The NHL has a big problem. For the last couple of seasons, it's been paying lip service to the idea of maybe, potentially, possibly studying the idea of penalizing hits to players' heads. In the meantime, shots to the head and resulting concussions are on the rise.
I've ranted about this in the past, but this week several factors have converged in a way that make me want to talk about it again. The first was Martin Havlat, lying on the ice in Chicago with his open eyes rolled back after getting nailed in the head by Nicklas Kronwall. Two days later, after obviously suffering a concussion, he was back in the lineup...only to leave again after the first mild contact he encountered. Dr.Michael Czarnota is the neuropsychology consultant for the Canadian Hockey League. He was quoted as being "shocked" to see Havlat back on the ice so quickly. The experts are shaking their heads because the NHL is so careless with those of its players.
Even more disturbing, however, was the conversation on TSN's Off the Record yesterday. The discussion was between Capitals coach Bruce Boudreau, Thrashers coach John Anderson, former Hurricane Kevyn Adams and former Flame Ric Nattress and the topic was concussion, specifically Havlat's. The consensus seemed to be that the onus of whether to play again rests on the player. There are tests, sure. But if a player insists he's fine and doesn't need to be tested, more often than not the trainers take his word for it. They talked about the pressure on players to "tough it out" and come back quickly. The two coaches on the panel talked in dismissive tones about it not being up to them. The players and the medical staff decide a player's fitness and the coaches abide by that decision. The question host Michael Lansburg didn't ask was "If you think the player is hurt and is ignoring advice, will you stop him?" The passing of the proverbial buck by both coaches on the panel made me think the answer would be "no."
The third factor that put concussion back on the radar for me was a news report on CBC Radio this morning. The subject, again, was Havlat. Only this time the expert being quoted was Keith Primeau. Primeau talked about how his life has changed since concussions ended his career. He's on medication to control headaches and vertigo. He's forgetful. His family says his personality has changed and he's much more irritable than he once was. He thinks the league needs to crack down harshly on hits to the head. Glenn Healey is also quoted in that story, explaining how the NHLPA considers concussion its number-one concern, and is asking for automatic penalties on "the most flagrant and reckless" hits to the head. What Healey doesn't address, however, is the need for a deep attitude adjustment among players from their earliest years in the game all the way up to the NHL. If the onus is on them to decide their fitness to play, they need to be educated about the consequences of playing through a head injury.
Primeau talks about how the NHL treats concussion as "part of the game." That's the attitude that comes across when Colin Campbell plays down the number of concussions in the league and the number of players who've had career-ending head injuries. It's the attitude that people like the coaches and players on the TSN panel exude when they're talking about concussions. They're treating what amounts to traumatic brain injury with a sort of shoulder-shrugging contempt.
Neurologists in the United States are studying the impact of repeated concussion on NFL football players. They've concluded that players recover less well from second, third, and later concussions than they do their first. And they've documented retired players dying in their fifties, after suffering health problems, depression and personality disorders...all of them attributable to repeated head injury. The scientists have studied the brains of deceased players and found them to carry symptoms of dementia one would expect to see in a ninety-year old. This is scary, life-threatening stuff. Keith Primeau told CBC he's planning to leave his brain to science when he dies, because he hopes when the scientists find similar damage in the head of an ex-hockey player, as he believes they will, maybe someone will listen and change things.
The fourth thing that came to my attention about this issue this week is a report by Toronto neurosurgeon, Dr.Michael Cusimano. He found that one in four minor hockey players don't know when it's okay to return to the ice after a concussion, and half the players interviewed either couldn't identify any concussion symptoms or knew of only one. This underlines the serious need for education about the nature and consequences of concussion. But the study's conclusion about numbers of concussions is the most frightening thing of all.
Cusimano calculates that before players ever reach the NHL, they've already accumlated multiple head injuries. He says players aged five through seventeen have about 2.8 concussions per thousand hours of ice time. University players have 4.2 concussions per thousand hours of ice time, while major junior players have 6.6 per thousand hours of icetime, on average. That means that by the time an average player gets to the pro ranks, he's had about six concussions in his lifetime.
If this is happening at minor league levels, it's up to authorities like Hockey Canada and the NHLPA to educate minor league coaches and players about head injuries. Players need to know when they have one, and when they're safe to return to the ice. But, even more importantly, they have to learn how to prevent them. They need to be taught that checking is intended to separate an opponent from the puck...not his head from his body. Hits to the head need to be strictly penalized from the earliest days of minor hockey, and automatic suspensions handed out under certain circumstances, such as when a player leaves his feet to deliver a hit, if the opponent does not have the puck or if the player hits the opponent's head with a stick or elbow. Young players need to learn how to position themselves to safely take a hit and not turn their backs or duck to put their heads in jeopardy.
The problem with the NHL's lip service on this issue is that it's not actually doing anything to change things. So maybe while the pros dither around, the problem can be addressed by training minor hockey players how not to be the next Martin Havlat or Keith Primeau. Then, by the time they get to the NHL, they'll have succeeded in changing attitudes. In the meantime, the league that should have lead the way and been the shining example for change sat on its butt and did nothing while players sacrificed their health...and maybe their lives...for a game.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Shut Up, Guy!
I've had it with Guy Lafleur. In his latest ill-thought-out critique of the team that still pays him to represent it as an ambassador, he says Rejean Houle should have traded Saku Koivu years ago and expresses the opinion that Koivu should just go away and play with his brother.
