It's nearly mid-August. There's only so much one can read about Erik Cole.
Pierre Gauthier needs to come back from vacation and sign more than a goaltender for training camp drills, because the 400 blogs and 77 media personnel who cover this hockey team are gagging for some news.
Of course, there are other reasons to move: money to players that could help the team instead of Molsons, replace the bottom tier forwards that were lost, bolster Hamilton, insurance policy.
Players available
One mustn't only look at Gauthier, it's been a very slow summer from the vast majority of teams. One gets the feeling that Eklund is waiting for this domino or that domino to fall before paying for his site will be "worthwhile" again.
There are players available, though. In fact, several of the decent free agents from July 1 are still available for signing today. For those who are starting to think that people are putting too much weight of expectation on Cole, here are a few forwards that could help the team a little (and help the poor reporters a lot):
Chris Clark (RW):
He's not going to set the world on fire (or score 30 goals again), but he could probably quite capably replace Jeff Halpern and push guys like Moen to compete more for ice time.
Mike Grier (RW):
Always thought he was a good example of someone who is not only big, but can play big. As he's aged, he's also learned to be very good defensively.
JP Dumont (RW):
Let's get realistic. One of the top 6 is going to have a tough year, probably two. The GM can't take the attitude that signing a guy like Dumont will close the door. Having three good lines too much for Habs fans? It was too much for Rejean Houle...
And here are a couple of D that could make the team and make the mix back there more interesting:
Scott Hannan (D):
Wouldn't do it for his previous salary, but surely a summer of waiting has him thinking of discounting his services. Like the forwards, having an extra capable guy around couldn't/wouldn't hurt too much.
Jack Hillen (D):
25, unsigned. Maybe that's a red flag. Maybe his contract demands are sky high. But at the right price, why not Jack Hillen? It might taint the dream lineups that have been on the bulletin boards, but who cares?
All of these guys could be temporary upgrades on whoever is slotted into the spots now and (again not kidding ourselves)injuries will ensure young players still get their chances.
At the very least if we could stop hearing about Erik Cole, any signing would be a good thing.
Showing posts with label summer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label summer. Show all posts
Monday, August 08, 2011
Friday, November 14, 2008
Georges Laraque
The Summer Swindle
Georges Laraque
The Summer Swindle
Anyone who understands French should read this article: "L'Arnaaue Laraque". It's the usual interesting look from Fred and his friends at En Route Pour La Coupe
The gist of the article for all of you is that Laraque is turning out, thus far, to be a pretty useless component of the Canadiens. The title roughly translated means "The Laraque swindle" and is a very nice play on words, if I do say so myself. The article mirrors my own thoughts so well, I don't need to rewrite it – I'll just highlight and comment:
The first point Fred makes is that Laraque was supposedly brought here to strike fear into the hearts of opponents. To make sure that our skilled players could get on with it without being intimidated. He quite rightly points out that this has not been the case at all. Kostitsyn was pounded into the boards despite Georges playing, Price was butt-ended and Lapierre was head-hunted.
So, the verdict on intimidation: None.
The second point he rightly makes is that after the fact someone as big and rough as Laraque is supposedly there to make people pay. Though I don't agree with the whole code thing, the fact is the current NHL is run this way – that's why we have Georges. But where has Georges been after these hits Fred asks? The answer: nowhere to be seen.
So the verdict on sending a message after the fact: Hopeless.
Fred in speaking to his Oiler fan buddies heard that Laraque's proclamation were that he would only fight heavyweights. Laraque doesn't fight just anyone. Not Ruutu, not Sauer, not Grabovski, not Mike Richards. He'll fight Boogaard maybe, Shelley.
Ooh, that's close to the mark, Fred. As is his stinging conclusion:
I concur – A player that can't play, can't hit, won't stand up for teammates unless it's organised the day before, doesn't scare anyone – what is he here for?
Just last night, there was a comical endorsement of this whole affair. Milan Lucic was being his usual smirk-faced self. Brunet got all hot when Laraque brushed up against him – highlighting it on the broadcast (I can't say I was very impressed myself). Later in the game, Lucic has been taking liberties and a Hab wants to fight him. In goes Mike Komisarek.
Add it all up, and I calculate that Laraque is a useless piece of the Canadiens. Nevermind that there are no goons on 50% of NHL teams now. It's totally ridiculous. We've been swindled. Plain and simple.
Bring up Greg Stewart!
