About Two for Elbowing

Blog powered by TypePad

Google Analytics


July 05, 2008

Concerns About Bernier. And Everything Else.

KuklasKorner : Canucks and Beyond : Concerns About Bernier. And Everything Else.:

I don’t have anything to add except that the rumors out of Vancouver yesterday speculated that Bernier was only traded because the Sabres believed they were about to lose him to an offer sheet. (The theory being—as I understand it—that Vancouver indicated to the Sabres that they were intending to sign him for more money than the Sabres would choose to match, so the Sabres acquiesced to a trade in order to get a better deal—what amounted to an extra draft pick).
image
True or not, I have no idea. All I know is that the Sabres capitalized on their storage of picks pretty quickly after losing Bernier, and the Canucks are almost-certainly better off because of his signing

Alanah follows up on my post on Bernier from the Canucks view. To get some more perspective on this, I'll give props to Daniel Robitaille, who posted this as a comment on my previous article:

I thought this quote seen in this morning's Globe and Mail was very telling for the probable cause of his apparent decrease in value in recent months:

"For his part, Bernier admitted he must get in better shape and improve his consistency after three years where he has flashed goal-scoring potential, but also suffered setbacks."

As to the timing of the trade, I'm not sure it was offer-sheet based. If you look at the timing of things, as soon as the Sharks lost out to Chicago on Campbell, they went and finalized a deal for Dan Boyle -- and as soon as that was approved, Rivet went off to Buffalo. As soon as Rivet was headed off to Buffalo, Bernier went to Vancouver.

The sharks were clearing depth by moving Rivet (and salary, but they weren't tight to the cap); the Sabres were clearing cap room by moving Bernier and getting picks back. And both of those deals were clearly set up and on hold for the triggering event, which was the Boyle deal. so to some degree, Steve Bernier was traded from Buffalo to Vancouver by Doug Wilson. Indirectly....

It seems to show just how intertwined things in the league; Buffalo and San Jose are talking about trading Rivet, if San Jose can make something else happens. To make roomf for Rivet, Buffalo then goes and talks to Vancouver, and then everyone sits and waits, and it either all happens, or we never hear anything.

One rumor I read today that Kyle McClaren was being shopped. I have to wonder if that ended when Rivet moved, or if Wilson has another trick up his sleeve. My guess is the former, but you never know.

One curious aspect I don't think we'll ever know is how much Buffalo knew what San Jose was doing, and how much Vancouver knew what Buffalo was doing based on what San Jose was doing... were these deals done in the sly, or did everyone know it depened on Boyle moving? Neither team, clearly, was in the Boyle sweepstakes...

July 04, 2008

Canucks Trade for Steve Bernier

KuklasKorner : Canucks and Beyond : Canucks Trade for Steve Bernier:

Vancouver Canucks General Manager Mike Gillis announced today that the club has acquired right wing, Steve Bernier from the Buffalo Sabres in exchange for a second round Draft pick in 2010 and third round pick (Los Angeles’ selection) in 2009.

“Steve Bernier is a highly regarded young player who’s enjoyed success early in his career,” said Gillis. “With his right-handed shot he will be a great addition to our top six forward group and an asset to our power play.”

Alanah just posted a pointer to this. I find it -- curious.

Steve Bernier is a young player with good talent and a lot of potential, yet when the Campbell trade was made, the Sharks considered him expendable. His problem: games and shifts where he played without intensity. It got him sat a few times, but at his age, that's not unusual, and very teachable.

Even recently, Bernier was being touted as a key cog in the Buffalo future.

And now he's off to Vancouver for a 2nd and a third draft pick?

Alarm bells are going off here. When a player starts becoming the pass-around pack, unless it's Mike Sillinger, you have to wonder why; especially when teams say nice things about them and then trade them.

It's more alarming when the value for that player is decreasing, and let's be blunt: a 2nd and a third here mean's Bernier's stock isn't exactly peaking. And (sorry, Alanah), when these things happen and the player is being moved to teams lower in the pecking order? Vancouver isn't Buffalo or San Jose; this isn't Brad Stuart going to Detroit.

So I have to wonder what is happening with Bernier, that teams not only find him expendable, but now in Buffalo, moved him for mid-level draft picks. It's little more than a salary/depth dump here; maybe they're freeing up room to make a signing of some sort, but Steve Bernier shouldn't be a player that's moving around for draft picks -- at this point in his career. Or moving around this often.

