The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Bad trade. Diaz is the better player in the deal, Weisse is a 4th-liner at best. Console yourselves all you like, this is crummy asset management. I believe that Diaz was undervalued in Montreal and will do very nicely in Vancouver. Booo Bergevin.

Is Prust a healthy scratch - ? If so, weird season, what with both Emelin and Prust having had this treatment. Which would say a lot about our problems, with two of our most "blood and guts" players being scratched like that.

Right. That's how NHL "justice" works. If you are deemed a "good guy," you can - literally - get away with attempted murder. If you are deemed a "weasel" (Marc Savard) or a "pussy" like the Sedins, or too "uppity" like PK, well, you deserve whatever you get. It has nothing to do with the act itself, in other words, and everything to do with who commits it; the precise opposite, in short, of any conception of justice recognizable as such to inhabitants of modern western civilization.

I think the new Sedin contract could prove to be an error - Daniel Sedin looks like a shadow of himself and has for a while now. But the idea that there was ANY problem with their earlier contract was ludicrous from the get-go. I don't know what it is with those guys. They've been tremendous players for years and years and yet have received no end of scorn and fan contempt. I think it's yet another case where if their names were Stan and John MacKenzie from Powell River they'd be hailed as JUST AWESOME GREAT GUYS AND GREAT NHL STARS...but, you know, they're Swedish. And they're not tough guys like Lucic or dirty pukes like Marchand. So, obviously, that makes them "sisters." It's a mild version of the sort of double-standard crap that afflicts Subban for having the wrong pigmentation.

I don't want us going after rentals, unless we're giving back washed-up vets we won't resign or else the Human Turd. Typically, though, rentals cost draft picks - not the right move given the state of this organization. This deadline should bring one or all of the following IMHO: 1. Hockey moves - bona-fide trades, not just "rentals" to improve the team. 2. Getting returns on washed-up assets with an eye to the longer-term needs of the organization: e.g., Gio, Markov, whatever. 3. Trading marginal picks or prospects for marginal rentals. Any or all of these would be acceptable. Dealing, say, 2nd rounders? No.

DON's description of Chara's comparatively gentlemanly ways is correct. And it was precisely those considerations that made him a "good guy" who deserved to be excused for his brutal and deliberate act of attempted manslaughter on a young man in the eyes of the old boys who run the NHL. His act was one of the single most inexcusable things I've seen in 35 years of watching pro hockey. It doesn't matter how good a guy you are the rest of the time - one act of hit and run and you're in jail. But simple justice is irrelevant when it comes to NHL discipline and NHL culture. I will not hear a good word spoken of this scumbag. He committed a heinous act and got off scot-free. F**k him.

I understand why Gainey did not deal Souray at the deadline...he wanted his team to get playoff experience and he needed a playoff appearance in order to raise the team's reputation with UFAs. Nevertheless, I attacked that decision at the time and still find it frustratingly bad asset management. It was especially frustrating given that a year later he traded Huet at the deadline - thus throwing all our playoff hopes on the shoulders of rookie Price, who ended up buckling - and justified his decision as "asset management." Way to get it backwards. Oh well.

I was never all that impressed with Varlamov; nor am I sold yet on Colorado's new management with its bizarre two-headed managerial rookie mutant of Sakic + Roy. So I'll reserve judgement on this, but I think it quite possible this could prove to be a mistake. But in terms of the big picture: when will people learn? The cap ALWAYS goes up. Signings are invariably met with gasps at the egregious "overpayment." And five years later, they look like a bargain, unless you're signing a guy on the downside of his career. Wait until we sign PK to massive numbers. Howls will be heard throughout Habsland. But by the end of the contract we'll be laughing at what a deal we got.

Most coaches favour veterans in a pinch; most coaches have quirks and preferences. That's why I never get involved in "micro" criticisms of a coach's game-by-game decision-making unless there are REALLY catastrophic mistakes. When we fire a coach, we will not be replacing him with Mr. Perfect - we will be replacing him with a different human being who has different strengths and weaknesses and idiosyncracies. Hence, a lot of the people who were pulling apart JM's decisions and crying for his head are now doing the same with Therrien, and will proceed to do the same with Therrien's replacement unless the Habs emerge as Cup champions. The case for firing a coach should be based on the big picture (overall team performance, defensive play, discipline) and not the death of a thousand nit-picks.

I dunno, DON...the Canucks got a quick goal off the hop and then were dominated for all but the last two minutes of the first. The second-period evisceration was actually a logical continuation of the patterns of Period One, when Luongo stood on his head (despite now being blamed for the loss by the idiot fanbase). Fact is, the Canuckleheads were just outclassed. I do love Torts, though, and his return probably will help.