The gist of the article for all of you is that Laraque is turning out, thus far, to be a pretty useless component of the Canadiens. The title roughly translated means "The Laraque swindle" and is a very nice play on words, if I do say so myself. The article mirrors my own thoughts so well, I don't need to rewrite it – I'll just highlight and comment:
The first point Fred makes is that Laraque was supposedly brought here to strike fear into the hearts of opponents. To make sure that our skilled players could get on with it without being intimidated. He quite rightly points out that this has not been the case at all. Kostitsyn was pounded into the boards despite Georges playing, Price was butt-ended and Lapierre was head-hunted.
So, the verdict on intimidation: None.
The second point he rightly makes is that after the fact someone as big and rough as Laraque is supposedly there to make people pay. Though I don't agree with the whole code thing, the fact is the current NHL is run this way – that's why we have Georges. But where has Georges been after these hits Fred asks? The answer: nowhere to be seen.
So the verdict on sending a message after the fact: Hopeless.
Fred in speaking to his Oiler fan buddies heard that Laraque's proclamation were that he would only fight heavyweights. Laraque doesn't fight just anyone. Not Ruutu, not Sauer, not Grabovski, not Mike Richards. He'll fight Boogaard maybe, Shelley.
Finalement, tout ce que Laraque veut, c'est donner son show de boxe. Il est pas là pour défendre personne, car ce ne sont habituellement pas les toughs des autres équipes qui écoeurent les joueurs de la Flanelle.
Finally, all Laraque wants is to be able to put on a boxing show. He's not there to defend anyone, because it's not usually the goons from opposing teams that get in the faces of the Habs players.
Ooh, that's close to the mark, Fred. As is his stinging conclusion:
On ne peut pas se fier sur lui pour défendre ses coéquipiers.
On ne peut pas penser qu'il donnera de percutantes mises-en-échec (il est trop lent).
Il ne peut pas nous aider grandement avec ses habiletés de hockeyeur.
À quoi sert-il donc?
I concur – A player that can't play, can't hit, won't stand up for teammates unless it's organised the day before, doesn't scare anyone – what is he here for?
Just last night, there was a comical endorsement of this whole affair. Milan Lucic was being his usual smirk-faced self. Brunet got all hot when Laraque brushed up against him – highlighting it on the broadcast (I can't say I was very impressed myself). Later in the game, Lucic has been taking liberties and a Hab wants to fight him. In goes Mike Komisarek.
Add it all up, and I calculate that Laraque is a useless piece of the Canadiens. Nevermind that there are no goons on 50% of NHL teams now. It's totally ridiculous. We've been swindled. Plain and simple.
Bring up Greg Stewart!
Monday, August 11, 2008
When Is The Best Time To Trade/Trade For A Star?
With the Olympics underway, there is admittedly less all-out focus on hockey for the time being here at Lions in Winter. We are, however,always on the lookout for something to comment on and discuss.
The other day as I was scanning some of my usual corners of the internet, I came across a great title for a piece by Spector on his blog: "When’s the Best Time to Trade/Trade for An NHL Star?"
Spector talks about the Bouwmeester case prompted him to post on this topic. Let me tell you, it shows. It should have been titled: "When is the best time to trade Bouwmeester?" or "Should Jacques Martin trade Bouwmeester?". As such, i don't feel so bad for taking his title (almost) and expanding on the issue to the point which I would have liked to have seen it discussed myself.
Sure, trading is down in the NHL. That is a fact. But, that doesn't mean we have to be resigned that our GM should follow the example of Florida's stumbling example. Personally, I don't think trading is outmoded either. A good GM for example can still exploit a weak GM in the right circumstances, even in the salary cap world, even (heaven forbid) outside of the two weeks that precede and incorporate the trade deadline. For me the matter is academic – there are certain factors that dictate the laws of the trade and these have nothing to do with Bouwmeester or how many defencemen Florida have or want.
Of course, any assessment of the timing of trades will be subjective. However, I like to think that the way I think about it is a little more scientific than waiting for the trade deadline...
Elements of trading
The first thing to understand in trading is that trades are completed based largely on perceptions – not necessarily on facts. A GM will inevitably watch his own team play more than any other. He will only have access to the current practice and training of his own team. In this way, the home GM will always have an advantage over his trading partner when it comes to his own player. This is especially true for the youngest players who have had less exposure around the league. Whereas an older player may have played 500+ games, played for multiple teams and been exposed to many of the league's GMs; a young prospect is really only known by the organisation in which he plays.
If a prospect is making giant strides, chances are the value in a trade would be low (see Brad Boyes). On the flip side, if a prospect is showing signs of dropping below expectations for himself, then the value to the home team could be increased in a trade. From my point of view, the first rule of trading is always to ship out players who are perceived to be better across the league at large than in the organisation. My classic example of this would be the big player that some GMs (see Bob Clarke) would drastically overvalue.
