game is Hall of Fame stuff.
The most consecutive selections to a post-expansion game by a former, present or future Hab was 8. Chelios achieved this from 1990 to 1998. Unfortunately for the Canadiens, 7 of these appearances came after the famous trade to Chicago.
The most consecutive appearances by a player at the time he was with the Habs was 5 selections. This was done by Patrick Roy and Guy Lafleur.
All-Star traded away
It happens, to get you have to give. Chelios is mentioned above. But one hops that in trading an All-Star calibre player, one might at least just it at the tail end of a career.
The most All-Star seasons after leaving the Habs is a dubious record which is held by Chris Chelios at 9. You'd be wrong in thinking that Roy was next. His 5 were painful to watch, but Carol Vadnais and Tony Esposito both had 6 All-Star appearances after leaving Montreal.
At least Patrick also had some All-star years in Montreal. Neither Vadnais or Esposito did. Nor did John Leclair or Red Berenson, who each went to the All-Star game 5 times after leaving Montreal.
Bringing in an All-Star
Getting stars in the yes, it's happened to us all. We all dream up trades. Some people make a website empire out of it.
The perils of trading an All-Star can be balanced with getting an All-Star, if timed just right. Players who later became Habs dressed in 55 All-Star games since 1968.
The best acquisition here has to be Frank Mahovlich. He appeared in the first two post-expansion All-Star games as a Red Wing before being brought in to Montreal. Following that acquisition, he suited up for 4 more games, all consecutive from 1971-74. The next best is possibly Mark Recchi, who was three times an All-Star in Montreal before Rejean Houle discharged him for the sake of profit margins.
Other than Recchi, only Kirk Muller, Pierre Turgeon, Denis Savard and Alexei Kovalev ever replicated their All-Star form after being brought in to help the Habs.
Aging vets
At the last Stanley Cup parade, I had Gary Leeman sign his hockey card. As if to show his teammates that he once wore All-Star colours, he passed that card around the whole float to show his 51-goal season.
Unfortunately for Habs fans, Leeman wasn't the only star to ever be brought in after his All-Star days were behind him. 19 players in all fit this bill. There's still time for some (Hamrlik and Gomez among them).
Prospects lost
In the expansion era, losing prospects was an inevitability. Losing All-Stars too. But what's the excuse for GMs now? Ribeiro, Streit and Robidas are all recent alums that have gone onto recognition in other towns.
Years of shame
Someone was commenting the other day on Dadonov as the only Florida player at this weekend. They have no representation in the game itself. The Habs came mighty close this year too, with price the lone Canadien at the game proper.
Twice, though, 2001 and 2003, the Habs sent no one at all to the All-Star game. At least, Koivu was selected in 2003. 2001 was just a horrid year to be a fan of this team.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
On the Twelfth Day of Christmas
It was Christmas 1951 when the wise management brought us Frankselkesigning, goals and more when the promoted Dickie Moore to the first team. The team which had been sputtering around since the Cup win in 1946 with more than a couple of sub-500 seasons turned in a 5-game winning streak, and a 21-11-6 end to the season to take them above 0.500, make the playoffs and the final and basically lay the groundwork for what was to become the core of anew dynasty.
59 years later, it seems the team may also need some wise decisions to avoid being a good team among some great rivals. In the tradition of 12 days of giving, I am hoping Pierre Gauthier might bring us multiple gifts over the twelve-day holiday.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, Pierre Gauthier gave to us:
12 less microphones
Can't the Canadiens restrict access to the dressing room just a bit. Do 35 microphones need to crowd the face of players after every barely significant win, loss or tie in the early season? After watching that Capitals/Penguins show, I can appreciate how a quieter room might be a better thing (especially after some losses). It's a bit rich for a blogger I know to call for less coverage of the team, but it's the fact there's too much quote-grabbing that hurts any real analysis ever getting done.
11 months of work
Don't think it's too much to ask for a guy paid in the millions to basically play fantasy hockey to put in a bit of work more than a couple of months a year.
10% lower claims of effort
Instead of having to work out whether 110% of effort is on the 200% or 1000% scale, I'd appreciate claims of 110% effort being replaced with actual effort on the ice.
9 forwards who can play
At the NHL level that is. And I don't mean skate a lot, huff and puff and make it look like they're playing, but actually doing what forwards on other teams do - threaten to score.
#8 from 1996
As good as Halpern is, Recchi is pretty reliably a cut above that. NHL experience from 3 decades and he can still score. Plus, I'd really like to get more games out of my sweater...
7th defenceman
To fill in so Hamrlik and Spacek can actually take a rest.
6th rounder for Moen
Actually, any round will do
$5 million for Markov
It doesn't have to be done by January 6th, but some time this year.
4 years for Gorges
While we're at it, why not sign up Gorges for a contract before he gets poached in July? We all like Subban, Weber and co., but this team looks a whole lot more permeable without #26 in the plan.
