The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Interesting analysis here: http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2012/6/10/3076762/player-usage-chart-for-michel-therriens-2007-2008-penguins The short of it is that Therrien is actually quite good at bench management and actually horrendous at overall systems, given that his Pens got routinely outshot and were dominated in puck possession. The analysis suggests that Therrien is the very definition of coaching mediocrity. Not out-and-out incompetent, just not very good. Barring a significant improvement in Therrien's acumen, it sounds like we should get ready for a reprise of the Habs circa 2010, where we got outshot and out-possessed continually. Fun times ahead.

Well said. Also, there's a certain precedent here. Jacques Laperriere was a fine second-tier defenceman who was chosen to be the Montreal Forum's requisite scapegoat, booed on the ice with some frequency. He went on to be an outstanding defensive coach. Brisebois is obviously not the player Laperriere was, but I like the analogy.

That'd be perfect.

Radulov has high-end talent and his misbehaviour could be attributed to inexperience in the NHL (which, I assume, has a wildly different culture than the KHL). I understand Nashville cutting him loose, but he will likely be heard from again, and some team that needs offensive help might be well-advised to take a chance on the kid. Kostitsyn has no excuse, and I take his behaviour to be indicative of what we suspected all along, namely, that he doesn't really give a sh*t and is basically a bum who glides by - barely - on his formidable physical gifts.

You're right that smart fans cheer for the sweater, not the individual, in an era of high player mobility. And there is always a hypothetical scenario whereby, say, the Islanders agree to trade (say) Tavares for Subban, in which case Subban becomes tradable. In that highly abstract sense nobody is truly untouchable. What most of us recognize, however, is that elite franchises do NOT trade away superb young players like Price, Subban, or Patches, who are key parts of a high-end core for years to come. And the idea that these guys will decamp the minute they become UFAs is just overblown pessimism - a hangover from the days when the Habs were bottom-feeding suction eels. Any good franchise would lock these guys up long-term sooner or later rather than engage in idle speculation about wildly unlikely hypothetical fantasy trades. It's in that more realistic sense that they are 'untouchable.' I wouldn't include Cole or Eller in this category. Cole is a terrific addition to our core, but he's not getting any younger, and I could see where shipping him at the deadline of a losing season could make sense. I am still not sold on Eller, who in my view could become anything from a quality 70-point C to a quality third-line C to a KHLer within the next few seasons. He is not in the same category as the Big Three and it's overly optimistic to classify him as 'untouchable' IMHO.

Ha ha, well, I'm certainly not saying DON'T hire francophone quebecers. If you look at Tremblay's credentials objectively and forget about his baggage, you see that he has to be rated a serious candidate as assistant coach. This is unlike the Donald Audette scenario or even the Therrien hiring (given my view of Therrien as an egregious and proven mediocrity).

People miss the forest for the trees. Gomez is a bona-fide, massive problem. Kaberle is a useful player, just somewhat one-dimensional. Every team has a couple of guys like Kaberle (look at NJ with Zidlicky), but NO decent team has a $7-million dead weight like Gomez.

Robinson is not part of the incestuous Quebecois/RDS dasiy chain, so don't bet on seeing him hired any time soon. Brisebois: I'm one of the few who always respected him as a player. He is a true example of someone who experienced the best and worst of Montreal and he carved out a damned nice career for himself as a useful NHL defender. I think he probably would be a worthy addition to the organization in some capacity - but it depends on which capacity. Throwing him in there as assistant coach would only make sense if he is surrounded by seasoned pros to help him out. I'd prefer he learn the trade in Hamilton, or maybe do some scouting or something. I think Mario Tremblay should be considered well-qualified based on his years studying at Jacques Lemaire's knee. He is no longer the buffoon who contributed so dramatically to destroying the Montreal Canadiens as an elite franchise. I know the optics of hiring him look really terrible, but it would be inconsistent with my insistence on merit and qualifications not to take him seriously as a highly qualified assistant coaching candidate. Now excuse me as I duck the various flying objects being hurled my way by others on this board

Yes, despite his ludicrous Nashivlle escapades, AK will still likely score a big payday from some dumbass GM. Not worth it. As for Tom the Bomb, how old is he? I worry about guys like that breaking down after a certain point in their careers. I will say that we never should have let him go in the first place, though - a move that reflected an erroneous assumption that bottom-line forwards are simply interchangeable parts in a cap system. Look at the Devils and tell me the bottom-6 is not key. You find a guy like Tom the Bomb, you keep him around. But it may be spilled milk at this point.

I have nothing against Audette, but if he's hired, you really have to wonder whether the Habs are running a merit-based operation or a connections-based les boys network.

100%. People forget that, for all his immaturity when he played here, he was still a valuable contributor as a third-liner. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't get him back as long as his salary demands make sense. This could be a chance to acquire a player as he enters his 'mature' phase rather than feed such players to others. He's big, he's strong, he's got some offensive upside, and he also helps to abate the demands of the slavering French media while promising a modest enhancement to the team. Go for it.

