The Chicoutimi Cucumber

You could be right about the two organizations...it is true that quick turnarounds are easier nowadays via the UFA markets, and I also think that adding the much-maligned Cammalleri (for next to nothing) helps them in pure hockey, if not contractual terms.I suppose I just think we've got more high-end young talent to build around, where Calgary seems to be trapped in 'bubble' purgatory with an aging core and no obvious next wave. Time'll tell.

I wonder if Bergevin was euchred by Calgary, or if Hartley was never his preference to begin with? I gather Hartley has a prior relationship with Feaster, but on the other hand, I think the future in Montreal looks rather brighter than in Calgary, and if I'd been Hartley I'd have preferred to take the Montreal gig. In any case, this seems to tilt us either toward my preferred scenario (Crawford) or my least-preferred scenario (Therrien). It's boom or bust I guess...unless Bergie has a third option up his sleeve.

Yes, at this point Bergevin doesn't have any pressure. Everyone is so relieved that the Goat is gone and that Bergevin is so personable, he's on his honeymoon with fans and media. Expectations are moderate, not extreme, for an immediate turn-around. He has no particular reason to take a desperate swing for the fences at this point. I'd expect him to play it cool for a bit as he focuses on the draft and on sorting out our internal operations.

My fundamental respect for Bob Gainey remain undimmed, but I do think serious questions have to be raised about his judgement in appointing Gauthier his successor. You can't just walk away from a monster mistake like that and expect nobody to re-evaluate whether you really have your head on straight.

We all know the logic is ridiculous. Be we also all know that the bilingual-only policy is a fact of life. Time to move on.

Unfortunately, I remember only too well the arrival of Gainey. With him, Carbo, Timmins, and Andre Savard, I was completely convinced we had one of the best, if not THE best, brain trusts in the game. What did it yield? A return to annual competitiveness, one great regular season, and one great playoff over 10 years. That's thin gruel when compared with expectations. I'll refrain from getting too excited this time until I start seeing real results on the ice. But yes, there is reason for cautious optimism.

Based purely on their handles, I'd have expected Bruce Shoebottom, Roman Hamrlik and Grant Clitsome to be total flops. Shows what's in a name!

There are two interesting similarities between the Spacek and Gill interviews: 1. Both gave extensive off the record answers about Gauthier. Presumably that stuff is absolutely damning - that two veterans won't even discuss it on the record really sets off alarm bells to me. This guy was a complete nut. 2. Both specifically pointed to Gomez in the context of saying JM's system didn't 'fit the players.' Gill, however, also says that Nashville's system is basically the same as Martin's, and that JM in effect turned the team over to his veteran leaders: he laid out the system and the rest was up to them. But he did insist that everyone play the system. I can see where that was a mistake - I for one have no problem with a 'flexible' system where different rules apply to different players - but I can also see where insisting on a common approach has its merits. So I'm not so sure Gill's is a particularly damning assessment. What he really seems to be saying is that Gomez was deeply unhappy and that the rest of the leadership core really struggled to get him to buy in. It sounds as though Martin took the view that it was the players' team. He put responsibility on their shoulders. This supposed 'lack of communication' (Spacek's accusation, not Gill's) may have had to do with JM's belief that everybody had to play the system and beyond that, it was up to the team leaders. This is consistent, incidentally, with things JM used to say in interviews. As for PK being overcoached: no doubt. But I think that is chronic in today's NHL, not unique to JM. They say the same thing about Vigneault all the time here in Van. We are unfortunately in an era of massive overcoaching. All told, then, it's pretty clear that JM was a somewhat distant guy, not particularly warm or accessible with the players, and that he was rigid in insisting that everyone play the system; but also quite progressive in his recognition that buy-in had to come from within the leadership core and could not be forced. Again, these may have been mistakes. I'm still not convinced they translate into bad coaching; they seem to me to represent one valid model of coaching among others (keeping in mind that no model will please everyone). Indeed, if you make exceptions to your system then you invite accusations of favouritism and other resentments. I keep coming back to the fact that when the team played the damned system with conviction, it tended to win. The rest, to my mind, is a sideshow. The real shame of it all, though, is that, having decided to fire JM, the team missed the opportunity to galvanize Gomez and Cammalleri by bringing in a coach who really would change the system. If you're gonna take a different direction, then for chrissakes take a different direction! Who knows, a fully mobilized and energized Gomer and Cammy might have made quite a difference.