I know all the Lafleur lovers are going to chime in here and protest, "But he's GUY! And he has a right to express his opinion!" Boo friggin' hoo. The man is a convicted criminal who's been forgiven every social misstep he's ever made because he was a great hockey player in his day and a local boy to boot. He's lucky he still has a spot in the hierarchy of Habs icons, after the way he's behaved and the manner in which he regularly slags the team. Now he's abusing the celebrity he won by playing for the Canadiens by calling them down.
I do have an understanding of the impulse to forgive a childhood hero. I've always had a soft spot for Patrick Roy, despite his dumbass behaviour at times. But, enough's enough. People became fans of Guy Lafleur because they were first fans of the Canadiens. So, hearing him diss the team that made him famous and continues to employ him is classless, petty and annoying.
Not only that, but his opinions are stupid and consistently negative. Last year's team made up of "four fourth lines" won the conference. And, I'd love to know why Koivu should have been traded years ago, when he was the best player on the team most of the time. Or why Rejean Houle, with his history of fantastic value received in trades, would have turned the team around by trading Koivu.
I remember Guy Lafleur as a fading star. By the time I started watching hockey closely, it was already 1984. To me, and to many who don't remember the man in his heyday, he's nothing more than one more negative voice criticizing my favourite team. The only difference is that he's a negative voice who should know better. The Canadiens get enough crap from the rest of the world. They don't need it from guys they pay to be their public face, and of whom they build statues and monuments.
I know Lafleur is entitled to his opinion. I just wish, for once, he'd keep it to himself.
I know all the Lafleur lovers are going to chime in here and protest, "But he's GUY! And he has a right to express his opinion!" Boo friggin' hoo. The man is a convicted criminal who's been forgiven every social misstep he's ever made because he was a great hockey player in his day and a local boy to boot. He's lucky he still has a spot in the hierarchy of Habs icons, after the way he's behaved and the manner in which he regularly slags the team. Now he's abusing the celebrity he won by playing for the Canadiens by calling them down.
I do have an understanding of the impulse to forgive a childhood hero. I've always had a soft spot for Patrick Roy, despite his dumbass behaviour at times. But, enough's enough. People became fans of Guy Lafleur because they were first fans of the Canadiens. So, hearing him diss the team that made him famous and continues to employ him is classless, petty and annoying.
Not only that, but his opinions are stupid and consistently negative. Last year's team made up of "four fourth lines" won the conference. And, I'd love to know why Koivu should have been traded years ago, when he was the best player on the team most of the time. Or why Rejean Houle, with his history of fantastic value received in trades, would have turned the team around by trading Koivu.
I remember Guy Lafleur as a fading star. By the time I started watching hockey closely, it was already 1984. To me, and to many who don't remember the man in his heyday, he's nothing more than one more negative voice criticizing my favourite team. The only difference is that he's a negative voice who should know better. The Canadiens get enough crap from the rest of the world. They don't need it from guys they pay to be their public face, and of whom they build statues and monuments.
I know Lafleur is entitled to his opinion. I just wish, for once, he'd keep it to himself.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Pssst! Did You Hear?
Remember that game "Broken Telephone" we played when we were in elementary school? Everyone sits in a circle and one person whispers a message into his neighbour's ear. That kid whispers it to the next kid and the message travels around the circle until the last kid repeats the message aloud. Laughter ensues when the players compare the original message to what it's become in the end. I remember playing it once when the message that started out "Ronalda wants a record player for Christmas" became "Roman lions eat Christians."
Now, take Broken Telephone and add a secretive hockey team, millions of rabid fans hungry for every detail about it, hundreds of journalists with varying degrees of standards about what constitutes "true," and five or six major world languages. Right. You see what I'm getting at.
This week, Russian papers are reporting that Alex Kovalev has been offered a one-year deal by the Habs, valued at somewhere between six and seven-and-a-half million dollars. He'll also allegedly become the team captain, as Saku Koivu won't be offered a contract and will instead head to Minnesota to play with his brother. For good measure, they're throwing out a rumour that Mike Komisarek has rejected a four-million dollar a season offer. All of this, is, of course, without any corroboration or direct quote from the players involved or from the team itself. Well, we say, what do you expect of these iffy Russian papers?
The problem with the coverage of the Canadiens, however, is that every scrap of rumour, innuendo and just plain made-up crap must be dissected. The media's fear of missing something everyone else has reported and the desire to be first with anything new are so strong, we're seeing previously reputable mainstream outlets like RDS slumming in the gutter with their borderline competitors. The result? Fans, who believe what RDS publishes is true and expect that RDS would have made at least a minimal effort to confirm that truth, take this media game of Broken Telephone and accept it at face value. Debates ensue and opinions are formed.
That's why, today, because of some rumour concocted without documentation by a Russian paper, Habs fans are shouting from the rooftops that Komisarek is a bastard for wanting more than four million bucks. Kovalev's not worth six million bucks and good riddance to Koivu as he bails out of Montreal to play with his brother. If this had happened during the season, I imagine it wouldn't be long before the fans who form their opinions based on such reporting would be booing Komisarek at the Bell Centre and telling him he's a mercenary asshole when they met him in the street.
The habit of being spoonfed information is a dangerous one. It means people forget how to ask questions. Questions like, why would Bob Gainey offer thirty-six-year-old Kovalev that kind of money before either knowing what next year's cap will be, or who else might be on the roster? Why would he give Kovalev Marian Hossa-type money when he has no idea which Kovalev will show up to play? Why would the Canadiens, a team that's traditionally elected its captains, suddenly dangle the promise of captaincy before Kovalev without a player vote? How would a Russian paper know not only that the Canadiens are letting Koivu go, but that he'll be signing in Minnesota without evidence from Koivu, the Canadiens or the Wild?
