The Chicoutimi Cucumber

The Bruins have made adjustments and are looking pretty good. It's up to the Habs to adjust in turn - or else the third is going to be a shooting gallery, on a night when Price looks good but not superhuman. The good news is we have a 3-1 lead Boy, if we can win this thing, it'll be absolutely huge.

Thinking about this series - admittedly, influenced by Game One, which may not turn out to be representative - I believe the 'experts' are wrong for a specific reason. The Bruins are supposed to be just too big and bad for puny Montreal to handle. However, it's not just size that matters, but matchups. Boston has big, physical forwards, but other than Chara they are NOT particularly huge or intimidating on the blueline. Now look at the Habs. We have small forwards, but our blueline is anything but small. Hammer is big. Gill is a hulk. PK is built like a brick outhouse. Spacek, while not huge, is also robust. Mara is tough. Sopel is a rock. And so forth. What this means is that, without denying the physical impressiveness of the Bruins up front, our D is in fact quite unlikely to be overwhelemed by them on any kind of regular basis. And at the other end, because the B's D is not particularly intimidating (apart from Chara), our forwards aren't likely to be physically dominated down low or around the net on a consistent basis either, especially factoring in our speed. The kind of team that will give Montreal real trouble is a team with a big, suffocating defence corps, a la Philadelphia, and perhaps a team with super fast forwards. THEN our size really hurts us because they can just crush the life out of the Cammys and Giontas, while the speed overwhelms a D whose mobility is adequate but not elite. But the distribution of size among the rosters is wrong for Boston. Their supposed 'size advantage' really doesn't turn out to be all that great. All told, then, this might explain why Boston has had such a hard time with Montreal this season despite their seeming advantages on paper. And if I'm right, Habs fans do indeed have every reason to confident that we can play with these guys and quite possibly beat them.

Hey, I'm not trying to say this is a rational feeling. It's playoff paranoia. Really, it'd only be an issue if the players themselves were in danger of contracting the same attitude, which I doubt is true of this veteran bunch.

This game is huge. Game One is always the least important (although the Habs really got as much out of a Game One win as you possibly can, sending the entire city of Boston scurrying for anti-depressants and clearly exposing the Bruins's limitations). If we win tonight, the series is not "over" but the odds skew just massively in the Habs's favour and the Bruins stand in grave danger of falling apart under the weight of their own neuroses. As others have said, the Bruins understand exactly what is on the line tonight and will bring EVERYTHING they've got. I've been a little nervous, not about the habs, but about what seems to be excessive confidence among Habs fans - it feels like bad karma - but then again this savvy and battle-scarred team doesn't seem to give a sh*t about that stuff. They've got a job to do.

Well - let's remember that this is the same team that blew a 3-0 series lead to the Flyers last playoff. They have a 1000-lb monkey on their backs, and the Habs have gotten in their heads all season long. It doesn't help that the fans themselves seem to be psyched out. Now I'm not saying we're going to win this thing. But those intangibles are yet another factor that the media idiots ignored and another reason for us to believe our boys CAN win. At the start of the game I couldn't help but notice the difference between my own mentality compared with last playoff. Then, I was in awe of Washington and just wanted the Habs to compete. At puck drop I, as a fan, felt respect for the Bruins but ZERO intimidation. I know our guys can play with them. And they proved it yet again. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a long series, but the 'experts' have once again dropped the ball with their prediction of a Boston steamroller flattening the smurfs. I found it very interesting to see Chara pull that irresponsible play toward the end. Oh, no, a fine upstanding gentleman who pulls crap like that could not POSSIBLY have intended to injure Pacioretty when his team was being humiliated in a grudge match. Oh, no, heaven forfend, poor widdle Zdeno, he just couldn't hurt a fly. Chara showed his true colours that night - he is knuckle-dragging, drooling scumbag - and he showed them tonight again by betraying his own team so he could beat on Plekanec. Who, by the way, played a tremendous game. Anyway: that was absolutely textbook Jacques Martin Canadiens hockey. The 'experts' will dwell on Price's supreme excellence and on the imbalanced shot totals. But the fact is, the Bruins had relatively few really deadly chances. They were stymied by the same system that stymied Washington and Pittsburgh. YEAH BABY.

