It's time for the NHL to hand out its annual awards and for the first time in a few years (yeah, we remember you, Jose) the Habs have a candidate for a major one. The last time a Habs' coach won the Jack Adams award as coach of the year was almost twenty years ago, when Pat Burns took it home in 1988-89. I think this year, Guy Carbonneau should bring the Jack back to Montreal.
Sure, Mike Babcock won the Stanley Cup. And Bruce Boudreau dragged his team from the cellar to the division title and a playoff berth in half a season. But, when you look at it objectively, Babcock was coaching a stacked, mature team in the Wings. And Boudreau had Ovechkin and the advantage of playing 32 games against the weakest division in hockey. Carbonneau had a team that wasn't supposed to make the playoffs, yet somehow managed to win the eastern conference and maintain an even keel all season.
Some of the credit has to go to Alex Kovalev, who, if the Hart were decided in its purest sense...for the player most valuable to his team...should have been a candidate. Kovalev rebounded from one of his worst seasons ever to lead the team offensively and in hard work. But, considering the fallout between Kovalev and the coach last year, with the bad Russian press and Kovy's demotion to the fourth line, it's kind of amazing the two managed to work things out this year. That's where Carbonneau comes in. Kovalev surely made the difference in his own game himself, but Carbonneau had the grace to be able to rise above their issues and give Kovalev another chance. A lot of coaches would have felt the need to impose their will on the reluctant star, but Carbo let it go and started over.
Credit for the team's success has to go too to the young players who found their game in the NHL and learned how to make a difference. They did the work, but Carbonneau gave them the ice-time and the chance to prove themselves. Ryan O'Byrne, Sergei and Andrei Kostitsyn and Josh Gorges all learned that if they perform, the coach will give them a chance. That's the kind of coach a young player respects and works for.
But if we're doling out credit, then the lion's share of kudos for the Habs' season has to go to Carbonneau. He learned, and he wasn't too proud to admit he learned, from his mistakes in his first year behind the bench. He's a very, very smart man who knows the game on an intimate level. I'm fairly sure he spent some time last summer analyzing what went wrong in the previous season. He must have realized he panicked when the team lost two or three games in a row. And that he spoke out of turn to the media about his players sometimes. And he mishandled the veterans on occasion. And was slow to make in-game adjustments when the other team had the advantage.
He obviously thought about those things last summer and he came to the team in his second season with an idea about how to fix his problems. He was noticably less mercurial with the refs. He didn't panic when the team lost a couple and start mouthing off to the media. He still flipped lines and goalies a little too quickly, but not with the same tinge of overreaction that he had in his first year behind the bench. And when he changed the lines, they invariably worked. He managed to convince his troops to buy into his system...he actually HAD a system...and he handled his veterans with honesty and realism, which they mostly accepted, even when they didn't like it. I thought his in-game adjustments were much more astute and effective this season as well.
Of course, this isn't to say Carbonneau was perfect last year. He made mistakes, like falling back into a defensive shell too often with a one-goal lead, putting questionable players on the ice in tight situations, and overplaying some...like Brisebois...when benching them might have helped more. How often did we shout at the TV "WHY is Smolinski out there on a 5-on3?" But the good decisions were more frequent than the mistakes.
And, isn't that the best you can ask of a coach? I think it is. If a coach makes more good decisions than bad ones, his team is going to win. And winning is the mark of a good coach. Carbonneau's team won a lot this year, and I think he deserves a nice shiny trophy to underline that fact. Now, if he can only figure out when to take a timeout...
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Timelines
Maybe it's just me, but I never know when it's time to stop saying "next season" and switch to "this season" when we're talking about the hockey season that begins in the coming October. For me, the current season ends with the elimination of the Habs because I immediately start thinking ahead to the draft and UFA season, and puck drop in October becomes "this season." It's my way of coping with no more Habs for months on end. So, while I'm thinking "this season," everyone else seems to think the last season still goes on as long as the playoffs continue, so it's "next season" for them. Confusing, when you're trying to write about it.
Now though, I've noticed on some Habs' discussion sites that since Bob Gainey signed Maxim Lapierre to a new two-year deal this week, I'm starting to see more talk of "this season" in regards to 2008-09. I guess Lapierre's signing was the first shot across the bow of the Centennial season. I like this deal. He'll be making a slightly increased $575-thousand this year and $800-thousand the following season. That's a responsible and realistic price to pay for a still-developing fourth-liner with speed and a very strong PK ability. If Gainey can sign the other pieces he needs to slide into place in the next couple of weeks at such responsible rates, the team will be looking good financially for the coming season, and the even more important one, capwise, to follow. The trick for Gainey is to protect his assets from poachers, while keeping them happy with their rates of pay, and still save enough money to make a big, albeit short-term splash for the team's hundredth birthday.
Within two or three weeks, we should actually have a good idea of how that Centennial roster will look. The fifteen-day buyout window will open on Sunday. That'll give us a clue about whether a player like Dandenault can be moved or must be bought out. Then the draft next weekend is expected to be a busy one for trades. With only five Habs' picks on the docket right now, I'd expect Gainey to make even a couple of minor moves to add to that number. In the meantime, we can expect to hear about the signings of further restricted free agents and possibly an UFA like Streit as well. All that housekeeping will clear the decks for the big day, July 1. That day and the three or four that follow will answer the most compelling question we're asking: Will the Habs land the missing piece to become a serious Stanley Cup contender for their hundredth birthday?
Only three weeks to go before we know the truth behind all the speculation! It feels like "this season" already.
Now though, I've noticed on some Habs' discussion sites that since Bob Gainey signed Maxim Lapierre to a new two-year deal this week, I'm starting to see more talk of "this season" in regards to 2008-09. I guess Lapierre's signing was the first shot across the bow of the Centennial season. I like this deal. He'll be making a slightly increased $575-thousand this year and $800-thousand the following season. That's a responsible and realistic price to pay for a still-developing fourth-liner with speed and a very strong PK ability. If Gainey can sign the other pieces he needs to slide into place in the next couple of weeks at such responsible rates, the team will be looking good financially for the coming season, and the even more important one, capwise, to follow. The trick for Gainey is to protect his assets from poachers, while keeping them happy with their rates of pay, and still save enough money to make a big, albeit short-term splash for the team's hundredth birthday.
Within two or three weeks, we should actually have a good idea of how that Centennial roster will look. The fifteen-day buyout window will open on Sunday. That'll give us a clue about whether a player like Dandenault can be moved or must be bought out. Then the draft next weekend is expected to be a busy one for trades. With only five Habs' picks on the docket right now, I'd expect Gainey to make even a couple of minor moves to add to that number. In the meantime, we can expect to hear about the signings of further restricted free agents and possibly an UFA like Streit as well. All that housekeeping will clear the decks for the big day, July 1. That day and the three or four that follow will answer the most compelling question we're asking: Will the Habs land the missing piece to become a serious Stanley Cup contender for their hundredth birthday?
Only three weeks to go before we know the truth behind all the speculation! It feels like "this season" already.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Changing times
With the draft less than two weeks away, the other day I started thinking about the Habs' record at the draft table. It's no secret that they've been doing very well since the arrival of Trevor Timmins in 2002. The seven first-rounders for which he's been responsible are a who's who of the Habs' shining future. Christopher Higgins, Andrei Kostitsyn, Kyle Chipchura, Carey Price, David Fischer, Ryan McDonagh and Max Pacioretty all have important roles on the big team already, or are slated to have them in the coming seasons. It seems as though the days of the first-round bust are over for Montreal. And it's not just the first rounders that are impressing. Picks like Maxim Lapierre, Ryan O'Byrne, Mikhail Grabovsky, Guillaume Latendresse and late-round steals Sergei Kostitsyn and Jaroslav Halak are also contributing in the NHL, and are all to Timmins' credit.
Even before Timmins' arrival though, Andre Savard was already beginning to make important draft choices for the team. He was responsible for the selections of Mike Komisarek, Tomas Plekanec, Alexander Perezhogin and solid NHLers, though no longer Habs, Ron Hainsey and Marcel Hossa.
That's the bright side of the Canadiens recent draft story. The darkness preceeding it is not only painful to contemplate, but somewhat baffling as well. It was likely no coincidence that the 1999 draft, the last one before Savard's hiring as GM in 2000, was a giant bust for the Habs...one of many in the recent past. What's amazing about that time period...between the Canadiens' great 1984 draft, in which Serge Savard landed Svoboda, Corson, Richer and Roy with consecutive picks, and the 2000 arrival of Andre Savard...is that in those sixteen years, the Habs had one bona fide star emerge from their first-round selections: Saku Koivu in 1993. The names that fill the roster of first rounders alongside his are the mediocre, the laughable and the forgettable. Lindsay Vallis. Brent Bilodeau. Terry Ryan. Eric Chouinard. The list goes on.
Considering the epic scale of the Habs' draft futility over the years, I had to ask myself why it happened. How could a professional organization with the skilled people it employed to hunt up talent fail to even fluke into a decent pick once in a while? How could almost every single first rounder be such a dud?
Recently I had a chance to speak with the 1994 addition to the list of Canadiens' non-stellar draft selections, defenceman Brad Brown. Brown is still playing. He finished this season with the Florida Everblades of the ECHL, and hopes to find work with some team in September. From the distance of years, Brown was able to cast an interesting light on why the Habs' picks failed so badly to make an impact in the NHL.
After his draft fourteen years ago, Brown ended up spending two seasons in Fredericton, where the Habs' AHL affiliate was based at the time. He played thirteen games for Montreal, then was traded to Chicago. He says that was pretty typical of the way things happened in Montreal at the time. There was still a feeling amongst the team management, when the club was still within recent memory of winning Cups, that the Canadiens only needed a tweak here or there each year to get back on top. So, there wasn't a whole lot of priority placed on the draft. The team was more interested in trading or signing free agents to fill its needs. It wasn't investing precious resources into building from the ground up, and the scouting system left something to be desired.
Then, once a player was chosen, he fell into a system of benign neglect when it came to his development. Brown said he and his friend Terry Ryan, who became the Habs' number one pick in 1995, compared notes after Ryan's draft. They were both thrilled and proud to be first-rounders. But they were both a little worried and chagrined that they'd been chosen by Montreal, which had a reputation of letting its draftees rot in the minors without ever getting a real shot in the big league. Young players would wait years sometimes for a few games' trial, and if they screwed up, they were gone. Back to the minors or off to another team in a trade, just like that. It created an environment of panic among the team's prospects.
Times and attitudes were different then too, says Brown. He says today's young players see hockey as a job, more than as a game, and they train year-round with nutritionists, physical therapists and coaches who keep them in the best shape possible. Fourteen years ago, diets and training regimes were hit-or-miss, to put it kindly. The team itself treated prospects differently too. Now, scouting staff interviews players extensively before calling their names at the podium. The players are tested physically and mentally, and once selected, given access to every kind of training advantage the team can offer. In short, the team knows, as well as possible, what it's getting. A young player is considered an investment, whereas a decade ago, he was selected, handed a basic training outline and told "see you at camp" while the team hoped for the best.
And, Brown says, the Canadiens were one of the worst of the lot in a generally less prospect-focussed era when it came to their laxity in player development. His post-Habs' career seems to bear that out, since after his trade to Chicago, he managed to play parts of seven seasons in the NHL. He thinks if the Habs had taken an active role in developing its draft picks, he and some of the others who've found their way into the annals of ignominy in Montreal might have had better outcomes. To quote him, Rejean Houle was "a nice man, but not much of a planner." It turns out the Canadiens didn't just draft a bunch of talent-challenged players, but they failed to make the most out of the talent those players did possess.
