The Chicoutimi Cucumber
-
Posts
19478 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
484
Posts posted by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
-
-
well color me not surprised. I think the 2 finalists for the Vezina trophy are both pkrheds. As a former goaltender and a student of the game, I find that bobbyloo is far too deep in his net and he gets killed when guys shoot high on him, as to Mr lucky Tim, he is far too agressive and puts himself out of position a lot. Both losses in Van were a result of Mr Lucky guessing wrong. His rebound control is non-existant. Why the Canucks do not use extreme left to right movement amazes me cause he is not good at that. Hey it is just my opinnion and I never played in the big leagues.
The funny thing is that Luongo apparently worked really hard with Melanson this year precisely to learn to play from deeper in his net, on the theory that he was overcompensating and running around too much before.
It could be that now, at the worst possible time, he's lost the thread, and is overthinking his new technique. As for Thomas, well...Wamsley has long been of the view that he is NOT a particularly good goalie, he just plays one on TV, courtesy of Julien's rigorous defensive system. From what I can see, that seems about right - although there's always the 'Hasek' scenario of an unorthodox guy whose intensity and acrobatic skills compensate for dubious technique. My confidence in Vancouver was not based on the idea of Luongo as a superstar, more on that team's ability, which they've shown all season, to crank it up a notch, usually late in games, and overwhelm the opposition. For two games this 'other level' has deserted them. I suspect injuries to Kesler and Hamhuis have a lot to do with that.
-
It should be the Jets, but in today's corporate NHL things don't work like that. The best I've heard so far is
THE MANITOBA FLOOD!
-
Well, colour me surprised. I was convinced that the Canucks would own the Bruins.
If anything, this series is taking on the cast of the dreaded Chicago-Vancouver matchups of yore. Something about a big, physical team seems to get Luongo off his game and wreak havoc on the vaunted Vancouver D. The same thing happened two years running when they played the Hawks: some close games, but puncuated by inexplicably huge, lopsided and humiliating defeats, with Luongo repeatedly hung out to dry.
Or maybe the absence of Dan Hamhuis is key? There's no question that he has been a quietly massive element for them, coolly running the transition game. Without him, they've got basically the same D that freaked out against the Hawks over the previous two playoffs. And it doesn't help that the mighty Kesler is on the limp.
It'll be up to Vigneault to make the right adjustments, and a good test of Julien's wits to see if he can match them. I never thought the Bruins would be this close - they've gotta know that if they can squeak one out in Vancouver, the Cup is, somehow, theirs for the taking. Impressive for a team missing Savard and Horton.
-
Hmmm. Habs29retired and Wamsley do have a point here. If you lock him up at that rate, not only do you have a solid #6 forward locked in, but you have a moderately-priced, nicely tradeable asset in the event that something better does come along.
But we don't know the backstory. It could be that Kostisyn would only accept no raise if it came with short term. Who knows, maybe Kosty himself anticipates a 'Big Season' and wants to be in a position to cash in.
-
You never know, but I think any assessment of Kostitsyn should be based, NOT on the hope that he will 'come out of his shell' and finally become a real impact guy, but rather on the expectation of more of the same. In this case, 'more of the same' means 20 goals, 45-50 points, some physical robustness, an occasionally wicked shot, and interminable, dreary stretches where he seems to have one of those stupefying brain-slugs from Futurama hanging off his forehead. On that basis, this is a solid signing.
-
I agree with Brian Luongo's deal is no sweetheart deal imho, but the Sedins was a good signing, however they only want to play with each other on the same team so to get full market value for them is difficult given cap constraints. And I do recall at the beginning of the year we all thought someone was going to have to be moved to get under the cap. They got "lucky" with the ltir if you can call it lucky to have a core individual hurt. we certainly wouldn't call it lucky to have Markov hurt.
The Luongo deal is not likely to turn out as badly as some people think. First of all, elite players these days generally play at a high level until well into their mid 30s. Second, even if he slips a bit, there will always be some stupid-assed team desperate for goaltending and willing to take on a Cup and Gold Medal winner provided he hasn't completely lost the plot. Third, nothing in Luongo's profile suggests that he would accept a substantially diminished role - he would quite likely retire rather than cling on as a useless has-been. At most, the contract would be a problem for a year or two as Luongo grapples with his diminished capacities. Meanwhile, you've enjoyed years of paying below cap value for a high-end netminder.