People need to ask questions before they believe what they're being told. At the very least they need to ask, "Does this make sense?" Because at this idle point of the offseason when real news is like an oasis in a months-long desert journey, even "reliable" sources are just playing Broken Telephone in some cases. That's why, unless I see a report with Bob Gainey's name attached to it, I'll believe nothing this summer. And I think when media outlets break the bond of credibility they have with fans, it's time for us to hang up the Telephone on them, before the message gets so garbled we have no idea what it's really supposed to be.
Now, take Broken Telephone and add a secretive hockey team, millions of rabid fans hungry for every detail about it, hundreds of journalists with varying degrees of standards about what constitutes "true," and five or six major world languages. Right. You see what I'm getting at.
This week, Russian papers are reporting that Alex Kovalev has been offered a one-year deal by the Habs, valued at somewhere between six and seven-and-a-half million dollars. He'll also allegedly become the team captain, as Saku Koivu won't be offered a contract and will instead head to Minnesota to play with his brother. For good measure, they're throwing out a rumour that Mike Komisarek has rejected a four-million dollar a season offer. All of this, is, of course, without any corroboration or direct quote from the players involved or from the team itself. Well, we say, what do you expect of these iffy Russian papers?
The problem with the coverage of the Canadiens, however, is that every scrap of rumour, innuendo and just plain made-up crap must be dissected. The media's fear of missing something everyone else has reported and the desire to be first with anything new are so strong, we're seeing previously reputable mainstream outlets like RDS slumming in the gutter with their borderline competitors. The result? Fans, who believe what RDS publishes is true and expect that RDS would have made at least a minimal effort to confirm that truth, take this media game of Broken Telephone and accept it at face value. Debates ensue and opinions are formed.
That's why, today, because of some rumour concocted without documentation by a Russian paper, Habs fans are shouting from the rooftops that Komisarek is a bastard for wanting more than four million bucks. Kovalev's not worth six million bucks and good riddance to Koivu as he bails out of Montreal to play with his brother. If this had happened during the season, I imagine it wouldn't be long before the fans who form their opinions based on such reporting would be booing Komisarek at the Bell Centre and telling him he's a mercenary asshole when they met him in the street.
The habit of being spoonfed information is a dangerous one. It means people forget how to ask questions. Questions like, why would Bob Gainey offer thirty-six-year-old Kovalev that kind of money before either knowing what next year's cap will be, or who else might be on the roster? Why would he give Kovalev Marian Hossa-type money when he has no idea which Kovalev will show up to play? Why would the Canadiens, a team that's traditionally elected its captains, suddenly dangle the promise of captaincy before Kovalev without a player vote? How would a Russian paper know not only that the Canadiens are letting Koivu go, but that he'll be signing in Minnesota without evidence from Koivu, the Canadiens or the Wild?
People need to ask questions before they believe what they're being told. At the very least they need to ask, "Does this make sense?" Because at this idle point of the offseason when real news is like an oasis in a months-long desert journey, even "reliable" sources are just playing Broken Telephone in some cases. That's why, unless I see a report with Bob Gainey's name attached to it, I'll believe nothing this summer. And I think when media outlets break the bond of credibility they have with fans, it's time for us to hang up the Telephone on them, before the message gets so garbled we have no idea what it's really supposed to be.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Tick Tock
I know it's not even the end of May yet, and the Cup finals haven't even started, but the uncertainty of this off-season is already causing anxiety to set in. Maybe it's because it feels like the Habs haven't been playing for months. Maybe it's because of the complete state of disarray of the team, from ownership to the lowest free agent.
Something's got to give here, and soon. It might be still May, but the NHL draft is only four weeks away. Free agency opens four days after the draft. By the middle of July, for all intents and purposes and if Mats Sundin isn't in the picture, most NHL teams have their rosters pretty much determined. Yet, here we are, still wondering if George Gillett is keeping or selling the Habs.
If he's keeping the team, well, that's fine. We can expect status quo in hockey management, Bob Gainey can hire a coach and it's business as usual. If he's not, we don't know what will happen. New owners could bring new management and new restrictions on spending. Time is getting short for a house cleaning before the draft. Trevor Timmins and his team have spent the last year building their draft list and Gainey's been involved in that to some degree. It's possible a new GM could be in place by the draft and still go with Timmins' list, but it's not very common an occurance. And, with free agency so soon on the heels of the draft, would new owners keep Gainey and let him buy the players he wants? Or will they place spending restrictions on him? Would they go with a new GM and let him take over free agent signings? And what about the Habs' current free-agents, especially Koviu and Komisarek who are most likely to re-sign before July 1? What about players like Tanguay and other valuable skilled players who won't sign up before they find out who's owning, running and coaching the team? What about draft-day trades? Would there be any sense in allowing a new GM who doesn't know the team well to make moves like that?
I like George Gillett. I'm grateful he came to Montreal with a generous smile and an open wallet. He's been nothing but respectful of the Habs' tradition and wise in keeping his distance from hockey operations. He's enthusiastic and proud of his team. But he's a playboy when it comes to money. He's been bankrupt before, and has now overextended himself in his purchase of Liverpool FC. In a time when credit is hard to come by, he's stuck refinancing the loan he took out for the soccer team. That could very likely cost him the Habs.
