Les' Loft - View Entry

What Game Was I Watching?

Posted by Les Lazaruk on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 04:36:00 PM.

Actually, the title on one of the threads in the Saskatoon Blades' page of "whlfans.ca" was "What game where (sic) you watching, Les?" Once again, it's all about opinion and the way a person sees a game.

The game in question was Saturday's 3-2 Blades' triumph over the Kamloops Blazers. On "The Kia of Saskatoon Cutting Edge Pre-Game Show", during "The Keys to the Game" feature, colour commentator Dave Thomas and I discussed our fear at how the Blades might perform in the game. They were taking on a road-weary, down-trodden Blazers' team that was playing their sixth game on the road in nine nights...having lost all five previous contests in regulation time. Our concern was how the Blades would react if they got an early goal in a fairly easy fashion...would they continue to play with the determination they had shown in previous games or would they look at trying to pad their personal stats and forget about team and systems play.

From my perspective, after the Blades scored 37 seconds in, they became a group of individuals on a "point night" mission as Dave commented on a couple of occasions when one player would dangle with the puck, only to be stopped by Blazers' goaltender Justin Leclerc or turn it over without passing to a team-mate. That style of play continued for most of the rest of the game and the Blades dominated play, as evidenced by out-shooting Kamloops 40-26, On this night, individual Blades were better than individual Blazers. I mean, if time of possession was a statistic in hockey, Saskatoon would've had the advantage by at least a 2-1 margin, if not 3-1. But, several times, especially on an 0-7 night on the power play, the Blades didn't adhere to their systems and gave Kamloops plenty of good chances to score. And, with the exception of one soft goal, Braden Holtby was there to bail his team-mates out.

But, if you don't believe my comments, especially with regards to Holtby being first star of the game, how about the analysis of Cory Wolfe from Monday's Star-Phoenix...

"The Blades, who have relied heavily on Holtby this season, know the feeling. Outside of a softy goal to Ivan Rohac midway through the third period, Holtby was worthy of first-star honours. He made 24 saves, including a couple of point-blank stops on C.J. Stretch in the late going. '"He'd like to have that second one back, but other than that, he was outstanding," said Blades coach-GM Lorne Molleken. "Kamloops really stormed the net and really got everyone involved in the offence. Holtby stood his ground and battled in traffic.'"

I don't mind having my opinions questioned...but I think the Blades were fortunate to win over Kamloops...if not for a goaltender who was sharp on all but one of the shots he should've stopped and finding just enough team play to score three times. They had played better against Medicine Hat, Regina...heck even in the 7-4 loss to Lethbridge.

*****

Oh boy, I'm reluctant to answer a question. But, I found this comment under my post titled, "Trouble Spots in the Dub":

"Les i'm wondering what your feelings are on the path the blades organization is taking we seem to be in a continous rebuilding mode do we need new ownership that's committed to winning a coach that can get the most out of our players or new scouting staff or maybe all of the above it's sure hard to sit and watch this every year i hope i'm the only person that feels this way so i'm wondering what your thoughts are on the blades thanx for your comments Dwight Gervais"

Dwight, and others, can check the archives for my last post before Christmas where I boosted the idea of the Blades hosting the 2010 Memorial Cup, feeling that they were heading in the right direction with their talent. One of the subsequent comments about ownership not being committed and coaching being a problem irked me to respond in a snarky way...for which I was royally roasted.

I'm sticking with a lot of what I said about the future talent. The team's last 26 games (13-9-1-3) has me hoping they can get off to that kind of start next season on the way to being in the playoffs. But, I'm at a loss to figure out Dwight's contention that the Blades are, "in a continuous rebuilding mode." I ask you, readers, to define rebuilding. My definition is a process until such time when a team has a full complement of above average overage players, a large number of above average 19-year-olds and a supporting cast of young prospects...all of which makes the team a contender for a championship.

I think the 2004-2005 Blades and the 2005-2006 team fall into that definition. They won 37 games with 86 points in 04-05 and won 41 games with 88 points in 05-06...good for second place in the East Division both seasons. Unfortunately, they lost in the first round to P-A in 05 and in the second round to Medicine Hat in 06. Consider that four teams with similar records this season will be out after the first round and another two will be gonzo after the second round. Outside of Brandon, none of those teams are in rebuilding mode anymore. They're built to contend now...as the Blades were in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 seasons. They just won't make it...as the Blades didn't in those campaigns.

