The Chicoutimi Cucumber

If Talon is the guy who gave Huet that $six trillion contract, we ought to think twice

You've got us there. Things can certainly go wrong. Subban in particular still has growing pains to go through and at some point the bulk of fans may get fed up and turn on him. Still, if you look at it objectively - and just to develop bbp's thought - you have to conclude that both Patches and PK are significantly stronger young players than either Higgins or Komi were. Higgins was a guy whose potential had everybody drooling, but he really only had one decent offensive year (07-08) and still finished with 13 points fewer than Patches had this year in only his second season. Plus Patches has that power element. As for Komisarek, he was always built up as 'only' a bruising shut-down guy, and only showed this when paired with Markov; whereas Subban has had no comparably supportive pairing and yet has already emerged as an all-around stud in only his second season. So I think you can make a rock-solid case that Patches and PK are on another level from those guys. But that doesn't mean things won't sour for one or more of them in Montreal. What we can say with considerable confidence is that if they do leave us, they will go on to excellence elsewhere - unlike Higs and Komi.

100%. The defence drives everything else. Pacioretty, Price and Subban are all untouchables, but of the three, the FW is the most disposable almost by definition (unless they're named Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, etc.). Anyway, we'd be certifiable to even consider dealing any of these short of an absolutely insane return. They ARE the Montreal Canadiens going forward, easily imaginable as part of a Cup-winning core, and I hope we see them in red and blue for another 10 years at least.

Well, it's worth remembering just how superior Gainey seemed as a choice - he was the no-brainer, can't miss, elite, proven GM candidate, and we got him!!! And look how that turned out. He performed credibly, but he also made key mistakes and obviously did not lead us to the promised land. Burke, similarly, had Star Quality GM written all over him, yet has failed to deliver even a measly playoff round in four years (!). Meanwhile, you look at a guy like Mike Gillis, who had no c.v. as a manager, and yet who has done very well; and you kinda conclude that the big name and prestige c.v. is not necessarily any better a choice than someone else. I really think becoming an effective GM has as much to do with character and judgement as curriculum vitae. So don't put too much into 'star quality.' I'll be supportive of whomever we choose, provided it's not a proven dud (Ribserough) or someone whose judgement and character would make me run in the other direction if I were working under them (Monster McGuire).

On reflection, I think the fact that Nill went for a second interview probably shows that he really means the nice things he was saying about our organization and that he really was torn about not taking the job. I hope so; the thought that the Habs are still not a top-flight operation 10 years after Houle's firing, despite having Class Incarante in Bob Gainey in charge, is depressing. Very interesting stuff from Hockey I/O today. Apparently Risebrough is in the mix - a bad choice in my view, since his tenures in both Calgary and Minnesota were defined by mediocrity. Both Lavoie and Moffat believe Brisebois and McGuire to be among the 4 or 5 who have received second interviews. The McGuire bit is alarming. In any case, have a look if you haven't yet: http://www.hockeyins...in-2-or-3-weeks With Nill out, I find myself warming to the Roy-as-GM idea, over bland 'new NHL' technocrats like Brisebois or Bergevin, tired old nags like Risebrough, or out-of-left-field loudmouths like McGuire. Bring back the prodigal son, make sure to surround him properly, and go for the home run.

What's winning the day, by and large, is great goaltending, total team commitment, grinding play and resolute boxing out of the slot. Indeed, I could impishly point out that a lot of these teams are practicing what is, in effect, Jacques Martin hockey.

Well, that makes, one bad call against the Bruins to 3670033658930 bad calls against their opponents...but as for tonight's result: THERE IS A GOD.

This team has lots of good elements and there is no way this is a 'total rebuild' situation. I'm closer to DON - we need a top-3 or at least top-6 winger, a stablizing veteran top-4 defenceman, and perhaps an upgrade at C (although I've said repeatedly that I think a resurgent Pleks and a DD who contyinues to perform at this level would be acceptable if they could be matched with a major upgrade at W, e.g., Parise). Anyone trading Pacioretty, Price or Subban had better get absolutely monster return (c.f. Habs29 on Malkin), or else I will personally and repeatedly run them over with a zamboni. Subban is a potential superstar, Price is too, and Patches could be a PPG power forward before all is said and done. Trading any of them is clinically insane.

Yeah, although how much of that is just pro forma flummery is a good question.

