Interview: What happened with the Habs and Latendresse?

When a French Canadian player is traded from the Montreal Canadiens, it’s going to create some conversation. As enigmatic forward Guillaume Latendresse was traded from the Habs to the Wild for Benoit Pouliot, it’s a good time to try to figure out what went wrong. Latendresse entered the league straight out of Juniors and Drummondville as an 18 year old rookie. After a rookie season that showed promise, his growth stagnated and he eventually regressed. This isn’t the end to his career in the Le Bleu-Blanc-et-Rouge that most fans in Quebec envisioned. So what went wrong?

We’ve brought in Kyle Roussel from All Habs and NHL Digest to look at the bigger picture with Guillaume Latendresse’s time in Montreal. Could the Canadiens have avoided this mess? Is it the 22 year old forwards fault? Here is some great insight.

You concluded your article last night by saying that Guillaume Latendresse was mismanaged. Please explain. How was Lats mismanaged? Was this something that the Habs gradually screwed-up or has this been a problem since he was drafted?

"My fair people of Montreal... come praise me and my 85 career points!"

Latendresse was mismanaged from the very beginning. He had no business playing in the NHL at the start of the 2006-07 season. He had a great pre-season and this helped entrance fans and media alike in pressuring the Canadiens to keep him on the roster, which they did. Their rationale was not “they made us do it”, but rather “he has nothing left to learn anywhere else. We can bring him along to where he needs to be.” He scored 16 goals as a rookie, which somehow made people think he was a budding star. He was also a -20, which to me shows that the coaching staff didn’t quite live up to their end of the bargain.

The same thing happened at the start of the 2007-08 season. Many thought he should have been sent to Hamilton to develop while there was still a chance, but again, the stubborn Canadiens kept him around. He scored another 16 goals, and “improved” to -2. Early into the 2008-09 season he was officially classified as a veteran, unable to go down to Hamilton without being put on waivers first. Now he was stuck in Montreal and by this point, it was clear that he was regressing as a player, but nothing could be done other than simply working with him and hoping that he’d eventually get it. The problem with that line of thinking is that there is immense pressure to win in Montreal, and win immediately. As a player you are expected to take your role and run with it.

The coaches grossly underestimated the amount of grooming Latendresse needed. Whether through his own stubbornness or inability, Guillaume refused to apply what the coaches were telling him; that he needed to use his body and get dirty. He’s a poor skater (don’t let anyone try to persuade you that his top-5 time among teammates means something). He’s defensively irresponsible, and usually invisible offensively. The bottom line is that by caving in to the media and fan demands for a young local stud, the Canadiens robbed Latendresse of the critical opportunity to develop as a player, and mature as a professional hockey player in the AHL.

That begs the question—is this a problem that is systematic within the Canadiens organization? Was Latendresse just an isolated incident?

The Canadiens have been guilty of ruining young players before, but this was a unique case. I’ve made it sound like Lats’ troubles are all because of the Canadiens, but the reality is that while they mismanaged him at the start of his career, he has nobody to blame but himself for the situation. He’s not only revealed himself as an uncoachable hockey player to this point, but he’s revealed himself as a dimwit as well. His quotes post-trade leave a bitter taste in my mouth. He said he was relieved to be leaving. He complained of not getting enough chances (curiously, his pals in the media are bellyaching the same story), and of being shuffled from the 2nd to 4th line after 1 mistake. Please.

The problem is that he was unwilling to work hard, and do what was asked of him. Plain and simple. It came to the point that at practice (before he was traded later that day), assistant coach Perry Pearn grabbed Latendresse by the shoulders and physically dragged him to the front of the net, as if to emphatically show Guillaume where they wanted him to play. Why he refused to listen is anyone’s guess. It was as clear as day that if he would only use his size, he’d have a lot more success in the league. From the 2006-07 World Junior team where he sat on the bench for the majority of the tournament because of his poor conditioning, right up until today where his refusal to shelf his ego and do what coaches ask of him, he ultimately needs to look in the mirror if he wants to fix his career. He needs to take his lumps, swallow his pride and lose his sense of entitlement that he slurped up during his 3+ years in Montreal.