Gillett's been vehement about not intending to sell; a message that has recently become not wanting to sell. He's said he's interested in perhaps taking on a minority partner instead of selling the team outright. But still, the bidders are lining up and Gillett may have no choice but to sell when the banks come calling. My concern as a fan is that while Gillett tries to find a way to avoid selling, or to land the best deal for the team if he's got no choice in the matter, time is running out on the Canadiens' options for icing a competitive team next season.
I like Gillett, but it's time for him to shit or get off the pot when it comes to owning this team. If he sees the writing on the wall and knows he'll have to sell, he'd be doing the Canadiens and their fans a favour to do it sooner rather than later. The outstanding questions about team ownership must be answered before any of the on-ice questions can be addressed.
It's your move, Uncle George. The clock is ticking. And fans like me are already wringing their hands with anxiety.
Something's got to give here, and soon. It might be still May, but the NHL draft is only four weeks away. Free agency opens four days after the draft. By the middle of July, for all intents and purposes and if Mats Sundin isn't in the picture, most NHL teams have their rosters pretty much determined. Yet, here we are, still wondering if George Gillett is keeping or selling the Habs.
If he's keeping the team, well, that's fine. We can expect status quo in hockey management, Bob Gainey can hire a coach and it's business as usual. If he's not, we don't know what will happen. New owners could bring new management and new restrictions on spending. Time is getting short for a house cleaning before the draft. Trevor Timmins and his team have spent the last year building their draft list and Gainey's been involved in that to some degree. It's possible a new GM could be in place by the draft and still go with Timmins' list, but it's not very common an occurance. And, with free agency so soon on the heels of the draft, would new owners keep Gainey and let him buy the players he wants? Or will they place spending restrictions on him? Would they go with a new GM and let him take over free agent signings? And what about the Habs' current free-agents, especially Koviu and Komisarek who are most likely to re-sign before July 1? What about players like Tanguay and other valuable skilled players who won't sign up before they find out who's owning, running and coaching the team? What about draft-day trades? Would there be any sense in allowing a new GM who doesn't know the team well to make moves like that?
I like George Gillett. I'm grateful he came to Montreal with a generous smile and an open wallet. He's been nothing but respectful of the Habs' tradition and wise in keeping his distance from hockey operations. He's enthusiastic and proud of his team. But he's a playboy when it comes to money. He's been bankrupt before, and has now overextended himself in his purchase of Liverpool FC. In a time when credit is hard to come by, he's stuck refinancing the loan he took out for the soccer team. That could very likely cost him the Habs.
Gillett's been vehement about not intending to sell; a message that has recently become not wanting to sell. He's said he's interested in perhaps taking on a minority partner instead of selling the team outright. But still, the bidders are lining up and Gillett may have no choice but to sell when the banks come calling. My concern as a fan is that while Gillett tries to find a way to avoid selling, or to land the best deal for the team if he's got no choice in the matter, time is running out on the Canadiens' options for icing a competitive team next season.
I like Gillett, but it's time for him to shit or get off the pot when it comes to owning this team. If he sees the writing on the wall and knows he'll have to sell, he'd be doing the Canadiens and their fans a favour to do it sooner rather than later. The outstanding questions about team ownership must be answered before any of the on-ice questions can be addressed.
It's your move, Uncle George. The clock is ticking. And fans like me are already wringing their hands with anxiety.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Komo! Don't Go!
Okay, now that my anger at Mike Komisarek's lousy play in the second half of the past season has dissipated, I'm scared. I don't want him to walk away from the Canadiens for nothing. In fact, I don't want him to walk away at all.
I remember his draft, and how exciting it was to have the Habs pick in the top ten. It was great to see the team take a massive, physical defenceman with some skill because one had been needed for a such long while. I remember his first couple of up-and-down pro seasons when he bounced between Hamilton and Montreal. I rooted so hard for him to find his game and stick with the big team. Then his breakout season two years ago when he began to emerge as a force on the ice and a leader in the room. I've discovered you can't watch a prospect become a player that closely without becoming attached to him.
I know Komisarek doesn't bring everything you'd ideally want in a big, strong, top-pairing defenceman. He can hit, but he offers next to nothing offensively and fumbles the puck quite often. He blocks a ton of shots, but he's not a very good fighter. He's a respected leader among his teammates and loved in the community, but his style of play makes him susceptible to injury. Now we're looking at losing him. I don't like the thought of it for a lot of reasons; primarily because even though he's not perfect, the things he does provide aren't in great abundance on the team. Even if he doesn't have the best outlet pass, if he leaves, the team loses size, hitting and shot-blocking from the defence. And there's not a lineup of players out there who can do those things willingly and well either within the Habs' system or in the free-agent pool this summer. (Unless, of course, Ryan O'Byrne suddenly blossoms.)
Almost as important, it's so rare for the Canadiens to draft and develop a first-rounder as well as they have with Komisarek it's a good idea to hold onto them. There's that attachment of the fans to the player I mentioned already, but there's also a slight advantage in having a player who knows only the Montreal environment. There's a better chance he'll put up with the crap involved in playing for the Habs than a player who's got another NHL experience with which to compare it.
Of course, the problem is cost. I was dead-set on not giving Komisarek more than four million bucks a year on a four or five-year deal. I figured comparable players in the league make around that much, if not less. But now I concede Komo's intangibles...leadership, personality, tolerance for crap...make him more valuable to the Habs than does his skillset alone. For that reason, I wouldn't be entirely pissed if Gainey were to offer Komisarek a little more than four million. I'd give him a generous offer to show the team's goodwill. Then, it's up to him.