Trading a star can be tricky here as lots is generally known about that player, but it can be done. However, this kind of thinking can help you land a star for a lower price. A recent favourite here was the Alex Kovalev trade. Bob Gainey masterfully offered one of a group of prospects to the Rangers, including the Hamilton's leading scorer Josef Balej. The Rangers falling into the classic trap of unfamiliarity with the goods opted for Balej instead of Plekanec. Now, I don't know how the negotiation went, but by offering the offensive "jewel" of the organisation at the time, Gainey played on perceptions very well. Obviously, Balej never made an impact and Kovalev just had his most impressive all-around campaign. We won the trade in a landslide. Nice payback on NYC who pulled this overrated prospect stunt on the Expos two or three times a season.
The next element in any trade, I think, is realising that every NHL player will be trending. That is to say that a player will either be improving, remaining stable or getting worse. This is another bit of knowledge that only the home GM can know (at least at first).
To take advantage of the trending, ideally, a GM must trade a falling star before the rest of the league knows he is falling. This is a difficult one, since just offering a star for trade would raise suspicions in even the most amateur of GMs, I would think. The art here would be to get the other GM to ask you about the falling star – make him think it's his idea. In my opinion, this is an art that few GMs seem to have been able to master over the last few years. How Joe Thornton for example could fetch such a pathetic return can only be explained by the hesitation with which he was dealt with. Ditto for many Canadiens trades in the dark days of Rejean Houle, where all the world would know about the problems before we got the 4th round pick back for our captain.
A rule for trading, for me, is trading a player at peak value. The cardinal sin is trading them at the lowest ebb. Being a realist (even back in 2002), it occurred to me that the Canadiens' Jose Theodore probably overachieved. What's more his two trophies and undue credit for beating the Bruins in what was actually a fairly high-scoring series on the whole, made his value immense. If a GM thinking as I did had received a call for Jose's services and accepted, I am quite sure we'd be enjoying watching a decent goalscorer instead of remembering our suffering through David Aebischer.
Of course, in trades, there is also the element of organisational need . Trading from a position of need (after injury, for example) can be very costly. Whereas, trading with a partner who can only see their own current need can be very fruitful. When Nashville needed a star centre to put them over the top a couple of years ago, Philadelphia picked their pockets clean. Based on Nashville's experience, I wouldn't be trading for a star at the deadline. On the other hand, if you can find your Nashville to trade with, trade a star, by all means.
Contract status has always been a major factor too. In my opinion, free agency is still the number one problem here. The salary cap is a hassle for sure, but can be dealt with – at any time. Trading a player in the last year of the contract diminishes the value. This is certainly true the more games go by. By the trade deadline, you are talking about trading the player for 15 games and playoffs. History has shown that people won't pay as much for these players – unless, unless, unless they sense they are filling a great need (see Nashville). If the player is on an overvalued contract, waiting may be the only way to ship him, mind you (Bill Guerin), but most legitimate stars don't fit into this category.
The final factor for me is "short memory". Look across the league over the years and you'll see plenty of examples of short memory among GMs. A player after a good playoffs will carry amazing value for the summer for example. A player off to a poor start in the fall/winter may drop in value by a good prospect or two in return. Playoffs are the best at generating short memory gains. Trading for the playoff hero, in my opinion, is a daft move for 25 out of 30 teams in the league. yet, most GMs covet these players, nonetheless. Many of these examples manifest themselves in ridiculous signings rather than trades, but short memory plays a part in trades too. Going for someone who is already considered a star after a great playoff run might be OK, but trading for someone who isn't generally a star at this point is generally a move to be rued later on. Trading for someone who has had a bad stretch could land you a bargain, however (Erik Cole).
So when should a trade involving a star be made?
If you're a GM and looking to trade a star for another star, some key players or just prospects, I would focus on an in-season trade. Assuming your star is a consistent contributor with an established reputation (i.e., not Ribeiro), then your trade should be timed to maximise the return you can get. You will want to make sure you have proper recent scouting of the the team you are trading with (preferably NHL game action) and that you have a feel for trends and historical play as well as short-term success.
Probably the major factor by which you can ramp up your return is by targeting a team with need. From the point of view of need, the trade deadline can provide some of the very best opportunities to trade, given you have the right commodity. (If you are unfortunate enough to have a star who is the wrong commodity – goaltender 2008 – then you are barking up the wrong tree at the trade deadline with a trade). However, I happen to think that you will find more potential trade partners and just as much sense of need if you target January as the trade month. Teams desperate to make the playoffs will perhaps be hasty in giving away too much, and championship-hungry teams are always on the look out for stars, no matter what time of year.
