Hockey Canada working to make hockey accessible to all

Interesting article on TSN regarding Hockey Canada's attempts to increase participation in hockey.  A study was conducted in Ontario and Nova Scotia to understand the issues.  This is what they found are the main obstacles:

...the top four reasons given were a) it wasn't fun b) was too time consuming c) safety concerns d) and affordability.

 A surprising number to me is that "approximately 90 per cent of Canadian families choose to not have their kids play hockey".  Growing up in Charlemagne, my dim memory is that in Grade 1-3, about half the boys in my class would play minor-league hockey, or at least on the outdoor ice in the school yard.  I can't remember exactly how that was run, except that I often played hockey outdoors, with a tuque under my helmet and wool gloves under my hockey gloves, but it was real hockey, not shinny.  If I'm not mistaken, we played some of our minor hockey games outdoors, and all 'school league' games there.  We had coaches and jerseys and everything, and we'd shovel the snow between periods with scrapers.  My father would leave the house as we were getting ready to go to bed to go flood the ice, probably not every night, but often.

Anyway, we were a hockey family, but so were most of the families on my street or at school.  I remember asking some other kids why they didn't play hockey, some would just look at me blankly and shrug, some would say they skied as a family, and went away on weekends.  But I always found the guys who didn't play hockey kind of odd.  They were the exception.

Now the thing is, I don't remember making the conscious decision to play hockey.  I never realized it was a choice.  Some of my earliest memories were of Jean Béliveau winning a Stanley Cup, not sure if it was the '69 or the '71 win, and in there is mixed my amazement at seeing hockey on colour television, instead of just black and white.  My father played rec league hockey, and I'd go to the arena with my family to watch him play, then at some point I started playing.  I remember all the dads outfitting their kids in the dressing room, we did that for a couple of years I think until we were on our own.  And when I started playing, then my whole family would watch me play, we'd drive to games and back, that's what we did on weekends.  My older sister hated wasting her time in the arena, my parents bought her off with french fries and lots of vinegar.  Eventually, it was just my father, and later, when we moved and the drive was longer, we had a carpool system, where on a rotating basis one dad would pick up five kids and drive from St-Thomas to Berthierville, home of Gilles Villeneuve, where the rink was and we played our games.  Every dad had to have a large car with a big trunk for everyone, none of those ridiculous new compacts would have worked.

I remember my shock when I finished midget hockey and was told that I wouldn't play Juvénile the next season, hockey was over.  I was curious, knew that some kids played past that, but somehow my parents told me that it was a different system or program, and I was done.  I vaguely understood there was a cost issue there, but I wasn't a rebellious kid, I accepted it and didn't play hockey again for five years or so, in  the Inter-Hotel league in Montréal, a rec league for hotel employees.  My skating suffered, but the years of organized hockey showed, I knew how to play positionally, I understood the game.  I wasn't the best player on the ice or on my team, not by a long shot, but I was doing better than a lot of the other guys, who'd maybe picked up the game as adults.

We saw again at the draft what a profound influence parents have on their kid's hockey careers, how the time and money they spend on hockey, the dedicated weekends, the hockey schools in the summers, the sticks nowadays, I used to get two per season, and it was clear that if I broke them I'd be out of luck, so I wasn't the guy who'd whack his stick on the goal post in frustration, that was what rich kids did.  Anyway, those kind of sacrifices are made by parents whose parents made the same ones for them.  And even then that's not guaranteed.  My older sister never put her two sons in hockey, she was abrasive and defensive when I brought it up.  No way was she wasting any more time in an arena, her weekends and evening were too precious.  My younger sister did the same, her boy is a great kid, but he just did taekwon-do lessons twice a week, and played soccer in the summer.  The cost was minimal, only had to buy some cleats and a water bottle, and he'd walk to the field for his games.

