The Chicoutimi Cucumber

I think we pretty much established that the whole 'Montreal needs more Quebec players' argument was complete bunk when we asked for specific instances of 'star' Quebecers that Timmis has been in a position to draft but passed over in favour of inferior players - and the ONLY example anyone could come up with was Giroulx. It's not even an argument, because arguments require evidence. It's just lazy, irresponsible, ignorant nationalist hokum. Not worth listening to. On the other question, I'm with Machine. I don't give a crap who we beat as long as we win. Hell, Steve Shutt always maintained that the NHL in the 1970s was very weak and that that cleared the path for the Habs' dynasty. I don't see anybody complaining. For that matter, in 1993 we drew the Islanders rather than the Lemieux-Jagr Penguins in the Semi-Finals. When the Isles knocked off the Pens, nobody was going, 'aw darn it, I really wanted the Habs to play against Mario Lemieux's Cup champion Penguins in the playoffs!' No, we were dancing in the streets because we knew this was our best matchup. Again, I have no problem with someone saying entertainment first, winning second. But my preferred form of entertainment IS to see the Habs winning, full stop.

Right, and that's why I oppose the added complication of the Nordiques. You're right, though, it's probably inevitable. On an unrelated and pie-in-the-sky note, it really would make more sense to award the Stanley Cup to the regular season winner - especially now that, with parity, winning the playoffs is more and more a crapshoot. That would eliminate the bizarreness whereby the super-successful Canucks are 'failures' while the hot-for-six-weeks LA Kings are not, and the consequently peculiar attitudes you correctly identify here. Just a crazy thought.

Ha ha, well, for all my pessimism about a Quebec team, I'll admit that it would be a lot of fun to see them get a team and then watch it stink out the joint through sheer ineptitude. Even sweeter would be to see them go out of their way to pander to nativist irrationalism by acquiring a Lecavalier-type who will proceed to sink the franchise with his contract If we must have a Quebec team, this at least a consoling scenario.

There's still a faint, frail reed of hope regarding Vigneault: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Gillis+Vigneault+going+through+process/6640703/story.html I wouldn't make too much of this, though.

It's an honest difference. What it comes down to for me is that - as with the debate over coaching styles - I will always prioritize the Habs winning over sheer entertainment value. (Another way to put this is, I find 'boringly' winning more entertaining than excitingly losing). The Nordiques will just be one more factor making it harder for the Habs to win, and making it even more painful when they lose. So I want nothing to do with it.

I'll agree with that, that's for sure. Habs29 is correct, as is often the case, here; it's not that Ribs should have been some untradeable hero, but he should not have been dumped for the irrelevant reason that he's a 'douche,' and we should only have moved him out if doing so brought back comparable or superior assets. Unfortunately, when you're scrambling to 'dump' a guy because of some incident, you are not likely to maximize the return. The whole midset is moralistic garbage to my way of thinking.

I guess I have a problem with rivalries where the Habs have nothing to win. We beat the Nordiques, great - one of about a billion rivals we have to beat. They beat us, well, it's everything their city lives for. There's too much asymmetry in the relationship. It's like the Leafs. A lot of people wanted the Leafs-Habs Final in 1993. I didn't. My view was, if we win, we still have to hear about 1967 every five minutes; if we lose, we have to hear about 1993 for the rest of our lives. We had nothing to gain and a ton to lose in that situation. Same here. All the Habs get is another mega-rival that lives and dies to beat the Habs, with all that that entails - including viciously dangerous playoff games (Pierre Mondu, anyone?), teams so exhausted from 'the Battle of Quebec' that they have nothing left for further playoff rounds, ridiculous ad wars between breweries raising increased incentive for ownership interference in the name of winning PR battles, ludicrous competition over which team is 'more representative of Quebec,' etc., etc.. You may think the idea of Roy coaching or GMing the Nordiques will make for great fun. Tell me how fun it is if he manages to beat us. Imagine the circus of the Nords acquiring a Mike Ribeiro and then watching him kill us in some high-powered playoff game. Imagine if they have a Claude Giroulx, what that would do to the Habs's market position. I can really do without the whole frigging mess.