I hope he wants to stay in Montreal. I think he'd leave a big hole if he left. And I hope he'd be willing to accept a deal that makes sense for both sides. If, however, he demands the moon and is willing to go to a loser team with lots of cap space to get it, I reserve the right to take back the nice things I've said about him. Because, if a guy the Habs have drafted, groomed and developed can't be bothered to stick around, that does not bode well for the organization's future.
I remember his draft, and how exciting it was to have the Habs pick in the top ten. It was great to see the team take a massive, physical defenceman with some skill because one had been needed for a such long while. I remember his first couple of up-and-down pro seasons when he bounced between Hamilton and Montreal. I rooted so hard for him to find his game and stick with the big team. Then his breakout season two years ago when he began to emerge as a force on the ice and a leader in the room. I've discovered you can't watch a prospect become a player that closely without becoming attached to him.
I know Komisarek doesn't bring everything you'd ideally want in a big, strong, top-pairing defenceman. He can hit, but he offers next to nothing offensively and fumbles the puck quite often. He blocks a ton of shots, but he's not a very good fighter. He's a respected leader among his teammates and loved in the community, but his style of play makes him susceptible to injury. Now we're looking at losing him. I don't like the thought of it for a lot of reasons; primarily because even though he's not perfect, the things he does provide aren't in great abundance on the team. Even if he doesn't have the best outlet pass, if he leaves, the team loses size, hitting and shot-blocking from the defence. And there's not a lineup of players out there who can do those things willingly and well either within the Habs' system or in the free-agent pool this summer. (Unless, of course, Ryan O'Byrne suddenly blossoms.)
Almost as important, it's so rare for the Canadiens to draft and develop a first-rounder as well as they have with Komisarek it's a good idea to hold onto them. There's that attachment of the fans to the player I mentioned already, but there's also a slight advantage in having a player who knows only the Montreal environment. There's a better chance he'll put up with the crap involved in playing for the Habs than a player who's got another NHL experience with which to compare it.
Of course, the problem is cost. I was dead-set on not giving Komisarek more than four million bucks a year on a four or five-year deal. I figured comparable players in the league make around that much, if not less. But now I concede Komo's intangibles...leadership, personality, tolerance for crap...make him more valuable to the Habs than does his skillset alone. For that reason, I wouldn't be entirely pissed if Gainey were to offer Komisarek a little more than four million. I'd give him a generous offer to show the team's goodwill. Then, it's up to him.
I hope he wants to stay in Montreal. I think he'd leave a big hole if he left. And I hope he'd be willing to accept a deal that makes sense for both sides. If, however, he demands the moon and is willing to go to a loser team with lots of cap space to get it, I reserve the right to take back the nice things I've said about him. Because, if a guy the Habs have drafted, groomed and developed can't be bothered to stick around, that does not bode well for the organization's future.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Re-Thinking Free Agency
The other day I went through my closet as I packed up the winter clothes to make space for the summer ones. Digging way in the back, I found a sweater I'd bought a couple of years ago. It was a nice sweater, but I bought it on payday without trying it on first. It cost a ton I probably wouldn't have spent if I wasn't flush with cash at that moment and, in the end, it itched and didn't fit right. I never wore it. As I tossed it into the "goodwill" pile, the tags were still attached.
Unfortunately, a lot of NHL "premier" free agents end up like that sweater. Two summers ago, the most-coveted free agents on the market were Mathieu Schneider, Chris Drury, Scott Gomez, Brian Rafalski, Daniel Briere, Sheldon Souray and Ryan Smyth. Let's look at what happened to them.
Schneider signed a two-year deal with Anaheim, with a cap-hit of 5.625 million. He lasted there for one season, until Brian Burke needed cap space to sign his RFAs and dumped Schneider to Atlanta. Drury and Gomez signed with the Rangers, at deals of 5 years/7.050-million cap hit and 7 years/7.357-million cap hit respectively. Since they signed, Gomez has put up 16 goals in each of the last two seasons, and Drury has had point totals of 58 and 56. Ranger fans have shouted for one or both of them to be traded because of the Rangers' appalling lack of offense through much of the last two seasons. Souray signed with Edmonton for five years, with a 5.4 million hit. He missed almost all of the first year of the deal with injuries, but rebounded with 53 points in 81 games in the second year, although the Oilers still missed the playoffs. Smyth signed a five year, 6.25 million cap hit deal with Colorado. He missed a good chunk of his first year with the Avs because of injuries. In the second year, he had 59 points. Rafalski scored a 5-year deal with Detroit, with a cap-hit of six million. In his two years with the Wings, he's put up totals of 55 and 59 points which put him consistently among the top defencemen in the league. He's also been steady on the blueline, a plus player and helped the Wings to a Cup last year. Briere, on the other hand, signed with Philly for 8 years, with a 6.5-million cap hit. He had a good first season with the Flyers, putting up 72 points in 79 games. But this season he played only 29 games because of injury and his contract has become a millstone around the Flyers' financial neck. His team wants to move his contract because they've already committed a very large percentage of the cap for next season, and still don't have a goalie under contract.
Last summer the big names on the table were Cristobal Huet, Brian Campbell, Brian Rolston, Wade Redden, Mark Streit, Marian Hossa, Marcus Naslund, Mats Sundin and Patrice Brisebois (okay...kidding). Chicago snapped up Huet and Campbell, Huet for four years with a cap hit of 5.625 million and Campbell for an astoundingly awful eight years with a cap hit of 7.140 million dollars. Redden and Naslund went to New York, Redden for six years and a hit of 6.5 million. Naslund signed for two years with a four-million dollar hit and has since retired after putting up only 46 points. New Jersey gave Rolston just over five million for four years and the Isles handed Streit a five-year deal at 4.1 per. Hossa, the most coveted UFA last year, signed with the Wings for one year and 7.450 million, putting up 40 goals and 71 points. And, as we know, Sundin soaked the Canucks for a pro-rated ten million bucks after dithering about whether to play for months, then put up only 28 points in 41 games.