One of the guys I worked with had a similar story.  He stood 6'6", weighed as much as 275 lbs when we were hitting the gym fanatically, was a dead ringer for Dolph Lundgren, anyway, he wasted his athletic talent on basketball.  He grew up in Northern B.C., and his high school had a basketball program so that's what he played.  Later on, when he realized his options were very limited in that regard, but a couple of his friends were getting scholarship offers to play NCAA hockey, he asked his dad why he never put him in hockey.  His dad replied: "You never asked me."  Which is unreal, how does a kid at five years old know he wants to play hockey?  In his case, even if he'd been at a high school with a football program, he'd at least have received a scholarship to play defensive end somewhere, some coach would have taken one look at him and signed him up, then coached him into something.

When I see guys like Keegan Kanzig getting drafted, I know my buddy with his athleticism would at least have been able to play that role, go to Junior and overwhelm a couple of guys with his size and strength, then go to minor pro and see what transpires.

I'm sure there are lots of similar stories, there are 30 million people in Canada, but how many live close enough to an arena to make hockey feasible for the kids?  How many Joe Juneaus are out there preaching the game, recruiting kids?  How many immigrant parents, with no grounding in Canadian culture and pre-occupied with working hard at multiple jobs to keep a roof over their family's head, are likely to sign up their kids for minor hockey?  How many kids, girls and boys, are falling through the very big cracks in the system?

So anything Hockey Canada can come up with to introduce the game to more people, and to make it more accessible, will be welcome and probably effective.  You don't miss out on 90% of your target clientele and pat yourself on the back, thinking you're doing a good job.

I don't know what the solutions are, but having intra-mural programs at school might work.  Also, cheap skate rentals on outdoor ice, along with stick and glove and shin pads for drop-in shinny could work.  Lots of roller hockey, ball hockey programs.  Targeted programs to address kids who are interested, but whose parents can't afford the costs.  We have drop-in soccer, basketball, volleyball, etc, drop-in hockey has to be made accessible to neophytes, young adults who've always wanted to try but don't know how.  If they can, they're much more likely to sign their kids up for minor hockey when the time comes.

Really, with these numbers and that study commissioned by Hockey Canada, it's evident there are a great number of low hanging fruits.  Hockey Canada does a great job with its elite development program, it's high time they focus on growing the base too.

Former Hab goalie coach Pierre Groulx heads to Munich Red Bull

Good writeup by Dave Stubbs of the Montreal Gazette on Pierre Groulx, who'll now serve as goalie coach under Pierre Pagé for the Munich Red Bull of the Deutsche Elite League.  Interesting to see what his next challenge is going to be, Munich would be an adventure for most of us, but especially for him with his young family.  Good to see that he "landed on his skates" as Mr. Stubbs wrote, and to see what his frame of mind is after having been let go by the Canadiens.  Again, the fact that he's walking away with no ill-will towards Marc Bergevin and the Canadiens is a positive.  

Maybe due to the rant by Rollie Melanson, Mr. Groulx took some shots on social media, where he's now treated as a pariah and incompetent, since 'he never played the position'.  In fact, he must have been doing something right to hold down the job for so long.  Let's agree that there was a need for a change, a question of fit, and wish all parties the best of luck.

Oh, and who knew James Reimer had been banished to the DEL?  Sure, he had a collapse for the ages in these playoffs, but I wouldn't thought that his 'Golly gee whiz' act had grown that thin on the Leafs.

Scott Gomez signs contract with Florida, is no longer indigent.

News item:  Scott Gomez has signed a one-year, $900 000 contract with the Florida Panthers.  This will help with the mortgage payments, and the car repair bills, since Scott is now on a fixed income, and set to draw only $1.5M from the Canadiens for the next two seasons.  Such financial downturns are hard to absorb, and we can only hope he squirreled away some of the tens of millions of dollars he earned earlier during his MegaBucks contract he signed with the Rangers.