I agree 100%. Maybe even go to five minutes of 3-on-3 if the 4-on-4 OT doesn't break the logjam. The shootout is fun, but it also has nothing to do with the game of hockey, which is a team sport not a breakway skills competition. Sadly, the NHL decided at some point in the 1980s that ties were evil, mostly because of a belief that American audiences - whose favoured sports generally don't end in ties - didn't like them. That is the origin of the current absurdity.

That was indeed a good post. I agree, as I said before, that a unilingual coach is in an untenable position. We saw Bob Gainey do something similar to what MOL advocates when he took over, calling out the Brisebois-bashers, anthem-booers, and generally being the sponge absorbing blows that would otherwise be delivered against the players. Of course, the effect wore off after a while, as Gainey began to wear the problems that ailed the club. The same fate awaits whoever takes up that role going forward. Which is why it's a combination of factors. You still need, first, to find the best person for the job. I wouldn't accept lesser qualifications or competence just because the guy is likely to take up a lot of media space. That may buy the players breathing room, but in the long run it's a recipe for disaster. Thus: no McGuire, and we need to think long and hard before anointing the under-qualified Roy as coach. Also, the Habs could be doing MUCH more to protect their players irrespective of the GM's or coach's identity. Unlike 2/3 of NHL teams, we do not even have a Director of Player Development separate from the Director of Amateur Scouting. This means that we, in effect, left the entire generation of Gainey 1.0 (Ribeiro, Higgins, Komisarek, Price, Sergei Kostitsyn, Latendresse, Grabovski, etc.) to 'develop' in the most temptation-filled and pressure-packed environment in all of hockey with less supervsion and support than the Nashville Predators offer their prospects. This explains, to my mind, a lot of the problems those players had, and also why Gainey felt it necessary to 'solve' the problem by blowing up the team and bringing in proven veterans. http://habsloyalist....owing-hope.html Before we go basing crucial managerial and coaching choices based on their ability to distract the media, we probably should emulate best practices elsewhere for supporting players.

Well, thanks Blue Kross. But this seems a little bit a propos of nothing. What point are you trying to make here, exactly - ? Perhaps this is as good a place as any to bring up Hal Gill's remarks that Cunneyworth was a total failure: http://www.habsworld.net/out.php?14812 Interesting to note, as well, that he clearly regrets no longer being in Montreal. I love that guy and hope Nashville goes deep.

I don't agree with the 'bilingual only' policy, but I do somewhat sympathize with the bind the Habs are in. Not even a team as beloved as this one can afford to fundamentally alienate its customer base - especially not when there is a potential local competitor on the horizon (the Quebec City franchise, whose existence some posters on this board are foolish enough to support). Like it or not, the Habs are part of the mythology of Quebec, and while they have made millions trading on the notion of themselves as 'public trust,' the downside is that their fan base feels entitled to 'see itself' - including its linguistic identity - reflected to some degree or other in the team. So the bilingual-only policy is a straight-up matter of business. You can also argue that, under these conditions, hiring a unilingual coach is a recipe for failure anyway, because it puts that coach in an untenable position. Bereft of any support in the community, and indeed openly demonized in some quarters, he will come under intolerable pressures whenever the team hits a rough patch, as any team and coach inevitably will. In other words, blame the wider culture of Montreal/Quebec for this policy, not the Habs. The team is responding to the business environment it's in.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! There is no way the Habs coach can get away with speaking through a translator, no way at all - any more than a prime minister could. It will be seen as yet another slap in the face to the long-suffering people of Quebec. As for French lessons, I agree that they're an option, but if you're Babcock and you have the pick of teams lining up to hire you, are you gonna choose to go to the city where they make you take lessons like a schoolboy, let alone makes job security contingent upon good grades?? FORGET BABCOCK. He ain't bilingual, it ain't happening, the end.

Marleau has scored 30+ goals in 5 of his past 6 seasons. His past two playoffs have shown him perform well. I can see where he acquired the label of a soft, disappointing player, but he's spent the better part of a decade being exactly the player people wanted him to be all along. So he would make an excellent Montreal Canadien. The problem is, he's three years older than Pleks and likely set to enter the downside of his career. This would be the wrong time to acquire him. (The *right* time was 07-08, when he had 48 points; in one of my very few trade suggestions, I proposed moving Koivu for him and was laughed off the board, natch ).