Of that crop of big signings, Streit was probably the best deal. He lead the Isles defence corps in icetime and points, with fifty-six, while solidifying his defensive game. Hossa's forty goals were also arguably worth the one-year deal he got in Detroit. But Redden and Campbell have been skewered by fans and critics for their sub-par play and crippling contracts. Huet has ended up sharing the 'Hawks goaltending duties with Nikolai Khabibulin until the playoffs, in which he hasn't played a game. Rolston's name has come up in trade rumours repeatedly, after scoring only 15 goals and 32 points in 64 games. Sundin's probably done...or, at least, has played himself out of another Summer of Mats hysteria.
So, what does this tell us about free agency? A couple of things are obvious: one, that you can't guarantee that a guy who had a great year or two with one team or while playing for a contract will continue to do so with a new team and a new deal. And, two, that free agents are almost always overpaid. That's going to happen in a high-risk, seller's market. But another thing a review of the last two free-agent frenzies seems to prove is that a free agent, even a prime one, will not save your team or make it an instant contender if you don't have a strong foundation already.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Of the teams remaining in the playoffs, Detroit has made the most impressive addition of free-agent pieces. Signing Rafalski and Hossa has helped them stay strong, without a doubt. But those guys, even as good as they are, are just supplementary players to the likes of Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk. Chicago's doing well despite their free agent acquisitions, rather than because of them. Their own young players are carrying the team while Huet hasn't played and Campbell makes errors like the one on the winning goal in game two the other night. In Pittsburgh, the free-agent signings of Matt Cooke, Ruslan Fedotenko, Miroslav Satan and Pascal Dupuis for a grand total of 8.6 million for this past year filled the Pens' need to give Crosby and Malkin someone to whom they could pass. Those guys were filler, not vital pieces of the puzzle. And Carolina didn't sign any free agents worth mentioning. Instead, they made a couple of smart trades for pieces like Jussi Jokinen, Joni Pitkanen, Joe Corvo, Patrick Eaves and Erik Cole (again). They used their assets in intelligent ways to upgrade their lineup.
So, none of the final four teams standing this season depended on free agency to make them into contenders. Those who did, like the Rangers, consistently fail to do well in the post-season. The evidence seems to indicate that a team can succeed by using free agent acquisitions to supplement their existing team infrastructure. But expecting more than that, and overpaying to get it, is almost always a cause for future regret.
That's why, when Bob Gainey is looking to fill out the roster this year, I hope he doesn't break the bank for a huge contract for Jay Bouwmeester, the Sedins, Marian Hossa, Marian Gaborik or, God forbid, Martin Havlat, while ignoring the free agents he already has. Paying big money to bring a star onto a team that has little else going for it won't do much to change the team's fate...except hogtie it financially when the cap drops in two years.
I'm not saying he should stay away from free agency altogether, but rather use it to supplement his team. Sign Mike Komisarek, then go after Francois Beauchemin. Replacing Komisarek with Beauchemin won't improve the team. But keeping Komisarek and replacing Patrice Brisebois with Beauchemin would. Sign Saku Koivu, then make an offer for Antropov to upgrade the centre position overall, instead of just marching in place by replacing Koivu with a marginally better player.
Gainey would be better off, based on the evidence of past free agent signings, to give his money to the guys he has in-house now, rather than let them walk and try to replace them on the overpriced open market. We saw that with the Streit situation. He could have had Streit, reportedly, for a little under three million dollars a season if he'd re-signed him mid-year. Instead, he waited until the Islanders were offering four and decided Streit was too expensive. As a result, the Habs had to put up with another year of Brisebois, the complete failure of the powerplay for most of the year and the desperation signing of Mathieu Schneider to replace Streit.
I have to think players like Andrei Kostitsyn, Tomas Plekanec and Chris Higgins will be better next year. So I think supplementing those guys with affordable talent instead of making a big splash on the free-agent market would be the smarter way to go. The worst thing that could happen is for Gainey to face July 1 with a pocketful of money and some flashy players on the market who'll be willing to take it from him if his offer's sweet enough, because no player out there this summer is going to take an average team and make it a winner by himself.
That's the recipe for ending up with a closetful of expensive sweaters you'll never wear and find yourself dumping in the goodwill pile two years from now, when you can't return them and they're out of style.
Unfortunately, a lot of NHL "premier" free agents end up like that sweater. Two summers ago, the most-coveted free agents on the market were Mathieu Schneider, Chris Drury, Scott Gomez, Brian Rafalski, Daniel Briere, Sheldon Souray and Ryan Smyth. Let's look at what happened to them.