OK, OK, just to be clear, I was being somewhat sardonic. What we appear to be seeing from the new regime, however, is a more 'fan friendly' mentality. I'm all for this in terms of reasonably open lines of communication and an end to the imperious constipation of the previous leadership. In Montreal, however, being 'fan friendly' tends to mean being part of the small, incestuous and self-perpetuating world of quebecois/francophone hockey circles (which includes the media). Again, there's nothing terrible about that in principle either, except that working within those circles means by definition not hiring the best available candidates unless they happen to be part of the circle; and also these particular networks tend to prioritize the wrong thing, like language or - as Raymond Bertrand said - the right bloodlines. In Montreal, being fan friendly all too often means reproducing the ignorant truisms of the media and fans - as with the total b.s. about the Habs not drafting enough French Quebecers. The last such regime was Houle's. I have no doubt Bergevin will not sink to that level. But make no mistake, such an organizational attitude is incompatible with long-term success. Anyway, it's still too early to reach definitive conclusions. The Therrien hiring is a gigantic red flag to me, but that's all it is - not yet a proven mistake.

The early results suggest that they DO have a very significant say in how this team is run. It's too soon to be sure, but the Therrien thing definitely raises a red flag that we're on the cusp of a return to the grand old days of RDS running the show, which were roughly from 1996-2003. Awesome!!!

Someone should crunch the numbers on the correlation between the number of francophones in management and on the roster, and playoff success. That is probably far more relevant to the dolts in this city.

The main thing is that the assistant coaches be part of the same incestuous old-boys' club of RDS-based quebecois mediocrities. That is obviously the top priority round these parts.

He's the coach for now and we all have to cross our fingers that he has learned how to do it. Because reading this is disheartening: http://nhl-red-light...ime-be-a-charm/ Scares away UFAs - check. Specializes in boring defensive systems - check. Considered a suspect bench manager - check. (This is the tactical mastermind who put a winger out to take a critical faceoff on a play that cost us the series in 2004, after drawing a bench minor and throat-slashing an opposition player. Awesome). Alienates elite players on his roster - check. Spent hours on RDS attacking PK Subban - check. On the plus side, two good seasons with a world-class, developing roster in Pittsburgh, a team that got so disgusted with his antics that the organization felt compelled to throw him out in the street in the first season after re-signing him to a 4-year deal. What we appear to have here is a more abrasive version of Jacques Martin. But hey, he's better with the media, so obviously that makes him the best choice. Welcome to Montreal, where merit is never an issue. Anyway, I predict one good, fruitful season - the players will be highly motivated and malleable after last year's debacle - and everyone will praise the wisdom of hiring French Canadians to run the show. This will be followed by the usual semi-annual Habs' meltdown with a full player revolt somewhere on the horizon. We just have to hope this bozo doesn't drive Subban or other great young players out of town before he finally ends up on the trash heap for which he is almost certainly destined.

Well, the decision being made, we all have to just hope that Therrien learned a lot from his previous two debacles in Montreal and Pittsburgh - where, incidentally, he failed despite having what many would rate as a 'stacked' roster. I do not rule out the possibility of his being older and wiser. That being said, I am deeply skeptical. I will never understand what kind of magical spell this mediocrity wields over NHL GMs that he keeps getting hired, whereas a truly quality coach like Vigneault had to toil in obscurity for years before getting a second NHL opportunity. Therrien was a partial cause of our losing that series against Carolina in 2004 and managed to get himself fired in Pittsburgh despite a roster that makes ours look like a pile of puke. Every indication to me is that he was hired because he's pals with Bergevin and French Canadian rather than because he was the best candidate. Personally, I expect this move to end up costing us sooner or later; which is really too bad, because we've lost enough seasons/talent to chaos and poor managerial choices. I wanted excellence all the way around this time, not third-rate rejects. Oh well. Prove me wrong, Michel.

Shame on that flatulent old pustule. This has always been the unspoken subtext behind the 'bilingual coach' issue - are we talking bilingualism, or are we talking full-fledged blood membership in la nation québécoise as defined by Jacques Parizeau? Racists like this should be bloody well sent packing.

The greatest defencemen of all time are always listed as follows: 1. Orr 2. Harvey Just below that is where the debates really kick in. Potvin, Lidstrom, Bourque seem to be the big three perpetually bubbling under Harvey's name. I wouldn't necessarily dismiss Larry Robinson, Borje Salming, or Scott Niedermeyer from consideration in these regions either, but they're probably a cut under those three.