If he goes to the Canucks and becomes the Bernier I think he can be, Vancouver gets a bargain; he wouldn't be the first player to be traded into the right organization, or get his head on straight (think Brad Boyes). On the other hand, he also wouldn't be the first player to get bounced around a bit and then fade to black, never to be heard from again (think Jeff Jillson).

Canucks fans, however, should see this kid as a project, not a solution, because Ottawa dumping him off makes me believe they decided his negatives outweighed his positives. Steve, if you read this -- don't be Jeff Jillson. Get back in the weight room...

(historical sharks scuttlebutt: both Boyes and Jillson were sharks prospects who, if rumors prove correct, earned their way out of the organization by not being committed to the Sharks idea of "game shape". Boyes is rumored to have basically taken a summer off from his weight training and coming into camp in poor shape, Jillson, I was told, arrived in camp something like 15 pounds overweight. Boyes bounced around the league a bit, grew up, got his act together, and is a pretty good player today. Jillson -- well, not so.

The biggest complaint I've ever heard about Bernier is he loses focus and his head isn't always in games. that's eminently trainable, if a player wants to be trained. But now, two teams have basically decided not to wait for him to mature. Canucks fans should be a bit careful about their expectations for the kid. I sincerely hope he makes the Sharks regret he came back into the west, but he'll have to prove it)

(update: buffalo, not ottawa. my bad...)


June 09, 2008

PunditWatch

PunditWatch: TechCrunch Always Wrong, SAI Usually Right - Silicon Alley Insider:

A new section of news-prediction site Hubdub, called PunditWatch, tracks the predictions of famous pundits. TechCrunch is a famous pundit. Unfortunately, all of its predictions have been wrong.

SAI is a famous pundit, too. And 75% of our predictions have been right!

I've wanted for a couple of years now to do this for key pundits covering the NHL. Actually keep track of the stuff they babble and see how often they're right. if ever.

You can bet that Al Strachan would be first on my pundit-watch list, too. And bruce garrioch. And I'd bet the results wouldn't be pretty. funny, but not pretty.

but here's a hint to hockey fans around the world: if you notice that some pundit you're reading always seems to be throwing out things that never happen -- stop reading them. You're just wasting your time otherwise.

Ron Wilson gets a rough welcome to Leaf Nation

Ron Wilson gets a rough welcome to Leaf Nation - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:

Wilson can be both charming and snippy in dealing with the media, and it’ll be fun to watch how that plays out, even at this distance. A few very visible members of the Canadian press have had their knives out for Wilson for a while now and the fact his next job is north of the border has to be either a dream come true for them or their worst nightmare, depending on their perspective.

But it’s not just the media. Leaf Nation is already weighing in on the choice and, judging by the comments at the TSN.ca story on Wilson’s hiring, the ride is starting out a little bumpy. Ultimately, of course, it’ll all be about wins and losses, but for now, in the fans’ eyes, there’s little doubt that Ron is bringing some baggage with him.

[....]

************Maple Leafs and Ron Wilson aside, the truly big story out of the Great White North today is the fact that Hockey Night in Canada has lost the rights to its theme song of the past 40 years. And that jingle — familiar in the U.S. as well thanks to Center Ice — now will be played before every NHL game on TSN and its French-language partner, RDS, as well as on CTV during the 2010 Olympics.

Personally, I think Wilson is a great coach for the Leafs. He may not be the coach to win them the Cup, but man, that franchise has a lot of fixing to be done before they're ready to consider that, and he's a great coach to take a screwed up franchise and (at least) get it ready for the run, even if his teams seem to falter a bit short of the ultimate goal (as they did in San Jose).

but as soon as I heard the leafs were looking at Wilson (and by implication, Brian Burke, who seems to be heir presumptive in Toronto), I had to go "huh?" a bit? It seems to me hiring an American to coach the leafs is asking for trouble the way hiring a Swede, or worse, an Albertan, to coach the Habs. And if/when Burke comes in, the cultural center of canadian hockey has to go to America to hire a competent coach and GM?

The mind boggles. I'm amazed the Canadian-centric media types haven't been screaming at the government to outlaw this already.

What, exactly, does this say about the relative power balance of Canada and the U.S. when the Leafs have to hire Americans to fix the franchise?

And the thing is, Wilson and Burke may well BE the best combo for this -- but it's going to stick in the throat of some canadians. And every time there's a air pocket, you can bet the usual suspects will be beating this drum.

Me, personally, I'm amused.

As to the HNIC anthem, isn't greed wonderful? And wasn't the timing by the rights holders wonderful? And doesn't it seem to be backfiring, just a bit?

