The Chicoutimi Cucumber

100%. What will happen is that one of the days a young man will get killed in front of 20 000 people by exactly such an 'unfortunate event.' And his life will indirectly be on the hands of all those smug old-boys-network bastards who have done nothing in the past and will do nothing now. All i can say is, thank God it wasn't Patches.

Yeah; and the lesson is, if you want to kill a guy, be discreet in expressing your intention to do so. Then the NHL will give you a twinkie instead of suspending you appropriately. The question should be: were you responsible for this very dangerous play that led to grave injury? Then have fun golfing, chump, 'cause you're gone.

Not one bit. But you're absolutely right: the NHL and its drooling commentariat will continue to dance along to the tune of 'intent' and 'accident' and 'unfortunate incident' until finally, someone winds up either dead or paraplegic.

I'd like to agree, but Wamsley's right, it probably won't stand up in court. My concern is more that the NHL will use the perceived ambiguity around Chara's intentions ('did he "merely" intend to hurt Pacioretty, or to kill him?') as a rationale for only minor disciplinary action. Wansley's words are gold here: HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULT. And he should be held accountable. You shouldn't need mind readers in order to have justice.

Bingo. Sorry to keep posting, I am truly upset about this, on a human level as much as anything.

I don't know what he was thinking. What I know is that he is responsible for his actions - or would be if the NHL were not run by a bunch of smug, pious accomplices to brutality. This.

It's the same thing every time someone's life is nearly destroyed: the old guard stands up and makes excuses and apologetics. Anything except demand that players take responsibility. The ONLY time this doesn't happen is when the player committing the act is a notorious and universally loathed cheap-shot artist like Cooke. In short, if they hate you, then they want to see you suspended. Otherwise, it's all just some 'unfortunate' stuff that happens. Scumbags. EDIT: Wamsley, I'm glad you agree since I respect your opinion so highly. WE have to take responsibility for our actions in our lives, when we destroy others. It should be no different for hockey players. Intent is irrelevant, or at best marginally relevant: it's the deed itself that counts.

See, one of the basic problems with the NHL and dangerous plays is the whole notion that if it was unintentional, then it's somehow OK. Chara didn't MEAN to almost kill Pacioretty. What's his name didn't MEAN to hit Crosby's head. Blah blah blah blah. Who gives a sh*t what he 'meant' to do? If I run you over with my car unintentionally, I am still legally liable for the damage I do. I love how a league that makes a point of totally discounting player intent when it comes to delay of game penalties (shooting the puck over the boards! Ooooooo!) or high sticking drawing blood, suddenly makes all these pious noises about how 'so and so didn't REALLY mean it' when it comes to life-threatening, career-jeopardizing acts of savage brutality. THE PLAYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. PERIOD. In my book, CHARA IS SUSPENDED FOR THE SEASON AND THE MOTHERFU**ING PLAYOFFS. Either that, or he is suspended for as long as Pacioretty is injured. Like my earlier idea of docking a team two points in these circumstances, such measures would put a stop to this tripe real quick. (Lest I be accused of having lost perspective because I'm a Habs fan, I've said repearedly that I'm appalled by these proliferating attempts to injure. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back). Finally - Bertuzzi is an ape who should have been suspended for the length of time that his actions prevented Steve Moore from playing (i.e., forever). Moore's hit was unacceptable, but not on the scale of the retaliation, or the horror we witnessed tonight.

Yeah, I've been following that whole issue. And that's mostly why I'm so upset about this. These concussions can compromise a person's entire life. Forget hockey. We're talking about people who cannot think clearly or function normally for the rest of their lives. Hell, the Vancouver Sun just had an article on Steve Moore, who has suffered permanent brain damage from Bertuzzi's assault. On a gut level I cannot understand how an informed hockey player could choose to do that to someone else.

Well, on some level I just don't understand it. Chippy play, even dirty play, these are one thing. Attempted murder is another. If the Bruins players are not in shock at what they just saw, then they are not emotionally normal human beings.

You called it. I knew that Patches and Subban were too good to be true - it was only a matter of time before one (or both) faced a catastrophic injury. Lo and behold.

Honestly, I'm surprised the Bruins don't have the simple human decency to mail in the third period and go home. They're not going to win, a young man's career and life may have been radically altered for the worst tonight - for God's sake, show an ounce of class.

It's not just this hit, it's the recurring pattern of vicious, career- and life-jeopardizing hits that has marked the NHL over the last while. It is unbelievable to me that a teammate who has seen up close what happened to Marc Savard - whose career is over and whose entire life may now be compromised by a savage cheap-shot - would willfully do the same thing on another player. This is a league where Sidney Crosby, the greatest player of his generation, can be, potentially, permanently damaged by thugs, with absolutely zero consequences. Someone will die if this doesn't change. It is, simply, sick.

I feel sick to my stomach. Pacioretty is lucky to be alive. Thank GOD he is not paralyzed. Chara will maybe get a slap on the wrist. The ######ing monkeys in the NHL head office probably feel that this is 'just' retaliation for Patches' shove of Chara after scoring a few games ago. You know what would stop this? If the team whose player was found guilty of deliberately injuring another player were to forfeit the points from the game - or better, forfeit two points the team already holds in the standings. They do that, BAM! This lunacy ends. This is the first time in my life I feel like not even following hockey any more.

I went with 1 on the theory that Moen or Pyatt or whoever will give it a go, but I agree with the logic above. If the Habs are smart they will play THEIR game, not Boston's: shut 'em down with ace goaltending and their patented 'bend-don't-break' defence, skate 'em into dust, pump a few in at the other end and restore the Prunes to their natural state: whining losers.

