The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Hee hee! I can just see all the groans and jeers coming your way for this The problems are obvious. Kovalev is not the avenging angel of yore, he's now old and slow. And Kovalev is not and never will be a team player. For a team like ours that is built on system, team play and commitment, he is the OPPOSITE of the sort of guy we should be acquiring. And yet...I can kinda see it working out. A humbled Kovy with something to prove, reinvigorated by a return to the town he loves, placed within the context of a team where he would be clearly positioned as a support player rather than a leader, and entering the playoffs where he has always excelled - he could turn out to be an inspired choice as a rental for the playoffs. He's proven he CAN be a team guy for short stretches. All we'd need would be a few rounds. So I think it's a fun idea to think about. I'll be astounded if Gauthier does it, though; he's not one to swing for the fences with a risk move like that.

Here's the key bit: « Certains événements ont eu lieu, les vétérans sont intervenus, et ça s'est mal passé, une, deux, trois fois, a expliqué l'analyste Dany Dubé sur le plateau de La clique, mercredi. Puis, un comité de leaders est allé voir l'entraîneur pour expliquer ce qui se passait, et les réactions de P.K. Subban à la critique. » Rough translation: "Certain events transpired, the veterans intervened, and it went down badly - and this happened one, two, three times," explained analyst Dany Dubé. "So the leadership committee went to the coach to explain what had happened, and how Subban had reacted to their criticism." It sounds as though Subban basically got hostile when challenge by the veterans about something and refused to take instruction. I always thought of Dubé as a good analyst and a credible source. Other more dedicated followers of the French media may be in a better position to assess that.

Judging from the Radio-Canada piece, the veteran core had more than one discussion with Subban concerning unspecified 'concerns.' And Subban repeatedly did not take the criticism or the advice or whatever it was. The piece doesn't say whether it had to do with his on-ice chirping or whatever it was. My view is that when you're a rookie and (presumably) Gionta, Gill, Gomez, Gorges etc. approach you saying that some aspects of your behaviour are hurting them and hurting the team, then you'd better friggin' listen. In fact, you'd be stupid not to. This does raise concerns to me about PK's head-space. I love his larger-than-life swagger, but Montreal is SUCH a dangerous market for that type of player, with so many traps. It is reassuring to know we have a core here now that will demand accountability and a coach who will back that core up. Still, I wouldn't be stunned to find PK running into ego- or lifestyle-related problems in Montreal sooner or later. Hopefully the lesson sinks in.

I'm simply too frantic with work at the moment to watch these games - I'm following things second-hand for now - but I strongly suspect you're right. Surely the point has been made, and with the PP impotent, it's time to re-insert this offensively-gifted minutes-eating beast. Indeed, if JM doesn't, I'll be inclined to wonder whether Subban has shown a wider attitude problem that the coach is trying to expunge.

I'm not gonna argue statistics with Wamsley - God forbid - but I would like to say, impressionistically, that to my recollection the difference between the Philly series of 2008 and 2010 is that in the former the Habs were arguably the better team, getting better chances especially in the early going, but lost in significant measure because Price was a seive and Biron was excellent. In 2010 the Flyers were clearly the better team from the get-go, completely shutting down the Habs' offence and overpowering a tired, banged-up and Markov-less defence. True, Halak did NOT play great against Philly. But when you lose to what is clearly the better team it's hard to talk about the goalie 'melting down.' If we'd had strong (not spectacular) netminding against Philly in 2008, we'd have had a solid chance to win that series or at least take it to 6 or 7 games. So the melt-down label applies more accurately to Price in 2008 than to Halak in 2010; Price to some significant degree cost us the series, whereas Halak merely failed to win it. I was one of those who felt trading Huet was a mistake, and to this day I wish we'd had Huet to fall back on; he had not yet been exposed, as the laughable Chicago contract amply demonstrated. Not saying he would have won the series, but at least he might have been stronger than Price. I hope that doesn't make me a Price-basher. I never pretended absolute knowledge about how Price would work out, one way or the other. Indeed, I'm not sure why we're even going on about it...except to say that what happened two years ago isn't terribly relevant to where we are NOW. So far this season, Price has played as well as any goalie can possibly be expected to play; he has been phenomenally consistent. It's also true that he has yet to turn in a compelling performance in the NHL playoffs, although the first round against Boston in 2008 was a fine performance. Like Luongo and anyone else, though, until Price goes on a good, extended playoff run, that will remain a question mark - as it should. Halak showed he could come up incredibly big when it counts most. That is a point his favour. Doesn't mean he's the second coming of Roy. Personally, I suspect that Curtis Joseph is the most likely analogy for him - a guy who can turn a series but isn't necessarily the stopper to take you the distance. Price looks more like that type right now. Que sera sera.

