The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Fun to scroll through that old stuff. You have to love the passion aroused by what, at the end of the day, was a move of only middling significance. It makes me want hockey back even more, so the insanity can begin anew!

What a joke. 'Not bargaining in good faith' apparently means 'not accepting offers presented to them as non-negotiable' in owner-speak.

I think Halak is an excellent goalie, but looking at his history you have to ask whether he is capable of being an elite goalie for more than 45 games or so per season. Some guys aren't cut out to be Brodeur-style No. 1s and do better in a platoon system, and Halak looks like one of those guys. It's important, then, not to romanticize Halak as some sort of superman. He is inferior to Cujo at this stage of his career, let alone Plante, if only because he is not a true No.1. Now in return, we got a player of uncertain potential but who has a realistic shot at becoming either a very effective 2nd-line C or one of the more versatile 3rd-line C in the game. (Of course, Eller is one of the hardest Habs' young players to figure out IMHO - he could become a 60-point pivot, or he could be out of the league in three years, I have no idea). The idea that you're going to get an all-star young player, in a cap system, for a 45-game goalie with one great playoff to his credit, just strikes me as wishful thinking. We got a reasonable return, why go beyond that and moon over pie in the sky (if I can mix my metaphors). I like this thread. Fun to talk about actual HOCKEY for a change.

Very classy of the NHL to make these announcements on the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre. They really have their priorities straight.

That is a fabulous piece. Bang on about pretty much everything.

As has been amply discussed, the 5-year rule is idiocy anyway. All it will do is mean that star players insist on making as much money as possible with every contract, instead of (as often happens) trading annual salary for term; and this in turn will make it nearly impossible to have more than one big star per team. Why is that in the owners' interests, particularly? And why is it in our interest as fans NOT to have Price, Patches or PK or Galy locked up long-term, but rather watch them walk to the highest bidder? How does it serve us to create an even more mercenary player culture by making it impossible for teams to show loyalty to players through long-term contracts? Plus, the notion that there is anything wrong with signing a young stud to a long-term deal makes no sense on its own terms. If the goal is to stop cap circumvention a la Luongo, it seems obvious to me that the way forward is to have staggered contract term limits. E.g., a player under 24 can sign for no more than 12 years; a player between 25-30 can sign for no more than 8 years; a player between 30-33, for no more than 6 years; over 33, no more than 4. Something like that would solve the problem while still keeping some flexibility. Like I say, seems obvious to me. But then again I am not a super-genius all-seeing mastermind like the owners.

Oh, you're probably right. There may be something to the idea, though, that the owners felt empowered by having so decisively gotten their way (at least in principle) in the last round, and over the ensuing years settled into the comfortable notion that this proved players would crack if you pushed them hard enough. So it stands to reason that if the players show that they will NOT crack, the owners may be more tempered next time...especially if there are no genuinely fundamental problems with the league's economic model (as there was in 04, and isn't now).

NHL teams have always - bafflingly - devalued goalies. I don't understand it myself, but then again I cheer for a team that has a distinguished history of riding hot goalies all the way to the Cup. So I accept the proposition that Halak probably never would have brought the return some fans craved. As for Kosty, you only have to see his behaviour in Nashville to confirm that the problem is indeed between his ears. And GMs probably suspected as much. That leaves the Cammy trade, and in that one case it really does seem questionable whether Goat did his homework and shopped him around properly. I forget the details, but I do recall thinking it was something like a low-grade version of the Joe Thornton deal, where a team has defined a player as a 'problem' and then shipped him out without thoroughly scouting the market. I still believe that Cammalleri is a respected NHL sniper and that some team would have been willing to part with more than the Human Turd in order to acquire him down the stretch. But by that point, Gauthier was in full-bore panic mode (and probably anxious to 'teach Cammy a lesson' for speaking out, like the petty creep he seems to have been). What epitomized Goat to me was acquiring Kaberle in response to his coach's repeated demands for PP help, then firing that same coach about three games later. That isn't leadership, it's sheer confusion. That, to me, is when he lost the plot.