It's an interesting question, how much of a difference coaches make. You look at a Sutter and what he's achieved in LA, you see the argument that coaching is key. But this is something of a rarity. If I had to analyze it, I'd say: 1. Most NHL-calibre coaches are basically interchangeable. They all preach sound systems, they are all adroit at the technical aspects of the game, they usually favour proven veterans in the pinch, they usually 'overcoach' in the sense of trying to micro-manage their talent and lines. They usually are respected by a good chunk of the room and disliked by some other portion of it. In other words, they're competent professionals who put the team in a position to succeed but don't necessarily manufacture victories with their brilliance. 2. Sometimes, a new coach is just what the doctor ordered and the team explodes. This doesn't mean that the new coach is intrinsically superior to other coaches out there - just that he is bringing a new message or a new style that the players were hungry for. This happened here when Demers replaced Burns. The whole team was tired of Burns and galvanized by his polar opposite, the affable, hyper-positive Demers. (A couple of years later, Demers was on the street, proving that he was really 'just another' good coach, albeit one in the right situation, rather than someone extraordinary). LA is probably benefitting from this effect right now. We missed a chance to enjoy this effect when we fired Martin and replaced him with a guy who refused to change the system. 3. There are a handful of elite coaches who are arguably at another level from (1) above. Dan Byslma, Joel Quennville, Jacques Lemaire come to mind as guys who seem not just to deliver solid results, but - at least periodically - to elevate their teams to another level. These guys are rare and none appear to be available at the moment. It's a fine line between (1) and (3), though; e.g., Hitchcock and Torterella may or may not deserve inclusion in this august group, and what do we do with guys like Ruff and Trotts, who benefit as much from low expectations and supportive ownership as from their own excellence? 4. There are bad coaches as well. Michel Therrien was more of a problem than an asset in both Pittsburgh and Montreal. Mario Tremblay was utterly unqualified and his team caved in under the pressure of his ego. Jean Perron lost the team and we basically won in 1986 on the internal leadership of Larry Robinson and Bob Gainey (truly a testament to those giants among men). Trent Yawney was a disaster in Chicago. I've never been convicned Bruce Boudreau is more than a clown. Then there's the hard-to-classify scenario of a coach who may be quite good, but tends to cost the team assets in his quest to prove a point. We saw Carbo basically drive Perezhogin out of the league by bizarrely insisting that he be a third-line checker, and Martin expelling Lapierre, Lats and Sergei Kostitsyn because he wanted to change the culture. This sort of thing - trading talent for a coach - is what I worry about every time there's a coaching change. In any case. the main thing is to avoid (4). If we pick someone like Crawford, we are safely in the territory of category (1), and that's fine with me.

Well, few of us thought Hartley was a great choice to start with. So it can only be neurosis that suddenly makes us freak out now that he's off the market. I'll admit that, once I dug into his record a little more, I came around to the idea that he'd do a good job. Still, I don"t think we missed out on some coaching mastermind. What the Hartley hiring does show is the need for a certain speed in making this decision. I like hankhab's point about media spin. If the Habs had hired Hartley, the same commentators would no doubt be incidentally positive, but the main focus would be on his frenchness, creating the implicit message that the Habs are second-rate because they have the wrong priorities. (This type of thing, which I see all the time, reflects, I'd argue, much deeper English-Canadian contempt for Quebecois concerns about language and culture - but that's a whole other story). Assuming that obvious choices like Lemaire or Robinson aren't interested, it's pretty clear to me that Mark Crawford is the only remaining known commodity out there who has the qualifications and the chops to do right by us. Therrien is a dolt, Carbo is a retread who did a debatable job the first time, Martin's return would likely demoralize the players and re-ignite resentments from last season, Roy is rumoured to want more control than a position as coach would give him...and the rest seem to be junior/AHL coaches without the seasoned profile we tend to want. I wonder if Bergevin has the inside track on somebody in the Chicago system, or some out-of-left field candidate nobody's mentioning? Maybe he wants someone in the Jersey or LA systems? Etc. Just spitballing. But really, it might be time to scan the lists of French-speaking AHL coaches. If we don't get Crawford, then that seems the most likely pipeline for our new coach.

+10000 Therrien is a clown.

You could be right about the two organizations...it is true that quick turnarounds are easier nowadays via the UFA markets, and I also think that adding the much-maligned Cammalleri (for next to nothing) helps them in pure hockey, if not contractual terms.I suppose I just think we've got more high-end young talent to build around, where Calgary seems to be trapped in 'bubble' purgatory with an aging core and no obvious next wave. Time'll tell.

I wonder if Bergevin was euchred by Calgary, or if Hartley was never his preference to begin with? I gather Hartley has a prior relationship with Feaster, but on the other hand, I think the future in Montreal looks rather brighter than in Calgary, and if I'd been Hartley I'd have preferred to take the Montreal gig. In any case, this seems to tilt us either toward my preferred scenario (Crawford) or my least-preferred scenario (Therrien). It's boom or bust I guess...unless Bergie has a third option up his sleeve.

Yes, at this point Bergevin doesn't have any pressure. Everyone is so relieved that the Goat is gone and that Bergevin is so personable, he's on his honeymoon with fans and media. Expectations are moderate, not extreme, for an immediate turn-around. He has no particular reason to take a desperate swing for the fences at this point. I'd expect him to play it cool for a bit as he focuses on the draft and on sorting out our internal operations.