Great news right? Subban is signed.
That really is the beginning and end of it. Signed now, for two years. Good.
Showing posts with label contract. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contract. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Thursday, August 02, 2012
One Thing Leads To Another
One thing always leads to another. This may be a revelation for the Habs green GM who reportedly just offered a contract of 2 years for $5.5 million to PK Subban.
Subban rejected that. You don't say.
Subban rejected that. You don't say.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
The Price Of Commitment
You want a player to commit to a long-term deal? Show him the money.
That's exactly what greenhorned GM Marc Bergevin did most recently with the Carey price contract. 6 years at $6.5 million a season makes Carey the most expensive contract ever tendered by the Montreal Canadiens and the third highest paid goaltender in the NHL.
If you want a stable piece in the corner of your team that you don't need to worry about for a number of consecutive summers, that is what you have to do: just ask the Rangers.
What else can we say about this contract?
Carey Price has not yet earned the right to be paid more than Jonathan Quick or Ryan Miller, but contracts are not made that way are they? Players are paid their most lucrative salaries based on the faith and speculation of the GM that faces them in negotiations at exactly Carey's age.
Such is the fear of free agency on a team that has neglected to draft a goaltender in years and has been trading back-ups away as if they were discontinued bank notes.
What's more, there's an element of Montreal-premium in a long-term salary like this. Carey's take home pay is more reflective of his standing in the league than his over-the-counter price. A funny thing in a province where 6 million taxpayers would gladly pay for a free agent instead of a university professor.
The niggling issue, of course is that the long-time coming of Carey Price is still happening. For the impatient Montrealers, the 5 years of ups and downs since those 2008 starts have been a long run. 5 more Cupless years, some more painful than others. Now, Bergevin is paying Price top dollar on the back of a solid, but not top-notch season in the continued hope that the pinnacles of form represent the future, rather than the average form. I suspect there are a couple of learning years to remain, and wonder if the burden of the Gomez number which will now hang on every 4-goal game will take its toll.
There's a positive also in the contract at $6.5 million. Currently that stands at about 9% of the team salary load. Although, I'd be happier if Carey was paid at closer to what I believe to be the market value for a goaltender in the second tier of the top 20 keepers of the league; I'm accepting of paying that allocation for what amounts to 400 full games of service.
Anyway, on balance, we have to be content. We did not lose the only goalie our team has to an offer, and though we likely spent $2 million more in the doing, it's $2 million less to give to Clarke MacArthur or whichever other Leafs retread is next on the list. Plus, it's $2 million of $70 million, not $48 million. On a team of third liners, Carey like his coach will have to ride a few frustrating seasons anyway, so his proving ground will be a few years off. By that time, who knows how many goalies will be paid at higher rate than him.
The price of commitment is steep. But without commitment, the cycle of mediocrity cannot stop. Let's hope that this commitment, like the other 4 year pay bundles handed out look like good sense in time and become recognized as the steps that put the Habs back on a track they once had proprietary rights over.
Happy free agent hunting.
That's exactly what greenhorned GM Marc Bergevin did most recently with the Carey price contract. 6 years at $6.5 million a season makes Carey the most expensive contract ever tendered by the Montreal Canadiens and the third highest paid goaltender in the NHL.
If you want a stable piece in the corner of your team that you don't need to worry about for a number of consecutive summers, that is what you have to do: just ask the Rangers.
What else can we say about this contract?
Carey Price has not yet earned the right to be paid more than Jonathan Quick or Ryan Miller, but contracts are not made that way are they? Players are paid their most lucrative salaries based on the faith and speculation of the GM that faces them in negotiations at exactly Carey's age.
Such is the fear of free agency on a team that has neglected to draft a goaltender in years and has been trading back-ups away as if they were discontinued bank notes.
What's more, there's an element of Montreal-premium in a long-term salary like this. Carey's take home pay is more reflective of his standing in the league than his over-the-counter price. A funny thing in a province where 6 million taxpayers would gladly pay for a free agent instead of a university professor.
The niggling issue, of course is that the long-time coming of Carey Price is still happening. For the impatient Montrealers, the 5 years of ups and downs since those 2008 starts have been a long run. 5 more Cupless years, some more painful than others. Now, Bergevin is paying Price top dollar on the back of a solid, but not top-notch season in the continued hope that the pinnacles of form represent the future, rather than the average form. I suspect there are a couple of learning years to remain, and wonder if the burden of the Gomez number which will now hang on every 4-goal game will take its toll.
There's a positive also in the contract at $6.5 million. Currently that stands at about 9% of the team salary load. Although, I'd be happier if Carey was paid at closer to what I believe to be the market value for a goaltender in the second tier of the top 20 keepers of the league; I'm accepting of paying that allocation for what amounts to 400 full games of service.
Anyway, on balance, we have to be content. We did not lose the only goalie our team has to an offer, and though we likely spent $2 million more in the doing, it's $2 million less to give to Clarke MacArthur or whichever other Leafs retread is next on the list. Plus, it's $2 million of $70 million, not $48 million. On a team of third liners, Carey like his coach will have to ride a few frustrating seasons anyway, so his proving ground will be a few years off. By that time, who knows how many goalies will be paid at higher rate than him.
The price of commitment is steep. But without commitment, the cycle of mediocrity cannot stop. Let's hope that this commitment, like the other 4 year pay bundles handed out look like good sense in time and become recognized as the steps that put the Habs back on a track they once had proprietary rights over.
Happy free agent hunting.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Quiet Frenzy
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!
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!
Monday, August 15, 2011
Woy not?
New Habs D Is Low Risk Proposition
If it seemed the Canadiens weren't keen on resigning Alexandre Picard, they confirmed that today by signing journeyman defenceman Jeff Woywitka to a one-year two-way deal. As per club policy, we will have to wait until capgeek tells us the contract value later today to find out.
This signing looks good, OK, on most fronts.
Woywitka played in the NHL last season for a start. He was a plus player on a team that wasn't terrible defensively. He averaged a lot of ice and didn't make too much of a mess by letting up way more chances than he was on for.
In other words he did an adequate job for an adequate team.
He may no longer be the prized trade chip that he once was, or the prospect he looked when he came out of junior an all-star. But he has made his place in the league it seems -- or half a place.
The two-way contract is probably the key consideration of this contract. I would imagine that at this point of the summer Gauthier has had the chance to speak with a few free agent defencemen who might have filled an 8th man in role. Sopel probably, Picard maybe. Gauthier probably had the two-way contract as the stipulation, and in Woywitka it seems he found a taker.
From the team's perspective this provides the flexibility to go with the youngsters they're hoping will come through, but the insurance of an NHL body on the AHL team. It's a good insurance policy and one that could be quite fruitful if the relationship is productive at the AHL or NHL level.
I don't know that much about Woywitka's play, and given his days of player profiles are long behind him, I thought I'd share with you something I came across from another blog that was making the case to sign him earlier in the summer.
This signing looks good, OK, on most fronts.
Woywitka played in the NHL last season for a start. He was a plus player on a team that wasn't terrible defensively. He averaged a lot of ice and didn't make too much of a mess by letting up way more chances than he was on for.
In other words he did an adequate job for an adequate team.
He may no longer be the prized trade chip that he once was, or the prospect he looked when he came out of junior an all-star. But he has made his place in the league it seems -- or half a place.
The two-way contract is probably the key consideration of this contract. I would imagine that at this point of the summer Gauthier has had the chance to speak with a few free agent defencemen who might have filled an 8th man in role. Sopel probably, Picard maybe. Gauthier probably had the two-way contract as the stipulation, and in Woywitka it seems he found a taker.
From the team's perspective this provides the flexibility to go with the youngsters they're hoping will come through, but the insurance of an NHL body on the AHL team. It's a good insurance policy and one that could be quite fruitful if the relationship is productive at the AHL or NHL level.
I don't know that much about Woywitka's play, and given his days of player profiles are long behind him, I thought I'd share with you something I came across from another blog that was making the case to sign him earlier in the summer.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
On The Defensive
More tears have been shed in the past few days over a signing that some disagreed with the terms of than I remember for a long time.
The injustice: Josh Gorges, offered a mere 1-year term at double his previous salary. It's easy to see why that would be more troubling than the non-tendering of a contract to the second-longest captain in team history.
While we expect there to be factions of fans that attach themselves to one idol or another, what so surprised me was the response of the beat journalists on this one.
Eric Engels spent a whole weekend trying to work this one out (so he claimed). Glad I didn't give it a second thought now that I hear the turmoil it created for him:
Habs Refuse to Commit Long Term to Gorges
The always level Arpon Basu was nearly capsized by the sounds of it. Puzzled he said by the result of this affair:
A head scratcher
And Pat Hickey warns the Habs of stormy times ahead without the "ultimate team guy" they just signed for double his previous salary.
Short-term Gorges deal may end up hurting the Habs
Really? Really?
I don't mean to belittle the real anguish that fans and reporters alike felt for #26, but really?
Josh Gorges just signed a contract for double his former salary. He signed in a summer where other good team guys were just let go without so much as a wave: Halpern, Auld, Hamrlik, Sopel. He was the only Canadiens player to sign for a raise over qualifying. He got a raise despite his injury, despite his decisions about that injury (not getting surgery in an offseason).
If not that, I guess what we're beating ourselves up about is the term. A year. What an insult. For a team that hands out exuberant contracts to all of its up and comers every year. Oh wait...
So, if a year is in fact in keeping with the short length of many previous signings of similar nature (Koivu, Plekanec, Price), then what is all the fuss about?
Josh Gorges is back and there's nothing to say he won't be signed again and again and again. If he plays well, the Habs still get the first option. If he doesn't then they get the luxury of not having a Gomez clause factoring into their decisions about their future with Josh. It's good for the team and their prospects at improving their personnel. It's good for the chance of signing Subban and Price and maybe others next summer. It's good for the young guys to see an opportunity. It's even good for Josh who doubled his salary, did I mention?
In the end, it's salary cap world guys. No lifetime franchise players, maybe one or two. It might be painful, but "ultimate team guys" who play the role Josh Gorges has played will come and go, and keep coming and going, for as long as this league operates under this system.
No need to get defensive any about defensive defencemen.
The injustice: Josh Gorges, offered a mere 1-year term at double his previous salary. It's easy to see why that would be more troubling than the non-tendering of a contract to the second-longest captain in team history.
While we expect there to be factions of fans that attach themselves to one idol or another, what so surprised me was the response of the beat journalists on this one.
Eric Engels spent a whole weekend trying to work this one out (so he claimed). Glad I didn't give it a second thought now that I hear the turmoil it created for him:
Habs Refuse to Commit Long Term to Gorges
The always level Arpon Basu was nearly capsized by the sounds of it. Puzzled he said by the result of this affair:
A head scratcher
And Pat Hickey warns the Habs of stormy times ahead without the "ultimate team guy" they just signed for double his previous salary.
Short-term Gorges deal may end up hurting the Habs
Really? Really?
I don't mean to belittle the real anguish that fans and reporters alike felt for #26, but really?
Josh Gorges just signed a contract for double his former salary. He signed in a summer where other good team guys were just let go without so much as a wave: Halpern, Auld, Hamrlik, Sopel. He was the only Canadiens player to sign for a raise over qualifying. He got a raise despite his injury, despite his decisions about that injury (not getting surgery in an offseason).
If not that, I guess what we're beating ourselves up about is the term. A year. What an insult. For a team that hands out exuberant contracts to all of its up and comers every year. Oh wait...
So, if a year is in fact in keeping with the short length of many previous signings of similar nature (Koivu, Plekanec, Price), then what is all the fuss about?
Josh Gorges is back and there's nothing to say he won't be signed again and again and again. If he plays well, the Habs still get the first option. If he doesn't then they get the luxury of not having a Gomez clause factoring into their decisions about their future with Josh. It's good for the team and their prospects at improving their personnel. It's good for the chance of signing Subban and Price and maybe others next summer. It's good for the young guys to see an opportunity. It's even good for Josh who doubled his salary, did I mention?
In the end, it's salary cap world guys. No lifetime franchise players, maybe one or two. It might be painful, but "ultimate team guys" who play the role Josh Gorges has played will come and go, and keep coming and going, for as long as this league operates under this system.
No need to get defensive any about defensive defencemen.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Beautiful Decision
Markov Locked Up 3 Years
There's not much more to say than my headline. Markov signed a three-year deal (allegedly at his previous salary).
This is great news for many reasons:
1) He's Markov: you know what we think of him
2) PK will have air to breathe, shoot like he did with less than a minute left in the season
3) $5.75 million from $64.5 million isn't that much to pay for a player of this calibre (the average player on a 23-man roster gets $2.8 million)
4) Emelin transition/staycation
5) There's no free agents to replace this guy, especially with Detroit also throwing money at the Rafalski hole
This is great news for many reasons:
1) He's Markov: you know what we think of him
2) PK will have air to breathe, shoot like he did with less than a minute left in the season
3) $5.75 million from $64.5 million isn't that much to pay for a player of this calibre (the average player on a 23-man roster gets $2.8 million)
4) Emelin transition/staycation
5) There's no free agents to replace this guy, especially with Detroit also throwing money at the Rafalski hole
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Getting off Scott-Free
With a long and painful off-season ahead of us and a lot of action before the Cup gets taken anywhere (go... um... 'Nucks, I guess?), many pundits are already weighing in with their well-considered opinions of what Pierre Gauthier needs to do with the team over the summer. And of course, Scott Gomez is the name on everyone's lips.