And, there have been other Blades' teams that were better than .500 since 1994 that have fallen short in the post-season. The 94-95 squad, the 99-00 team, the 02-03 Bridge City Bunch. Those teams weren't rebuilding, either. They just lost to better teams. The gaps in between those winning seasons can be attributed to scouting...as second-guessing allows us to do.

Former G-M Brent McEwen told me one bad year of picks at the Bantam Draft means a three-year down-turn in fortunes. Two bad draft years in a row means a seven-year wait for the good times, he said. Unfortunately for him and the Blades, he knows that from experience...one of the reasons why he is no longer employed by the team!

I think the path the team is on now is the right one...but a good start to next season is paramount. But, my question remains to you...define rebuilding?

7 Comment(s) | Leave a Comment

Comments

rebuilding
from Dwight Gervais on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM
Les thanx for shedding light on on the blades i guess if they play 500 hockey and get out of the first round of playoffs this is considered a great year.The amount of players moving through the blades system every year in the last 5 years gave me the impression they are in a continous rebuild.If 2010 is their magic year i am really looking forward to 2010. Thanx Dwight Gervais

Your welcome, Dwight
from Les on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM
For the Blades, based on their last 14 seasons, a .500 year would be considered great. Since a player can potentially play five seasons, a building cycle can be five years. The best way to judge how long it takes for a team to build (re-build) into a winner is to look at how expansion teams have done. Most, with the exception of Everett, have struggled in Years 1 and 2, missing the playoffs or being eliminated in the first round...then making the playoffs with a winning record in Year 3 and being a championship contender in Years 4 and 5. How well they draft and develop their young players determines how their fortunes play out in years after that.

Your welcome, Dwight

from Les on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM

For the Blades, based on their last 14 seasons, a .500 year would be considered great. Since a player can potentially play five seasons, a building cycle can be five years. The best way to judge how long it takes for a team to build (re-build) into a winner is to look at how expansion teams have done. Most, with the exception of Everett, have struggled in Years 1 and 2, missing the playoffs or being eliminated in the first round...then making the playoffs with a winning record in Year 3 and being a championship contender in Years 4 and 5. How well they draft and develop their young players determines how their fortunes play out in years after that.

(no subject)
from Dean on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 11:36:19 AM
I see where Dwight is coming from it does get frustrating at times. I am optimistic about 2010 also but I do have a comment. You said McEwen told you a couple of years of bad drafting can cause you 7 years of mis fortune. Which is why McEwan is no longer with the Blades. Then why did it take two seasons after Molleken arrived to rebuild the scouting staff. I mean I may be wrong here but bad drafting usually stems from scouting. But yet in 2003 Molleken gets hired and Oleksyk remains the head scout. I don't get it. The Blades future looks bright but with the right scouting I think it could of been alot brighter. I look at the 2005 and 2006 draft and I see some good hockey players the Blades could of had. Especially in 2006. If it were me in charge there would be no such thing as a GM/coach. Say all you want about the Blades turning the season around when Gillies became captain. But I look at it and see the season turned around once the trade deadline had passed and Molleken could concentrate on coaching once again. Don't get me wrong I like Molleken as a head coach and as a GM, the guy knows hockey I just think its tough to try and rebuild and concentrate on coaching at the same time. I am afraid that come next year and 2010 the GM role will be put on the back burner and by 2011 we will be back to the rebuilding years. I hope I am wrong and if Lorne can bring home a championship I can settle for some rebuilding after. I also want to thank you Les for your comments on Les' Loft. I have enjoyed reading and posting throughout the year.

(no subject)

from Dean on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 11:36:19 AM

I see where Dwight is coming from it does get frustrating at times. I am optimistic about 2010 also but I do have a comment. You said McEwen told you a couple of years of bad drafting can cause you 7 years of mis fortune. Which is why McEwan is no longer with the Blades. Then why did it take two seasons after Molleken arrived to rebuild the scouting staff. I mean I may be wrong here but bad drafting usually stems from scouting. But yet in 2003 Molleken gets hired and Oleksyk remains the head scout. I don't get it. The Blades future looks bright but with the right scouting I think it could of been alot brighter. I look at the 2005 and 2006 draft and I see some good hockey players the Blades could of had. Especially in 2006.
If it were me in charge there would be no such thing as a GM/coach. Say all you want about the Blades turning the season around when Gillies became captain. But I look at it and see the season turned around once the trade deadline had passed and Molleken could concentrate on coaching once again. Don't get me wrong I like Molleken as a head coach and as a GM, the guy knows hockey I just think its tough to try and rebuild and concentrate on coaching at the same time. I am afraid that come next year and 2010 the GM role will be put on the back burner and by 2011 we will be back to the rebuilding years. I hope I am wrong and if Lorne can bring home a championship I can settle for some rebuilding after.

