The Chicoutimi Cucumber

I just hope we're not on the wrong cycle to scoop up one of these French-speaking coaches. Vigneault is probably gonna get fired, but will be scooped up by Dallas. Boucher will probably be employed somewhere by the time Therrien gets canned, and assuming another 1.5-2 years for Therrien, Roy will probably not quite have overstayed his welcome in Colorado. Oh well.

All the more reason to acquire a quality stabilizing D-man with a physical element to his game. Bergevin's off-season will be measured primarily by the degree to which he achieves this, in my book.

We're not moving Gallagher. Nor should we. The whole idea is a classic case of looking a gift horse in the mouth, just the type of over-theorizing that armchair GMs love to do. If ANY other team had Gallagher, we'd be demanding to know how come the Habs can't find gems like that in the late rounds and drooling enviously over their great young talent, not sagely declaiming that they should trade those guys for hypothetical upgrades. In Gallagher we have found Brian Gionta Redux...and possibly more than that. The concussion issue is the only reason at all for doubting his future. "If we stand pat we fall behind..." I'm not sure that's true when you have a clutch of young players who may well get better. Indeed, I think there is at least some chance of Markov being better too, now that his knee has a year under its belt (so to speak). Also, as Commandant noted, other teams may be forced to shed talent to get under the cap. That said, there is no question that we need to add a physical, top-6 defensive defenceman. Bergevin cannot escape this requirement, no matter what excuses exist.

Edler is an interesting option, but you're gonna be giving back picks and prospects. More likely, Gillis holds out for MaxPac; failing that he will want Bourque + picks and/or prospects. Also, he hardly addresses the need for toughness on the back end. But patience makes a very interesting point about the benefits of acquiring a top-4 defender.

I agree that our defence corps looks good in 2-3 years. The problem is getting from here to there, and this problem has to be taken seriously, because this team is too good right now to sacrifice to future hopes just because we can't be bothered to address obvious short-term weaknesses. Maybe Tinordi will be ready next season, but defence is harder to play than forward, which makes a rerun of the Gallagher/Gachenyuk success story unlikely. And we would be playing a high-risk game relying on a raw rookie to replace Emelin for the first half. And even if that works, we really need two tough defenders in order to be seriously competitive, as the injury to Emelin showed. I keep asking for people's opinion about Keith Ballard. Hardly a grade-A option, but he seems to me to have been chronically underused and under-valued in Vancouver. Maybe he could be signed affordably as a stop-gap option after his inevitable buy-out. Shane O'Brien might also be a buyout candidate given the mess in Colorado. I know people want heavy duty names capable of logging 20 minutes per night, but these sorts of guys might be more realistic options in terms of a short-term patchup job. Thoughts?

It's not like my youth, when every team in the Adams Division hated our guts: Boston, Quebec, Buffalo, Hartford were all mortal rivalries, plus we had Calgary out west. Nowadays our only authentic blood-feud is with Boston. I concede that TO is a factor but as I've argued before, that is a somewhat artificial, media-sustained rivalry and one that - frankly - I think a lot of Habs players deep down don't really give a rip about. Ottawa is new. I think we just witnessed the birth of a rivalry this spring, but I'd suggest waiting a bit to see whether that really takes flight in future seasons. I'm surprised Carolina isn't more of these lists, though. I hated those teams back when they were gouging out Koivu's eyeballs. I also hate losing to Tampa Bay, because all the French stars on Tampa invariably lead to them being a lot of Quebecers' 'second favourite' team and lots of fawning coverage by the RDS people. But I wouldn't call that a 'rivalry.' So it's Boston with a bullet. Ottawa may or may not solidify as a defining rivalry of the next few years. TO is mostly artificial, BUT I do see both the Habs and Leafs as rising young teams, so the possibility exists for repeated playoff meetings and the transformation of the fake rivalry into something genuinely explosive. We'll see.

Great analysis there. I've been worried about this. Keith Ballard will be probably bought out. Would he be worth taking for a spin, maybe?

We're "shy" until the Habs start winning in the Canuckleheads' barn! Then the whole building resounds with 'GO HABS GO!!!' for the entire night Boy, if I were a Canucks fan, that'd drive me absolutely batty.