Unquestionably the goat of the team this season, and for good reason: Gomez gets more than he gives. By that, I mean that his contract is worth more than he's been contributing on the ice. And even if Gainey didn't make the contract originally, he did trade for it in a gamble. A gamble that lost, if you compare his scoring with other players earning that kind of coin. And we fans see a little red, because there's few things we hate like feeling ripped off.
We can talk about everything he does apart from scoring, and it's a lot. Younger players often cite him as a role model and mentor. He carries the puck through neutral ice very well (even if he goes straight to the corner from there). He can be shifty and unpredictable in the offensive zone (even if he often isn't). He understands the concept of back-checking and kills penalties fairly well (when he feels like it).
But we don't want the team paying $7.5M for a depth and character player. That's what Jeff Halpern gets $600k for. For $7.5M, we want the Rick Nashes and Jarome Iginlas of the league, not the... well, not the Scott Gomezes or Chris Druries (thanks, Sather).
So what are the options? Well, frankly some of the proposals are ridiculous, so ridiculous they could only come from the mouths of Habs fanatics. Ted Bird of radio fame suggests that if Gomez was seriously contrite about his worst season ever, he would renegotiate his contract for a lower wage. Mr. Bird laughs this off himself, and I think we can all agree that this will never happen.
The second option would be to trade Gomez. This is just as ridiculous as the above proposal, and must have been made by someone used to negotiating trade deals with their 8-year-old nephew. Gomez is coming off his worst season of all-time, and is therefore at his lowest value of all-time. A good salesman might have been able to trade Gomez for a bag of pucks if he'd scored 65 points this season, but he didn't crack 40. The thought that Gauthier can "just find a way" to trade him implies that NHL GMs are either a) absolute morons, or b) not watching the numbers very closely. And remember Glen Sather already had this guy once. Suffice to say that since neither your Playstation 3's AI nor your 8-year-old nephew are negotiating the deal, we're not going to see him traded any time soon (no matter how hard we wish).
Third on the list: ship him to the Bulldogs, pay the salary, and lose the cap hit. One the one hand, it's been done before. The Rangers shipped Wade Redden to the minors at $6.5M per year (Sather again), and the Oilers did it with Souray at $4.5M. It does have the tremendous advantage of freeing up the cap space to get Brad Richards or... um... well, there's not a whole lot of great UFA first-line, elite centres out there, and that's what the Habs (still) need. As Topham is fond of pointing out: once the cap space is free - assuming Geoff Molson doesn't mind paying $7.5M for a Bulldog - who does Gauthier gun for? If he can't land Brad Richards, then what?
Fourth is to buy out the contract like was done with Georges Laracque, who still costs the Habs a half-million in cap hit next season. The reason this isn't a great option (besides the $17M up-front payout) is that, as pointed out by Elliote Friedman, under the current CBA he'd still be a $4-5M cap hit for the next couple years, declining to $2M in 2016-17. Do we really want to take a $4M cap hit for absolutely nothing? Once we're paying $4M for nothing, the question suddenly becomes "Is Gomez worth $3.5M?" I suspect he is.
Fifth, and most likely: status quo. For all the reasons above, and a new CBA to negotiate next summer, I think the smart money says Gomez will be suiting up in the Bleu-Blanc-Rouge come fall. I'm not thrilled about this past season's performance, but we can hope it might spur him to come back hungry and in top shape. He's not a bad hockey player. Mind you, he's not $7.5M good either.
If Gomez were to be put on waivers and shipped to Hamilton tomorrow, who would you hope to sign this summer? Is Gomez worth $3.5M? How many points next season would Gomez have to score in order for you to be only slightly disappointed with his salary? Let us know in the comments.
Unquestionably the goat of the team this season, and for good reason: Gomez gets more than he gives. By that, I mean that his contract is worth more than he's been contributing on the ice. And even if Gainey didn't make the contract originally, he did trade for it in a gamble. A gamble that lost, if you compare his scoring with other players earning that kind of coin. And we fans see a little red, because there's few things we hate like feeling ripped off.
We can talk about everything he does apart from scoring, and it's a lot. Younger players often cite him as a role model and mentor. He carries the puck through neutral ice very well (even if he goes straight to the corner from there). He can be shifty and unpredictable in the offensive zone (even if he often isn't). He understands the concept of back-checking and kills penalties fairly well (when he feels like it).
But we don't want the team paying $7.5M for a depth and character player. That's what Jeff Halpern gets $600k for. For $7.5M, we want the Rick Nashes and Jarome Iginlas of the league, not the... well, not the Scott Gomezes or Chris Druries (thanks, Sather).
So what are the options? Well, frankly some of the proposals are ridiculous, so ridiculous they could only come from the mouths of Habs fanatics. Ted Bird of radio fame suggests that if Gomez was seriously contrite about his worst season ever, he would renegotiate his contract for a lower wage. Mr. Bird laughs this off himself, and I think we can all agree that this will never happen.
The second option would be to trade Gomez. This is just as ridiculous as the above proposal, and must have been made by someone used to negotiating trade deals with their 8-year-old nephew. Gomez is coming off his worst season of all-time, and is therefore at his lowest value of all-time. A good salesman might have been able to trade Gomez for a bag of pucks if he'd scored 65 points this season, but he didn't crack 40. The thought that Gauthier can "just find a way" to trade him implies that NHL GMs are either a) absolute morons, or b) not watching the numbers very closely. And remember Glen Sather already had this guy once. Suffice to say that since neither your Playstation 3's AI nor your 8-year-old nephew are negotiating the deal, we're not going to see him traded any time soon (no matter how hard we wish).
Third on the list: ship him to the Bulldogs, pay the salary, and lose the cap hit. One the one hand, it's been done before. The Rangers shipped Wade Redden to the minors at $6.5M per year (Sather again), and the Oilers did it with Souray at $4.5M. It does have the tremendous advantage of freeing up the cap space to get Brad Richards or... um... well, there's not a whole lot of great UFA first-line, elite centres out there, and that's what the Habs (still) need. As Topham is fond of pointing out: once the cap space is free - assuming Geoff Molson doesn't mind paying $7.5M for a Bulldog - who does Gauthier gun for? If he can't land Brad Richards, then what?
Fourth is to buy out the contract like was done with Georges Laracque, who still costs the Habs a half-million in cap hit next season. The reason this isn't a great option (besides the $17M up-front payout) is that, as pointed out by Elliote Friedman, under the current CBA he'd still be a $4-5M cap hit for the next couple years, declining to $2M in 2016-17. Do we really want to take a $4M cap hit for absolutely nothing? Once we're paying $4M for nothing, the question suddenly becomes "Is Gomez worth $3.5M?" I suspect he is.
Fifth, and most likely: status quo. For all the reasons above, and a new CBA to negotiate next summer, I think the smart money says Gomez will be suiting up in the Bleu-Blanc-Rouge come fall. I'm not thrilled about this past season's performance, but we can hope it might spur him to come back hungry and in top shape. He's not a bad hockey player. Mind you, he's not $7.5M good either.
If Gomez were to be put on waivers and shipped to Hamilton tomorrow, who would you hope to sign this summer? Is Gomez worth $3.5M? How many points next season would Gomez have to score in order for you to be only slightly disappointed with his salary? Let us know in the comments.
Monday, March 07, 2011
To Defend At All Costs?
In the wake of the trade deadline and yet another injury to a Habs defenceman, I’m sure many of us have been thinking about Andrei Markov and his forthcoming contract negotiations. It seems to be taken more or less as gospel truth that Markov will don the CH once again this fall to lead this team through the 2011-12 campaign. And obviously, as fans, we all hope this is the case. Markov has been our best player for several years now, is currently the longest-serving member of the team, and would be captain if he had any interest in the role whatsoever.
Watching Tuesday’s game via video stream, I watched some idiots “discuss” hockey in the accompanying chat room. Something said in there seeded an interesting question in my mind – what is Markov worth on the market right now? He basically hasn’t played for over an entire (regular) season of hockey, suiting up for a mere 52 games this season and last. With so little playing time to judge his worth, what can we expect the market will offer for him?
Markov was signed in an era when people (OK, the Leafs’ management) were willing to sign a mediocre defenceman like Jeff Finger for $3.5M – but before we judge, recall we were more than willing to give $5.5M to Roman Hamrlik. I like Hamrlik, and he’s been an absolute quarterhorse for us during Markov’s injuries, but I don’t think he’s twice as good as, say, Hal Gill and his $2.25M. I think in many ways these days are finished – while Lidstrom might still be able to command $6.2 million, other top free agent defencemen like Jovanovski ($6M), Hamrlik ($5.5M), Brewer ($4.5M) and Hannan ($4.5M) will be unlikely to meet their current salaries on their next contracts when up-and-coming stars like Doughty and Byfuglien are taking under $3.5M. Then again, over $7M for Brian Campbell argues against this, and we are all aware that NHL GMs are an unpredictable lot.
Another factor is judging his worth. While he is invaluable to the loyal Montreal fan base, Markov’s reputation around the league right now is probably more along the lines of a talented defenceman with great hockey sense, good skating, and an excellent offensive upside; but not strong on hitting and rather injury-prone. While we regard him as one of the best defencemen in the league (and rightfully so, in my opinion), other teams might be less enthusiastic about him given his medical record. This may work in our favour to depress his perceived value in the market. Of course, it might also mean that the Islanders are willing to sign him for a contract comparable to Campbell’s based in his 2008-9 numbers, just to keep themselves over the salary cap.
Finally, there’s the consideration of what Markov wants. There’s a phenomenon in psychology known as “projection,” where we assume other people have motivations, emotions and thought processes that mirror our own. This leads us to make false assumptions about what actually motivates people to do the things they do. Such as assuming that the loyalty our fanbase feels towards a player like Markov is reciprocated, and that Markov would like nothing better than to stay in Montreal – and hey, he might even give us a deal on the salary as a result of said inferred loyalty. Needless to say, this is a dangerous way of thinking and is rarely accurate. However, his near-legendary distaste for media appearances and interviews leaves us mostly in the dark about what he actually wants. He’s said he’d like to stay in Montreal, however let’s keep in mind that if this were untrue, he’d be unlikely to say so in an interview.
Given our play without him over this season and last, I ask the most blasphemous question of all: do we need Markov? I would suggest that we can get Markov back next season for a salary comparable to his current $5.75M, and this would be a good thing. I think he is one of the most talented defencemen in the league, a leader, and a big-time contributor to what success we’ve had over the last decade. However, if his agent gets too attached to numbers like Campbell’s, my loyalty will only go so far – certainly not past the $6 million mark. Seeing us win games and go on magnificent playoff runs without him has convinced me that Markov might not be the key part of the team he once was.
Let us know in the comments – Do we still need Markov? And what should we be willing to pay to keep him?
Watching Tuesday’s game via video stream, I watched some idiots “discuss” hockey in the accompanying chat room. Something said in there seeded an interesting question in my mind – what is Markov worth on the market right now? He basically hasn’t played for over an entire (regular) season of hockey, suiting up for a mere 52 games this season and last. With so little playing time to judge his worth, what can we expect the market will offer for him?
Markov was signed in an era when people (OK, the Leafs’ management) were willing to sign a mediocre defenceman like Jeff Finger for $3.5M – but before we judge, recall we were more than willing to give $5.5M to Roman Hamrlik. I like Hamrlik, and he’s been an absolute quarterhorse for us during Markov’s injuries, but I don’t think he’s twice as good as, say, Hal Gill and his $2.25M. I think in many ways these days are finished – while Lidstrom might still be able to command $6.2 million, other top free agent defencemen like Jovanovski ($6M), Hamrlik ($5.5M), Brewer ($4.5M) and Hannan ($4.5M) will be unlikely to meet their current salaries on their next contracts when up-and-coming stars like Doughty and Byfuglien are taking under $3.5M. Then again, over $7M for Brian Campbell argues against this, and we are all aware that NHL GMs are an unpredictable lot.
Another factor is judging his worth. While he is invaluable to the loyal Montreal fan base, Markov’s reputation around the league right now is probably more along the lines of a talented defenceman with great hockey sense, good skating, and an excellent offensive upside; but not strong on hitting and rather injury-prone. While we regard him as one of the best defencemen in the league (and rightfully so, in my opinion), other teams might be less enthusiastic about him given his medical record. This may work in our favour to depress his perceived value in the market. Of course, it might also mean that the Islanders are willing to sign him for a contract comparable to Campbell’s based in his 2008-9 numbers, just to keep themselves over the salary cap.