Geez, Habs29, have a little faith that Bergevin is not a drooling idiot. The guy came through the Hawks organization. He had a sustained, insider look at the development of the best organization in the NHL. He remains an enigma due to brevity of his body of work with us, but I'm not going to put him into "Houle" category until I have valid reason to. And the deal cited here would be a franchise-destroying move on the level of the Roy trade. Stay cool.

This line of argument reminds me of Bernard Mandeville's suggestion that disasters at sea are actually a good thing because they create jobs for shipbuilders. You're basically saying that donating McDonagh led directly to us finishing in the bottom-3 in the league, but we're supposed to look at the sunny side, because we ended up with Galchenyuk. I admire the commitment to optimism. But any trade that unintentionally leads to a team being a bottom-feeder is a bad trade by definition. Apart from that, this team still has a structural need for a quality top-4 defenceman. And we would be much better with one in the lineup. That's McDonagh. So Galy aside, that trade is still hurting us. I'll say this much: under Bob Gainey, the Habs were not afraid to make bold moves. He went out and got Kovalev. He bet the franchise on the controversial Price pick. When he saw a chance to contend, he dealt away picks like crazy to add players he thought would address team weaknesses. When that didn't work, he firebombed the entire roster AND the entire coaching staffs at both NHL and AHL levels in what I still think represents the single most radical act of GMing in living memory. We can complain that he made too many errors - which he did - but he hardly a "stand pat" guy. MB has stood pat so far, but I don't think anyone expected us to contend by this season. What we need to see next year is clear progress in addressing longstanding weaknesses rather than nibbling at the edges. Bourque and Gio had better be gone, with some sort of upgrade in the place of at least one of them. We also need an upgrade at D (and if that means moving Markov, so be it). Remember that we did see progress last season, so it would have been odd for MB to make bold moves after that. This year has been more flatlining combined with disturbing indications that last year's late-season meltdown was not a fluke but a symptom. He has more info now. Time to crank it up.

Habs29, I hear you, brother. I too prefer a GM who isn't afraid to make bold and ruthless moves, and I think this team probably does need such moves. But the REAL time for them will be at this year's deadline and then again in the summer. So personally, I give him that window to start really putting his stamp on the club. If we go into next year with yet another patchwork lineup passively praying that Eller gets better and that washed-up geezers somehow defy the downward arc of their careers, then I'll definitely begin to say we have a body of work that shows a GM who is happy on cruise control. But declaring it now just seems too impatient to me.

It's just too early to judge MB. All we can really say we know about him is that he does not seem to move impulsively and appears to take a longer-term, builder's view. Frankly, that's not much to go on at all.

I was at the Canucks-Chicago game last night. Hoo boy. To see a Hawks team that had been struggling simply turn on the jets and completely destroy the Canucks was quite a sight. Man, you've got a team that can ice an opening shift of Hossa-Toews-Kane Keith-Seabrook Now THAT'S a Cup-worthy roster. None of this "oh, let's play mix and match with Lars Eller and Dany Briere" crap. Yeesh.

Boston is one of the NHL's truly mighty teams, along with St. Louis and Chicago and maybe one or two others. As painful as it is to say, you really have to respect the way they've built that organization - a franchise that has won a Cup and become a perennial contender despite throwing away one #1 C (Thornton) and losing another to the kind of premeditated assault the NHL celebrates (Savard). In addition to those two elite players, they also lost deadly W Phil Kessel and turned him into drafting gold; exactly the opposite of what we've done with assets like Ribeiro and Cammalleri. They dole out huge contracts to a Zdeno Chara even as we were taking on, say, Scott Gomez. They turn has-beens like Raycroft into Rask. The contrast between their consistent managerial strength and our mediocrity makes me want to puke. That said, we almost always play them tough (rather like Toronto always does with us). Look for the Habs to bring their "A" game tonight; I'm not ruling out a win.