Of course, any mention of Scott Gomez is enough to send Canadiens observers screaming to the battlements, of how we had to endure seasons of his ineptitude and diffidence, while Ryan McDonagh, one of the pieces we swapped to New York in return for the privilege of Mr. Gomez's 'services', is rounding into one of the best young defensive defencemen in the league.  Imagining him as a pairing on the left side of P.K. Subban, the lost opportunity which was all too realizable, is almost too much to endure.

So it's no surprise a lot of fans gnash their teeth at the Scott Gomez trade, and proclaim that the minute it was announced they hated it and predicted a catastrophe.  I however wasn't that prescient, I'd spent a few seasons not following the Canadiens too much, so I couldn't evaluate it properly, not really knowing the players involved.  I was in Montréal at the time, visiting my girlfriend at the time, and reading her Gazette Sports section, trying to make sense of it all.  Scott Gomez, Brian Gionta, Mike Cammalleri, Travis Moen, Jaroslav Spacek...  Really?  And Saku is gone?  Alex Kovalev was made an offer, he dithered, and lost out and ended up in Ottawa, to his public chagrin.  Is that significant?  And this Spacek guy, and Roman Hamrlik, that's our defence now?  That doesn't sound good does it?  Wasn't this Mike Komisarek supposed to be good?  Why did they let him walk?

Ultimately, I decided that Bob Gainey was a good man and a smart GM, he'd won a Stanley Cup in Dallas after all, he knew what he was doing.  That's as far as I could venture on this one.

The Réjean Houle hire, however, I called it.  I rang the bell.  I screamed "Iceberg, right ahead!" as loud as I could.  But it was too late.

We all know what an unprepossessing character Réjean Houle is.  Ken Dryden aptly described him in his book "The Game" as the small-town naif who never matured or wised up.  His bad investments were a great source of mirth in the dressing room.  One wag opined that he would finish his career with more "points (de suture, meaning stitches) on his face than on the scoresheet" which was funny but unfair, given that Réjean had a decent career, especially the WHA years, but referred to his astounding ability to flub on shots and miss open nets, as well as his legendary bad luck with injuries.

After his playing days were done, Réjean, ever the company man, started working at Molson.  My sister worked at National Relations Publique, and one day asked me who Réjean Houle was.  I did the best I could, and she nodded as if the picture I was painting made sense.  She then explained that he had been at her offices, and had made quite an impression, and not a good one, with the awkward way he would shuffle over to everyone he saw, with arm extended out way too soon, with poor timing and no charm, and repeat, incessantly: "Réjean Houle, Brasserie Molson...  Réjean Houle, Brasserie Molson..."

His bad trades were kicks to the gut.  I remember how he crowed about landing Jocelyn Thibault, and implied that the Avalanche were trying to foist Stéphane Fiset on him, but he had stuck to his guns and insisted on Mr. Thibault, as if it was a feather in his cap, as if he'd kind of swindled them a little.  It didn't seem to occur to him that they no longer had any use for him once they had Patrick Roy, that Mr. Thibault was almost a perishable item.  About another stumper, in which he dealt away Lyle Odelein, he explained that he was getting in return Stéphane Richer, and how that would make his club tougher to play against, since Stéphane was a big boy.  In his inimitable French-Canadian accent, he proceeded to list his height and weight: "Stéphane is six foot tree, two hundred pound, he's a big player..."  And I wondered how trading away Lyle Odelein and his toughness and dedication was mitigated in any way by Mr. Richer, as spectacular a player as he had once been, fleetingly.

So some moves give you the ice-cold shower heebie jeebies, like the Réjean Houle hire and subsequent Patrick Roy trade, or more recently the Tomas Kaberle trade, but for Scott Gomez trade I didn't have that sinking feeling, that premonition.  Which is good, since as the ship was slowly filling with water and our fate was doom, I was blissfully unaware, and didn't experience terror all the way down.  I had another season where I actually enjoyed myself, unlike the wiser Canadiens fans, who knew there were no lifeboats big enough for this catastrophe.

