The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Ah! Well, that makes a big difference in terms of plausibility. Everyone and his dog could see 4 years was a bit nuts, not that anyone really cared since it's not a cap hit.

I've been thinking Jokinen might be a UFA fit for us for a while...he seems like a useful player, not likely to be off-the-chart expensive, can play different positions and can therefore help out on our weak RW side, is versatile, responsible, can move up and down the lineup, etc.. A solid 20-goal, 40-50 point W. Seems almost prototypical of the roll-three-line approach that's marked the Bergevin era. Then again, he isn't particularly big or physical...sigh. http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/player.php?2439

Well, a lot of fans tend to act like they're the ones spending the money...almost to the point where they think cap space wins Cups. Also, many people seem to feel that if at any point in the life of a contract, a player becomes massively overpaid, then the entire contract has been an unmitigated disaster. So if you sign a guy for five years, and he gives you three elite seasons and a couple of declining ones, it's as if the first three never happened. Look at Hamrlik: on a four year deal, if I remember right, he gave us two really strong, commanding, top-4 defenceman performances, one so-so performance, and one year where he was just running on fumes. But somehow that last season overshadowed the others in everyone's minds and he became a poster child for disastrous contracts. In terms of the overall life of the contract, Hamrlik was a hugely valuable player and fundamentally a good signing. No one remembers that. It wouldn't surprise me if something similar happens with #79. One bad season in Year Three and everyone will run him out of town on a rail as the Worst Contract Ever.

Sounds like a great signing.

You sure don't - I had in mind more the inevitable chorus (or 'drone') of complaining that would go up if we did pay that. Sorry about that. Meanwhile, value is a relative concept. The only UFA D that seems to be in Markov's class is Dan Boyle. Now maybe there's some lower-profile defenceman I'm missing who can log the kind of tough minutes Markov did while delivering comparable offence. But at face value it's slim pickings. That leaves two high-risk options: 1. Relying on a player who could not even crack the roster regularly this season (presumably Beaulieu) to suddenly step in and eat Markov's minutes - not impossible, but pretty wildly unlikely. 2. A very major trade, involving either changes to your core or sending away very valuable picks and significant prospects, - or some combo of core guys and picks/prospects - for an "impact defenceman." I know folks just love to play at fantasy GM. But (2) risks being extremely costly in other areas (especially when everyone knows you're desperate because your team is about to revert to bottom-feeder mode unless you can shore up the massive hole on D). E.g., so long Pleks, or Eller, or Beaulieu or Tinordi or Gallagher, etc.. In an environment in which these are your options, Markov has a LOT of value to the Canadiens, like it or not. Re-sign Markov, at most you lose cap space for three years. Let him walk, you lose cap space AND whatever major assets you have to trade away in order to replace him.

Oops, my bad. Thanks for that, Brian. That just compounds my overall point, though. There is no point in droning on about Markov being "too expensive" if you have no other option for a defender who can eat comparable minutes at least as effectively. D is one of this team's weaker points.

"Just too much," but what's the fall-back position? We cannot go into 2014-15 having subtracted a top-4 defenceman. We already are short at least one. Interesting to speculate whether the Pleks-for-Yandle rumour reflects MB's snooping around for possible alternatives to re-signing #79.

We don't have to re-sign Markov, but if we don't, we'll head into he season now short TWO top-4 defencemen rather than one. You'd better have a Plan B that does not include the names Beaulieu or Tinordi if you're hoping to ice a team that can make the playoffs.

Don't you think Markov could get 3 years for $18 mil on the UFA market? I do. That said, a 2-year term should be possible as a version of the "hometown discount." He has always liked Montreal and beyond a shadow of a doubt wants to stay here. Structuring part of that salary as bonuses probably makes sense too, but again - he could likely avoid that on the open market.

Given the heat around Parenteau-to-Montreal rumours last spring, I would not at all be surprised to see him in Habs' jersey this September. Kane is a much longer shot because he would require a very significant restructuring of the core.

This recurring theme that our coaches in Hamilton are terrible is very ominous. Player development is a fundamental underpinning of franchise success. If the guys on the farm are not doing the job, MB should not hesitate to firebomb them and bring in people who can ensure our success.

