Well, it was a rough end to the season. Now that the UFA frenzy is almost upon us, it's a lot easier to be optimistic and have us all jump back on the Habwagon. Given that I managed to call Erik Cole last year, I figured I should give another stab at my dream UFA acquisition for this year. Anybody up for speculating on the roster come fall?
Goalies
Start with the easy part. The Habs have entered salary arbitration with Price, which makes it sound like there might be some bad feelings between him and management. However, this is a canny strategic move that prevents other GMs pulling “gutless” moves (Brian Burke's word) and submitting offer sheets to drive up Price's salary. We have Budaj for another year at $1.15M. Given we need someone to play
the 15 or so games Price doesn't start, Budaj is a good fit at a good
price.
It's a bit of no-brainer that Price will be signed this year, although I'm having difficulty figuring out for how much. Somewhere near $5M would be my guess. What do you guys think?
Defencemen
There's a good crop of returning defencemen, with a pile of RFAs on the roster as well. The only D-man who goes into unrestricted free agency is Campoli, and I really don't expect to see him back. We have Markov ($5.75M, 2 yrs), Gorges ($3.9M, 6 yr), Weber (850k, 1 yr and then RFA), and sadly, Kaberle (an unbelievable $4.25M for another 2 years). Obviously, we'd love to get rid of him, but there isn't a GM in the league who would take him off our hands. Hopefully the new CBA will allow us to get him off from around the neck of the team, but I don't think we can hold our breaths. On the RFA scene, we have Emelin, Nash, Diaz, Subban, and St.-Denis.
I could see possibly keeping St.-Denis and Nash for depth, but they aren't big pieces of the puzzle. In my opinion, Subban is second only in terms of Price in terms of priority for team signing. I'm also a huge fan of Emelin, and would love to have him on the CH blueline for years to come from what I've seen from him this season. Also a fan of Diaz, he's got a good sense of what's going on around him and a good shot from the point. I think it would be great to hang on to both him and Weber, both very promising young defencemen that are proven in the league, and trade one (or possibly both) down the line for some more assets up front.
Really not expecting to see much interesting happen in terms of trades or UFA signings on the defence, just hoping to sign most of a great crop of young players.
Forwards
Now for the hard part. Obviously, there's some good talent up front if we can overlook the albatross that is Scott Gomez ($7.36M, 2 yrs). Again, no GM will ever take that contract off of our hands, and we can only hope that the new CBA opens up some kind of door to get rid of him. After that, we have Plekanec ($5M, 4 yrs), Gionta ($5M, 2 yrs), Cole ($4.5M, 3 yrs), Bourque ($3.33M, 4 yrs), Pacioretty ($1.625M, 1 yr then RFA), Leblanc ($1.17M, 2 yrs then RFA), and Desharnais ($850k, 1 yr). I'm pretty happy with that group, and with much of our RFA crop, which includes Eller, Geoffrion, Blunden, and Nokelainen. Our UFAs consist of Moen, Darche, and Staubitz.
Frankly, I could care less about our UFAs. They're entirely replaceable. I'm glad we've signed White, I have a soft spot for the guy. I think Geoffrion showed some promise, but may have some trouble staying on the roster. I'd like to see Eller kept around, he's got potential and may also prove to be attractive trade bait.
The Dream
Outside of our very wildest dreams, we're not going to be able to trade Gomez and Kaberle for Rick Nash. Within our grasp as UFAs are veterans like Doan, Smyth, and Ray Whitney. I'm happy with Cole and Gionta as vets, and think we need to focus on younger players that might take a couple years to peak: we simply can't assemble a cup-worthy squad for at least 2 years.
Semin is on the market, but I'm not super-excited by him. He's kinda fragile, and hasn't re-found his form of the 08-09 and 09-10 seasons. Parise is another high flier, more interesting in my opinion if we can get value for him. He's in an odd spot, as he took a 1-year contract for $6M last season as an RFA on the back of consecutive 94- and 82-point seasons, but “only” scored 69 points this season and is entering his first year of eligibility as a UFA.
Honestly, I would like to see NO big, bold, interesting moves come Sunday. The crop of UFAs seems pretty thin, but might yield a good bargain or two. PA Parenteau would be interesting: he's francophone, shoots right-handed, and scored 53 and 67 points in the last 2 seasons (also his first 2 in the NHL). Plus, he only made $1.25M last season. I mentioned Dustin Penner earlier, he could bring some much-needed size and can definitely put the puck in the net. However, he's been having trouble with that lately, and as a result may not be able to match the $4.25M of his last contract.
Who's your reality-tempered dream acquisition? Let us know in the comments.
Acknowledgements and big thanks to CapGeek.com for numbers!
Showing posts with label Trades. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trades. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Pierre Gauthier''s Year
Apparently today marks the first anniversary of Pierre Gauthier's time as the man officially in charge of the Montreal Canadiens.
Round and about, it seems to be the thing to give some kind of retrospective on him. At first, i thought I had no interest in doing this. That was until I read the glowing reviews he's been getting. I think the internet is calling for some balance.
Trades
The place everyone seems to start is with trades, so I'll start there too. Gauthier has made a total of nine of them in a year. In doing so, he has traded 5 players that were on last year's roster as well as a first, 3 second round picks and a 5th rounder with one prospect for two players on the current roster, 6 prospects, 2 free agents that are gone now, a first rounder, a 4th and a 5th.
Here are the trades:
1) 2nd round pick (TBD) in 2011 traded to Florida Panthers for Dominic Moore
2) Matt D'Agostini traded to St. Louis Blues for Aaron Palushaj
3) Jaroslav Halak traded to St. Louis Blues for Lars Eller and Ian Schultz
4) 1st round pick (Mark Visentin) in 2010 and a 2nd round pick (Oscar Lindberg) in 2010 traded to Phoenix Coyotes for a 1st round pick (Jarred Tinordi) in 2010 and a 4th Round pick (Mark MacMillan) in 2010
5) Sergei Kostitsyn and future considerations traded to Nashville Predators for Dan Ellis, Dustin Boyd and future considerations
6) Cedrick Desjardins traded to Tampa Bay Lightning for Karri Ramo
7) Ryan O'Byrne traded to Colorado Avalanche for Michael Bournival
8) 2nd round pick (TBD) in 2011 and a conditional 5th round pick (TBD) in 2012 traded to New York Islanders for James Wisniewski. 2nd round pick was NHL compensation for 1st round pick David Fischer not being signed
9) Maxim Lapierre traded to Anaheim Ducks for Brett Festerling and a 5th Round pick (TBD) in 2012
Trades 2) and 6) I'll call neutral. Basic prospect for prospect swaps. Factors like age and popularity of the players might play into this over time.
Trade 1) was a rental that paid off. So that's a victory. A 2nd round pick is steep for Dominic Moore. But a second round pick is cheap for a forward that significantly helps your team knock off two powerhouses and make the best playoff run the franchise has had in near two decades.
Trade 7) is another win for me. O'Byrne was essentially a dead-end prospect. Subban and Weber progressing properly made his worth to the team drop. Add in Picard who is at least as good, if not as big and there wasn't much place for Ryan in the future. Turning this guy into a potentially very exciting Quebec-born first rounder (who narrowly missed making team Canada) was very good for a Canadiens GM.
Trades 5) and 9) are widely viewed as addition by subtraction. As is standard procedure in these trades, the GM went to another conference. The problem is addition by subtraction is ultimately still subtraction. These can't really be viewed as wins, because other GMs have done more with less value. Gauthier needed to be more alert to the good trades out there and hold his cards. Andrej Meszaros was had for a 2nd rounder, Chicago was dumping players like Andrew Ladd. Even if we throw that out the window, the Canadiens GM in making these trades is just continuing the lazy tradition of jettisoning problems as opposed to facing them. 50+ point Ribeiro and 40+ point Grabovski join Kostistyn on the list of talent thrown away of late. Even though I fully subscribe to the idea that these players needed to go, I cannot endorse trading players for just anything. Talent has to be either managed or managed until value can be found in return. These trades are in the needs improvement column.
Trade 8) was a clear win. Wisniewski is a good fit and just what the team needed at the time. The price was OK considering the rental was long, and better if you consider he's auditioning for a future place.
The last two trades are examples of trades gone wrong.
The trade up for Jarred Tonirodi was a miscalculation, I think. For one thing there were more than 5 players of Tinordi's standard out there. And you know how I feel about taking defensive defencemen in the first round. To spend a second rounder for a fourth to get one on top of wasting the pick on one is pretty poor. I understand the scouts liked him and that's how it worked. But tell me, didn't the scouts see anything in say Tyler Toffoli who now has 44 goals in 50 OHL games (47th)? Or other second rounders who they might have been able to take as well as Tinordi if they risked him falling?
