The Chicoutimi Cucumber

25 is good. But Keith should have gotten about that number for his vicious attack on Sedin. The whole 'repeat offender' thing carries too much weight IMHO. Yes, it should carry some weight. But right now it seems the only way to get a suspension that actually fits the deed is to be a repeat offender. The Torres hit was vicious, but not remotely as ridiculous as either the Weber assault on Zetterberg or the Keith 'hit' on Sedin. The explosion of hostile commentary that followed the Torres hit had more to do with Torres than with the hit itself; everyone had identified Torres as a problem case and were ready to destroy him when he did something. This approach leads to a grotesque leniency regarding players like Chara, Keith, and Weber, all of whom got the benefit of the doubt for egregiously obvious deliberate attempts to destroy their opponents. 'Oh, Chara didn't mean to do that...' 'Well, let's give Keith five games 'cause, you know, he's a good guy...' 'Weber, well, he didn't actually cause an injury despite a deliberate attempt to inflict a concussion...' It's basically the logic of the old boys network. You crucify the guys that are hated, but when it comes to first-time offenders, the guys that are well-liked, you show more concern for the perpetrator than the victim. The real message is: you get to commit one gruesome act of savage brutality every few years with minimal consequence. So pick your spot. Just like Chara did.

I don't really follow the prospect stuff, but it's interesting (if not in any way rigorously predictive) to look at the 3rd overall picks from the past decade and see what that tells us about drafting 3rd overall. 2009 - Matt Duchene 2008 - Zach Bosogian 2007 - Kyle Turris 2006 - Jonathan Toews 2005 - Jack Johnson 2004 - Cam Barker 2003 - Nathan Horton 2002 - Jay Bouwmeester 2001 - Alexander Svitov 2000 - Marian Gaborik 1999 - Henrik Sedin What's the pattern here? Three franchise players (Toews, Gaborik and Sedin, although this last is a bit of a special case because he's a twin, which may have affected his draft position); two clear top-drawer talents (Bouwmeester and Duchene); four quality top-6 forwards/top-4 defencemen (Horton, Johnson, Bosogian, maybe Turris), one iffy guy (Barker) and one flat-out bust (Svitov). This suggests that the 3rd overall pick yields a 30% chance of a 'franchise' player and a 20% chance of garbage, with the remainder about evenly split between guys who become major top-line/top-pairing players and mere Gionta-style second liners. Bit of a dog's breakfast. But still, I like those odds of yielding a high-quality player (about 40-50%) and it just feels wrong to me to say that we should trade down based on an analysis of this year's models - too clever by half. Let's not overthink this. We've got a viable chance to draft a horse. We gotta go for it.

Has Gragani even dressed during these playoffs? If so, I haven't noticed. That trade might turn out to be great for Van in the long run, but it's not helping right now. Of course, whether Hodgson himself would have been much help is an open question. Honestly, I think Vancouver slipped into cruise control for much of this season, not unreasonably wishing to hoard their energies for the playoffs after enduring last year's ordeal. Problem is, it's notoriously hard to 'flip that switch' and start playing at 100% after falling into that habit. I think they've flipped the switch now, but it may be too late.

Off topic, but... You could be right. It should be noted, though, that they probably would have won last season if they hadn't been decimated with injuries by the Finals. And the reuniting of the Sedin twins makes an enormous difference, as last game proved. Just as it's fundamentally unfair to judge the Markov-less Habs as the real thing, you can make the case that the Canucks without a Sedin are a compromised item. In the end, though, to my mind that team generally lists as Ryan Kesler does. When he brings his 'A' game they have two devastating lines. He has been pretty quiet down the stretch and into this playoff, and therein lies a big part of the their problem. They also dealt away crucial offensive depth by moving Hodgson in return for a non-factor in Kassian. This was supposedly to beef the team up, but you can make the case that they'd have been better off sticking with the script that got 'em to the Finals last season: talent, talent, talent. Finally, having lost Erhoff, they really need Edler to eat minutes and he has been shaky. That's just part of the X-factor of the cap system, you have to rely on pretty young guys and hope they mature quickly enough to be able to be key cogs in crucial situations.

Well, I also live in Vancouver. My sense is that, if the Canucks come back in this series and make it close, Vigneault will stick around. If they go down in 5, then he's probably a goner. Understandbly so, since his team will have grossly underperformed.

Agreed. The organization cannot afford to muck this up - another decade of losing is simply not on - and that is why a combination of judicious risk-taking (Roy) counterbalanced by experience (Carriere, Timmins, Vigneault) is just what the doctor ordered. The scenario you paint here is ideal.

I like that first configuration.

Well, Wayne Gretzky was THE greatest player ever and he stunk out the joint as a coach. Now Roy is more qualified than Gretzky was; what I'm saying is that his 20 years of playing are completely irrelevant to the question of whether he'll make a good coach or GM. His only valid qualifications are his junior credentials. These are good, but it's quite a leap to infer that he must therefore make an awesome coach in the NHL, let alone coach + GM, a position that is widely agreed to be unsustainable in today's NHL even for experienced professionals. Much of your argument seems to be that we will lose Roy if we don't snap him up. That would worry me only if Roy is the best man for the job. If he's not, then it's irrelevant. Again, I am not necessarily opposed to hiring Roy for one or the other of the two positions (preferably GM). What I am opposed to is mindlessly anointing him just because he's Patrick Roy. Can we please do this properly for once?