Finally, there’s the consideration of what Markov wants. There’s a phenomenon in psychology known as “projection,” where we assume other people have motivations, emotions and thought processes that mirror our own. This leads us to make false assumptions about what actually motivates people to do the things they do. Such as assuming that the loyalty our fanbase feels towards a player like Markov is reciprocated, and that Markov would like nothing better than to stay in Montreal – and hey, he might even give us a deal on the salary as a result of said inferred loyalty. Needless to say, this is a dangerous way of thinking and is rarely accurate. However, his near-legendary distaste for media appearances and interviews leaves us mostly in the dark about what he actually wants. He’s said he’d like to stay in Montreal, however let’s keep in mind that if this were untrue, he’d be unlikely to say so in an interview.
Given our play without him over this season and last, I ask the most blasphemous question of all: do we need Markov? I would suggest that we can get Markov back next season for a salary comparable to his current $5.75M, and this would be a good thing. I think he is one of the most talented defencemen in the league, a leader, and a big-time contributor to what success we’ve had over the last decade. However, if his agent gets too attached to numbers like Campbell’s, my loyalty will only go so far – certainly not past the $6 million mark. Seeing us win games and go on magnificent playoff runs without him has convinced me that Markov might not be the key part of the team he once was.
Let us know in the comments – Do we still need Markov? And what should we be willing to pay to keep him?
Monday, December 06, 2010
Mark Off Markov
So after a secretive three weeks, the Habs finally spilled the beans, Andrei Markov will undergo surgery.
The timing of the announcement couldn't have been much better for the team. Fans are riding high as the team streaks to wins, and from stats this season, it seems the team misses Markov as much as say, Glen Metropolit.
Obviously, we are not so easily swayed. Not because of 16 wins does a player of Markov's stature suddenly become expendable. And the talk of him now not being signed, talk once mad enough to have you confined, is spreading the town.
The basis for the talk is based partly on this optimism about the future. A future based on 0.930+ Carey Price and the unstoppable duo of Subban and Weber - an embarrassment of riches at the back end. It is also partly based on the notion that a player at 32 may never recover again, that a player who once had his Achilles tendon severed by a skate must be prone to these sorts of things because he injured a knee, then cam back too early and reinjured that knee.
I will hold today that Markov should be signed. I will hold that in two weeks, two months, ten months. I'll tell you why:
The value of Markov
We talk about players being irreplaceable. We probably talk about too many players in that vein. But Markov is truly irreplaceable.
He's not irreplaceable in the way that he can't be replaced in a lineup by Alexandre Picard and the team go on winning. He's not, we've proof of that. He is however irreplaceable as a single package of hockey talent. At least he is to the Habs at this time.
Markov isn't two healthy legs and a stick. He's a player who has a sense of the game that many will never possess. He's special because he thinks ahead of the rest, and the result is he makes plays look quick because of the talent. When average defenders win the puck, you often notice them quickly offload as a reaction to their surprise of winning it at all. Markov wins a puck and implements the plan he made when he anticipated winning the puck. Passes fly through gaps defenders can't close, because they didn't know there would be a gap there yet.
OK, I hyperbolise. But he's good. And the point I am really trying to make is that of his multiple talents, his thinking is the utmost.
To replace him, you can look to a short-list of talent in the NHL. To replace him realistically, you need a committee.
A Markov-sized hole
PP Maestro:
23.8% PP - 2009-10 (with Markov):
19.1% PP - 2009-10 (without Markov):
9.89 PPGON/60 (2nd among regular PP players; Brian Gionta 7.21)
2.29 PPGC/60 (1st among regular PP players; Brian Gionta 1.77)
In line-up for 36 PP goals in 45 games
On ice for 31 of those 36 goals
Offensive booster:
2.76 GF/G - 2009-10 (with Markov)
2.32 GF/G - 2009-10 (without Markov)
3.85 GFON/60 (2nd on team, behind Mike Cammalleri; Roman Hamrlik 2.90)
3.09 ESGFON/60 (1st of players with significant minutes; Roman Hamrlik 2.40)
Smart defender:
1.1 takeaway to giveaway ratio (1st for D with a significant role; next 0.4)
40 takeaways (1st among defenders - in 45 games!)
36 giveaways
That's only the positive argument. How about the negative, that's to say deflating the idea there's anyone who can replace him anyway, even if he never reaches his greatest heights again. Basically there would be three possible avenues: promotion, trading, signing. here they are.
Promote from within
There's real options here. There are. Subban is a great asset and plays an effective, albeit different, game to Markov. Weber's an asset too - good shot and has made strides from the defender who couldn't beat out MAB for a job.
But they're both on the team. This year. Next season, barring a major disaster (i.e., signing overpriced vets to do the same job) they are both already pencilled in. That's to say we can't use their names to replace Markov. They'd have been there as well as him. That leaves us Brendan Nash, Mathieu Carle, Frederic St. Denis, etc.
Maybe, maybe, the Habs would finally push for Emelin. That would be the best promotion left from within. Otherwise, it may have to be from outside. That means trade or free agency...
Trade
First of all, let's assume this has to be a play for someone who is the calibre of defender that Markov was. The list is quite short. Let's now try to think of teams that would give up a player like this (and why). OK, found someone.
Now tell us who the Canadiens can offer in a trade that maintains the quality of their team now and adds this player.
Right.
Free agency
I won't go into to this in great depth, except to pass along the link to CapGeek's Free agents at defence for this summer.
Think replacing Koivu was hard?
Signing this Markov is the only real hope of replacing that Markov. Even with all the risks that signing an injured player entails, it's still the right thing to do.
Andrei took a reduced rate on his last contract to stay in Montreal and progressed to new heights with his play. I would say give him the value of his current deal (or maybe a slight reduction) for a single year. A single year to discover if Andrei can recover his form.
The Habs have nothing to lose with this approach. They aren't in a position to do a major revamp with the Gomez-Gionta-Cammalleri-Plekanec deals anyway. And Markov at 1/4 strength is still an asset on most teams.
The timing of the announcement couldn't have been much better for the team. Fans are riding high as the team streaks to wins, and from stats this season, it seems the team misses Markov as much as say, Glen Metropolit.
Obviously, we are not so easily swayed. Not because of 16 wins does a player of Markov's stature suddenly become expendable. And the talk of him now not being signed, talk once mad enough to have you confined, is spreading the town.
The basis for the talk is based partly on this optimism about the future. A future based on 0.930+ Carey Price and the unstoppable duo of Subban and Weber - an embarrassment of riches at the back end. It is also partly based on the notion that a player at 32 may never recover again, that a player who once had his Achilles tendon severed by a skate must be prone to these sorts of things because he injured a knee, then cam back too early and reinjured that knee.
I will hold today that Markov should be signed. I will hold that in two weeks, two months, ten months. I'll tell you why:
The value of Markov
We talk about players being irreplaceable. We probably talk about too many players in that vein. But Markov is truly irreplaceable.
He's not irreplaceable in the way that he can't be replaced in a lineup by Alexandre Picard and the team go on winning. He's not, we've proof of that. He is however irreplaceable as a single package of hockey talent. At least he is to the Habs at this time.
Markov isn't two healthy legs and a stick. He's a player who has a sense of the game that many will never possess. He's special because he thinks ahead of the rest, and the result is he makes plays look quick because of the talent. When average defenders win the puck, you often notice them quickly offload as a reaction to their surprise of winning it at all. Markov wins a puck and implements the plan he made when he anticipated winning the puck. Passes fly through gaps defenders can't close, because they didn't know there would be a gap there yet.
OK, I hyperbolise. But he's good. And the point I am really trying to make is that of his multiple talents, his thinking is the utmost.
To replace him, you can look to a short-list of talent in the NHL. To replace him realistically, you need a committee.
A Markov-sized hole
PP Maestro:
23.8% PP - 2009-10 (with Markov):
19.1% PP - 2009-10 (without Markov):
9.89 PPGON/60 (2nd among regular PP players; Brian Gionta 7.21)
2.29 PPGC/60 (1st among regular PP players; Brian Gionta 1.77)
In line-up for 36 PP goals in 45 games
On ice for 31 of those 36 goals
Offensive booster:
2.76 GF/G - 2009-10 (with Markov)
2.32 GF/G - 2009-10 (without Markov)
3.85 GFON/60 (2nd on team, behind Mike Cammalleri; Roman Hamrlik 2.90)
3.09 ESGFON/60 (1st of players with significant minutes; Roman Hamrlik 2.40)
Smart defender:
1.1 takeaway to giveaway ratio (1st for D with a significant role; next 0.4)
40 takeaways (1st among defenders - in 45 games!)
36 giveaways
That's only the positive argument. How about the negative, that's to say deflating the idea there's anyone who can replace him anyway, even if he never reaches his greatest heights again. Basically there would be three possible avenues: promotion, trading, signing. here they are.
Promote from within
There's real options here. There are. Subban is a great asset and plays an effective, albeit different, game to Markov. Weber's an asset too - good shot and has made strides from the defender who couldn't beat out MAB for a job.
But they're both on the team. This year. Next season, barring a major disaster (i.e., signing overpriced vets to do the same job) they are both already pencilled in. That's to say we can't use their names to replace Markov. They'd have been there as well as him. That leaves us Brendan Nash, Mathieu Carle, Frederic St. Denis, etc.
Maybe, maybe, the Habs would finally push for Emelin. That would be the best promotion left from within. Otherwise, it may have to be from outside. That means trade or free agency...
Trade
First of all, let's assume this has to be a play for someone who is the calibre of defender that Markov was. The list is quite short. Let's now try to think of teams that would give up a player like this (and why). OK, found someone.
Now tell us who the Canadiens can offer in a trade that maintains the quality of their team now and adds this player.
Right.
Free agency
I won't go into to this in great depth, except to pass along the link to CapGeek's Free agents at defence for this summer.
Think replacing Koivu was hard?
Signing this Markov is the only real hope of replacing that Markov. Even with all the risks that signing an injured player entails, it's still the right thing to do.
Andrei took a reduced rate on his last contract to stay in Montreal and progressed to new heights with his play. I would say give him the value of his current deal (or maybe a slight reduction) for a single year. A single year to discover if Andrei can recover his form.
The Habs have nothing to lose with this approach. They aren't in a position to do a major revamp with the Gomez-Gionta-Cammalleri-Plekanec deals anyway. And Markov at 1/4 strength is still an asset on most teams.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Price's Contract In Context
Yesterday the final big news of the summer for Habs fans marked a turning point, from watching chatrooms and runour sites to awaiting for play and game reports.
An initial scan of reaction shows a mix. There is plenty of relief that this contract is on the books before camp. There is fretting about its details. And thee is praise as well.
Before taking this any further, I just wanted to present the contract as I see. The signing as I see it in context of the league, the league's goalies and the Canadiens organization.
$2.75 million a season
In a summer of low-ball offers to goalies, this number seems a little high.
Since the 2009-10 season started, 30 other goalies signed contracts with NHL clubs. Realistically, 9 of those goalies can be considered starters: Halak, Rinne, Hiller, Niemi, Lehtonen, Turco, Ellis and Chris Mason. I suppose we need to throw in Leighton, as Philly will be counting on him too.
Of the 8, 4 teams signed starters for under $2 million (Turco, Mason, Ellis and Leighton). 4 teams signed goalies for over $3 million (Halak, Lehtonen, Rinne and Hiller). Antti Niemi is signed for $2 million on the nose.
Based on these 2 lists, I think it's fair to say that Price fits somewhere in between the two -- putting his value between $2 million and £3 million. Seeing as that's where he landed, I don't think there should be big surprise. Given, there's always the hope that Gauthier pries a $2.1 million deal out of this, but at $2.75, the fretting is for half a million.
I've said elsewhere that the Canadiens own salary structure is absolutely pivotal in evaluating this deal. It is. Carey knows what his teammates earn and he knows what his teammates do to earn that money. When Benoit Pouliot doubled his salary, that immediately set a low that Carey could not possibly go under, more like a low +$500,000. That's the £2 million right there. Then there's all those $5 million plus players, they factor in. Finally, Andrei Kostitsyn who won a contract as an RFA at a similar age, albeit under different circumstances. His $3.25 must have loomed in negotiations.
2 year term
On his conference call, Carey Price asserted that both sides agreed early on that 2 years was the right term. Horse hockey.
If possible, I think Carey would have liked to have come out of this contract as an unrestricted free agent. I think both he and his agent seeing this trend in goaltending contracts might have been happy to tack on years with modest raises per season. If they really thought last season was a horrendous anomaly, they'd have been all for a single season to come out an RFA again in 2011 rather than 2012 with the chance at cashing in at a higher rate then.
The 2-year contract seems more to me like a Canadiens stipulation, and a sensible one at that. 2 years does two things. For one thing, it means Price is locked up past next season, a critical one for other signings that don't need to be clouded by more decisions (Markov, Gorges). For another, it gives the team a short enough term to evaluate.
If Carey does well and grows into his role, the team gets a cheap starter for 2 years and then negotiates for market value when that time comes. If he stutters and is still learning in 2 years, the Canadiens have the leverage, as Carey will be an RFA with more than 200 games.