3 French men
I guess you have to know the original song to appreciate this one. Anyway, as every year, Gauthier should continue to scour that QMJHL for the players that weren't picked up. This strategy has netted Desharnais and Lefebvre already, as well as more in the past. it's a strategic advantage for the Habs, and they should continue to exploit that.
2nd chance for Weber
No a real one. Weber's a good player. Better at the moment than some of the regulars and with a gun for the PP.
And a new star* in CH jersey
To replace Markov. Cap space demands it. The fact a core of players at the ages they are demands it. It'll take some work, and likely some draft picks. But the Canadiens can't get precious about draft picks now, because they'll waste all the years they've committed to big contracts.
* By star, I don't mean superstar. Someone who can score more goals than Halpern, or play PP better than Spacek will do...
59 years later, it seems the team may also need some wise decisions to avoid being a good team among some great rivals. In the tradition of 12 days of giving, I am hoping Pierre Gauthier might bring us multiple gifts over the twelve-day holiday.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, Pierre Gauthier gave to us:
12 less microphones
Can't the Canadiens restrict access to the dressing room just a bit. Do 35 microphones need to crowd the face of players after every barely significant win, loss or tie in the early season? After watching that Capitals/Penguins show, I can appreciate how a quieter room might be a better thing (especially after some losses). It's a bit rich for a blogger I know to call for less coverage of the team, but it's the fact there's too much quote-grabbing that hurts any real analysis ever getting done.
11 months of work
Don't think it's too much to ask for a guy paid in the millions to basically play fantasy hockey to put in a bit of work more than a couple of months a year.
10% lower claims of effort
Instead of having to work out whether 110% of effort is on the 200% or 1000% scale, I'd appreciate claims of 110% effort being replaced with actual effort on the ice.
9 forwards who can play
At the NHL level that is. And I don't mean skate a lot, huff and puff and make it look like they're playing, but actually doing what forwards on other teams do - threaten to score.
#8 from 1996
As good as Halpern is, Recchi is pretty reliably a cut above that. NHL experience from 3 decades and he can still score. Plus, I'd really like to get more games out of my sweater...
7th defenceman
To fill in so Hamrlik and Spacek can actually take a rest.
6th rounder for Moen
Actually, any round will do
$5 million for Markov
It doesn't have to be done by January 6th, but some time this year.
4 years for Gorges
While we're at it, why not sign up Gorges for a contract before he gets poached in July? We all like Subban, Weber and co., but this team looks a whole lot more permeable without #26 in the plan.
3 French men
I guess you have to know the original song to appreciate this one. Anyway, as every year, Gauthier should continue to scour that QMJHL for the players that weren't picked up. This strategy has netted Desharnais and Lefebvre already, as well as more in the past. it's a strategic advantage for the Habs, and they should continue to exploit that.
2nd chance for Weber
No a real one. Weber's a good player. Better at the moment than some of the regulars and with a gun for the PP.
And a new star* in CH jersey
To replace Markov. Cap space demands it. The fact a core of players at the ages they are demands it. It'll take some work, and likely some draft picks. But the Canadiens can't get precious about draft picks now, because they'll waste all the years they've committed to big contracts.
* By star, I don't mean superstar. Someone who can score more goals than Halpern, or play PP better than Spacek will do...
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Canadiens As Canadians
Olympic Hockey History
When Steve Yzerman chose to take Patrice Bergeron over Mike Cammalleri, the Canadiens missed a chance to send a player to the Olympics for Canada for the third straight time. There's not even a single former Habs player on the team either, though I'd layoff Ribeiro and Robidas too.
It hasn't always been this way. Thought the Canadiens representation on Team Canada over the years hasn't been vast, there have still been 21 players associated withe the organization to don the Maple Leaf under the Olympic rings. I've found some of them for you:
2010, 2006, 2002
Current Habs: None
One-time Habs: None
Future Habs: None
1998
Current Habs: Mark Recchi, Shayne Corson
One-time Habs: Eric Desjardins, Patrick Roy
Future Habs: Trevor Linden
For Olympics 1994 and earlier, only amateur players were eligible, therefore current Habs were not eligible to compete.
1994
Habs Prospects: Brian Savage
Future Habs: None
1992
One-time Habs: (Patrick Lebeau*)
Habs Prospects: Patrick Lebeau*
Future Habs: Joe Juneau, (Jason Woolley – training camp only)
* Had played 2 games for the Canadiens in 1990-91, but was seen as a prospect.