I was sorry to see Boucher go, but I never swallowed the kool-aid about him either. This season's debacle in Tampa Bay proves that he is a coach like any other. (This is not to say he's a bad coach, just that he's no superman). Vigneault actually had qualifications, having spent three years as an assistant at the NHL level before he was hired here. That you want Roy to become both GM and coach just goes to show that you're too bedazzled by the Roy mystique to think clearly. Roy isn't Jesus Christ, he's a guy like everybody else, and putting a guy with no NHL credentials in BOTH of those jobs is a recipe for the worst debacle since Houle-Tremblay.

Actually, I've said before that I'd be OK with Roy as GM, regarding that as a high-risk, high-reward option. I'm considerably less sanguine about him as a coach; and either case remains just that: high-reward and high-risk. Let's not kid ourselves. He is, in fact, qualified for neither job, at least not in conventional terms. Yes, he has a strong minor-league background, and yes, he is Patrick Roy. These are not negligible facts by any means. I respect them. But at least I'm not deluding myself that he is 'overqualified' for either job based on those facts. He has never coached or managed professionals, let alone NHLers. I remain skeptical about throwing raw rookies into the most demanding job(s) in all of hockey. Less skeptical about Roy than I might be of some. But still skeptical. Look. Bob Gainey was as great a champion as Roy and an even better leader of men. And he was massively more qualified for either job than Roy is right now. Most of us regard his tenure as having been either only a qualified success, or a flop. This lesson cuts two ways: first, it means formal qualifications and great past success are no guarantee of future success, a point that works in Roy's favour. But second, it shows that being a past great player is no guarantee of success, a point that works against Roy. Now: if, after intensive interviews and an exhaustive search, Savard and Molson come to the honest conclusion that Roy is indeed the best man available, I'll accept that. If the whole process is a sham before they can anoint Saint Patrick, because, ya know, he was this real awesome goalie for us 20 years ago and plus, like, he's French!!!, then I'll be pretty disappointed that we're STILL being run like Ronald Corey's Clown College instead of a serious, professional organization. You've drunk the Patrick Roy kool-aid. Fair enough, but don't try to tell me it's premium scotch.

I don't remember that, but you could be right. What I remember most of all is their big, strong D boxing us out relentlessly throughout the series. Nasllund was completely neutralized. Vernon got a Conn Smythe for basically having an awesome defence. They were just a fraction better than us and I wish to hell it hadn't been the case.

Wow, you have very little faith in the competence and professionalism of the Habs's ownership. That we would hire an under-qualified rookie without even conducting a proper search is a disconcerting idea.

I couldn't care less if a franchise is Canadian. Take the Leafs. There is NO team, except possibly the Bruins, I would not cheer for against the Leafs. They cannot lose humiliatingly or often enough to suit me. People say to me, 'isn't it a shame the Leafs are so terrible?' I just laugh. Sure, I really want to see them in the playoffs, with the CBC and the national (i.e., Toronto-based) media going cowabunga over 'Canada's National Team' and all that tired footage of 1967 being dredged up from the toilet yet again. Screw that. I don't want a team in Quebec City either. Why would I want that? So the French media can hold competititons to see which team is more French? So the Habs can have yet another rivalry, this one so vicious it ended Pierre Mondu's career? So the Habs can be so beat up coming out of a playoff series that they have no chance going forward? Non merci. Habs29 is correct, the Canucks do have an irritating fan base. It's characterized by chronic and constant whining and self-pity. They feel horribly put upon and unfairly treated. They drone on about the 'Canucks' curse,' as though they've had it SOOOO much worse than fans in other cities, such as LA or Buffalo or San Jose. Meanwhile, they are congenitally incapable of appreciating that they've had an elite team for most of the past decade, that they've gone to the Finals once in each of the last three decades, and that they get to watch great players like the Sedins night after night. Heck, a good portion of the fan base has spent 10 years attacking the Sedin 'sisters.' And I can never forget that a substantial portion of them rose to the defence of that ape Bertuzzi when he ended Steve Moore's career - cackling that Moore was faking it, that he got what he deserved, that Bertuzzi was being unfairly treated, screaming 'we looove you Bert!!!', etc. Ignorant, classless turds. The irony is, I don't mind these Canucks as a team. They've paid a lot of dues and are much closer to the type of hockey that the NHL should be playing (i.e., a brand of hockey not characterized by vicious attempts to permanently injure other players). But hoo boy, that's a fanbase that only a mother could love.