3 other things will have happened by that time. The first is that the CBA will in all likelihood expire that summer after the NHLPA extends it this season. Second is that carey will might played another season with a young rival if Karri Ramo comes over. The third is that other key goaltenders will potentially come available for signing at that time. Golatenders like Rinne and Cory Schneider will be UFAs. Tuukka Rask and Pavaelec will be RFAs.
I believe the Canadiens are entirely above board here. They obviously expect Carey Price to succeed, else they wouldn't have shipped Halak and Desjardins. However, in opting for 2 years, they avoid an uncomfortable agreement that drags long for no fruit while building in flexibility.
Halak
Finally, Halak.
As you all know, I'd have chosen Halak. But that's irrelevant now. Gauthier and Gainey didn't choose Halak. Rather, they chose Halak's trade return, salary savings and Price over Price's trade return, Halak and his extra cost.
In so far as this deal goes, though, we should be a little bit thankful to those who signed Halak. While it may seem like an overpay to some who prefer to cast him as a one-season wonder, his $3.75 million a season came under what a lot expected given past deals like Khabibulin's, Huet's and Ward's. If one thing must have been clear to both the Canadiens and Price's camp, it was that Halak had earned the bigger payday this time around, and so a real ceiling was set.
There will be fretting, of course, if Halak succeeds and Price doesn't. But that would have happened with either trade. This is Montreal.
Overall
The good things that can come out of this are numerous. If Carey plays well and really puts his stamp on the team, we will probably boast the cheapest quality starter in the league. If he plays at his 0.912 levels, we'll be OK and won't have been hoodwinked by any stretch
In all then, not the worst case scenario at all. Not even that far from the best outcome. It's somewhere in the middle.
An initial scan of reaction shows a mix. There is plenty of relief that this contract is on the books before camp. There is fretting about its details. And thee is praise as well.
Before taking this any further, I just wanted to present the contract as I see. The signing as I see it in context of the league, the league's goalies and the Canadiens organization.
$2.75 million a season
In a summer of low-ball offers to goalies, this number seems a little high.
Since the 2009-10 season started, 30 other goalies signed contracts with NHL clubs. Realistically, 9 of those goalies can be considered starters: Halak, Rinne, Hiller, Niemi, Lehtonen, Turco, Ellis and Chris Mason. I suppose we need to throw in Leighton, as Philly will be counting on him too.
Of the 8, 4 teams signed starters for under $2 million (Turco, Mason, Ellis and Leighton). 4 teams signed goalies for over $3 million (Halak, Lehtonen, Rinne and Hiller). Antti Niemi is signed for $2 million on the nose.
Based on these 2 lists, I think it's fair to say that Price fits somewhere in between the two -- putting his value between $2 million and £3 million. Seeing as that's where he landed, I don't think there should be big surprise. Given, there's always the hope that Gauthier pries a $2.1 million deal out of this, but at $2.75, the fretting is for half a million.
I've said elsewhere that the Canadiens own salary structure is absolutely pivotal in evaluating this deal. It is. Carey knows what his teammates earn and he knows what his teammates do to earn that money. When Benoit Pouliot doubled his salary, that immediately set a low that Carey could not possibly go under, more like a low +$500,000. That's the £2 million right there. Then there's all those $5 million plus players, they factor in. Finally, Andrei Kostitsyn who won a contract as an RFA at a similar age, albeit under different circumstances. His $3.25 must have loomed in negotiations.
2 year term
On his conference call, Carey Price asserted that both sides agreed early on that 2 years was the right term. Horse hockey.
If possible, I think Carey would have liked to have come out of this contract as an unrestricted free agent. I think both he and his agent seeing this trend in goaltending contracts might have been happy to tack on years with modest raises per season. If they really thought last season was a horrendous anomaly, they'd have been all for a single season to come out an RFA again in 2011 rather than 2012 with the chance at cashing in at a higher rate then.
The 2-year contract seems more to me like a Canadiens stipulation, and a sensible one at that. 2 years does two things. For one thing, it means Price is locked up past next season, a critical one for other signings that don't need to be clouded by more decisions (Markov, Gorges). For another, it gives the team a short enough term to evaluate.
If Carey does well and grows into his role, the team gets a cheap starter for 2 years and then negotiates for market value when that time comes. If he stutters and is still learning in 2 years, the Canadiens have the leverage, as Carey will be an RFA with more than 200 games.
3 other things will have happened by that time. The first is that the CBA will in all likelihood expire that summer after the NHLPA extends it this season. Second is that carey will might played another season with a young rival if Karri Ramo comes over. The third is that other key goaltenders will potentially come available for signing at that time. Golatenders like Rinne and Cory Schneider will be UFAs. Tuukka Rask and Pavaelec will be RFAs.
I believe the Canadiens are entirely above board here. They obviously expect Carey Price to succeed, else they wouldn't have shipped Halak and Desjardins. However, in opting for 2 years, they avoid an uncomfortable agreement that drags long for no fruit while building in flexibility.
Halak
Finally, Halak.
As you all know, I'd have chosen Halak. But that's irrelevant now. Gauthier and Gainey didn't choose Halak. Rather, they chose Halak's trade return, salary savings and Price over Price's trade return, Halak and his extra cost.
In so far as this deal goes, though, we should be a little bit thankful to those who signed Halak. While it may seem like an overpay to some who prefer to cast him as a one-season wonder, his $3.75 million a season came under what a lot expected given past deals like Khabibulin's, Huet's and Ward's. If one thing must have been clear to both the Canadiens and Price's camp, it was that Halak had earned the bigger payday this time around, and so a real ceiling was set.
There will be fretting, of course, if Halak succeeds and Price doesn't. But that would have happened with either trade. This is Montreal.
Overall
The good things that can come out of this are numerous. If Carey plays well and really puts his stamp on the team, we will probably boast the cheapest quality starter in the league. If he plays at his 0.912 levels, we'll be OK and won't have been hoodwinked by any stretch
In all then, not the worst case scenario at all. Not even that far from the best outcome. It's somewhere in the middle.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Price Signs
No confirmation of amount. But rumours point to something over $2.5 million a year for a couple of seasons.
The first reaction has to be "Phew". Auld would have been a real come down.
There's not much else to say at this point without details, but if the rumoured terms iare true, it's a lesson to us all on what bargaining power can do. And Carey owes thank you notes to the Capitals, Penguins, Blues and Steve Yzerman.
The first reaction has to be "Phew". Auld would have been a real come down.
There's not much else to say at this point without details, but if the rumoured terms iare true, it's a lesson to us all on what bargaining power can do. And Carey owes thank you notes to the Capitals, Penguins, Blues and Steve Yzerman.
Can Teams Bring Contracts Forward For Reneging?
A few sources today are reporting that the NHL is taking a hard line after Kovalchuk and may investigate a few contracts that they have previously approved.
Among those to be potentially investigated (if you believe any of the claims) would be those of Marian Hossa, Roberto Luongo, Chris Pronger and Marc Savard.
Never mind that the league won't be able to take away the Stanley Cup enabled by their previous soft stance. I prefer to see it in a different way.
If the league is dead set on killing all long-term front-end heavy contracts, let's get serious. What about making Gomez sign a new deal?
After all, he was one of the original new-era 7-year deal boys. His final season is paying him less than half of his first $10 million season.
And what about other teams who may want voided cap hits? Like Philly on Daniel Briere's $6.5 million? Maybe Detroit's rivals would want to investigate Franzen and Zetterberg.
Wouldn't seem fair otherwise, would it?
Among those to be potentially investigated (if you believe any of the claims) would be those of Marian Hossa, Roberto Luongo, Chris Pronger and Marc Savard.
Never mind that the league won't be able to take away the Stanley Cup enabled by their previous soft stance. I prefer to see it in a different way.
If the league is dead set on killing all long-term front-end heavy contracts, let's get serious. What about making Gomez sign a new deal?
After all, he was one of the original new-era 7-year deal boys. His final season is paying him less than half of his first $10 million season.
And what about other teams who may want voided cap hits? Like Philly on Daniel Briere's $6.5 million? Maybe Detroit's rivals would want to investigate Franzen and Zetterberg.
Wouldn't seem fair otherwise, would it?
Monday, July 26, 2010
Negotiating On Price:
Opening Parry
The last Canadiens game was played more than 2 months ago now. As the sun set on the Canadiens season, there were questions everywhere, except it seemed in goal. In goal, Jaroslav Halak had been the undisputed star for the Canadiens, if not the league in the playoffs to that point, and Carey Price warmed the bench.
But the offseason has cast a new light on matters. Halak was traded, of course. But even after that lingering negotiations have led to looming questions. For a brief period on July 1, Robert Mayer was the highest ranked goalie on the Montreal payroll. He was to be bumped to NHL back-up in the depth chart by the signing of Alex Auld and later to a more sensible place as Gauthier retained Desjardins and Sanford. As Price’s contract talks drag on, the depth chart of today still has Mayer in Hamilton, with Auld and probably Desjardins in Montreal.
That situation is pure fantasy, though, as Carey Price must be as near a certainty to sign on as there ever was. But Auld, Desjardins, Sanford, Mayer. Some have said it’s not leverage for the goalie and his agent, fans who ponder their upcoming cable package might disagree.
Anyway, we put aside the possibility that Price will not be signed instead looking to the terms of the contract he will eventually sign. For fun, I thought of the negotiation as a mock arbitration setting (probably not that far from the truth) with each side presenting their arguments and counter-arguments.
For mock purposes, let’s assume that Carey Price’s team is indeed asking for the $3 million that HabsWorld comes up with in its uncited "report" (1 to 3 years). The Habs we’ll assume by the hold up are not into that, we’ll say they started at $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).
Carey Price camp opening arguments
1. Starting goalie money
The average goalie salary (cap hit) in the NHL is $2.51 million
The average among starters is $3.75 million
Removing entry level for starters gives $4.1 million
You want Carey to be a starting goalie in one of the biggest fanbases with some of the biggest revenue in the NHL. He shouldn’t be far below average.
2. Comparables
Carey Price (3 seasons)
Season: 2.77, 0.912
Career: 2.73, 0.912
Jonas Hiller (3 seasons) ¬ $4.5 million
Season: 2.73, 0.918
Jaroslav Halak (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.75 million
Career: 2.62, 0.919
Kari Lehtonen ¬ $3.55 million
Season: 2.81, 0.911
Career: 2.87, 0.912
Pekka Rinne (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.4 million
Season: 2.53, 0.911
Their average salaries going into the next contracts are $3.8 million, so the $3 million we ask for is very reasonable considering Carey’s closest peers.
3. Pedigree
Drafted 5th overall
CHL goaltender of the year
WJC winning goalie and tournament MVP
Calder Cup winning goalie and tournament MVP
NHL All-Rookie team
NHL All-Star Game
4. Save percentage
Save percentage is the only number that can be trusted among goalie statistics, as it is the only number that belongs to the goaltending performance alone. 0.912 this season and for his career are excellent at his age. It was a single tenth of a percent behind Roberto Luongo.
5. Alternatives
Having traded Halak, without Carey you would look to start the season with Alex Auld in goal and Cedrick Desjardins at back up. Carey offers a massive upgrade to that tandem, replacing the completely NHL-naïve Desjardins from the roster and providing a better start option than Auld.
But the offseason has cast a new light on matters. Halak was traded, of course. But even after that lingering negotiations have led to looming questions. For a brief period on July 1, Robert Mayer was the highest ranked goalie on the Montreal payroll. He was to be bumped to NHL back-up in the depth chart by the signing of Alex Auld and later to a more sensible place as Gauthier retained Desjardins and Sanford. As Price’s contract talks drag on, the depth chart of today still has Mayer in Hamilton, with Auld and probably Desjardins in Montreal.
That situation is pure fantasy, though, as Carey Price must be as near a certainty to sign on as there ever was. But Auld, Desjardins, Sanford, Mayer. Some have said it’s not leverage for the goalie and his agent, fans who ponder their upcoming cable package might disagree.
Anyway, we put aside the possibility that Price will not be signed instead looking to the terms of the contract he will eventually sign. For fun, I thought of the negotiation as a mock arbitration setting (probably not that far from the truth) with each side presenting their arguments and counter-arguments.
For mock purposes, let’s assume that Carey Price’s team is indeed asking for the $3 million that HabsWorld comes up with in its uncited "report" (1 to 3 years). The Habs we’ll assume by the hold up are not into that, we’ll say they started at $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).
Carey Price camp opening arguments
1. Starting goalie money
The average goalie salary (cap hit) in the NHL is $2.51 million
The average among starters is $3.75 million
Removing entry level for starters gives $4.1 million
You want Carey to be a starting goalie in one of the biggest fanbases with some of the biggest revenue in the NHL. He shouldn’t be far below average.
