The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Although he could well turn out to be the best of the bunch, PK will never win. His numbers, as Habs29 says, aren't spectacular; he was benched for five games earlier this season; and he's a notorious bigmouth who has been proclaimed to lack 'respect for the code' by the usual legion of ignorant morons. Even if his numbers were great, the selection committee would take the less controversial choices.

Count me among the pro-Desharnais, anti-Gomez crowd. True, the former is an unproven commodity, but Gomez has been a disgrace pretty much all season long. JM either has a pathological love of veterans, or a pathological mistrust of rookies, or he is intent on keeping Gomez a participant in the hope that he finally gets going come playoffs. I can understand it (I think), but if Gomer has a bad playoff and Desharnais keeps playing well we should be actively exploring ways to get rid of the baked Alaskan. Auld has the coolest helmet of any Habs goalie in the post-mask era. And that's about the only thing about him that's any good.

All very interesting, but I respect Bergeron's hockey insights about as much as I respect that of Ernie and Bert. This is a man who predicted that Mike Ribeiro was going to be better than Wayne Gretzky

I like the idea of dressing Auld, myself. Give him a chance to bounce back from last game. And if he fails to come through, then you know that you need a different solution as backup. Assuming Price needs a couple more games off before the playoffs, I wouldn't rule out calling up Sanford at some point - he was tolerably decent as Luongo's backup, and it's not clear at all that Auld is an upgrade on him. I hate to say it, but in retrospect keeping Cedric Desjardins might have been a better move in pure hockey terms, given how mediocre Auld has been this season.

It does seem unlikely. Surely the probabilities (there's that word again) favour the argument that the Habs have already passed through the worst of this slump. It's an error to extrapolate the future from the what happens to be the worst 10 game-stretch of the season. The only reason for thinking otherwise is that the bulk of our remaining games are on the road - an ominous factor considering our road record. But paranoia aside, rational analysis suggests we'll be fine. (It's almost like we've been fans of a bubble team for so long, we don't know how to cope with the cushion).

So you're looking at probabilities: if I fire 400 quality shots to your 200, then all other things being equal, I am likely to outscore you. 'Luck' is the term you use to desginate situations where the outcome does not match the probability. (Personally, I think my use of the term - as an unpredictable X-factor that turns events in favour of one party over another - is closer to common useage, but whatever). Here's another way to look at it. Your goalie sucks. Mine is awesome. Therefore, all other things are NOT equal: we are not equal at this key position. So you need 600 shots to my 200. But you only get 400 shots; and so you lose. But I don't see the label 'luck' being the best way to describe the gulf between your suckage and my excellence in nets. Also, Wamsley - and you know I love ya - there seems to be some slippage in your analysis of last year's playoffs. When we traded Halak, I expressed anxiety because in my book Halak, unlike Price, had proven he could excel in the clutch, and I seem to recall you arguing that Halak was the beneficiary of excellent team play rather than the single transcendant variable that created our playoff success. Yet now you seem to be arguing the reverse. Am I misrepresenting you, or - ?