I too believe a deal will get done, although this week might be optimistic. Like I say, these jerks didn't get to be billionaires by being utterly irrational when it comes to business. I also hope you're correct that the NHLPA is in the process of teaching the owners a decisive lesson that there are limits to how much B.S. the players are prepared to eat. Maybe if the owners respected the union instead of harbouring the fantasy that they can smash it with every round of negotiation, we'd actually see some reasonable good-faith bargaining in the future. Imagine that.

Houle is in a whole other category of bad. He inherited a strong organization and just decimated it. Gauthier made some dodgy moves, but was mainly a victim of the injury to Markov, his own apparently toxic personality (which poisoned the organizational culture), and a seeming lack of any coherent plan or vision for dealing with the meltdown in 2011-12. This is not the same as the utter and mind-boggling incompetence - the series of horrible move upon horrible move - that led Houle to gut the entire organization, from top to bottom. Houle may not be the worst GM in modern league history (Mad Mike takes that palm) but he is certainly in that general vicinity. Goat was merely an unpleasant mediocrity.

The brief and shining idea of a return of NHL hockey on Christmas Day was terrifically appealing, though. What a drag. However, we should have known better to expect any resolution of this dispute before the last possible moment, given that both sides are determined to squeeze every last drop of blood that they conceivably can.

2nd for Moore would have been an OK deal if we had re-signed Moore. Yet another case of the Goat throwing away bottom-6ers for no apparent reason.

Most people will probably pick the Kaberle deal. Not me. No.1 by a bullet is the Cammalleri trade. Cammy is a legitimate 1st-line winger (or centreman!), a bona-fide sniper, and our top playoff scorer two seasons running. So of course we traded him for a slug, then put the cap savings to no good use. Swell. Whatever you think about Cammalleri, we should have gotten a far better return for the only veteran on our roster that anybody considered a 'star.' Habs29 was dead right about Bourque, unfortunately. No.2 is the Lapierre trade. We basically threw away a player who, when on his game, is possibly the best 4th-line C in hockey, and a superb agitator to boot. This, in an era when we cycled through fourth-liners like used condoms, desperately scrambling year after year to plug gaping holes in the bottom six. So basically we threw away the solution to the problem we spent the next year and half trying to fix. I am still peeved that he did not even approach Wisniewski about possibly staying here. I mean, the absence of a Markov replacement was THE biggest reason for the collapse last season. The real issue with Gauthier, though, wasn't bad deals - though they didn't help - so much as confused and toxic leadership that poisoned the organizational culture.

I agree that this most recent blow-up is pretty much B.S., but I have real trouble believing that the owners really are prepared to destroy the entire season simply to break the union. For me, the objective all along has been to push the union as close to the edge as humanly possible in the hope that it will break (in fairness, the union is doing something similar - pushing back as far as they can, in the hope of extracting the most they can - the difference being that the union actually seems to have been bargaining in something like good faith). For all the ego and arrogance, you don't get to be a billionaire owner without knowing the difference between extracting every last drop of blood from a negotiation, and blowing your business up to make a point. There is still the risk of a miscalculation that queers the whole thing, but I am pretty confident we'll see hockey within the next month or so. So I take this last bit of grandstanding as a perversely good sign: the last, or almost last, act in the low-grade grotesque drama.

Just curious - is Commodore a guy that could conceivably interest the Habs' brass for the big club, if he plays well in Hamilton? Do you see him adding anything to our existing NHL blueline?

Like I said in the other thread, I think we are watching the final stages of the BS fest. They're running out of road and are just trying to squeeze every last drop from the other side as they can before FINALLY f**cking signing. How will the Habs do? My opinion hasn't changed, particularly. 1. We have a better-than-usual chance of being one of those teams that really comes together, buys into what the coach is selling, and surpasses low expectations as a result. This is a realistic possibility because so many players will be extra motivated after last season's crashing disappointment, and perhaps because Therrien may represent a 'new voice' after years of Martin and will therefore galvanize some players who were maybe indifferent before. That doesn't mean we'll do well - just that we may make the playoffs based on these intangibles. Once you're in the playoffs, of course, anything can happen. 2. On paper, the team is still pretty cruddy - especially assuming, as I think smart money does, that Markov will never again be the player he was. We've bolstered the bottom 6 up front and added some depth on D but don't have any reason to think we have an adequate second line. Basically, we threw away Cammy and Kosty while adding a floating turd (Bourque). That's quite a chunk of top-6 talent to remove from the roster without adequate replacement. So, I expect a feisty but under-talented lineup. If (1) materializes, everyone will praise Therrien as a genius, until he melts down sometime between year 2 and 3. And I'd settle for that. But, say, a 10th place finish wouldn't exactly be a shock.