2. Comparables
Carey Price (3 seasons)
Season: 2.77, 0.912
Career: 2.73, 0.912
Jonas Hiller (3 seasons) ¬ $4.5 million
Season: 2.73, 0.918
Jaroslav Halak (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.75 million
Career: 2.62, 0.919
Kari Lehtonen ¬ $3.55 million
Season: 2.81, 0.911
Career: 2.87, 0.912
Pekka Rinne (2 full seasons) ¬ $3.4 million
Season: 2.53, 0.911
Their average salaries going into the next contracts are $3.8 million, so the $3 million we ask for is very reasonable considering Carey’s closest peers.
3. Pedigree
Drafted 5th overall
CHL goaltender of the year
WJC winning goalie and tournament MVP
Calder Cup winning goalie and tournament MVP
NHL All-Rookie team
NHL All-Star Game
4. Save percentage
Save percentage is the only number that can be trusted among goalie statistics, as it is the only number that belongs to the goaltending performance alone. 0.912 this season and for his career are excellent at his age. It was a single tenth of a percent behind Roberto Luongo.
5. Alternatives
Having traded Halak, without Carey you would look to start the season with Alex Auld in goal and Cedrick Desjardins at back up. Carey offers a massive upgrade to that tandem, replacing the completely NHL-naïve Desjardins from the roster and providing a better start option than Auld.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The No Movement Clause
Of Laraque, Nylander And Sykora
Last week, apart from the losing, the disappointment of the week was Georges Laraque's failed transfer to Swedish club AIK. In what was a hopeful story, Georges had said that he'd be willing to play for free in Sweden. The Canadiens on their part jumped at this and instigated an international transfer request.
Alas it was denied by the NHL.
All the details of this story are a bit murky. For instance, we don't know for certain whether the request was instigated, who instigated it and why, if it was begun, it fell down.
The easy speculation on this is that Georges Laraque ran his mouth about playing in Sweden for nothing in typical fashion, but when it came time for action he bottled out. This is indeed the most logical scenario, since the whole transfer hinged on Laraque first waiving his no movement clause. As Georges never turned up on the waiver wire, it is safe to assume he probably didn't.
The timing of the Laraque banishment
Many questioned the timing of showing Laraque the door just after a Haitian catastrophe. Indeed, I was puzzled at first too. However, it didn't take much investigative journalism to work out what was behind the urgency.
Unreported in the whole affair was the closing of the IIHF transfer window, which was due to take place on January 31, 2010. Given Laraque had to be coaxed into waiving an NMC, then possibly clearing waivers, time was not on the Canadiens side. They needed a couple of weeks to get paperwork done (Ryan White knows how efficient they are at that) and finalize the deal. They couldn't in the end.
Transfer window closed
January has turned to February and the IIHF transfer window is now closed. Laraque cannot go to Sweden or Finland, or Switzerland or anywhere. Sorry, but it's true.
It's a shame that Laraque is either so full of it, non-compliant or unrealistic, because this move really would have been possible. The Washington Capitals faced the identical situation (albeit with a bigger salary and a legitimate gripe) in dealing with Michael Nylander. The critical difference with Nylander was that a) he wanted to earn his money and b) he waived his no-movement clause. Way back in November, the Capitals put Nylander and his $5.5 million salary through waivers on his way to Grand Rapids. The fact he is now playing in the Finnish league means that Nylander also followed through on his stated desire to play rather than collect a contract in stagnation.
A couple of lessons can be taken from this. One, know the player you are giving an NMC to, if he's a bit of a selfish self-promoter, probably negotiate a different clause as a cherry on top. Two, transfers take time to arrange. Perhaps leaving it till the 11th hour isn't the way to go.
Laraque can't come off the books now... Or can he?
With no IIHF transfers available, one has to think Laraque is hogging a roster spot and salary until the end of the year.
But then one looks around the league and sees other news coming out of Minnesota. Specifically, the alleged voiding of Petr Sykora's contract – which frees up the roster spot and the cap room for the Wild. One has to wonder whether there's something to be done with Laraque here.
A closer look reveals some pretty critical differences in the contracts, however. First, Sykora doesn't have an NMC. This means the Wild can freely demote him whenever they feel like it, which they did a couple of weeks ago when he appeared on waivers. Second, Sykora's contract is running out at the end of the season. So, while he'll lose plenty of money in voiding that contract, it wouldn't be as much as Laraque would lose from his buyout potential of $1 million and the hundreds of thousand left this season.
Is it possible that in this scenario the Wild and Sykora knew there would be no reporting to Houston and that any demotion would mean Petr not reporting and thereby voiding a contract? Is it possible they colluded to free Petr to pursue mid-season free agency on a lower contract that more teams would likely look at favourably? Could this all be construed as collusion? The commenters on Hockey Wilderness seem to see the same sort of shadiness as I.
It's not very fair is it? That there's a loophole for Sykora, but not for Laraque. But not all's fair in love and CBAs. At the end of the day, Gainey dug this NMC hole himself. And by not alienating Laraque soon enough (a la Nylander) he let the transfer solution become too frantic a rush. It was a mismanagement based on a bit too much hope, and little logic.
Still, I wonder if there is some grounds to show that Laraque hadn't fulfilled his contract, because goodness knows he totally flew in the face of the spirit of his contract. As a fighter who at times flatly refused to fight, he was grossly unethical, in effect holding on to his millions based on a known technicality. He must have known why he was signed, and it wasn't, as he seemed to latterly think, to make tape to opposition tape passes. Is there any chance to show that Laraque did not act in good faith to complete the terms of his contract?
In a land where unions see that players can be paid many millions years after they play a useful minute, I think not. But hope springs yet...
Alas it was denied by the NHL.
All the details of this story are a bit murky. For instance, we don't know for certain whether the request was instigated, who instigated it and why, if it was begun, it fell down.
The easy speculation on this is that Georges Laraque ran his mouth about playing in Sweden for nothing in typical fashion, but when it came time for action he bottled out. This is indeed the most logical scenario, since the whole transfer hinged on Laraque first waiving his no movement clause. As Georges never turned up on the waiver wire, it is safe to assume he probably didn't.
The timing of the Laraque banishment
Many questioned the timing of showing Laraque the door just after a Haitian catastrophe. Indeed, I was puzzled at first too. However, it didn't take much investigative journalism to work out what was behind the urgency.
Unreported in the whole affair was the closing of the IIHF transfer window, which was due to take place on January 31, 2010. Given Laraque had to be coaxed into waiving an NMC, then possibly clearing waivers, time was not on the Canadiens side. They needed a couple of weeks to get paperwork done (Ryan White knows how efficient they are at that) and finalize the deal. They couldn't in the end.
Transfer window closed
January has turned to February and the IIHF transfer window is now closed. Laraque cannot go to Sweden or Finland, or Switzerland or anywhere. Sorry, but it's true.
It's a shame that Laraque is either so full of it, non-compliant or unrealistic, because this move really would have been possible. The Washington Capitals faced the identical situation (albeit with a bigger salary and a legitimate gripe) in dealing with Michael Nylander. The critical difference with Nylander was that a) he wanted to earn his money and b) he waived his no-movement clause. Way back in November, the Capitals put Nylander and his $5.5 million salary through waivers on his way to Grand Rapids. The fact he is now playing in the Finnish league means that Nylander also followed through on his stated desire to play rather than collect a contract in stagnation.
A couple of lessons can be taken from this. One, know the player you are giving an NMC to, if he's a bit of a selfish self-promoter, probably negotiate a different clause as a cherry on top. Two, transfers take time to arrange. Perhaps leaving it till the 11th hour isn't the way to go.
Laraque can't come off the books now... Or can he?
With no IIHF transfers available, one has to think Laraque is hogging a roster spot and salary until the end of the year.
But then one looks around the league and sees other news coming out of Minnesota. Specifically, the alleged voiding of Petr Sykora's contract – which frees up the roster spot and the cap room for the Wild. One has to wonder whether there's something to be done with Laraque here.
A closer look reveals some pretty critical differences in the contracts, however. First, Sykora doesn't have an NMC. This means the Wild can freely demote him whenever they feel like it, which they did a couple of weeks ago when he appeared on waivers. Second, Sykora's contract is running out at the end of the season. So, while he'll lose plenty of money in voiding that contract, it wouldn't be as much as Laraque would lose from his buyout potential of $1 million and the hundreds of thousand left this season.
Is it possible that in this scenario the Wild and Sykora knew there would be no reporting to Houston and that any demotion would mean Petr not reporting and thereby voiding a contract? Is it possible they colluded to free Petr to pursue mid-season free agency on a lower contract that more teams would likely look at favourably? Could this all be construed as collusion? The commenters on Hockey Wilderness seem to see the same sort of shadiness as I.
It's not very fair is it? That there's a loophole for Sykora, but not for Laraque. But not all's fair in love and CBAs. At the end of the day, Gainey dug this NMC hole himself. And by not alienating Laraque soon enough (a la Nylander) he let the transfer solution become too frantic a rush. It was a mismanagement based on a bit too much hope, and little logic.
Still, I wonder if there is some grounds to show that Laraque hadn't fulfilled his contract, because goodness knows he totally flew in the face of the spirit of his contract. As a fighter who at times flatly refused to fight, he was grossly unethical, in effect holding on to his millions based on a known technicality. He must have known why he was signed, and it wasn't, as he seemed to latterly think, to make tape to opposition tape passes. Is there any chance to show that Laraque did not act in good faith to complete the terms of his contract?
In a land where unions see that players can be paid many millions years after they play a useful minute, I think not. But hope springs yet...
Friday, September 25, 2009
Part Of My Life Is Over:
Patrice Brisebois And Me
Perhaps you'll think me lazy for re-posting, perhaps not. I just thought that I couldn't do any better, not today, so I'd repost an article I had published as "999 Not Out" in the spring.
Patrice Brisebois and me have had a rocky relationship at times, but it's been a long one. He's been part of my life for more than 20 years if you count me following him in junior. He's been a part of this blog since the beginning too. And together I think we've both grown up a lot since the days he pinched and scored in the playoffs; since the days he fell and I booed. So as you do when an important era of your life passes, I reflect and relook. I hope you enjoy my "tribute" to our newly retired Canadien.
I'm not sure whether you'd call this a tribute, perhaps more of a synopsis.
I am not qualified to do a Brisebois tribute, you see, and I would only mess it up. So, instead I will tell you about my 19 years with Patrice Brisebois – with my memories, my interpretations and my feelings.
Early days
Blue chip beginnings
It must be said that Patrice Brisebois was one more in a long line of bluechip defenceman prospects to come through the Montreal Canadiens system back in 1990. That is the reason, Serge Savard and staff must be forgiven for overlooking no less than 3 superstars in Pavel Bure, Sergei fedorov and Nicklas Lidstrom to get Patrice.
In 1989, Patrice was the Canadiens dream come true: a French Canadian, goalscoring defenceman who was winning competitions. By the end of that season, he had racked up 30 goals and 109 points in 98 junior games and had competed for the Memorial Cup for the first time with the Laval Titan.
I have to admit that even I was a big fan back then, and I still have his QMJHL rookie card signed in a case somewhere, I think.
Excellent progression
The good times didn't stop at the draft for Patrice, as he would go on to play for Team Canada twice in the next two years, winning 2 gold medals – beating Jagr's Czech team and Pavel Bure's USSR no less. After the two stints for Canada, he also played in 10 NHL games as a 19-year old (which, if you remember Serge Savard's model of player development, was quite a feat). To top it off, there were two Memorial Cup finals in 2 years, the second one with him as a tournament all-star. If that's not enough to impress the socks off any scout, he raked in the CHL defenceman of the year award in 1991 as well. Just a quick run-down for those who prefer bullets:
– 2 WJC gold medals
– 3 Memorial Cup finals
– 1 CHL defenceman of the year
– 1 Memorial Cup All-Star team
– 65 goals and 258 points in 208 junior games
– 11 points at both WJCs and Memorial Cups in 13 and 14 games, respectively
This guy was the Carey Price of his age – a shoe in to be a star...
NHL debuts
Following his tour with Montreal in 1990-91, he saw a bit more replacement work in 1991-92. In all, there were 26 regular season games, and more importantly, Patrice featured in all 11 playoff games that spring for the Habs as they lost to the Bruins in round 2. As the Canadiens 6th scorer that post-season, it seemed as if he was about to leap-frog Mathieu Schneider and JJ Daigneault in the depth chart.
The next season, Patrice did make the team and had a good season. However, he did not make the immediate jump into the limelight, as Schneider and Eric Desjardins became the pair to carry the Canadiens when the going got tough. Nonetheless, Brisebois played 70 games in 1992-93, chipping in 10 goals and 21 assists. He was an integral player in the Cup run (playing in all 20 playoff games), taking his new backseat role in stride, it seemed.
The graduation
The Stanley Cup run of 1993 (in Patrice's rookie season) has been the pinnacle of his NHL achievements to date. As so many a veteran will tell you – the thought that Cups would be so hard to come by after that first one didn't cross the mind at the time. It was perhaps fitting, that Patrice was at his best though, at that time, in a system where he could use his talents without being overstretched. On a team with 4 defencemen ahead of him in playing time, a goalie that could stop seemingly anything – Patrice could play at forward from the back as he had done so well in junior.