As for Schneider, it is typical of Canucks fans - all fans, really - to assume that you can deal away a proven star goalie in favour of a raw rookie and get comparable results.
I remember 1993, when a significant portion of the fanbase wanted to trade Roy, and this with Red Light Racicot as our fall back position. Gillis locked up his cornerstone player at a modest cap hit by taking advantage of that loophole in the CBA regarding term length before Bettman et al. closed it up. That's good GMing, pure and simple. The Leafs or the Habs would have opened the vault to sign the Sedins. Don't kid yourself, that was a coup by Vancouver. (Incidentally, Vancouver fans have been agitating for years to unload the 'Sedin Sisters' too
Jesus wept). The Canucks deserve credit for creating an environment in which players are willing to take a hometown discount. Contrast that with Markov; he wanted to stay in Montreal, yes, but the Habs still had to pay fair market value to sign him (and will probably have to do so again). The Canucks aren't perfect, but their cap management has been light years ahead of ours.
-
I was listening to the radio at lunch (think it was TSN) and the main difference was 5 frames. It takes 30 frames per second, Rome was 28, Stevens (whichever hit whether it was this one or one of his many others) was 23. In the grand scheme of things, the primary difference was a less than a fifth of a second. Literally quicker than the blink of an eye. Not much difference in the end in that respect.
BTH, they do count frames. This was confirmed by, I think, Eric Duhatschek. I don't object to that in principle, but dlbalr's post exposes the sheer absurdity of the whole business - as though a player is supposed to understand the difference between a fraction of a second when deciding to lay a hit. Dlbalr's post reads like satire. You may as well expect players to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Players are completely confused about what is a suspendable or even a legal hit and what isn't. And I believe Rome when he says he was just 'finishing his check' and thought it was a hockey play. Of course he did; he grew up watching Scott Stevens get hailed as a hero for doing exactly that. Like every other player, he's been trained relentlessly in an ethos of 'punishing the opposition' and 'finishing your check' as an absolute, and I'll bet you he has never once heard a coach say something like, 'finish your check but make sure the check is CLEAN.' And that's because the league has utterly failed to establish two key principles: first, what is and is not a clean hit; and second, that ONLY clean hits are acceptable.
In a weird way, Rome is a victim here too. He has been deprived of his once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to play in a Stanley Cup Final by a completely arbitrary disciplinary system.
-
How lucky was it when they needed multiple players on LTIR to get through the year while using no name callups shuttling them back and forth? (Though I like the last bit, I've been saying for years the Habs need to start doing that.) Yes, it's nice now to have a cap upwards of $70 million but if part of the plan is to have guys get hurt, you're literally asking for trouble. Barring Salo's beyond freak injury, they would have had no choice but to move a core piece or two to get under. I can't qualify that as good cap management.
No, but what IS good cap management is signing the Luongo AND the Sedins at well under market value in terms of cap hit. Three gigantic pieces of the core, locked up at relatively cut rates - that's awesome. The hell of it is, this team will be elite for years to come in part because of those deals. Also because they locked up Kesler slightly before he hit his full stride (more luck than skill there, arguably; but the bottom line is that Luongo, the Sedins and Kesler are all under contract long-term at disproportionately low cap hits - basically the opposite of Montreal's situation).
-
I wouldn't resign him, but given how much Martin used him, he'll probably be back.
If we add another quality forward, then Darche *probably* becomes the odd man out. Although at least he seizes his opportunities and brings it every night. Unlike some I could mention (cough...POULIOT). Personally I'd rather take our chances with our current forward rotation and sign both Wiz and Markov, but even that may be peeing in the wind. I look at Vancouver's cap management - both lucky and good - and sigh with envy.
-
Watch this and tell me there is a difference between what Stevens did to Kariya and Rome did to Horton.
Exactly the same play. Stevens is a hero. Welcome to the NHL.