Yes, and I love every word. Those are the kind of quotations you used to read about the New Jersey Devils. :hlogo: And that suits me just fine.

Despite fans' whining, all of our veteran D remain quality players. The weakest link is Spacek in my opinion; but even he is underrated, a very useful dude to have around eating minutes. Hammer will have to take a pay cut no matter where he goes, so if he likes it here, I wouldn't be surprised to find him back. In short, the Habs are in a good position: if they don't see any immediate replacements, they can probably re-sign these guys and purge Spacek the following season. If they do see replacements, they can let one of them go (I doubt it will be more than one) this summer. The only scenario I find implausible is a major purge of the defence core.

You make a good point here. The reassurance is appreciated. As for me, I have a lot of confidence in where we are for the same reasons you do - this team is the first one in 17 years to remind me of the Lemaire/Burns era: a fundamentally well-structured system with total team buy in, almost guaranteeing a competitive club night after night. The reason for my uneasiness centres not on a lack of faith in the players or coach, but on the catastrophic loss of Markov. This creates a gigantic X-factor, because no matter how great your system is you still need the horses; and I'll need several more games before I am reassured that we won't revert to a bubble team in Markov's absence. But I agree, you make a good case.

Further to this, the whole point of the Martin era, to me, is that the team is taking a totally different approach to player development. This is possibly less due to a philosophical change, than to the facts that we have a much better veteran core now, which gives us more leeway to put a Pouliot on the bottom-6 and teach him the game; and to the fact that our current coach seems to be much better at conveying a consistent and clear message to the players. The whole point is: no more unwarranted egos, no more unwarranted entitlement. No more treating unproven punks like stars. The team absolutely has to teach young players that no matter how adored they may be out on the bar scene, no matter how much the city throws itself at their feet, when it comes to business they will always be expected to bring total team commitment, hard work, and adherence to the coach's system. If they don't, they sit. Guys like Gomez and Spacek already know that and have proven over many years that they know that. Treating young players identitically to proven veterans is exactly the wrong message to send. That's how you create the entitlement mentality - by levelling out differences between Cup-winners and unproven punks. No matter how much Gomez is struggling, guys like Subban should not expect to be treated just like him. Gomer has earned respect and trust that he will sort things out. Subban absolutely MUST NOT be given the message that he will have things handed to him regardless of his performance. I find it slightly funny that a fan base that, until this season, was in a rage over how Carey Price was handed everything despite failing to earn it, now wants the team to do the same thing with Subban. I agree that Price was given the wrong message. And note that JM was the one to straighten him out. We're in good hands, folks.

Uh...I wouldn't blow up the team that got us to the semi-finals and 5th overall thus far this season, thanks. I could see ONE if the three you mention leaving. At most. I'm pretty sure the Habs want Gill back because he is a leader and a crucial clutch player, and they probably want Hammer back at a reduced rate, as he is still a very serviceable all-around defenceman. Markov is a given. I was talking more in terms of adding a Markov-replacement who, next season, becomes part of a general upgrade to the D corps. This might involve moving out one guy, but no more than that.

Look, the good news is that we have a great record despite mediocre output from Gomez and Cammy. If those two come on, and no further injuries happen, we may do quite nicely even without #79. (I'm worried we won't, but unlike past years, it's possible). I also think the inconsistency is partly a result of learning what it means to be a good team, and - more to the point - learning just how good (or not good) your team is. The Habs may still be in the process of figuring out that, whatever the standings say and no matter how questionable the opposition, they are not good enough to take whole periods off and win on a regular basis. Relatedly, the team may still be in the process of fully realizing that the absence of Markov skews the equation: they're no longer as good as they had begun to think they were. The only answer is to buckle down and redouble your commitment to sound, consistent hockey. I'm sure the vets realize that, or are coming to realize it. Finally, the hot streak was bound to sputter at some point. The team just needs to ride it out, work on the fundamentals with the coaches, and get their 'A' game back. The great X-factor remains the absence of Markov, and what the team's ceiling is without him. Time will tell, because right now the current lineup is NOT firing on all cylanders and so its potential without Markov is hard to guage.