Classic "Habs29" post! I'm not as cranky about it all as you - e.g., I think the idea behind letting Koivu go was a fresh start for the entire organization, including, very significantly, in the image we projected to UFAs. The Habs had the image of a loser and I remember reading a couple of UFAs commenting that the Gomez deal showed the Habs were finally "getting serious." I know it's insane, but I really think that was how the move was taken. And in fairness, the trade would remain significantly less cataclysmic (though still bad) if Gomez had simply remained a 60-point playmaking whiz and puck-rusher par excellence instead of completely disintegrating as an NHL-calibre player. His disintegration was an X-factor I don't think anyone could have reasonably expected, given that he was still relatively young. As for Kovalev, Gainey's logic was probably that a player with that kind of elite-level talent was almost impossible to acquire, so it was ultimately better to have him on your roster as a "project." You're right, though, that given how crucial Gionta turned out to be in changing the team culture, passing Gio over for Kovalev probably would have mucked up any hope of getting the right leadership core. And all that aside, you're absolutely correct on the broad point that player development (not drafting!!) was absolutely disastrous in the Gainey era. It's as though this prototypically old-school hockey man simply could not adapt to what was involved in developing "Generation Y" hockey players. Unlike yourself, I think it's too soon to condemn Gainey's successor regimes on this score. Yes, I share a certain unease about Therrien on this front. But still, Pacioretty, Price, Gallagher, and Subban have developed very nicely, thank you. The same appears to be true of Galchenyuk and Bournival. Young players are not simply "blank slates" that a quality organization can turn into gold overnight. Maybe Leblanc was messed up by the Habs; or maybe he just isn't all that great, y'know? Maybe Tinordi and Beaulieu could have been worked into the lineup this season...or maybe they just sucked ass and were not ready. Time will tell. If at some point Galy, Gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi, Patches, Eller, etc., are all operating as strong NHLers you're just going to have to concede that the Habs did a decent job of handling their young talent!

If Anaheim likes him as a regular roster player, they're not going to restrict him to 14 games just to save a 5th round pick. And if they don't like him enough to dress him for 15 games, then he is worthless anyway.

Boy, Flyers fans must be absolutely sh**ting themselves They traded two guys right at the classic age (26) where players often take a jump in maturity level, and now their former core are two-time Cup champs. The real lesson is, as you imply, not assuming that an immature player's character is permanently formed when they're in their early 20s. That's the error we made with Ribs and to a lesser extent Grabovski, giving those guys away for the equivalent of a wet fart. But you probably also need a critical mass of internal leadership in order to enable those players to become mature pros. It's far from clear that Gainey Rebuild 1.0 had that; Kovalev was a huge presence on that team, and that tells you something about the state of its veteran leadership. Think about it...from The Three Amigos to a critical mass of punks and head-cases like Komisarek, Higgins, the Kostitsyns, Kovalev, etc., the leaders were hugely outnumbered by the jerks and immature pukes for years and years in Montreal. It must have been lonely (or frustrating) being a Koivu or a Gorges in that room. I think Bob only realized the extent of the culture problem when he took over behind the bench in 2009. His response was one of the most dramatic GMing acts in NHL history: blowing up of the entire roster and rebuilding it with UFAs. It brought mixed results - if only he hadn't dealt McDonagh in the process! - but was probably necessary under the circumstances.

Actually, with Spezza, Kesler, and possibly Marleau or Thornton on the market, now seems like an absolutely awful time to be shopping Pleks around. And even if there were a bidding war, I still wouldn't move him unless the return was just too good to pass up. He is absolutely critical to this team. Betting the franchise on Eller...hoo boy, that is one desperate Hail Mary managerial play.

DON, I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing with you. I wouldn't trade skill and intensity for size either. But having three of the smallest players in all of hockey on your first three lines is not an optimal scenario. MB knows that, and no, he is not drafting ONLY for size - but he does value size, as does any other hockey person in existence. As for McCarron, the kid is a project. Hopefully he can end up wreaking havoc somewhere in the bottom six someday, because I sure wouldn't mind have a behemoth like that somewhere in the forward rotation!

MB re-ups The Genius as everyone except a few cranks knew he would, because everyone except a few cranks can see that he has - contrary to all rational expectation - done a strong job. Four years is stupid; if The Genius lasts that long I will go catatonic with shock. But hey, it's Molson's money, not mine, so whoop-de-doo.

Really too bad about this kid. I never thought he'd be a star, but in his stint with us he struck me as an intelligent hockey player who could mature into a "glue guy" third or maybe second-liner. Never happened, obviously. I don't fault the Habs for drafting him. As I recall he was by general consensus a legitimate pick. The draft is an inexact science, what're ya gonna do.