EDIT: as for what the difference is...I dunno, could it be that it's a BRUIN lying on his back twitching? Or maybe that Rome is a marginal player? Step right up, gentlemen, and spin the NHL WHEEL OF ARBITRARY JUSTICE. WHEEEEEEEEE!!!!
-
The whole thing is laughable (actually, 'tragic' would be a better adjective, since lives and health are at stake). And I agree that the injury to Horton is cosmic justice, although I do not wish Horotn any harm. In any case, this won't help the Bruins. Between this and the 8-1 shellacking, it's Vancouver that is going to come out next game with a sense of aggreieved righteousness. Expect Boston to get dismantled by the Canucks' machine in Game 4. I said Van in 5 going into this thing and 5 it's going to be.
EDIT: watching that hit again, I cannot BELIEVE they gave Rome 4 games. Is it an irresponsible hit? 100%. Should he be suspended? 100%. But this hit is NO WORSE than the hit that ended Crosby's season - no suspension - no worse than the Game 7 hit on Halpern - no suspension - no worse than the Torres hit - no suspension - Lucic on Spacek - no suspension - and certainly no worse than then Pacioretty hit - no suspension. For that matter, Scott Stevens is in the Hall of Fame for hits like this. The double standard is absolutely galling. Shame on the NHL for playing Russian Roulette with the lives and well-being of its players.
-
Looks great for next year, but what happens when Price and Subban need a raise?
At that point you move heaven, hell, and earth itself to unload Gomez. In fairness, he should be more marketable then given that his actual salary will drop, if not his cap hit.
-
$2 mil for a hulking two-time Cup winner with a track record of formidable offensive skills and ZERO proven evidence of being a bad teammate is a worthwhile risk for a team in need of size and a top-6 forward. If he turns out to be poison, cut him loose and be done with it. The only thing I would do is talk to him first about JM's system and get assurances that he'll buy in. Anyway it's almost surely a moot point.
-
Another good and smart move for Gauthier.
Gill should also take over for Pearn.
Spacek is just untradable at his age, salary and inept defensive play, but Martin and Pearn seem to keep running him out there, bad shift after bad shift, for some unknown reason?
He is just eating up a roster spot (for a Weber at 1/3 the salary) and cap room.
He should be stapled into the pressbox, bought out or shipped to AHL; but i think the chances of any of those options happening are zero.
We will have to suffer through 1 more year with his turnovers and brain cramps!
I think you exaggerate Spacek's badness. He is still a useful #5-6 defensive veteran, just not at that price point.
Meanwhile, great piece on Gill from Arpon Basu:
(Incidentally, this article reminds us of the Gomez-Gill clash of 2010, which Gomez decisively lost, and which set the table for this team's JM-defined identity to solidify. It's worth asking: to what extent has Gomez become alienated on this team? Could his on-ice struggles be a result of his privately opting out of the The System but being unable to take his linemates with him? Could that explain why everyone's statistics, except for MaxPac's, plummeted every time they played on Gomer's line: they were playing the system and he wasn't? If so, then ironically Gomez is the last domino of resistance to the JM regime and team culture - and unless he converts on the road to Damascus we should be redoubling our efforts to get rid of him. Not to start yet ANOTHER Gomez thread
It's just an angle I hadn't thought about systematically before now). -
There has got to be a way to get out from Specek's contract. Is there no team with cap space to spend looking for an expererienced 2nd pairing defenseman? Even if we could trade him with a prospect in order to lock up both Wiz and Markov, it would be worth it in my opinion.
Spacek will certainly be marketable at the deadline to teams looking for veteran depth on the blueline. Of course, by that point it might pay to keep him around. The return would be modest and vets like him almost always raise their game a couple of notches when the dance begins. If he is to be unloaded, it must be this summer.
Your first sentence is where it's at. One of my ongoing frustrations about the Habs is my vague feeling that the organization is not as relentlessly committed to working around the cap as teams like Philly, Chicago, San Jose and especially Vancouver, which has THE best cap management in hockey. When we have a bad contract we should work 24/7, relentlessly, to unload it - move heaven and earth, make it happen; when we want to sign a difference-making player (Wiz) we should do likewise; and I just don't sense that this is the organization's approach. But I could be wrong.