1988
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: Zarley Zalapski, Andy Moog
1984
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: Russ Courtnall, Kirk Muller, JJ Daigneault
1980
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: None
1976, 1972
Canadian Boycott
1968
Habs Prospects: Fran Huck
Future Habs: None
1964
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: None
1960
Habs Prospects: Bobby Rousseau, (Harry Sinden – never signed pro)
Future Habs: Cliff Pennington
1956, 1952, 1948
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: None
1936
Future Habs: James (Jim) Haggarty
1932, 1928
Future Habs: None
1924
Future Habs: Duncan (Dunc) Munro, Bert McCaffrey
Canadiens Canada Hockey Medals
Gold: 2
Duncan (Dunc) Munro & Bert McCaffrey (1924)
Silver: 6
James (Jim) Haggarty (1936), Bobby Rousseau & Cliff Pennington (1960), Patrick Lebeau & Joe Juneau (1992); Brian Savage (1994)
Bronze: 1
Fran Huck (1968)
[Check out Eyes On The Prize for a good look at some artefacts from the Chamonix Winter Olympics – the inaugural winter games]
It hasn't always been this way. Thought the Canadiens representation on Team Canada over the years hasn't been vast, there have still been 21 players associated withe the organization to don the Maple Leaf under the Olympic rings. I've found some of them for you:
2010, 2006, 2002
Current Habs: None
One-time Habs: None
Future Habs: None
1998
Current Habs: Mark Recchi, Shayne Corson
One-time Habs: Eric Desjardins, Patrick Roy
Future Habs: Trevor Linden
For Olympics 1994 and earlier, only amateur players were eligible, therefore current Habs were not eligible to compete.
1994
Habs Prospects: Brian Savage
Future Habs: None
1992
One-time Habs: (Patrick Lebeau*)
Habs Prospects: Patrick Lebeau*
Future Habs: Joe Juneau, (Jason Woolley – training camp only)
* Had played 2 games for the Canadiens in 1990-91, but was seen as a prospect.
1988
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: Zarley Zalapski, Andy Moog
1984
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: Russ Courtnall, Kirk Muller, JJ Daigneault
1980
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: None
1976, 1972
Canadian Boycott
1968
Habs Prospects: Fran Huck
Future Habs: None
1964
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: None
1960
Habs Prospects: Bobby Rousseau, (Harry Sinden – never signed pro)
Future Habs: Cliff Pennington
1956, 1952, 1948
Habs Prospects: None
Future Habs: None
1936
Future Habs: James (Jim) Haggarty
1932, 1928
Future Habs: None
1924
Future Habs: Duncan (Dunc) Munro, Bert McCaffrey
Canadiens Canada Hockey Medals
Gold: 2
Duncan (Dunc) Munro & Bert McCaffrey (1924)
Silver: 6
James (Jim) Haggarty (1936), Bobby Rousseau & Cliff Pennington (1960), Patrick Lebeau & Joe Juneau (1992); Brian Savage (1994)
Bronze: 1
Fran Huck (1968)
[Check out Eyes On The Prize for a good look at some artefacts from the Chamonix Winter Olympics – the inaugural winter games]
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Top 100 Habs By Decade:
9. 1989-1999
In recognition of the Canadiens Centennial next Friday, 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 counting 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.
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. Gillett wanted to cash in before he cashed out.
An objective look reveals what we all fear – that we became fans of this team just as its fortunes began to turn. From a Cup final to end the decade previous, these ten years took the team to its lowest in 1999.
There were good years, of course, and a Stanley Cup. But after that amazing run of 1993, the years were not kind to the Canadiens, as they went from perennial contender for league and playoff crowns to being just one of 24 odd teams.
Thanks to the early years, there were good players on the team and good players to trade for other good players. One trade chain (the Richer chain) provided 4 players for our top 10 from the 1990s.
[Note: Each player only appears in one decade's top 10 – so Brisebois fans, hold on to your hats]
10. Shayne Corson (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
A good solid player from the 1980s who had his best offensive seasons with Richer. Came back for a stint where he was captain and all-star again.
9. Eric Desjardins (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
A player who would have held his own in the dynasty years, I bet. He saved his best year for when it counted, and his 1 playoff GWG, well we all know that...
8. Denis Savard (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
Came to Montreal under immense pressure to be THE star. Wasn't the dominant force, but still a big contributor over his 3 seasons in town.
7. Mathieu Schneider (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
Learned to play offense from the back in Montreal. Was a pretty good option for D as well.
6. Pierre Turgeon (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
The best season from a Canadiens player since Naslund, and it still stands.
5. Mark Recchi (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
Like clockwork, both in being healthy for games and scoring.
4. Kirk Muller (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
Could find a new gear in important games and was pivotal in helping the whole team to do just that in several consecutive OTs.
3. Stephane Richer (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
The last 50-goal season from a Canadiens player, a link to Lafleur. Richer was a serious threat in the first few years of the decade.
2. Vincent Damphousse (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
The most unheralded scoring machine, captain, cup-winning, hometown hero you could imagine. Going out on a low note shouldn't eclipse what he managed in the mid-90s.