You underestimate our boys. I say the odds are about 55-45 Bruins. Like Wamsley says, whichever team wins the series, the outcome should not represent a big surprise. The first 20 minutes are no big whoop, unless we get snowed under. Expect near-total Prunes domination for the first 10, then the Habs to get a few chances late; analysts then say the Bruins are clearly the better team based on the first 20 minutes despite the close score; then the game evens out thereafter and who wins is anyone's guess. You know what I'm worried about in this series, though? An injury to PK on a questionable play. Not only would that fulfill the pattern of the season, it's also something that the Prunes have practically been invited to do by the NHL's inaction on Chara.

In the first place, while Halak was stellar, the Habs did a truly unbelievable job of collapsing down low, minimizing repeat opportunities, and counter-punching. It's NOT as though Halak was on his own out there. But anyway: the issue, Wamsley, is that the media has long ago decided that the Habs are mediocrities, despite significant evidence to the contrary. Add to that the bizarre phenomenon of ridiculously biased fans of rival teams being paid as professional 'analysts' and you get a general media tendency to dismiss the canadiens. I hear this stuff on the radio all the time. 'Price should win the Hart, because with that team in front of him...blah blah blah.' Sure. Still, it's obvious that the Bruins should be rated favourites going into this series. They are widely regarded as Cup contenders, they have a huge physical advantage, they have a Norris-trophy defenceman (Chara) and the slick Kaberle, the statistically insane Thomas AND an impressive array of depth at FW. Having said that, there's favourites and then there's favourites. Everything we know suggests the Habs can play with these guys and beat them with some regularity, and anyone who simply dismisses the canadiens in this series is simply not paying attention. Like I said before, the Bs may win, but we will be full value. I'm looking forward to a long, exciting series.

My favourite of these is the idea that 10 straight OT victories is proof that your team is a 'fluke.' That astonishing record proves exactly the opposite. We had a team that was simply unbeatable when all the chips were on the line, and proved it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (10 times!). For God's sake, how many more times do have to do something before it stops being a fluke? In response to Kiwi's earlier comment about what the 'atmosphere' must have been like for Game 5 of the 1993 Finals, it actually wasn't what you'd expect. The way that game went, the Kings had some chances in the first but were contained by Roy and the Habs defence; and after that Montreal took over in an unspectacular, businesslike, methodical fashion. My experience was that the game itself was really rather boring. The outcome wasn't really in doubt. It was just a long, patient grind to get to the third period. This was especially true as I'd been standing up since 4 PM that afternoon in order to get the best spot in standing room (which I did get). I also remember having to protect that spot against guys standing behind me, who would have taken it over in a second. The third period is where things got interesting. It's as if a current of electricity started to shoot through the whole building and the reality of what was happening began to sink in. The noise built and built, into what my brother to this day maintains is the loudest sound he has ever heard: the sustained, overwhelming thunder of 20 000 Montrealers realizing that their boys were about to win the Stanley Cup. I still remember seeing a glimpse of the Cup itself, gleaming, as it was wheeled into the aisle, getting set up to be presented and feeling a jolt of excitement. Finally the horn sounded and Bettman, to much jeering, came out and said exactly the right thing - that it was only fitting that on the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup, it go to the Montreal Canadiens - and everything was fulfilled. I remember the huge guy next to me helping me up onto the concrete barrier so I could enjoy an unobstructed view. Patrick Roy hoisted the Prize and roared out his triumph for the ages. It was bedlam. Let me get metaphysical on your asses for a second here too. Something weird goes on in that moment. When players hoist the Cup on home ice, it's an instant in which there is a genuine (not manufactured or virtual) unity between fan and fan and fans and players: an entire community celebrating that it has reached the pinnacle, that this is it. Every other season leaves a sense of incompeteness: 'wait til next year,' or 'we're building something,' or 'we need to rebuild,' whatever. ONLY when you win the Stanley Cup is there that feeling that everything has been achieved, that we have attained everything we set out to attain. And it's amazing to have 20 000 people and the players themselves all realize that at the same time. In that moment, Patrick Roy is a fan, and the fan is Patrick Roy - you're all sharing that exact feeling. Game 2 of that series was the single most exciting game I've ever seen live. But Game 5, while a dud of a game, brought that climactic moment we all live for as fans. I'm glad I got to experience both. And I want to experience that again, even if I have to do it from Vancouver; and I wish that younger generations of Habs fans could taste it too. 18 years is long enough.