The Halak trade is being viewed at the moment through some mighty rosy glasses. From all the comments, you'd think that Halak was made of kryptonite to halt Price's superman. Let's assume for a moment that they are in fact separate people, and only made of organic matter that doesn't emit debilitating auras. Price if was going to be good, was going to be good. Halak had just come off an outstanding playoffs that laid to rest a lot of the thought at the time that his previous two seasons were flashes in the pan. He was an asset.
So trading an asset. This is stuff to get excited about? Should be. Could be. Except that Gauthier decided to cut off his own legs. He decided that it was best to trade Halak before signing him to a contract. This decision meant that a) Halak was worth less and b) Price was worth more. Now we can argue about Eller until the cows come home,and Price's contract looks like every good value now. Heck, Halak's record makes this look rosy too. But all of that misses the point. The GM needed to turn Halak into something much more valuable than Eller and Schultz. If Gautheir really believed that he was picking the right goalie, he needed to open this up to the Eastern conference, where goalies were most required. If the trade wasn't there at that time, he should have signed Halak and played salary games like the two teams that just made the Stanley Cup final did all last season.
This was a mediocre trade with extremely bad timing.
Overall, I have Gauthier down as an average trader who seems like he might be getting better (Bournival, Wisniewski). If trading was all there was to being a GM, then he'd deserve a pat of encouragement. If you're polar opposite on that Halak trade, I can see where the rave reviews are coming from.
Free agents
In terms of new faces, Gauthier did OK last summer. Basically, he added Alex Auld, Alexandre Picard and Jeff Halpern. None of these signings sets to world on fire. Yet none creates a salary mess either. Considering they've all played well, I'd say it's a good record.
If there's a criticism to be levelled with regard to free agents, it has to be about the resigning of the team's own. Pouliot stands out, since he got a 50% raise despite basically taking 25 games off at the end of last season. Halak wasn't signed (before the playoffs?) and we know what problems I think that caused and Price got a very hefty raise despite having 18 pretty average months on a contract that was already paying over the odds.
Again in retrospect these things look OK. I can't rely entirely on retrospect. When a player plays badly, he should not be rewarded with a hefty raise. it sets dangerous precedents for when a) that player plays well and b) other players come off below average seasons. Contract structure is all about internal precedents and one can only rely on so much good will from players who wish to stay. These two contracts netting a few hundred thousand more than they should have will likely mean the loss of a real roster player this summer.
Man management
Perhaps man management is entirely the duty of the GM, but ultimately he's the man who pushes the buttons and he can tell the coaches what he wants them to do as their boss.
A big red light went up this January when Andrei Kostitsyn asked for a meeting with Jacques Martin and finally found out what the coach wanted.
This is indicative of a problem that we thought had gone the way of Carbo. An environment where players and personalities are being managed on a daily basis. It's a problem. It's a problem because players like the ones I mention above as additions by subtraction become those players worth subtracting in these environments.
In a league as competitive for talent as the NHL, it's crazy to allow an environment that consistently puts up these problem players to persist. We've lost the talent held in Ribeiro, Grabovksi, Sergei and Lapierre for little in return, and it looks precarious in Andrei Kostitsyn's case.
I understand that Jacques Martin is a grizzled vet who is set in his ways, and in many ways holds more clout and credibility than Gauthier. However, Gauthier is the man charged with managing this group of talent. When sweeping problems under the rug until a trade comes up is the standard operating procedure, it's the GM's duty to step in and speak for the talent assets of the club.
I was willing to assume this was taken care of. That is until Andrei's recent revelations. Gauthier must do better here. Else more talent (talented guys do tend o have egos sometimes) will pass on by.
Results
ON results, Gauthier looks a star. The team, fighting for the playoffs when he took over, made it there and put in a great run. This season is the team's best since 2008, and probably better when injuries are tallied. Considering that, it's been the best 12 months (Feb to Feb) for the Habs since 1993. Gauthier is reaping the good favour for this in his reviews today.
Problem is, much of this has little to do with Gauthier's reign as sole man at the helm. The core of the team was put together with Gainey in charge (or so we thought). Carey Price is better because of goaltending coaches and better defence, not that contract or Halak leaving.
Gautheir is the GM of a very good team, but let's not make the mistake in thinking that he's the very good GM of an NHL team.
February is a telling time for a GM, as it's one of the few months many of them do any work. Trades made in the next month, or trades no made will give us a fuller picture on Gauthier. Another draft will reveal more about his steel and judgment, as will the contract season.
A year is far too little time to judge a GM properly. I've been hard, but not down on Gauthier. I felt some of the stuff glossed over by others needed to be brought to light. Until now, I'd say he's been adequate, doing little to indicate he'll separate from the pack. It could be worse. But in a thirty team league with only one team winning the prize each year, being adequate might not be enough.
Round and about, it seems to be the thing to give some kind of retrospective on him. At first, i thought I had no interest in doing this. That was until I read the glowing reviews he's been getting. I think the internet is calling for some balance.
Trades
The place everyone seems to start is with trades, so I'll start there too. Gauthier has made a total of nine of them in a year. In doing so, he has traded 5 players that were on last year's roster as well as a first, 3 second round picks and a 5th rounder with one prospect for two players on the current roster, 6 prospects, 2 free agents that are gone now, a first rounder, a 4th and a 5th.
Here are the trades:
1) 2nd round pick (TBD) in 2011 traded to Florida Panthers for Dominic Moore
2) Matt D'Agostini traded to St. Louis Blues for Aaron Palushaj
3) Jaroslav Halak traded to St. Louis Blues for Lars Eller and Ian Schultz
4) 1st round pick (Mark Visentin) in 2010 and a 2nd round pick (Oscar Lindberg) in 2010 traded to Phoenix Coyotes for a 1st round pick (Jarred Tinordi) in 2010 and a 4th Round pick (Mark MacMillan) in 2010
5) Sergei Kostitsyn and future considerations traded to Nashville Predators for Dan Ellis, Dustin Boyd and future considerations
6) Cedrick Desjardins traded to Tampa Bay Lightning for Karri Ramo
7) Ryan O'Byrne traded to Colorado Avalanche for Michael Bournival
8) 2nd round pick (TBD) in 2011 and a conditional 5th round pick (TBD) in 2012 traded to New York Islanders for James Wisniewski. 2nd round pick was NHL compensation for 1st round pick David Fischer not being signed
9) Maxim Lapierre traded to Anaheim Ducks for Brett Festerling and a 5th Round pick (TBD) in 2012
Trades 2) and 6) I'll call neutral. Basic prospect for prospect swaps. Factors like age and popularity of the players might play into this over time.
Trade 1) was a rental that paid off. So that's a victory. A 2nd round pick is steep for Dominic Moore. But a second round pick is cheap for a forward that significantly helps your team knock off two powerhouses and make the best playoff run the franchise has had in near two decades.
Trade 7) is another win for me. O'Byrne was essentially a dead-end prospect. Subban and Weber progressing properly made his worth to the team drop. Add in Picard who is at least as good, if not as big and there wasn't much place for Ryan in the future. Turning this guy into a potentially very exciting Quebec-born first rounder (who narrowly missed making team Canada) was very good for a Canadiens GM.
Trades 5) and 9) are widely viewed as addition by subtraction. As is standard procedure in these trades, the GM went to another conference. The problem is addition by subtraction is ultimately still subtraction. These can't really be viewed as wins, because other GMs have done more with less value. Gauthier needed to be more alert to the good trades out there and hold his cards. Andrej Meszaros was had for a 2nd rounder, Chicago was dumping players like Andrew Ladd. Even if we throw that out the window, the Canadiens GM in making these trades is just continuing the lazy tradition of jettisoning problems as opposed to facing them. 50+ point Ribeiro and 40+ point Grabovski join Kostistyn on the list of talent thrown away of late. Even though I fully subscribe to the idea that these players needed to go, I cannot endorse trading players for just anything. Talent has to be either managed or managed until value can be found in return. These trades are in the needs improvement column.
Trade 8) was a clear win. Wisniewski is a good fit and just what the team needed at the time. The price was OK considering the rental was long, and better if you consider he's auditioning for a future place.
The last two trades are examples of trades gone wrong.