I don't give a damn whether a player is 'classy.' I care about whether they help the team win hockey games. Period. And I think Ribeiro's 0.91 points per game since 07-08 would have helped us win hockey games (Pleks is significantly lower at .71, incidentally, although I agree that he is a better all around player). I find it bizarre that fans of a team that has had a crippling problem at the C position for the past decade cheerfully regard us as better off without a .91 PPG player at C. This same philosophy that 'problem' players must immediately be shipped out regardless of return also led the organization to dump Carbo and superstar Chris Chelios (!!!!). The policy is clearly folly once you add up the bodies on the floor: Chelios for Savard; Carbo for nothing; Sergei Kostitsyn for nothing; Grabs for nothing; Ribeiro for nothing. And there's probably others I'm forgetting. As for Ribs, it may well be that he was at war with Koivu, in which case I suppose Habs29 is right and he had to go...but when you consider that Koivu also apparently hated Grabovski, it raises a different set of problems. Accomodating Koivu's distaste for young, talented but immature C consequently cost us the two best centremen (after Pleks) that the organization developed over Gainey's entire tenure. Finally, don't forget that, if we keep Ribeiro and he emerges as he did in Dallas, then in principle we don't need to make the trade for Gomez, with all that that has wrought. Our ongoing headaches at C are, frankly, fitting. They are an appropriate and merited consequence of an irresponsible policy of jettisoning young players the minute they show immature or 'classless' behaviour. The stupidity of the policy becomes cataclysmic when coupled with the Habs' ridiculous refusal to assign someone full-time to the job of overseeing player development. Not only do we hold kids to some saintly standard, but we fail to provide them with mentorship. It's folly upon folly upon folly. And it's cost us big. Hopefully Bergevin shows a greater awareness of the need to help turn 23 year olds into responsible pros, rather than jettison them when they make mistakes.

No, no, it will work in just the opposite direction. The 'which team is more French' game risks becoming a constant and major subplot between the two clubs. Why do you think we drafted Alfie Turcotte?

That 'douche' has had rather massively superior on-ice production to any Habs's centreman over the past decade. Who cares what he's like in clubs? He never should have been dealt and fans should stop kidding themselves that his moral failings somehow make us better off without him. That deal crippled us at C and continues to do so to this day. There's no silver lining in a mistake that disastrous.

1. Souray: if cheap and no more than two years, then yes. He's a different skill set from Gill, though. But a great bit of insurance for the PP. I'd rate that a strong pickup if the contract makes sense. I doubt it will, and if it doesn't I don't think we want another dubious contract on the blueline; people are worked up enough about Kaberle. 2. I'm sure Buttman would prefer a new franchise, but are there local investors? To my limited understand the discussion around Quebec has generally assumed relocation. Since Phoenix is seemingly out of the running, a new QC team may not be imminent. Personally I hope it never happens.

Crawford. And Lemaire, of course.

I thought Staubitz was a really nice addition as a role-player and I'm slightly surprised he didn't win more support around here. Commandant's list is interesting, but I don't see Stuabitz and Moen as interchangeable at all (Moen is a better player and a worse fighter). Prust, Gaustad and Asham would all be good too - but will they be as cheap? I dunno, I just liked what I saw of Staubitz. Sign him cheap and move on.

Well, I wouldn't make 'NHL readiness' part of my drafting calculus anyway, unless the players are all of comparable potential. No way would I trade off future potential for immediate help. It's an interesting question on its own terms, though.

Bah.

Ribs...Lats. Those are the two that come to mind. Do these constitute 'good careers with the Habs?' Hmmm.

I like Stastny and all, but is he actually better than Pleks? 57 and 53 points in his last two seasons. Granted, he had a number of PPG seasons earlier in his career...but is there an explanation for this drop-off and any hard reason to believe Montreal would fix it? Pleks, meanwhile, was basically a one-man line all season and still got as many points as Stastny. Personally, I'm in no rush to get rid of what seems to be a hard working C with good skills and character, and I'd want some assurance that his replacement is a significant and genuine upgrade.