1. Patrick Roy (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
He finds himself in the 1990s, but could head the 1980s list. Patrick was the source of most success in this decade – winning most individual honours and taking the team for a nice ride to LA to receive the silverware.
* Awards: V = Vezina trophy; WJ = William Jennings trophy (GA); AS= All-star; HOF = Hall of Fame; SC = Stanley Cup; CS = Conn Smythe.
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. Gillett wanted to cash in before he cashed out.
1989-1999
An objective look reveals what we all fear – that we became fans of this team just as its fortunes began to turn. From a Cup final to end the decade previous, these ten years took the team to its lowest in 1999.
There were good years, of course, and a Stanley Cup. But after that amazing run of 1993, the years were not kind to the Canadiens, as they went from perennial contender for league and playoff crowns to being just one of 24 odd teams.
Thanks to the early years, there were good players on the team and good players to trade for other good players. One trade chain (the Richer chain) provided 4 players for our top 10 from the 1990s.
[Note: Each player only appears in one decade's top 10 – so Brisebois fans, hold on to your hats]
10. Shayne Corson (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1985-2000 | 662 | 168 | 255 | 423 | +70 | 26 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 1989-90 | 76 | 31 | 44 | 75 | +33 | 6 | AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2002-06 | 90 | 28 | 35 | 63 | +16 | 7 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1990-91 | 13 | 9 | 6 | 15 | +5 | 3 |
A good solid player from the 1980s who had his best offensive seasons with Richer. Came back for a stint where he was captain and all-star again.
9. Eric Desjardins (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1988-95 | 405 | 43 | 136 | 179 | +55 | 7 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 1992-93 | 82 | 13 | 32 | 45 | +20 | 1 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 2002-06 | 71 | 9 | 20 | 29 | +6 | 1 | SC |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1992-93 | 20 | 4 | 10 | 14 | +2 | 1 | SC |
A player who would have held his own in the dynasty years, I bet. He saved his best year for when it counted, and his 1 playoff GWG, well we all know that...
8. Denis Savard (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1990-93 | 210 | 72 | 107 | 179 | +6 | 7 | AS, HOF |
| Decade best (Season) | 1991-92 | 77 | 28 | 42 | 70 | +6 | 5 | AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1990-93 | 38 | 5 | 25 | 30 | -3 | 0 | SC |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1991-92 | 11 | 3 | 9 | 12 | +1 | 0 |
Came to Montreal under immense pressure to be THE star. Wasn't the dominant force, but still a big contributor over his 3 seasons in town.
7. Mathieu Schneider (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1987-2009 | 383 | 68 | 148 | 216 | +36 | 13 | |
| Decade best (Season) | 1993-94 | 75 | 20 | 32 | 52 | +15 | 4 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1990-2009 | 46 | 5 | 16 | 21 | +5 | 0 | SC |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1990-91 | 13 | 2 | 7 | 9 | +2 | 0 |
Learned to play offense from the back in Montreal. Was a pretty good option for D as well.
6. Pierre Turgeon (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1994-96 | 104 | 50 | 77 | 127 | +35 | 8 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 1995-96 | 80 | 38 | 58 | 96 | +19 | 6 | AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1995-96 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 | +1 | 0 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1995-96 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 | +1 | 0 |
The best season from a Canadiens player since Naslund, and it still stands.
5. Mark Recchi (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1994-99 | 346 | 120 | 202 | 322 | +23 | 18 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 1995-96 | 82 | 28 | 50 | 78 | +20 | 6 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1996-98 | 21 | 11 | 13 | 24 | +5 | 2 | |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1997-98 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 12 | +2 | 2 |
Like clockwork, both in being healthy for games and scoring.
4. Kirk Muller (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1991-95 | 267 | 104 | 143 | 247 | +1 | 15 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 1992-93 | 80 | 37 | 57 | 94 | +8 | 4 | AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1992-94 | 38 | 20 | 12 | 32 | +3 | 6 | SC |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1992-93 | 20 | 10 | 7 | 17 | +4 | 3 | SC |
Could find a new gear in important games and was pivotal in helping the whole team to do just that in several consecutive OTs.
3. Stephane Richer (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1984-98 | 490 | 225 | 196 | 421 | +65 | 36 | AS |
| Decade best (Season) | 1989-90 | 75 | 51 | 40 | 91 | +35 | 8 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1986-97 | 77 | 36 | 21 | 57 | +1 | 9 | SC |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1990-91 | 13 | 9 | 5 | 14 | E | 1 |
The last 50-goal season from a Canadiens player, a link to Lafleur. Richer was a serious threat in the first few years of the decade.
2. Vincent Damphousse (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | GWG | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1992-99 | 519 | 184 | 314 | 498 | +26 | 35 | |
| Decade best (Season) | 1992-93 | 84 | 39 | 58 | 97 | +5 | 8 | |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1993-98 | 48 | 19 | 24 | 43 | E | 5 | SC |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1992-93 | 20 | 11 | 12 | 23 | +8 | 3 | SC |
The most unheralded scoring machine, captain, cup-winning, hometown hero you could imagine. Going out on a low note shouldn't eclipse what he managed in the mid-90s.