The trade up for Jarred Tonirodi was a miscalculation, I think. For one thing there were more than 5 players of Tinordi's standard out there. And you know how I feel about taking defensive defencemen in the first round. To spend a second rounder for a fourth to get one on top of wasting the pick on one is pretty poor. I understand the scouts liked him and that's how it worked. But tell me, didn't the scouts see anything in say Tyler Toffoli who now has 44 goals in 50 OHL games (47th)? Or other second rounders who they might have been able to take as well as Tinordi if they risked him falling?
The Halak trade is being viewed at the moment through some mighty rosy glasses. From all the comments, you'd think that Halak was made of kryptonite to halt Price's superman. Let's assume for a moment that they are in fact separate people, and only made of organic matter that doesn't emit debilitating auras. Price if was going to be good, was going to be good. Halak had just come off an outstanding playoffs that laid to rest a lot of the thought at the time that his previous two seasons were flashes in the pan. He was an asset.
So trading an asset. This is stuff to get excited about? Should be. Could be. Except that Gauthier decided to cut off his own legs. He decided that it was best to trade Halak before signing him to a contract. This decision meant that a) Halak was worth less and b) Price was worth more. Now we can argue about Eller until the cows come home,and Price's contract looks like every good value now. Heck, Halak's record makes this look rosy too. But all of that misses the point. The GM needed to turn Halak into something much more valuable than Eller and Schultz. If Gautheir really believed that he was picking the right goalie, he needed to open this up to the Eastern conference, where goalies were most required. If the trade wasn't there at that time, he should have signed Halak and played salary games like the two teams that just made the Stanley Cup final did all last season.
This was a mediocre trade with extremely bad timing.
Overall, I have Gauthier down as an average trader who seems like he might be getting better (Bournival, Wisniewski). If trading was all there was to being a GM, then he'd deserve a pat of encouragement. If you're polar opposite on that Halak trade, I can see where the rave reviews are coming from.
Free agents
In terms of new faces, Gauthier did OK last summer. Basically, he added Alex Auld, Alexandre Picard and Jeff Halpern. None of these signings sets to world on fire. Yet none creates a salary mess either. Considering they've all played well, I'd say it's a good record.
If there's a criticism to be levelled with regard to free agents, it has to be about the resigning of the team's own. Pouliot stands out, since he got a 50% raise despite basically taking 25 games off at the end of last season. Halak wasn't signed (before the playoffs?) and we know what problems I think that caused and Price got a very hefty raise despite having 18 pretty average months on a contract that was already paying over the odds.
Again in retrospect these things look OK. I can't rely entirely on retrospect. When a player plays badly, he should not be rewarded with a hefty raise. it sets dangerous precedents for when a) that player plays well and b) other players come off below average seasons. Contract structure is all about internal precedents and one can only rely on so much good will from players who wish to stay. These two contracts netting a few hundred thousand more than they should have will likely mean the loss of a real roster player this summer.
Man management
Perhaps man management is entirely the duty of the GM, but ultimately he's the man who pushes the buttons and he can tell the coaches what he wants them to do as their boss.
A big red light went up this January when Andrei Kostitsyn asked for a meeting with Jacques Martin and finally found out what the coach wanted.
This is indicative of a problem that we thought had gone the way of Carbo. An environment where players and personalities are being managed on a daily basis. It's a problem. It's a problem because players like the ones I mention above as additions by subtraction become those players worth subtracting in these environments.
In a league as competitive for talent as the NHL, it's crazy to allow an environment that consistently puts up these problem players to persist. We've lost the talent held in Ribeiro, Grabovksi, Sergei and Lapierre for little in return, and it looks precarious in Andrei Kostitsyn's case.
I understand that Jacques Martin is a grizzled vet who is set in his ways, and in many ways holds more clout and credibility than Gauthier. However, Gauthier is the man charged with managing this group of talent. When sweeping problems under the rug until a trade comes up is the standard operating procedure, it's the GM's duty to step in and speak for the talent assets of the club.
I was willing to assume this was taken care of. That is until Andrei's recent revelations. Gauthier must do better here. Else more talent (talented guys do tend o have egos sometimes) will pass on by.
Results
ON results, Gauthier looks a star. The team, fighting for the playoffs when he took over, made it there and put in a great run. This season is the team's best since 2008, and probably better when injuries are tallied. Considering that, it's been the best 12 months (Feb to Feb) for the Habs since 1993. Gauthier is reaping the good favour for this in his reviews today.
Problem is, much of this has little to do with Gauthier's reign as sole man at the helm. The core of the team was put together with Gainey in charge (or so we thought). Carey Price is better because of goaltending coaches and better defence, not that contract or Halak leaving.
Gautheir is the GM of a very good team, but let's not make the mistake in thinking that he's the very good GM of an NHL team.
February is a telling time for a GM, as it's one of the few months many of them do any work. Trades made in the next month, or trades no made will give us a fuller picture on Gauthier. Another draft will reveal more about his steel and judgment, as will the contract season.
A year is far too little time to judge a GM properly. I've been hard, but not down on Gauthier. I felt some of the stuff glossed over by others needed to be brought to light. Until now, I'd say he's been adequate, doing little to indicate he'll separate from the pack. It could be worse. But in a thirty team league with only one team winning the prize each year, being adequate might not be enough.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Calgary Shows What's Possible
When the Canadiens had locker room problems, they excommunicated a player. yet neither his salary nor his roster spot were gained in the transaction. It was a great PR move, but a nothing from a hockey point of view.
Calgary has been bombing in the standings of late. Possible explanations include their lack of scoring, and that old losing streak favourite – a rift in the locker room.
Considering the issues facing Darryl Sutter, the task must have seemed monumental. A second number one defenceman, but one with an attitude (and not one that helps the team). How to get value in a trade. Next, a one-dimensional attack, hampered again by an anchor of a personality. Both problem players are paid as if they're not problems, as if the order wasn't tall enough already.
Yet Sutter seems to have pulled off a coup.
In his first trade, he seemed to manage to get value for his promising, yet troublesome young defenceman. Not only that, he actually got a second line in return. Matt Stajan and Niklas Hagman are among the Leafs top scorers and come in ahead of most Flames but Iginla in the scoring race. The fact he also replaced Phaneuf with Ian White, a pretty adept blueliner, without the salary or the ego, was the winning shot as he parted the negotiation.
This first trade allowed him to turn around and jettison Jokinen, which reports say he did in a trade for Ales Kotalik and sudden journeyman and trade throwaway Chris Higgins.
All in all, not a bad remake.
From the Leafs point of view
I'm not sure another pundit needs to get into this from the Leafs point of view. TSN has a month ahead of them here. But I thought a couple of thoughts wouldn't kill anyone.
Bringing in Phaneuf was a coup for Burke as well, no matter how you look at it. On the Leafs at the moment, it makes no difference who is sipped out, since it's a losing formula anyway. Phaneuf may not be a winner, but being the top dog will surely stroke his ego again, the way he likes.
It also fulfills Burke's one ask this season – improve the team for next season. In acquiring Phaneuf, he claimed a piece that will be harder to grab in July. Presumably he'll replace the forwards then, as forwards of the Stajan stature, though valuable now, are not July 1st material usually.
If I want to take a negative view on the Leafs, it's losing Ian White. But that's a case of giving to get, it doesn't happen any other way.
Habs implications
Many Habs fans are getting antsy after this. In the land of consecutive losses, a big trade would at least stem the break between Feb 1 and the Olympics with some excitement.
My feeling is that is a bad reason to make a trade. There's no way the Habs missed out too much yesterday. Phaneuf, even if he matures into a man one day, is still an offensive defenceman. With Markov and then every prospect worth the paper his name is written on being an offensive defenceman, the addition wasn't on the radar. The Giguere move would be a disaster here – we already have two goalies better than his current self. The forwards exchanged, perhaps with the exception of Jokinen were extra pieces in trades, not the key pieces. I suspect Burke doesn't trade Stajan unless he's part of a big one. Jokinen himself seems to burn a lot of bridges. Maybe he'd fit. perhaps not worth the gamble.
In terms of future trades, I don't think it changes much. Not for the Canadiens anyway. New York would have always been looking for a centre, but we wouldn't give them Plekanec, and they wouldn't have Gomez. Calgary may be finished, but a team with forwards who can't score and offensive defencemen who trip on their own feet is not one we should be mining to correct a problem.
Yes, I'm envious that Toronto fans get to dream for a few days about a better backline while we await an MRI, but ultimately, I'm fairly comfortable that we didn't get into this affair.
Calgary has been bombing in the standings of late. Possible explanations include their lack of scoring, and that old losing streak favourite – a rift in the locker room.
