Subban Unsigned, Pacioretty A Beast, Three Stars Of The Lockout And More...

Good Morning Addicts!



P.K. Subban remains unsigned with one week left until the
start of the season.

It feels good to know that I'm about to post some links about hockey! No more of this lockout nonsense, I have to say it feels just about as good as I thought it would.
It's no surprise really that as soon as the two sides came to a long awaited tentative agreement all the focus in Montreal was shifted towards P.K. Subban. With the season just one week away, nobody in this hockey deprived city wants to see the Habs host the Leafs next Saturday without Subban on the roster.

Subban's agent Don Meehan shot down reports that his client was on the verge of signing a four year $22.5 million contract. whterer otr not it's true I would be surprised if we had to wait too much longer without having the star defenseman inked to a new deal. Signing #76 is no doubt one of - if not THE - top priority right now for GM Marc Bergevin.

The question isn't "Should Bergevin sign Subban?", it's "For how long and how much?".

If the rumors of his four year $22.5 million deal are accurate I wouldn't be too opposed to it. Subban has been steadily improving his defensive game and has shown how much offensive upside he brings to the team. However, with the cap dropping significantly as of next season I would prefer something along the lines of $4-$4.5 million for a two to four year deal. If Subban is to earn something close to the $5 million range I would want to see a longer term.

Four years would also bring Subban straight to free agency and so I would expect to see him sign for slightly less than rumored for close to two years or maybe a longer deal at the price that is floating around the rumor mills.

Habs And Hockey News

- Veteran defenseman Mike Commodore who has been playing with the Hamilton Bulldogs has been invited to the Habs training camp.

- Andrew Berkshire provides his final review of Habs overseas and includes his three stars of the lockout.

- As Dave Stubbs reports, Max Pacioretty took some time to become some sort of beast during the lockout.

- Brian Burke says he was stunned by his firing which happened just after the end of the lockout.

Read More

No Excuses For Bourque, Cole Happy To Be Back, More...

Good Morning HabsAddicts!!!

Canadiens' forward Rene Bourque, who was acquired last season in a trade with the Calgary Flames for Michael Cammalleri, has been the ire of many since his arrival in Montreal. Coming with a reputation of being short in the heart department, he did nothing to dissuade fans with his play last season.

Bourque, who is coming off abdominal surgery over the summer, skated with some of his Habs' teammates in Brossard on Wednesday, and, according to Pat Hickey of the Montreal Gazette, is ready to convince fans that there is more to him than those rumours would suggest.

Eric Cole, who during the NHL Lockout was quite outspoken about the labour dispute, spoke to Dave Stubbs of the Gazette, and explained how he had mixed emotions when he found out a deal was struck. From relief that it was over, to disgust that it took so long to figure out, Cole is definitely excited to hit the ice.

Habs and Hockey News and Notes:

- Most of the hockey world was stunned when Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment announced that Maple Leafs' General Manager Brian Burke was relieved of his duties and replaced by his second in command, former Vancouver Canucks GM Dave Nonis. Speculation is that MLSE President Tom Anselmi and the new members of the BCE/Rogers ownership group did not believe Burke and his arrogant demeanour were how they wanted to be represented. With Nonis taking over at the helm, it's expected that the team will continue with the same philosophy, as far as hockey operations are concerned.

Some have suggested that the rift between Burke and MLSE is rooted around the possible acquisition of Vancouver Canucks' goaltender Roberto Luongo. It's believed that MLSE Thinks that the recent moves made by Alex Anthopoulos and the Toronto Blue Jays have taken the attention away from the Leafs, when they should be front and Center in the Toronto sports scene, and trading for Luongo would change that.

- Yesterday, the NHL Board of Governors unanimously ratified the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Katie Strang of ESPN.com explains that all that is required, for the lockout to officially be over, is for the players to vote for ratification. The NHLPA's 700+ membership is expected to vote electronically, and expected to conclude late Friday or Saturday.