Schneider signed a two-year deal with Anaheim, with a cap-hit of 5.625 million. He lasted there for one season, until Brian Burke needed cap space to sign his RFAs and dumped Schneider to Atlanta. Drury and Gomez signed with the Rangers, at deals of 5 years/7.050-million cap hit and 7 years/7.357-million cap hit respectively. Since they signed, Gomez has put up 16 goals in each of the last two seasons, and Drury has had point totals of 58 and 56. Ranger fans have shouted for one or both of them to be traded because of the Rangers' appalling lack of offense through much of the last two seasons. Souray signed with Edmonton for five years, with a 5.4 million hit. He missed almost all of the first year of the deal with injuries, but rebounded with 53 points in 81 games in the second year, although the Oilers still missed the playoffs. Smyth signed a five year, 6.25 million cap hit deal with Colorado. He missed a good chunk of his first year with the Avs because of injuries. In the second year, he had 59 points. Rafalski scored a 5-year deal with Detroit, with a cap-hit of six million. In his two years with the Wings, he's put up totals of 55 and 59 points which put him consistently among the top defencemen in the league. He's also been steady on the blueline, a plus player and helped the Wings to a Cup last year. Briere, on the other hand, signed with Philly for 8 years, with a 6.5-million cap hit. He had a good first season with the Flyers, putting up 72 points in 79 games. But this season he played only 29 games because of injury and his contract has become a millstone around the Flyers' financial neck. His team wants to move his contract because they've already committed a very large percentage of the cap for next season, and still don't have a goalie under contract.
Last summer the big names on the table were Cristobal Huet, Brian Campbell, Brian Rolston, Wade Redden, Mark Streit, Marian Hossa, Marcus Naslund, Mats Sundin and Patrice Brisebois (okay...kidding). Chicago snapped up Huet and Campbell, Huet for four years with a cap hit of 5.625 million and Campbell for an astoundingly awful eight years with a cap hit of 7.140 million dollars. Redden and Naslund went to New York, Redden for six years and a hit of 6.5 million. Naslund signed for two years with a four-million dollar hit and has since retired after putting up only 46 points. New Jersey gave Rolston just over five million for four years and the Isles handed Streit a five-year deal at 4.1 per. Hossa, the most coveted UFA last year, signed with the Wings for one year and 7.450 million, putting up 40 goals and 71 points. And, as we know, Sundin soaked the Canucks for a pro-rated ten million bucks after dithering about whether to play for months, then put up only 28 points in 41 games.
Of that crop of big signings, Streit was probably the best deal. He lead the Isles defence corps in icetime and points, with fifty-six, while solidifying his defensive game. Hossa's forty goals were also arguably worth the one-year deal he got in Detroit. But Redden and Campbell have been skewered by fans and critics for their sub-par play and crippling contracts. Huet has ended up sharing the 'Hawks goaltending duties with Nikolai Khabibulin until the playoffs, in which he hasn't played a game. Rolston's name has come up in trade rumours repeatedly, after scoring only 15 goals and 32 points in 64 games. Sundin's probably done...or, at least, has played himself out of another Summer of Mats hysteria.
So, what does this tell us about free agency? A couple of things are obvious: one, that you can't guarantee that a guy who had a great year or two with one team or while playing for a contract will continue to do so with a new team and a new deal. And, two, that free agents are almost always overpaid. That's going to happen in a high-risk, seller's market. But another thing a review of the last two free-agent frenzies seems to prove is that a free agent, even a prime one, will not save your team or make it an instant contender if you don't have a strong foundation already.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Of the teams remaining in the playoffs, Detroit has made the most impressive addition of free-agent pieces. Signing Rafalski and Hossa has helped them stay strong, without a doubt. But those guys, even as good as they are, are just supplementary players to the likes of Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk. Chicago's doing well despite their free agent acquisitions, rather than because of them. Their own young players are carrying the team while Huet hasn't played and Campbell makes errors like the one on the winning goal in game two the other night. In Pittsburgh, the free-agent signings of Matt Cooke, Ruslan Fedotenko, Miroslav Satan and Pascal Dupuis for a grand total of 8.6 million for this past year filled the Pens' need to give Crosby and Malkin someone to whom they could pass. Those guys were filler, not vital pieces of the puzzle. And Carolina didn't sign any free agents worth mentioning. Instead, they made a couple of smart trades for pieces like Jussi Jokinen, Joni Pitkanen, Joe Corvo, Patrick Eaves and Erik Cole (again). They used their assets in intelligent ways to upgrade their lineup.
So, none of the final four teams standing this season depended on free agency to make them into contenders. Those who did, like the Rangers, consistently fail to do well in the post-season. The evidence seems to indicate that a team can succeed by using free agent acquisitions to supplement their existing team infrastructure. But expecting more than that, and overpaying to get it, is almost always a cause for future regret.
That's why, when Bob Gainey is looking to fill out the roster this year, I hope he doesn't break the bank for a huge contract for Jay Bouwmeester, the Sedins, Marian Hossa, Marian Gaborik or, God forbid, Martin Havlat, while ignoring the free agents he already has. Paying big money to bring a star onto a team that has little else going for it won't do much to change the team's fate...except hogtie it financially when the cap drops in two years.
I'm not saying he should stay away from free agency altogether, but rather use it to supplement his team. Sign Mike Komisarek, then go after Francois Beauchemin. Replacing Komisarek with Beauchemin won't improve the team. But keeping Komisarek and replacing Patrice Brisebois with Beauchemin would. Sign Saku Koivu, then make an offer for Antropov to upgrade the centre position overall, instead of just marching in place by replacing Koivu with a marginally better player.
Gainey would be better off, based on the evidence of past free agent signings, to give his money to the guys he has in-house now, rather than let them walk and try to replace them on the overpriced open market. We saw that with the Streit situation. He could have had Streit, reportedly, for a little under three million dollars a season if he'd re-signed him mid-year. Instead, he waited until the Islanders were offering four and decided Streit was too expensive. As a result, the Habs had to put up with another year of Brisebois, the complete failure of the powerplay for most of the year and the desperation signing of Mathieu Schneider to replace Streit.