I'd just add that the mentality that identifies promising rookies as some sort of superstars, gives them the keys to the city and treats them as equivalent to seasoned veterans, is part of what got Rebuild 1.0 in big trouble: too many young players with too little accountability and too much a sense of entitlement (Sergei, Grabovski, Ribeiro, Latendresse, Price, possibly Higgins and Komisarek). Given his importance to the future of this franchise it is imperative that the Habs keep PK's head on his shoulders and not let his ego get sucked into the Montreal hype machine. One way to do this is to treat him, NOT as if he were a slumping 2-time Cup winner universally respected around the league (Gomez), but as if he were a rookie like any other rookie. Which is what JM is doing. If PK is a man, he will take his medicine, learn from it, and move forward. If he is a punkass pr*ck, he will allow it to contaminate his attitude in the manner of a Grabovski. All signs point to the former. Mountain, meet molehill.

Well, you have to consider that the Habs may be trying to bolster the D with markov out long term. Most teams will be looking for cheap young players back in exchange for quality help on the blueline, and Pacioretty would fit the bill. So I think rumours around MaxPac are not implausible.

This from Boone: Fact: The Canadiens have not been able to string consecutive wins since Markov was injured in the 7-2 blowout over Carolina on Nov. 16. They won the first game without him, 3-0 over the Flyers, but have lost and won on an alternating basis in the seven games since. P.K. tries on the power-play – I found him very trying last night, bada-boom – but he isn't Andrei Markov ... at least not yet. Roman Hamrlik will pinch adroitly and score the occasional goal, like his milestone 150th last night, but he isn't Markov, either. The Canadiens have played .500 hockey without their best defenceman. Maintaining that pace over the rest of the schedule will net them 89 points. The team snuck into the playoffs last season with 88, so maybe .500 hockey will punch the Canadiens a ticket to the dance. For all the positive stuff in this thread, the Markov-less Habs may nonetheless be no better than a club that plays marginally over .500. I don't think this is an indictment of the organization - any team losing its key player is going to feel that loss sooner or later, especially given the cap system where you can't stockpile high-end players. Of course, if this keeps up, by January the fans will be in high dudgeon about 'mediocrity' and a 'bubble team,' ignoring all of this. We also need to give the team more time to adjust before we conclude that .500 hockey is our destiny from here on in (Markov won't be back this season). Nevertheless, we may have to face the fact that a promising season might turn frustrating on us due to this catastrophic injury. If so, I'll be very interested to see what Gauthier does. I still think we should be trying to pry Regher out of Calgary - that organization is desperate. Ottawa may be another possibly desperate dance partner. But not just yet.

PG's MO as GM (OK, that was fun to write ), whether in Ottawa or Anaheim or here, has always been small, incremental improvements. As much as the Burke philosophy of high-impact deals is more fun, I must say that Gauthier has me convinced that he is quietly a very good GM. Everything about the Habs these days speaks to an organization that has finally got the fundamentals right. If you do that, you don't need magic bullets and 10-player swaps; it's more about a bunch of little moves that gradually push you over into 'elite' territory...with which the team has flirted ever since the Washington series.

Wamsley, it warms my heart to see you coming around - ever so guardedly - to the possibility that this team may be legitimately good and perhaps good enough to win I agree with you that total team commitment, goaltending, and choke-hold defence will beat defensively iffy offensive powerhouses 99 times out of 100. Given that our team seems to have all three of these qualities, I suspect we do have an outside chance. The exciting thing is that after years of wheel-spinning, the proper culture seems to have been instilled throughout the entire organization - and this matters far more than the specifics of the roster. JM is giving us what Burns and Lemaire gave us: a rock-solid structural foundation to our game. However, we are still overmatched against powerful, physical teams that play an up and down game with tight defence (Philly, Chicago, perhaps San Jose), and it's hard to see that changing; as I said in some other thread, playoff matchups will be huge in determining our fate. All of this optimism will be harder to sustain over the coming weeks, too. Not only is the schedule tough, but the absence of Markov is already being felt in the much-documented inconsistency that is creeping into the Habs's game (two horrible periods against Philly; wretchedness against Nashville and Atlanta; etc.). With him out we cannot be as spectacularly good as we've seemed thus far, not over the longer term. Fans should gird themselves for this and remember that, although we're no longer dependent on Markov to win games, any view of ourselves as contenders probably will require him in the lineup.

That Lats showed up to Minnesota's camp out of shape speaks volumes about his maturity level. He's been in the NHL what, 5 years, and still doesn't get it? Add that to his pouting in 2009 before being shipped out, as well as his grumbling that he was entitled to extended time in the top-6, leads one to suspect that he may not be what he needs to be between the ears. Who knows, though, maybe a season on IR will teach him something. As for sheer talent, I think Pouliot has more, but Latendresse did fit the profile of a potential power forward, which this organization continues to need. In any case, the Habs' concern is not with Lats, it's with Pouliot, and so far this season his development has been exemplary. It seems that, as with Eller, JM is really teaching him how to be a NHLer. The big offensive opportunities can wait until the fundamentals are there.

