The Chicoutimi Cucumber

I'm all for it in principle, but let's face facts - he will be overpaid and get too long a term. Hankhab is probably right that we're looking at a Cole-style contract, and 3 years is probably about what he'll get unless some club goes off the deep end (as is apt to happen). It's a situation where the player will bring enormous value to our club this season but diminishing returns thereafter, and could potentially become a millstone in a cap system as the youth matures and grows more expensive. Conversely, if he does become a problem, a 36-year-old Doan is a classic candidate for a deadline day move. Even overpaid and declining, we might be able to ship him out to some hot-to-trot contender next season or the year thereafter. So, tough call. All things considered, though, I think I'd prefer us to take a flyer on cheap short-term deals for guys like Wolski or Mueller - genuine 'patchwork' signings that at least give us the hope of a potentially effective top-6, rather than risk getting bogged down with yet another dubious geezer contract. (This is why I wanted us to pursue Whintey or Jagr - short-term deals for high-quality patchups. Oh well, too late now).

Oh, I'm not panicking yet. But I won't be too thrilled heading into October with exactly this lineup, is all.

Do they really struggle? Not being sarcastic, I just haven't really noticed this as a huge problem. I think both Emelin and PK are strong as bulls and will only improve in this dimension of the game. It's fine to celebrate the many strengths Gill brought to the table, but we shouldn't romanticize his contribution - he was solid in terms of handling the slot, but hardly a brutal crease-clearing monster. It's not all about being a hulk anyway. Markov matured into a defenceman who could handle himself pretty well in his own end. In the 'new NHL,' positioning has as much to do with it as strength and meanness. And finally, if our D has problems down low, then it is up to Therrien to get his forwards to systematically help out. One advantage of actually having an NHL-calibre bottom six is that we will probably be able to do this much more effectively than before. Not saying our D-corps is good - it's not. But its being 'soft' is not the primary issue to my mind. I could be proven wrong, of course.

Don't sell the farm, but why not at least try to make the playoffs? Until I see MB do something to fix the top-6 - the blueline being much harder to address - I'm going to be furrowing my brow, because this group is not a legitimate playoff club as far as I can see. I remain slightly puzzled by out disinterest in Jagr and our apparent apathy about Whitney, let alone longer shots such as Lats. Surely the attitude of management is not just to cross its fingers on this dubious lineup - ?

Well, I'm not a big one for worrying about what the other teams are doing - I hear the same song and dance every year about how we 'haven't done enough to keep up,' etc., but usually there's some clubs that fall back as well as move forward. Despite that, you're right; like I've been saying for a while, we are probably not a playoff team, because our top-6 is too weak and our defence corps too reliant on 'maybes' (maybe Emelin will keep improving, maybe Markov will come back into form and stay healthy, and holy crap let's hope PK misses zero time due to injury). The best hope perhaps lies, not in Gomez suddenly becoming an NHL player again, but in the theory that a much stronger bottom-6 will lead to a strong top-6. Maybe a Pleks who doesn't have to grind it out on the PK will have more in the tank for offensive purposes, for instance. Maybe greater team toughness will give forwards besides Patches and Cole a little more confidence and room out there. Maybe a few extra goals from the bottom lines will lead to a few extra wins over a long season. Add in a healthy Gionta and perhaps - which nobody ever contemplates - continued improvement from Desharnais as well as Eller, along with a renewed and revitalized team dynamic as everyone grabs for a fresh start (e.g., even Bourque wakes up) we might squeak it out. We might. But, again - that's a lot of maybes. Too many. I can live with the defence corps as an experiment, but I strongly feel that Bergevin needs to add a forward with at least the potential to be in the top-6. Just imagine if one of our top-6 FW gets injured. Not a pretty thought.

One thing I will say is that this board sure gets plenty livelier the minute Habs29 goes on a posting frenzy! :lol: Good to have you around, my friend.

True, we don't have a brutal crease-clearer, but Bouillon, Emelin, and Subban can all lay on the body pretty hard. Maybe I'm crazy, but of this top 6 only Kaberle qualifies as bona-fide soft. One out of six does not a soft d-corps make.