My prediction: in two years, the theme will be a fond memory, the fans will have moved on, HNiC will have a new theme that people like, and only the hard cores who are looking for reasons to complain will be complaining. and CTV will be wondering why they spent all of that money on something that loses most of its value faster than a new car being driven off a lot into a sandstorm.

And for those using this to beat on CBC, get a clue: they didn't pull this stunt....

May 22, 2008

Two for Elbowing: Conference Finals projections

Two for Elbowing: Conference Finals projections:

And Sharks/Dallas? Dallas deserves to move forward. Good luck to them.

1-3. Ouch. but still 7-5 for the playoffs. I still have time to screw that up.

And so I will.

And I went 1-1 in the conference finals, so I'm at 8-6 and guaranteed a winning record for the playoffs for the 2nd year in a row. Not too bad.

Okay, Okay. I've been under-estimating Detroit long enough. All year. I didn't pick them that strong going into the season, I thought they were getting too old and the goaltending suspicious. In the playoffs, I kept assuming reality would kick in (forget that President's trophy, it's a mirage!).

Osgood has a rep for being the worst goalie to ever win a Stanley Cup ("oh, hell, I could have won a Cup goaltending for that team". right. yeah.) -- and may soon be the worst goalie to have TWO rings. He's done nothing but impress me all season, and especially in the playoffs. Hasek has impressed me as well, because he's finally learned a trick never before seen in his career: the ability to shut up and be a team player when he's not the #1 dog in the locker room. Never figured I'd see that, either.

And now Frandsen is approved to start practicing.

I think this is going to be one hell of a series. I'm probably not going to want it to end. But ultimately, I think Detroit's going to take it -- and I'll bet now that Pittsburgh will be in the finals again next year. here's hoping they lose AGAIN to San Jose, otherwise, I expect the pens will win the Cup next year. tehy're close.

but for now, no more disbelieving in Detroit. I think San Jose would have been a better match up against them than Dallas was, but I'm not convinced the Sharks would have won. Adn I don't think Pittsburgh will win starting Saturday.

So, Detroit in 6. and I hope for a couple of good, long overtimes.

May 14, 2008

here's one for Penguins fans...


And only $20...

(T-shirt available from Mule Design)

May 06, 2008

Conference Finals projections


6-2 in the first round, with both cup picks live. Not bad.

Second round? well... Not so.

Montreal (my east pick) lost to Philly. I knew depending on Price was a risk, but so did Montreal. On a long term basis, it's probably good for the Habs, in that Price now knows what it'll take. but still Montreal's golfing.

chose the pens, won the series. But I still thought it would be tougher than it was.

And I chose Colorado? what was I thinking? I was thinking that half the Avs wouldn't go down to injury and that Theodore wouldn't get the flu. Even so, Detroit was much stronger than I figured they'd be, too. (FWIW, I have no problem with Quenville sticking with Theodore. I have huge problems with him sticking with him for four goals, when it was clear in each of the first couple of games that he was "not right" by the 2nd. Faster hooks might have made a difference early. Nothing made a difference later.

And Sharks/Dallas? Dallas deserves to move forward. Good luck to them.

1-3. Ouch. but still 7-5 for the playoffs. I still have time to screw that up.

And so I will.

In the west: I love how Dallas is playing, so I'm going to ride them. Detroit iss also playing well, but Morrow and Turco are playing insanely well. Hate to bet against them. Better yet, f they win the cup, it'll take some sting out of the Sharks losing, given nobody else did. So Stars, but in 7.

Philly/Pittsburgh: Like Philly. Love Pittsburgh. Pens in 6.

And since any money I won in the first round went right back in the 2nd, I think it's safe to say don't use this as your betting advice, folks.


May 04, 2008

The LA Kings are... Losing Money?

The LA Kings are... Losing Money? - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog:

That can't be right. Or can it? The Kings have always seemed to have some financial trouble, dating back to before the lockout. That's common knowledge. After that we went through an entire year without hockey for the sole purpose of restoring the financial viability of all the clubs. There were, and are, no guarantees that the clubs are all in the green, but from everything we have been told over the last three years they are doing much better than prior to the lockout. But wait ... The Los Angeles Daily News reported today that the Kings are losing more money now than they were prior to the lockout. Those emboldened words are key here.

The whole "the lockout was supposed to make all of the teams profitable" thing is a strawman. That's not what anyone ever claimed, what it did (and continues to do) is keep salary levels in line with league revenues, so teams have a CHANCE to be competitive, and competitive teams with good management and marketing have a chance to make money.

