The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Holy mixed messages, Batman! No, I agree with your general analysis. But if that analysis is warranted, then the nervousness of your last sentence is not. The issue here is just that 8 games is not a sufficient data pool from which to declare that these Habs have 'finally raised the bar.' If they play another 30 like this, then unlike yourself I may actually start to relax...

The beauty of all this is that the team is having success WITHOUT its two biggest-name players being productive. And I'd like to point out that if you had told me a year ago that the Habs would go 5-2 without Andrei Markov, with G & G AWOL, and without a decent PP, I'd have fallen on my face. It could all be a freak thing based on a temporarily hot Kostitsyn and Price. Then again, it could point to a lot of the things we talked about going into this season: better team chemistry, massively improved bottom-6 depth, the mighty addition of PK, and a full season under Martin's system. My point is that this 'problem' (and it is a problem), put in context, actually could be used to reveal a fundamentally strong team. A lot can go wrong and I know it's early. But the longer this goes on, the longer we can begin to ask if, just maybe, this club really is better than all the 'experts' believed. :hlogo:

Yes. Montreal has quietly become one of the more successful franchises in the NHL by the measures that actually count: 5 out of 6 playoff appearances, 3 out of 5 going past the first round, one semi final appearance, one finish at 1st in the East. I find it funny that we get ZERO respect despite a track record that defies the opinions of the 'experts.' Things do seem to be slowly and almost imperceptibly changing on the 'respect' front, though. The first sign was the flood of UFAs signing here in 2009. The second sign is the increasingly respectful tone adopted in the wake of the 2009 playoff run. One more serious charge and we will finally get there, in terms of media/fan perception.

This is some sharp analysis and certainly explains why acquiring Bieksa would make sense going forward. Given the cap headaches it would generate, though, it's probably a deal better left until later in the season. That way you have a better chance of having accrued savings via LTIR and also offloading salary in the trade-deadline frenzy to fit Bieksa in. The 'adding a forward' scenario is a bit awkward as we don't have a surplus of quality at forward either; but I could certainly see Vancouver insisting on this in light of O'Byrne's questionable value. This might mean throwing in a Boyd, who is cheap and increasingly seems to be on the outs with Martin. The other, more realistic possibility is someone like David Desharnais. He would represent a legitimate young prospect who would fit much better in the Canucks' system than ours, given that size is not nearly as big an issue for them, and their ongoing need for secondary scoring depth. By the way, habs' fans should avoid over-rating Bieksa. Yes, he's big and yes, he can fire the puck. He's also notorious for defensive gaffes and has a generally erratic profile. A high risk, high reward type. He could be a great fit, but I can almost guarantee you that he will eventually be hated by a sizeable chunk of the fanbase if he does sign here. One further thing to note is that just because the contract of an older guy is up doesn't mean he automatically has to leave town. Hammer, for instance, is still a very useful player, and if we can re-sign him at a lower cost might be worth looking at. Even Gill, I'd consider on a one-year deal (but not if we acquire Bieksa). Another question is whether this team is better with or without Spacek, who presumably would be our top candidate for salary dumping at the deadline. It's well and good to say that he is likely to be desirable to teams that are 'going for it,' but given our playoff run last season would it really be wise for us to dump this kind of player heading into the stretch? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we too may be just good enough to make any salary dumping problematic.

Vancouver has desperate cap pressures. I'm pretty sure they are looking to dump Bieksa's salary, not take comparable salary back. Therefore, a straight up Bieksa-for-O'Byrne deal would make the most sense for them. And that's a trade I'd make in a flash. But it would likely transfer cap problems to us. So any such deal would need to come with some analysis of how the Habs are to fit Bieksa under the cap. On the other hand, Spacek is the type of player that would greatly interest a 'win now!' organization such as the Canucks: a seasoned veteran warrior. I just don't see the 'nucks taking back the salary.

Yes, this guy is the real deal. I'm generally not big on hype for rookies, but this is different. He simply oozes natural talent. He is a sure-fire future all-star and possible superstar defenceman who, barring injury and the Montreal Disease of damagingly inflated ego/partying, will become the defining face of the franchise for the next 15 years (along with Price, perhaps). He is that rarest of articles, the Can't Miss Kid. I'm savouring every second.

Subban is getting a lot of punishment for one reason only. He's a hotshot Natural with a big rookie rep and is being rigorously and deliberately tested. If he endures and gives as good as he gets he will secure the respect (not the love) of his peers and will be on his way to all-stardom. Enjoy every minute of this. We haven't had a rookie like that in 15 years.