Considering the issues facing Darryl Sutter, the task must have seemed monumental. A second number one defenceman, but one with an attitude (and not one that helps the team). How to get value in a trade. Next, a one-dimensional attack, hampered again by an anchor of a personality. Both problem players are paid as if they're not problems, as if the order wasn't tall enough already.
Yet Sutter seems to have pulled off a coup.
In his first trade, he seemed to manage to get value for his promising, yet troublesome young defenceman. Not only that, he actually got a second line in return. Matt Stajan and Niklas Hagman are among the Leafs top scorers and come in ahead of most Flames but Iginla in the scoring race. The fact he also replaced Phaneuf with Ian White, a pretty adept blueliner, without the salary or the ego, was the winning shot as he parted the negotiation.
This first trade allowed him to turn around and jettison Jokinen, which reports say he did in a trade for Ales Kotalik and sudden journeyman and trade throwaway Chris Higgins.
All in all, not a bad remake.
From the Leafs point of view
I'm not sure another pundit needs to get into this from the Leafs point of view. TSN has a month ahead of them here. But I thought a couple of thoughts wouldn't kill anyone.
Bringing in Phaneuf was a coup for Burke as well, no matter how you look at it. On the Leafs at the moment, it makes no difference who is sipped out, since it's a losing formula anyway. Phaneuf may not be a winner, but being the top dog will surely stroke his ego again, the way he likes.
It also fulfills Burke's one ask this season – improve the team for next season. In acquiring Phaneuf, he claimed a piece that will be harder to grab in July. Presumably he'll replace the forwards then, as forwards of the Stajan stature, though valuable now, are not July 1st material usually.
If I want to take a negative view on the Leafs, it's losing Ian White. But that's a case of giving to get, it doesn't happen any other way.
Habs implications
Many Habs fans are getting antsy after this. In the land of consecutive losses, a big trade would at least stem the break between Feb 1 and the Olympics with some excitement.
My feeling is that is a bad reason to make a trade. There's no way the Habs missed out too much yesterday. Phaneuf, even if he matures into a man one day, is still an offensive defenceman. With Markov and then every prospect worth the paper his name is written on being an offensive defenceman, the addition wasn't on the radar. The Giguere move would be a disaster here – we already have two goalies better than his current self. The forwards exchanged, perhaps with the exception of Jokinen were extra pieces in trades, not the key pieces. I suspect Burke doesn't trade Stajan unless he's part of a big one. Jokinen himself seems to burn a lot of bridges. Maybe he'd fit. perhaps not worth the gamble.
In terms of future trades, I don't think it changes much. Not for the Canadiens anyway. New York would have always been looking for a centre, but we wouldn't give them Plekanec, and they wouldn't have Gomez. Calgary may be finished, but a team with forwards who can't score and offensive defencemen who trip on their own feet is not one we should be mining to correct a problem.
Yes, I'm envious that Toronto fans get to dream for a few days about a better backline while we await an MRI, but ultimately, I'm fairly comfortable that we didn't get into this affair.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
UFA Dump
As Hit And Miss As Any Other Trade
Unrestricted free agency as we know it today was born out of the 1994-95 Owner's Lockout. Prior to that point, the stipulation as to ages for free agency weren't as clear as they are today.
The idea of restricted and unrestricted free agents has since played a major role in days like today for over a decade. Pundits love free agency because it gives them a good clue as to some of the players that might be moved at the deadline. Players love it as it gives them leverage to make salary demands.
I don't think the GMs like it though. I wouldn't if I was a GM. The UFA environment on trade deadline day can be a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for GMs. Any number of supporters will line up behind the idea of keeping a star. Another segment is drawn to the idea that if there is something to be had, it is better than 20 games and gone for the given player.
The Canadiens and their unrestricted free agents
GMs of the Montreal Canadiens are no strangers to this dilemma. Last season Gainey was both praised and reviled for dealing Cristobal Huet for a second round draft pick. The year before, it was the same when he held onto Sheldon Souray.
In all the Canadiens have 9 times dealt an unrestricted free agent after the turn of the new year, lest they be lost for nothing. Rather predictably, only one of the trades in this category can be qualified as outright wins:
1) Craig Rivet and a 5th round pick for Josh Gorges and a 1st round pick (now Max Pacioretty)
In retrospect, several are losers, considering the player sent the other way:
1) Eric Weinrich for Patrick Traverse
2) Mark Recchi for Dainius Zubrus and a 2nd, 4th and 6th round pick
3) Vincent Damphousse for a 1st, 2nd and 5th round pick
If you're not getting a player...
If you're not getting a player for a star UFA, chances are we will be here in 5 years writing about a bad trade. It's just odds. If you get a player, you can still lose (Traverse). But if you trust your scouts, a player is a better bet. A pro player has already shown what he can do against other pros – there are far fewer unknown quantities. I would suggest the Rivet trade as proof of what good pro scouting can do.
The Mark Recchi and Vincent Damphousse trades illustrate the problem with thinking that a lot of draft picks are value for a star player. The chances of getting another player like Recchi or Damphousse in the draft is not worth the gamble (even in the first round). When you consider that Mark Recchi has played 9 seasons since that trade, won a Cup, had 7 20+ goal seasons and even a 91-point campaign; you'd be lucky to select a player at number one and replicate that.
In general, first round picks can be reliable. Beyond that is a crap shoot. Getting 3 extra picks allows for more long-shot picks on draft day – but as these trades showed, those kinds of picks are called that for a reason.
Holding vs. trading
I hate the cliche "Trade him, or we'll lose him for nothing." First of all, it's not true – you have the player for 20 more games, plus playoffs if you are there. Secondly, if you're team is never able to attract or retain players once they get to a certain level – then you are in bigger trouble than you know. The Montreal Canadiens for all their griping about losing money, have never been a poor brother in the NHL, though they acted like one in 1999.
The value of holding the player must be weighed fully against the value of trading. That player for 20+ games vs. the package coming back. In the Rivet trade, the package was very good – a functional NHL defenceman and a first round pick that year. It turned into a bigger win later as Gorges showed he fits in better than Rivet did at the end. Presumably the package offered for Souray that very same year was not as good, so Gainey weighed and opted for 20 games with his PP point man.
No playoffs
If there is no chance of the playoffs, as was the case in 7 of the 9 trades (1999, 2001, 2003), then the weight of the player being around for 20 games takes a lot less meaning, of course. Those 20 games would be either for the pleasure of the fans, the hope of re-signing or some kind of good will to the player. These scenarios certainly make it more forgivable to talk about losing for nothing, and for making a trade for anything, anything at all.
Playoffs
If the team is firmly in the race for the playoffs, as was the case at the deadline the past two seasons. These assessments change quite dramatically. In these cases, trading a major star ahead of the "real season" indicates a GM is wavering in earlier plans.
Consider that in the playoffs, there is an expanded roster size and more roster flexibility; and all salaries are already paid to boot. Keeping a major piece (someone that the GM (at least, previously) thought was a major cog in the machine makes much more sense. 20 games + playoffs certainly isn't nothing. Considering the playoffs are the first time of year a team gets to play for a trophy (well, one that anyone cares about) – it seems to me that keeping once valuable pieces just in case has value in itself.
Current Canadiens UFAs
On that note, I look to players others are floating as possible trade bait from the Canadiens as possible trade bait – simply based on contract status:
1) Saku Koivu
I wouldn't trade a guy who rescued the team while nursing a broken foot
Offer to change my mind: None.
2) Alexei Kovalev
Trading Kovalev during his least productive season is asking for egg in the face
Offer to change my mind: Winger who can score, as well as carry the puck.
3) Alex Tanguay
Gainey acquired Alex Tanguay for good reason (did he not?). Trading him now would raise serious questions about our GM's one-year plan (let alone 5+ year plan)
Offer to change my mind: Jere Lehtinen.
4) Robert Lang
Injury rather settled this issue
5) Tom Kostopoulos
He's one of those value for money kind of guys. I think he's easily signable.
Offer to change my mind: Only an upgrade – no sideways maneuvering.
6) Francis Bouillon
Has more value to this franchise as an interview target than any 6th round pick could return. I also think he can be re-signed and I'd encourage that.
Offer to change my mind: Only an upgrade – no sideways maneuvering.
7) Mathieu Dandenault
Wants to be traded. Want to trade him. Would be hard to low-ball me here.
Offer to deal him: Someone who can skate.
8) Mike Komisarek
The most interesting possibility. Everyone needs a defenceman. Everyone reads stats. Komisarek could return value. But as a rental?
Offer to change my mind: A young defender who knows his trade – it would take a Rivet:Gorges type revelation. Not impossible.