Wamsley's post is bang-on. Although we DID get a good draw in avoiding the Penguins and getting the Islanders instead what everybody forgets is that all the 'experts' predicted the Nordiques were a powerhouse ready for a long run and Buffalo was also regarded as a dangerous team. Only retroactively - after we'd schooled them - did these commentators blame the other teams for being weak rather than the Habs for being strong. The team was regarded as no-talent despite being 1st overall for much of the season, for three reasons. First, its key offensive player was Kirk Muller. Because Muller is best remembered as a Leaf, when he was just a grinder, people forget that he was a 90-point guy and easily one of the toughest centremen to play against in all of hockey when he was at his peak. Second, people at the time were still thinking in terms of 'superstars:' Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Messier. If you didn't have guys like that you automatically were ruled out as a contender - a basic mistake. Third, we had future stars like Desjardins and LeClair who played up to their potential. To Joe Sixpack outside of Montreal that seemed like sheer luck. Only later can we look back and see that those players really were 'all that.' Kiwi, I am pleased to say that I was old and wise enough to know EXACTLY how fortunate I was at the time and savoured every single moment of that entire run (I saw three games live, Game 3 against the Nordiques and Game 2 against the Kings - the greatest single Habs game of the past 30 years - as well as Game 5). No one will ever see the Montreal Canadiens win the Stanley Cup in the Montreal Forum again. I knew it was (potentially) a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And believe me, it IS every bit as a awesome as you think it is!

100%. I agree that the Bruins have to be considered favourites - that's just common sense, based on the rosters on paper and the standings. What is NOT common sense is the attitude of deep pessimism and resignation emanating out of some quarters. We KNOW the Habs can play with the Bruins; that's been proven over and over again this season. How the two teams looked for a few games in March is irrelevant to that wider story. So the smart money favours the Bruins, but not by much. We have a solid chance. Enjoy it.

I take away the Chara assault and the NHL's criminal negligence in endorsing it, one of the most distasteful episodes in a lifetime of following the Habs. On a more positive note: I take away that we are a genuinely good team, no matter what the 'experts' say. It's taken a long time for the Habs to get to a point where they could get these sorts of results while missing 3 of their top 6 on the back end for most of the season. Say what you want about Martin, but he has instilled the kind of structured team play and committed team culture that we conspicuously lacked during Rebuild 1.0. THAT is the foundation that all teams need to have in order to win anything. Of course, you also need talent. And we don't have quite enough of it yet. It's tempting to imagine what we'd have done with Markov in the lineup, yes. Then again, had we had Markov we likely wouldn't have gone out and acquire Wiz. This is what I mean when I say (in the 18 years thread) that I'm not sure this organization is prepared to do anything to win. What we really need is Wiz AND Subban AND Markov. That would be a top-3 to rival any franchise in hockey. We need to move heaven and earth to get that sort of outcome. (It doesn't have to be Wiz; I'm making a wider point). If Patches returns and picks up where he left off, Subban and Price don't regress, and we manage to remain tolerably healthy, I believe we will be in a position to contend next season PROVIDED management makes a couple of shrewd moves if the off-season. This season has suggested this much: we're much closer than most people realize. The question is whether management has the ruthlessness, skill, and hunger to make it happen.

