The old core leadership fallacy: a number analysis

[anonymous9739872329]

what do you think, that once a C is given to a younger guy the older ones stop talking in the room or something ? that whatever leadership they had is gone ? that because Getzlaf is a C guys like Koivu, Selanne and co dont have a say in what's going on anymore ?

you're really confusing having a letter on a jersey and being one of the leader in the room.

I see what you mean, I think I should clarify my terminology, I'll try to be more specific. My idea of core leadership is the group of leaders you want to build around and that will perdure for multiple years. By my definition, this is the group that I mean is getting younger and younger.

We could go through all the teams and truly see who's wrong or right, but I have the feeling that veterans like Koivu can be vocal in the room, but they are just passing by for a few years contact. Selanne is a nice counter-example, but I do not think we can find a lot of other top-tier (one of the top 5 stars of the team) veterans who spent multiple (5+) years on the same team where a new captain is named and is way younger (5 years difference). I'm not saying we can't add a few other veterans who can be vocal and act as leaders, I'm just saying that the core leadership group of most teams is getting younger. Other metrics could help support this but frankly, I do not want to put multiple hours into this. You can counter-argue that not all captains are top-tier veterans, like Giordano, but arguing by focusing on the exceptions is annoying. Let's agree that most captains are usually part of the best players on the team.

It's pretty clear actually that you can't really quantify leadership, we saw it two seasons ago

You can't quantify leadership itself, but some other metrics can serve as indicators. I found one and we could add a few others to try to support my claims if we had more patience. There is multiple other things that you can't quantify in life, like true love, but having a 40-years-wedding anniversary is usually a good sign that you found a good partner. Indicators are just there to give an idea, it doesn't mean that it fully sums the whole image.

both Gionta and Gorges offered to have the kids live at their place - something 24/25 yo players couldnt do really, but at the same time while PK is younger we hear that other younger guys (Beaulieu we've heard) are looking up to him but in turn, PK is looking up to guys like Markov, like Eller when asked he awnsered that he'd like to be a Plekanec, so yeah, he's looking up to an older guy as an example, but... you could also make a case of Plekanec who looked more dynamic and al' when given guys like Galchenyuk and Gallagher as winger...

This is fair, Gionta and Gorges were great leaders. Nevertheless, let's say we signed Veteran X for 4 years, say a younger Lecavalier. He could have youngsters live at his place as well, be vocal in the room, be an important leader but not be part of the core leadership that will define the team for the next 10 years.

and you come up with the conclusion (sort of) that giving letters to younger guys automatically meas the leadership group is younger ?

Yes, I supposed it is fair to assume that. How often do you give the captaincy to a youngster if you have a top-tier veteran who has been there for the past 10 years? Maybe there is a strong group of older veterans, but they are not part of the team's core since they come and go more often than youngsters. Look at Iginla or Jagr, it doesn't mean that they don't act as leaders anymore, they're just not part of the team's core leadership that will perdure for years.

if you want to "analyze", you got to put more thoughts into it than what you did so far.

I agree. I don't think this is a real in-depth analysis, but let's say I'm not McKinsey or the Boston Consulting Group on a 50 000$ contract here, I just threw some quick numbers that seemed interesting. No need to be condescending though, I know that this is HFBoards and all, but not all of us are here to flame and be flamed.

 

[Kriss E]

I agree it's not a bad thing to err on the side of caution..

A - Pleky
A - Markov
A - Subban

It'll be obvious when Subban will be ready, and it might be as soon as next year.

What impressed me with PK was when made that declaration vs Boston, how he can't wait to just take it all away from them, and in Boston no less. That was Messier like.
To make such a declaration and live up to it shows just a ton of leadership.

 

[BPD Habs Fan]

Interesting statistics. Personally I want PK to be the next captain. We've seen what it does to goalies so I'd never name Price captain or give a letter. PK has a ton of passion and has shown he can handle the pressure of the market.

I believe he would become an even better player.

 

[Bob b smith]

Automatically anointing a vet like Plekanec or Markov shows the captaincy is not much more than a gerontocracy. It presupposes that you can't have leadership if you're younger and that a younger player is unable to lead an older player.

 

[deandebean]

This will be a year where you could have 3 assistants and no captain, to let the team sort itself out. I see Markov + 2 kids: Subban and maybe Gallagher. Next year will be the year of the captaincy.