I found Brad Brown's take on the Habs' draft history enlightening, because he's not bitter. He's happy just to be involved in hockey and spends little time thinking of "what ifs." His attitude might be a lesson to those of us who cheer for the Canadiens, who still find ourselves dwelling on the "might have beens" of the draft's Dark Years in Montreal.
Even before Timmins' arrival though, Andre Savard was already beginning to make important draft choices for the team. He was responsible for the selections of Mike Komisarek, Tomas Plekanec, Alexander Perezhogin and solid NHLers, though no longer Habs, Ron Hainsey and Marcel Hossa.
That's the bright side of the Canadiens recent draft story. The darkness preceeding it is not only painful to contemplate, but somewhat baffling as well. It was likely no coincidence that the 1999 draft, the last one before Savard's hiring as GM in 2000, was a giant bust for the Habs...one of many in the recent past. What's amazing about that time period...between the Canadiens' great 1984 draft, in which Serge Savard landed Svoboda, Corson, Richer and Roy with consecutive picks, and the 2000 arrival of Andre Savard...is that in those sixteen years, the Habs had one bona fide star emerge from their first-round selections: Saku Koivu in 1993. The names that fill the roster of first rounders alongside his are the mediocre, the laughable and the forgettable. Lindsay Vallis. Brent Bilodeau. Terry Ryan. Eric Chouinard. The list goes on.
Considering the epic scale of the Habs' draft futility over the years, I had to ask myself why it happened. How could a professional organization with the skilled people it employed to hunt up talent fail to even fluke into a decent pick once in a while? How could almost every single first rounder be such a dud?
Recently I had a chance to speak with the 1994 addition to the list of Canadiens' non-stellar draft selections, defenceman Brad Brown. Brown is still playing. He finished this season with the Florida Everblades of the ECHL, and hopes to find work with some team in September. From the distance of years, Brown was able to cast an interesting light on why the Habs' picks failed so badly to make an impact in the NHL.
After his draft fourteen years ago, Brown ended up spending two seasons in Fredericton, where the Habs' AHL affiliate was based at the time. He played thirteen games for Montreal, then was traded to Chicago. He says that was pretty typical of the way things happened in Montreal at the time. There was still a feeling amongst the team management, when the club was still within recent memory of winning Cups, that the Canadiens only needed a tweak here or there each year to get back on top. So, there wasn't a whole lot of priority placed on the draft. The team was more interested in trading or signing free agents to fill its needs. It wasn't investing precious resources into building from the ground up, and the scouting system left something to be desired.
Then, once a player was chosen, he fell into a system of benign neglect when it came to his development. Brown said he and his friend Terry Ryan, who became the Habs' number one pick in 1995, compared notes after Ryan's draft. They were both thrilled and proud to be first-rounders. But they were both a little worried and chagrined that they'd been chosen by Montreal, which had a reputation of letting its draftees rot in the minors without ever getting a real shot in the big league. Young players would wait years sometimes for a few games' trial, and if they screwed up, they were gone. Back to the minors or off to another team in a trade, just like that. It created an environment of panic among the team's prospects.
Times and attitudes were different then too, says Brown. He says today's young players see hockey as a job, more than as a game, and they train year-round with nutritionists, physical therapists and coaches who keep them in the best shape possible. Fourteen years ago, diets and training regimes were hit-or-miss, to put it kindly. The team itself treated prospects differently too. Now, scouting staff interviews players extensively before calling their names at the podium. The players are tested physically and mentally, and once selected, given access to every kind of training advantage the team can offer. In short, the team knows, as well as possible, what it's getting. A young player is considered an investment, whereas a decade ago, he was selected, handed a basic training outline and told "see you at camp" while the team hoped for the best.
And, Brown says, the Canadiens were one of the worst of the lot in a generally less prospect-focussed era when it came to their laxity in player development. His post-Habs' career seems to bear that out, since after his trade to Chicago, he managed to play parts of seven seasons in the NHL. He thinks if the Habs had taken an active role in developing its draft picks, he and some of the others who've found their way into the annals of ignominy in Montreal might have had better outcomes. To quote him, Rejean Houle was "a nice man, but not much of a planner." It turns out the Canadiens didn't just draft a bunch of talent-challenged players, but they failed to make the most out of the talent those players did possess.
I found Brad Brown's take on the Habs' draft history enlightening, because he's not bitter. He's happy just to be involved in hockey and spends little time thinking of "what ifs." His attitude might be a lesson to those of us who cheer for the Canadiens, who still find ourselves dwelling on the "might have beens" of the draft's Dark Years in Montreal.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Nothing to do with the Habs
I don't often feel the need to express an opinion here that doesn't relate to the Habs or really, even hockey as it pertains to the game on the ice. But lately something's been bothering me, and it gets worse every time I see it.
It's Alexander Ovechkin's teeth. Or, more specifically, his lack of teeth. I don't know exactly when Ovechkin lost his left front tooth, but it's been long enough that he could have had a replacement made by now. The gaping hole in his mouth makes him look like a hillbilly, and he wasn't exactly GQ material before. It started to irritate me when he began to appear in interviews in a suit and no tooth. It reached a head this week, when he received the Art Ross trophy as the league's leading scorer and posed with the beautiful trophy in an expensive suit and missing tooth.
Come on, Alex. You have just signed the most expensive contract in NHL history. You can afford a tooth! Jeez.
It's Alexander Ovechkin's teeth. Or, more specifically, his lack of teeth. I don't know exactly when Ovechkin lost his left front tooth, but it's been long enough that he could have had a replacement made by now. The gaping hole in his mouth makes him look like a hillbilly, and he wasn't exactly GQ material before. It started to irritate me when he began to appear in interviews in a suit and no tooth. It reached a head this week, when he received the Art Ross trophy as the league's leading scorer and posed with the beautiful trophy in an expensive suit and missing tooth.