I also want to thank you Les for your comments on Les' Loft. I have enjoyed reading and posting throughout the year.

Response to Dean...
from Les on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM
A small correction first, Molleken was hired in 2004 and his first Bantam draft was in 2005. It's tough to argue the scouting and drafting record. As for why Paul Olekszyk was retained at the time Lorne was hired, I wondered about that myself. Without knowing Olekszyk's contract situation (he may have been under contract through the end of the 2006-2007 season, I'm not sure), but I do know all WHL teams are unwilling to fire people with time remaining on their contracts and pay them out. The other thing is that Doug Molleken wasn't able to retire from his job in Regina until last year...and he was Lorne's choice to be head scout all along. Rather than let Olekszyk go when he first arrived, Lorne decided to keep him for two seasons, rather than go hunting for someone else in the interim. There's no doubt that the GM/coach dual position is a tough one...but several people do/have done it effectively. It requires you to have someone that you trust and is competent at handling the scouting. I'd like to think that the Mollekens and assistant G-M Jarrod Brodsky are on the same page now and that rebuilding years will be few and far between in the future. Thanks for reading the blog, Dean. It has been enjoyable for the most part and I hope to continue it for as long as the Blades allow me to. Plus, I hope to post more often in the future!

Response to Dean...

from Les on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM

A small correction first, Molleken was hired in 2004 and his first Bantam draft was in 2005. It's tough to argue the scouting and drafting record. As for why Paul Olekszyk was retained at the time Lorne was hired, I wondered about that myself. Without knowing Olekszyk's contract situation (he may have been under contract through the end of the 2006-2007 season, I'm not sure), but I do know all WHL teams are unwilling to fire people with time remaining on their contracts and pay them out. The other thing is that Doug Molleken wasn't able to retire from his job in Regina until last year...and he was Lorne's choice to be head scout all along. Rather than let Olekszyk go when he first arrived, Lorne decided to keep him for two seasons, rather than go hunting for someone else in the interim.
There's no doubt that the GM/coach dual position is a tough one...but several people do/have done it effectively. It requires you to have someone that you trust and is competent at handling the scouting. I'd like to think that the Mollekens and assistant G-M Jarrod Brodsky are on the same page now and that rebuilding years will be few and far between in the future.
Thanks for reading the blog, Dean. It has been enjoyable for the most part and I hope to continue it for as long as the Blades allow me to. Plus, I hope to post more often in the future!

You are hilarious
from Scout West on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 09:32:36 PM
I just heard your post game and I think you picked 3 Blades stars simply because too many fans were getting on you and you couldn't take the heat! I watched the game and without a shadow of a doubt in a close game that Scott Glennie should've been a star in this game. I travelled all the way to watch my nephew play a game and he puts up a great effort and doesn't get rewarded? WHY? Explain to me why? Your picks and thought leave little to be desired Les, I'll tell you that much...Maybe time to take a break from the booth next year hey?

You are hilarious

from Scout West on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 09:32:36 PM

I just heard your post game and I think you picked 3 Blades stars simply because too many fans were getting on you and you couldn't take the heat! I watched the game and without a shadow of a doubt in a close game that Scott Glennie should've been a star in this game. I travelled all the way to watch my nephew play a game and he puts up a great effort and doesn't get rewarded? WHY? Explain to me why? Your picks and thought leave little to be desired Les, I'll tell you that much...Maybe time to take a break from the booth next year hey?

You know what is funny
from on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM
How can you come on here and say that the 3 stars from friday night were not deserving of it. Maybe Glennie had a good game with his two goals. But a close game this was not. Other than about 10 min. in a 60 min. hockey game the Blades outplayed Brandon. Fiala had a three point night. Durand had a three point night and Elliot played phenominal on defence. Glennie did have a good game but so did Elliot. And guess what Elliot was on the winning team so my vote goes to Elliot.