I like this configuration inasmuch as - assuming The Cube still plays a physical game despite his short stature - the physicality is pretty evenly spread out, with the Emelin/PK combo as potentially devastating. But as others have noted, too much hinges here on Emelin emerging as a legitimate top-4 guy. There's also not much NHL experience on that second pairing and that could end up biting us on the behind. All of which is to reiterate that we probably do need another top-4 guy...but who that guy might be, I have no idea. It wouldn't surprise me if MB decides to enter the season with this blueline (minus, perhaps, one of the Swiss) and revisits the matter later on down the line.

Aha! Well, while this doesn't mean he wouldn't have come to Montreal, it does suggest that his taking an offer here was far from a slam-dunk. If indeed Daigneault was in high demand - which is perhaps not implausible - then that'd tend to support the 'time sensitive' argument for why the Habs couldn't wait to interview him. And that's the only argument I can stomach. So in a weird way, this is qualified good news...at least in terms of soothing my nerves

Nah, just a coach who cost us the Carolina series and got fired with three years left on his contract.

As for my blaming everything that goes wrong on Therrien, don't be ridiculous. Blame where blame is due. Therrien didn't want Larry Robinson. I blame him for that, because he IS to blame for that. And I call Therrien a mediocrity because that's what his record suggests he is, a mediocrity. Had he hired Larry, I'd have been impressed; his decision not to do so tends to reinforce my suspicion, because it fits the profile. See, you're wrong about how mediocrity works. Mediocre people generally don't want to work with people who are going to show them up, whose superiority may represent a threat to their (fragile) power or their (vulnerable) self-image. This is part of what makes them mediocre people. I see nothing implausible in the proposition that Therrien preferred not to have assistant with a much higher stature and a far superior resume than he himself possesses. He knew it put him at risk of becoming de facto the junior partner in the relationship and lacked the cojones to embrace that challenge. Now, I absolutely agree with you that that's not the way things ought to work. Therrien ought to have said, 'gee, I have a chance to work with this guy who won a Cup as a head coach, is one of the greats of all-time, and has an impeccable record as a highly successful assistant coach - I really should do my due diligence and interview him, he may make our team much better and make me a better coach.' Instead he took the safe, unthreatening road and hired Daigneault, whose subordinate standing is clear-cut from the get-go. Now, JJ has solid credentials and who I have nothing against the guy. But your argument seems to be that Therrien found it obvious that Daigneault was SO superior to Larry Robinson - despite the latter's superb c.v. - that he didn't even need an interview. Unless Daingeault is some kind of secret coaching genius, that's tough to swallow. Now, there's always the possibility that they had to act immediately lest they lose Daingeault, a scenario that I regret but could at least live with; but if, like me, you feel there is good reason to view Therrien as a second-rater, the 'medicority avoiding excellence' scenario unfortunately remains all too plausible. But don't fret. I have no intention of duplicating the JM-haters, who used to blame him for every conceivable thing that went wrong, even in the teeth of pretty strong statistical evidence that the team was mostly well-coached. I've been saying all along that I expect the Therrien-caused meltdown to happen sometime in Year Two or Three, and that the main thing is to escape his immolation without having sacrificed major talent, or the playoffs, to accommodate him. That we've already lost Robinson is regrettable enough.

Weber 2011-12 = 8 PP points Diaz 2011-12 = 4 PP points I agree that stats aren't everything, but in this case I think they're fairly indicative of what these guys bring to the power play. Weber looks like his ceiling is that of a second-wave guy (and a specialist at that). Diaz does not look like PP material at all, really. (Meanwhile, Subban had 14 goals in his rookie season; wow, his shot must really suck). Weber has made a career so far out of these rumours that he has a cannon from the point. I have no doubt that his shot looks great in practice, but the fact is he does not reliably or confidently use it, either on the PP or at other times. Diaz won some modest respect from me as a credible, if soft, puck-mover. I can see him carving out a career as a tolerably useful, 25-point bottom-pairing defenceman who makes his living on the transition - sort of like a defensively feeble version of Gorges. I have a harder time with Weber. His whole entry ticket has been that he can shoot the damned puck. So far, he has not shown a proclivity to do this with any enthusiasm or determination. Of course, Diaz has two years on him, so maybe Weber will be comparable to Diaz in terms of puck movement in a couple of years. The real difference to me is that Diaz siezed his opening with both hands in his rookie year, where Weber is akin to O'Bryne in the specific sense that he has failed to really grab hold of his opportunities and do anything interesting with the chances he has been repeatedly given. I'm not a believer - I get very frustrated with players who seemingly refuse to step up. But like I say, a second-wave specialist seems his likeliest end-point.