Come on, Alex. You have just signed the most expensive contract in NHL history. You can afford a tooth! Jeez.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Off the draw
Watching the Detroit Red Wings dominate the Stanley Cup finals has taught me several things about what the Habs need to do if they're to fulfill Bob Gainey's publicly-expressed desire to emulate the champs' style. They need to develop better puck movement out of their own end for one thing. They need to close the gap between forwards and defence and have everyone moving ahead with speed and precision passing for another. They also need to get better on the boards, coming out with the puck more often than not. But the main thing I concluded after watching Detroit for the last two months is the Habs need to improve on the faceoff. A lot.
Everyone raves about Detroit's puck-possession game. It's true...they do have the puck for well over half the game. They take it off the draw, and their skilled passers and deft stickhandlers are able to hold it seemingly indefinitely. A quick look at the stats seems to bear out the correlation between faceoff win percentage and success in puck possession. Detroit led the league with a team-wide 53.27% during the regular season, compared to Montreal's 48.99%. Interestingly, Pittsburgh was a league-worst 46.11% in the circle. In the playoffs, Detroit once again dominated, with a 54.57% win rate. Half the teams in the post-season were less than fifty percent on faceoffs. Four of them played Detroit, including league-worst Dallas at 46.51%. Montreal improved marginally on its regular season stat, with a 50.48% rate of success. Of course, stats don't tell the whole story, and can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. But, there's no denying that Detroit wins a LOT of faceoffs, and they are able to keep the puck once they win it. It seems logical, doesn't it? Win the puck off the draw, gain control, pass it to attacking teammates, and the other team's going to have a heck of a time scoring on you. Conversely, lose the draw and you're constantly chasing the opponent to get it back. You're wasting more energy skating on defence, you're in more battles on the boards and you spend more time in your own end, giving up potentially dangerous chances on your goalie. There's little coincidence that Detroit was one of only two teams to allow fewer than 2000 shots against over 82 games this year. San Jose was the other, and they were eighth in the league in faceoff wins.
Further evidence to this effect is Bob Gainey's pre-trade deadline review of the team. The one concrete concern he expressed was that the team needs to improve on faceoffs. He issued his centres a challenge to fight for the puck more, and said he would consider a trade to bring in a strong faceoff man if that didn't happen. He even sent Kyle Chipchura, who seemed to be learning on the job pretty well in most areas, back to Hamilton after citing his need to work on the draw as a reason for the decision.
I think the team is making a move to address that deficiency already. The Habs' lone Quebec-born draftee last year, among all the defence with which Trevor Timmins stocked the system, was centre Olivier Fortier. He won the Guy Carbonneau Award as the best defensive forward in the Q this year. His faceoff percentage was a strong 52.5% over the season. I'm expecting Timmins to choose another centre with his first pick this year, and you can bet one of the qualities the team will be looking for is his ability on the draw.
Likewise with the free agent race in a few weeks. If Gainey moves to bring in a "name," I'd expect him to be someone like Sundin, who boasts a very impressive 55.16% faceoff success rate, along with all his other obvious good qualities. With the better-than-average chance that Sundin might choose elsewhere, then Gainey may take his now-traditional "Plan B" route and sign a third-line centre to replace Brian Smolinski. Josef Vasicek, Chris Gratton and Chris Kelly are all well over fifty-percent on the draw, and solid defensive players to boot. Bobby Holik and Eric Christensen in Atlanta are both an awesome 58% on faceoffs.
Whatever happens in the next few weeks, I think one thing you can safely count on is the Habs improving in the faceoff department. Bob Gainey thinks it's one of the most important factors on a winning hockey team. After watching the Stanley Cup champ Red Wings own the puck from the faceoff and for most of the game, I have to say I agree.
Everyone raves about Detroit's puck-possession game. It's true...they do have the puck for well over half the game. They take it off the draw, and their skilled passers and deft stickhandlers are able to hold it seemingly indefinitely. A quick look at the stats seems to bear out the correlation between faceoff win percentage and success in puck possession. Detroit led the league with a team-wide 53.27% during the regular season, compared to Montreal's 48.99%. Interestingly, Pittsburgh was a league-worst 46.11% in the circle. In the playoffs, Detroit once again dominated, with a 54.57% win rate. Half the teams in the post-season were less than fifty percent on faceoffs. Four of them played Detroit, including league-worst Dallas at 46.51%. Montreal improved marginally on its regular season stat, with a 50.48% rate of success. Of course, stats don't tell the whole story, and can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. But, there's no denying that Detroit wins a LOT of faceoffs, and they are able to keep the puck once they win it. It seems logical, doesn't it? Win the puck off the draw, gain control, pass it to attacking teammates, and the other team's going to have a heck of a time scoring on you. Conversely, lose the draw and you're constantly chasing the opponent to get it back. You're wasting more energy skating on defence, you're in more battles on the boards and you spend more time in your own end, giving up potentially dangerous chances on your goalie. There's little coincidence that Detroit was one of only two teams to allow fewer than 2000 shots against over 82 games this year. San Jose was the other, and they were eighth in the league in faceoff wins.
Further evidence to this effect is Bob Gainey's pre-trade deadline review of the team. The one concrete concern he expressed was that the team needs to improve on faceoffs. He issued his centres a challenge to fight for the puck more, and said he would consider a trade to bring in a strong faceoff man if that didn't happen. He even sent Kyle Chipchura, who seemed to be learning on the job pretty well in most areas, back to Hamilton after citing his need to work on the draw as a reason for the decision.
I think the team is making a move to address that deficiency already. The Habs' lone Quebec-born draftee last year, among all the defence with which Trevor Timmins stocked the system, was centre Olivier Fortier. He won the Guy Carbonneau Award as the best defensive forward in the Q this year. His faceoff percentage was a strong 52.5% over the season. I'm expecting Timmins to choose another centre with his first pick this year, and you can bet one of the qualities the team will be looking for is his ability on the draw.
Likewise with the free agent race in a few weeks. If Gainey moves to bring in a "name," I'd expect him to be someone like Sundin, who boasts a very impressive 55.16% faceoff success rate, along with all his other obvious good qualities. With the better-than-average chance that Sundin might choose elsewhere, then Gainey may take his now-traditional "Plan B" route and sign a third-line centre to replace Brian Smolinski. Josef Vasicek, Chris Gratton and Chris Kelly are all well over fifty-percent on the draw, and solid defensive players to boot. Bobby Holik and Eric Christensen in Atlanta are both an awesome 58% on faceoffs.
Whatever happens in the next few weeks, I think one thing you can safely count on is the Habs improving in the faceoff department. Bob Gainey thinks it's one of the most important factors on a winning hockey team. After watching the Stanley Cup champ Red Wings own the puck from the faceoff and for most of the game, I have to say I agree.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Milling the rumours
So, Bob has spoken. Admittedly, he hasn't really said anything concrete, so it's up to us to take what he says and glean from it any gems of hidden wisdom the bare words may be hiding.
At the GM meetings in Detroit yesterday, a couple of French reporters asked Gainey for an update on what's happening behind the scenes as draft day and July 1 approach. He specified Andrei Kostitsyn as his number one priority, which is not surprising considering Kevin Lowe's precedent on poaching restricted free agents. Kostitsyn scored 27 goals in his first full NHL season, which is not too shabby. He'd be prime bait for an offer sheet, so Gainey really needs to lock him up for several years. I'd originally thought the Habs would offer Kostitsyn a similar deal to the ones Chris Higgins, Mike Komisarek and Tomas Plekanec signed last year...around two million a year for two years. Now, considering the possible encroachment of the Russian league and the possibility that Kostitsyn will score thirty or more in the coming years, I think long-term might be better. Five years for three to three and a half million a year would give the Habs a chance to score a bargain if Kostitsyn manages to pot thirty or more in the next few seasons. It would also end his deal while his brother is still RFA. If Sergei re-signs, the chances of keeping Andrei for a second long-term deal after this one improve.
Gainey also specified he's talking to Mark Streit in the next couple of weeks, although he hasn't opened discussions yet. In his comments to the media, he hedged a little bit on his desire to re-sign Streit, qualifying it with a comment about it depending on Streit's salary fitting into the cap. This is where speculation gets fun. The Habs currently have a very healthy cap situation. They could easily afford to re-sign Streit for the 2-3 million his production deserves for the next three years. Unless there's a serious plan afoot to sign a big-name free agent for seven or eight million dollars a year. A big, bald centre who currently resides somewhere in the vicinity of the CN Tower would be just perfect.
Of course, Gainey's hedging on Streit could be for a simpler and less dramatic reason than that. He mentioned in yesterday's interview the decisions he's making in these next few weeks will be part of a long-term financial plan for the team. His noncommittal response on the Streit front could merely mean he's going to lock up Higgins, Komisarek and Plekanec on long-term extensions after he signs Kostitsyn, and paying more than two million or so...as well as offering multi-years...for a guy who's not part of that long-term vision doesn't work for him. If he's looking at which players will be fitting long term and which won't, of course he's also trying to figure out whether he needs to extend Saku Koivu and Alex Kovalev in the next year, and for how much and how long. I think considering those concerns, offering Streit more than a couple of million for a couple of years starts to look a bit unpalatable. And considering that...I think Streit will leave the Habs this summer.
I say this under the assumption that Streit, like most of us, wants to set himself up for life. He's thirty-one years old and will likely play another five or six years before he sees a marked decrease in his skill level. This contract will be the one that makes his sacrifice of the earnings he could have been bringing home in Switzerland these last three years worth it. With that in mind, unless he decides playing in Montreal is more important than more money, Gainey will make him a respectable offer that won't compete with the big money he'll draw from other GMs. I would expect that some team will offer Streit four million a year for four years, and that Gainey won't match that. The body language is different too, between the way Gainey talked about retaining Andrei Markov last year and how he's talking about Streit. Last year, all he said was that Markov was an important player and how re-signing him was the team's top priority. At the same time, he was talking about how Sheldon Souray did good things for the team and how Gainey would be glad to see Souray back, if it fit into the cap. The way he's talking about Streit now sounds more like the way he talked about Souray last year. And we know how that ended up.
Another difference between this year and last year is the way Gainey's talking about the other free agents. He says he's going to be talking with Brian Smolinski, Patrice Brisebois and Michael Ryder. Last year he summarily announced he would not be offering contracts to Mike Johnson, Radek Bonk or David Aebischer. So by that I suppose we can assume there's a possibility one or more of those three may get offers from the Habs.
Anyway, I guess the only two pieces of information we can take to the bank at this point are that the Habs will make Andrei Kostitsyn a very competitive offer and likely retain his services, and Gainey has identified players who have proven themselves enough to be paid as corner stones of the franchise. We can also assume he's going to try and lock up these assets while saving enough to bring home a big fish from the free agent pool.
The fun part of this time of year is that there's always grist for the rumour mill. And the millstone never stops turning.
At the GM meetings in Detroit yesterday, a couple of French reporters asked Gainey for an update on what's happening behind the scenes as draft day and July 1 approach. He specified Andrei Kostitsyn as his number one priority, which is not surprising considering Kevin Lowe's precedent on poaching restricted free agents. Kostitsyn scored 27 goals in his first full NHL season, which is not too shabby. He'd be prime bait for an offer sheet, so Gainey really needs to lock him up for several years. I'd originally thought the Habs would offer Kostitsyn a similar deal to the ones Chris Higgins, Mike Komisarek and Tomas Plekanec signed last year...around two million a year for two years. Now, considering the possible encroachment of the Russian league and the possibility that Kostitsyn will score thirty or more in the coming years, I think long-term might be better. Five years for three to three and a half million a year would give the Habs a chance to score a bargain if Kostitsyn manages to pot thirty or more in the next few seasons. It would also end his deal while his brother is still RFA. If Sergei re-signs, the chances of keeping Andrei for a second long-term deal after this one improve.