Having been in the Forum on the night of the last Cup, I can attest to what a sweet feeling that is. I will never forget the sight of the great Patrick Roy hoisting Lord Stanley's mug and roaring in triumph right in front of us, as I stood behind the reds in the old 'standing room' section, with the building thundering like the end of the world and fans running up and down the aisles going absolutely crazy. I was on a natural high for days after. High-fiving Mike Keane as his float went by during the Cup parade was fun too Will we experience that again this year? It's highly unlikely, of course, but you never really know. I'd feel better about our chances if Washington had not shown signs of actually figuring out how to win and if Pittsburgh had not played so astoundingly well without Malkin and Crosby. Two months ago, it looked as though only Boston and Philly could be rated genuine 'contenders' in the east, which gave us a pretty good shot provided the draw worked out. With four formidable teams in the mix, the odds drop considerably. Still, I like and believe in this team. We will be full value, whatever happens. This hunger for a Cup was what I was getting at in an earlier thread when I said that I want the Habs to be absolutely ruthless with cap management going forward. Too many fans and analysts take a line that says, 'you can't sign this guy because of the cap, you can't do this, you can't do that, etc..' Sure you can - if you're prepared to slit guys' throats. I want to see signs that this organization is prepared to simply dump (say) a Gomez IF doing so will facilitate moves that make the team better. It's time to take that next step and to do whatever is necessary short of burning up draft picks to accomplish it. No more Mr. Nice Organization, says I.

As a Habs fan, I refuse to be daunted at the prospect of Boston in the playoffs. Nor do I think that we should feel that way, rationally. We have outplayed the Bruins pretty consistently this season, except for that 7-0 abortion after Chara's attempted murder - clearly an outlier. More importantly, some key cogs in last year's playoff drive - Gionta, Cammalleri, and Gomez - are showing strong signs of bringing their 'A' game, something we haven't seen all season. Added bonuses include Kostitsyn, who is on fire and will be huge if he can carry it into the dance; and Spacek, who is healthy and playing surprisingly well and, most important of all, rested. Plekanec has also, finally, got his wheels back. He now has the body of work behind him where I would expect him to put his lingering playoff issues to rest. Darche is a plausible candidate for 'secret weapon' come playoff time. As a whole, the team is not quite firing at 100% but is definitely in a position to enter the playoffs with confidence. I really regret the absences of MaxPac, Markov and Gorges (not to mention Halpern), because with them I believe we'd really be quite a formidable opponent. But I'll take my chances with this resilient bunch. They believe in the system and are hard to beat when they play it wth confidence and commitment. If Price brings what he can bring, we're in for a helluva series.

I'd like to see 6th place sewn up too. 6th seems to me symbolically a cut above the 'bubble' and so this will make it harder for the Habs to be written off as pathetic mediocrities next season by all the 'experts.' Despite Wamsley's injunction to ignore those loudmouthed know-nothings, I still find the absence of respect irritating. And oh yeah, beating the Leafs is good too Won't be easy though, since this is their Stanley Cup. I say a 3-2 SO win on a SO goal by Subban.