Injuries notwithstanding, Ottawa will likely be stronger after getting dominated last time out. Determined to salvage some dignity and credibility versus regional rivals. The Habs are likely also to be significantly better than the NJ game. That was a bad matchup and a bad time, after too long a layoff. We'll probably see the team click a little better. Pessimism is unwarranted, but I'd expect a close game: either Habs or Ottawa, 3-2 (SO). :hlogo:

ZING :hlogo:

Well, sounds like everybody agrees that going north of $6 million for Markov would be excessive, so in terms of the narrow issue at hand there's not much to argue about. I agree with you that Chara is worth more than Markov - so no quibbles there either. While there's definitely something in what you say, saskhab, I still think there's a certain flaw to your logic. IF player salaries escalate every year ('players continually getting raises'), then that would mitigate the gains accrued to teams via the expanding cap. Sure, taken in isolation, Gomez's ridiculous salary is a smaller per centage of the overall budget than it was when that cigar-chomping idiot Sather signed him to it. But if a good portion of the salaries surrounding Gomez's on the team have inflated over that same span of time, then the team is left in just as tight a cap fix as before. The cap gains, and the relative relief offered by those gains, are chewed up by the general salary inflation. Of course, one could argue that that's actually not what we're seeing. What we're increasingly seeing is a situation where stars get massive dough and quality support players are simply ripped off, underpaid, or unfairly out of a job (c.f. Metropolit, Theodore, Niemi, Brendan Morrison). So there remains inflation for some types of players, and deflation for others. Given this, we could both be half right: the expanding cap partially lessens the relative impact of fat contracts upon a team, but only partially, because certain categories of other player will see their contracts inflate over the life of that fat contract, while others will see stagnation or deflation. Phew. That's enough Accounting for me

Then this is good news.

Well, the mediocre-effort-after-a-long-layoff is a well-known syndrome. It's too bad, because they were starting to click before the extended downtime.

Well, by 'inflation' I meant not the cap per se, but the UFA market - the general amount of dough that seems to be thrown around to players. In other words, because a lot of teams are close to being capped out, we don't seem to see the crazy UFA bidding wars on the scale we saw in the past. However, I haven't quantified this, so I may be wrong even about that. I'm not sure the way you're calculating it makes too much sense. I was thinking in terms of his cap hit for this year versus next year. We are, after all, nearly at the cap as it stands right now, so that extra $300 grand WOULD represent an additional squeeze on the salary budget in objective terms. (Of course, Hammer will be off the books or reduced, etc., so the 300 may not matter as much). It doesn't work to say 'well, Markov made (say) 10% of your overall salary budget with the cap at 50 mil, therefore he should make 10% of your overall salary budget with the cap at $60 mil.' We have a much stronger team with better, more expensive players on it now and tight cap room in consequence. Another way to put it is, would you sign him for 6.8 mil on the premise that that's 'equal to' 5.75 mil? I wouldn't. This guy was signed at 5.75 in his prime and it seems sensible to say that he should not get a significant raise given that the market for expensive UFAs has shrunk AND that he's entering the back nine of his career. All that being said, do I give him the 6 mil if he digs in his heels? Yeah.

My preference would be to give him his existing contract for another 5 years. This is not an inflationary market and his performance seems unlikely to improve over that span - I don't see that we should throw away $300 000 annually. But obviously, if he insists on a small raise, you're probably going to give it to him.

Right. We're playing well. Why rush Markov back when so much depends on him? The idea of making sure his knee is OK before re-signing him is also common sense.

This is a theme that recurs in the running discussion of Martin's merits and demerits as a coach. Everything about Martin - from his haircut to his postgame comments to his game plans - screams 'conservative,' and several of his decisions over time have been criticized for favouring veterans and dealing counter-productively with young talent. The case of PK Subban is obviously the most important example. People are frightened that Martin will beat all the joie de vivre, all the panache and derring-do from Subban's game in the name of 'defensive responsibility' and 'team play.' But are these fears really justified? What in fact is Martin's track record in developing young players? You can make a case that Martin is excellent at developing young talent; and when that talent fails to develop, it's not his fault so much as the mediocrity of the talent. He coached the Ottawa Senators from 1996 to 2004. What this means is that he fully oversaw the development of, among others: -Daniel Alfredsson -Marian Hossa -Martin Havlat -Chris Phillips -Wade Redden Not a bad crop, is it? A couple of points to note about this. One is that Redden began his terminal career decline one year after Martin left, suggesting at least an indirect link between Martin's handling and his success. The other is that one young player Martin was accused of mishandling was Jason Spezza who entered the league in 02-03. Martin insisted that Spezza learn to play a responsible two-way game and many Ottawa fans attacked him for this 'stifling' of a prospective superstar. But Spezza has since become notorious, long after Martin's departure, for being an irresponsible, soft player who doesn't do the little things needed to win. In short, subsequent events suggest that Martin was right to react to Spezza as he did. Martin went on to coach the Florida Panthers from 2005-06 to 2007-08. What's significant about this is that he inherited two players with world-class potential: -Ollie Jokinen -Jay Bouwemeester and that both players' careers took a huge jump in Martin's first season behind the bench. Bouwmeester went from 20 to 46 points, Jokinen from 58 to 89 points. What is equally noteworthy is that Jokinen's career went in the tank after leaving Martin (although admittedly the rot had set in in JM's last season in Florida, with a drop to 71 points). Bouwmeester had one more good year and then slid into what appears to be permanent mediocrity with Calgary. Further, the only Florida Panther to emerge after JM left was David Booth - and even that occured more as part of a logical career progression than as any evidence of his having been 'stifled' by Martin; so there is no evidence that Martin was undermining the development of any young Panthers, and some significant evidence that he handled the young talent very well indeed. If you look at his handling of the Habs' young players, you so far find -a reluctance to give a lot of responsiblity to O'Bryne -ongoing, patient attempts to bring along Kostitsyn, including defending him in the press -a combination of carrots and sticks with Subban, demoting him after a bad game but also giving him tons of ice the moment it becomes apparent that Subban is responding with his 'A' Game -patience, but not unlimited patience, with Pouliot -a blunt willingness to play the best-performing goalie (Halak), with apparently good results for Price's development Many point to JM's handling of OB as evidence of the former's incompetence with young players. What I'd suggest, based on the above analysis, is that JM simply doesn't think OB has the makeup to be a significant NHL regular. With other young players his message seems to be firm, consistent, and tolerably patient. Say what you want about Martin. But I'm not sure the argument that he is bad at developing young talent can at all be sustained.

