The Chicoutimi Cucumber

O'Brien's an interesting case...seemingly ideal in some ways (defensive-minded and tough), he really matured into a leader in Colorado, but had a rep as an uncoachable party animal in Vancouver. Would Montreal be a bit like hiring the fat lady to work in the candy store? That's the question.

If you (by some miracle) sign Suter or acquire another stud blueliner, then you trade Markov. But without having anyone to replace Markov on the blueline, dealing him almost guarantees extended mediocrity for les canadiens regardless of who you get back. His absence - along with general weakness on the back end - was our single biggest problem last season, so I don't see why you'd move him unless you plan an extended rebuild.

Exactly. That's presumably why we allowed someone like Boucher to walk. It's a short-term pain, but may be necessary for a healthy occupational culture, and you surely don't want a reputation as an organization that keeps its people down. If the CBA allows it, presumably the Devils would demand some compensation from us rather than chain Larry to his post.

How good is Markov gonna be in 2-3 years? I'm not saying he'll stink, but that Emelin-Markov hypothetical pairing could prove a lot less impressive in practice than it does in theory by then. Just a cautionary note.

Well, the point is that you'd be getting him at a cut rate because of all these very issues. Hence the low-cost, high-reward nature of the scenario. This is not the case for Bernier, who - despite his disastrous penalty in Game 5 - is probably at his highest value since he was a well-regarded youngster slavered over by Pierre MacGuire. The Kovalev idea is more of an amusing, fan-friendly lark than a serious hockey scenario. Lats, though, has two possible ceilings, both of which should intrigue us: first, he has it within him to be a 25-goal power forward, as he proved in that one hot season in Minny. More realistically, he has it in him to be a tough-on-the-puck third liner who, with good linemates, can keep the puck in the offensive zone for most of a shift; this is what he consistently did for us under Carbo. Plus he knows Montreal, may be older and wiser, and may well be motivated. As long as he comes cheap, passes the physicals, and - crucially - as long as we are not in the position of counting on him to deliver, I think it's well worth taking a chance on him.

I like the way you think. Whatever it takes to get Big Bird on board, that's what we should do. I suspect that, as an organization, you don't want to force guys to stick around if they are interested in a position elsewhere. If Larry truly wants the Montreal job, I'm sure the Devils will relent. Maybe I'm naive, but this just seems like sound management of human beings to me.

Bizzare. But I guess I'll take the pick - although it's depressing, given its importance to the Habs, to read that this is widely considered one of the worst draft pools in years.

It's frustrating, because Bouwmeester is a stylish player and an excellent addition to a top-4 - probably one of the top #2 defenceman you could have. But his time in Cowtown has proven that he is not a #1 defenceman on a winning team; and yet he is paid like one. So while in pure hockey terms he would make a tremendous addition to our defective D-corps, adding him - even if we could get him straight up for Gomez - looks too much like failing to learn from the Gomez debacle for comfort. The next time the Habs take on that kind of contract, it has to be for a truly elite player.

3 years at 2 mil or under seems kosher to me. I've become pretty convinced that bottom-6 players are far from interchangeable. When you find a good one - a Moen, a Moore, a Kostopolis - you should identify fair market value and sign him for decent term. These guys can make a huge difference over a long playoff (and, presumably, a long playoff is something we hope to reach before the end of his contract).

Ha ha, no, Bergevin. Sorry about that. I don't care what that Michel 'Mike Ribeiro will be better than Wayne Gretzky' Bergeron thinks. And I agree with your point in this post. Pleks and DD have the heart and the skills to be effective. Finding big, strong, productive wingers for them is a totally valid way around their limitations.

It's all ultimately unknown, but I must say that I like every move MB has made - whether it be keeping Timmins/Carriere, or adding Dudley, Gallant, Breezer, Lapointe, Lefevbre, promoting Jodoin, etc. - with the single exception of the Therrien hiring. The creation of full-time player development roles is just huge. I also like the way he seems to have a longer-term plan in mind (e.g., grooming Jodoin to possibly replace Therrien, grooming Lefebvre to possibly do the same, or to replace Jodoin); a really strong organization will develop not just players, but also coaches and admininstrators, from within its system, and he clearly gets that. I even like that fact that, other than Therrien, he has pulled toward him every well-qualified and/or promising Quebec hockey man out there. In short, the initial impression is that he's building a tight, Montreal-savvy hockey operation. It's just a shame that he hired a clown as head coach, instead of snagging Hartley or Crawford. No doubt he will fix this (probable) mistake within three years. EDIT: incidentally, have there been any hot rumours under Bergevin that have failed to become reality? The contrast with the previous regime is truly shocking in this respect. Clearly, MB has no problem with loose lips in his operation. Be interesting to see if he can impose a necessary discipline when it comes to more delicate matters such as trades, etc..