Are you kidding? Quebec will just make it worse. It will create a whole new line of public relations debate: which team is more French? If they have more French players/coaches/managers than us, that will be a PR problem; if they have more French player/coaches/managers than us and do better on the ice, that will be a PR disaster. If you think things are bad now, wait until Quebec City gets a team - they'll get 10X worse.

It took me a while to realize this, but really think that the attitude that 'role players are interchangeable' is a mistake, and one that has significantly hurt us. Tom the Bomb was above average in terms of heart and desire, and could play. It's worth paying an extra half mil to keep a guy like that around. The same goes for Dominic Moore. I realize that in a cap system there's a huge temptation to think of these guys as interchangeable parts. But they're not, and they can make a massive difference, especially in the playoffs. More and more it seems that teams win and lose in the playoffs based on their third and fourth lines. The Canucks have been eliminated in their last two series and in both cases a huge key was the superior performance their opponents got from their bottom six. But never mind that; when you look at a team like ours, which even when playing to its potential does not have a particularly daunting top-6, it just makes sense to try to have the best possible bottom-6 you can assemble. In short, we need to rethink our organizational approach to 'depth' players.

One thing to keep in mind is that Gillis may not be looking for huge returns for Luongo. That team is capped out and he may have other uses for the cap space that trading him frees up; so you might be able to acquire Bobby Lou for a solid prospect, a la Eller. Just a thought.

A baffling result for the Canuckleheads. There is no question the Kings were the better team - I'm tempted to say they wanted it more. The question is, what happened to last year's Canucks? Surely Erhoff wasn't that important? We'll see what they get back for Luongo and who they acquire on the open market to fix this. Personally, I think this core still has about a three-year window, so I certainly wouldn't panic. In hockey terms, I think they need a serious upgrade on the bottom-6 and, if they get lucky, could snag a Suter, which might put them over the top. Also, they really suffered in this series from the lack of an Erik Cole type who could bull his way around the net. (Kesler is supposed to be that, but wasn't). Those guys don't grow on trees, however. And what about Vigneault? I don't think they quit on him, but it could be a situation where the team just would benefit from a new voice, a new approach. It'll be very interesting to see what Gillis does going forward - one of the more intriguing off-season situations of 2012.

I think you guys are kidding yourselves. The 'he's a winner' argument might work for a while. But the minute he hits a rough patch, the knives will come out and the issue will not disappear thereafer (unless he wins the Cup, in which case it will disappear for six months). There are too many people with public platforms whose jobs depend on stirring up sh*t. Forget Babcock, he ain't French.

He's bilingual?

I agree that if you're a repeat offender, that should be taken into consideration. But like I said before, the ratio is totally out of whack. Torres's hit in and of itself is not worth 25 games. But when you factor in his history, it sure is, because this guy is a menace to the safety of everyone else out there. Keith's hit in and of itself is worth 20-25 games. If he were a repeat offender it'd be worth even more. It's the second part of the equation the NHL has totally flubbed.

Interesting comments from Alain Vigneault on this. He basically nails it when he says the Torres hit was more of a 'hockey play' than the Keith assault on Sedin, and that the ruling merely adds to the confusion. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/stanleycup2012/2012/04/torres-suspension-adds-to-confusion-on-headshot-rulings-vigneault.html This league is total B.S.

I agree that sitting Gretzky in favour of Ray Bourque (!!!) was sheer lunacy, but gee whiz. Banning him from coaching the Habs on the basis of that one mistake 15 years ago seems a tad overblown. While I'm not saying Crow is a genius, I actually like his profile a lot. He's had an extremely intense and varied coaching career, ranging from heights (Cup in Colorado) to awful lows (Bertuzzi, the Kings debacle). More than any other coach I can think of, he really has seen it all at the NHL level. This makes him more prepared to deal with the insanity of Montreal than almost anyone else. His last coaching gig, in Dallas, was under the radar, but he did a solid job with an unimpressive roster, missing the playoffs on the final day of the season. Indeed, the single biggest failing of Crawford's career has been a catastrophic inability to assess goaltending - hence his bizarre man-crush on Dan Cloutier which sunk him in both Vancouver and LA. In Montreal, that will not be an issue. He would be a good choice.

What about Washington?