There was a discussion here about sending Spacek down and then putting him on re-entry waivers, which would lower his salary to interested teams (albeit leaving us on the hook for half of it - but carrying that for one season wouldn't be that big a deal). That's a possibility. I also agree that dealing him with a middling - not an elite - prospect would be acceptable if it meant locking up Wiz, for whom I'm a big advocate. For that matter, if sending him to minors means re-signing Wiz and giving us possibly THE best defence core in hockey, then you can make an economic argument to Molson for doing it; it could mean 1-2 extra playoff rounds and all the profits that accrue thereby.
-
A one year contract was a smart move.
It occurs to me that Gill might have accepted less money for a bit longer term. If so, the Habs probably preferred to hedge their bets considering his age and slowness. If he loses a step he will be a pilon. But I'm a big Gill believer - he's not just a gigantic leader and mentor, he's also disproportionately important to the whole bend-don't-break defensive system that is such a key to this team's success.
-
His game has not discernably declined since he was originally signed; if anything, he's proven more valuable in terms of team dynamics than most of us expected in 2009. And dlbalr is right that a flatlined salary in an escalating cap amounts to a pay cut. Good signing.
-
Last season's SCF featured no-name goaltending..
I'm think this year is a complete opposite.
The funny thing is, neither of those guys is 100% convincing. Certainly neither of them carries the team, wills it to win, or gets in the opposition's head and projects invincibility in the fashion of Roy or Brodeur. Luongo at least has it in him to be a truly great goalie - he hasn't reliably put it all together though (but don't get me wrong, I'd take him on my team). What I'm really saying is that neither team got here by virtue of their goaltending. They are where they deserve to be based on their overall roster and if you inserted another good goalie in their nets, they'd probably still be here.
Otherwise put: Price outplayed both of them wall to wall this season IMHO.
-
Coaching is as good as it's players. Scotty Bowman won nothing with the Sabres, he turned them into a responsible defensive team and provided Don Edwards, Bob Sauve and Tom Barrasso with some hardware, but not much else. He won all his Cups with the Habs, Wings and Penguins. All star studded rosters.
Can coaches make a difference? Of course they can, but it is nowhere near what fans would like to believe. Fans want a saviour and a scapegoat.
The coach is the perfect remedy for this, as are goaltenders. It is why Therrien can be an idiot and then almost win a Stanley Cup. It is why Bowman can win 12 straight series with the Canadiens in 4 seasons and then 4 series over the next 7 seasons. It is why Michael Leighton can be a career AHL goaltender and then get to Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Final.
Should we imply that Randy Cunnyworth is a better coach than Boucher because he took the Bulldogs to Game 7 of the Conference FInals with considerably less NHL talent? Or did the Bulldogs do better because they had more veteran AHL talent?
Boucher cherry picked the best situation. Would I be replying to this if he had chosen the Blue Jackets instead of the Lightning and St. Louis, Lecavalier, Stamkos, Hedman etc? The answer is no.
Well, I do think there are better and worse coaches. I've always felt that Therrien was a clown with us and a clown with Pittsburgh, just disguised by his great roster. Boudreau is another guy who is somewhat suspect, because his teams have no track record of playing with structure and seem prone to panic whenever they're faced with a challenge. Pierre Pagé misread his bench in Game 6 against the Habs in 1993 and watched his team collapse at least partly in consequence. Jean Perron has been derided as a joke despite the 1986 Cup, with players on that team saying the real coaches were Gainey and Robinson, and apart from a one-season abortion in Quebec he never worked the NHL again. Carbo had massive problems getting his nucleus to buy whatever the hell he was selling, and the fact that JM's first task was to instil a culture of hard work and discipline suggests that Carbo really didn't get the job done (not to say it was all his fault, but surely he bears some responsibility; and he too has yet to work again). Conversely, while Bowman did not win in Buffalo his arrival DID coincide with improvement to the team. Alain Vigneault squeezed excellent results from a mediocre Habs team in the 90s, was then inexplicably ignored by NHL GMs until Vancouver wisely scooped him up, and now he is getting excellent results with a strong Canucks team. What Bylsma accomplished with a decimated Pens squad is surely remarkable. JM, meanwhile, has provided a system in which his team always has a chance to do major playoff damage. And so on.