As things started to go wrong for the Canadiens, things looked quite rosy for Patrice. He played a lot, despite some injuries. A pivotal moment in his career would come in the spring of 1995. February 9th of that year, Serge Savard made an infamous trade that sent Eric Desjardins, John Leclair and Gilbert Dionne away for Mark Recchi. April 5th, Savard would trade his other defensive stud as Mathieu Schneider and Muller were swapped for Pierre Turgeon and Vladimir Malakhov. Those trades had two impacts for Brisebois. Out Desjardins, Schneider and Haller (summer 1994) in Malakhov, Racine and other spare parts meant that Brisebois was being entrusted with a new brief as top 3 defender. He handled the brief OK for a while. But it was a lot to ask of a forward playing on D (essentially) to fill out major minutes after what happened that next December – when the man who masked so many defensive deficiencies was traded for Jocelyn Thibault, Rucinsky and Kovalenko.
Once Patrick Roy departs, the Canadiens become a bit of a mish mash for the next few years. They still had the offensive firepower with Damphousse, Turgeon, Recchi and belatedly Koivu, to carry some wins – and there were good seasons in 1996 and 1998; but their defence was buckling. Brisebois continued to contribute offensively, but began to struggle to protect a net not filled by Patrick Roy.
By 1998, after all Rejean Houle's other inane moves, Brisbois was left as the major star player from La Belle Province. This pressure brought pressure sure, but perhaps more significantly it brought ego to the year-on, year-off Brisebois.
Highlights of the rest of the decade for Brisebois included several 30+ point seasons (every other year, really) and numerous game-winning goals, despite few meaningful wins. Patrice was a plus player over this time as well, no small feat.
Of these ten years, this is all the NHLPA Legends site had to say:
It's a telling quote, given the site is trying to position each player in the most positive light. There's just not much to say. Not much we'd like to recall... In preparation for this piece, I also read some of the books I have on the shelf. One, Canadiens Legends, even has an entry for Brisebois. After reading it, I almost felt sorry for the guy as it showcased how the sweet ride of his career was over after year one, and has been filled with trouble ever since.
If you think about it, though, Serge Savard drafted Brisebois to fit in behind Desjardins, Schneider and other solid defenceman; and he had the best goaltender to ever play the game. Things looked solid, and a gamble on a defenceman who was much better going forward than skating backwards was a worthwhile gamble. Who knew he would be the last man standing on this defence stood in front of two projects learning to play goal?
Based on a mercurial junior career and rise to success in the big league, there was hope that Brisebois could fill in the position of top defenceman on a top team. Alas, he was never able to reach those heights. He probably should never have been asked or expected to do so.
The contract
No discussion of Brisebois' career would be complete without talk of the contract that came late in his first Montreal stint.
It was the winter of 2001, that new GM Andre Savard decided to make his mark on the Montreal Canadiens for brand new owner George Gillett. Patrice was taken aside and offered an extension on his current offer. probably surprised enough to receive any offer after his -31 season, Patrice jumped on a fully out-of-whack biggest Canadiens contract offer in history ($12 million over 3 years). At the time it was an absurd move for a defenceman that had just been given a raise to $2.5 million a year the spring before following his worst ever season. To add insult to fans' injury, he was also given a no-trade clause.
If ego was a problem before, it was getting out of control not long after. There were incidents off the ice (like urinating at the Canadiens golf tournament and nearly running over Jack Todd), but on the ice Patrice seemed to lord his money over people. Mistakes he made were met with shrugs, and mistakes from others with scolding.
Patrice played out 2002 as more of a bit-part player once Jose Theodore took over. 2002 will certainly never be remembered for defensive play and his 2 goals in the 24-game final push showed how the Canadiens had learned to live with him in the defensive zone and without his contributions up front. So when Patrice came back the next season with less than stellar play, and his customary year off in his 2-year cycle; people were starting to be a little less than impressed with the highest paid player on the team.
By this point, Patrice was being booed every game. Whether it was the booing or the years catching up with him, one thing was abundantly clear – the offensive defence star from 1991 was gone. By February, the pressure had taken its toll. Brisebois took leave for heart problems brought on by stress. No one could forget his ill-advised trip to France against doctor's orders in that time.
The final year of his no-trade clause opened with a condemnation of the general booing from Bob Gainey. It initially stopped the booing and seemed to lift a weight from Patrice's shoulders. I wouldn't say he suddenly fulfilled all the promise of 15 years earlier; but in the least he proved less of a constant distraction and managed to minimise the damage he did so the Canadiens could make the playoffs.
Those playoffs would be the last time (or so we thought) that Patrice would step on the ice for the Canadiens. In a rather anti-climactic end, Patrice was told the Canadiens would rather not pick up their option for the next season. The untradeable defenceman was gone, for a while anyway.
The Canadiens dollar
More Canadiens dollars have ended up in Patrice Brisebois' garage than probably should have. In fact, he is among the best compensated (by the Canadiens) players of all time. If estimates from 2004 are to be trusted (and I don't see why they wouldn't be), together with his $2.9 million from the past two seasons, Brisebois will have cost the Habs over $22 million for a career. Only Saku Koivu has made more.
The returns
A more recent history of the Patrice Brisebois stories is highlighted by his re-signing and re-signing again with his Canadiens. In fact, the Canadiens rescued him from outright retirement as another team had run out of patience and use for him in 2006.
It has been a nice story for the player, but I think many of us wonder whether the Canadiens exist to please the alums of the team, or indeed to win. Signed both times ahead of younger and more intriguing options, he was sold to us as a cheap 8th defenceman. Yet both times, he was given bonuses to negate any notion of value for money. And both times he has been deployed as a 5th or 6th when push came to shove.
Last season, this was met with stoicism – one season, we can bear it. This season, I can't tell you how many times I've read "1000 games, can we get it over with?", or "Can we get this retirement pushed forward?".
In fairness to the player, he has done what the coaches asked and can't be blamed for their weaknesses. He has also tried his utmost (I think) to keep his game simpler and limit the flashbacks of 1996-2004 to a minimum. One highlight was a playoff game with a timely winning goal. There have been lowlights too.
The booing
It is a very common misconception nowadays that Brisebois started getting booed after he was awarded the biggest (and most ridiculously out of whack) contract in Montreal Canadiens history. This is simply untrue. And it does nothing but attempt to gloss over the fact that people were booing Brisebois for his mistakes (presumably in hopes that a GM might trade him?) long before he made $4 million a year. The booing began before that point, for certain, in a futile effort to get incapable GMs to do something about our number one defenceman position. It was only intensified by that ridiculous contract.
In fact, in 1998-99, when awarded a whopping $1.8 million a year, he was already the second best compensated defenceman on the team. That contract was three years in length at a nice $6 million in all. If being overpaid was the source of the boos, it had its origin in that contract of 1998.
As I pointed to above, Brisebois' play and his ego were on separate courses from about 1995 (post-Roy). It could be said that he was thrust unfairly into both ice time and spotlight he couldn't handle. And perhaps it would have been something to be forgiven given a show of a little humility. No show was ever forthcoming, not back then anyway. The booing he received was as much due to the response he gave to errors (both his and others) as it was to his play.
The situation as it currently stands is completely different. Brisebois to his credit has been knocked down a few notches. Humility is now part of his vocabulary, at least some of the time. Any booing (or hand wringing at this blog, for example) is probably more frustration for Bob Gainey at having signed the veteran in place of other more attractive or forward-looking options.
Awaiting the 1000th
It was clever how Carbonneau sat Brisebois for this road trip. How clever will it be to bring him back just when O'Byrne has started to play well? He'll be back though, as sure as Carey Price will be the only one to reap the benefit of the win-you're in policy...
When he plays in Montreal, he will receive thunderous cheers. Why not? His achievement is monumental (consider this player and then consider how few players reach 1000 games – monumental doesn't even do it justice).
Many will be cheering in hope that it will be the end. However, I think we're deluded if we think that. Has he already played his last playoff game? Will he be satisfied with 1000 regular season games, when 1000 with the Canadiens is so close? (he's at 974 right now!)
If he reaches that milestone he will be the 12th player in the history of the team to do so. His company would include 9 players whose numbers are retired along with 2 whose were not:
1436 – Henri Richard
1405 – Larry Robinson
1342 – Bob Gainey
1287 – Jean Beliveau
1131 – Claude Provost
1115 – Yvan Cournoyer
1111 – Maurice Richard
1073 – Guy Carbonneau
1040 – Serge Savard
1025 – Guy Lafleur
1013 – Doug Harvey
Will I cheer Brisebois? Probably. 1000 games is nothing to sneeze at. Oh, go on, you'll cheer too. It'll be a strange feeling...
Patrice Brisebois and me have had a rocky relationship at times, but it's been a long one. He's been part of my life for more than 20 years if you count me following him in junior. He's been a part of this blog since the beginning too. And together I think we've both grown up a lot since the days he pinched and scored in the playoffs; since the days he fell and I booed. So as you do when an important era of your life passes, I reflect and relook. I hope you enjoy my "tribute" to our newly retired Canadien.
I'm not sure whether you'd call this a tribute, perhaps more of a synopsis.
I am not qualified to do a Brisebois tribute, you see, and I would only mess it up. So, instead I will tell you about my 19 years with Patrice Brisebois – with my memories, my interpretations and my feelings.
Early days
Blue chip beginnings
It must be said that Patrice Brisebois was one more in a long line of bluechip defenceman prospects to come through the Montreal Canadiens system back in 1990. That is the reason, Serge Savard and staff must be forgiven for overlooking no less than 3 superstars in Pavel Bure, Sergei fedorov and Nicklas Lidstrom to get Patrice.
In 1989, Patrice was the Canadiens dream come true: a French Canadian, goalscoring defenceman who was winning competitions. By the end of that season, he had racked up 30 goals and 109 points in 98 junior games and had competed for the Memorial Cup for the first time with the Laval Titan.
I have to admit that even I was a big fan back then, and I still have his QMJHL rookie card signed in a case somewhere, I think.
Excellent progression
The good times didn't stop at the draft for Patrice, as he would go on to play for Team Canada twice in the next two years, winning 2 gold medals – beating Jagr's Czech team and Pavel Bure's USSR no less. After the two stints for Canada, he also played in 10 NHL games as a 19-year old (which, if you remember Serge Savard's model of player development, was quite a feat). To top it off, there were two Memorial Cup finals in 2 years, the second one with him as a tournament all-star. If that's not enough to impress the socks off any scout, he raked in the CHL defenceman of the year award in 1991 as well. Just a quick run-down for those who prefer bullets:
– 2 WJC gold medals
– 3 Memorial Cup finals
– 1 CHL defenceman of the year
– 1 Memorial Cup All-Star team
– 65 goals and 258 points in 208 junior games
– 11 points at both WJCs and Memorial Cups in 13 and 14 games, respectively
This guy was the Carey Price of his age – a shoe in to be a star...
NHL debuts
Following his tour with Montreal in 1990-91, he saw a bit more replacement work in 1991-92. In all, there were 26 regular season games, and more importantly, Patrice featured in all 11 playoff games that spring for the Habs as they lost to the Bruins in round 2. As the Canadiens 6th scorer that post-season, it seemed as if he was about to leap-frog Mathieu Schneider and JJ Daigneault in the depth chart.
The next season, Patrice did make the team and had a good season. However, he did not make the immediate jump into the limelight, as Schneider and Eric Desjardins became the pair to carry the Canadiens when the going got tough. Nonetheless, Brisebois played 70 games in 1992-93, chipping in 10 goals and 21 assists. He was an integral player in the Cup run (playing in all 20 playoff games), taking his new backseat role in stride, it seemed.
The graduation
The Stanley Cup run of 1993 (in Patrice's rookie season) has been the pinnacle of his NHL achievements to date. As so many a veteran will tell you – the thought that Cups would be so hard to come by after that first one didn't cross the mind at the time. It was perhaps fitting, that Patrice was at his best though, at that time, in a system where he could use his talents without being overstretched. On a team with 4 defencemen ahead of him in playing time, a goalie that could stop seemingly anything – Patrice could play at forward from the back as he had done so well in junior.
As things started to go wrong for the Canadiens, things looked quite rosy for Patrice. He played a lot, despite some injuries. A pivotal moment in his career would come in the spring of 1995. February 9th of that year, Serge Savard made an infamous trade that sent Eric Desjardins, John Leclair and Gilbert Dionne away for Mark Recchi. April 5th, Savard would trade his other defensive stud as Mathieu Schneider and Muller were swapped for Pierre Turgeon and Vladimir Malakhov. Those trades had two impacts for Brisebois. Out Desjardins, Schneider and Haller (summer 1994) in Malakhov, Racine and other spare parts meant that Brisebois was being entrusted with a new brief as top 3 defender. He handled the brief OK for a while. But it was a lot to ask of a forward playing on D (essentially) to fill out major minutes after what happened that next December – when the man who masked so many defensive deficiencies was traded for Jocelyn Thibault, Rucinsky and Kovalenko.