Well, remember that Vancouver is missing D. Sedin - a direct result of the NHL's criminally negligent policy on discipline. I'm not saying they'd win the series with him, but in terms of their scoring troubles, having one of the best offensive players in the entire league in the lineup would surely help. I don't think it'd be 3-0 with him dressed. Good to see that Duncan Keith got 5 whole games for deliberately concussing Sedin and costing the canucks, potentially, millions in playoff revenue. The Canucks also traded away Cody Hodgson in favour of promising plodder Kassian. Would a rookie like Hogson make the difference? No, but he *would* at least potentially offer a third wave on the attack. I had trouble figuring that trade at the time. It seemed a classic case of a team turning away from its strengths. Add to all this the loss of Ehrhoff on the back end and the cataclysmically poor play of Edler, you've got a recipe for offensive doughnuts, at least against a smothering D like LA. (Note that if I were a GM looking for help on the back end, I would definitely suss out Gillis about Edler after this series ends. The kid has huge potential and Vancouver may give up on him out of disgust).

I never thought much of Fleury. Sure, he has it in him to play great for stretches - and so do a lot of goalies. But he melted down spectacularly against us in 2010 and he's doing it again in 2012. It's not just that he's been so-so. In both series he was the single biggest reason for his team losing. It's not like he can use growing pains as an excuse. The guy is one overrated mofo. LA looks very, very dangerous to me. Classic 'playoff' team. They box out the slot every bit as well as the Habs did in 2010, making a terrific goalie look even better. They have size, strength, grit. They'll grind the bejeezus out of whoever they face and whoever they play is gonna have a hell of a time scoring. We could have a Cinderella story on our hands.

Pouliot is a classic hothouse flower. Minny couldn't do anything with him. Neither could Montreal. Both organizations made the mistake of asking him to play somewhere close to the measure of his talent. No, he had to find a role as a bottom-6 guy on a stacked team where he is heavily insulated by behemoths and Cup champs. In short, he is a passenger who found himself in a perfect situation - no expectations, ideally surrounded. Good for him. But don't try to tell me we lost some gem there.

Vigneault's job will definitely be in jeopardy. It's a classic case where it'll be easier to fire the coach and hope a new guy can spark the team to glory than to reconstruct what is already a high-quality lineup. Vigneault has also had some conflict with Ryan Kesler. Could be time for a change there. And yes, Vigneault would ABSOLUTELY be the best candidate to coach the Habs. It's called a no-brainer. He was an excellent coach with us the first time around, and has been an excellent coach with Vancouver. His resumé as a coach makes Patrick Roy's look like a piece of used toilet paper. That being said, he will not be the best option for those who crave a carnival rather than winning hockey (which seems to represent about 50% of the fan base). Coach V. expects his teams to play a system and has been known to mix and match his lines, as well as favouring veterans in the crunch. He insists that rookies learn the game properly. All of this is to say his approach is fundamentally that of any good coach - and so it won't take long for same people who hated Martin to go absolutely batsh*t on Vigenault.

Look at the Canucks...their star player gets his head targeted in a deliberate, premeditated and absolutely brutal on-ice assault; the culprit gets 5 measly games; the Canucks have to play without their star for the entire remainder of the year and playoff. That is the model the NHL positively wants. It's a total disgrace and - now that Shanahan has proven to be a total failure after a promising start - it will only stop when someone is permanently disabled or killed. Get ready, because it will happen, sooner or later.

Colorado was highly motivated to get rid of Stewart. I don't know the specifics, but clearly, he's a problem child.

The L.A. case is interesting, in that they're vaguely reminiscent of the Habs of 2010: a team heavily rebuilt in the off-season that suffered chemistry problems all year and limped into the playoffs - yet suddenly kicks into high gear come the playoffs. Frankly I think the Canucks were unprepared for that team to be so damned strong. Look out, Western Conference!!

I suppose it'd be a question of asking prospective GMs whether they'd have any objection to our hiring Vigneault before they formally signed on. But I don't know how these things work, or whether that'd be considered a breach of the usual protocols of GM autonomy, etc. I just really, really hate the thought of missing out on the best francophone coach in the game because we happen to be 'between GMs.' Anyway - it hasn't happened yet so I'm not gonna bite my nails.

What's the problem? This is the only substitute we've got for the Habs being in the dance. I say enjoy it.

Vancouver is - shockingly - down 0-2 in their series against the Kings. If they lose, I think there is at least an even chance of Vigneault walking the plank. This would mean that the man who is ABSOLUTELY the best candidate to coach our team may be available. Will we be handicapped in our ability to sign him by the lack of a GM? Are we about to fall prey to our usual horrendous timing/luck?

By all accounts Montreal is casting its net widely, and this is to our credit. Hextall is a very credible assistant GM and I for one am happy to see that we're giving all possible contenders a shot at the title. That being said, I'd be absolutely shocked if the final choice is not bilingual.

This is an interesting thread, but really - how can we make a mistake with the 3rd overall pick? I mean, there's always the possibility the kid will flame out, but in terms of prospects there is no WAY that we are not going to get an absolute blue-chip stud. It's a bit like asking whether you want your dad to buy you a Porsche or a Mercedes.