I think moving Gomez is a possibility precisely because of the 'salary floor.' However, Wamsley's right: he's not a 26-point player. Odds are he will start heating up and playing at about a PPG pace over the second half. He's combined wretched starts with a hot second half a couple of times before.

Honestly, I wouldn't object if the Habs acquired either a top-6 winger or a top-4ish defenceman. The former is a longstanding need; the latter is a need created by Markov's propensity for grave injuries and the impeding UFAship of Hamrlik. Either would significantly improve the team. So I know it's wishy-washy, but it really is six of one, half-dozen of the other. Further to the D-man idea...even with Markov, if we were to add (say) Regher, we'd go from having a very good all-around defence to having a truly impressive defence corps. One way to 'address a weakness' is not to address it all per se, but rather to build so forcefully on on your strengths so as to render the weakness irrelevant. A powerhouse defence corps would make the top-6 forward issue less significant. So again: either is good.

It may just be a reality of today's NHL that most teams have identifiable weaknesses, and that, therefore, most teams will have a couple of opponents that are constructed in a way that lets them exploit those weaknesses and are thus just a horrible match-up for them. Take Vancouver vs. Chicago. No matter what the Canucks do - and this is the third season running that Canucks fans have declared that 'this year will be different' - year after year Chicago just owns them. Philly may be our Chicago: a team that might as well have been almost purpose-built to neutralize the kind of team we are. I mean, think about it; even if somehow we add a Milan Lucic to our top-6, is that one player going to suddenly enable us to beat Philly in a seven-game series? It may be the case that we'd need two or three big, skilled forwards to plough through that defensive shell - or else the addition of a genuinely elite offensive gamebreaker, who, added to our existing structure, could make our speed, smarts and skill truly overwhelming. Since neither scenario seems realistic, we may just have to face the possibility that matchup will be key for our playoff success (as for most clubs). Basically, we need to avoid drawing Philly, New Jersey (who likely won't make it), and perhaps Washington (who surely will have learned from last season's schooling). I'll take my chances against Boston and Pittsburgh. As for BlueKross's point: let's remember that this didn't start in october 2010. It started in last season's playoffs. If you factor in those games, it's actually been about 40 games that this team has played like an elite or near-elite club. That may be enough of a sample to warrant tossing a few bouquets Gainey's way.

I suspect the reason it "kills" threads is because everybody agrees that it would be nice to have a Scott Hartnell-type in the top-6. This certainly would help. The problem lies in acquiring one. That's the trouble - Milan Lucics don't grow on trees (although sometimes it's nice to imagine Lucic hanging from one )

I actually wouldn't rule out someone wanting Gomez, but your frustration is justifiable. We have all waited long enough for Gomez to start making things happen, and he has gotten a pass for an amazingly long time considering that it's Montreal. I don't expect him to earn his salary, but I do expect him to kindle plays and generate momentum out there. Right now he is a turnover machine sucking the life out of what seems like every shift. I understand JM giving him ice-time and PP-time - he's giving him all the room needed to turn things around. That is characteristic of Martin, to give the benefit of the doubt to proven veterans. I support this approach, but we're at the quarter pole, fer chrissakes. Pretty soon even Martin will pull the rope to the trap door and start giving that ice time to Eller/Halpern...not to punish Gomez, but simply because those guys are outplaying him.

Oh yeah, just read my reply in the 'good decisions equal great results' thread to see what I think of this year's squad. We're not far away, but it may take a shrewd move or two, or some other additional tweak, to put us over that hump. And I really think that a game like this is when we most miss Markov. No easy fix for that.

The RDS crew have been playing up the theme of Pyatt's offensive incompetence (while also praising his defensive game). This might be what is influencing people to start singling him out. You're right, it's a bit silly. If people are looking for scapegoats, looks no further than Gomez. With Marky out, we can't carry passengers in key roster spots, and if I seem him launch one more rush that ends in him turning over the puck, I think I'll scream. And I'm a Gomez FAN. In any case, the PP may well struggle all season without Markov; get used to it.

I think playing Price until he drops is a mistake. Give him lots of games, yes. But - 23 or not - he's not superman. I have no appetite for another 2008-style playoff meltdown from him. For God's sake, give him some rest here and there.