I dunno about NHL2012, but I agree that Pleks and Desharnais can be a legitimate 1-2 punch down the middle provided they are properly surrounded and effectively managed by the coach. It's not ideal but it is a viable Plan B. That being said, Bergeron said something recently about wijnning through goaltending, defence, and strong centremen. This implies that he isn't terribly interested in Plan B and is working to land a big centreman.

That he was 'released' from his KHL contract does not suggest vintage Kovalev, no. Don't worry, MB won't sign him. But I still think such 'sentimental' signings have their place and if they *did* sign him, I'd still enjoy watching Kovy lumber around out there, getting limited minutes and occasionally showing a flash or two of the old Kovalev.

I know what you mean. If they signed him to a cut-rate super-low deal, I'd get a kick out of that. It might not help in hockey terms, but Kovy is intrinsically entertaining no matter how wretched his game is And who knows, maybe the Montreal crowd could pull a few more magical moments outta him.

Ha ha, the future is...KOVALEV!!! http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=634781

Yeah, so far the only hiring that I regard as seriously questionable is Therrien. Other than that, MB's moves seem to me to be perfectly solid, substanively speaking. You can argue that he is following the traditional modus operandi of the canadiens: in the absence of a clear-cut superior candidate, hire the French guy. I don't object to that at all.

100%. I've been saying this for years. It's like Larry Murphy on the Leafs - good second-tier defenceman at that point in his career, forced into a top-pairing role by the crapiness around him, and for this the fans make him a scapegoat and drive him out of town. In Brisebois's case, he was also forced to play on his wrong side for the entire season when he finished -31, a total quite unprepresentative of his career numbers. Never complained once or even publicly pointed that out despite being so abominably treated by the 'fans' that it damaged his health. If you subtract that single outlier from his record, you find a prefectly good second-pairing offensive defenceman (who, for all his defensive limitations, still had two seasons of +17 and +16 on pretty crappy clubs). The guy was a good hockey player and proved his heart by coming back here. Enough scapegoating already.

Well, like I implied before - we can't lose, because prior to this we had NOBODY fulfulling this mentoring function full-time. Lapointe + Breezer constitutes a gigantic improvement over zero.

I find this idea ridiculous. Brisebois played here for 14 seasons and experienced some of the highest highs and lowest lows a player can experience. That is exactly the type of background we want to have mentoring our young players. It's bloody well time people stopped hating on this guy because of one disastrous season where he was playing on his off-side due to the abysmal D-corps he had around him.

I don't have a problem with any of these hirings. Lefebvre is highly qualified, and Brisebois and Lapointe both seem to have the profile that would make them valuable in player development roles. Remember, this is the first time (!) the Habs have seen fit to have people whose full-time job is to attend to player development. That in itself is a huge advance. Add to that that both Breezer and Lapointe had experience-rich, highly successful NHL careers, and I see nothing to gripe about. On Lefebvre: the Cunneyworth debacle shows conclusively that there is absolutely no point in hiring an anglo coach. So, if, as GM, you conceive of the Hamilton role as a possible stepping-stone to coaching the canadiens - a common enough way to think - then it follows that the head coach of the Dogs should also be franco. This moronic affirmative action policy is the gift that keeps on giving. But, like I say, Lefebvre has solid qualifications, so there's no cause for grief. This also probably means that Jodoin is coming up to the big club. That's fine, too. He is paying his dues and building his c.v. through the organizational ranks. I like that. Sad that his boss will be that boob Therrien, but presumably he can learn from his boss's mistakes and become a better coach for it

Actually, I would not be surprised if this year goes rather well. Expectations are low, enthusiasm will be high as everyone gets a fresh slate, the players will be motivated, and we are unlikely to suffer the same perfect storm of things going wrong as last year. It's over the following season I'd expect Therrien's limitations to become a problem - if, indeed, he hasn't learned anything from his previous failures.

Welcome to habs fandom circa 2012 Sad but true

I think in every post I've made relating to this issue, I've qualified my negativism with the possibility that Therrien has learned from the past and is now equipped to be more than mediocre. This is, however, a complete leap of faith. Up to now, the guy has been a mediocrity as an NHL coach. It would be nuts to be super positive about this hiring based on the body of work.

Interesting analysis here: http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2012/6/10/3076762/player-usage-chart-for-michel-therriens-2007-2008-penguins The short of it is that Therrien is actually quite good at bench management and actually horrendous at overall systems, given that his Pens got routinely outshot and were dominated in puck possession. The analysis suggests that Therrien is the very definition of coaching mediocrity. Not out-and-out incompetent, just not very good. Barring a significant improvement in Therrien's acumen, it sounds like we should get ready for a reprise of the Habs circa 2010, where we got outshot and out-possessed continually. Fun times ahead.

Well said. Also, there's a certain precedent here. Jacques Laperriere was a fine second-tier defenceman who was chosen to be the Montreal Forum's requisite scapegoat, booed on the ice with some frequency. He went on to be an outstanding defensive coach. Brisebois is obviously not the player Laperriere was, but I like the analogy.