Review: "Coach: The Pat Burns Story" by Rosie DiManno

I had hesitations about reading "Coach: The Pat Burns Story", having worked my way through some underwhelming hockey biographies lately, but I needn't have worried.  Whereas "Theo Fleury: Playing with Fire" and "Tough Guy: My Life on the Edge" by Bob Probert were wooden, and relatively unenlightening, the Pat Burns biography is a strong effort.  It provides a full, warts-and-all illuminating portrait of a colourful person and successful hockey coach who left his mark on the game.

The difference here might be that it is strictly a biography, whereas the previous two efforts were more autobiographies, with a ghostwriter who seemed to act more as a typist, transcribing words spoken into a dictaphone onto the page.  Indeed, Kirstie McLellan Day, who helped Theoren Fleury and Bob Probert, seemed ill-equipped to tackle these projects, and let them tell their story without guiding them to clarify certain statements or events, or shining a light on certain personal failings that her co-authors felt didn't need any more scrutiny.

In this case, author Rosie DiManno is eminently qualified for the job of portraying Pat Burns, being a news and sports columnist with the Toronto Star, and having covered the Maple Leafs when Pat Burns was their Head Coach.  She also calls Pat Burns a friend, and states that their relationship carried through to the end of his life.  As such, she has good command of the material, and provides a rich and detailed look at the man, with insights and anecdotes that testify to her acquaintance with the tempestuous coach.

While she evidently has affection for her subject, this is certainly not a puff piece.  His failings are addressed in a straightforward manner, such as his difficulty in communicating with some of his players in certain situations.  Whereas he was verbose and a quote machine for the media, and could be warm off the ice, or even with opposing players, he was guarded with most of his players, aside from a few favourites.  His many broken relationships with a succession of women are not glossed over, as is the distance he kept between himself and his children, an error he tried to rectify later in life but never could quite overcome.

While these difficult subjects are discussed, we do not dive too deeply, as this is not a Kitty Kelley-style hatchet job, creating controversy to drive sales.  Instead, Rosie DiManno makes a point of contrasting how Mr. Burns avoided certain areas of conflict, in marked contrast to his public persona as a fiery, driven coach who didn't deal in double talk or understatement.  A theme in the book is how while Pat Burns never backed down from a fight as a coach, he was squeamish on the personal side, and would literally abandon former domiciles if it made a breakup with a former lover less messy.  Fortunately, Ms. DiManno brings up the personal life of her subject only to counterpoint his public image.  In this way, she paints a complete, human picture, of a man who was contradictory, imperfect, but magnetic and powerful in his professional life.

And there is a wealth of information and background on his career, from his humble beginnings as a part-time coach who worked his way up to an assistant position with the Hull Olympiques while still working fulltime as a police detective for the city of Hull.  He obtained the head coaching job, with the benediction of the police department, which granted him a leave of absence.  He of course would never return to his policing career, eventually graduating to the AHL Sherbrooke Canadiens, and the Montréal Canadiens a year later.  

It is on the professional side that Ms. DiManno does her best work.  Every step of the way, she does her research and background work, providing context and quotes from media sources at the time, and plenty of reminiscences from former associates, superiors and players.  It is a treasure trove of opinion and commentary, and most often supports the story's main thread, but the author is sure-handed and allows some statements from her interviewees that contradict it, and it fleshes out the story.  For the Olympiques period, she allows Charlie Henry, Wayne Gretzky, Pat Brisson, Luc Robitaille and Stéphane Richer to tell their stories and impressions.  For the year in Sherbrooke, she interviews Serge Savard, André Boudrias, Mike Milbury, Mike Keane, Brent Gilchrist and Sylvain Lefebvre.  The legwork pays off in the depth and accuracy of the story, and is obviously a joy to read for the hockey fan.