+1. This guy coaches us to within 3 games of the Finals and then gets results that surpass those predicted for us by 'experts' despite an injury-ravaged lineup, and HE DESERVES TO BE FIRED because he benched David Desharnais. Wow, there's some quality analysis. I maintain that if he didn't come across as so suffocatingly boring on TV, half the haters wouldn't be haters. It's a classic case of confusing image and substance.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I would never deny that the 1993 team was better than the 2009 team, for instance. The real issue seems to be what 'luck' means. The 1993 Habs were a damned strong club that was full value for the Cup win - I share your aggravation at the media narrative that they were mediocrities carried on Roy's back. However, the fact remains that they were lucky to draw Buffalo and the Islanders instead of Boston and Pittsburgh. Lucky. They were also lucky - let's face it - that a guy like Paul DiPietro came out of nowhere and made a significant contribution. Lucky, in the sense that these were unpredictable X-factors that turned the Habs' way. So 'luck' to me refers to exceptual circumstances that break in your favour. A team can have all the breaks go its way - horrible, series-destroying calls against the opposition, for instance, or a great playoff draw, or the opponents suffering massive and crippling injuries. I don't particularly recall seeing that happen against the Caps or the Pens. (Losing Markov sure wasn't a break, except of the literal kind, against Pittsburgh). What I do recall is goalies that couldn't stop a beachball and one team (Washington) that was manifestly overconfident, relying on sheer talent to win, which is always a playoff kiss of death. A goal post here or there...sure, but you can say that about any team that wins anything. Team Canada was 'lucky' to beat Team USA for the Gold on that analysis. All that proves is that the series were close. If your criterion is that you're always lucky to win a close series, then I just don't buy it. But this isn't your actual view, of course. Your idea seems to be that a team has to reach some threshold of objectively-measurable excellence before its playoff victories can be deemed something other than 'luck.' So a team that finishes 19th overall and proceeds to upset two heavy hitters is by definition 'lucky,' while a team that finishes 6th overall and does the same is not. I'm still not sure I accept this, necessarily. First of all, the current team has bobbed at around 10th overall for most of the season, so where does this leave us? But more to the point, I accept that the 2009-10 Habs were not an elite team in the regular season - who would argue that? But equating them to 2002 is also unfair. The reality lies somewhere in the middle. Last year's team was artifically bad during the regular season due to massive chemistry and adjustment issues. This year's team is arguably more representative. And what this year's team is, it seems to me, is a better-than-bubble team that is a significant notch below the handful of really strong NHL clubs, but is also capable of playing a game that beats most of those teams on any given night, especially if they are unprepared or get bad netminding. Now we come to the shots against. This was a source of controversy last playoff and I suppose it will never go away. I don't think the game plan was to give the Caps 70 shots a night. But I DO think, first of all, that goaltending counts (do the 93 Habs win with Niemi?) and secondly, that the game plan all along was to collapse down the middle, keep the other guys to the perimeter, and wait patiently for chances and bury the ones you get. It's a game plan that concedes the superior talent to the opposition and is predicated on neutralizing that talent as much as possible. Rope-a-Dope. Over an 80 game schedule, it's a recipe for injury, exhaustion and defeat. But it can work very nicely over 7 games when you have Gill and Gorges, Markov and Halak/Price on the back end and hornets like Cammy and Gio up front. As it happens, it did work. You need good coaching, excellent goaltending, the right of kind of talent - Florida could never have done it - and total team buy-in. I just don't see what's so 'lucky' about all that. The difference with 2002 is that these guys are not pieces of crap relying 100% on superb goaltending and an extraordinary emotional boost supplied by the near-death of your best player to cancer. On those grounds, while the Habs cannot be considered 'favourites' in any playoff matchup, neither can they be viewed as insane unpstarts if they do win. Their 'A' game is unorthodox but meanginfully capable of beating all but the very strongest teams in a playoff series.

Shit, any team that wants Gomez is doing us a favour. Even if Jovo has an ACL tear, make that deal!!