If you're a GM trying to acquire a star, you need to be a bit more wily. Naturally, don't play into the other GM's hands by giving opportunity to scout properly, see your players or all that good stuff mentioned above.
If you're trading for a true star, one whose value is unlikely to fluctuate significantly, then I would do it in the summer. You can package one of your recent draft picks, a prospect who is not progressing as expected or hoped or someone whose lasting memory of the past season was playoff overachievement (Umberger). I'm happy to say, this is what Bob Gainey managed to achieve in his Tanguay deal – taking advantage of salary concerns and an overvaluation of the draft pool (in all likelihood) to land a consistent star.
Middle ground
Given the two windows of opportunity, you'd expect the GMs of the league to find some middle ground. if they did, we'd see some trades from October to December time. We don't. Why is this?
I think one factor is that GMs are generally not looking to make trades as it makes their lives more complicated. Why saddle yourself with a salary issue – it only makes more work. Considering that many GMs are also horrendous judges of talent (see the free agent signings this year), it makes sense that they would procrastinate until the very last second.
Another reason for this is the inconsequential nature of the NHL season. Why would a team bother to challenge Detroit in December and January when winning the league is so meaningless? History will show chemistry is the answer, but these guys have no memory for history, remember?
Mastering the trade
In those simple scenarios, the answer seems relatively simple. However, as we all know, things are rarely so simple. Most of the time, for instance, the star in question will not be a stable producer, but will be trending up or down. Most of the time, the perception of his value will be higher or lower than his own GM's assessment around the league. Mastering the trade requires mastering the art of anticipation, combined with a good eye for talent (and lack of it).
In fact, while trading a star or for a star can be beneficial, the trades that become landslides are often the unexpected ones. What's more, these trades should not be as restrictive as trades involving stars. These are the trades where rising stars are targeted, or falling stars are turned for a profit. The margin for a win in these exchanges is huge.
If anything, I would argue that these trades must not be done anywhere near the deadline. The deadline is a too cluttered for people thinking about trading their minor players. Owners either want to save a few million in the close of the season, or want to make a big impression with their fans for marketing in th playoffs. These are homework trades and should be happening from now until January. Again, they aren't. Probably for the same reasons as stated above.
Back to the Olympics, and I begin to realise that pursuit of excellence is a full-time job. There are no summer holidays, no off-seasons. To think that building a dynasty in these times is impossible is the same closed-mindedness that makes you skip your 2-minute race for fear that you'll be too tired for your 1-minute race. The excellent pursue excellence in all areas of what they do. The New England Patriots have proven that salary caps do not preclude dynasties. The Detroit Red Wings are making the case that hockey is not some special exception to that rule.
As with many facets of team management post-salary cap, trading is an area that remains to be exploited. There is no good reason why a "good" GM shouldn't be looking for trades all season long and well into the summer. I hope, as with all things, that the Canadiens are one of the first teams to step up to take advantage of other teams in this way. Sign and trade Mats Sundin? Trade a young winger? Trade some of those Minnesota Dmen? Wait to see how things develop and we'll be just like the rest – behind the eight ball (read Detroit) – again.
The other day as I was scanning some of my usual corners of the internet, I came across a great title for a piece by Spector on his blog: "When’s the Best Time to Trade/Trade for An NHL Star?"
Spector talks about the Bouwmeester case prompted him to post on this topic. Let me tell you, it shows. It should have been titled: "When is the best time to trade Bouwmeester?" or "Should Jacques Martin trade Bouwmeester?". As such, i don't feel so bad for taking his title (almost) and expanding on the issue to the point which I would have liked to have seen it discussed myself.
Sure, trading is down in the NHL. That is a fact. But, that doesn't mean we have to be resigned that our GM should follow the example of Florida's stumbling example. Personally, I don't think trading is outmoded either. A good GM for example can still exploit a weak GM in the right circumstances, even in the salary cap world, even (heaven forbid) outside of the two weeks that precede and incorporate the trade deadline. For me the matter is academic – there are certain factors that dictate the laws of the trade and these have nothing to do with Bouwmeester or how many defencemen Florida have or want.
Of course, any assessment of the timing of trades will be subjective. However, I like to think that the way I think about it is a little more scientific than waiting for the trade deadline...