Well, I certainly have no problem with scouting the Q properly, nor with preferring hometown boys like Darche over comparable non-locals. But when it comes to the Habs's drafting record in Quebec, the fact that nobody can come up with anything other than Giroulx and Perron just goes to show how ridiculous the whole thing is. Especially when you consider that we took Pacioretty ahead of Perron in Round One - at worst a saw-off, since nobody would now argue for trading Patches for Perron. So really, the only clear recent instance of the Habs blowing a francophone pick is Giroulx. (Gagne is a lifetime ago in hockey terms and irrelevant to the current generation). It's just more proof that well-paid 'professional' commentators can't be bothered to actually look into the facts of an issue before spewing off about it and catering to ignorant fan prejudice. Yes, missing superstar Giroulx was a tragic mistake. But you don't eviscerate a scouting staff for one mistake, nor draw sweeping general conclusions from it. The logic of those who condemn the Habs for missing Quebec talent ultimately demands that that the Habs MUST draft every single quality francophone player lest they miss one. But there are 29 other teams drafting in each round. Unless the Habs disregard player ranking and automatically draft any available francophone regardless of quality, the odds are heavily against them running the table on Quebecois talent in any given draft. There will always be francophones who thus escape the Habs's net. So the idea that there is something wrong with the Habs' drafting in Quebec is based on the premise that we are an affirmative-action program for French players irrespective of their mediocrity. I'm so tired of the amount of nonsense that gets sprayed about on these sorts of issues. It's almost a case study in mass and media ignorance.

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment; but other than Giroulx, who exactly are the 'star' Quebecers that Timmis has been in a position to draft, but passed over in favour of inferior players? Just asking. Because Giroulx is the only one I hear about - albeit ad nauseum.

OK. Here's the Official Cucumber Coaching Dream Team: Head coach: Jacques Lemaire Assistant: Larry Robinson Assistant: Guy Carbonneau Bring on the Cups!!!

No question.

There's no question that Koivu's teams had character issues. Look at the ridiculous number of problem cases that defined the Gainey Rebuild 1.0. But whether this was Koivu's fault, or made him a 'weak leader off the ice,' is really impossible to say. Teams always need a leadership core that goes well beyond any single player. Considering that the other big leader on Rebuild 1.0 was Kovalev (!) - a whiny head case par excellence - I'm not sure it's fair to draw ANY inferences about Koivu's leadership from the poor overall results. Anaheim's GM singled out his 'leadership on and off the ice' in justifying his pay raise. My only real question about Koivu as a leader is that he appears to have clashed directly with, and thus contributed to driving out, both Ribeiro and Grabovski. Given how weak we've been at C over the past decade this certainly warrants a raised eyebrow. Anyhow, he was a very fine player for us and a man of sterling character on the ice and off. I hope someday the Habs will find a way to honour him - not by retiring his jersey, but in some other way that befits his unique contribution to Habs' history.

I like this point about 'Quebec approved.' In a certain sense, this goes back to Howie Morenz. Certain non-French players become canonized by the fan-base regardless. Usually, these are either goalies or forwards with special talent and panache - hence, Kovalev, but not Koivu, whose knee injuries prevented him from being the truly stylish player he was meant to be. As for Roy, some people just have a mystical belief in his abilities. I respect the man, but I also respect the difficulties of transitioning into an NHL coaching job with minimal experience, and Roy's ego is big enough to raise legitimate questions about his ability to take orders from Bergevin and his ability to work harmoniously with big egoes on the team. Like I said before, the risk of him going to war with certain players is higher than it would be with a proven coach. On the coaching thing: Stubbs ran a piece advocating Carbo + Robinson for the coaching staff. The two are apparently close. I'm not a terribly enthusiastic advocate of Carbo, but then again, he may have learned a lot from the first go-around; we could hire him on the principle that we might as well benefit from his earlier round of training with us. But whatever else happens, getting Big Bird in here is a frigging no-brainer. Make it happen, Bergie!!! Edit: REV, I think the issue with Robinson as head coach is that he's said in the past he didn't want the pressure. Seems to be a prototypical assistant.

Surprised he got that much, but good on him. I'd love to have him back for a season in an 'elder statesman/sentimental favourite' role, like Trevor Linden did with Vancouver (or, more bathetically, Brisebois did here) - but I guess it ain't gonna happen. A shame that we'll never get to experience that closure with the only bright light from the darkest era in Habs' history. We still love ya, Saks!!

Entertaining, no doubt. But see my post above for the possible ramifications of this sort of 'what the hell' attitude. The nuclues of this team is too good to warrant taking this big a risk IMHO.