The Curious Case of Couture and the C

This article hit the internets earlier today, suggesting, not entirely unreasonably, that it is time to give Logan Couture a letter. He was trotted out last summer as a potential new leadership guy, and while we all thought Pavelski would get the C, it looked like he and Vlasic would get the A, thus completing a not so subtle forced changed in leadership. It didn’t work out that way, and to some of us, it looked like Couture spent most of the rest of the season being very put out about his lost opportunity. He didn’t seem to step up and take charge, like Pavelski did, but instead complained about locker room divisions and leadership in general. His season wasn’t his best, although, given all that was going on internally, that’s no surprise. (The article also states playing with Marleau, who slumped hard, also effected the young center negatively. That’s also a likely factor, but I don’t think it’s the only reason behind his lackluster season.) While I know many fans are ready to see Couture get the C, I am not among them. I personally don’t think he’s ready for that role.

Part of the reasoning behind this suggestion is that Couture was one of the more outspoken players regarding last seasons, shall we say, “issues” in the room and on the ice. Funnily enough, this is exactly why I don’t think he should get a letter. His comments came across as mopey and whiny, and not “here’s an issue and here’s how we’re going to fix it,” type rhetoric that you need from a leader. He doesn’t seem to have the maturity, even at 26, to take over. Pavelski, meanwhile, has looked like a future Captain since he was dubbed “the Dude” back in the 2011 season. He not only plays well, consistently, but he’s also stepped up and taken over a lot of leadership duties, seemingly without being asked. Couture had a chance to do the same, and did not take it.  Pavelski also has, as far as my outsider eyes can tell, the backing of Thornton and Marleau (who, I am sure, could give him many reasons why taking the C would be a terrible idea), which any new leader in the dressing room will need during this transition. I don’t get the impression that Couture has that support, though he likely has support from elsewhere in the room. A locker room divided cannot stand, as we saw quite clearly last season.

I feel that Couture was rushed into a potentially semi promised leadership role on the heels of the team’s epic collapse against LA. He was a pawn in a game to unseat Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau, and swiftly turn over team leadership. Had the team been able to ship the two old school leaders out, Couture stood a pretty good chance of getting an A, but that didn’t happen. This left him in the unenviable position of wanting something he thinks he was promised, without necessarily having earned it. That’s a situation that’s ripe for disaster.

Maybe in a few years, given more time, more turn over, and a chance to really mature, Couture will be a good choice for the C. Right now, Pavelski is clearly the better choice, and one that would likely bolster the Sharks rather than drag them to the brink of another locker room civil war. The best thing Couture can do for now is to learn all he can from Pavelski while taking a back seat to him in the locker room. Then he’ll truly be ready for a leadership role.