9) Mathieu Schneider
I don't think Gainey would turn two trades only to upgrade his draft picks – seems like a lot of work...
Offer to change my mind: None.
10) Patrice Brisebois
Get real
Offer to deal him: It's been so painful to get to 1,000, I want it to end right. End is the operative word.
As you can see, I wouldn't be an exciting GM either. Unlike Waddell who is, I care about winning a few games. I'm glad Gainey seems to be of like mind. Frankly, with all the prospects we have (a few who are sure to be logjammed or busts), I don't see the need to take a loss on a UFA at this point. Plenty of trade bait lying around as it is.
The idea of restricted and unrestricted free agents has since played a major role in days like today for over a decade. Pundits love free agency because it gives them a good clue as to some of the players that might be moved at the deadline. Players love it as it gives them leverage to make salary demands.
I don't think the GMs like it though. I wouldn't if I was a GM. The UFA environment on trade deadline day can be a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for GMs. Any number of supporters will line up behind the idea of keeping a star. Another segment is drawn to the idea that if there is something to be had, it is better than 20 games and gone for the given player.
The Canadiens and their unrestricted free agents
GMs of the Montreal Canadiens are no strangers to this dilemma. Last season Gainey was both praised and reviled for dealing Cristobal Huet for a second round draft pick. The year before, it was the same when he held onto Sheldon Souray.
In all the Canadiens have 9 times dealt an unrestricted free agent after the turn of the new year, lest they be lost for nothing. Rather predictably, only one of the trades in this category can be qualified as outright wins:
1) Craig Rivet and a 5th round pick for Josh Gorges and a 1st round pick (now Max Pacioretty)
In retrospect, several are losers, considering the player sent the other way:
1) Eric Weinrich for Patrick Traverse
2) Mark Recchi for Dainius Zubrus and a 2nd, 4th and 6th round pick
3) Vincent Damphousse for a 1st, 2nd and 5th round pick
If you're not getting a player...
If you're not getting a player for a star UFA, chances are we will be here in 5 years writing about a bad trade. It's just odds. If you get a player, you can still lose (Traverse). But if you trust your scouts, a player is a better bet. A pro player has already shown what he can do against other pros – there are far fewer unknown quantities. I would suggest the Rivet trade as proof of what good pro scouting can do.
The Mark Recchi and Vincent Damphousse trades illustrate the problem with thinking that a lot of draft picks are value for a star player. The chances of getting another player like Recchi or Damphousse in the draft is not worth the gamble (even in the first round). When you consider that Mark Recchi has played 9 seasons since that trade, won a Cup, had 7 20+ goal seasons and even a 91-point campaign; you'd be lucky to select a player at number one and replicate that.
In general, first round picks can be reliable. Beyond that is a crap shoot. Getting 3 extra picks allows for more long-shot picks on draft day – but as these trades showed, those kinds of picks are called that for a reason.
Holding vs. trading
I hate the cliche "Trade him, or we'll lose him for nothing." First of all, it's not true – you have the player for 20 more games, plus playoffs if you are there. Secondly, if you're team is never able to attract or retain players once they get to a certain level – then you are in bigger trouble than you know. The Montreal Canadiens for all their griping about losing money, have never been a poor brother in the NHL, though they acted like one in 1999.
The value of holding the player must be weighed fully against the value of trading. That player for 20+ games vs. the package coming back. In the Rivet trade, the package was very good – a functional NHL defenceman and a first round pick that year. It turned into a bigger win later as Gorges showed he fits in better than Rivet did at the end. Presumably the package offered for Souray that very same year was not as good, so Gainey weighed and opted for 20 games with his PP point man.
No playoffs
If there is no chance of the playoffs, as was the case in 7 of the 9 trades (1999, 2001, 2003), then the weight of the player being around for 20 games takes a lot less meaning, of course. Those 20 games would be either for the pleasure of the fans, the hope of re-signing or some kind of good will to the player. These scenarios certainly make it more forgivable to talk about losing for nothing, and for making a trade for anything, anything at all.
Playoffs
If the team is firmly in the race for the playoffs, as was the case at the deadline the past two seasons. These assessments change quite dramatically. In these cases, trading a major star ahead of the "real season" indicates a GM is wavering in earlier plans.
Consider that in the playoffs, there is an expanded roster size and more roster flexibility; and all salaries are already paid to boot. Keeping a major piece (someone that the GM (at least, previously) thought was a major cog in the machine makes much more sense. 20 games + playoffs certainly isn't nothing. Considering the playoffs are the first time of year a team gets to play for a trophy (well, one that anyone cares about) – it seems to me that keeping once valuable pieces just in case has value in itself.
Current Canadiens UFAs
On that note, I look to players others are floating as possible trade bait from the Canadiens as possible trade bait – simply based on contract status:
1) Saku Koivu
I wouldn't trade a guy who rescued the team while nursing a broken foot
Offer to change my mind: None.
2) Alexei Kovalev
Trading Kovalev during his least productive season is asking for egg in the face
Offer to change my mind: Winger who can score, as well as carry the puck.
3) Alex Tanguay
Gainey acquired Alex Tanguay for good reason (did he not?). Trading him now would raise serious questions about our GM's one-year plan (let alone 5+ year plan)
Offer to change my mind: Jere Lehtinen.
4) Robert Lang
Injury rather settled this issue
5) Tom Kostopoulos
He's one of those value for money kind of guys. I think he's easily signable.
Offer to change my mind: Only an upgrade – no sideways maneuvering.
6) Francis Bouillon
Has more value to this franchise as an interview target than any 6th round pick could return. I also think he can be re-signed and I'd encourage that.
Offer to change my mind: Only an upgrade – no sideways maneuvering.
7) Mathieu Dandenault
Wants to be traded. Want to trade him. Would be hard to low-ball me here.
Offer to deal him: Someone who can skate.
8) Mike Komisarek
The most interesting possibility. Everyone needs a defenceman. Everyone reads stats. Komisarek could return value. But as a rental?
Offer to change my mind: A young defender who knows his trade – it would take a Rivet:Gorges type revelation. Not impossible.
9) Mathieu Schneider
I don't think Gainey would turn two trades only to upgrade his draft picks – seems like a lot of work...
Offer to change my mind: None.
10) Patrice Brisebois
Get real
Offer to deal him: It's been so painful to get to 1,000, I want it to end right. End is the operative word.
As you can see, I wouldn't be an exciting GM either. Unlike Waddell who is, I care about winning a few games. I'm glad Gainey seems to be of like mind. Frankly, with all the prospects we have (a few who are sure to be logjammed or busts), I don't see the need to take a loss on a UFA at this point. Plenty of trade bait lying around as it is.
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.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Enter Wing Left: Alex Tanguay
Gainey turned Huet into a player after all (essentially).
The Habs package their own second round pick from 2009 (keeping Washington's). We did also cough up the first rounder this year.
But Alex Tanguay!
I'll surely write more after my weekend holiday. But suffice it to say at this point that one LIW blogger is very excited.
We have a Cup winning, young, 20-goal scoring, LW star from the province of Quebec.
He's paid a bit much, but it's only a year on his current deal. He plays well for contracts too (see 2006), so even if we only get a year out of Alex, it should be good. Although, if he plays well, there'll be no trading our new French Canadian poster boy.
Downsides? Not shipping Brisebois in the deal somehow... Not many for now. I think he fits.
The Habs package their own second round pick from 2009 (keeping Washington's). We did also cough up the first rounder this year.
But Alex Tanguay!
I'll surely write more after my weekend holiday. But suffice it to say at this point that one LIW blogger is very excited.
We have a Cup winning, young, 20-goal scoring, LW star from the province of Quebec.
He's paid a bit much, but it's only a year on his current deal. He plays well for contracts too (see 2006), so even if we only get a year out of Alex, it should be good. Although, if he plays well, there'll be no trading our new French Canadian poster boy.
Downsides? Not shipping Brisebois in the deal somehow... Not many for now. I think he fits.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
From Souray to Huet: A Year of Gainey
Since people have been calling me audacious to challenge the reign of Bob Gainey, I have been meaning to explain myself. I was actually trying to come up with a title and a direction for a post just yesterday, when I read this piece by Eric Engels on hockeybuzz.com
The piece gave me direction (almost directly opposite) and a title. So here we go.
