Theo's fall from grace, according to the Habs...

During my usual clicking around the intrawebs for hockey related news, I visited one of the best sites for all such info, Kukla's Korner.  There, before my bleary Tuesday morning eyes was an article about Theo's fall from grace (Habsworld Theo article).  I thought, "Great, another article telling me something I already know..."  Consequently, I read the teaser text and agreed with everything in the paragraph, but something was weird about the article.  Once I followed the link, it hit me: it was from a Canadien's point of view.  Canadiens, not Canadians, the team, not the country.  

Now, I'll admit that I'm somewhat of a goalie snob, as I play net, and when I watch games, I tend to fixate on how goalies play.  Theo's meteoric rise to hero-worship in Montreal happened well before this obsessive-compulsive behavior took route.  I knew little-to-nothing about his career before the season he was traded to the Avs.  All I had read was resume-like bullet points about his career:

--1st in Save % and 4th in GAA in '01-'02
--Upset heavily favored Boston in those playoffs
--Vezina and Hart Trophy winner
--Career high in wins (33) in '03-'04
--Overcame 3 games to 1 deficit and shutout Boston in Game 7 of those playoffs

Doesn't sound like a bad goalie right?  Especially considering what was sent the other way in the trade.  So the next question is "Why would they trade him?"  I had always thought it was a pure salary dump of a pre-lockout contract.  Reading the article brought to light some other, more alarming issues.

Take for instance that I wasn't aware that Theodore had made appearances for the Habs SIX years prior to this first full season and improbable playoff run.  He was at least part of a tandem, and was actually the unequivocal starter for a year prior to his breakthrough season in '01-'02.  In a total of 89 regular season games over two season in the bigs, he had a 32-42-7 record and a save percentage of 0.914.  Prior to his magical '01-'02 season he was a .500 goalie AT BEST (12-13-2 in 30 games in '99-'01).  The year after his run, back to his old ways (20-31-6 in 57 games in '02-'03).  His GAA and save percentage were respectable when he was a bonified starter or at least part of a tandem (30 games or more).  His contract year ('03-'04) he rebounded, which isn't surprising (it's a fairly popular trend in pro sports).  Now I understand the "maddeningly inconsistent" description in the article.  His season after signing for the huge albatross contract (the year he was traded to the Avs for Aebby), he was 13-15-1 with a 3.26 GAA and a 0.891 save percentage.  Looking over his career numbers, those are pretty much in line, with the '01-'02 and '03-'04 seasons being the outliers, in my opinion.

The article also brings up a few points about the equipment changes after the lockout and the shadow of steroid use.  I don't buy either of those.  Anybody who has played goal knows that the size of the equipment doesn't matter much if you have sound fundamentals and positioning.  As much as some people moan about the Michelin Man in net, watch most games, and the bulk of the shots are hitting the elite goalies right in the logo in the center of the chest.  I've always held the belief that Theo got his money, had a lot of extra scrutiny and crap going on in his life, and let his game go to hell.  He was always a tad undersized and more of a reactionary goalie, but he seemed to try and morph into a positional keeper and lost some of his aggressiveness.  He always played the butterfly exceptionally well, but he seemed to lose some depth control and spend more time in the back of his own crease rather than out challenging shooters.  His rebound control wasn't what I'd call NHL-caliber either.

The article mentions that Theo's personal life became VERY public before his departure from Montreal.  The issues with his family and their own little version of the Sopranos, his girlfriend and their child, his Propecia-laden drug tests, his wandering eye for the ladies, etc. were all front page material.  He was also under intense scrutiny being the goalie for the Habs, arguably one of the toughest gigs in the NHL.  Did he fold under pressure, or was he never really up to the task?  A flash in the pan so to speak?  I have my theory.  

He got complacent.  He got rich.  His off the ice behavior belied some immaturity, in my opinion.  It’s pretty easy to believe that he quit working as hard on the ice.  Maybe he thought he was better than his numbers indicate.  

Pierre Lacroix pulled the trigger on a trade to do SOMETHING in net for the Avs as they headed toward the playoffs.  It was a perfect storm for Theodore and he got a second chance.  Even his play in the playoffs soon after arriving in Denver was a tease, much like his two good years in Montreal.  The next season, however, he fell back into his old habits: flashes of talent, but overall an average, or slightly-below-average NHL netminder (13-15-1 with a 3.26 GAA and a 0.891 save percentage last year).

All in all, the article manages to summarize Theo’s rise and fall pretty succinctly.  It’s just a tad sad that it wasn’t written back in early 2006.  Would it have prevented Pierre Lacroix from making the deal?  Probably not, because Lacroix seemed to think lightning would strike twice with Colorado-Montreal goaltending trades.  The trouble was that while Roy was consistent in his years in Franco-land, Theodore was anything but.