If there is a flaw in the book, it's how much of it is devoted to his period coaching the Leafs, as opposed to his other coaching stops.  Of course, this gripe comes from a Canadiens fan, but there is some factual basis to this claim.  Whereas the five years he spent in the Canadiens' organization is covered in eighty pages, she spends a hundred pages plus the prologue on the four years spent in Toronto.  The Canadiens' 1988-89 season that lasted to Game 6 of the Finals is dealt with in 38 pages, but the Toronto 1992-93 season and playoffs, which only lasted three rounds, are dissected in 57 agonizing pages, with stomach-turning helpings of Todd Gill and Dave Ellett and Nikolai Borschevsky and other horrors.

We can understand this in terms of the personal impact the Leaf years had on the author, as well as her authoritativeness on the subject, but we wonder also if this is a cynical pander to the multitude of Leafs fans, and a crass attempt to relieve Sean McIndoe of his hard-earned pageclick dollars.

This question also arises as to the choice of a cover picture.  Instead of being provided with a classic Pat Burns photo behind the bench, with his trademarked blow-dried mullet and $1000 suit, foaming at the mouth and waving a stick over his head, about to leap over the glass to take on an opposition coach, index finger pointed like his service revolver, we instead get a shot of him smiling astride a motorbike.  With the jeans and the sunglasses, he looks more like your midlife crisis-stricken uncle than the tough, blustery coach we picked up the book to know more about.  Which makes one wonder whether the publishers made the calculated decision to not put off Canadiens fans with a photo of Pat Burns leading the Leafs, and vice versa, and furthermore to not offend both these markets with a cover shot of him as a Bruins coach.  Still, a more fitting cover shot would have been of him raising the Stanley Cup as the Devil's coach, which everyone would have approved of, the Devils being a neutral enough organization to not cause too many potential customers to recoil.  Failing that, a shot of him 'in action' behind a bench, artfully cropped, should have been used.

These two last concerns are not reason enough for me to not recommend this book however.  It's a great, enjoyable read (except for those one hundred pages in the middle, but I don't want to quibble), and deepens our understanding and appreciation of an important figure in Canadiens and hockey history.  Every hockey fan would do well to pick up this book at their bookstore or local library.

Mike Brown, idiot-son of Paul Brown and owner of the NFL Bengals, has an opinion on all this concussion nonsense

Cosseted plutocrat Bengals-owner Mike Brown, monopolist, racketeer, profiteer off-the-public-teat extraordinaire and living fossil, speaks out on concussions, harrumphing that they're not a big deal, there used to be concussions back in the day, too.

Great.

He also used to wear an onion on his belt.  Which was the style at the time.

That this shill and science-denier inherited the Bengals from his father, who actually knew something about and loved football, is Exhibit A on the perils of nepotism and the crying need for a massive estate tax in the U.S.A. and in general.

These oligarchs don't think a McDonald's employee should get a raise, and certainly not a living wage, since as Charles Koch asserts, it kills the incentive for individuals to go out and start their own businesses.  He wants a little more competition in society, less safety net.  Well then, let's not allow rich-kid buffoons like Mike Brown to inherit his daddy's team and live off the good people of Cincinnati his entire life.  Let's dispossess him of the Bengals, which taxpayers have bought and paid for many times over, and throw him on the street and have him display his survival of the fittest bona fides.

Brenden Morrow to join the Canadiens? Inconceivable!

The Canadiens cannot in their right mind be considering Brenden Morrow.  Imagine Bob Cole or Benoit Brunet trying to get things straight with him and Brandon Prust and Brendan Gallagher on the same ice.  Imagine the cluster at HIO.  Throw in the Montreal Gazette's Brenda Branswell and you've got yourself a Category 6 namestorm on your hands.

We should sign Anthony Stewart, or "How easy it is to be the Canadiens' GM"

Is it just me, or does Anthony Stewart make too much sense on the Canadiens?  At right wing with Max Pacioretty and David Desharnais, all 6'1" and 225 lbs of him, he stands in front of the net and digs the puck out of the corners, pots in ten easy goals on tape-to-tape passes from David, banks in a couple off his butt, finishes out around twenty and gives his linemates some physical support.  Reinstitute the kid line with Alex Galchenyuk and Brendan Gallagher on either side of Lars Eller, Tomas plays with Brian Gionta and René Bourque again, that's three scoring lines, and Ryan White or Gabriel Dumont centre Brandon Prust, Travis Moen and George Parros depending on the opposition and injuries.  