- Speaking of Luongo, Enrico Ciccone, an analyst for TVA Sports, tweeted that the Philadelphia Flyers may be interested in getting Luongo. With their ill-advised long term signing of goaltender Ilya Bryzgalov, could the Flyers really afford to get Bobby Lou?

(photo: Gazette File Photo/ Dave Sidaway)

Read More

Revisiting the NHL Rules of Old: Forwards, Defensemen and More

Good afternoon puck addicts.

I think it's safe to say at this point that we're all tired of discussing players who are wearing suits in lieu of jerseys.

Researching the history hockey when the game in its current state comes with a few sad feelings of longing for something you've never experienced.

But as a fan, what can you do but think progressively?

That being said, feel free to let this retrospective on NHL rules rules of old remind or inform you of a time when the game was a game.

After part one focusing on goaltenders, we will look at how old regulations impacted forwards, defensemen and other aspects of the game.

Rest assured, this article will not contain the words 'owner', 'billion' or 'million'.

Attackers and Rearguards

In the midst of player salary negotiations, it's worth noting that in the very young stages of pro hockey, the National Hockey Association — the precursor to the NHL — had a seventh position on the ice.

It was a fourth forward called the 'rover', which was positionally the shortstop of hockey; behind and to the side of the centerman. It was in 1911 that the league adopted the more symmetrical six-man game that we see today.

The reason for the change? The league likely cited a want for more punch and less wrestle. Two fewer men equals more movement in the game.

After all, it was just one year prior to this that they implemented the change from one intermission to two. Two periods at half an hour each was a game that surely saw more fatigue and less action.

In fact, during my research it seemed to be that nearly every rule change since the turn of the century was a direct attempt to increase offense and action. The league's ideas were working and by the mid-twenties goalscoring more than doubled and was climbing still.

Some Just Don't Work

A rule is thought of, approved and implemented by more than just one fool with a hunch, and there's usually a coherent reason for its implementation.

However, this has not always been the case.

For a comically long time — until the 1927-28 season — an attacker with the puck, in any zone but the offensive one, couldn't make a forward pass. He was to bring the puck into the offensive zone himself before passing and beginning a play.

Incidentally, it was in the same year that they started assessing a penalty to a player who picks up the puck and carries it.

Far more perplexing was an extension of the rule that awarded a penalty shot for being tripped and thus prevented a clear shot on goal. You got the shot alright, but it had to be taken from within a ten foot circle, located almost 40 feet from the net.

Makes sense, right? Don't worry, the silliness was adequately evened out. The netminders weren't allowed to advance more than one foot from the goal-line during the shot.

How long did it last? The rule was implemented in the 1934-35 season and lasted until 1941, where the player was permitted to skate in for the shot. It clearly couldn't last, but that's still six solid seasons of awkward shots that likely never went in.

Some Could Still Work

After many decades since its first application, the rule against kicking the puck into the net is still largely debatable.

Prior to the 1929-30 season you could kick, punch, slap, or headbutt that puck into the net, so long as it went in. You put the puck in the net; you score.

I personally subscribe to the idea of allowing the puck to be kicked in, as long as it's on the ice. As Brian Burke would agree, we are very much in the butterfly era of goaltending. I can't see any disadvantages from their perspective. Once the puck reaches the slot and the crease, today's netminders are constantly tracking the puck down low.

Is there really a difference? Where do you guys stand on this?

Another one that I liked, which is more of a fun aspect of the game rather than a rule, was in the late twenties where the home team would start the game by choosing which goal to defend.

This was in a time where the ice was certainly more crude, more likened to a back-yard rink, which is something that would've impacted one's choice in sides more than it would today.

Teams today are a lot more serious about their advantages and disadvantages, as there's truly more at stake than there used to be, so this is something that would only create problems.

Up Jumped the Devil

I'll leave you with a few fun facts that in some ways marked the beginning of true consumer-based hockey, and is fitting with the league's current state.

