The Chicoutimi Cucumber

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?

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.