Let me start at the beginning here, by summarising why criticism of Bob Gainey (GM) is even pertinent at this time:
Eric Engels begins his own article by wondering how anyone could question Gainey. I think he is calling me (and others who question Gainey) a moron:
I suppose I merited that tag for being unclear. Of course, I don't question Bob Gainey's commitment, integrity or hockey knowledge. But, unfortunately for Bob, he is not the only good GM around. He is not even the only GM trying to set up a winning team. He is not the only GM to oversee a team with improving fortunes, either. I suppose the criticism (which I called disappointment) is that Bob, while doing an excellent job, is being outperformed. Or, at least has been outperformed over the last months. And, since there is only one trophy, being outperformed often means going home trophyless at the end of 8 long months of hockey.
Bob Gainey as GM has shown great talent for man management and hirings in the front office, a knack for the amateur draft and for signing players to good value contracts without hand-cuffing the franchise. His area of weakness, in my opinion, has been the addition of existing NHL talent – more specifically still: trades.
If you compare Bob to his peers, he appears to be more patient, more cerebral, and more cautious. All these characteristics serve him well for many of his duties, but as I questioned before, will Gainey be able move away from his patient, cautious approach and seize an opportunity when it comes?
Darren (from the comments of the last entry) noted that the Penguins GM, also in the midst of building a team gave up a lot for Marian Hossa, as he judged there was a chance to push for the Cup. At present, it seems like Shero's move is paying dividends, but we have yet to receive the final verdict. In any case, I wouldn't be writing this article about my GM if I were a Pittsburgh fan today. Shero wasn't the only GM to move. Brett Hull made a sly trade for Brad Richards, and his Stars, while reeling, are still alive too. Detroit didn't move too much at the deadline (Brad Stuart for free though), but amazed again last summer by adding the top free agent defenceman to their already talent-laden camp. While I don't like what Paul Holmgren did with the Flyers, no one can deny the jump they made in the standings. His notable addition of a veteran goalie has helped stem the tide of Nittymaki free-fall.
I could go beyond these four as well, but I won't. All this was to show that Bob Gainey, a talented guy, has talented peers too. And, from the looks of it, they are beating him handily at trades and attracting free agents, while he builds the patient way. I think if he wants to bring his team to the top table, he has to get a bit braver. If the biggest decision you make all season is whether to trade away impending free agents or not, perhaps he is getting left behind.
I say this like I say Plekanec needs to work on face-offs – a mere statement of opinion that one aspect of Bob's game could use a shine.
Evidence: a few recent decisions
Not trading Souray
Trading Souray would have been an obvious admission of defeat on the part of Bob Gainey. In his 5-year rebuilding plan, missing the playoffs in 2007 was a step backwards considering the team being employed in games and the free agent signings of the summer.
The incongruency with other moves (Rivet trade), however, suggests that Gainey may have attempted to trade Souray, but felt the value he would get in return was too low. Too low, even compared to 20 odd games worth of Sheldon, that is. It is also conceivable that Gainey legitimately wanted to sign Souray; and, as such, kept his man on board in order that they might work out a deal later. Either of these two give Gainey a legitimate excuse for the non-trade.
However, in the case of the Souray non-trade, I think we would be correct in speculating, however, that the playoffs (both for Gainey's record and Gillett's pocketbook) were a factor. If so, any reasonable critic could state that Gainey tampered with future success for a low-hanging fruit. A critic would not be wrong in pointing out that the move this year was inconsistent with the move last year – even at the risk of being called a moron by the eminent Mr. Engels.
My personal stance on Souray is ambivalence. I think calling him our best player last season is a stretch, considering how poor he was in his day-to-day position. It would have been nice to get something for him, but, I think the other GMs were wise to his deficiencies – so value would be lower. His points and goals during the stretch run provided hope and most of all entertainment.
At the end of the day, it's safe to say, I would have been upset with a draft pick for Souray just as I was for Huet.
Trading Huet
At the risk of angering the "get over it" gang, I'll voice my displeasure over this trade once again.
I should probably start by saying I would be pretty unhapppy at getting a second round pick for 80% of the current team. In principle, I think trading an NHL-calibre body for a 10% chance of getting an NHL body at some point in the future is lunacy. Apart from high first round picks, there are no guarantees in the draft. A second-round pick can turn into something special, but on average it won't.
I am also very much against making negative trades with players that aren't causing a problem of some kind on the team (let's say Dagenais as an example for that). There is absolutely nothing wrong, in my opinion, with losing a player for nothing if it means you get to keep that player for 20+ games. I have many times criticised Rejean Houle for this kind of negative management, and so to see Gainey resort to it was disappointing to say the least.
I also have to state, though, that I have absolutely nothing against a GM using his knowledge of the situation and intuition to determine that the time for his team is just not now. The Huet trade, if nothing else, announced to me that the GM of the team did not think he had the horses to run with Detroit, Dallas, Anaheim or San Jose. The evidence from the season would certainly prove him right.
All that said, I have yet to be convinced by anyone that trading Huet was necessary to allow Carey Price more starts – he could have been played more regardless of who was backing him up. Or to give Halak a real chance – but I think evidence for that theory has been blown out of the water. Or that Huet was a problem in the dressing room.
So what gives?
It all comes back to either money or the negative trade. Neither option offers anything positive for me.
You all know my opinion on Huet. But, on the trade itself, I was also disappointed. Brave would have been holding Huet when finding all you could get would be a second round pick. I thought the decision was neither brave nor creative. Creative would have been trading Halak in the hope that Washington would cough up more. What irks me is how unproductive and unnecessary the trade was. All told, it brought Gainey back down off his pedestal for me.
The Hossa non-trade
It's much more difficult to debate a non-trade than a trade since nothing is really known about it. What we do know about this particular non-trade was that Gainey was interested and he balked before the deadline at some point.
This non-trade is more interesting than the billions of other possibilities that could be dreamed up becuase it involved Marian Hossa – a scoring winger for Koivu. You see Hossa is a legitimate NHL star. He is a 40-goal threat, a puck carrier, a shooter and a nightmare for opposing teams to plan for. Most players could only dream of being as good as Hossa has been already.
The rumour is that player 1 in the trade for us was Christopher Higgins (at least for Waddell). For players like Hossa, a GM pays heavily (nothing is free), but in getting the best player in the trade often wins the trade by a landslide. In my opinion, it wouldn't matter who players 2, 3 and 4 were – especially if they were not in the NHL. So you have Higgins (and friends) for Hossa (20+ games). Under the circumstances, I think Gainey did the right thing here (especially having already traded goaltender insurance). A playoff rental would have gone against the grain of the team this year.
The order of proceedings
Finally, with regard to the trade deadline this season, you have the order of events prior to the trade deadline. Huet is traded then some time later Gainey pulls out of the Hossa trade.
This is noteworthy because it is in this order and not the opposite: Gainey pulls out of the Hossa trade then trades Huet.
In the latter, Gainey would have been trying to push his team over the top, been stifled, pulled out and then got what he could for a player who he deemed replaceable and unsignable.
In the former (and real) scenario, Gainey appeared to waver. It's only speculative of course, but by trading his number one goalie from a mere 2 weeks earlier (all-star and NHL three-star from January), Gainey paints the picture that he doesn't believe in the Habs playoff chances. Fair enough, he was probably right, but why then pursue a playoff addition like Hossa?
The move doesn't defy logic or anything, but it does defy (at least a little again) the idea that Gainey is infallible and without peer in the NHL.
The verdict
I hope Bob Gainey supporters understand that I still very much think he is a great GM. Possibly the best in the league, and certainly the best man for the Montreal Canadiens job. I merely question whether he will be able to deliver Detroit-style decade-long dominance if he doesn't adjust his game.
In my opinion, if he is to turn another rebuilding team into a dynastic rule, he must get a bit braver and more creative. I specifically point to trades as his area to focus his work on, as most other aspects of his GM play are top of the charts.
Nowadays, the price you should expect to pay to win the Cup is steep. This is simply because teams are playing for the single Cup – they will give up 5 years from now for this year. I think, as stated earlier, that he does need to be brave – probably this summer or next season – to add bodies the way his peers with playoff hockey to play and trophies in their cupboard do.
To win, even once, Gainey will have to play their game a little. If Gainey doesn't, and doesn't as a result ever move to the 6th year in his 5-year plan, we may just be lamenting the upshot team of the year (see Flyers this year) for many years to come.
The piece gave me direction (almost directly opposite) and a title. So here we go.