The rinks were first painted white in the 1949-50 season. Prior to this, it was simply ice on concrete. As you can imagine, the puck was likely a lot harder to track.

Two seasons later marked the first time a home team was to wear basic white sweaters and the visitors basic coloured.

These rules were not really aimed to the players. After, they knew each other well enough and could see the puck fine. Rather, these rules were designed for the spectators, and more specifically,  the television audience.

From Wikipedia:

In the fall of 1951, Conn Smythe watched special television feeds of Maple Leaf games in an attempt to determine whether it would be a suitable medium for broadcasting hockey games.

The rest truly is history.


---
Amos is freelance writer and columnist who writes for HabsAddict.com. Follow Amos on Twitter and Facebook

(Photo by Richard Wolowicz/Getty Images North America)

Read More

Habs by the Numbers: Have This Year's NHL Coaching Changes Worked?

Hello again Habs Addicts!

As we get closer to the end of the season, I was wondering about all of the coaching changes that happened in the NHL this season, and whether they payed off?

So here's a look and some of the details...

Relatively "slow" year in terms of changes

I've taken the time to put together a couple of charts for your statistical enjoyment. I've broken this down into two groups: winners and losers.

In all, seven teams decided to make a coaching change this season, which is a relatively low number.

The first change came on November 30th, when coach Randy Carlyle was removed from Anaheim, after six full seasons at the helm (and .598 winning percentage in 492 games).

And, let's not forget a Stanley Cup Championship!

The last coaching change came on March 2nd, when Brian Burke fired long time accomplice Ron Wilson, replacing him with long time accomplice Randy Carlyle (him again!).

And the winners are ...

Looking at the chart below, four of seven teams that made a change have ended up "winners", and all of them in a big way!

We all know about Ken Hitchcock and the Blues, which were 24th in the league standings (6-7-0) at the time of the change. They've since gone 42-13-9 (.727), and are currently in 1st place in the NHL.

Another interesting note is that three of the four teams are from the Western conference (no Western team in the "losers" chart, if you notice). Also, the only Eastern team, Carolina, is now being coached by ex-Habs assistant, Kirk Muller. He's managed an impressive 23-18-11 (.548) after picking up the 26th ranked team last November 28th.

And the losers are ...

Of course, the first team that jumps to mind is Montreal.

Under coach Cunneyworth, Montreal has regressed by 16%. Also, when Jacques Martin was replaced, the Canadiens were 11th in the Eastern conference, and only two points out of sixth place. Montreal is now 15th and last in the East, as well as 14 points out of a playoff spot, after going 16-22-7 (.433) under their new coach.

Washington has been another disappointment, going .536 under new coach Dale Hunter, while under-performing as a team loaded with talented youths.

Finally, the most shocking of all changes has to be the Toronto Maple Leafs' decision to let go of Ron Wilson after 64 games. A month before being fired, Wilson had the Leafs in 7th place in the East, 4 points behind 5th place Pittsburgh, seriously eyeing a playoff spot for the first time since the lockout.

In February, the Leafs suddenly went 4-9-1 (.321), and slid into the 11th spot, five points out of playoff contention. It was at that point that Burke decided to "pull the plug" on Wilson, and brought in Carlyle.

Since that move, in 13 games, the Leafs have gone 4-7-2 (.385), and have not won once in their last 10 games at home. I think Mr. Burke will have some explaining to do this summer.

Is change really good, Donkey?

I, for one, think that, in general, NHL teams are very quick to replace head coaches.

Yes, it's easier to replace a coach than it is to trade underperforming players in this salary cap crazy era. Granted.

But I still think that, most of the time, teams end up with the same results, since the issue is more often than not "on the ice", and not behind the bench. Yet, they replace the guy behind the bench.

Do you think NHL teams should show more patience/stability with their coaching staff?

---
Frank Dumais is a freelance writer, currently contributing to HabsAddict.com “Habs By the numbers” regular column. He writes on current Habs and NHL topics, but with a “numbers twist”.

Follow Frank on Twitter

(Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images )

Read More