1. Patrick Roy (Top 100 all-time, Profile)
| Years(s) | GP | W | L | T | GAA | S% | SO | Awards* | |
| Habs career (Season) | 1984-2005 | 551 | 289 | 175 | 66 | 2.78 | 0.904 | 29 | 3 V, 4 WJ, AS, HOF |
| Decade best (Season) | 1991-92 | 67 | 36 | 22 | 8 | 2.36 | 0.914 | 5 | V, WJ, AS |
| Habs career (Playoffs) | 1986-94 | 114 | 70 | 42 | 0 | 2.46 | 0.914 | 5 | 2 SC, 2 CS |
| Decade best (Playoffs) | 1992-93 | 20 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 2.13 | 0.929 | 0 | SC, CS |
He finds himself in the 1990s, but could head the 1980s list. Patrick was the source of most success in this decade – winning most individual honours and taking the team for a nice ride to LA to receive the silverware.
* Awards: V = Vezina trophy; WJ = William Jennings trophy (GA); AS= All-star; HOF = Hall of Fame; SC = Stanley Cup; CS = Conn Smythe.
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 | – | – | – | – |
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Habs : Bruins
The Balance Of Power
Having been pressed to the full at work lately, I haven't had a s much time for a preview as I would have liked. I am hoping that some of my prep can be slowly leaked through as the series goes over the next week or longer.
But as I'm sure you're all as excited as we are for the first meaningful game of the 2008-09 campaign (barring that one where we had to get the last point), so I thought I'd do an abridged little preview to ready the tastebuds.
I would start this post with a proviso before going any further. If I wanted to look through the teams and their statistics and come up with a preview that could have put the Bruins ahead in every category, I could have nearly done it. However, as this is a Canadiens blog and I am charged with doing something a little less mainstream than everyone who got their previews in hours ago anyway, I have managed to find some categories where I feel nos Habitants have an edge over the cavemen.
Without further ado, here are the battles:
1) Top line – Tanguay/Koivu/Kovalev vs. Lucic/Savard/Kessel
This is a tough call. The first problem is that the Habs top line have looked good, but only for a handful of games. The Bruins top line, most notably Kessel and Savard have looked good the entire season (almost).
I think even the most optimistic Habs fan has to give this one to the Bruins in terms of offense.
I will say this, though. The Canadiens top line is made up of three players who can make a top line on their own, just by virtue of being written in. The Bruins top line is not a top line without Savard. As such, it will be easier to smother the Boston line (for ease in targeting the coverage) – a lesson that could be straight from Boston's play book of 2008 on Kovalev.
2) The secondary scoring
There is no doubt the Bruins had more success here this season. But you know what, how many career-best seasons did they have there? The Canadiens by contrast had decent secondary scoring despite pitiful stretches from all their second guns.
The question is whether the momentum in the playoffs will shift or not. Last season, Tomas Plekanec was quite possibly the best forward on our team in the second half of the season. But a change in momentum nullified his input in the playoffs. This season, the Bruins are toting a few Plekanecs in their line-up.
It's for that reason that I am giving the edge to the Canadiens here. It must be the Felipe Alou fan in me, but Kostitsyn has to break out, so does Plekanec. Higgins and Latendresse could also. They will have to to prove me right. Else, I could right be called a blind fool. My gut simply tells me Kostitsyn > Recchi, Pleks > Krejci, Gui > Wheeler and so on.
3) The checking forwards – Higgins vs. Axelsson
Somewhat fortuitously, Chris Higgins seems to have fallen into the role he was born to play. No longer forced into situations where he must produce, he can concentrate on being that intelligent and anticipatory player we all know and love. If I'm Marc Savard, I wouldn't relish a shift with this guy watching me at all. I don't think Koivu gives a toss if Axelsson is on the ice or not. Canadiens win this battle is Chris is deployed in the right way.
4) Top defenceman – Hamrlik vs. Chara
I could make some cockamamie tale about Hamrlik up here, but he does not measure to Chara in stature, skill or even experience. Boston wins this battle in a landslide.
However, if (big if) Markov can come back and be Markov; I feel that Andrei is the best defender in the East and the third behind Lidstrom and Niedermayer in this league. In that case, the Habs would have my edge.
5) The rest of the D
Some Canadiens fans have been kidding themselves when they say the Habs win this battle. Aaron Ward, for example, has oodles of Cup experience and was a main reason our number one line went AWOL last spring. He is what Komisarek should be and isn't. Then you have the steady, simple and obedient play of the others that helped bring (nay, brought) the Jennings trophy home to Boston this season.
