The Chicoutimi Cucumber

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Chicoutimi Cucumber last won the day on May 3

The Chicoutimi Cucumber had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

774 Excellent


About The Chicoutimi Cucumber

  • Rank
    NHL Hall of Fame

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Habs
    Price, Gallagher. All time favourites: Roy, Subban, Koivu.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

23605 profile views
  1. Not a crazy proposal, but the Sedins have NTCs and seem quite committed to Van. Meanwhile, I doubt Benning is going to trade two of his top 6, and franchise icons, for an aging third-line C, a question-mark with upside in Beaulieu, and a middling prospect. As for the Sedins, they are sloooow but still shifty. Pencil 'em in for 50-60 pts, legit second liners. Whether the cap dollars work out, I dunno.
  2. I don't think people should have to apologize for starting new lines of discussion. Kudos to you, I say.
  3. Yow! Was that a recent interview? If so, he's spouting off without actually being up to speed - one sign of a guy who is no longer current. It's a good point about fuddy-duddies. This organization seems to have a huge bias in favour of the 'safe': it manifests in its apparent discomfort with super-talented young players, and in MB's loyalty to trusted buddies despite their failure to deliver. Point taken.
  4. That's a reasonable expectation. The kid can play. What's irksome is, first, the demotion during the playoffs - which was bizarre then, and remains bizarre in retrospect, given that the team could not score its way out of a paper bag - as well as the fact that the organization still has no idea if he should be a C or a W. If the team is going to fill holes, then it first needs to define what those holes are. If Galy is a C, then we need to add one top-6 C. If he's not, then we need to at two. All this prevaricating makes a major difference to what the FW configuration will look like and what needs to be done about it. It also doesn't help that Galy looked completely lost under Julien. Yes, that may well have been injury-related. Or it may speak to a young man who is just lost, period.
  5. Amen, brother. Guys like Sergachev and Beaulieu (assuming he isn't dealt) would certainly profit from his guidance.
  6. We're not talking Larry Robinson here. I enjoyed his playoff agitation, and all the best to him, but doubt his presence or absence will make much difference.
  7. Cap management is all about having cheap young talent coming up. Shaw is a good player, but he is a prime example of the type of guy you should develop from within, carry on cheap contracts, and let walk as a UFA. Since the Habs' pipeline seems very weak at FW, MB has to overpay. It comes back to the incompetence of his regime in drafting and development. The situation at D is at least theoretically better. Sergachev and maybe Juulsen (maybe?) project as top-4 guys. So we at least have the option of waiting for those guys to come along within 2-3 years and avoiding still more bad contracts on the back end. Your observation that the current team needs an upgrade on the blueline is a shrewd one, too easily overlooked as we are dazzled by the comical lunacy of our inadequacies at FW. I'm not quite as convinced by Boucher as you. Let's remember that OTT had two 'tragic cases' this year - Anderson and MacArthur - that inspire a team to transcend its limits, and that a coach's first year is often their best. Still, they had a tremendous playoff, obviously. I'm relieved they lost.
  8. Great post. I am disgusted with MB's inability to fix problems and his corresponding BS about make-believe problems and make-believe solutions, and I think The Trade was asinine. But you know, I don't slag Weber either, apart from making sarcastic remarks about his Leadership (which are not directed at him, but rather at the fetishization of this nebulous quality and the related idea that Subban hasn't got it), If we get angry and passionate, why? It's because we care about the Habs. Habs29 and I, for instance, have spent the last year fuming at management, and we continue to fume, because we are disappointed and angry that the team is being mishandled, that our hopes are being let down. By contrast, I follow the Canucks because I live in Van, but I follow them in an amused, disinterested way; when they screw up, I find it, if anything, funny. And I would never spend time on a board like this arguing about whether Benning is a dope - because I don't really care if the Canucks stink.
  9. We look a lot like the Leafs of that era, yes...riding it out with accomplished vets, able to win a round or two, but not real contenders; with a relative dearth of young talent, and a management group that seems more interested in internal politics (MB's buddies) than winning. Plus a critical mass of fans all too happy to swallow the Kool-Aid. Pure Leafs. The core still probably has 3-4 years before serious decay sets in. This is why, like I say, really bold moves are now required. The status quo is inadequate and there is seemingly little help coming from the system.
  10. Indeed. xXx asks what my problem is if the trade is a 'lateral move.' First, I believe this to be the most charitable interpretation of the two players (personally, I think that puck possession, transition, and speed are what increasingly define the game, and there is no question who is better on these fronts). But even if it's correct to define the trade as a lateral move, Weber is four years older than Subban and much closer to the 'decline' stage of his career than Subban likely is. If the two players were the same age, I'd still be iffy about the trade, but would at least be satisfied that we did not pointlessly shorten the Cup window of the team's core. Assuming that the average player's game starts to significantly drop off around 34-5, we've got 2-3 years left of Weber at close to his prime. Nashville has 6-7 more years of peak performance from PK. Given that the trade did NOT measurably improve the club relative to 2015, all we did was burn four years of the window. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this concept.
  11. The alternative to using the evidence of our eyes and of results on the ice, is to rely on total faith that management is always right; which in this case involves the mystical belief that the trade made the Habs better in 'secret' ways that are hugely important and yet somehow fail to translate into better play, solutions to demonstrable team weaknesses, or results on the ice. I'll stick to the first method, thanks
  12. In fact, we are in a position to observe that the team with Weber was not appreciably better than the team with Subban. The results speak for themselves.
  13. In no way do I think of this trade as a disaster on the scale of the Roy trade. But it is interesting to ask whether these RAH RAH fans would have been on the internet - had there been an internet - in 1995-96 defending Houle for that deal as well. 'We got back a great young goalie in Thibault! I love Ruscinsky's skill! Tremblay's old school coaching is what this team needs!' Etc. It's all too easy to imagine some of these Bergevin-boosters doing that...
  14. What was the point of the trade, though? How did it help the Habs?