A lot of times it's a question less of coaching excellence per se than of right coach for the right team. For instance, Pat Burns seems to have lost the room by 1992. When Demers came in, he seemed to mark a breath of fresh air from Burns's more hard-assed approach and was exactly what the team needed. Then again, the team has also acquired a new first line thanks to brilliant GMing by Serge Savard. Still, players from the 1993 team have praised Demers's contribution, his successful use of positive psychology and motivational techniques. Whether a rookie Boucher would have been the right man for our veteran-laden core is, I think, a good question. Maybe guys like Gio and Gill and Hammer are better-suited to a seasoned veteran like Martin, who has been through as many wars as they have.
None of this is to deny that the main onus falls on the players, not the coach. I just want to resist the idea that coaches are interchangeable parts.
I agree that Boucher's rise has been meteoric and impressive, but JC and Wamsley are right that he landed in the perfect situation. Coaching in Tampa is NOT equivalent to Montreal (the toughest gig in hockey). We also should not forget that our existing coach surely maxed out the potential of his decimated roster this season, and that lots of coaches look great for a year or two before their act wears thin. To invert illWill's metaphor, there's something to be said with sticking to a relationship than you know works, instead of running off with the sexy new babe. Full props to Boucher but I'm not sure we need to be ripping our hair out that we don't have him at this juncture.
-
Boston sure does get the benefit of the refs. Another goal to take the lead after an obvious high stick. Tampa gets all the penalties, Boston makes just as many illegal moves.
I do find that Tampa is playing just like Montreal. They get an early goal, then stop trying to play offense. They are sitting back trying to defend a lead and what do you know, its 2-1 Bruins after one. Tampa has won games when they have played OFFENSIVE hockey. they are faster then the Bruins, but that doesn't matter when you are standing at your blue line. Add to that a weak Tampa defensive and I have to wonder why they want to spend all their time in their own end.
I sure hope Tampa wakes up and starts skating. I would love to see Tampa/Vancouver.
I haven't watched much of Tampa Bay, due to time zone issues, but most analysts suggest that Boucher's vaunted system (supposedly soooo much better than JM's) is based precisely on defensive clamp-down-once-you've-got-the-lead hockey. If this is correct I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to suddenly go all firewagon on Boston's ass. However, again, I'm speaking from hearsay rather than my own assessment. What about all you Boucher watchers out there? How 'defensive' is his famous system anyway?
-
Most bizarre goal I have seen in a long time.
2011 seems to be the Year of the Stanchion.
-
As opposed to the fanbase who wanted Martin fired all season, wanted Carey Price traded, bailed on this team with every injury, booed Patrick Roy and Ken Dryden?? If the Canadiens make the Stanley Cup Final next season and it was on the back of Scott Gomez scoring 11 points in the Conference Final would you be a hypocrite and not allowed to cheer for Scott Gomez because you have complained about his contract? Should those who cheered for Halak and wanted Price traded be held accountable and not allowed to revel in Price's success?
Remove yourself from the situation and the things that irritate you about the Canucks fanbase will travel with you to EVERY city you re-establish yourself. Fan superiority is a self serving exercise that ignores personal bias and the individual flaws of your own fandom.
It isn't a particular city's fans that are absurd, it is FANS that are irrational and absurd, the city is irrelevant.
100%. That's why I added, in my original post, "But I suppose every fanbase/organization looks like a bunch of jerks to those on the outside."
Heck, Montreal fans often drive me crazy and I AM one.
But (as you know) when you live in a city that cheers for a different team, you really get a sharp read on how idiotic that team's fans are. Which is part of the reason why I find the Canucks annoying (their corporate identity and celebration of mediocrity being other reasons). The Bertuzzi thing was the defining moment for me - not that that idiot went bananas, but the way the fans self-righteously rallied to the defence of this scumbag. I'll admit that I like to think Habs fans would have shown more class, but they probably wouldn't. Anyway, how I feel is irrelevant, unfortunately. The Canuckleheads are winning it all this year and I'll just have to hold my nose all summer.