I have to think players like Andrei Kostitsyn, Tomas Plekanec and Chris Higgins will be better next year. So I think supplementing those guys with affordable talent instead of making a big splash on the free-agent market would be the smarter way to go. The worst thing that could happen is for Gainey to face July 1 with a pocketful of money and some flashy players on the market who'll be willing to take it from him if his offer's sweet enough, because no player out there this summer is going to take an average team and make it a winner by himself.
That's the recipe for ending up with a closetful of expensive sweaters you'll never wear and find yourself dumping in the goodwill pile two years from now, when you can't return them and they're out of style.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Generation "Net," Generation "I"
I was listening to CBC Radio's parenting columnist, Karen Horseman, the other morning and I had one of those Eureka! moments. She was talking about how young workers are changing the social dynamics of traditional workplaces. And she was discussing how parenting styles are responsible for producing these new workers and instilling in them the idea that they should be treated as more than just junior employees. It was all very interesting, but the Eureka! moment came when I realized she could be talking about young hockey players and their coaches, rather than 20-something workers and their bosses.
Here's the part of Horseman's report that struck me:
(Young people are still entering the workplace with this huge sense of entitlement. Nora Spinks is a motivational speaker and workplace-relations counsellor. She says "Young people expect to be given work that's challenging, they expect to be treated with respect, to get challenging work from the first day, to have access to senior executives, they expect to have involvement in decision-making."
New employees in their twenties who are described as the "net generation" feel their bosses, who are often boomers in their fifties or traditionalists in their sixties are arrogant. That they demand respect just because they've been there for a long time and never like to be questioned. That they have little flexibility and often turn up their noses at technology. How to bridge the gap between the two? Spinks says: "The first thing is awareness. You have to be aware of your own gender, generational, cultural biases. Because you can't look at anything or anybody else's behaviour...either observe it or manage it or coach it or develop it without understanding it...and then you need to have a dialogue."
The net generation and the generation behind them, known as the "I" generation are used to getting a lot of feedback. Some say it's the result of video games or overpraising parents. So the manager that was raised with the "Because I said so" parenting style may find it difficult to deal with the generation that is used to being asked for their opinions and told to be criticial thinkers. )
Doesn't that sound exactly like the criticisms of Guy Carbonneau's coaching style? He came from a generation in which the coach was sacrosanct. You didn't question, you just did what he said. And you were glad to have the opportunity to do it. Now young players are entering the NHL with a sense of entitlement. They want to have the coach's decisions explained to them, and they want to have a say in what their roles will be. I think Carbonneau either didn't understand that difference between his generation and the one he was asked to coach, or he didn't buy into it. Either way, I think there was a fundamental problem when the players failed to respond to his message.
So, when the team is looking for a new coach now, it's got to be someone who gets the Net generation. Without that vital understanding, communication is impossible. I'd like to see a well-respected, established coach with a good track record in Montreal next year. But, even more important I think is the coach's ability to make the players accept and absorb his message. Look at Blysma in Pittsburgh. He gets the young guys and speaks their language. He manages them in a way they appreciate.
Sadly, the days of players' unquestioning obedience to a coach are over. Young players want to be nurtured, not bullied. I hope whoever's on the short list to be the Canadiens' next coach speaks "Net." Without it, he won't last long.
Here's the part of Horseman's report that struck me:
(Young people are still entering the workplace with this huge sense of entitlement. Nora Spinks is a motivational speaker and workplace-relations counsellor. She says "Young people expect to be given work that's challenging, they expect to be treated with respect, to get challenging work from the first day, to have access to senior executives, they expect to have involvement in decision-making."
New employees in their twenties who are described as the "net generation" feel their bosses, who are often boomers in their fifties or traditionalists in their sixties are arrogant. That they demand respect just because they've been there for a long time and never like to be questioned. That they have little flexibility and often turn up their noses at technology. How to bridge the gap between the two? Spinks says: "The first thing is awareness. You have to be aware of your own gender, generational, cultural biases. Because you can't look at anything or anybody else's behaviour...either observe it or manage it or coach it or develop it without understanding it...and then you need to have a dialogue."
The net generation and the generation behind them, known as the "I" generation are used to getting a lot of feedback. Some say it's the result of video games or overpraising parents. So the manager that was raised with the "Because I said so" parenting style may find it difficult to deal with the generation that is used to being asked for their opinions and told to be criticial thinkers. )
Doesn't that sound exactly like the criticisms of Guy Carbonneau's coaching style? He came from a generation in which the coach was sacrosanct. You didn't question, you just did what he said. And you were glad to have the opportunity to do it. Now young players are entering the NHL with a sense of entitlement. They want to have the coach's decisions explained to them, and they want to have a say in what their roles will be. I think Carbonneau either didn't understand that difference between his generation and the one he was asked to coach, or he didn't buy into it. Either way, I think there was a fundamental problem when the players failed to respond to his message.
So, when the team is looking for a new coach now, it's got to be someone who gets the Net generation. Without that vital understanding, communication is impossible. I'd like to see a well-respected, established coach with a good track record in Montreal next year. But, even more important I think is the coach's ability to make the players accept and absorb his message. Look at Blysma in Pittsburgh. He gets the young guys and speaks their language. He manages them in a way they appreciate.
Sadly, the days of players' unquestioning obedience to a coach are over. Young players want to be nurtured, not bullied. I hope whoever's on the short list to be the Canadiens' next coach speaks "Net." Without it, he won't last long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