Now all we need to do is trade Daniel Brière, and we're set to go, allez hop, en voiture...

Ah, damn.  Forgot about Mr. Brière's No Trade Clause...

Nathan Beaulieu's growing pains

Nathan Beaulieu is a crown jewel in the Canadiens' farm system, a former relatively high first-round pick, and one who is counted on, heavily, to provide the Canadiens with a solid nucleus on the blue line with Jarred Tinordi.  With P.K. Subban already in the fold and almost fully developed, and a number of other prospects who are longer shots but can play a supporting role to this triumvirate in the future, it seems that there is a solid basis for a Cup contender.  The old maxim is that you build a team from the net out.  Well now, with Carey Price and Zachary Fucale in goal, and the three young studs on D, we've taken a big bite of that sandwich.

Nathan Beaulieu's prospects are not unblemished however.  He's a high-risk high reward player, in that while he has tremendous skill and upside, there are also certain issues he needs to work on to become the player he can be.  On ice, he's a gambler and showman, often taking risks on offence but not being as diligent on defence.  Nathan probably has been head and shoulders above other kids growing up, he learned to play hockey in that style, where he gets the puck and keeps it and does what he wants with it.  This is common in young players, and can be worked out of his game to an acceptable degree in the minors.

Off-ice issues cloud the picture even more in my eyes.  For me, showing up out of shape to Bulldogs camp last fall is a big red flag.  I'd understand if he was a naif like Stéphane Richer, a small town kid who doesn't know better, or Nazem Kadri, whose family apparently doesn't/didn't approve of his choice of careers, and who doesn't have the support system, but Nathan's a coach's son, for cripes' sake.  He of all recruits should know better.  Much was made of how he hangs around with NHL'ers, and how he grew up around Rick Nash and Corey Perry.  Some kids will use that as inspiration, or models to pattern their behaviour after, but does he take it the wrong way, and use it as evidence that he'll make it, that he doesn't have to work for it, since he's already there?

Off-ice, there was a bit of a Twitter war between him and his ex-girlfriend around the time he was drafted, which I studiously avoided, and which some people may think is no big deal, since he's only a kid, but still, it didn't happen to Louis Leblanc or Jarred Tinordi or Alex Galchenyuk.  It happened to Nathan.  As far as the assault charges and court appearances, some people brush it off, and hope that it's no big deal, but as I've written before, things that are no big deal don't end up in Criminal Court.

So taken together, the kid is no Aaron Hernandez or Steve Howe, but there are enough warning signs that we the public know of that cause me to be cautious.  He does have a bit of a cocky demeanor, which is fine, but is it a sign of a kid who's a Cool Kid And He Knows It, and he acts like it?  Do his workouts consist of skating and practicing his slap shot, things he's good at, but not all the pesky stuff that's hard like dryland training?  Did his modest slide in the draft occur because he did poorly in interviews, based on some of these factors?

No one wants him to be successful, and to be the first-wave powerplay quarterback and first-pairing defenceman for years to come more than I do.  I can't however discount these issues, just ignore the warts and proclaim how marvelous he is.

The good thing is that he played himself into shape last season and improved his game to the point that he was the scoring leader on the Bulldogs.  I hope that he shows up in great shape this fall, that he's grown up a bit, and that Sylvain Lefebvre, Donald Dufresne and Patrice Brisebois can help him realize his great potential.

And as far as he being a callup, I hope it doesn't happen too soon, or the kid will maybe think that he doesn't need to put in the work, to not try to skip any steps, since he'll have made the NHL with only a so-so AHL season under his belt, and that was enough for him.