 

[deandebean]

Personally, I don't see Plekanec being a captain here because he's not from Bergevin's 'reign' as a GM (he's from the 'old regime') and because he could be a trade bait anytime, any day.

I see Markov as an assistant of course. And I see PK and another kid.

 

[ECWHSWI]

As you said, nothing is an exact science, however it is still an interesting thing to look at. Good job.
I've made it clear that PK is my candidate. To me he really represents everything you want from a captain.
The only reason why I'd be hesitant a bit to give it to him this year is the fact it would also be the first year of a huge increase in salary. So he will come into next year with the added pressure to live up to his contract. Add the huge pressure of being a captain to it, and I agree with Mike Johnson that there's being a captain and then there's being a captain of the Montreal Canadiens. So I would think about going into next season with 3 assistants, one of which being PK, and the following year most likely give it to him.

I'd rather go with one of Markov/Plekanec as C and PK as an asst, as you said he'll already have lots of pressure with his new contract so him getting a leadership role while still being of a lower rank (so to speak) would relieve some of that pressure, 3 guys being A means they're on equal footing and he's at the top already, sort of.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Personally, I don't see Plekanec being a captain here because he's not from Bergevin's 'reign' as a GM (he's from the 'old regime') and because he could be a trade bait anytime, any day.

I see Markov as an assistant of course. And I see PK and another kid.

nothing is impossible but considering how much praise he and Markov get from both the coach and GM, dont get your "hopes" too high.

 

[Agnostic]

as long as you go with C = leader, no C = not a leader...


what do you think, that once a C is given to a younger guy the older ones stop talking in the room or something ? that whatever leadership they had is gone ? that because Getzlaf is a C guys like Koivu, Selanne and co dont have a say in what's going on anymore ?

you're really confusing having a letter on a jersey and being one of the leader in the room.

It's pretty clear actually that you can't really quantify leadership, we saw it two seasons ago, both Gionta and Gorges offered to have the kids live at their place - something 24/25 yo players couldnt do really, but at the same time while PK is younger we hear that other younger guys (Beaulieu we've heard) are looking up to him but in turn, PK is looking up to guys like Markov, like Eller when asked he awnsered that he'd like to be a Plekanec, so yeah, he's looking up to an older guy as an example, but... you could also make a case of Plekanec who looked more dynamic and al' when given guys like Galchenyuk and Gallagher as winger...

and you come up with the conclusion (sort of) that giving letters to younger guys automatically meas the leadership group is younger ?

if you want to "analyze", you got to put more thoughts into it than what you did so far.

So well said.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I see what you mean, I think I should clarify my terminology, I'll try to be more specific. My idea of core leadership is the group of leaders you want to build around and that will perdure for multiple years. By my definition, this is the group that I mean is getting younger and younger.

We could go through all the teams and truly see who's wrong or right, but I have the feeling that veterans like Koivu can be vocal in the room, but they are just passing by for a few years contact. Selanne is a nice counter-example, but I do not think we can find a lot of other top-tier (one of the top 5 stars of the team) veterans who spent multiple (5+) years on the same team where a new captain is named and is way younger (5 years difference). I'm not saying we can't add a few other veterans who can be vocal and act as leaders, I'm just saying that the core leadership group of most teams is getting younger. Other metrics could help support this but frankly, I do not want to put multiple hours into this. You can counter-argue that not all captains are top-tier veterans, like Giordano, but arguing by focusing on the exceptions is annoying. Let's agree that most captains are usually part of the best players on the team.



You can't quantify leadership itself, but some other metrics can serve as indicators. I found one and we could add a few others to try to support my claims if we had more patience. There is multiple other things that you can't quantify in life, like true love, but having a 40-years-wedding anniversary is usually a good sign that you found a good partner. Indicators are just there to give an idea, it doesn't mean that it fully sums the whole image.



This is fair, Gionta and Gorges were great leaders. Nevertheless, let's say we signed Veteran X for 4 years, say a younger Lecavalier. He could have youngsters live at his place as well, be vocal in the room, be an important leader but not be part of the core leadership that will define the team for the next 10 years.



Yes, I supposed it is fair to assume that. How often do you give the captaincy to a youngster if you have a top-tier veteran who has been there for the past 10 years? Maybe there is a strong group of older veterans, but they are not part of the team's core since they come and go more often than youngsters. Look at Iginla or Jagr, it doesn't mean that they don't act as leaders anymore, they're just not part of the team's core leadership that will perdure for years.



I agree. I don't think this is a real in-depth analysis, but let's say I'm not McKinsey or the Boston Consulting Group on a 50 000$ contract here, I just threw some quick numbers that seemed interesting. No need to be condescending though, I know that this is HFBoards and all, but not all of us are here to flame and be flamed.

I'm not, I remember you from a while ago and I know you can do (even on limited time and no budget and al') better than Elle Quebec calibre analysis

 

[puckeater]

Haha! Cheeks Giroux will probably lose his C before training camp. Personally I don't think the next captain is on the team yet.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I see what you mean, I think I should clarify my terminology, I'll try to be more specific. My idea of core leadership is the group of leaders you want to build around and that will perdure for multiple years. By my definition, this is the group that I mean is getting younger and younger.

We could go through all the teams and truly see who's wrong or right, but I have the feeling that veterans like Koivu can be vocal in the room, but they are just passing by for a few years contact. Selanne is a nice counter-example, but I do not think we can find a lot of other top-tier (one of the top 5 stars of the team) veterans who spent multiple (5+) years on the same team where a new captain is named and is way younger (5 years difference). I'm not saying we can't add a few other veterans who can be vocal and act as leaders, I'm just saying that the core leadership group of most teams is getting younger. Other metrics could help support this but frankly, I do not want to put multiple hours into this. You can counter-argue that not all captains are top-tier veterans, like Giordano, but arguing by focusing on the exceptions is annoying. Let's agree that most captains are usually part of the best players on the team.



You can't quantify leadership itself, but some other metrics can serve as indicators. I found one and we could add a few others to try to support my claims if we had more patience. There is multiple other things that you can't quantify in life, like true love, but having a 40-years-wedding anniversary is usually a good sign that you found a good partner. Indicators are just there to give an idea, it doesn't mean that it fully sums the whole image.



This is fair, Gionta and Gorges were great leaders. Nevertheless, let's say we signed Veteran X for 4 years, say a younger Lecavalier. He could have youngsters live at his place as well, be vocal in the room, be an important leader but not be part of the core leadership that will define the team for the next 10 years.



Yes, I supposed it is fair to assume that. How often do you give the captaincy to a youngster if you have a top-tier veteran who has been there for the past 10 years? Maybe there is a strong group of older veterans, but they are not part of the team's core since they come and go more often than youngsters. Look at Iginla or Jagr, it doesn't mean that they don't act as leaders anymore, they're just not part of the team's core leadership that will perdure for years.



I agree. I don't think this is a real in-depth analysis, but let's say I'm not McKinsey or the Boston Consulting Group on a 50 000$ contract here, I just threw some quick numbers that seemed interesting. No need to be condescending though, I know that this is HFBoards and all, but not all of us are here to flame and be flamed.

now on to a real awnser

Yeah, posted the other awnser first, wanted to make clear I'm not trying to belittle you or anything.

While most of what you're saying isnt wrong, my take is that you're looking at it from the wrong angle.

on most teams, the C will be given to a member of the core group, (same for asst) wether you have a young or old C will depends on the age of your core. with no Cap and a UFA age of 31, teams had an older core and since the C is usually a part of said core it's only normal to have an older C, I mean, if most of your good players who are signed longterm are 30 or close to it, you're not going to give a letter to someone who's 22 or 23, the difference in age, experience (both as a hockey player and a human in general) is too big... but with a lower UFA age and salary Cap kinda forcing teams to have a younger core it is expected to have younger C as, like I said, C and A are usually members of the core group.

Younger C and A is only a side effect of the core group age IMO, nothing else.

 

[anonymous9739872329]

on most teams, the C will be given to a member of the core group, (same for asst) wether you have a young or old C will depends on the age of your core. with no Cap and a UFA age of 31, teams had an older core and since the C is usually a part of said core it's only normal to have an older C, I mean, if most of your good players who are signed longterm are 30 or close to it, you're not going to give a letter to someone who's 22 or 23, the difference in age, experience (both as a hockey player and a human in general) is too big... but with a lower UFA age and salary Cap kinda forcing teams to have a younger core it is expected to have younger C as, like I said, C and A are usually members of the core group.

Younger C and A is only a side effect of the core group age IMO, nothing else.

Somehow, I fully agree with everything you said. Maybe my opinion wasn't clear enough in the first post.

The Habs didn't have youth in place to follow the league's trend in the late 2000s, so instead of giving the "C" to Kostitsyn or Latendresse (lol), they replaced the Koivu-Kovalev clique by Gionta-Gomez-Cammalleri-Moen. Those veterans filled the core leadership void, which, even if it went against the league's trends, made sense at the time based on our situation.

Fast-forward to two days ago. We had the choice to stay on course with the pre-lockout mentality and lock Gionta for a few more years and keep Gorges around for his leadership skills as well. Nevertheless, there's option 2, the option that Bergevin took, which is to embrace the post-lockout era and accept that the new CBA rules, as you said, have the natural tendency to rejuvenate your core leadership group. Even if it hurts to see Gorges go, I think it's the right move.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Somehow, I fully agree with everything you said. Maybe my opinion wasn't clear enough in the first post.

The Habs didn't have youth in place to follow the league's trend in the late 2000s, so instead of giving the "C" to Kostitsyn or Latendresse (lol), they replaced the Koivu-Kovalev clique by Gionta-Gomez-Cammalleri-Moen. Those veterans filled the core leadership void, which, even if it went against the league's trends, made sense at the time based on our situation.

Fast-forward to two days ago. We had the choice to stay on course with the pre-lockout mentality and lock Gionta for a few more years and keep Gorges around for his leadership skills as well. Nevertheless, there's option 2, the option that Bergevin took, which is to embrace the post-lockout era and accept that the new CBA rules, as you said, have the natural tendency to rejuvenate your core leadership group. Even if it hurts to see Gorges go, I think it's the right move.

while the changes seems minimal, I think MB made a HUGE step in that direction, establishing the younger players as the core is a step (and getting a younger guy with a C or A) but also by reducing the salary on the 3rd and 4th line (4th line C at 850K instead of 4Mil), getting lower salaries at the 4th to 6th D and so on... it's the basic used by teams like LA and Chicago, and they're both very solid teams.

Following that trend, chances are that a guy like PK will get an A, and once Plekanec/Markov are gone he'll get the C (assuming he's doing well in his A role), and if gets the C by then, well another young guy will take the vacant A.

Dont think it will be much than that though as Gallagher and Galchenyuk are too green to get a letter IMO and Patches and Eller dont strike me as leaders.

 

[S Bah]

What impressed me with PK was when made that declaration vs Boston, how he can't wait to just take it all away from them, and in Boston no less. That was Messier like.
To make such a declaration and live up to it shows just a ton of leadership.

PK Subban is a great Hab, lifelong Hab fan too, he's maturing and may be the Captain in the future.

Great analysis Spree. I agree with your conclusion... Confirms some of my impressions. I'll bring more on this....

Exhibit A Mark Messier
1-Around 1980 (Messier is only 19 or 20 years old) : "But early on Sather recognized the value of (Kevin) Lowe and Messier.... Lowe remembers that Sather "pushed " him and Messier into leadership roles, "straight out" telling them: "Hey, you guys take charge. You tell 'em when they're screwing up" per Klein: Messier. p.31
2-The only player to captain two different professional teams to championships

Exhibit B Chris Pronger
1- Was 23 years old when first named Captain. He was pushed in a leadership role despite his prior (major) off ice issues and spats with the team. He's now lauded as a great leader, HOF and no one remembers all the crap from early in his career.

Both players were unique in abilities both on the ice and off, Montreal is uniquely diverse to most NHL cities. Being a Captain here presents different duties expected of that player, certainly falls under the title "Job" a 24/7 type.

Considering that our core is drafted and developped by ourselves (Except for Eller), and that our next captain will certainly be a player drafted/developped by the Habs.

The Habs having drafted players that ooze leadership qualities, compounds the difficulty in choosing just one person that exemplifies the Hab persona.

as long as you go with C = leader, no C = not a leader...


what do you think, that once a C is given to a younger guy the older ones stop talking in the room or something ? that whatever leadership they had is gone ? that because Getzlaf is a C guys like Koivu, Selanne and co dont have a say in what's going on anymore ?

you're really confusing having a letter on a jersey and being one of the leader in the room.