Crawford, Hartley and Therrien (!!!!!!) still in the running at this point. When I read that last name I just about crapped in my Depends Briefs ™.

Yeah, for a few months. The same BS was flying around when the Habs were winning with guys like Roy, Carbo, Claude Lemieux, and Damphousse - not to mention after having traded the great Chris Chelios for the washed-up Denis Savard. I remember that bozo Stephane Richer accusing the Habs of getting rid of all their French players when they traded him for Muller, in a trade that merely set the table for the 1993 Cup. I also remember a lot of snide bitching about ANGLO Pat Burns favouring English players. (No measly 'bilingual' requirement there - you had to have the right bloodlines). This crapola never stops, except, as you say, for the summer after a Cup win. Then it all starts up again.

Gill and PK have been my two favourite Habs since 2010. Like you guys, I really hope we can get him back in the fold in some capacity eventually.

To my mind, Crawford has an almost unparalleled record in terms of extreme successes and failures that prepares him perfectly for the most extreme market in the game. He has been very public about wanting to get back into coaching and about his desire for the Habs job in particular. But I'll admit that his civil suit would be a mark against him and I can see the Habs steering clear for that reason. We emphatically and resolutely do NOT need any more chaos. Much as I like him, I can respect the decision to avoid him. REV-G's nice psot above, plus a Wikipedia search, reveal that Hartley does have a good record and is highly qualified. I think his history is stained by the spectacular flame-out in Atlanta. He started out hot there, turning the team around overnight; then he endured the Heatly-Snyder tragedy; then his team went to the playoffs - all good stuff as far as c.v. goes. But subsequently Don Wadell started 'going for it' and making huge deadline deals, and the team flamed out. He came close to raising Atlanta out of mediocrity but failed, and this seems to have tainted his rep. Also, he never impressed me or seemed particularly suave or savvy as an analyst. His famous to-do with Brisebois really doesn't speak to the kind of cool-headed professionalism we need around here: Perhaps this more than anything else got me thinking of him as a clown. Unfair of me, no doubt.

You're right that a franco superstar would help. But in terms of the names you list, Pacioretty is at least as good as Perron and Huberdeau is still not anywhere close to an NHL superstar. So the complaint really boils down to missing Giroulx. This is the exact opposite of a meaningful sample size and basically attacks the organization for not being 100% perfect in terms of Quebec drafting - which no organization will ever be. Like I said, the whole argument is absolute and total garbage.

In most cases, it's all a bit of a crap shoot. Hell, even proven NHLers provoke uncertainty and massive errors in terms of assessment. Look at all the fans who were so sure that Marian Hossa and Ilya Kovalchuk are 'playoff busts' the Habs were better off without Anyway, we're best off not getting too wedded to our predictions about prospects. Even the most perspicuous of us, like Commandant, see through a glass darkly when it comes to this stuff.

I never much liked Hartley's style and regard Crawford as the best candidate. But you have to give Bergevin the benefit of the doubt at this point. And I'd be interested to read a sustained defence of Hartley. Is he known as a good communicator? Is he open to feedback and input from his players? Do his teams play the kind of up-tempo game fans claim to be dying for? Does he get along with his stars, or are we going to be in for another round of blood-letting? Anyhow, if Hartley is chosen, it'll be the third hot rumour in succession that has rapidly been proven correct under the new regime. The Cone of Silence is clearly shattered.

The whole argument about under-drafting the Q is the worst kind of ignorant, bitchy nativism. It should be resolutely ignored as the moronic crap that it is.

Why? Explain.

I'm not 100% sure, but it sure looks as if this move FINALLY addresses the insane-in-the-membrane gap in the organizational structure whereby we have nobody charged full-time with player development. I've long thought it absurd that teams like Nashville have someone whose job it is to mentor developing players and help them mature into responsible pros, but the Habs - in the craziest and most temptation-filled market in the entire league - did not. I'll bet you that if Gainey had put someone in this role way back when we would not have had nearly the same number of 'problem children' coming up through the ranks. You only have to read Gill's discussion of Carey Price in the other thread to realize how surreal starting your career in Montreal can be. Good move, then. Bigger, potentially, than it appears, in terms of its possible impact on our future ability to get the most out of our prospects. On another note, has anyone else noticed that rumours appear to come to fruition much more efficiently and accurately under Bergevin than under Gainey/Gauthier? We heard about Dudley and Mellanby long before they happened. It appears that MB is not particularly preoccupied with the integrity of the Cone of Silence. If current trends continue, then, we can expect Hartley to be the new coach...