Marc Bergevin's summer job difficult to assess so far

There's some debate as to whether Marc Bergevin has done enough this off-season to improve the Canadiens' roster, and I agree that the fiddling with the roster so far has left me perplexed.  I thought the cap room would be spent on short-term solutions to areas of need in our roster.  So maybe buy up one or two free agents at forward for a year or two, guys like David Steckel or Anthony Stewart who add to our roster and improve the mix at forward.  Same thing on defence, get a big righty as a plug for a one or two-year deal, a Ryan O'Byrne or Jeff Schultz.  Understand that these guys are not world-class, but they fit a role, and because they bring what we sorely lack their contribution would be more important than their mere talent would indicate, it would be magnified.

For example, a light-hitting shortstop like Rodney Scott isn't an All-Star, and won't put any team in the World Series by himself.  But if you've got a big hole at shortstop, your defence is abysmal, and you need a little speed on the basepaths ahead of the meat of your order, then Rodney Scott is the perfect solution.  If you throw in the salary-cap consideration, then the fact that he can be had for cheap makes him even more attractive.  Rodney Scott on this specific roster is worth more on a relative scale than an absolute scale.

Another way to think of it is salt.  You can't eat salt for dinner, you need ingredients like protein and vegetables and maybe a starch, but if you have those and no salt, you totally notice its absence.  Once you have that stir-fry going but don't have salt, you don't really have as much as you could potentially, a pinch of salt is what you need to bring everything together and make it pop.

So after the elimination by the Sens, I thought the road map was relatively straightforward.  Dispose of Tomas Kaberle and Yannick Weber, get some stopgaps who will upgrade the size and toughness quotient on D while we wait another year or two for the kids to be ready.  At forward, let Armdog and Jeff Halpern and Michael Ryder go, get a bit more toughness to help out Brandon Prust and Ryan White, and get a big forward to play in the Top 9, even if he's got bricks for hands.  Just having a crasher and banger, a Mathieu Darche amped up 20% or more, would improve the flexibility of our roster, and again be a place saver until the Collbergs and Hudons and Leblancs are ready.  We don't need to spend all of Michael Ryder's cap space this year, we can sit on it and hold it as strategery for the trade deadline or next summer's UFA crop.

In fact, what we did was the first part of the plan, clean out the bottom of the roster a bit, but didn't upgrade the defence, even with Alexei Emelin's problematic absence staring us in the face.  At forward, we got George Parros, which I'm on board with, but squandered the Michael Ryder cushion on Daniel Brière's deal.  Which is a step back, that cushion was obtained by sacrificing Erik Cole.  If I had a choice, I'd rather have Erik Cole back for the next two seasons rather than Mr. Brière.

The thing is, these fixes that I was envisioning were not pie-in-the-sky stuff, I wasn't trying to get Bobby Ryan with a mix of Travis Moen, Patrick Holland and a bunch of late-round picks.  I wasn't, like the Leafs, shopping for a big #1 centre, which we all recognize are routinely available on the trade market.  My plan wasn't overly optimistic, just a way to ice a respectable roster next season, but refraining from taking out a Clarcksonian or Cloweian mortgage.

So far then, I'm not overjoyed with the immediate solutions provided by Marc Bergevin.  Maybe he's biding his time, and will bottom-feed in August when players start to get desperate, and will accept a job on a one-year deal.  Maybe he's decided that next season is a development year, that Jarred Tinordi is ready for a regular shift, and the Beaulieus and Pateryns and other Bulldogs will plug the injury holes as they occur.  Same thing at forward, he'll rely on Messrs. Dumont, Blunden, Leblanc, Bournival, et al. when the Canadiens infirmary welcomes patients.  Maybe he's looking for another injection of youth, similar to that Brendan Gallagher and Alex Galchenyuk brought last season.  Maybe he's not too concerned with playoff positioning this season, a repeat of last season's flirtation with the Conference championship unimportant in his eyes.