Are the slow? Perhaps a bit. Are they deficient in the offensive skills department? Mostly, but Jennings doesn't care about that (especially when the forwards go second in the league on goals). Boston's defenders are a better group than the Habs, Hamrlik and Bouillon or not.
6) Backstops – Price vs. Thomas
Tim Thomas had one of those seasons. He should win the Vezina trophy. But you know what? Huet had one of those seasons and he was let go for nothing. I would never want to write Thomas's season off, but had Carey Price even had a semblance of a good second half, he'd have the edge here. As it is, Boston wins.
7) Discipline
Here's one of those categories. Can it carry as much weight as the others? Probably not, but it is a factor. It is a category that the Canadiens will win, I'll tell you why: they need to.
As such, discipline for the Canadiens will be written into the game plan. A lot was made of the Canadiens indiscipline in the regular season at times, but so many times that indiscipline was nothing of the sort. It was puck over the glass or non-call, or stick brush the waist. If you exclude Mike Komisarek from consideration, I actually felt the Habs on the whole were quite a disciplined bunch for most of the season.
I'll tell you why else: Boston's identity requires them to come out and bang. Sure, during the regular season the Bruins fans will tolerate a clean game vs. the Wild. But come playoffs, vs. the abhorrent Canadiens, no mercy will be tolerated. A goal must be answered with a fight. A shot with a cross-check. It's written in their constitution. We saw it a mere week ago.
8) Coaching – Gainey vs. Julien
Only one of these two men will be nominated for the Jack Adams trophy this season. However, only one made brilliant and brave decisions to turn his team around.
Claude Julien sure looked good again at the helm of a team that made it happen. Bob Gainey looked barely adequate at times. Even so, only one of these coaches has won any significant series in the playoffs (either as player or coach).
On top of that, Julien remains unique as a coach for twice being fired from teams when sporting a winning record – first the 19-16-6 Canadiens of 2006, then the 47-24-0 Devils of 2007. That Devils firing undertaken by a GM without peer and instigated based on the testimony of the best goaltender and many of the best students of hockey in the game, tells me all I'll ever need to know about Claude. Gainey is a better coach. Canadiens edge the Bruins here.
9) Extra gear
I'll list players I know have an extra gear on both sides:
Koivu, Kovalev and Mark Recchi.
Not that they won't be happy with status quo, as the East winners, but the Bruins will mostly have to make do with that. They do not have a Koivu, not many teams do. They have Recchi, but even he can't reach Kovalev control of a game. Of course, this is dependent on the players actually stepping up the rate. But since we can count on Koivu, the Canadiens already have the edge.
The question that lingers here is do any other players have that gear? Well, one could make an argument for Aaron Ward, and maybe if you're generous Chara or Schneider, but beyond that, it's youngsters with little history to go on. Both teams have intriguing possibilities like Kessel, Wideman, Kostitsyn and Lapierre.
10) Preparation
The Bruins prepared for these playoffs by practicing winning and not much else. They came back a number of times from goal deficits, but they never had to deal with a losing streak, a split in the dressing room, or things generally not going their way.
The Canadiens, if you can look at it in a positive light, earned their 3 credits this semester. They've had lessons on every topic and in the end they pulled it out. Bad losses, they've had a few to recover from. Non-existent goaltending, they're well versed. In a nutshell, nothing could happen to the Canadiens in game one or two that hasn't happened to them already. Nothing could rattle them more than they've been rattled. The Bruins? I'm not so sure.
Even so, the Bruins way of preparing is tried and tested. If they win, they know how to win again. If they go down a goal, they know they more often than not come back. If things go their way, as the experts predict they will, they'll know full well what to do with the situation.
The tally
Even at a stretch, it's hard to find things other than faith to put the Canadiens ahead. On the tally, I have a draw, but in fairness the Bruins have captured the points cards here with all defenders, goaltenders and top line scoring going to them.
We knew there would be ifs for our Habs, and they are big ones. But if Markov ever came back, we'd pull closer. If Koivu and Kovalev both play like the men-possessed they can be, then even a giant Slovak can't stop them. If Kostitsyn scores a few early in the series, the Bruins will have a lot of reorganisation to do. If Higgins is deployed as a shadow and plays like he has been, he could be a major factor. Dare I say, if Price actually plays like he has done in the past (the good times), then playing a goon line won't look so smart.
And, if dogmatic Julien is forced out of his comfort zone, well then we're on our way.
But as I'm sure you're all as excited as we are for the first meaningful game of the 2008-09 campaign (barring that one where we had to get the last point), so I thought I'd do an abridged little preview to ready the tastebuds.
I would start this post with a proviso before going any further. If I wanted to look through the teams and their statistics and come up with a preview that could have put the Bruins ahead in every category, I could have nearly done it. However, as this is a Canadiens blog and I am charged with doing something a little less mainstream than everyone who got their previews in hours ago anyway, I have managed to find some categories where I feel nos Habitants have an edge over the cavemen.