Once Patrick Roy departs, the Canadiens become a bit of a mish mash for the next few years. They still had the offensive firepower with Damphousse, Turgeon, Recchi and belatedly Koivu, to carry some wins – and there were good seasons in 1996 and 1998; but their defence was buckling. Brisebois continued to contribute offensively, but began to struggle to protect a net not filled by Patrick Roy.
By 1998, after all Rejean Houle's other inane moves, Brisbois was left as the major star player from La Belle Province. This pressure brought pressure sure, but perhaps more significantly it brought ego to the year-on, year-off Brisebois.
Highlights of the rest of the decade for Brisebois included several 30+ point seasons (every other year, really) and numerous game-winning goals, despite few meaningful wins. Patrice was a plus player over this time as well, no small feat.
Of these ten years, this is all the NHLPA Legends site had to say:
"As the franchise struggled in the late 1990s, Brisebois was a constant on the defensive brigade. He set a personal high with 15 goals in 2000-01 and was an integral part of the club's playoff hopes in 2001-02."
It's a telling quote, given the site is trying to position each player in the most positive light. There's just not much to say. Not much we'd like to recall... In preparation for this piece, I also read some of the books I have on the shelf. One, Canadiens Legends, even has an entry for Brisebois. After reading it, I almost felt sorry for the guy as it showcased how the sweet ride of his career was over after year one, and has been filled with trouble ever since.
If you think about it, though, Serge Savard drafted Brisebois to fit in behind Desjardins, Schneider and other solid defenceman; and he had the best goaltender to ever play the game. Things looked solid, and a gamble on a defenceman who was much better going forward than skating backwards was a worthwhile gamble. Who knew he would be the last man standing on this defence stood in front of two projects learning to play goal?
Based on a mercurial junior career and rise to success in the big league, there was hope that Brisebois could fill in the position of top defenceman on a top team. Alas, he was never able to reach those heights. He probably should never have been asked or expected to do so.
The contract
No discussion of Brisebois' career would be complete without talk of the contract that came late in his first Montreal stint.
It was the winter of 2001, that new GM Andre Savard decided to make his mark on the Montreal Canadiens for brand new owner George Gillett. Patrice was taken aside and offered an extension on his current offer. probably surprised enough to receive any offer after his -31 season, Patrice jumped on a fully out-of-whack biggest Canadiens contract offer in history ($12 million over 3 years). At the time it was an absurd move for a defenceman that had just been given a raise to $2.5 million a year the spring before following his worst ever season. To add insult to fans' injury, he was also given a no-trade clause.
If ego was a problem before, it was getting out of control not long after. There were incidents off the ice (like urinating at the Canadiens golf tournament and nearly running over Jack Todd), but on the ice Patrice seemed to lord his money over people. Mistakes he made were met with shrugs, and mistakes from others with scolding.
Patrice played out 2002 as more of a bit-part player once Jose Theodore took over. 2002 will certainly never be remembered for defensive play and his 2 goals in the 24-game final push showed how the Canadiens had learned to live with him in the defensive zone and without his contributions up front. So when Patrice came back the next season with less than stellar play, and his customary year off in his 2-year cycle; people were starting to be a little less than impressed with the highest paid player on the team.
By this point, Patrice was being booed every game. Whether it was the booing or the years catching up with him, one thing was abundantly clear – the offensive defence star from 1991 was gone. By February, the pressure had taken its toll. Brisebois took leave for heart problems brought on by stress. No one could forget his ill-advised trip to France against doctor's orders in that time.
The final year of his no-trade clause opened with a condemnation of the general booing from Bob Gainey. It initially stopped the booing and seemed to lift a weight from Patrice's shoulders. I wouldn't say he suddenly fulfilled all the promise of 15 years earlier; but in the least he proved less of a constant distraction and managed to minimise the damage he did so the Canadiens could make the playoffs.
Those playoffs would be the last time (or so we thought) that Patrice would step on the ice for the Canadiens. In a rather anti-climactic end, Patrice was told the Canadiens would rather not pick up their option for the next season. The untradeable defenceman was gone, for a while anyway.
The Canadiens dollar
More Canadiens dollars have ended up in Patrice Brisebois' garage than probably should have. In fact, he is among the best compensated (by the Canadiens) players of all time. If estimates from 2004 are to be trusted (and I don't see why they wouldn't be), together with his $2.9 million from the past two seasons, Brisebois will have cost the Habs over $22 million for a career. Only Saku Koivu has made more.
The returns
A more recent history of the Patrice Brisebois stories is highlighted by his re-signing and re-signing again with his Canadiens. In fact, the Canadiens rescued him from outright retirement as another team had run out of patience and use for him in 2006.
It has been a nice story for the player, but I think many of us wonder whether the Canadiens exist to please the alums of the team, or indeed to win. Signed both times ahead of younger and more intriguing options, he was sold to us as a cheap 8th defenceman. Yet both times, he was given bonuses to negate any notion of value for money. And both times he has been deployed as a 5th or 6th when push came to shove.
Last season, this was met with stoicism – one season, we can bear it. This season, I can't tell you how many times I've read "1000 games, can we get it over with?", or "Can we get this retirement pushed forward?".
In fairness to the player, he has done what the coaches asked and can't be blamed for their weaknesses. He has also tried his utmost (I think) to keep his game simpler and limit the flashbacks of 1996-2004 to a minimum. One highlight was a playoff game with a timely winning goal. There have been lowlights too.
The booing
It is a very common misconception nowadays that Brisebois started getting booed after he was awarded the biggest (and most ridiculously out of whack) contract in Montreal Canadiens history. This is simply untrue. And it does nothing but attempt to gloss over the fact that people were booing Brisebois for his mistakes (presumably in hopes that a GM might trade him?) long before he made $4 million a year. The booing began before that point, for certain, in a futile effort to get incapable GMs to do something about our number one defenceman position. It was only intensified by that ridiculous contract.
In fact, in 1998-99, when awarded a whopping $1.8 million a year, he was already the second best compensated defenceman on the team. That contract was three years in length at a nice $6 million in all. If being overpaid was the source of the boos, it had its origin in that contract of 1998.
As I pointed to above, Brisebois' play and his ego were on separate courses from about 1995 (post-Roy). It could be said that he was thrust unfairly into both ice time and spotlight he couldn't handle. And perhaps it would have been something to be forgiven given a show of a little humility. No show was ever forthcoming, not back then anyway. The booing he received was as much due to the response he gave to errors (both his and others) as it was to his play.
The situation as it currently stands is completely different. Brisebois to his credit has been knocked down a few notches. Humility is now part of his vocabulary, at least some of the time. Any booing (or hand wringing at this blog, for example) is probably more frustration for Bob Gainey at having signed the veteran in place of other more attractive or forward-looking options.
Awaiting the 1000th
It was clever how Carbonneau sat Brisebois for this road trip. How clever will it be to bring him back just when O'Byrne has started to play well? He'll be back though, as sure as Carey Price will be the only one to reap the benefit of the win-you're in policy...
When he plays in Montreal, he will receive thunderous cheers. Why not? His achievement is monumental (consider this player and then consider how few players reach 1000 games – monumental doesn't even do it justice).
Many will be cheering in hope that it will be the end. However, I think we're deluded if we think that. Has he already played his last playoff game? Will he be satisfied with 1000 regular season games, when 1000 with the Canadiens is so close? (he's at 974 right now!)
If he reaches that milestone he will be the 12th player in the history of the team to do so. His company would include 9 players whose numbers are retired along with 2 whose were not:
1436 – Henri Richard
1405 – Larry Robinson
1342 – Bob Gainey
1287 – Jean Beliveau
1131 – Claude Provost
1115 – Yvan Cournoyer
1111 – Maurice Richard
1073 – Guy Carbonneau
1040 – Serge Savard
1025 – Guy Lafleur
1013 – Doug Harvey
Will I cheer Brisebois? Probably. 1000 games is nothing to sneeze at. Oh, go on, you'll cheer too. It'll be a strange feeling...
Friday, September 04, 2009
Philippe Lefebvre's Big Habs Break
The Montreal Canadiens announced the invitees for their rookie camp yesterday.
The list is a who's who of draft picks from the last few seasons, with the critical exclusion of US college players like Louis Leblanc, Kristo, Quailer and Fischer. But there were some interesting names in the mix as well.
Gabriel Dumont remains on the list. Although he is injured and will not play in games, one can only assume that he will be invited to the initiation events, meetings and such. It's good to see he seems to have made it stick.
Petteri Simila appears to be coming, which is interesting considering he'll be the only European-based player to make the trip. I suppose that shows just how dire the Canadiens depth at the position of goaltender is – presumably, this represents a bit of a fast-tracking for the gargantuan Finn.
Joe Stejskal is coming, which means he isn't a college player any longer. The lack of an asterisk tells me he isn't signed by the Canadiens or Bulldogs yet, so this represents a good chance for him to carve out a place. A late pick, with little fanfare, he seems to have a combination of skills that if pieced together right could produce an NHL defenceman in the future. Nothing to get too excited about, but if you remember the Alex Henry call-up, then you'll know why I'm even mentioning this depth guy.
Finally, of interest are a couple of local guys essentially getting a tryout to show what they can do. Frederick St. Denis is a defensive prospect getting on in years and parked behind a bumper crop at his position. His inclusion is as a Hamilton hopeful rather than a Habs player. Philippe Lefebvre is on a formal tryout at the tender age of 18. Undrafted, he still represents a real development opportunity for the organization.
Philippe Lefebvre
The scouting report on Lefebvre...
... is not the most flattering I have ever read, nor does it scream sign him up. But in Phil's case, I don't really feel it matters too much. You see Lefebvre has stumbled onto this critical opportunity at exactly the right time in his career and in the cycle of the Canadiens development. The way I see it, he has three very important things going in his favour this September:
1) He was born in Quebec. He played in Quebec. Born in Trois Rivieres, to be precise, he played his early hockey there. In 2007, he put up timely numbers to place him in the sights of QMJHL drafters. Ranked 6th going into the draft (Leblanc was ranked 2nd), he ended up as the 2nd overall choice only behind NHL first-rounder Simon Despres.
His pedigree as a Quebec-born player is all there. He has come up as a star from midget, got noticed at the age of 16 for the Q draft and has since made good progress in the QMJHL. His only hiccough is falling behind his more talented peers to go undrafted at the NHL levels – which was a surprise to some.
2) He played for Guy Boucher. Perhaps not all of you know the success story that was the Drummondville Voltigeurs this past season. But the team, together with coach Guy Boucher managed a monumental turnaround to go from last to setting the pace and winning the championship in style.
Guy Boucher has since moved on in his career, bu only as far as Hamilton. He looks like a coaching prospect for the future Canadiens teams.
So, playing for Guy Boucher then proves to be a major tick on your hockey CV if you hope to make the Canadiens. Guy must surely have the rosiest memories of his year in Drummondville and will likely have some affinity for the players who helped vault him to the next tier. Indeed, the Canadiens already have a Voltigeurs presence – signing Dany Masse and then pursuing both Gabriel Dumont and Phil Lefebvre after Guy came on board. It's to be presumed that Lefebvre is held in some esteem by Boucher as he is the only repeat try-out (sans contract) from the development camp to this one.
3) He plays on the wing. More than anything, Lefebvre's position stands out as a massive asset. The Canadiens rookie camp list alone shows an embarrassing lack of talent on the wings. To go with 9 centres, there are a mere 7 wingers in all. One is the injured Dumont, one is probable washout JT Wyman and two others show little promise of offering more than muscle in the future (Conboy and Neilson). To do the count that leaves us with Max Pacioretty, Brock Trotter and now the try-out Philippe Lefebvre. His opportunity based on that alone is immense.
But take for a minute the overall Canadiens depth chart into account as well. Wingers beyond the top three in the organization represent a red flag for the Habs (second only to insurance goaltending). The depth is so sketchy that Georges Laraque actually fits on the NHL reserve roster without dispute. The remaining number would barely be enough to scratch out a team in Hamilton, much less Cincinnati as well.
Of course, centres will play the wings – they'll have to. But even there, Lefebvre's opportunity looks open. It will be a matter of eclipsing Ryan White and Tom Pyatt to earn his AHL shot.
I can't remember a time where a try-out had such an open door as this. All that remains for Lefebvre to do is display what he is capable of – a bit of digging, a bit of opportunism and a few goals here and there. I wish him luck.
The other side of the coin
While I feel genuine excitement for the players that may grasp a contract from a try-out, as a serious Canadiens fan I have to question the wisdom in leaving holes like this right up to September.
While Gainey did a masterful thing in signing Mathieu Darche, it seems. For me it seems there may be room for one or two more AHL-willing, yet NHL-capable wingers to be added to the mix. Names that I browsed led me to few real standouts, but I could see an try-out offers for the main camp to Michel Ouellet (UFA, Van) or Ryan Bayda (UFA, Car) as sensible steps at this point.