Gainey also specified he's talking to Mark Streit in the next couple of weeks, although he hasn't opened discussions yet. In his comments to the media, he hedged a little bit on his desire to re-sign Streit, qualifying it with a comment about it depending on Streit's salary fitting into the cap. This is where speculation gets fun. The Habs currently have a very healthy cap situation. They could easily afford to re-sign Streit for the 2-3 million his production deserves for the next three years. Unless there's a serious plan afoot to sign a big-name free agent for seven or eight million dollars a year. A big, bald centre who currently resides somewhere in the vicinity of the CN Tower would be just perfect.
Of course, Gainey's hedging on Streit could be for a simpler and less dramatic reason than that. He mentioned in yesterday's interview the decisions he's making in these next few weeks will be part of a long-term financial plan for the team. His noncommittal response on the Streit front could merely mean he's going to lock up Higgins, Komisarek and Plekanec on long-term extensions after he signs Kostitsyn, and paying more than two million or so...as well as offering multi-years...for a guy who's not part of that long-term vision doesn't work for him. If he's looking at which players will be fitting long term and which won't, of course he's also trying to figure out whether he needs to extend Saku Koivu and Alex Kovalev in the next year, and for how much and how long. I think considering those concerns, offering Streit more than a couple of million for a couple of years starts to look a bit unpalatable. And considering that...I think Streit will leave the Habs this summer.
I say this under the assumption that Streit, like most of us, wants to set himself up for life. He's thirty-one years old and will likely play another five or six years before he sees a marked decrease in his skill level. This contract will be the one that makes his sacrifice of the earnings he could have been bringing home in Switzerland these last three years worth it. With that in mind, unless he decides playing in Montreal is more important than more money, Gainey will make him a respectable offer that won't compete with the big money he'll draw from other GMs. I would expect that some team will offer Streit four million a year for four years, and that Gainey won't match that. The body language is different too, between the way Gainey talked about retaining Andrei Markov last year and how he's talking about Streit. Last year, all he said was that Markov was an important player and how re-signing him was the team's top priority. At the same time, he was talking about how Sheldon Souray did good things for the team and how Gainey would be glad to see Souray back, if it fit into the cap. The way he's talking about Streit now sounds more like the way he talked about Souray last year. And we know how that ended up.
Another difference between this year and last year is the way Gainey's talking about the other free agents. He says he's going to be talking with Brian Smolinski, Patrice Brisebois and Michael Ryder. Last year he summarily announced he would not be offering contracts to Mike Johnson, Radek Bonk or David Aebischer. So by that I suppose we can assume there's a possibility one or more of those three may get offers from the Habs.
Anyway, I guess the only two pieces of information we can take to the bank at this point are that the Habs will make Andrei Kostitsyn a very competitive offer and likely retain his services, and Gainey has identified players who have proven themselves enough to be paid as corner stones of the franchise. We can also assume he's going to try and lock up these assets while saving enough to bring home a big fish from the free agent pool.
The fun part of this time of year is that there's always grist for the rumour mill. And the millstone never stops turning.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Doing lines
I've been a hockey fan for a long time now, and I don't remember ever seeing the obsession with line combinations and the hierarchy of lines as there is right now. Even the terminology has changed. In the past, when looking at a player's talent analysis or projected position on a team, we'd see terms like "checker" or "goal scorer" or "playmaker." Now it's all "third-line winger," "energy line player" or "first-line centre." Go to any fan site on the internet, and...especially when things are slow...you'll find armchair coaches by the dozen, projecting line combinations. "What if Mats Sundin signed with the Habs? Well, my line combos would be..." "Chris Higgins a first liner? No, a third-liner..." It baffles me because not only do fans have absolutely no say about what lines the coach chooses, but the coach, especially in Guy Carbonneau's case, often switches up the lines in mid-game anyway.
The funny thing is the obsession with lines has permeated the media's and players' mentalities as well. When Tomas Plekanec, Alex Kovalev and Andrei Kostitsyn began to outperform Saku Koivu, Michael Ryder and Chris Higgins, Koivu found himself answering the same question repeatedly: "Are you unhappy about being demoted to the second line?" The question was valid only because of the pretige factor associated with line labels. On most teams, "first-line" players are the three best offensive players on the team, who get the most ice-time and are used in the most advantageous goal-scoring situations. "Second-line" players are responsible for pitching in a few goals here and there and get fewer minutes on the power play. So, when reporters asked about Koivu's "demotion," they were really asking him if he felt slighted because the coach, by using Plekanec's line in certain situations, had decided Koivu's most productive days were behind him. The "lines" are shorthand for where a player fits in and what he brings to the team...and the players know it.
I think the traditional line system has its roots in the earliest days of the pro game, when lines were set in stone to the point where they were given legendary names. The Production Line in Detroit, the Kraut Line in Boston and the most productive of them all, the Canadiens' great Punch Line of Richard, Blake and Lach. Those were the high-flyers...the ones whose role was to put the puck in the net and win games for their teams. In an era when teams played nine forwards and four defencemen in a game, the three best guys were seldom sent out with any but their usual partners. Teams had a scoring line, a secondary scoring line and a checking line. But when the game got faster and shifts got shorter, somewhere around the mid-to-late seventies, the need for a fourth line became apparent. Unfortunately, with the draft and the general dilution of talent in the face of expansion, NHL teams found themselves facing a sparsity of highly-skilled players to fill four lines. So inevitably, less-skilled players started to get NHL jobs, just to fill rosters and get enough ice time to give the stars a breather. The fourth line became a repository of goons, one-dimensional pluggers and young players who hadn't proved enough to get more than a few minutes of ice a game. With the addition of the "energy" line, the current hierarchy of first-line scorers, second-line backup scorers, third-line checkers and fourth-line chaff was born. That's the way it is still on most teams, and the minutes are granted the various lines accordingly. First-liners get twenty-plus minutes a game. Second and third lines get fifteen or sixteen each and the pluggers get whatever's left over.