Elements of trading
The first thing to understand in trading is that trades are completed based largely on perceptions – not necessarily on facts. A GM will inevitably watch his own team play more than any other. He will only have access to the current practice and training of his own team. In this way, the home GM will always have an advantage over his trading partner when it comes to his own player. This is especially true for the youngest players who have had less exposure around the league. Whereas an older player may have played 500+ games, played for multiple teams and been exposed to many of the league's GMs; a young prospect is really only known by the organisation in which he plays.
If a prospect is making giant strides, chances are the value in a trade would be low (see Brad Boyes). On the flip side, if a prospect is showing signs of dropping below expectations for himself, then the value to the home team could be increased in a trade. From my point of view, the first rule of trading is always to ship out players who are perceived to be better across the league at large than in the organisation. My classic example of this would be the big player that some GMs (see Bob Clarke) would drastically overvalue.
Trading a star can be tricky here as lots is generally known about that player, but it can be done. However, this kind of thinking can help you land a star for a lower price. A recent favourite here was the Alex Kovalev trade. Bob Gainey masterfully offered one of a group of prospects to the Rangers, including the Hamilton's leading scorer Josef Balej. The Rangers falling into the classic trap of unfamiliarity with the goods opted for Balej instead of Plekanec. Now, I don't know how the negotiation went, but by offering the offensive "jewel" of the organisation at the time, Gainey played on perceptions very well. Obviously, Balej never made an impact and Kovalev just had his most impressive all-around campaign. We won the trade in a landslide. Nice payback on NYC who pulled this overrated prospect stunt on the Expos two or three times a season.
The next element in any trade, I think, is realising that every NHL player will be trending. That is to say that a player will either be improving, remaining stable or getting worse. This is another bit of knowledge that only the home GM can know (at least at first).
To take advantage of the trending, ideally, a GM must trade a falling star before the rest of the league knows he is falling. This is a difficult one, since just offering a star for trade would raise suspicions in even the most amateur of GMs, I would think. The art here would be to get the other GM to ask you about the falling star – make him think it's his idea. In my opinion, this is an art that few GMs seem to have been able to master over the last few years. How Joe Thornton for example could fetch such a pathetic return can only be explained by the hesitation with which he was dealt with. Ditto for many Canadiens trades in the dark days of Rejean Houle, where all the world would know about the problems before we got the 4th round pick back for our captain.
A rule for trading, for me, is trading a player at peak value. The cardinal sin is trading them at the lowest ebb. Being a realist (even back in 2002), it occurred to me that the Canadiens' Jose Theodore probably overachieved. What's more his two trophies and undue credit for beating the Bruins in what was actually a fairly high-scoring series on the whole, made his value immense. If a GM thinking as I did had received a call for Jose's services and accepted, I am quite sure we'd be enjoying watching a decent goalscorer instead of remembering our suffering through David Aebischer.
Of course, in trades, there is also the element of organisational need . Trading from a position of need (after injury, for example) can be very costly. Whereas, trading with a partner who can only see their own current need can be very fruitful. When Nashville needed a star centre to put them over the top a couple of years ago, Philadelphia picked their pockets clean. Based on Nashville's experience, I wouldn't be trading for a star at the deadline. On the other hand, if you can find your Nashville to trade with, trade a star, by all means.
Contract status has always been a major factor too. In my opinion, free agency is still the number one problem here. The salary cap is a hassle for sure, but can be dealt with – at any time. Trading a player in the last year of the contract diminishes the value. This is certainly true the more games go by. By the trade deadline, you are talking about trading the player for 15 games and playoffs. History has shown that people won't pay as much for these players – unless, unless, unless they sense they are filling a great need (see Nashville). If the player is on an overvalued contract, waiting may be the only way to ship him, mind you (Bill Guerin), but most legitimate stars don't fit into this category.
The final factor for me is "short memory". Look across the league over the years and you'll see plenty of examples of short memory among GMs. A player after a good playoffs will carry amazing value for the summer for example. A player off to a poor start in the fall/winter may drop in value by a good prospect or two in return. Playoffs are the best at generating short memory gains. Trading for the playoff hero, in my opinion, is a daft move for 25 out of 30 teams in the league. yet, most GMs covet these players, nonetheless. Many of these examples manifest themselves in ridiculous signings rather than trades, but short memory plays a part in trades too. Going for someone who is already considered a star after a great playoff run might be OK, but trading for someone who isn't generally a star at this point is generally a move to be rued later on. Trading for someone who has had a bad stretch could land you a bargain, however (Erik Cole).
So when should a trade involving a star be made?