Without further ado, here are the battles:
1) Top line – Tanguay/Koivu/Kovalev vs. Lucic/Savard/Kessel
This is a tough call. The first problem is that the Habs top line have looked good, but only for a handful of games. The Bruins top line, most notably Kessel and Savard have looked good the entire season (almost).
I think even the most optimistic Habs fan has to give this one to the Bruins in terms of offense.
I will say this, though. The Canadiens top line is made up of three players who can make a top line on their own, just by virtue of being written in. The Bruins top line is not a top line without Savard. As such, it will be easier to smother the Boston line (for ease in targeting the coverage) – a lesson that could be straight from Boston's play book of 2008 on Kovalev.
2) The secondary scoring
There is no doubt the Bruins had more success here this season. But you know what, how many career-best seasons did they have there? The Canadiens by contrast had decent secondary scoring despite pitiful stretches from all their second guns.
The question is whether the momentum in the playoffs will shift or not. Last season, Tomas Plekanec was quite possibly the best forward on our team in the second half of the season. But a change in momentum nullified his input in the playoffs. This season, the Bruins are toting a few Plekanecs in their line-up.
It's for that reason that I am giving the edge to the Canadiens here. It must be the Felipe Alou fan in me, but Kostitsyn has to break out, so does Plekanec. Higgins and Latendresse could also. They will have to to prove me right. Else, I could right be called a blind fool. My gut simply tells me Kostitsyn > Recchi, Pleks > Krejci, Gui > Wheeler and so on.
3) The checking forwards – Higgins vs. Axelsson
Somewhat fortuitously, Chris Higgins seems to have fallen into the role he was born to play. No longer forced into situations where he must produce, he can concentrate on being that intelligent and anticipatory player we all know and love. If I'm Marc Savard, I wouldn't relish a shift with this guy watching me at all. I don't think Koivu gives a toss if Axelsson is on the ice or not. Canadiens win this battle is Chris is deployed in the right way.
4) Top defenceman – Hamrlik vs. Chara
I could make some cockamamie tale about Hamrlik up here, but he does not measure to Chara in stature, skill or even experience. Boston wins this battle in a landslide.
However, if (big if) Markov can come back and be Markov; I feel that Andrei is the best defender in the East and the third behind Lidstrom and Niedermayer in this league. In that case, the Habs would have my edge.
5) The rest of the D
Some Canadiens fans have been kidding themselves when they say the Habs win this battle. Aaron Ward, for example, has oodles of Cup experience and was a main reason our number one line went AWOL last spring. He is what Komisarek should be and isn't. Then you have the steady, simple and obedient play of the others that helped bring (nay, brought) the Jennings trophy home to Boston this season.
Are the slow? Perhaps a bit. Are they deficient in the offensive skills department? Mostly, but Jennings doesn't care about that (especially when the forwards go second in the league on goals). Boston's defenders are a better group than the Habs, Hamrlik and Bouillon or not.
6) Backstops – Price vs. Thomas
Tim Thomas had one of those seasons. He should win the Vezina trophy. But you know what? Huet had one of those seasons and he was let go for nothing. I would never want to write Thomas's season off, but had Carey Price even had a semblance of a good second half, he'd have the edge here. As it is, Boston wins.
7) Discipline
Here's one of those categories. Can it carry as much weight as the others? Probably not, but it is a factor. It is a category that the Canadiens will win, I'll tell you why: they need to.
As such, discipline for the Canadiens will be written into the game plan. A lot was made of the Canadiens indiscipline in the regular season at times, but so many times that indiscipline was nothing of the sort. It was puck over the glass or non-call, or stick brush the waist. If you exclude Mike Komisarek from consideration, I actually felt the Habs on the whole were quite a disciplined bunch for most of the season.
I'll tell you why else: Boston's identity requires them to come out and bang. Sure, during the regular season the Bruins fans will tolerate a clean game vs. the Wild. But come playoffs, vs. the abhorrent Canadiens, no mercy will be tolerated. A goal must be answered with a fight. A shot with a cross-check. It's written in their constitution. We saw it a mere week ago.
8) Coaching – Gainey vs. Julien
Only one of these two men will be nominated for the Jack Adams trophy this season. However, only one made brilliant and brave decisions to turn his team around.
Claude Julien sure looked good again at the helm of a team that made it happen. Bob Gainey looked barely adequate at times. Even so, only one of these coaches has won any significant series in the playoffs (either as player or coach).
On top of that, Julien remains unique as a coach for twice being fired from teams when sporting a winning record – first the 19-16-6 Canadiens of 2006, then the 47-24-0 Devils of 2007. That Devils firing undertaken by a GM without peer and instigated based on the testimony of the best goaltender and many of the best students of hockey in the game, tells me all I'll ever need to know about Claude. Gainey is a better coach. Canadiens edge the Bruins here.