Yep, I could be totally out to lunch. But Gainey took over as coach after firing Carbo, and brought up Lever as an assistant. I think that stretch as coach was an eye-opening experience for Bob - that after watching these guys up close in the trenches, he concluded decisively that the whole rebuild was fatally flawed and, among other things, that Lever was one part of the problem. After all, if he didn't feel this way, why fire Lever and the entire Hamilton staff that summer? Indeed, that Gainey fired Lever after working with him on the bench is a pretty resounding indictment of the guy...if, that is, we still trust Gainey's judgement. After the Gauthier fiasco I have certainly re-evaluated Bob's skills as a manager.

Gainey expelled Lever in the Great Purge of 2009, and I theorize that that was because Bob held Lever partially responsible for the disproportionate number of 'problem' young players that came through the organization during Rebuild 1.0. That Gainey fired Lever but not Timmins suggests that, in his view, player development, not drafting, was a fundamental problem. So one could question, based on this, whether Lever did in fact 'do a great job.' But given Gainey's appalling judgement vis-a-vis Pierre Gauthier, we can just as easily ask whether Lever was wastefully sacrificed. Oh well.

F*ck. Especially in light of my previous post. Well, choose your preferred metaphor. The last thing I want to do is to take cheap shots at the great man. Fortunately, it's a safe bet he doesn't read this site!

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure Gainey wasn't the one removing cookies from team flights, forcing Cammy to pay for his game jersey, etc., etc....unless he REALLY went off the deep end!

I love that idea that we can only have one player of Subban's type at a time. Wrong. You can never have enough elite D, and unless the aging Markov fully recovers his 2008 form we are going to need at least one more elite defenceman in addition to Subban if we ever hope to contend. I've said it before and I'll say it again. PK is an absolute stud, all-star calibre talent, the first such blueliner we've developed since Markov and, before that, Chelios - plus he is one of the most charismatic players in the entire league. For the love of God, ENJOY it instead of rushing to ship him out of town!!!!

Well, I still think the team was demonstrably and highly successful whenever it played the kind of close puck-support and slot-protecting game JM wanted it to play; and statistically the team was actually performing at an elite level in all statistical categories except the PP when JM was fired; but no question that Spacek is confirming the diagnosis of the anti-JM crowd. Unfortunately, we'll never really know how that team would have done under a different system, because key cogs Gill and Cammelleri (as well as that idiot Kostitsyn) have been shipped out, and Gomez is gonzo, despite JC's fanciful hopes for a third chance for that deadweight. Reading about Gauthier's bizarre, control-freakish and classless behaviour - mostly elaborated 'off the record' by Spacek, it was apparently so bad - I find myself puzzled by one thing above all: What was Bob Gainey thinking? He hand-picked this guy as his successor. How could Gainey, universally viewed as one of the great leaders of men of all time in hockey, have been so cataclysmically errant in his judgement about who Gauthier was and how he would manage things? Isn't being a 'leader' all about understanding and evaluating the people around you? Criticizing Bob's hockey moves is one thing. GMs operate amidst radical uncertainty and under all sorts of pressures. But what I cannot fathom is how Gainey could work shoulder to shoulder with this guy, on a daily basis, and yet be so wildly wrong about what kind of person Gauthier was. Was Gainey's acumen overrated all along? Is his legendary leadership just a myth? Was Gauthier pulling one of the great con jobs of all time, fooling Bob into thinking he was solid successor material? Was Bob so anxious to leave that he just foisted Goat on Molson as the path of least resistance? I'm almost chary of bringing it up, but - well - did the death of his daughter, surely as shattering an event as any man can endure, leave him fundamentally damaged and cloud his judgement? It really is baffling, because of all Gainey's mistakes, this one is perhaps the most important, since it had the potential to destroy the franchise, returning us to the Great Darkness of the Houle years.