So what's going on in LA?

well, look at the record and the market. In 2006 the team was 12th in the league in attendance, in 2008, 21st, down 1,200 tickets a game. that's about a 50,000 seat drop in season attendance, which is a couple of million in lost revenue.

At the same time, Anaheim went from 24th to 15th, up 2,000 tickets a game. Since the lockout, LA's struggled, and in the last couple of years, have really fallen into the lower echelons -- while the Ducks merely won a Stanley Cup.

No suprise here: when you have two teams in a market, there's a swing audience that's going to follow (and buy tickets and trinkets) of whichever team does better. And on top of that, where success goes, sponsorships and other non-ticket revenues follow.

No CBA is going to save a team from attendance and revenue falloffs for being a lottery team, especially a lottery team that's competing with a Cup winner, double-especially one that looks to have a ways to go to be a playoff team again.

So why are they losing more money now than before the lockout? Because the Ducks are a better team, and they're a worse team.

It's really that simple.

when the Kings get better, so will their bottom line.

The CBA was designed to protect teams from financial issues outside of their control. No CBA can (or should) set things up to protect a team from it's own mistakes...

April 23, 2008

Second round predictions..


First round done, and frankly, that was some great hockey. Only one four-game series, showing Ottawa to be the only team that really shouldn't have been in the playoffs (and my sympathies to my sens-fan friends, it was sad seeing the entire franchise melt down this season).

six of eight series go six or seven games, and there's been a lot of good, quality hockey. It's so good people looking for things to complain about seem to be falling back on the reffing -- and while the reffing isn't perfect by any means, if that's the worst you can find to complain about in the game, well, shut up and enjoy the ride.. (not that you will)

Game 7 in San Jose was a classic. The Sharks came out and just seemed ready -- something they don't always do. Calgary tried, but the Sharks simply didn't let them get much traction. Even when the Flames went up 2-1, it was my feeling that the Sharks attitude was "no big deal, we'll be there at the end". and they were.

The Sharks are reminding me more and more of the Detroit Red Wings in their "machine" days, when it was obvious they knew they were going to win, almost daring you to beat them. The Sharks seem to be growing into that kind of mentality.

My feeling going into the Calgary series was that if the Sharks survived it and were healthy, it'd be hard for anyone to stop them. Coming out of the series, I feel that way even more. It certainly doesn't get any easier in round 2 -- but it's not going to be harder. And the Sharks have toughened and gotten that confidence going again, so watch out.

Gotta give credit to a few folks: Kirprusoff had an awesome series, despite being pulled twice. the first time, it worked. Last night, it blew up in Keenan's face, with joseph giving up a goal almost immediately and effectively putting the game out of reach. Keenan, of course, put the onus on Kiprusoff in the post-game interviews and not on his decision to put a cold goalie in against a team putting on a big rush. Sometimes the coach's strategy works, sometimes it blows up, but that's the goalie's fault.

(and why did Keenan not show up in the handshake line? A bit classless, Mike. just like throwing Kiprusoff under the bus after the game. way to go, guy).

Also big kudos to Iginla, who worried me that he might beat the sharks singlehandedly, and sure tried. In game 7, everywhere he went, Joe Pavelski was there making sure the pass didn't get through cleanly -- and in the third, I'm not sure Iginla ever really left the ice. I haven't seen formal numbers, but he had at least 12 minutes, I think, playing a forward shift with his line, then double-shifting at D with Phaneuf. Talk about a stud. (oh, and Phaneuf was the third stud. he's a punk and a fairly dirty player, but he's also very good and effective at it).

Finally, congrats to Owen Nolan, probably playing his last game (and also to ex-shark Wayne Primeau, who also made the Sharks moderately miserable in the series). Been fun to watch him all season playing well after most of us thought he was done years ago, and in this series, he was a force and scored a number of key goals.

But the big question in Calgary is how they're going to make that team better; I don't think Keenan is the answer (in today's NHL, can he be?), and that team played its heart out, and it wasn't good enough. Sutter has some tough decisions to make. First one I'd suggest is whether Keenan is who you want behind the bench. Sutter, bluntly, would have been in that handshake line, and that is to me a symptom of the bigger issues that Keenan carries with him; Scotty Bowman was never a "player's coach", but Keenan's act wears out very quickly, and if his job was to take the Flames to the next level and get them deeper into the playoffs, it didn't work. We'll see. I know what my answer is, but then, my answer never involves hiring Keenan in the first place.

Anyway, a couple of days off, and back to the war. So what's the 2nd round look like? And how'd I do in the first?

