The Chicoutimi Cucumber

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Chicoutimi Cucumber last won the day on July 17

The Chicoutimi Cucumber had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

808 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

23802 profile views
  1. Agree 100%. Duchene is overrated. I find it mordantly amusing to consider that, had he done that with the Habs, he'd likely have been shipped out, pursued by MB's imprecations about 'character and leadership,' or else forced to sign a bridge deal in order to 'prove' that he deserves the big money. But since he comes from another system, why, he's virtue incarnate
  2. The thing is, offence starts from the back end. It's not just about FWs.
  3. It's not that this team lacks a stud #1C. It doesn't even have a #2 C, except for the giant question mark that is Galchenyuk. Now, other GMs have managed to go out and acquire legit #1 C, but let's give Bergy the benefit of the doubt on that. I'd like to know what is so crushingly hard about acquiring ANY serviceable top-6 C, period. That being said, IF the organization FINALLY stops jerking around with Galchenyuk, and maybe even has the imagination to try Drouin at C, the solution to the problem could already be on the roster. What I do know is that Danault is not a top-6 C and that it is delusional to pretend otherwise.
  4. The thing with the "leadership" canard is: 1. It is a common trope of those defending the trade 2. Bergevin himself cited "leadership" as a major issue when the disaster of 2016 ended, and then proceeded to make a trade for a guy who is routinely praised as some super leader. This leads to the reasonable inference that Bergevin himself, like a dummy, had been smoking from that particular crack pipe. Since the trade transparently failed to make the team any better on the ice, we needn't both discussing the respective merits and demerits of the players involved. We shortened the Cup window without making the team better. The end.
  5. My claim is simply that this team has not been good enough and, in all probability, still is not good enough. To you, not good enough is fine. To me, it's not. Therein lies the disagreement. And no, just making the Finals is not the goal, but it's a whole crapload better than the garbage playoff results that you keep celebrating as super awesome feats of general managerial genius. Not one single time have I ever slagged Weber. What I slag is the mentality that uses the canard of 'leadership' as an all-purpose justification for a trade that shortened our Cup window for what was at the very best a lateral move. When I crack wise about 'Dear Leader,' it's a shot at that foolishness, not at Weber himself, who is indeed a very good hockey player.
  6. Yeah...Round One was a 'close' series (6 games, hmmm)...if we'd won maybe we could have beaten Ottawa...then maybe beat whomever we play in the Conference Finals...then maybe beat Nashville for the Cup. So, really, it's almost like we really did win the Cup, right? Why, we were only 14 wins away. Let's get that banner in the rafters! In 2015, we lost to TB in Round Two. Somehow we did better with Locker Room Cancer and High Risk Defender Subban than we did with Dear Leader Weber, but never mind that now - the point is that that series looked EXACTLY like the Rags series in 2017. Close games. Supposedly a hot opposition goalie. Popgun offence that just couldn't deliver in the crunch. Lots of muttering afterwards about 'puck luck' and the series being 'close.' Fool me twice... Close only cuts it when you're shaving. This team simply wasn't good enough in 2015, it wasn't good enough last year, and there is no particular reason to believe it will be good enough in 2018 either. By contrast, our closest conference analogues (TB and NYR) have each been to the Finals as we've played Whack-A-Mole and made endless excuses for not being good enough.
  7. Well, arguing over the merits and demerits of various specific moves is fun. But I don't think it's the right way to frame the issue of his overall performance. For that, we need to 'zoom out' and observe overall patterns. When we do, we see the following: 1. A good team that, when it has Price, has strong regular seasons and is a reliable playoff club. 2. A team that has not been able to improve on the above since 2014. So, four years of treading water, never getting any better. 3. An organization that has zero blue-chip prospects and a dismal track record of drafting and development. MB's defenders focus on (1), take the view that once you make the playoffs 'anything can happen,' and that, therefore, (2) is good enough. As for (3), well, they just cross their fingers that somehow things will get better. MB's critics focus on (2) and (3). The point of (2) is that MB inherited a strong hand and has not been able to make it stronger. His team is not a true, top-tier contender and none of his many moves have changed that. The point of (3) is that this franchise is heading for disaster in the medium term. This makes it harder to be sanguine about (2) because there is no 'next wave' to be optimistic about.