You know what is funny

from on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM

How can you come on here and say that the 3 stars from friday night were not deserving of it. Maybe Glennie had a good game with his two goals. But a close game this was not. Other than about 10 min. in a 60 min. hockey game the Blades outplayed Brandon. Fiala had a three point night. Durand had a three point night and Elliot played phenominal on defence. Glennie did have a good game but so did Elliot. And guess what Elliot was on the winning team so my vote goes to Elliot.

who stays next year and who goes
from guy dlouhy on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM
Being a season ticket holder the past two seasons doesn't give me the right to complain too loudly but, here goes. While the blades are surely in rebuilding mode (youngest team in the league--next to Prince George-) one must seriously wonder why the team fell flat on it's face during they're U.S. road trip and then never recovered after that until they were out of the playoffs and then they started to win! win! win!. Kevin philp and garret klotz are giants among men and or boys but, neither have hockey skills that complement they're size.. Although mike reich is smaller and not as intimidating he can skate with anybody and stood tall for his mates during a season of no goal-scoring and defensive battles. I guess coaches don't want to use big tough guys anymore to stand in front of the net during the powerplay. Although mike reich is a bit of a loose cannon, he surely is fun and predictable to watch. Yeah, he took a stupid penalty in the last home game against P.A. and never saw the ice again but, he was worth the price of admission on all those nights when we hit countless goalposts and shot wide the other ten times. Would love to see Reich back as a twenty year old. He could also play powerplay and during short-handed situations if he was given the chance. Whatever management does we need iron mike reich back if only to protect the younger guys and create some excitement when the rest of the boys are hitting goalposts and shooting wide. Walker wintoneak needs better conditioning and needs to take some lumps in front of the other teams net not only on power plays but on his regular shift as well. Cody chickee--sorry his name is misspelled should crack the lineup on his skating alone. Niemi from finland was the best young talent to be unearthed in a long time. We need a twenty year old who can score and set guys up and another 20 year old who frighten and punish enemy players that dare stand in front of holtby. Holtby should have garnered M.V.P. honors because without him in the lineup we would have really looked awful. Gillies is to be commended for a decent season but his lack of finish and bad passing during the first half of the season should have been noted when handing out the awards. Mike reich will land somewhere next year if we don't keep him and he'll end up pummelling a few of our guys if we don't keep him. Enough said. Goal-scoring and toughness on the wings and defence coupled with superior skating abilities will put us into the playoffs. Thanx for listeneing With holtby standing tall winning and coming to the games knowing teamates

who stays next year and who goes

from guy dlouhy on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM

Being a season ticket holder the past two seasons doesn't give me the right to complain too loudly but, here goes. While the blades are surely in rebuilding mode (youngest team in the league--next to Prince George-) one must seriously wonder why the team fell flat on it's face during they're U.S. road trip and then never recovered after that until they were out of the playoffs and then they started to win! win! win!. Kevin philp and garret klotz are giants among men and or boys but, neither have hockey skills that complement they're size.. Although mike reich is smaller and not as intimidating he can skate with anybody and stood tall for his mates during a season of no goal-scoring and defensive battles. I guess coaches don't want to use big tough guys anymore to stand in front of the net during the powerplay. Although mike reich is a bit of a loose cannon, he surely is fun and predictable to watch. Yeah, he took a stupid penalty in the last home game against P.A. and never saw the ice again but, he was worth the price of admission on all those nights when we hit countless goalposts and shot wide the other ten times. Would love to see Reich back as a twenty year old. He could also play powerplay and during short-handed situations if he was given the chance. Whatever management does we need iron mike reich back if only to protect the younger guys and create some excitement when the rest of the boys are hitting goalposts and shooting wide. Walker wintoneak needs better conditioning and needs to take some lumps in front of the other teams net not only on power plays but on his regular shift as well. Cody chickee--sorry his name is misspelled should crack the lineup on his skating alone. Niemi from finland was the best young talent to be unearthed in a long time. We need a twenty year old who can score and set guys up and another 20 year old who frighten and punish enemy players that dare stand in front of holtby. Holtby should have garnered M.V.P. honors because without him in the lineup we would have really looked awful. Gillies is to be commended for a decent season but his lack of finish and bad passing during the first half of the season should have been noted when handing out the awards. Mike reich will land somewhere next year if we don't keep him and he'll end up pummelling a few of our guys if we don't keep him. Enough said. Goal-scoring and toughness on the wings and defence coupled with superior skating abilities will put us into the playoffs. Thanx for listeneing With holtby standing tall winning and coming to the games knowing teamates

Your Name (Required):
Your Email (Optional):
Subject:
Your Comments: