by Blain Potvin, Staff Writer, All Habs Hockey Magazine
HALIFAX, NS — Leadership means different things to different people. Leaders are a key resource on any team. Most teams compete more by means of their leaders than their overall skills as individuals.
Team work is essential to meet team goals. The ability to lead effectively, to enthuse and build respect are skills that are highly sought after by teams, especially when a highly skilled player embodies these qualities.
Anyone who has been part of a team in the military, in sports or in business, will have seen how well-meaning, talented leaders fall flat when they cannot learn to adjust their style to match their team or situation. A leadership failure can be the most glaring change that will be felt by players in the dressing room.
The Canadiens’ addition of Andrew Shaw, a two time Stanley Cup champion, adds experience needed to provide a voice that has reached the level of success desired by the franchise. And the trade of P.K. Subban was not just about making a change on the ice for more defensive ability, more size or for more grit. It was made to shake up the makeup of the team on the ice as well as in the dressing room.
One of the most important aspects of leadership is that not every leader is the same. Of course we have all heard jokes about ‘mushroom’ leadership (keep them in the dark and feed them manure) and ‘seagulls’ (swoop in, squawk, and drop unpleasant things on people) but joking aside, there are many different styles of leadership.
Different leadership styles are appropriate for different people and different circumstances, and the best leaders learn to use them all. 
But in sports, that is not common to find. This is why Shea Weber was likely so attractive to the Canadiens’ management team.
Captain Max Pacioretty is still young and learning. He holds many qualities that define a good leader but he is lacking in some areas that could help to rally a team to a common goal. He still needs to apprentice this craft.
Whether it is Shaw or Weber, adding another strong and respected voice takes nothing away from Pacioretty. They simply add other voices in the chorus, perhaps voices that can, when needed, rise up and help him rally the team to that one goal.
Subban possesses some leadership qualities, however his are more of the enthusiastic “cheerleader” brand, which does hold a lot of value but loses its effectiveness during the low points of a season especially when perpetually used in all situations. Subban’s on-ice effort was all-in and it was obvious that P.K. did everything possible on ice to win, however, the team did not rally around this. If Subban was able to adjust his style, the downward slide last season and possibly the trade may not have happened.
The loss of Carey Price was a heavy one. And it wasn’t just about his on-ice play. The Canadiens lost his quiet leadership and the gravitas of his words when he used them to refocus his teammates. Price’s leadership style is one of calm and inclusiveness. He was able to help bridge the different leadership styles and egos in the room into one cohesive group. This is a style that few can accomplish. It is a style that is shared by Shea Weber.
With respect to the Subban – Weber trade, some argue that the Canadiens are on the wrong side in terms of talent, youth and dollars. But the same argument can be made in defense of Shea Weber, as he is also seen as a top defensemen in the NHL at this moment. His playing style is very different than P.K. Subban’s and can be argued, just as impactful. Yet, it is not as exciting.
As much as fans want to make the trade about “giving up” on a star player, this move was not about that. This was moving a star player to get a different style of star player, but one that had an attribute that management identified as being a key asset for the team to acquire: leadership.
“Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate, and doubt to offer a solution everybody can understand.” — General Colin Powell
Adding Weber, a respected leader in any dressing room, one who has a more mature and proven leadership style is a major benefit to such a young team. He has been a well-respected leader for several years on both NHL and international teams.
Playing his powerful and simplified game Weber has had success with a Memorial Cup, World Junior Gold, two Olympic gold medals and World Championship gold and has held leadership roles on all of those teams. He leads by example setting the standard of what being a professional means for many years.
This season will unfold and the value of the trade will be judged based on the success achieved on the ice. Adding the current Mark Messier Award winner was about changing the makeup of the dressing room. It was to add someone who can rally a team around a common goal: victory. And that is in the end what any fan truly wants to see their chosen team do most.
the main problem with this trade is the age, 4 years difference and time..Montreal may only get 2 good years from Weber wheras Nashville is looking at 6+ so what does Montreal do for the 4+ years after Weber is gone. We also lost big in the mobility category as Weber is not good at moving the puck.
No denying that. But in return the Habs get experience. Leadership. Better PP production. Grit. Snarl. Better defensive play and solid production as well as some cap savings. There is age difference. But you need to give to get. I wouldn’t have done it but I can see why they did
We will have to see. I suspect the Habs get at least 4 great years, maybe more. Think Chara, Lidström, Robinson. With Markov retiring soon and Sergechev maybe 1 year away… the Habs actually got younger without compromising experience.
I was stunned by the trade at first, until I looked at the return… and the big picture. As a Habs fan I am stoked.
i doubt we get 4 years because his talent has already gotten less. the reason I see that Nashville were so willing to get rid of him is because the playoffs showed he lost a step and they figured he was not gonna get it back..realize the reason he looked so good was not his skill but Josi as his partner…granted weber on the PP and defense only is for now an improvement but we lost our biggest mobile D man and now lack the skill to get the puck out of our zone. granted we gain in some ares but lose in others plus he has 10 years left on his contract and we had to pay him a signing bonus he was owewr of 8 million 2 days after the trade..ouch!!!!
Nashville is on the hook for the cap recapture penalties if Weber retires early, not the Habs.
I do not think the recapture penalties r gonna b that high as his contract was front and bonus loaded.we had 2 pay him 8 million 2 days after the trade as it was a signing bonus in his contract
I think weber is going to be a great mentor for our younger and up coming d-men. We have a lot of good young D guys in the minors and when it’s time to make the jump Weber is a guy they will be able to go to.The Shegachevs, Lernout, Juulsen, Beaulieu. I think Shergachev will great shortly. If we get the steadiness of Markov with Weber as he gets older age won’t be a problem. In the mean time our younger guys will be getting better and Weber will be a sort of player-coach for the young guys. Good trade
First of all I’m a Subban fan but I get the trade. There was absolutely no leadership after Price was hurt… Gallagher lead by example….Patches said the right things to the media…the team needs leadership and I believe Weber will provide that….
Chicago gave up on Chelios at what age…and how long was in Detroit
This article seems to be a mixture of spin and hopeful thinking. Rather than blaming PK for not changing his style, or inability to change his style after Price got hurt, it was the coach’s inability to adjust how to get the best out of a team without Price that really led to the disasterous end of season. Getting rid of PK may have been to change the culture in the room, because there was the PK faction and the Pacioretty faction and of course you don’t want divisiveness. But as one of the hockey writer for the Montreal Gazette pointed out, PK’s fate was probably sealed when Therrien in a post-game interview loaded the blame for a loss to the Rangers of Subban, who tried something risky and lost the puck costing them a goal and the game. The writer (can’t remember his name) made the point that on that same play if Pacioretty had not given up but had backchecked like he was supposed to, the Rangers probably wouldn’t have scored. But Therrien wasn’t going to go there. Point being, this trade wasn’t totally about leadership, and certainly not about improving the on ice product, because while the jury is out on the first and they certainly didn’t do the second, the real reason was to cater to the pettiness of a mediocre coach and a spoiled Pacioretty. I will never forget Pacioretty’s post game interview after yet another loss where his comment was “Well, at least I played well”. if Pacioretty was jealous of PK getting too much fan attention, management chose a poor way to deal with it. A leadership issue indeed, and not just in the room.
Duncan, I think it’s fair to acknowledge that Stu Cowan is unabashedly a P.K. Subban cheerleader. His ‘analysis’ of the play that you describe is laughable. Max Pacioretty backchecked on the play but being outmanned turned the wrong way. Subban’s reckless play cost the team a goal, plain and simple. And it happened three times in a very short period of time.
Leadership is a significant issue on the team, but as you insinuate, there is also a vacuum at the top of the organization.
People talk about leadership like it’s a known quantity and they know its impact on performance. Price shares Weber’s leadership? Really? Please enlighten me. How do you know what style of leadership Weber brings to the Habs and how it will get this team closer to the Stanley Cup? Because this is the goal with this trade. Get this team closer to a championship Nothing less than a Cup will justify trading a 27 year old star defenseman for an older less dominant player with a contract until the end of days.
Also, how come the Preds haven’t come remotely close to the Final with his great leadership skills? Does it make players perform better? If so, I’m awaiting concrete examples.
After reading this piece, I feel like pro athletes are insecure and act like a bunch of lost puppies who need a leader among them to play up to their talents.
Well. Seeing as how it’s a team sport. It goes without saying why he hasn’t won a Cup. And, even the best leaders need quality teammates to lead. How do you know what styles he doesn’t have?
I don’t and neither does the guy who wrote this. We should be discussing tangibles like Weber’s play and stop with his socalled leadership. In what world does a less dominant player make a team better because of his leadership skills?
It looks like his whole point was about leadership. He also wrote why it mattered. And as far as being less dominant, Weber is actually more dominant in several areas. He’s a different style of player. The more traditional Dman
2 things:
1. This is my whole point. The guy wrote about something he doesn’t know a single about thing about : leadership in hockey. Not a single fan can write about leadership because he doesn’t spend time around NHL teams. Even if he did, how can he demonstrate the impact it has on results?
2. The areas where Subban is more dominant outweigh the areas where Weber is dominant. Being able to carry puck, execute controlled zone exits and create offence out of nothing makes him the more dominant player. Why? His skillset makes him a better all around defenseman.
While Weber is good at protecting the crease and generating offence in the offensive zone, he has no puck carrying abilities whatsover (almost likes he is scared of the puck) struggles in zone exit and transition and can’t perform without an elite partner.
Anyway, we all knew this trade wasn’t made for hockey reasons.
So you agree it was made for leadership and in room cohesiveness reasons. Also, you can disagree with buddy but Weber did get the Messier Award for Leadership….and that is chosen by someone who has played. That holds weight
It shouldn’t and that’s my whole point. Trading a better player for intangible reasons is one of the dumbest things a GM can do. I can’t think a single trade won by the team that traded the best player in the deal.
But I’ve seen advances stays for both. I’m going to wait and see. But I’d say Weber is the better dman. But just not a puck carrier
It sounds like the author was in the dressing room after every game. I doubt he was. I’m not saying he’s wrong but the conclusions about Subban vs. Webber seem more like an opinion than fact.
So you don’t disagree you just don’t like it. My assessment is based on my many years of assessing leadership professionally. And if you read the title it does have in bold capital letter the word “Opinion”
well, the title does have in giant capital letters the word OPINION. It’s actually the very first word. I also notice you don’t disagree
Comments are closed.