I know we're just throwing ideas around. But trading Price now, when his value is artificially deflated by a terrible month, seems the very essence of poor management.

This place has been a godsend to me, living as I do in British Columbia, where the Habs coverage is sparse and I have no fellow fans with which to commiserate. Thanks to everyone for making it a cool place. Now, if only Wamsley would come back...

Funniest. Game 7. Ever.

I know. But we can't assume that he'll be "that guy" right away. We need a transitional player in that role...especially considering that Emelin will miss the first half of next season. I'll be very interested to see how MB cracks this nut.

That's what we need up front. On the blueline, though, we do need a bruiser. I suppose he doesn't have to be monster-sized, but he definitely has to be able to police the crease and keep opponents on their toes. This will be Job 1 in the offseason, methinks.

HA HA HA WAY TO GO T.O.!!!

Oh my Lord, thank the heavens for that!!!

Here's Price. http://www.faceoff.com/sports/hockey/montreal-canadiens/Montreal+Canadiens+goalie+Carey+Price+faces/8374106/story.html Draw your own conclusions, but I wouldn't be panicking about it. He definitely comes off as someone who sees himself as still learning, though.

Amazing post. Thanks. Hopefully Emelin has the right character makeup to both do the necessary work and not let it gnaw at his psyche. As the playoffs revealed, he is a MUCH more important player than we realized. (Say, what is it with us losing key defencemen to catastrophic injury anyway? )

I seem to remember that when Bergevin was hired, they asked what kind of team he wanted to build, and his response was something along the lines of, a Cup-winning team can play every sort of game. That implies a speed game, a defensive chess-match, a goalie duel, and - yes - a physical contest. His comments today about 'balance' can be taken in the same light. I just don't think we're that far away from the desired goal. The Ottawa series saw us minus a 6'2 centre in Eller and our hardest-hitting defenceman, while guys like Patches and Prust were injured shadows of themselves; and this has left an exaggerated impression of our physical vulnerability. But that said, yes, if we can get Clarkson or Horton along with the big, physical defenceman that we absolutely require, then obviously we should pursue them.

Torontohab, your light heart and humility are a breath of fresh air around here

I'm a little surprised he admitted to being a "small team." I don't think that's a true as people think it is...maybe I'm wrong. It's slightly disconcerting that Montreal seems to be getting to Price. Complaining that he can't buy groceries, that he lives like "a hobbit"...a bit worrisome. Still, he signed a 6-year deal, so he can't be TOO dismayed by it all. In terms of the bigger picture, I love what MB said, constantly emphasizing character over size, stressing the draft, rejecting quick fixes, prioritizing building from within and constructing a long-term contender, not just a one-year lunge for the prize. This guy clearly has a vision and the discipline to stand by it.

This has probably been discussed before, but - is Emelin's injury likely to compromise him, or is recovery pretty much 100% these days?

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but in a league where the boss of discipline had his son playing on a team of thugs, nothing would surprise me. I would in no way be shocked to learn that the refs are being asked to skew results in certain directions. Meanwhile, can someone explain to me how it is that the Bruins have failed to stomp the Leafs into dust? And no, I do not think the Leafs are a bad team. But Boston has surprised me; I thought they were stronger than that.

The "size" thing is a hangover from the Cammalleri era, when we really were small (although I notice that we managed to get to the Semi-Finals with a team of supposedly hopelessly overmatched 'smurfs'). It's an outdated cliché and therefore an easy crutch to use when trying to diagnose what ailed us in this playoff. Actually, one could argue that the "small/soft" label goes back much further - all the way to the 1960s. But I won't try to push that argument. As for Clarkson, we would be clinically insane not to try to sign him. Talk about a no-brainer.

Awesome anecdote! It's significant for one thing in particular: that's a real mix of players - veterans, rookies, young guys, French, English, etc.. Past editions of the team seem to have had cliques based on things like age, language, or ethnicity. Add this to Pacioretty's comments about how this management group understands that the locker room is as important as the on-ice dynamics, and it really does appear that MB's plan of building a really tight, cohesive group is working.

That's true. It's a bit of a long shot, however.