If you're a GM and looking to trade a star for another star, some key players or just prospects, I would focus on an in-season trade. Assuming your star is a consistent contributor with an established reputation (i.e., not Ribeiro), then your trade should be timed to maximise the return you can get. You will want to make sure you have proper recent scouting of the the team you are trading with (preferably NHL game action) and that you have a feel for trends and historical play as well as short-term success.
Probably the major factor by which you can ramp up your return is by targeting a team with need. From the point of view of need, the trade deadline can provide some of the very best opportunities to trade, given you have the right commodity. (If you are unfortunate enough to have a star who is the wrong commodity – goaltender 2008 – then you are barking up the wrong tree at the trade deadline with a trade). However, I happen to think that you will find more potential trade partners and just as much sense of need if you target January as the trade month. Teams desperate to make the playoffs will perhaps be hasty in giving away too much, and championship-hungry teams are always on the look out for stars, no matter what time of year.
If you're a GM trying to acquire a star, you need to be a bit more wily. Naturally, don't play into the other GM's hands by giving opportunity to scout properly, see your players or all that good stuff mentioned above.
If you're trading for a true star, one whose value is unlikely to fluctuate significantly, then I would do it in the summer. You can package one of your recent draft picks, a prospect who is not progressing as expected or hoped or someone whose lasting memory of the past season was playoff overachievement (Umberger). I'm happy to say, this is what Bob Gainey managed to achieve in his Tanguay deal – taking advantage of salary concerns and an overvaluation of the draft pool (in all likelihood) to land a consistent star.
Middle ground
Given the two windows of opportunity, you'd expect the GMs of the league to find some middle ground. if they did, we'd see some trades from October to December time. We don't. Why is this?
I think one factor is that GMs are generally not looking to make trades as it makes their lives more complicated. Why saddle yourself with a salary issue – it only makes more work. Considering that many GMs are also horrendous judges of talent (see the free agent signings this year), it makes sense that they would procrastinate until the very last second.
Another reason for this is the inconsequential nature of the NHL season. Why would a team bother to challenge Detroit in December and January when winning the league is so meaningless? History will show chemistry is the answer, but these guys have no memory for history, remember?
Mastering the trade
In those simple scenarios, the answer seems relatively simple. However, as we all know, things are rarely so simple. Most of the time, for instance, the star in question will not be a stable producer, but will be trending up or down. Most of the time, the perception of his value will be higher or lower than his own GM's assessment around the league. Mastering the trade requires mastering the art of anticipation, combined with a good eye for talent (and lack of it).
In fact, while trading a star or for a star can be beneficial, the trades that become landslides are often the unexpected ones. What's more, these trades should not be as restrictive as trades involving stars. These are the trades where rising stars are targeted, or falling stars are turned for a profit. The margin for a win in these exchanges is huge.
If anything, I would argue that these trades must not be done anywhere near the deadline. The deadline is a too cluttered for people thinking about trading their minor players. Owners either want to save a few million in the close of the season, or want to make a big impression with their fans for marketing in th playoffs. These are homework trades and should be happening from now until January. Again, they aren't. Probably for the same reasons as stated above.
Back to the Olympics, and I begin to realise that pursuit of excellence is a full-time job. There are no summer holidays, no off-seasons. To think that building a dynasty in these times is impossible is the same closed-mindedness that makes you skip your 2-minute race for fear that you'll be too tired for your 1-minute race. The excellent pursue excellence in all areas of what they do. The New England Patriots have proven that salary caps do not preclude dynasties. The Detroit Red Wings are making the case that hockey is not some special exception to that rule.
As with many facets of team management post-salary cap, trading is an area that remains to be exploited. There is no good reason why a "good" GM shouldn't be looking for trades all season long and well into the summer. I hope, as with all things, that the Canadiens are one of the first teams to step up to take advantage of other teams in this way. Sign and trade Mats Sundin? Trade a young winger? Trade some of those Minnesota Dmen? Wait to see how things develop and we'll be just like the rest – behind the eight ball (read Detroit) – again.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Out of the Sporting Vacuum
Wow, if you disowned baseball when the Expos skipped town and aren't desperate enough that CFL, or minor tennis/golf tournament news can tide you over for weeks at a time, you will have no doubt noticed (as I have) that mid-summer is a vacuum for sporting excitement.
Enter the Summer Olympics. And for the first time in recent memory, they're actually taking place in the summer!
No matter what your usual sporting flavour is, there should be something to tickle your fancy at the Olympics. There are loads of sports and in excess of 300 different events over a couple of weeks. For the hockey fan, there's lots on offer (take what much of the world calls hockey for one...).