I wonder if Kostitsyn would be getting all these defenders if he weren't presently in one of his 'hot' periods? In answer to Wamsley's question, I suppose it can go either way. You can just accept him for what he is and be happy that he could be worse. Or you can be annoyed by the perennial tease he represents. I have no problem accepting players' limitations. I love Gill for what he brings and accept what he doesn't; I respect Gio for what he brings rather than griping that he's not a PPG guy; I loved Koivu even though he would slump for 1/4 of every season because it was impossible to demand more from him; I enjoyed Gomez until this season because his elite playmaking was so sweet and it's absurd expect him to score 30 goals. However, I generally DO get annoyed by players who are chronically unable to get the most out of what seem to be their natural gifts on a regular basis. Zednik, Malakhov, Richer, Kovalev (although he got a pass from me because he was so damned fun), Zubrus, now Pouliot - I've seen quite a few of these guys over the years. Kosty is more in that mould. You can contrast Kosty to a guy like Benoit Brunet. People may not remember this, but Brunet used to go on hot streaks where he would light it up offensively. Then he'd revert back to normal type. When he'd go on one of these little runs, it was like a gift from the heavens - kind of like Metropolit's productive last season with us, or Darche this year - because no one ever pegged Brunet as a guy with real offensive gifts. But because you look at Kostitsyn's strength on his skates, his robustness, and his absolutely lethal shot, his ability to dominate certain shifts - there's a tendency to be disappointed that he is unwilling or unable to put it together more reliably. And I think that's an understandable, reasonable response to a player who is a top-3 guy for 1/3 of every season and a bottom-6er the rest of the year. Classifying him as a 'second liner' finesses that basic problem. Something in his head seems to stop him from putting it together consistently. Knowing what a difference he *could* make, that aggravates. If you had a girlfriend who was capable of being a knockout, but spent most of her time hanging around in sweatpants, flip-flops and uncombed hair, you'd probably find that a bit disappointing too - no? Anyway: I hope I'm wrong and that he puts it all together and becomes either the first-liner or the reliable 2nd-liner that his skill set (except his hockey sense) seems to imply. Go Kosty go!!

A good idea and a good explanation of why this idea likely will not come to pass. In truth, I don't think the Habs ARE unattractive to free agents anymore. While I have no doubt that SOME players are scared away by all the insanity, Montreal is the BOMB when you're doing well, and the fact remains we had no trouble running the table on UFAs in 2009-10. The real problem for the previous decade was most likely that the Habs just plain sucked ass. Since we now have a rep as a team that reliably makes the playoffs and is always competitive, I don't see UFA appeal as too big an issue going forward. Perhaps the only difference is that UFAs make the Canadiens compensate for the tax differential in their contracts, which they presumably don't do in places like NY.

This seems like a no-brainer. If he fails or emerges as a plodding 4th liner, you've sacrificed nothing. But the thing about this team - at least as presently constituted - is that it's been reduced to using a Darche on the scoring lines and PP simply because Darche is the only guy who is willing to drive the net and take the punishment on a regular basis. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Darche as a heart and soul guy and he's done well in that role. But really, too few commentators have remarked on how aberrant it is to have him out there in that role, which really should be going to a bigger and more talented player than him. This Berger guy probably won't be NHL ready until the current core has moved on (if ever), but he may be able to play that sort of role going forward. In principle, we need more players like this in the system. Therefore this is an impeccable move. This may also reflect Gauthier's (apparent) penchant for seeking size. If so, we can expect more of these sorts of moves down the line.

Can't believe they're playing Hammer... :whatchutalkingabout_smile: Fer chrissakes, give the guy all the rest you can!!

I pull for guys like Desharnais, who so often are denied their opportunity simply because GMs and coaches make a fetish of size. But beyond this sentimental consideration, the guy can play hockey, and his intelligence on the ice - he's notable for his ability to angle and position his body so as to minimize the impact of the size differential - compensates for many of his physical limitations. With a little more seasoning, he may be worthy of a serious chance as a 2nd-line C, either with us, or some other club. And if he gets that chance and succeeds, then there's no reason he won't make a nice career out of it. He'll be harder pressed to stick around as a utility guy but I wouldn't write him off in that respect either.

There's no question in my mind we need a backup who is actually competent to play a decent number of games. Yes, Price is a beast - but if you're planning on a Cup run I still think it wiser to be in a position to rest your starter in some sort of meaningful way. Vancouver discovered this with Luongo. Plus there's always the chance of injury. You should strive for depth at every position, including goal, and Auld ain't it IMHO.

Interesting that the Habs pay basically the same as the Rangers, but the latter is a haven for UFAs while taxes are traditionally cited as one factor that works against Montreal. I suppose New York City has its own massive appeal, an appeal that Montreal can't really match despite its superior bagels and smoked meat. Also we are only marginally worse (3%) than LA, San Jose and Anaheim, also teams that seem to be perfectly attractive to UFAs. Equally interesting: for all that Canadians like to THINK they pay higher taxes than Americans, this graphic suggests something quite different. Don't tell the Conservatives and their right-wing allies that.