Commandant, Larry friggin' Robinson - backbone of four straight Cups, heart and soul and de facto co-coach with Bob Gainey of the 86 miracle run, all-time great Hab in every way, universally respected as both man and hockey pro - deserves the benefit of the doubt. Certainly he deserves it a lot more than Mr. Mediocrity Therrien. And he deserves it a lot more than mercenary Jagr. Big Bird said his property was in chaos in the wake of a hurricane and he could not drop everything to race up to Montreal on the Habs's exact schedule - in effect, asking for a bit of extra time before he could come up to the interview. To my mind, this is not the position of a mercenary; it's the position of someone who is confident that his services will be in demand and can therefore prioritize other life commitments when those are in crisis. And he was right to be confident, because any organization worth a tinker's damn can see the sense in hiring this guy. The ONLY rationale for not giving Larry the extra days he wanted was that they really liked Daigneault and had reason to think they'd lose him if they waited, without being assured that Robinson would take the job. As I said before, the real reason is probably that Therrien simply did not want a vastly more respected man and better coach than him behind the bench. Like any mediocrity, he doesn't want greatness around him. This is a sh*tty move, pure and simple. In order to placate the mediocrity of a coach who will be out on his ass within three years, we've kissed goodbye to any hope of bringing the great Larry Robinson back into the fold, a move that could have yielded benefits to the organization for the remainder of Robinson's career. Absolute, classless, short-sighted garbage.

:wall: :wall: :wall:

I certainly agree we can't trade both. Our D is dubious enough as it is. As for Detroit, we'll see; obviously they'd like to acquire 'complete' defencemen to replace Lidstrom (as if replacing him were possible), but I was suggesting they may find that difficult to do, and therefore they might be willing to settle for a Kaberle or Weber. The assumption that, just because they're Detroit, they're above patchwork strategies strikes me as unduly optimistic. They're in a tough spot, tougher than many teams.

Detroit has to be approaching desperation. Here is a team with a sub-.500 record without Lidstrom. They didn't get Suter. While I'm sure they're playing it cool in the knowledge that they have two months to patch together some sort of alternative D-corps, they are facing the final closing of their window as serious contenders if they don't do something. If I'm Bergeron, I definitely keep the lines of communication open re: Weber and Kaberle, either of which could well be on the Wings' radar.

Hmm, I guess you're right. I think all I'm suggesting is that management clearly doesn't have any particular belief in this veteran core, which tends to make most of them disposable given the right circumstances. What's slightly puzzling in this formulation is the Cole/Markov factor. Presumably, these key guys have no more than 2-3 more seasons of peak performance...yet if they decline just as the youth comes up, are we really going to contend? These unknowable variables are part of the reason I tend to favour a 'retooling' (get good again next season, try to take it up a notch the next year) as opposed to the language of a 'rebuild' (which invokes a time frame closer to 3-4 seasons). Anyway, it's off-season and I'm probably spinning my analytical wheels to excess. I just hope management does want to see a playoff-worthy team next season rather than consoling itself with 'patience.'

This is one of those rare cases where the player is getting paid exactly what he deserves. There's a lot of love around here for Eller...I'm still on the fence about whether he is a rangy version of Jan Bulis. But this deal gives him the necessary time to really start showing what kind of player he can be.

Even in Montreal, there's only so much to jaw about when it comes to a bottom-pairing defenceman on affordable short-term deal.