The list is a who's who of draft picks from the last few seasons, with the critical exclusion of US college players like Louis Leblanc, Kristo, Quailer and Fischer. But there were some interesting names in the mix as well.
Gabriel Dumont remains on the list. Although he is injured and will not play in games, one can only assume that he will be invited to the initiation events, meetings and such. It's good to see he seems to have made it stick.
Petteri Simila appears to be coming, which is interesting considering he'll be the only European-based player to make the trip. I suppose that shows just how dire the Canadiens depth at the position of goaltender is – presumably, this represents a bit of a fast-tracking for the gargantuan Finn.
Joe Stejskal is coming, which means he isn't a college player any longer. The lack of an asterisk tells me he isn't signed by the Canadiens or Bulldogs yet, so this represents a good chance for him to carve out a place. A late pick, with little fanfare, he seems to have a combination of skills that if pieced together right could produce an NHL defenceman in the future. Nothing to get too excited about, but if you remember the Alex Henry call-up, then you'll know why I'm even mentioning this depth guy.
Finally, of interest are a couple of local guys essentially getting a tryout to show what they can do. Frederick St. Denis is a defensive prospect getting on in years and parked behind a bumper crop at his position. His inclusion is as a Hamilton hopeful rather than a Habs player. Philippe Lefebvre is on a formal tryout at the tender age of 18. Undrafted, he still represents a real development opportunity for the organization.
Philippe Lefebvre
The scouting report on Lefebvre...
With a knack for digging out loose pucks and sliding them home, Lefebvre's game would be more effective if he was able to fight for positioning among the bigger and stronger players in the league. At 5'11 and 186 pounds, he needs to get stronger and be more willing to go into traffic in order to improve his overall game.
... is not the most flattering I have ever read, nor does it scream sign him up. But in Phil's case, I don't really feel it matters too much. You see Lefebvre has stumbled onto this critical opportunity at exactly the right time in his career and in the cycle of the Canadiens development. The way I see it, he has three very important things going in his favour this September:
1) He was born in Quebec. He played in Quebec. Born in Trois Rivieres, to be precise, he played his early hockey there. In 2007, he put up timely numbers to place him in the sights of QMJHL drafters. Ranked 6th going into the draft (Leblanc was ranked 2nd), he ended up as the 2nd overall choice only behind NHL first-rounder Simon Despres.
His pedigree as a Quebec-born player is all there. He has come up as a star from midget, got noticed at the age of 16 for the Q draft and has since made good progress in the QMJHL. His only hiccough is falling behind his more talented peers to go undrafted at the NHL levels – which was a surprise to some.
2) He played for Guy Boucher. Perhaps not all of you know the success story that was the Drummondville Voltigeurs this past season. But the team, together with coach Guy Boucher managed a monumental turnaround to go from last to setting the pace and winning the championship in style.
Guy Boucher has since moved on in his career, bu only as far as Hamilton. He looks like a coaching prospect for the future Canadiens teams.
So, playing for Guy Boucher then proves to be a major tick on your hockey CV if you hope to make the Canadiens. Guy must surely have the rosiest memories of his year in Drummondville and will likely have some affinity for the players who helped vault him to the next tier. Indeed, the Canadiens already have a Voltigeurs presence – signing Dany Masse and then pursuing both Gabriel Dumont and Phil Lefebvre after Guy came on board. It's to be presumed that Lefebvre is held in some esteem by Boucher as he is the only repeat try-out (sans contract) from the development camp to this one.
3) He plays on the wing. More than anything, Lefebvre's position stands out as a massive asset. The Canadiens rookie camp list alone shows an embarrassing lack of talent on the wings. To go with 9 centres, there are a mere 7 wingers in all. One is the injured Dumont, one is probable washout JT Wyman and two others show little promise of offering more than muscle in the future (Conboy and Neilson). To do the count that leaves us with Max Pacioretty, Brock Trotter and now the try-out Philippe Lefebvre. His opportunity based on that alone is immense.
But take for a minute the overall Canadiens depth chart into account as well. Wingers beyond the top three in the organization represent a red flag for the Habs (second only to insurance goaltending). The depth is so sketchy that Georges Laraque actually fits on the NHL reserve roster without dispute. The remaining number would barely be enough to scratch out a team in Hamilton, much less Cincinnati as well.
Of course, centres will play the wings – they'll have to. But even there, Lefebvre's opportunity looks open. It will be a matter of eclipsing Ryan White and Tom Pyatt to earn his AHL shot.
I can't remember a time where a try-out had such an open door as this. All that remains for Lefebvre to do is display what he is capable of – a bit of digging, a bit of opportunism and a few goals here and there. I wish him luck.
The other side of the coin
While I feel genuine excitement for the players that may grasp a contract from a try-out, as a serious Canadiens fan I have to question the wisdom in leaving holes like this right up to September.
While Gainey did a masterful thing in signing Mathieu Darche, it seems. For me it seems there may be room for one or two more AHL-willing, yet NHL-capable wingers to be added to the mix. Names that I browsed led me to few real standouts, but I could see an try-out offers for the main camp to Michel Ouellet (UFA, Van) or Ryan Bayda (UFA, Car) as sensible steps at this point.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Pollockisms: On How To Run The Canadiens, For Those Listening
Yesterday Dennis Kane posted a very good collection of quotes from the late, great Sam Pollock.
Something of a hero of mine (as an armchair GM, he presents the ultimate example to strive for), I was very interested to read the list in its entirety. I recommend the Pollockites among you do the same.
Because Dennis left the door open and because I still find myself in awe of some of the common sense the man uttered, I picked a few that I reflected and elaborated on a bit further:
Sound advice for the salary cap era, and about 30 years earlier.
That whole piece I wrote about Chiarelli making his own mess in Boston could have been introduced or summed up by this very quote. What Pollock knew was that how you pay the minor leaguers throughout the organisation has a trickle down effect to everyone else.
If one extrapolates what he says here to depth, you may construe that depth, while important is not worth digging a deep salary hole for yourself. You can only ice 18 skaters and 2 goalies a game, so in effect having NHL quality depth beyond that is a luxury. It sounds to me like trader Sam would have been keeping a few spare parts about, but keeping a sensible lid on the situation.
Contrast this to the people out there who are still hollering for a Canadiens trade, or another signing just because it would fit under the cap. It's worth reflecting on the idea that depth is no more than a luxury and that having more than 18 NHL skaters around (even more so in the salary cap era) is a tactic to be questioned and not necessarily lauded. Yes injuries will happen, but I suspect Pollock would be one to deal with situations like that as they arise, rather than sacrifice something off the top-end talent in order to stock up on insurance.
The other concept in his quote is one of salary escalation. Some players nowadays come out of the gates with way too much earning potential, and for what? They'd all play for league minimum, I'd wager. If Pollock were around, I suspect he'd be a much bigger fan of the latest Latendresse signing than he would of the Tuukka Rask monstrosity.
Remuneration for services rendered. What a novel concept.
Again, the NHL has changed a bit since Pollock ruled the roost, but I suspect he'd stick by this.
Gainey had this almost right, but fell down when he misunderstood the unique chance to negotiate during a season. Short-term contracts to Higgins, Plekanec, Komisarek and co. were genius at the outset. The players were paid well within their talent bracket (Pollock would be proud). However, by letting them all go to free agency, he saddled himself with unnecessary risk.
In effect, the mid-term new contract offer is the re-negotiation built in to a long-term deal, isn't it? Playing well? How about a raise? Not playing so well? Would you sign on for the same again?
Though I'm hard on Gainey, I think he's been restrained. Paul Holmgren, the king of the long and unsophisticated contract would not impress Sam Pollock. As Sam said, how could one side of the arrangements he's meted out not be unhappy at one time or another. We've already seen it in Philly with Hatcher, Rathje and now Briere. Don't be surprised when Mike Richards or the Flyers sour on that deal, or when the Pronger behemoth goes belly up.
Pollock was more than a good manager for the Canadiens, he was a GM with as much fire for competition in the meeting room as his players had on the ice. The reason he was steps ahead of his colleagues is because the job was no jolly to him, but an arena where he was pitted against rivals for the ultimate goal – the Stanley Cup. If more GMs in the NHL today thought half as much as Sam Pollock did about the game and its future, this league would be a much better spectacle.
Here's to you Mr. Pollock.
Something of a hero of mine (as an armchair GM, he presents the ultimate example to strive for), I was very interested to read the list in its entirety. I recommend the Pollockites among you do the same.
Because Dennis left the door open and because I still find myself in awe of some of the common sense the man uttered, I picked a few that I reflected and elaborated on a bit further:
“You can’t pay 10 minor leaguers NHL salaries just to keep them. Giving a prospect $40,000 instead of the $25,000 he should make may not seem like much, and to some it didn’t, but 10 times $15,000 can put you in the red in a hurry.”
Sound advice for the salary cap era, and about 30 years earlier.
That whole piece I wrote about Chiarelli making his own mess in Boston could have been introduced or summed up by this very quote. What Pollock knew was that how you pay the minor leaguers throughout the organisation has a trickle down effect to everyone else.
If one extrapolates what he says here to depth, you may construe that depth, while important is not worth digging a deep salary hole for yourself. You can only ice 18 skaters and 2 goalies a game, so in effect having NHL quality depth beyond that is a luxury. It sounds to me like trader Sam would have been keeping a few spare parts about, but keeping a sensible lid on the situation.
Contrast this to the people out there who are still hollering for a Canadiens trade, or another signing just because it would fit under the cap. It's worth reflecting on the idea that depth is no more than a luxury and that having more than 18 NHL skaters around (even more so in the salary cap era) is a tactic to be questioned and not necessarily lauded. Yes injuries will happen, but I suspect Pollock would be one to deal with situations like that as they arise, rather than sacrifice something off the top-end talent in order to stock up on insurance.
The other concept in his quote is one of salary escalation. Some players nowadays come out of the gates with way too much earning potential, and for what? They'd all play for league minimum, I'd wager. If Pollock were around, I suspect he'd be a much bigger fan of the latest Latendresse signing than he would of the Tuukka Rask monstrosity.
"Long-term contracts are useless unless a reasonable form of renegotiation is built in. Otherwise, one side is bound to be unhappy somewhere down the line.”
Remuneration for services rendered. What a novel concept.
Again, the NHL has changed a bit since Pollock ruled the roost, but I suspect he'd stick by this.
Gainey had this almost right, but fell down when he misunderstood the unique chance to negotiate during a season. Short-term contracts to Higgins, Plekanec, Komisarek and co. were genius at the outset. The players were paid well within their talent bracket (Pollock would be proud). However, by letting them all go to free agency, he saddled himself with unnecessary risk.
In effect, the mid-term new contract offer is the re-negotiation built in to a long-term deal, isn't it? Playing well? How about a raise? Not playing so well? Would you sign on for the same again?
Though I'm hard on Gainey, I think he's been restrained. Paul Holmgren, the king of the long and unsophisticated contract would not impress Sam Pollock. As Sam said, how could one side of the arrangements he's meted out not be unhappy at one time or another. We've already seen it in Philly with Hatcher, Rathje and now Briere. Don't be surprised when Mike Richards or the Flyers sour on that deal, or when the Pronger behemoth goes belly up.
Pollock was more than a good manager for the Canadiens, he was a GM with as much fire for competition in the meeting room as his players had on the ice. The reason he was steps ahead of his colleagues is because the job was no jolly to him, but an arena where he was pitted against rivals for the ultimate goal – the Stanley Cup. If more GMs in the NHL today thought half as much as Sam Pollock did about the game and its future, this league would be a much better spectacle.
Here's to you Mr. Pollock.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Team Building
Koivu Wants Contract: Give Him A Contract
Team Building
Koivu Wants Contract: Give Him A Contract
RDS reports that Koivu is warm to the idea that he could play his whole career in one uniform like Daniel Alfredsson should now.
I say sign him up.
Players like Koivu are rare and cannot be obtained easily in this league. He is a leader, a consummate professional and an excellent forward to boot. His ability to elevate his play come big games is well documented and completely invaluable to this team. If he would like to stay – he should.
To borrow from last season, I direct you to "Why We Value Koivu" as my justification for committing finances to an aging, diminutive centre. In brief, these were my 10 points in support of our captain:
That's my case Mr. Gainey. I hope you consider it.
I say sign him up.
Players like Koivu are rare and cannot be obtained easily in this league. He is a leader, a consummate professional and an excellent forward to boot. His ability to elevate his play come big games is well documented and completely invaluable to this team. If he would like to stay – he should.
To borrow from last season, I direct you to "Why We Value Koivu" as my justification for committing finances to an aging, diminutive centre. In brief, these were my 10 points in support of our captain:
1) He gives effort every night
2) He is very strong in possession
3) He thrives in every role he is given
4) He can make every winger on this team a better player
5) He has incredible endurance
6) When he has a "bad" season he is far from bad
7) He represents the kind of player we would like our youngsters to develop into
8) He has seen how far this team has come
9) He thrives in pressure games
10) He desperately wants to help Montreal to the same success as Finland
That's my case Mr. Gainey. I hope you consider it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)