We do need to get bigger up front. That said, DON is right to resist the "moar bigger" mentality that makes a fetish out of size. Ultimately, it's not just about getting bigger; it's about getting bigger while remaining just as fast, or faster, and just as skilled, or more skilled. That is extremely difficult to do in the short term (MB is clearly drafting with size partially in mind, as he should). The obvious short-term thing to do is replace Gionta with a comparably effective RW who is bigger. Three smurfs in the top three lines is excessive, but surely you can carry two. That said, it would be crazy to blow up the team identity as a fast-skating, three-line, gutsy team in a quest to get comprehensively Moar Bigger. I don't think we lost to the Rags because we were too small up front. We lost to the Rags mainly because they were too fast for our D.

The Kings are a great example of a team built for the playoffs rather than the regular season. They've got a number of players who maybe can't be relied upon the deliver in a big way over 82 games, but who have the savvy and talent to crank it up over four hard-fought series. (Remember when people around here wanted no part of Jeff Carter? ) They also seem representative of a quiet shift in hockey culture over the last few seasons - a culture of coming back from deficits (whether within games, or within playoff series) that seemed insurmountable to earlier generations. How many times this playoff did we see come-from-behind wins in the playoffs? And we've had two teams come back from 0-3 playoff deficits in the past few years. Something's afoot, I tells ya.

I think this is only true if we make a fetish out of Big Hulking #1 C. Otherwise, we have internal options a-plenty. Galchenyuk, presumably, projects to be a legitimate #1 C. Eller is a tough call, but it's surely not ridiculous to think he might make a pretty good all-around 2nd or 3rd C. Both are quite young. DD is a serviceable option on an offensive line, as long as he is well-surrounded. And that's not even to mention Pleks. Therefore, centre does not seem to be an area for which we should be sacrificing assets in order to improve.

First of all, it's blazingly obvious we need to get better. We didn't win. That's not a news-flash. I also agree that our D was a problem against the Rags. We need another mobile top-4 guy back there. Organizationally speaking, though, we have the assets in the system that can provide this (Beaulieu is projected to become a mobile top-4 defenceman, and Tinordi's ceiling may be as high as a #4, who knows). So it depends on how patient we're prepared to be. "Getting better" can also occur from within as existing players improve. MaxPac, PK, Gallagher, Eller, and even Bournival and Galchenyuk all learned a ton this playoff about what it takes to go from being good to being champions. I think it's important not to confuse the absence of massive roster changes with a failure to improve. With a young core, it is quite reasonable to expect improvement from the same players. All that said, we do need to add players on the W. The D remains, as I say, a question of patience.

I'll be shocked if they trade Plekanec. Yandle, however, is just what the doctor ordered for the blueline and would be a phenomenal acquisition. Weaver: quality veteran. Bring him back, force Tinordi or Beaulieu to earn spots. Besides, you need depth in case of injury. That'd be a good decision.

Gotta be careful. MB said this team is "still maturing." I'm not an expert on our prospects, but the fact that we have no W close to ready in the system - and that Colberg is gone and Bozon's future clouded - suggests that we probably shouldn't be dealing away high picks for guys who will be 33 come January. Eller, meanwhile, is presumably the guy we can sooner or later deploy as a cheaper replacement for an aging Pleks. The idea of dealing away key youth and prospects for Sharp makes me nervous. But maybe I'm suffering from an excess of caution.

If Gio wants $5 mil we should send him packing. And note you can sign and then trade him later, ya know (a NTC is also a demand that Zoot Suit should laughingly reject). Meanwhile, I wouldn't touch Hemsky with a 20-foot hockey stick, Callahan won't sign for that, Kumelin is an interesting "project" player, Setguchi likewise - both are statistically quite a bit worse than Gionta - and Vrbata or Iggy would be a excellent acquisitions. Jussi Jokinen is officially a LW but can play the right side, he'd be another good pick-up. Like I say: if we can upgrade Gio, then I'm all for it. Heck, KoRP's point that Bournival qualifies as an internal replacement is worth considering as well. In fact that's probably the "move Gio" argument I'm most sympathetic towards, one I'd sort of lost sight of in all this. What I'm NOT in favour of is letting guys go without adequate replacements, and I'm definitely not in favour of letting guys go if doing so means you have to then trade some core piece in order to make up for that (!), which is simply a bizarre fantasy-league way of thinking. I also don't buy this "old guard" stuff, which is more about fans feeling a certain way about the team than anything that actually goes on on the ice. Everybody knows the real drivers of this bus are Subban, Price and to a lesser extent Patches. It doesn't follow that we need a Stalinist purge of all veterans on the club. But like I say, Gio or no Gio, it's all the same to me, provided we have quality RW in September.