The thing is, though, in Montreal the Habs don't really have a traditional line system at all. The players are grouped according to who plays best together, even if it means a guy like Latendresse goes from the fourth line to the first from one game to the next. If Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Kovalev are performing well together, they stay together. If not, Kovalev is just as likely to find himself playing with Lapierre and Higgins. Carbonneau uses his top nine offensive players so evenly, it's hard to assign traditional labels to a particular trio. Even the players who'd normally be classified as the "fourth" line and relegated to five or six minutes a game on other teams get double-digit minutes from Carbonneau. And he mixes the combinations so often, sometimes it's hard to say what three players even make a line at all. It's almost a revolutionary way of using the players.
Part of the reason for this may be the fact that there are certain roles that just weren't filled on the Canadiens this year. The traditional third line is a checking line that goes out against the NHL's best players. This season, the Habs had Bryan Smolinski centering that line. Now, Smolinski's best years were spent as a secondary scorer, contributing fifteen to twenty goals a season. He's never been the type of player who can grind the other team's best scorers into the ice. The Habs also didn't have a superstar...the type of player who scores so often and so dependably that he needs to be on the ice for more than twenty minutes a game. As a result, the chores...both scoring and checking...were more evenly spread out among all the players. Kovalev killed penalties. Smolinski got PP time.
I think the distribution of ice time so evenly among all twelve forwards was a big reason why the team avoided injury so well this year. No one was exhausted and making the mistakes that get tired players hurt. And I think players were less run-down than they get when they're tired and dehydrated playing big minutes every night, and got sick less because of it. Rolling four lines also helped the team keep its speed constant throughout whole games while other teams' top guys flagged at the ends of periods. There are definitely arguments to be made in favour of playing lines evenly, if a team has the people to do that without experiencing a huge drop-off in talent between one line and the next.
On the flip side, there are negatives inherent in line labelling. If Chris Higgins is expected to be a "first-line" LW, he's expected to be a different player than if he's called a "third-line" LW. He's still the same player, with the same amount of ice time; a streaky scorer who pots 27 goals while killing penalties and playing a strong two-way game. But if he's a first liner, people are disappointed in him this year. If he's a third liner, they're thrilled. Another risk of labelling is in player expectations. A "first-line" centre like Scott Gomez or Daniel Briere will get 8 million dollars next year, after seasons of 70 and 72 points respectively. On the other hand, "second-line" centre Mike Richards has signed a multi-year extension that pays him 5.4 million next season, after potting 75 points ths year. Amittedly, that's not exactly peanuts and Richards was negotiating from an RFA standpoint rather than as an UFA as the other two were...but there's definitely a pay difference in accordance with perceived status.
I'm not sure the Canadiens will move back to a system of traditional line combinations even if they get that checking centre and a big scoring star and are able to do it. And I think it's a good thing if they don't. Fans talk about Sundin signing with the Habs and the unavoidable question, "Where would he play?" comes up. The consensus among many is that he would obviously centre the first line, but that Koivu should play on his wing because the captain would be angered about being demoted to the third line behind Sundin and Plekanec. I think in Carbo's system, Koivu, Plekanec and Sundin would all get similar icetime. There's no shortage of strong wingers on the Habs, so no centre would be playing with inferior linemates. And players like Sundin and Koivu could very well benefit by playing fewer minutes and saving their aging bodies for the playoffs. The concept of three scoring lines and a checking line is one that could even be an attractive draw for an older player who doesn't want the pressure and expectations of being the first-line superstar, expected to play twenty-five minutes a game, anymore.
I think that's the way Bob Gainey is going. He's said he wants a fast, opportunistic team. He's not interested in one-dimensional players and he's not interested in goons. He wants players who bring more to the table and are able to contribute for ten or fifteen minutes a game. I hope this summer to see him add the pieces the team needs to roll those three scoring lines this year. With the likely departure of Michael Ryder, the team's top forwards are Plekanec, Koivu, the two Kostitsyns, Higgins, Kovalev and Latendresse. Gainey needs to add a centre and a winger to complete the set, whether through promotion from within or from the free agent market. I think Gainey knows today's NHL is making the traditional fourth line obsolete. High speed and the conservation of energy in rolling lines evenly seems the logical way to go. Hopefully, if it happens that way, the presitige and stigma of line labelling will start to disappear.
Unfortunately, it may take longer for fans to stop obsessively forming their own fantasy lines. Who knows? Maybe someday Carbo will be wondering where to play Latendresse and some fan's imaginary lineup will inspire him. I guess if it makes people happy to think that might happen, then good for them. In the meantime, the only important opinions are Carbonneau's and Gainey's. And I like what they're doing so far. Everyone else can get in line.
The funny thing is the obsession with lines has permeated the media's and players' mentalities as well. When Tomas Plekanec, Alex Kovalev and Andrei Kostitsyn began to outperform Saku Koivu, Michael Ryder and Chris Higgins, Koivu found himself answering the same question repeatedly: "Are you unhappy about being demoted to the second line?" The question was valid only because of the pretige factor associated with line labels. On most teams, "first-line" players are the three best offensive players on the team, who get the most ice-time and are used in the most advantageous goal-scoring situations. "Second-line" players are responsible for pitching in a few goals here and there and get fewer minutes on the power play. So, when reporters asked about Koivu's "demotion," they were really asking him if he felt slighted because the coach, by using Plekanec's line in certain situations, had decided Koivu's most productive days were behind him. The "lines" are shorthand for where a player fits in and what he brings to the team...and the players know it.