Let me start at the beginning here, by summarising why criticism of Bob Gainey (GM) is even pertinent at this time:
- The NHL season is not over, but the Canadiens are out
- The Canadiens lost to an opponent whom they beat 4 times in the regular season, in the majority of games the season before, were the worst team in the NHL the year before, in 5 games
- Bob Gainey both made moves and refrained from making moves over the season
Eric Engels begins his own article by wondering how anyone could question Gainey. I think he is calling me (and others who question Gainey) a moron:
What do you think of Bob Gainey now? It’s amazing how many people can doubt someone with as much integrity, and hockey-knowledge as Bob Gainey possesses. Moreover, it’s amazing how people doubt someone who’s proven that all his decisions are methodically considered, and unwavering under colossal pressure. He built a team that no one thought would contend for the playoffs, let alone the Stanley Cup, and yet there are still some morons out there who don’t understand the value of his decisions—decisions that gave our fair city the best hockey season we’ve witnessed in two decades.
I suppose I merited that tag for being unclear. Of course, I don't question Bob Gainey's commitment, integrity or hockey knowledge. But, unfortunately for Bob, he is not the only good GM around. He is not even the only GM trying to set up a winning team. He is not the only GM to oversee a team with improving fortunes, either. I suppose the criticism (which I called disappointment) is that Bob, while doing an excellent job, is being outperformed. Or, at least has been outperformed over the last months. And, since there is only one trophy, being outperformed often means going home trophyless at the end of 8 long months of hockey.
Bob Gainey as GM has shown great talent for man management and hirings in the front office, a knack for the amateur draft and for signing players to good value contracts without hand-cuffing the franchise. His area of weakness, in my opinion, has been the addition of existing NHL talent – more specifically still: trades.
If you compare Bob to his peers, he appears to be more patient, more cerebral, and more cautious. All these characteristics serve him well for many of his duties, but as I questioned before, will Gainey be able move away from his patient, cautious approach and seize an opportunity when it comes?
Darren (from the comments of the last entry) noted that the Penguins GM, also in the midst of building a team gave up a lot for Marian Hossa, as he judged there was a chance to push for the Cup. At present, it seems like Shero's move is paying dividends, but we have yet to receive the final verdict. In any case, I wouldn't be writing this article about my GM if I were a Pittsburgh fan today. Shero wasn't the only GM to move. Brett Hull made a sly trade for Brad Richards, and his Stars, while reeling, are still alive too. Detroit didn't move too much at the deadline (Brad Stuart for free though), but amazed again last summer by adding the top free agent defenceman to their already talent-laden camp. While I don't like what Paul Holmgren did with the Flyers, no one can deny the jump they made in the standings. His notable addition of a veteran goalie has helped stem the tide of Nittymaki free-fall.
I could go beyond these four as well, but I won't. All this was to show that Bob Gainey, a talented guy, has talented peers too. And, from the looks of it, they are beating him handily at trades and attracting free agents, while he builds the patient way. I think if he wants to bring his team to the top table, he has to get a bit braver. If the biggest decision you make all season is whether to trade away impending free agents or not, perhaps he is getting left behind.
I say this like I say Plekanec needs to work on face-offs – a mere statement of opinion that one aspect of Bob's game could use a shine.
Evidence: a few recent decisions
Not trading Souray
Trading Souray would have been an obvious admission of defeat on the part of Bob Gainey. In his 5-year rebuilding plan, missing the playoffs in 2007 was a step backwards considering the team being employed in games and the free agent signings of the summer.
The incongruency with other moves (Rivet trade), however, suggests that Gainey may have attempted to trade Souray, but felt the value he would get in return was too low. Too low, even compared to 20 odd games worth of Sheldon, that is. It is also conceivable that Gainey legitimately wanted to sign Souray; and, as such, kept his man on board in order that they might work out a deal later. Either of these two give Gainey a legitimate excuse for the non-trade.
However, in the case of the Souray non-trade, I think we would be correct in speculating, however, that the playoffs (both for Gainey's record and Gillett's pocketbook) were a factor. If so, any reasonable critic could state that Gainey tampered with future success for a low-hanging fruit. A critic would not be wrong in pointing out that the move this year was inconsistent with the move last year – even at the risk of being called a moron by the eminent Mr. Engels.
My personal stance on Souray is ambivalence. I think calling him our best player last season is a stretch, considering how poor he was in his day-to-day position. It would have been nice to get something for him, but, I think the other GMs were wise to his deficiencies – so value would be lower. His points and goals during the stretch run provided hope and most of all entertainment.
At the end of the day, it's safe to say, I would have been upset with a draft pick for Souray just as I was for Huet.
Trading Huet
At the risk of angering the "get over it" gang, I'll voice my displeasure over this trade once again.
I should probably start by saying I would be pretty unhapppy at getting a second round pick for 80% of the current team. In principle, I think trading an NHL-calibre body for a 10% chance of getting an NHL body at some point in the future is lunacy. Apart from high first round picks, there are no guarantees in the draft. A second-round pick can turn into something special, but on average it won't.
I am also very much against making negative trades with players that aren't causing a problem of some kind on the team (let's say Dagenais as an example for that). There is absolutely nothing wrong, in my opinion, with losing a player for nothing if it means you get to keep that player for 20+ games. I have many times criticised Rejean Houle for this kind of negative management, and so to see Gainey resort to it was disappointing to say the least.
I also have to state, though, that I have absolutely nothing against a GM using his knowledge of the situation and intuition to determine that the time for his team is just not now. The Huet trade, if nothing else, announced to me that the GM of the team did not think he had the horses to run with Detroit, Dallas, Anaheim or San Jose. The evidence from the season would certainly prove him right.
All that said, I have yet to be convinced by anyone that trading Huet was necessary to allow Carey Price more starts – he could have been played more regardless of who was backing him up. Or to give Halak a real chance – but I think evidence for that theory has been blown out of the water. Or that Huet was a problem in the dressing room.
So what gives?
It all comes back to either money or the negative trade. Neither option offers anything positive for me.
You all know my opinion on Huet. But, on the trade itself, I was also disappointed. Brave would have been holding Huet when finding all you could get would be a second round pick. I thought the decision was neither brave nor creative. Creative would have been trading Halak in the hope that Washington would cough up more. What irks me is how unproductive and unnecessary the trade was. All told, it brought Gainey back down off his pedestal for me.
The Hossa non-trade
It's much more difficult to debate a non-trade than a trade since nothing is really known about it. What we do know about this particular non-trade was that Gainey was interested and he balked before the deadline at some point.
This non-trade is more interesting than the billions of other possibilities that could be dreamed up becuase it involved Marian Hossa – a scoring winger for Koivu. You see Hossa is a legitimate NHL star. He is a 40-goal threat, a puck carrier, a shooter and a nightmare for opposing teams to plan for. Most players could only dream of being as good as Hossa has been already.
The rumour is that player 1 in the trade for us was Christopher Higgins (at least for Waddell). For players like Hossa, a GM pays heavily (nothing is free), but in getting the best player in the trade often wins the trade by a landslide. In my opinion, it wouldn't matter who players 2, 3 and 4 were – especially if they were not in the NHL. So you have Higgins (and friends) for Hossa (20+ games). Under the circumstances, I think Gainey did the right thing here (especially having already traded goaltender insurance). A playoff rental would have gone against the grain of the team this year.
The order of proceedings
Finally, with regard to the trade deadline this season, you have the order of events prior to the trade deadline. Huet is traded then some time later Gainey pulls out of the Hossa trade.
This is noteworthy because it is in this order and not the opposite: Gainey pulls out of the Hossa trade then trades Huet.
In the latter, Gainey would have been trying to push his team over the top, been stifled, pulled out and then got what he could for a player who he deemed replaceable and unsignable.
In the former (and real) scenario, Gainey appeared to waver. It's only speculative of course, but by trading his number one goalie from a mere 2 weeks earlier (all-star and NHL three-star from January), Gainey paints the picture that he doesn't believe in the Habs playoff chances. Fair enough, he was probably right, but why then pursue a playoff addition like Hossa?
The move doesn't defy logic or anything, but it does defy (at least a little again) the idea that Gainey is infallible and without peer in the NHL.
The verdict
I hope Bob Gainey supporters understand that I still very much think he is a great GM. Possibly the best in the league, and certainly the best man for the Montreal Canadiens job. I merely question whether he will be able to deliver Detroit-style decade-long dominance if he doesn't adjust his game.
In my opinion, if he is to turn another rebuilding team into a dynastic rule, he must get a bit braver and more creative. I specifically point to trades as his area to focus his work on, as most other aspects of his GM play are top of the charts.
Nowadays, the price you should expect to pay to win the Cup is steep. This is simply because teams are playing for the single Cup – they will give up 5 years from now for this year. I think, as stated earlier, that he does need to be brave – probably this summer or next season – to add bodies the way his peers with playoff hockey to play and trophies in their cupboard do.