If you are of the ilk that enjoys being lifted out of your seat by a good bout, then excitement is around the corner – the Olympics are home to numerous forms of fighting, from the boxing preferred by Lyle Odelein, the martial arts Jarkko Ruutu practices and the Greco Roman wrestling of about 95% of the other fights on ice.
If fighting is not your thing, maybe speed is. If so, then you have track, cycling, swimming, rowing, canoeing, and every other imaginable way to get from A to B fastest (jumping, vaulting, riding a horse...).
And for those who enjoy the team synergy and the cooperation for a common goal, watch volleyball (the beach variety, if you read Four Habs Fans more than you should), basketball, soccer, baseball (for the last time) and one of my favourites water polo.
I am looking forward to these Olympics. It will be a nice way to get through the doldrums of August without scouring the web for news of Scandinavian hockey holdouts. Of note, I encourage everyone to catch Thomas Hall's canoe races if they can. His heats are on August 18, and he would progress to races on August 20 and then 22 if he performs at his best. Tom's a formidable athlete and a fellow Montrealer.
Athletic excellence
All that brings me round to the point I wanted to make in this piece. Watch the Olympics and records will fall – they always do. Not just national records, but World records. Every Olympics someone runs faster than anyone has run before, someone jumps higher, throws further. Past athletic achievements are laid to waste.
When I think of this, it makes me think of hockey.
In hockey, we are blessed with many experienced and knowledgeable elder statesmen, particularly in the press. Their stories and insights from the past never fail to capture the imagination, stir the emotions. But one thing that has always bothered me about this old guard is the way they cling to the older generations of the game to the point of debasing the current era at times.
Sometimes I want to tell these guys to take a look around. An objective look. Admit that things have changed. Admit that players, tactics, training, coaches, managers and everything else has improved (not devolved).
How can I be sure?
Well, consider the Olympics again. In many (probably most) sports, the average athlete at these Olympics would have been a multi-medalist at any Olympics 30 years ago. In my own sport of swimming, the standards for athletes to make it to the 2008 competition would have claimed all but three gold medals at Montreal and Moscow. Even as recently as 20 years ago, people making the current qualifying times would have been unlucky to walk away without a medal. What this tells me is that between equipment, technique and training methods, athletes in many sports have improved by leaps and bounds over the years.
Is hockey the exception? Not likely.
You only have to watch 10 minutes of hockey from the 1960s, 70s or 80s to realise things are different. Improvement in goaltending has led to less poor quality goals. Improvement in player fitness has led to better defence, tighter games and more advanced tactics. Evolution in sticks and the way players shoot has changed the way (and the speed at which) the puck moves. No, hockey is like many Olympic sports, the champions of old would stand a chance with the athletes of today.
Progress. Not many can resist it. I'm tired of people who continually try to convince me I should. That's why I'll be watching the Olympics, like I watch my hockey – admiring the incredible skill and ability I can hardly believe, right before my eyes...
A curious Habs-related Olympic note
As I was browsing the usual sites, I couldn't help but notice that RDS has a section devoted to the Olympics. It is called Pekin 2008.
Unlike English countries, some countries and their linguists have decided not to evolve their spelling of the Chinese capital's name. In English, the name Peking (the Western version of the name for the metropolis) was gradually removed from documents and maps starting in 1949 – it is all but gone nowadays. The change was due to a change in Chinese government, which led to a decision on their part to spell out the name themselves in our alphabet (Beijing).
Though the French lag in language evolution is not surprising, given their formal approach to such things, I found the possibility of a new name amusing. Given that Peking was spelled out Pekin in French, I think there is little doubt that the adaptation of Beijing into French would be done in the same way – giving me Begin.
Come to think of it, since it would obviously be far too confusing to have a Canadiens player and world city by the same name, I am betting the Office de la langue francaise is just waiting until Steve retires before putting the new name on the books.
Enter the Summer Olympics. And for the first time in recent memory, they're actually taking place in the summer!
No matter what your usual sporting flavour is, there should be something to tickle your fancy at the Olympics. There are loads of sports and in excess of 300 different events over a couple of weeks. For the hockey fan, there's lots on offer (take what much of the world calls hockey for one...).
If you are of the ilk that enjoys being lifted out of your seat by a good bout, then excitement is around the corner – the Olympics are home to numerous forms of fighting, from the boxing preferred by Lyle Odelein, the martial arts Jarkko Ruutu practices and the Greco Roman wrestling of about 95% of the other fights on ice.