"Hugs... come give me a hug before I leave for Minnesota!"

Montreal has had a few problems in recent years with some particular players. Over the last year, it seems like Alexei Kovalev and Sergei Kostitsyn were turned into Public Enemy #1. How much do you think the media played into Guillaume Latendresse’s relationship with the fans towards the end?

I’ve never seen such a love/hate relationship among fans & media toward anyone like we saw with Kovalev. He was able to frustrate and exhilarate in the same shift. I think the fans in Montreal have been looking for a player with skill and flair for the game, both of which Kovalev had in spades. Not since Guy Lafleur have the fans had someone that can get people out of their seats the way Kovalev sometimes did. But he didn’t bring his A game to the rink often enough. At times he seemed disinterested. At times he seemed possessed. Such was life with “the artiste”.

Sergei Kostitsyn is another story. Here’s a young kid with lots of talent, who often behaves like he had attained some measure of success in the NHL, when in fact he has done nothing of importance. He is reported to be more committed to nightlife and partying than to hockey, but I don’t think that makes him unique among young, rich, privileged, professional athletes. The media even made a big stink out of some alleged connection between him, his older brother Andrei and defenseman Roman Hamrlik to a mobster. The Montreal Police exonerated all 3, which means that story should be a dead one, but people keep bringing it up. Whether it’s the truth, we will likely never know. I think the real problem with Sergei Kostitsyn is that he somehow believes that he deserves a top-6 role on the team, come hell or high water. He also seems to believe that his talent makes him immune to criticism; coincidentally, Latendresse also had a sense of entitlement that he did not deserve.

As for Latendresse, the French media very much wanted to see to it that he succeeded in Montreal and that he had a prolonged spot on one of the top 2 lines. There’s little doubt that the French media largely dictates how a player is perceived, but I think that in the case of Latendresse, the media may be more upset about Gui’s departure than any other group. Guillaume was still living under the umbrella of protection provided to him by certain members of the media. Bob Gainey just shattered that umbrella for everyone. Everyone wants the local kid to do well, the difference is the French media would do just about everything in their power to protect and promote him. Put another way: the francophone players on the Canadiens are the francophone media’s prime source of scoops. No francophones = no scoops, no inside sources.

Related, this isn’t the first time that a player has left (or been traded) under questionable circumstances. Mike Ribeiro, Sheldon Souray and Mark Streit have all gone on to thrive in their new locations.  At what point should we admit that there is a trend is developing? Any ideas why?

Gainey is developing a long record of letting assets walk away for nothing in return. Behind his stoic persona we see some signs of desperation. Desperation to make the playoffs, because, anything less than the Cup in Montreal is intolerable, no matter what circumstances the team finds itself playing under. Mike Ribeiro, like Latendresse, had reached a point where he could no longer function in the spotlight in Montreal. He was also drinking his own kool aid and needed to be sent as far away as possible in order to resurrect his career.

On the topic of the continuing exodus of talent, we’ve seen guys like Souray, Mark Streit, Michael Ryder, Mike Komisarek and other assets walk away for nothing in return. The rationale, I assume, is that Gainey wanted these players to contribute to the success of a playoff run, and would let whatever happen with negotiations happen. Many ask why he took this approach when he could have traded those valuable players at the deadline for future assets. A perfectly legitimate question. I understand WHY Gainey took the path he did – as I said – it is not acceptable to not make the playoffs in Montreal. Trading away guys like Streit and Souray at the deadline is a clear sign that he’d be giving up on the team. I don’t necessarily agree with this approach, because everyone knew the Canadiens would not be making any deep playoff runs, with or without those players.

This approach could eventually be Gainey’s undoing. He’s currently in a contract year and how he handles this year’s trading deadline will be sure to cause hair pulling on both sides of the argument.

If you've been back this many times and aren't a subscriber, what are you waiting for? Even if our RSS feeds scare the hell you (because you don't quite understand RSS), we promise the email alerts aren't painful at all. Seriously, a money-back-guarantee-even-though-its-free kind of promise.