It's pretty clear actually that you can't really quantify leadership, we saw it two seasons ago, both Gionta and Gorges offered to have the kids live at their place - something 24/25 yo players couldnt do really, but at the same time while PK is younger we hear that other younger guys (Beaulieu we've heard) are looking up to him but in turn, PK is looking up to guys like Markov, like Eller when asked he awnsered that he'd like to be a Plekanec, so yeah, he's looking up to an older guy as an example, but... you could also make a case of Plekanec who looked more dynamic and al' when given guys like Galchenyuk and Gallagher as winger...

and you come up with the conclusion (sort of) that giving letters to younger guys automatically meas the leadership group is younger ?

if you want to "analyze", you got to put more thoughts into it than what you did so far.

I believe for a player to be Captain of the Habs, the Captain should be voted upon by the players & training staff etc., in a private voting not a popularity contest.

As you said, nothing is an exact science, however it is still an interesting thing to look at. Good job.
I've made it clear that PK is my candidate. To me he really represents everything you want from a captain.
The only reason why I'd be hesitant a bit to give it to him this year is the fact it would also be the first year of a huge increase in salary. So he will come into next year with the added pressure to live up to his contract. Add the huge pressure of being a captain to it, and I agree with Mike Johnson that there's being a captain and then there's being a captain of the Montreal Canadiens. So I would think about going into next season with 3 assistants, one of which being PK, and the following year most likely give it to him.

Markov & Plekanec have turned down the offer I believe, both deserving of the honor. Max & PK are also in that category, worthy and have come through the Habs system, too young IMHO for all that's entailed of Hab Captains.

I agree it's not a bad thing to err on the side of caution..

A - Pleky
A - Markov
A - Subban

It'll be obvious when Subban will be ready, and it might be as soon as next year.

Having more players on the Hab teams that can qualify for Capt. is a great thing and waiting a couple of yrs. won't hurt anyone.

I'd rather go with one of Markov/Plekanec as C and PK as an asst, as you said he'll already have lots of pressure with his new contract so him getting a leadership role while still being of a lower rank (so to speak) would relieve some of that pressure, 3 guys being A means they're on equal footing and he's at the top already, sort of.

As I've pointed out neither Markov/Plekanec want the position and both lead by example, my view is either the players vote for someone to be Capt. or go with Asst.Captains. This team is at least two years from winning the SC, by then one player will rise into the position, IMHO.

My choice eventually will be Alex Galchenyuk, at least at this point in his career, he has shown all the good traits former Hab captains had and will only be better with age like a fine wine.

 

[Darth Joker]

Have the Captaincy anonymously voted on by the players, let the chips fall where they may. SpreeEndaz has clearly demonstrated that it's fine for a young guy to be a team Captain, so I would say the most important thing is for the Captain to truly have the support of the rest of the team, and that's where a vote comes in.

Once the Captain is decided, give As to two out of these four - Pleks, Markov, Subban, Gallagher (chances are one of the four will be voted the Captain).

 

[19VJ17]

As you said, nothing is an exact science, however it is still an interesting thing to look at. Good job.
I've made it clear that PK is my candidate. To me he really represents everything you want from a captain.
The only reason why I'd be hesitant a bit to give it to him this year is the fact it would also be the first year of a huge increase in salary. So he will come into next year with the added pressure to live up to his contract. Add the huge pressure of being a captain to it, and I agree with Mike Johnson that there's being a captain and then there's being a captain of the Montreal Canadiens. So I would think about going into next season with 3 assistants, one of which being PK, and the following year most likely give it to him.

I agree with having 3 assistants this year but on the other hand would have no problem seeing PK being the captain this year.
Yes the pressure of signing a big contract and being named the captain of the Montreal Canadiens would be HUGE.
But this is where PK is different then most people. PK LOVES pressure and always seems to rise above it. The more pressure, the more PK excels. This playoffs showed us again that PK does his speaking on the ice. He is the go to guy when we need a goal or big play to change the game.
All the media attention PK has already went through in his young career would kill most players and they would ask for a trade(see Spezza).

NOT PK. He has already stated many times he LOVES Montreal and wants to play his entire career here. Pressure to PK is like water of a duck back. It never fazes him. He loves pressure. He loves the big stage....he has charisma, character that thunders Champion to me and many other people.
Also remember after signing his last contract (more media pressure and scrutiny) he won the Norris.

 

[Kriss E]

I'd rather go with one of Markov/Plekanec as C and PK as an asst, as you said he'll already have lots of pressure with his new contract so him getting a leadership role while still being of a lower rank (so to speak) would relieve some of that pressure, 3 guys being A means they're on equal footing and he's at the top already, sort of.