Oh brother. I wasn't "criticizing" Markov. I was responding to the idea that we should re-sign him based mainly on his "leadership." No doubt he commands great respect in the room (assuming he ever says anything in it), but I question the idea that his "leadership" is some irreplaceable asset. He is not a guy who is likely to grab a team by its lapels and show them "this is how we win championships." How would he know? This isn't Bob Gainey or Mark Messier or even Jonathan Toews we're talking about. In short, trading or not trading Markov should be a hockey move instead of being rooted in some mystical about his leadership super-powers. Now, if I DID want to criticize Markov, I would point out that his career playoff track record has only been so-so, at least statistically, with PPG totals well below his regular season results. Stats aren't everything, but this is a little more support for the idea that we should be careful not to exaggerate the irreplaceability of his leadership. Markov seems to have become a secular saint in the eyes of some Habs fans. I loved his game in his prime (as anybody would) and still have great respect for him. I'm willing to entertain the idea that his suckitude over the past month and a half is a product of a compressed schedule and pre-Olympic drift rather than terminal decline. But come on. Larry Robinson he ain't.

I heard Ray Ferraro say something interesting on the radio about this, in the context of Chicago's recent struggles. He suggested that players that are going to the Olympics are highly distracted in the lead-up to the games - their minds are elsewhere - and that because the Hawks have so many guys going to the games, they're not playing as well. Well, if that is right, it's highly relevant to ye Habs. We are chock-full of Olympians. And it might go some way to explaining the pathetic team play of late. If Subban is -9 in the last few games, that's probably because he's looking ahead to Sochi. A trap one might expect a young player to fall into, considering that more seasoned players (the Hawks) are doing the same. All the negativity around the Habs might also be tempered by considering the possibility of an "Olympics effect" on a team like ours that is full of Olympians.

If PK is dealt, I'm not sure I will be able to forgive this organization. The return would have to be stupendous.

Ha ha, yeah, we've come down a ways since the O'Reilly rumours, eh?

The only reason for not dressing Diaz at a time when team d is a complete disaster is that they've decided Diaz will be shipped out. But if so, why isn't he being dressed so as to try and elevate his value?? More of this "we're scared he'll get injured" stuff? Best case scenario, this crapping on Diaz is purely Therrien. Because if MB's fingerprints are on it, we really have to wonder about whether our GM is pathologically risk-averse.

habsrule, I sort of agree with you. I disagree to the extent that it is part of North American sports culture that teams and their representatives communicate with fans in a common tongue; Quebec is not different from the mainstream in this. But I would draw a distinction between hiring French-speakers, and hiring people who are willing to learn enough French to be able to communicate meaningfully with the community of which the team is a part. What I find really frustrating is that the whole option of intensive language training has somehow fallen off the table in this hysteria over speaking French. To my mind, a prospective coach or GM who refuses to undertake intensive language training in the offseason, paid for by the organization, is simply an arsehole and not somebody worthy of the Montreal Canadiens' heritage or their fans. So make THAT a condition of hiring - not that the individual ALREADY BE bilingual, which shrinks the talent pool ridiculously. I also think it's more important that the coach be able to speak French than the GM. The former deals with the media day in and day out, the latter only occasionally. But that's a lost cause, of course.

It's neither scary or not scary. Like I always say, judging MB is way premature. This deadline and this summer will tell the tale. And if the current slump continues, then how he deals with it will also be important. Until then, sang-froid in contemplating our GM is the right approach.

Good point, Stogey. It's not just that we're losing - it's that we are not playing in a way that resembles an NHL team in our own zone. It is a horror show. Like I've been saying, that is not normal. We delude ourselves if we accept the analogy with LA and Chicago.

If Bourque is damaged goods due to concussions, then that is a shame. But on a hockey level, I don't give a rat's ass. He is useless and should either be dumped, told to go home or should do the decent (and prudent) thing and hang 'em up. Now, Markov. I agree with sim.on above: it all comes down to salary and term. He is in serious danger of becoming a 5th defenceman who becomes a 2nd defenceman on the PP: a classic "specialist," on a continuum with guys like Marc-Andre Bergeron. The "leadership" argument only goes so far. Lots of other players can provide leadership. Heck, you can always go and sign a guy like Hal Gill, i.e., an unambiguous bottom-pairing veteran defenceman at a reasonable rate, to provide that. And when we're talking leadership, let's remember - it's not like Markov has won Cups or anything. And that gets to another option, i.e., the UFA (or trade) markets. I'd prefer to see the Habs adding a legit #4 defenceman with a less flashy offensive upside, but a much stronger and more reliable all-around game, than Markov seems to be bringing; that'd be a better use of $5 mil IMHO. When you consider the return Markov could generate at the deadline - at least a 1st rounder, probably more - I incline to the view that the organizationally responsible thing to do is move him. (Admittedly, I'm also looking for signs from MB that he has the necessary ruthlessness to make major moves - this would be one example). That said, if we re-sign him on a short-term deal at a reasonable rate, I won't pull out my hair about it.