Crying about diving is just gamesmanship, but how do we know that Marchand isn't right on the other issues? - i.e., that the Habs are mouthy and prone to cheap shots? I remember reading a quote somewhere in the press regarding Plekanec, where an anonymous opposition player mentioned something to the effect that he was always full of welts and carved up after playing Pleks. That wasn't public trash-talking, and it surprised me, because I never thought of him as a stickwork guy. (Maybe I just don't pay enough attention to that when our guys are delivering it). The Flyers also commented on our mouthiness in the playoffs last year. In short, I doubt that our boys are exactly saints out there.

Wamsley and I had a few posts about this in the thread from the Florida game. Basically, there are 4-5 bona fide contenders this year - Vancouver, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, and *maybe* if we want to stretch it, San Jose. Pittsburgh is out because of their injuries, and Washington needs an army of therapists. That is an unusually thin pool. The question we should consider as Habs fans is not whether we can beat Philly (we can't) or Boston (we can), but whether we have as good a chance as anyone of going to the Finals should Boston and Philadelphia falter. And as I said in the other thread, we can certainly beat any of the other five playoff teams if we bring our 'A' game and have no further key injuries. Of course it'll be a dogfight, but I'm happy with our club in a 7-game series against anyone in the Conference except Philly and maybe Boston. It's harder to imagine how the Finals would play out - I can't even think that far ahead. But obviously we'd be a longshot to beat savvy Detroit, skilled Vancouver, or hulking San Jose (I think we stand the best chance against the Canucks). Heck, Nashville would be a horrible matchup for us because of the nature of their system and team. LA might be a good matchup, by contrast, because they're so young; our wily veterans could take it to them. In any case, the pessimists are right to say that we are not in the same class as those 4-5 top teams. They are wrong to assume that means we can't go the distance, first because upsets happen all the time in the playoffs, and second, because far fewer upsets will be necessary this season than in most years because of parity. Cautious optimism is the appropriate attitude.

We were completely owned in the 3rd period - rather worse than in the usual 'Habs-hold-on-to-a-lead' situation - which I'm sure the Lightning will point to as evidence that this was a flawed 'statement' on our part. However, when you consider that we were likely tired from the road trip, I wouldn't read too much into either the shot total or the doings in the third. This WAS a statement by les boys. You have to like the way this team is starting to get its game in order as the playoffs loom. Hell, even Gomer Pyle played well last night. Now - no further injuries please!!

Yeah, a rectal thermometer If it's true that when AK46 is hot, the Habs are hot, the most likely explanation is that he is a huge missing piece of our puzzle: a legitimate top-6 scoring forward with a physical edge. I prefer to think that a hot AK46 illustrates what it would mean to add a player like that to our roster. Sadly, he only plays like that for 15-20 games per year and I see no reason to believe that this will change. Enjoy his hot streak while it lasts. If it carries over into the playoffs, then I'll start to get excited.

On further reflection, the joker in the Eastern Conference deck may be Tampa. I don't believe they are true Cup contenders, but with their mix of champion vets and a burdgeoning Stamkos, they arguably occupy an intermediate zone between Boston/Philly and 'The Pack' (which includes Montreal, Washington, an injury-ravaged Pittsburgh,and whoever is in 7th/8th today ). I do think we can beat Tampa, but it'll be tough, partly due to the 'French Factor' of St Louis, Gagne, that fraud Lecavalier, and Guy Boucher, all of which will give the Lightning that little extra push you sometimes need. In any case, they're probably the hardest team to know what to expect from of all the playoff seeds in the East - it's quite possible that it will take either Philly or Boston to beat them.

Ha ha, guess I blew that one

Strange to say, I have dodgy feeling about this one. Florida looks TOO dismantled post-deadline. I'll bet they come out feeling weirdly liberated and re-committed, while the Habs are probably struggling to stay awake during the pre-game warmup against this nonentity of an opponent. Redefined opponent + uninterested Habs = potential blown points. Hopefully this is just paranoia on my part.

100%. Gauthier had three basic choices at the deadline: -dump assets to try for a run this year. Dumb idea given that we cannot surrender more picks and certainly not young blue-chippers like Subban and MaxPac. Not if we ever want to hit the next level and become true contenders. -sell aging war-horses like Hammer and Gill to the highest bidder in order to stockpile assets for the future. This would mean surrendering all hope for this playoff. Dumb idea given that, as per the above, we have a legitimate chance of doing damage. -stand pat and hope that Spacek comes back strong and that the team brings its 'A' game to the dance. Best option. I'd love for us to be Vancouver, but looking at the competition, you realize we're better positioned than most fans seem to acknowledge.

The fact is, there are very few authentic contenders in the league this year. Pittsburgh's injuries seem to rule them out. Washington is a massive question mark. So in the East there's really only Philly and Boston you can point to as rock solid. In the West, Vancouver, Detroit and possibly San Jose (notwithstanding their awful track record). This is something that critics of the Habs haven't really thought enough about. You can rail about us being a 'bubble team,' but all other things being equal, we have just as good a chance as anyone except Philly and Boston of making it out of the damned conference. Of course smart money bets against the Habs duplicating (or, dare to dream, surpassing) their run from last year; but the weakness of the field means that we actually have a credible chance of doing so. If someone knocks out Philly, there's no team I truly *fear* among the remainders. (Boston is a stronger team than us, but you know, when the habs play Boston weird things happen )

First, that's awesome work, BTH. Another example of an obvious and important theme that only finds systematic treatment on the internet rather than in the 'professional' media. Second, I think you are absolutely right here that the key to Habs' success is not the 'excellence' of the opposition so much as the style the opposition plays. At least when tolerably healthy, we are excellent against teams that play an east-west game. Against big, physical north-south teams with hermetic defences, we are doomed. But I'd have to take the time to go through that entire list to test this hypothesis.