Overall, I'm very satisfied with the work that Mr. Bergevin has done so far.  The long-term approach he's taken is impressive.  I'm very happy with the increased focus on scouting, how he's built up that department.  I'm also happy with the player development side he's created, something that was sorely missing in the Gainey administration.  I'm satisfied that he hoards draft picks and is replenishing our farm system.  So I'm not going to squawk too much about this summer, and give him lots of slack to keep doing what he does and hope for the best.

Will Jarred Tinordi and Nathan Beaulieu play a significant role on the 2013-14 Canadiens

Love an analysis on social media of the situation the Canadiens are facing next season and how Jarred Tinordi and Nathan Beaulieu fit in.  The take by a contributor on HockeyInsideOut is that if things work out, Jarred Tinordi could be the defensive stalwart who adds a physical presence and kills penalties, while Nathan Beaulieu could also take some even strength minutes but pitch in on the powerplay.  His thinking was that Mr. Tinordi is ready to go right now, while Mr. Beaulieu should be the first callup.

If these kids can plug the gaps in the depth chart that we have this season, it'll go a long way to improving our team.  I'm more naturally conservative, and was hoping Jarred Tinordi would at least start the year in Hamilton, and Nathan be given a full year to work on his defensive game and maturity (discipline, conditioning, off-ice issues).  I'd have brought in journeymen currently on the UFA rolls to fill in the #6 slot and cover for Alexei Emelin's first half absence, plug these holes as it were, but the Canadiens' brass are in the best position to assess that and we have to trust their judgment.  If they think they're ready to step up, who am I to disagree?

Remember the old days, when some kid we'd never heard of would start the season or get called up to sub in for injured players, and they would contribute right away?  Guys like Rod Langway, Craig Ludwig, Sylvain Lefebvre, Donald Dufresne, Lyle Odelein?  They'd come in, play hard right away, and the team would sail along.

We had other situations, when guys with bigger profile would be hyped before they ever joined, and we hoped they'd turn out as good as advertised, which was seldom.  The exception to that was Chris Chelios, who was nicknamed 'Le Sauveur' by the francophone press, so much was Serge Savard banging the drum on him.  "Just wait until after the (Sarajevo) Olympics", he'd crow, and a lot of us were skeptical, he didn't seem that big, and his numbers weren't Orr-esque or anything.

Eventually, he and Petr Svoboda and Tom Kurvers were pitched as the 'New Big 3', which didn't quite materialize.  Tom Kurvers was okay, but couldn't find a role with the other two already there, and Larry Robinson and Craig Ludwig still taking up icetime among others, so he was traded.  Petr Svoboda was an amazing skater and good player, I marveled at how easily he moved when seeing him play at the Forum.  He didn't tape up his ankles at all, they were bending this way and that.  I tried to do that the next game I played and couldn't stay up on my skates, I had to go back to the room after a couple of shifts to tape up.

What gets me a little bit is how the media toss the term "Big 3" around like it's applicable to any situation.  Any team that has three defencemen that are decent, or roughly the same age, or have some of the same skills, whatever, bingo, that's a big 3 for them.  Which is inapt.  There are only two Big 3's.  One was GM, Ford and Chrysler.  The other was Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe and Larry Robinson.

They were the Big 3 because all of them were big defenders back in the day, all 6 footers and over 200 lbs, with Larry the standout in that department.  All of them played big, could handle the rough stuff and dish it out, and drop the gloves on occasion.  All of them could play big minutes, in all situations, clutch or end of game.  They all played on the powerplay and the penalty kill.  I daresay that each of them would have been the #1 defenceman on any other team that didn't already have a Orr or Park or Potvin or Salming on its roster.  All of them played together for a long time, probably a full decade, won multiple Stanley Cups, and ended up in the Hall of Fame.

So when TSN's Mark Masters is telling me that Ralph Gunterson and Kevin Kostka and Colby Frantic are the Leafs' next big three, I want to hurl.  Child please.  If there's a new crop of players or defenceman coming up from the Marlies, find them their own nicknames, don't misappropriate and mangle one used and used well by the Canadiens, and now retired.