Well, it looks bad right now, but I have a feeling we are witnessing the endgame, the final application of pressure from both sides. They're going to push each other every bit as far to the edge as they can possibly get, in order to be sure they are extracting maximum concessions from the other side. Sadly, this has never been about finding an agreement both sides can live with - it's been about each side trying to make sure it gets the maximum possible without sacrificing the entire season. So despite all the pessimism, I think a deal is fairly close, if only because they can't go much more than another what, 2-3 weeks (?) without losing the whole season.

Well, there's a strong current of thought that says the owners have been using the NBA playbook right from the beginning with this thing; which means they would be getting serious about actually negotiating right about now, shooting for a January return. So I wouldn't be fatalistic about losing the whole season just yet, although - like everyone else - I'd regard a lost season as utterly unforgiveable. The idea that every single team must have guaranteed profitability, and all on the backs of the players, is so ridiculous (and manifestly unjust) as to be unworthy of serious discussion, let alone serious collective bargaining. If that's actually the goal, then the NHLPA should indeed pursue decertification and blow up the entire god**mned NHL.

I dislike the fact that Subban could potentially spend an entire year without playing competitive hockey. That is the exact opposite of what he should be doing, in terms of his development.

I don't know if it's true, but if it is, it's probably because the AHL squads cut him

I don't really see how a lost season would result in much good. Yes, there may be the hope that, if the players demonstrate conclusively that they have the wherewithal to stand up to these gouging, bullying owners, reason may dawn and a genuine partnership between players and owners ensue. But it's equally - perhaps more likely - that enmities become even more deeply entrenched; whoever ends up 'losing' the conflict will be brooding for revenge next time around. As for changes to the structure of the league, etc., don't bet on it. The most likely 'change' would be more 'fan-pleasing' novelties to make the game 'more exciting' - stuff like bigger nets, because goals are intrinsically exciting according to idiots. The ONLY thing that will stop the bleeding, IMHO, is commercial disaster following the lockout. If the owners see that their union-busting strategy has destroyed their businesses, then they will rethink their approach. Money and power are all they understand.

This has always been about smashing the union and nothing else. I don't know whether to hope the players shove it to these scumbag owners, or to hope they cave so I can watch hockey. But either way, I know who I blame - Neanderthal owners who wish they could play John D. Rockefeller, an attitude sadly all too typical of North American business. Utterly condemnable.

Man, I know the 'tie' thing is a lost battle. But that doesn't mean I have to love the shootouts, which have nothing to do with hockey. DON's suggestion for 3-on-3 OT would certainly be better than this sideshow.

I'm an old fart, and therefore I say get rid of the goddamned circus shootout and live with ties. That stupid trapezoid can go as well. Recommit to the crackdown on obstruction. And change the disciplinary structure so that head shots are disciplined regardless of 'intent.' (Incidentally, one of my fears is that an extended lockout will lead to further 'fan-pleasing' rule changes - like, say, soccer nets to maximize scoring. The lockout has proved, if there was any doubt, that there is no limit to the sheer, drooling stupidity of the National Hockey League).

People who complain about athletes' salaries seem not to realize that they're complaining about the free market system, period. This system creates massive rewards for services that are in great demand by those with money to pay. Elite athletes in popular sports are in that category. You can inveigh against the amorality (or immorality) of a system that pays teachers a pittance and leaves people out on the street while making millionaires out of men playing a kids' game, but your argument is with capitalism itself, not the athletes. Perhaps the real irony here is that the NHL owners - who seem to get in high dudgeon about unions 'telling them how to run their business', as though this is some fiendish distortion of their sacrosanct free enterprise as private profiteers - are the ones advocating heavy restraints upon the basic market mechanism of supply and demand. It's a joke.