If fighting is not your thing, maybe speed is. If so, then you have track, cycling, swimming, rowing, canoeing, and every other imaginable way to get from A to B fastest (jumping, vaulting, riding a horse...).
And for those who enjoy the team synergy and the cooperation for a common goal, watch volleyball (the beach variety, if you read Four Habs Fans more than you should), basketball, soccer, baseball (for the last time) and one of my favourites water polo.
I am looking forward to these Olympics. It will be a nice way to get through the doldrums of August without scouring the web for news of Scandinavian hockey holdouts. Of note, I encourage everyone to catch Thomas Hall's canoe races if they can. His heats are on August 18, and he would progress to races on August 20 and then 22 if he performs at his best. Tom's a formidable athlete and a fellow Montrealer.
Athletic excellence
All that brings me round to the point I wanted to make in this piece. Watch the Olympics and records will fall – they always do. Not just national records, but World records. Every Olympics someone runs faster than anyone has run before, someone jumps higher, throws further. Past athletic achievements are laid to waste.
When I think of this, it makes me think of hockey.
In hockey, we are blessed with many experienced and knowledgeable elder statesmen, particularly in the press. Their stories and insights from the past never fail to capture the imagination, stir the emotions. But one thing that has always bothered me about this old guard is the way they cling to the older generations of the game to the point of debasing the current era at times.
Sometimes I want to tell these guys to take a look around. An objective look. Admit that things have changed. Admit that players, tactics, training, coaches, managers and everything else has improved (not devolved).
How can I be sure?
Well, consider the Olympics again. In many (probably most) sports, the average athlete at these Olympics would have been a multi-medalist at any Olympics 30 years ago. In my own sport of swimming, the standards for athletes to make it to the 2008 competition would have claimed all but three gold medals at Montreal and Moscow. Even as recently as 20 years ago, people making the current qualifying times would have been unlucky to walk away without a medal. What this tells me is that between equipment, technique and training methods, athletes in many sports have improved by leaps and bounds over the years.
Is hockey the exception? Not likely.
You only have to watch 10 minutes of hockey from the 1960s, 70s or 80s to realise things are different. Improvement in goaltending has led to less poor quality goals. Improvement in player fitness has led to better defence, tighter games and more advanced tactics. Evolution in sticks and the way players shoot has changed the way (and the speed at which) the puck moves. No, hockey is like many Olympic sports, the champions of old would stand a chance with the athletes of today.
Progress. Not many can resist it. I'm tired of people who continually try to convince me I should. That's why I'll be watching the Olympics, like I watch my hockey – admiring the incredible skill and ability I can hardly believe, right before my eyes...
A curious Habs-related Olympic note
As I was browsing the usual sites, I couldn't help but notice that RDS has a section devoted to the Olympics. It is called Pekin 2008.
Unlike English countries, some countries and their linguists have decided not to evolve their spelling of the Chinese capital's name. In English, the name Peking (the Western version of the name for the metropolis) was gradually removed from documents and maps starting in 1949 – it is all but gone nowadays. The change was due to a change in Chinese government, which led to a decision on their part to spell out the name themselves in our alphabet (Beijing).
Though the French lag in language evolution is not surprising, given their formal approach to such things, I found the possibility of a new name amusing. Given that Peking was spelled out Pekin in French, I think there is little doubt that the adaptation of Beijing into French would be done in the same way – giving me Begin.
Come to think of it, since it would obviously be far too confusing to have a Canadiens player and world city by the same name, I am betting the Office de la langue francaise is just waiting until Steve retires before putting the new name on the books.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Hockey Season Never Ends
Though Tobalev and I have been taking sometime to catch our breath (read sulk), don't count us out until October.
First of all, there's the World Champs with Habs involvement, the playoffs, post-season analysis (to what depth I'm not sure yet) and all the good stuff that happens in the off season.
I won't promise a post a day, as the playoffs have been hard, but look for a few opinions on the Habs, hockey and associated topics in the months to come.
Thanks to all of you for reading our stuff. We're flattered by some of the comments and happy that you choose to look beyond the traditional media's narrow view with us here at LIW.
See you sooner rather than later.
GHG.
First of all, there's the World Champs with Habs involvement, the playoffs, post-season analysis (to what depth I'm not sure yet) and all the good stuff that happens in the off season.
I won't promise a post a day, as the playoffs have been hard, but look for a few opinions on the Habs, hockey and associated topics in the months to come.
Thanks to all of you for reading our stuff. We're flattered by some of the comments and happy that you choose to look beyond the traditional media's narrow view with us here at LIW.
See you sooner rather than later.
GHG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)