  8. Nashville was a contender. Obviously. Montreal was not. Obviously. The playoffs have a wonderful way of separating the pretenders from the contenders and clarifying who is and isn't the real deal. Nashville built that with Habs'-like draft position. Which shows it can be done. But not by MB. Too 'tough' for him. (Incidentally, I'm surprised no one mentions the Rags, another team that's consistently done better than us despite a similar drafting position history).
  9. Injury decimated. And in the Finals, even with their #1 C out, they still went seven games. Everyone forgets that the 2017 Habs were massively healthy going into the playoffs. Still couldn't do a damned thing, despite all that Leadership
  10. The point of the Nashville example is that it shows that you can build a contender from a draft position similar to the Habs'. For years, I've said - and so has anyone else who thinks about it - that the key to pulling this off is top-notch drafting and player development. Nashville was able to do that. We weren't. You're quite right that it is hard to do; achieving it requires real excellence, because your organization has to be better than others at this. Nashville is the 'exception' because they've gotten exceptional results. Aww, poor baby Bergevin, can't be expected to be exceptional at his job, now can he? I just don't see it as acceptable to say, 'well, MB can't be expected to be the class of the league in the crucial area that will determine whether the Habs become contenders.' If he can't be the class of the league ('exceptional!') in this respect, then he should be out on his expensively-suited arse. (In fact, Bergevin is far below average in player development, but why quibble about that). The management of the Pollock and Selke eras was exceptional; that's why it won so many Cups. To hear fans arguing that we can't now expect our organization to be exceptional is a real sign of how far the Habs's crest has fallen. As for the Weber thing, everyone keeps going in circles on it, including me, so I'll just quickly summarize: the team with Weber and Price (2017) did marginally worse than the team with Subban and Price (2015) while manifesting the same basic weaknesses (including lack of scoring and being 'fragile' according to the GM). The supposedly all-important variable of Weber's Dear Leadership, in other words, achieved exactly diddly-squat in terms of results.
  11. Nashville has bluechips. Their drafting position has been similar to ours. So tired of endless excuses for a management group that is mediocrity personified. And a GM who decimates the development pipeline does not DESERVE to decade-plus of general managing that you seem to feel is required (of course Serge Savard won a Cup and went to another Final within five years of taking over, but whatever, apparently five-year plans when you inherit a strong bunch of core pieces are now impossible).
  12. That's because this "Game Score" index doesn't factor in LEADERSHIP - you know, the kind of incredible, Churchillian Leadership that leads a team to marginally worse results than before said Leadership was acquired
  13. I don't care what Whack-Mole says or doesn't say. What I care about is that his team has not improved one iota since 2014, and that its prospect pool is nonexistent. Anyone who thinks that that is just Jim Dandy does not seriously want or demand that the team win the Cup.
  14. Well, the way the D is presently constructed, he'd better be.
  15. I suspect that established management teams in general are reluctant to go Full Rebuild. It's one thing to be like the Leafs management and be brought in for that specific purpose. But I'm talking about GMs who have been in place a while and who are accustomed to teams that are decent. First, such GMs don't want to be cellar-dwelling losers for an indefinite period of time; like players themselves, they're conditioned to want to 'be competitive,' to 'make the playoffs.' They are therefore likely to keep thinking in terms of that one or two 'key moves' that will somehow get the team where it needs to go - playing Whack-a-Mole, basically, but thinking that if you can just react a little bit better, get some luck, you'll have some success, dammit!! (I remember Pat Burns saying exactly that of the Leafs teams he coached: 'we kept thinking we were just one player away...') Second, ownership is unlikely to be very tolerant of a management team that inherited a strong core, led it nowhere, and now needs to start over. So going Full Rebuild most likely means getting fired. Were a rebuild to happen, it would follow, not precede, the firing of Marc Bergevin.