I think the traditional line system has its roots in the earliest days of the pro game, when lines were set in stone to the point where they were given legendary names. The Production Line in Detroit, the Kraut Line in Boston and the most productive of them all, the Canadiens' great Punch Line of Richard, Blake and Lach. Those were the high-flyers...the ones whose role was to put the puck in the net and win games for their teams. In an era when teams played nine forwards and four defencemen in a game, the three best guys were seldom sent out with any but their usual partners. Teams had a scoring line, a secondary scoring line and a checking line. But when the game got faster and shifts got shorter, somewhere around the mid-to-late seventies, the need for a fourth line became apparent. Unfortunately, with the draft and the general dilution of talent in the face of expansion, NHL teams found themselves facing a sparsity of highly-skilled players to fill four lines. So inevitably, less-skilled players started to get NHL jobs, just to fill rosters and get enough ice time to give the stars a breather. The fourth line became a repository of goons, one-dimensional pluggers and young players who hadn't proved enough to get more than a few minutes of ice a game. With the addition of the "energy" line, the current hierarchy of first-line scorers, second-line backup scorers, third-line checkers and fourth-line chaff was born. That's the way it is still on most teams, and the minutes are granted the various lines accordingly. First-liners get twenty-plus minutes a game. Second and third lines get fifteen or sixteen each and the pluggers get whatever's left over.
The thing is, though, in Montreal the Habs don't really have a traditional line system at all. The players are grouped according to who plays best together, even if it means a guy like Latendresse goes from the fourth line to the first from one game to the next. If Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Kovalev are performing well together, they stay together. If not, Kovalev is just as likely to find himself playing with Lapierre and Higgins. Carbonneau uses his top nine offensive players so evenly, it's hard to assign traditional labels to a particular trio. Even the players who'd normally be classified as the "fourth" line and relegated to five or six minutes a game on other teams get double-digit minutes from Carbonneau. And he mixes the combinations so often, sometimes it's hard to say what three players even make a line at all. It's almost a revolutionary way of using the players.
Part of the reason for this may be the fact that there are certain roles that just weren't filled on the Canadiens this year. The traditional third line is a checking line that goes out against the NHL's best players. This season, the Habs had Bryan Smolinski centering that line. Now, Smolinski's best years were spent as a secondary scorer, contributing fifteen to twenty goals a season. He's never been the type of player who can grind the other team's best scorers into the ice. The Habs also didn't have a superstar...the type of player who scores so often and so dependably that he needs to be on the ice for more than twenty minutes a game. As a result, the chores...both scoring and checking...were more evenly spread out among all the players. Kovalev killed penalties. Smolinski got PP time.
I think the distribution of ice time so evenly among all twelve forwards was a big reason why the team avoided injury so well this year. No one was exhausted and making the mistakes that get tired players hurt. And I think players were less run-down than they get when they're tired and dehydrated playing big minutes every night, and got sick less because of it. Rolling four lines also helped the team keep its speed constant throughout whole games while other teams' top guys flagged at the ends of periods. There are definitely arguments to be made in favour of playing lines evenly, if a team has the people to do that without experiencing a huge drop-off in talent between one line and the next.
On the flip side, there are negatives inherent in line labelling. If Chris Higgins is expected to be a "first-line" LW, he's expected to be a different player than if he's called a "third-line" LW. He's still the same player, with the same amount of ice time; a streaky scorer who pots 27 goals while killing penalties and playing a strong two-way game. But if he's a first liner, people are disappointed in him this year. If he's a third liner, they're thrilled. Another risk of labelling is in player expectations. A "first-line" centre like Scott Gomez or Daniel Briere will get 8 million dollars next year, after seasons of 70 and 72 points respectively. On the other hand, "second-line" centre Mike Richards has signed a multi-year extension that pays him 5.4 million next season, after potting 75 points ths year. Amittedly, that's not exactly peanuts and Richards was negotiating from an RFA standpoint rather than as an UFA as the other two were...but there's definitely a pay difference in accordance with perceived status.
I'm not sure the Canadiens will move back to a system of traditional line combinations even if they get that checking centre and a big scoring star and are able to do it. And I think it's a good thing if they don't. Fans talk about Sundin signing with the Habs and the unavoidable question, "Where would he play?" comes up. The consensus among many is that he would obviously centre the first line, but that Koivu should play on his wing because the captain would be angered about being demoted to the third line behind Sundin and Plekanec. I think in Carbo's system, Koivu, Plekanec and Sundin would all get similar icetime. There's no shortage of strong wingers on the Habs, so no centre would be playing with inferior linemates. And players like Sundin and Koivu could very well benefit by playing fewer minutes and saving their aging bodies for the playoffs. The concept of three scoring lines and a checking line is one that could even be an attractive draw for an older player who doesn't want the pressure and expectations of being the first-line superstar, expected to play twenty-five minutes a game, anymore.
I think that's the way Bob Gainey is going. He's said he wants a fast, opportunistic team. He's not interested in one-dimensional players and he's not interested in goons. He wants players who bring more to the table and are able to contribute for ten or fifteen minutes a game. I hope this summer to see him add the pieces the team needs to roll those three scoring lines this year. With the likely departure of Michael Ryder, the team's top forwards are Plekanec, Koivu, the two Kostitsyns, Higgins, Kovalev and Latendresse. Gainey needs to add a centre and a winger to complete the set, whether through promotion from within or from the free agent market. I think Gainey knows today's NHL is making the traditional fourth line obsolete. High speed and the conservation of energy in rolling lines evenly seems the logical way to go. Hopefully, if it happens that way, the presitige and stigma of line labelling will start to disappear.
Unfortunately, it may take longer for fans to stop obsessively forming their own fantasy lines. Who knows? Maybe someday Carbo will be wondering where to play Latendresse and some fan's imaginary lineup will inspire him. I guess if it makes people happy to think that might happen, then good for them. In the meantime, the only important opinions are Carbonneau's and Gainey's. And I like what they're doing so far. Everyone else can get in line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