I'd like to think that, now that Habs fans have been given a reminder of what an actual TEAM looks like, they wouldn't be terribly interested in a return by Kovalev, especially the broken-down version. Then again, these are the same clods that cheered Richer Redux, booed Koivu for arguing with Ribeiro, and turned Halak into The Greatest Goalie of All Time. Frankly, I feel that a return by Koivu in Halpern's role would have made for a much more attractive scenario. Not that I really lament Koivu's absence either. :hlogo:

If anything, Price has been underrated so far this season. He has been rock solid - everything you could possibly want in a goalie. That's the thing, the default position vis-a-vis Price is skeptical nit-picking; if Halak had played those four games everyone would be talking about the obvious greatness of the guy in net. The clear problem is the Gonez/Gio duo has been a bust. If that changes, so will our concerns about offence and puck possession. The good news is that Kosty's game is steadily improving and Pouliot has shown signs of life after a rocky start. It'll be touch and go until Markov returns, no matter what else happens. Let's just recall that two years ago, losing Markov meant certain death. Now it means .500 hockey - a definite improvement and one sign of the wisdom of Bob's 2010 summer spree.

Personally, I wouldn't be averse to trying Lapierre/Gomez/Pouliot. That line would represent an intriguing combination of agitation (Laps) skill (Gomer) and what so far has been some moderate physical play coupled with some moderate skill (Pouliot). I liked the Habs game - we basically controlled the play most of the night - and I respect the Sabres, but hoo boy, you really have to wonder about them. They looke very weak last night.

We may have to face the possibility that this team - at least without Markov - is really no better than last season's, despite the benefits of solidified 'chemistry.' If this is correct then we can expect poor 5-on-5 results, frequent outshootings, and difficulty is generating sustained pressure. (Of course, Markov IS a major absence and any early panic should be countered with the recognition that our most important player is hurt).

Glad you brought that up. That seems like a strange one to me, too. Put Hammer with Subban and Spacek with Picard (gulp!) or vice-versa. This is the obvious thing to do - pair young D with seasoned vets - but the need to punish Subban by demoting him to the third pairing seems to have trumped good sense here. Of course, I may be failing to consider left-side / right-side variables, etc.. But at face value this looks dubious.

But why does he have to be placed on the top line TONIGHT? Again, this is not some permanent restructuring. Moen is a stop-gap measure to add sandpaper and net presence to that line. Eller has 3 games to his credit. Let him find his feet. Sheesh.

Fair enough. A teenager!! You are one wise puppy, my friend.

Bloggers are only marginally more accountable than journalists. (If your main abenue of expression is online, you are going to face reams of publicly-available discussion of your work, which adds an element of accountability that a Red Fisher needn't bother with to the same degree). The real difference is that bloggers don't condition popular discourse in the way that journalists do, so their lack of accountability is not as important. I don't think attacking journalists is really the way to go, though. In certain cases - c.f. Jack Todd, Bertrand Raymond - their lazy ignorance is inexcusable and a calling out is thoroughly appropriate. In many cases, though, both their qualifications and the constraints of their job simply don't position them to be good analysts. The problem is that they are nonetheless positioned as analysts: indeed, the only analysts that the average fan gets exposed to. The problem is structural more than individual.

He's not, but do you really want vulnerable rookies/young players thrown into the pressure-cooker of a slumping first line? Everybody on the team knows that as that line goes, so do the Habs. The first recourse should be to battle-tested vets who can maybe use their experience and grit to kick-start the line. Keep the young guys protected.