Here's what Brisebois told Dave Stubbs: “The potential of the Canadiens is very nice,” he said. “The core of the team? Beautiful. Just be patient. Let some contracts run their course. And let these young guys mature." I think this comment has been under-discussed as a glimpse into the mindset of the current management, whose thinking Breezer is reflecting. It suggests that they are looking 2-3 years down the line, first of all, which might explain their seeming disinterest in constructing a competitive top-6 during this UFA festival. (I think we can all agree that the Habs are 2-3 years from contending, best case scenario, but management may be less preoccupied with being seriously competitive this particular season than we are). Secondly, and more pertinently to this thread, when you consider which contracts he has in mind, obvious names like Kaberle and Gomer Pyle come up - but Gio's might be one of them as well. I would not be shocked to find that, if Gallagher makes a big statement in camp, Gio starts to get discreetly shopped. If you approach this as a 'rebuilding' year, you might as well accelerate the process, provided the kids seem ready.

Habs29 is right about the folly of giving scrubs NTCs. Still, let's not forget that Bob was going all in for a Cup in 2009, after the tremendous regular-season success of the previous season. He did absolutely whatever it took to address the holes in the lineup as he saw them - dealing high picks for added scoring via Tanguay, fixing the C position with Robert Lang, and adding what was perceived to be an elite goon with Laraque. Laraque was obviously a complete disaster, but the wider point is that when you make your move to lunge for the Cup, you're not gonna get hung up on finer points. I can't really fault Bob for the moves of that summer, because I've always accepted that when you 'go for it' you're more likely to get burned than to win - but you still have to go for it. The real mistake was in failing to see that 2008 was a mirage, and that the team simply lacked the character and talent of a true contender. I also think that too often people denounce contracts because they hurt the team for, say, one year, overlooking how much the contract helped the team over its entire lifespan. When Cole is on the tail end of his deal, people will be hurling anathemae at him, forgetting that without that extra year on the contract, we never would have signed this tremendous asset in the first place.

http://www.hockeyins...n-passing-grade Interesting bits here. I don't think one can infer from the fact that Therrien has an accurate read on his team's strengths that he will therefore be an excellent coach. What I did find interesting was that the Desharnais line was apparently the 5th most productive 1st line in all of hockey (!). This, to me, confirms two things: 1. We don't really need that big, saviour centreman everyone has been hankering for (it'd be nice, but not a necessity); and 2. We DO really need wingers to play with Pleks. A further bit of good news is that PK Subban measures up rather well, statistically; if we can complement him with a healthy and productive Markov, we should be much better placed for next season. But this analysis tends to confirm what's been gnawing at me, namely, we lack secondary scoring and MB has thus far done absolutely nothing to address that. (Of course, he has the whole summer to fix it, but we can no longer consider the UFA route for this purpose, barring maybe Doan or a longshot like Mueller). Anyway, I thought I'd draw attention to this peculiar article, in case anyone else wants to ruminate on it.

An interesting piece, Ben - perhaps one that suggests possible dance partners for the Habs should we wish to shop Kaberle or Weber. I can see Detroit or Nashville definitely snooping around for Kaberle in particular. We'll see. But I wish we'd added another top-4 defenceman as a prelude to any such move.

I'm no expert, but from what I hear the owners' main concern is that the salary floor is too high. On the last go-round, I predicted from the get-go that we would get a salary cap, and that the trade-off would be greater player mobility. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the UFA age lowered even more as part of the bargain that allows the cap floor to drop. Would this be a crappy outcome for fans? Hard to say. You'd have to lock up the Subbans and Prices that much sooner in their careers, and that carries heightened risk. Then again, if the cap keeps rising it will eventually start squeezing out a lot of good markets as the Torontos and New Yorks and Detroits and Colorados gradually start to play UFA vacuum cleaner again. So I suppose we have to have it out sooner or later. Incidentally, I don't see where GM stupidity crowded us out of the Parise sweepstakes - ? Unless the stupidity in question is Gauthier's, by making us an uncompetitive destination.

If I had Dallas's cap situation, there would not even be a question in my mind: Jagr at 4.5 waaaaay before Kosty at 3. Please. Kostitsyn is an OK 6th forward in terms of on-ice performance. You know what you're getting: 50 games a year where he contributes absolutely nothing on offence, notwithstanding some solid physical play + 20 impressively productive games. What the Nashville escapade does is sharpen the question of whether, despite his apparently formidable raw talent, he's simply not all that great a hockey player; or whether serious character failings help to explain why he is useless as #### on a bull for 2/3 of every season. If it's the latter, it's not clear we should really want him back.