9) Extra gear
I'll list players I know have an extra gear on both sides:
Koivu, Kovalev and Mark Recchi.
Not that they won't be happy with status quo, as the East winners, but the Bruins will mostly have to make do with that. They do not have a Koivu, not many teams do. They have Recchi, but even he can't reach Kovalev control of a game. Of course, this is dependent on the players actually stepping up the rate. But since we can count on Koivu, the Canadiens already have the edge.
The question that lingers here is do any other players have that gear? Well, one could make an argument for Aaron Ward, and maybe if you're generous Chara or Schneider, but beyond that, it's youngsters with little history to go on. Both teams have intriguing possibilities like Kessel, Wideman, Kostitsyn and Lapierre.
10) Preparation
The Bruins prepared for these playoffs by practicing winning and not much else. They came back a number of times from goal deficits, but they never had to deal with a losing streak, a split in the dressing room, or things generally not going their way.
The Canadiens, if you can look at it in a positive light, earned their 3 credits this semester. They've had lessons on every topic and in the end they pulled it out. Bad losses, they've had a few to recover from. Non-existent goaltending, they're well versed. In a nutshell, nothing could happen to the Canadiens in game one or two that hasn't happened to them already. Nothing could rattle them more than they've been rattled. The Bruins? I'm not so sure.
Even so, the Bruins way of preparing is tried and tested. If they win, they know how to win again. If they go down a goal, they know they more often than not come back. If things go their way, as the experts predict they will, they'll know full well what to do with the situation.
The tally
Even at a stretch, it's hard to find things other than faith to put the Canadiens ahead. On the tally, I have a draw, but in fairness the Bruins have captured the points cards here with all defenders, goaltenders and top line scoring going to them.
We knew there would be ifs for our Habs, and they are big ones. But if Markov ever came back, we'd pull closer. If Koivu and Kovalev both play like the men-possessed they can be, then even a giant Slovak can't stop them. If Kostitsyn scores a few early in the series, the Bruins will have a lot of reorganisation to do. If Higgins is deployed as a shadow and plays like he has been, he could be a major factor. Dare I say, if Price actually plays like he has done in the past (the good times), then playing a goon line won't look so smart.
And, if dogmatic Julien is forced out of his comfort zone, well then we're on our way.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Canadiens Changes: Part 2 of 2
So Carbonneau completed Gainey's play. It looked like a good breakout move and it was...
The players added in Part 1, Lapierre and O'Byrne both brought something positive to the mix. O'Byrne may have just played himself into a ten-game tryout (fingers crossed).
And though Part 2 didn't go exactly as it would have in my dreams – Dandenault played instead of Ryder. I think the finishing move was effective. Benching Brisebois was necessary if not overdue. Re-uniting Komisarek and Markov made all the sense in the world to get the all-star back. And Streit back to defense made me a very happy blogger indeed.
Assuming Ryder is being sat to attempt to stir some emotion in him (from his comments it may take a few games for the level-headed Easterner), I may yet get my line-up on the ice.
Now, I'll throw this out for comment. Is there a third part to the changes coming?
With some of Koivu's best friends languishing in the minors and playing with their rally cars (I assume), respectively, does anyone think he hasn't had a chat with Gainey about what he thinks could help complete his 2-man line?
I submit this from Francois Gagnon as something to pin my flimsy theory to:
Koivu would probably be happier with one of Recchi or Selanne. Would Kovalev? Would Carbonneau?
Would you?
The players added in Part 1, Lapierre and O'Byrne both brought something positive to the mix. O'Byrne may have just played himself into a ten-game tryout (fingers crossed).
And though Part 2 didn't go exactly as it would have in my dreams – Dandenault played instead of Ryder. I think the finishing move was effective. Benching Brisebois was necessary if not overdue. Re-uniting Komisarek and Markov made all the sense in the world to get the all-star back. And Streit back to defense made me a very happy blogger indeed.Assuming Ryder is being sat to attempt to stir some emotion in him (from his comments it may take a few games for the level-headed Easterner), I may yet get my line-up on the ice.
Now, I'll throw this out for comment. Is there a third part to the changes coming?
With some of Koivu's best friends languishing in the minors and playing with their rally cars (I assume), respectively, does anyone think he hasn't had a chat with Gainey about what he thinks could help complete his 2-man line?
I submit this from Francois Gagnon as something to pin my flimsy theory to:
Aurait-il aimé revoir son ami au sein du vestiaire du Canadien. « Bob (Gainey) est du voyage, c’est à lui que tu dois poser la question », a lancé Koivu en quittant son casier le sourire aux lèvres.
Would he like to see his friend in the Habs lockerroom? "Bob Gainey's the one you should be asking", said Koivu while leaving his locker with a smile on his face.
Koivu would probably be happier with one of Recchi or Selanne. Would Kovalev? Would Carbonneau?
Would you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)