-
CC. If I was still in BC, I would probably feel the same way. I used to revel in Canucks failures, because of their fans. Now that I am in Alberta, I hate them less. If Boston advances, I will be hate cheering against Boston, but I must admit, I will enjoy watching either team fail. Lol. Spite... Ain't it great?
Yeah, the sight of a fanbase that has relentlessly bitched about the Sedins for their entire time in Vancouver, while simultaneously worshipping that fraudluent thug Bertuzzi - if I scored a goal for every time I heard someone say 'Moore's faking it' I'd be Rocket Richard - as well as whining about Kessler's and Luongo's contracts, to say nothing of completely panicking over the Chicago series - suddenly acting like they've been on the bandwagon all along...it's really a bit rich. Then there's the spectacle of a franchise whose symbol is designed as a logo for their corporate owners (Orca Bay Enterprises) and has never been able to settle on a decent uni, and retires the numbers of mediocrities like Smyl and Naslund. All told, not too cool. But I suppose every fanbase/organization looks like a bunch of jerks to those on the outside. My sympathies actually incline toward the Bruins on this. I think you do have to respect your Great Opponents, and they've been a tremendous rival for us over decades and brought out the best in us. They are Original Six, too, and as noxious as they are, they're ridiculously overdue. I won't deny that just in terms of team make-up, though, Vancouver is more likeable: only one thug (Torres), dues paid in full and a ton of skill. It's more the franchise/fanbase that are unspeakably lame.
-
I assume that the potential to cause injury to Vancouver's top players would be Boston's advantage over Tampa.
This Boston run is so frustrating in that it clearly shows we could've won the East this year if we could've gotten one lucky break in an OT. Like Cammalleri not hitting the back of Chara's legs on that open net. You know, the overtime after the first one when Michael Ryder made a save on an open net.
No, I think Boston is a stronger overall team than Tampa, and their size up front makes them a better matchup against Vancouver's fleet but not especially hulking blueline. You're right beyond that; Boston's policy of deliberately attempting to injure opponents (a policy the NHL chooses to reward) also makes them more likely than Tampa to win (although Vancouver does have Torres, who at least raises the possibility of a tit-for-tat in the injury department). Anyway, like I say, while I give the Bruins a better shot than Tampa, it's still only about a 30% chance; no one is beating the Canucks.
What's funny about Game 7 OT losses is that everyone acts, going forward, as if the outcome was inevitable. I remember a quote from one of the Bruins to the effect that he expected Philly to be more difficult than Montreal because of their size - surely a testamony to the power of ideology (big = good) over reality (which is that the Habs came within one shot of eliminating Boston). Similarly, while Vancouver will be full value for this Cup, it's only by divine grace that they averted the single most catastrophic playoff collapse in NHL history (an OT loss to Chicago after being up 3-0 in the series).
Having said that, the Bruins won 3 of the last 4 against us, so that probably helps to support the narrative of Inevitable Bruins Victory. I also don't think you can infer that we necessarily would have beaten Washington. So yeah, it's frustrating, but there's a big jump from being a Round 1 Game 7 OT loser to reaching the Finals.
Me, I'd rather see Boston win than the Canucks - but then again I live in Vancouver and have to suffer their idiot fanbase on a daily basis.
Andrei Kostitsyn inked
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
Well, I see your point, but if you buy the theory that Rebuild 1.0 was fundamentally contaminated by bad habits and a lack of commitment - which, judging from the total firebombing of everything relating to that era, Gainey concluded that it was - it might be a good thing that he did not lock us into years of Higgins, Komisarek, Lapierre, Fatendresse, etc.. I'm NOT putting this forward as self-evident fact, just a different view to consider. I also disagree with your assessment of the Hammer contract, but these are details I supppose.
Also and maybe most importantly...you need the player to be willing to sign at rates under what he might get were he to hit his ceiling. This will not often be the case; Habs rule has a good point there.