Because players like that are frustrating!!!

I dunno, we seem to be talking past each other. One guy accuses me of wanting to keep Gomez and dump AK. If anything, I would argue for just the reverse. Wamsley points out that Gomer's 33-goal season was a fluke. But if you re-read the post where I bring it up, you'll find that that was precisely my point ('freak' was my adjective of choice): I can't see Kosty ever performing at an elite level except by some freak circumstance, as happened with Gomez and Gio that season in Jersey. Because he does have raw talent, it could happen some year. But it will not happen regularly. Now Wamsley, you point out that Kostitsyn has had OK numbers under unpromising circumstances this season. Which is fine, but what was his excuse in 08 and 09, under a different system? Also, what is the point of defending his production as comparable to Cammalleri's, while simultaneously saying we're crazy if we expect Kostitsyn to produce like a top-3 forward? I agree that Kostitsyn is not and probably never will be a top-3 forward. (I do expect Cammy to be one, which is why he has been a disappointment this season. But then again, unlike Kosty, Cammy stepped up for us when it counted last season/playoff, and he has years of near-elite production under his belt. That buys him the benefit of some doubt). So if I agree that Kosty is not and likely will never be a top-3 forward, why am I somewhat grumpy about Kostitsyn? Is it because I expect him to produce like the high draft pick he was? No. It's because, offensively, he's a tease. Yes, he's got 15 points in 20 games. He also had 6 points in the preceding 25 games. Right there is Kostitysn in a nutshell. You can say, 'well, I accept that he will be an offensive nonentity for 2/3 of every season, and I'll take the bad with the good.' I respect that, especially considering his modest cap hit, although the frustration of enduring his prolonged slumps shouldn't be minimized. What does NOT make sense is to simultaneously make excuses, as though he *could* be an 80-point guy if only he had just the right linemates, never got injured, had more PP time, etc., etc.. Either he's a #6 forward or he isn't. What he really is, if you ask me, is a guy who plays like a top-3 forward for maybe 20-25 games/year, and then plays like a third liner the rest of the season ('good at even strength' etc.). It's that dichotomoy that makes him fundamentally frustrating. And it's naive to expect that pattern to change. In this sense, Wamsley's right - the difference is that I refuse to overlook the aggravation involved in players of this profile. That's all.

See, this is exactly the sort of attitude to AK that I find implausible. No question, the guy has at least some of the tools to be a top-3 forward. Yet in four seasons he has never had more than 53 points and in reality has flatlined at about 45. In all four of those seasons he has shown runs of 10-15 games where he looks like he might actually become an impact player. And in all four of those seasons he has failed to ever come even close to becoming that player on anything resembling a consistent basis. make all the excuses you like, but the pattern is set. The reason may be that he is either mentally soft or that he lacks elite-level offensive hockey sense. I suspect both. Now, the guy's only 26. It could be that he will make the leap at some point to being more than a #6 forward. Myself, I'd expect him to put together maybe one really great season in his career - one of those freak years where it all comes together, like Gomez had when he scored 33 goals - and then revert back to type. And the same people who now hold out hope of his becoming elite, will spend the rest of his career looking back at that big season and say it's only a matter of time before he gets it back... I've seen guys like this before. They seem to have the tools, they tease the hell out of you. And they never really put it together. At this stage of the game it's up to Kosty to prove differently. Four years is enough to lose the benefit of the doubt.

Guys, I'm not denying that AK is an effective player at even strength, good value, etc., etc.. Nor am I saying we should get rid of him, string him up from yardarm, yadayada. All I'm saying is that offensively he is a vanishing act and that if you count on him to bring his 'A' game with some regularity you are delusional. Like I keep saying, he's a respectable #6 forward and no more than that, mainly because he is offensively nonexistent for 2/3 of every season. Which, incidentally, is NOT the career profile of Gionta, Pleks, or Cammy, notwthstanding their weak numbers this particular season. AK is a permanent offensive tease, not a guy you can count on to produce with some consistency.