In the west, I was 3-1; picked san jose, detroit and colorado, missed Anaheim. In the east, I was also 3-1, picking Montreal, Pittsburgh, and the Rangers, missing Philadelphia. Not a bad start.... And both of my cup final picks are still live, even better (montreal/san jose)

So in Round 2

East: Montreal/Philly: I'll take Montreal in 6. I like how they're playing, and I think Price will outplay Biron. but it won't be easy.

Penguins/Rangers: I think this one's a tough one to call, but I'll go Pittsburgh in 7. it can go either way, but I think the Pens will win this one.

West: Detroit/Colorado: in this case, I think the obvious answer is Detroit, but I'm not happy with the goaltending (neither is anyone in Detroit), and the Wings look vulnerable. And Jose Theodore has turned back into a goaltender. So I'll take Colorado in 6.

San jose/Dallas: Nabokov? Or turco? San Jose? or Dallas? the teams have played very even this year, but the Sharks are on a run, and I don't think Turco can play better goal than Kirprusoff did. 2nd round isn't by any means easier for San Jose, but I don't think it's harder. Sharks in 5.

Drop the puck already!

(no, give us a couple of days for our ears to stop ringing...)

update: Mike Keenan skipping the post-series handshake is even more curious given this quote he gave just a few days ago:

To shake, or not to shake

Mike Keenan says never has he snubbed an opponent in a post-series handshake ceremony.

"No, but I've had other people mad at me who didn't to shake my hand," the Flames skipper said with a smile. "Pat Quinn (then coaching the Canucks) didn't shake my hand when we won (the Stanley Cup) in New York. Other than that, everybody else has."

The series-concluding ritual became a hot topic Friday when New Jersey netminder Martin Brodeur wouldn't extend his hand to Rangers tormentor Sean Avery after New York dispatched the Devils.

"I think it's part of the tradition of a hockey series," said Keenan. "It's the way it always has been, I don't know why we would change it."

(found in, among other places, the Ottawa Citizen)

April 11, 2008

Zebras' work flusters Flames

Zebras' work flusters Flames:

"I'll share those thoughts with the league and with the supervisor of officials," said Keenan, whose side was saddled with six straight minors in a nine-minute span in the second period. "I'm not going to comment on it. I don't have a comment on it . . . I'm biting my tongue here."

Flames captain Jarome Iginla was more outspoken about the penalty disparity -- but not by much.

"I haven't seen that (a string of penalties) in a playoff game. It wasn't even that vicious. Nah, it's a tough one," said Iginla. "We didn't agree with a lot of things, and it wasn't just the calls that were against us. It was also when Owen (Nolan) was on a breakaway (and getting hauled down) . . . that was real frustrating.''

Here is one of those great mysteries of being a hockey fan: that players and coaches somehow continue to believe that it doesn't matter whether one team is taking penalties or not -- that somehow the referees should keep the penalty calling "even", even if the actual play isn't.

In other words, if one team keeps taking more penalties because, say, they're on the edge of being blown out fo the building and barely hanging on, the referees sill shouldn't call "too many" penalties on them (i.e., let them get away with them!), and if they don't stop calling them, or go find trivial things to call the other team on.

In other words, it's the referee's job to not call a game as it happens, but to somehow keep the game balanced by not "over" calling a team that's taking penalties because it's struggling.

Huh?

In any event, during that 2nd period disaster by the Flames, every penalty called on them was deserved. And a few weren't called that could have made it even worse. The team was on the edge, it's play shambles, and they were hanging on (literally, at times) for their very game-life. And if it wasn't for Kiprusoff, it could have been a serious blowout.

And the Nolan pull-down? Rules are pretty clear here: if you're going for the puck, and you contact the puck first, then it's a legal play and not tripping. Unless, of course, you're looking for the referees to "balance' the game. Which, in fact, they tried to do in the third....

On the other hand, when a team starts blaming refs instead of looking at it's own bad play, it's starting down the path of finding excuses for losing -- and in the playoffs, once a team gets that in their head, game over. Keenan is running a knife-edge here between playing the refs to get an advantage and putting it in his player's heads they can't win because the refs won't let them, and if the players get that mind-set going, it's over.

Of course, it could be over anyway. That save on Nolan with 5 minutes left, you could just see the Flames deflate. They were manhandled much of the game, blown out in the 2nd (except for Kiprusoff), and the few times they really got good shots, Nabokov stopped them cold. And then the Nolan shot, where Nabokov almost looked like he was beyond out of the play and somehow got it -- that could be the place where the Flames start thinking they can't beat this guy.