I am not sure Plekanec or Markov would want the captaincy though. I wouldn't have a problem with either one getting it, but I'd prefer PK, to me he's the one that really carries this team, along with Price.

 

[Kriss E]

I agree with having 3 assistants this year but on the other hand would have no problem seeing PK being the captain this year.
Yes the pressure of signing a big contract and being named the captain of the Montreal Canadiens would be HUGE.
But this is where PK is different then most people. PK LOVES pressure and always seems to rise above it. The more pressure, the more PK excels. This playoffs showed us again that PK does his speaking on the ice. He is the go to guy when we need a goal or big play to change the game.
All the media attention PK has already went through in his young career would kill most players and they would ask for a trade(see Spezza).

NOT PK. He has already stated many times he LOVES Montreal and wants to play his entire career here. Pressure to PK is like water of a duck back. It never fazes him. He loves pressure. He loves the big stage....he has charisma, character that thunders Champion to me and many other people.
Also remember after signing his last contract (more media pressure and scrutiny) he won the Norris.

Maybe, it is something I would definitely discuss. PK is a player that I want (assuming he keeps playing as he had) to retire here. So there's no rush in making him captain. He seem to thrive under pressure, but there's no need to add pressure when it's avoidable. I'd probably do a transitional year.

 

[CupInSIX]

Solid OP. I would rotate the captaincy between Markov, Subban, Prust and Gallagher then name the captain in the offseason. No team vote pls.

 

[19VJ17]

Maybe, it is something I would definitely discuss. PK is a player that I want (assuming he keeps playing as he had) to retire here. So there's no rush in making him captain. He seem to thrive under pressure, but there's no need to add pressure when it's avoidable. I'd probably do a transitional year.

He thrives and kills it under pressure. He is the guy you want on your team when everything is on the line.
He very intelligent and articulate when speaking to the media. PK has champion written all over him.
Giving him the C this year would only push him to be better I believe. I really can't see it as being a bad thing.
But I also see what your saying about having 3 assistant captains this year with PK as one of them. I would have no problem with that...but knowing the media they will make a story out of that also

We will let PK leadership and confidence and his ability on and off the ice do the talking

 

[slybel]

The main question is 'Who would the players vote for?' !!

 

[Hoople]

wasted lots of time on this to prove nothing really...


Lots of things in hockey, or life in general, can be quantified, but trying to do it with courage, heart, leadership, etc ? really ?


besides, the only thing your tables are showing are the age of various captain, it has nothing to do with leadership.

I agree with this.

Age is irrelevant..

 

[Hoople]

Solid OP. I would rotate the captaincy between Markov, Subban, Prust and Gallagher then name the captain in the offseason. No team vote pls.

A team vote would embody the entire idea of having a Captain. Leadership in business is granted. Leadership in sports among a team is earned.

And leadership does not automatically come from the person because of age or performance. There are too many intangibles that supercedes performance.

 

[ECWHSWI]

PK Subban is a great Hab, lifelong Hab fan too, he's maturing and may be the Captain in the future.



Both players were unique in abilities both on the ice and off, Montreal is uniquely diverse to most NHL cities. Being a Captain here presents different duties expected of that player, certainly falls under the title "Job" a 24/7 type.

Considering that our core is drafted and developped by ourselves (Except for Eller), and that our next captain will certainly be a player drafted/developped by the Habs.

The Habs having drafted players that ooze leadership qualities, compounds the difficulty in choosing just one person that exemplifies the Hab persona.



I believe for a player to be Captain of the Habs, the Captain should be voted upon by the players & training staff etc., in a private voting not a popularity contest.



Markov & Plekanec have turned down the offer I believe, both deserving of the honor. Max & PK are also in that category, worthy and have come through the Habs system, too young IMHO for all that's entailed of Hab Captains.



Having more players on the Hab teams that can qualify for Capt. is a great thing and waiting a couple of yrs. won't hurt anyone.



As I've pointed out neither Markov/Plekanec want the position and both lead by example, my view is either the players vote for someone to be Capt. or go with Asst.Captains. This team is at least two years from winning the SC, by then one player will rise into the position, IMHO.

My choice eventually will be Alex Galchenyuk, at least at this point in his career, he has shown all the good traits former Hab captains had and will only be better with age like a fine wine.

come on now...