To win, even once, Gainey will have to play their game a little. If Gainey doesn't, and doesn't as a result ever move to the 6th year in his 5-year plan, we may just be lamenting the upshot team of the year (see Flyers this year) for many years to come.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Hockey Season Never Ends
Though Tobalev and I have been taking sometime to catch our breath (read sulk), don't count us out until October.
First of all, there's the World Champs with Habs involvement, the playoffs, post-season analysis (to what depth I'm not sure yet) and all the good stuff that happens in the off season.
I won't promise a post a day, as the playoffs have been hard, but look for a few opinions on the Habs, hockey and associated topics in the months to come.
Thanks to all of you for reading our stuff. We're flattered by some of the comments and happy that you choose to look beyond the traditional media's narrow view with us here at LIW.
See you sooner rather than later.
GHG.
First of all, there's the World Champs with Habs involvement, the playoffs, post-season analysis (to what depth I'm not sure yet) and all the good stuff that happens in the off season.
I won't promise a post a day, as the playoffs have been hard, but look for a few opinions on the Habs, hockey and associated topics in the months to come.
Thanks to all of you for reading our stuff. We're flattered by some of the comments and happy that you choose to look beyond the traditional media's narrow view with us here at LIW.
See you sooner rather than later.
GHG.
Friday, February 22, 2008
To Trade or Not to Trade
The Habs have just one more game to play before the trade deadline. That game is against Columbus on Saturday night - a team that just did us a huge favour by beating Ottawa. The busiest man in town over the next 4 days may very well be Bob Gainey. Not only is he going to be in the spotlight come trade day, but, on the 23rd, he will also become the 14th (or 16th - still unknown) player in Habs history to have his number raised to the roof. It will no doubt be a hectic few days for one of the most well respected men in hockey.
We have all heard the rumours that we are involved in talks for absolutely every player in the NHL. If you ever visit Eklund's site you will have noticed that in order to bring in readers (especially readers from big markets like Montreal) the Habs are involved in a new rumour daily. This genius has a great system for announcing a trade - he reads it on TSN then quickly posts it on his site. He claims to be an insider with a lot of knowledge about hockey, but if you read his site you would realize that he is not close to being that at all. The Habs of course have not made a trade every day this year and wouldn't you know it haven't made a deal since last February. This doesn't mean some of the stuff on his site won't come true, because after all he has posted every possible trade that could be made so if one does go down I am sure he can find some sort of reference to it - likely posted in August.
Habs fans, thanks to too many unfounded rumours, are a bit too excited this time around about the prospect of us landing a big name player. People are having a hard time seeing that we have 75 points, that we are 1 point out of first and that we are having our best season in years. In typical Montreal fashion the mob wants more, more, more. Ryder only has 12 goals, but we have 75 points - trade him. Koivu isn't following up a career year with another career year - trade him. Higgins scored most of his goals in the first half - trade him. Kovalev is and always was my favorite player, I never booed him - un-tradeable. Unfortunately Habs fans are like kids in a way - they always want something new and exciting, they can't remember anything beyond a month ago and they will more often than not do what everyone else is doing; whether that means booing certain people or getting off one bandwagon and onto another.
We have to be extremely careful with what we hope for and we should all realize that in order to get someone good at this stage in the year you are going to have to give something up, something big. Most fans can't understand why a package of Dandenault, Smolinski, Ryder and Brisebois wouldn't be enough for Hossa, I mean it's 4 for 1 why wouldn't Atlanta do it? If getting a big name player is going to cost us a star or a potential star then it is something we should think long and hard about. We don't want to fall into the trap of trading away our future just because we think this is the year. Teams like Atlanta, Toronto and Edmonton have all made deadline deals in the past few years that were intended to make them better. It may have made them slightly better than they would have been in that year's playoffs, but beyond that we all know what happened to those teams. Smart teams are teams like Detroit and Ottawa who stick with their guys and stick with a plan, even if it takes years, occasionally making minor adjustments.
Not all trades are bad of course and sometimes there can actually be 2 winners in a trade. The last time we won the cup we sacrificed players like Courtnall, Chelios, Corson and my all-time favorite Skrudland to get the missing pieces - Damphousse, Savard, Leaman and Bellows. So it is tough to say - trade or not. At least 18 teams make deals at the end that think give them a shot, but at the end of the day there can only be one winner, thus only one GM can look like a genius. I would probably chalk all of that up to luck rather than strategy as the 'missing piece' is often not what you think it is. Last year it wasn't Tkachuk, Comrie, Guerin, it may just have been Brad May.
Whether the Habs land Hossa, Jokinen, Sundin or Tanguay or stay absolutely still may make no difference at all. If we are going to have to give some of the future for to gain a bit in the now then it is a very risky game to play. We have the makings of a great team with great chemistry, not just for this year, but for many years to come. Any deal that we make now could be one-step forward for 2008 and 2-steps back in our overall development. We have been putting this team together for 15 years now and I think that we finally have the team that we all had hoped for. With a little patience and trust in Bob then I am sure we will come out of next Tuesday's deadline bonanza with a team that will not only be competitive this year, but will indeed challenge for the cup in the very near future - and, that may very well mean no moves at all.
We have all heard the rumours that we are involved in talks for absolutely every player in the NHL. If you ever visit Eklund's site you will have noticed that in order to bring in readers (especially readers from big markets like Montreal) the Habs are involved in a new rumour daily. This genius has a great system for announcing a trade - he reads it on TSN then quickly posts it on his site. He claims to be an insider with a lot of knowledge about hockey, but if you read his site you would realize that he is not close to being that at all. The Habs of course have not made a trade every day this year and wouldn't you know it haven't made a deal since last February. This doesn't mean some of the stuff on his site won't come true, because after all he has posted every possible trade that could be made so if one does go down I am sure he can find some sort of reference to it - likely posted in August.
Habs fans, thanks to too many unfounded rumours, are a bit too excited this time around about the prospect of us landing a big name player. People are having a hard time seeing that we have 75 points, that we are 1 point out of first and that we are having our best season in years. In typical Montreal fashion the mob wants more, more, more. Ryder only has 12 goals, but we have 75 points - trade him. Koivu isn't following up a career year with another career year - trade him. Higgins scored most of his goals in the first half - trade him. Kovalev is and always was my favorite player, I never booed him - un-tradeable. Unfortunately Habs fans are like kids in a way - they always want something new and exciting, they can't remember anything beyond a month ago and they will more often than not do what everyone else is doing; whether that means booing certain people or getting off one bandwagon and onto another.
We have to be extremely careful with what we hope for and we should all realize that in order to get someone good at this stage in the year you are going to have to give something up, something big. Most fans can't understand why a package of Dandenault, Smolinski, Ryder and Brisebois wouldn't be enough for Hossa, I mean it's 4 for 1 why wouldn't Atlanta do it? If getting a big name player is going to cost us a star or a potential star then it is something we should think long and hard about. We don't want to fall into the trap of trading away our future just because we think this is the year. Teams like Atlanta, Toronto and Edmonton have all made deadline deals in the past few years that were intended to make them better. It may have made them slightly better than they would have been in that year's playoffs, but beyond that we all know what happened to those teams. Smart teams are teams like Detroit and Ottawa who stick with their guys and stick with a plan, even if it takes years, occasionally making minor adjustments.
Not all trades are bad of course and sometimes there can actually be 2 winners in a trade. The last time we won the cup we sacrificed players like Courtnall, Chelios, Corson and my all-time favorite Skrudland to get the missing pieces - Damphousse, Savard, Leaman and Bellows. So it is tough to say - trade or not. At least 18 teams make deals at the end that think give them a shot, but at the end of the day there can only be one winner, thus only one GM can look like a genius. I would probably chalk all of that up to luck rather than strategy as the 'missing piece' is often not what you think it is. Last year it wasn't Tkachuk, Comrie, Guerin, it may just have been Brad May.
Whether the Habs land Hossa, Jokinen, Sundin or Tanguay or stay absolutely still may make no difference at all. If we are going to have to give some of the future for to gain a bit in the now then it is a very risky game to play. We have the makings of a great team with great chemistry, not just for this year, but for many years to come. Any deal that we make now could be one-step forward for 2008 and 2-steps back in our overall development. We have been putting this team together for 15 years now and I think that we finally have the team that we all had hoped for. With a little patience and trust in Bob then I am sure we will come out of next Tuesday's deadline bonanza with a team that will not only be competitive this year, but will indeed challenge for the cup in the very near future - and, that may very well mean no moves at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)