The wins against Washington and Pittsburgh were not 'luck.' In the first place, both of those teams got absolutely garbage goaltending, while our goaltending was stellar. You can call that 'luck' if you want; but it's no different than (say) Gomez and Plekanec sucking ass while the other team's top C perform spectacularly. When your key player(s) outduels the opponent's key player(s), you deserve to win, period. You may as well say the 1971 Cup was luck because Dryden schooled his counterparts. Second, the Habs beat those teams in exactly the way we beat Vancouver: playing a 'bend but don't break' defensive system predicated on surrendering lots of shots and puck possession, but protecting the goalie very well, while counter-punching effectively on offence. This makes the other team look good, but in fact gives us a solid chance of beating them, as the Vancouver game and the playoffs demonstrate. Third, the Habs played with absolute team commitment, while Washington was not prepared. Therefore they deserved to lose. Not 'luck.' Pittsburgh was better prepared, but had no answer to the above combination. IF Washington had been prepared they might have beat us. In this sense, you're right; and if they play that series over, the Caps would have been better positioned to win. But really, what does that prove? It's like saying that Team Russia might do better if we played the 2010 Olympics all over again. In hockey as in life, you only get so many chances and then you're dead. The team that takes advantage of its opening is the one that 'deserves' to win. Pittsburgh, meanwhile - no way they would ever beat us with that goaltending. We beat the Penguins without Markov, too. How is that 'luck?' Our best player out? That run was no more 'lucky' than 1993 or 1986. In fact, less luck was involved, because in 86 and 93 we enjoyed good draws, with the heavily favoured teams knocked off by others. In 2009 we were the team that upset the big boys. Twice. It all crashed to an end against Philly because first, Philly is simply a terrible draw for us, and second, Philly was the inverse of Washington in that they WERE fully prepared. Don't forget the brutal back-to-back scheduling for Game One of that series either; and also, beating three powerhouses in a row is a tall order for any club. Now as for this season: we need to plan for a playoff drive that does not include facing Philadelphia. If we play with the same commitment as last season and manage not to draw Philly, we do have a chance of going deep again. This is not 2002.

Die Leafs die!!!

It's pretty well assumed out here in the west that LA is looking to make a significant move. They've had a disappointing season after being pegged as 'the new Chicago' - they want to win, to take that jump to heavy-duty contender; they also, I believe, have cap space to burn; and they are rolling in young assets and picks. The perfect, highly-motivated deadline-day partner. I for one will be surprised if Richards or some other big name isn't a King by Monday. I could see them kicking the tires on Kostitsyn. And yeah, the hard-hitting Brown would be an AWESOME acquisition. But really, it's a long shot that we have anything to offer them.

I live in the Vancouver area and watched this guy for a while. Trust me, you're not missing anything.

Sopel seems like a useful pick-up - a shot-blocker par excellence, with a Cup ring and lots of experience, is exactly complementary to the nature of our team. He builds on our already-impressive ability to shut down the middle and protect the goalie. While he's obviously nothing great, he seems so peculiarly well-suited to our team identity that this has to be rated a canny move by PG. (This, incidentally, is likely among the reasons they wanted no part of Kovalev: he is the exact antithesis of our team identity). I remember when Sopel was regarded as a high-risk offensive defenceman a la John Michael Liles. Funny how careers go The UFA factor is a bit mind-bending, though. While not as extreme, it's vaguely reminiscent of 2009, when half the team was pending UFAs. In any case, assuming that players who try Montreal first tend to be more receptive to staying here, this adds to our options come summer. Macguire said Kosty is in play. He's no Ezekiel but I assume he's professional enough not to make stuff up; so a further move wouldn't shock me.

OK, I'm sold. I picked the wrong link to make the point...but the point stands. Hickey is an ass, and does indeed exemplify the kind of shoddy thinking that passes for 'analysis' in too much of the 'old media.' My error was to jump on an article that agreed with the point I wanted to make, without worrying too much about the thought process underpinning the agreement.

Basu is certainly more insightful in offering an explanation for the neglect of Desharnais against Vancouver (i.e., line matchups, rather than just irrationality by Martin). But I'd note that both agree that Desharnais appears to be under-utilized based on his performance, in favour of the over-use of Gomez (based, again, on performance). In short, DD appears to be getting a bit of the short end of the stick. The Vancouver game was a particularly striking example of this emerging trend. I sympathize with what is presumably JM's position, namely that he (as Basu puts it) 'trusts' proven veteran and Cup champion Gomez over the tiny and unproven Desharnais, and wants to give Gomez every chance to get into his groove, because if he does, we know that he can make a big difference. I'm certainly not in a frothing rage over this. Still, I *would* like to see Desharnais given a bit more opportunity in light of Gomez's collossal FAIL this season. As Basu points out, we need to know whether Desharnais can indeed be counted on in clutch situations such as the third period of the Vancouver game, because it is no longer clear that Gomez ever will emerge from his torpor.

I agree with BTH that if the Habs are going to address the Gomez situation, they will do it in the off-season (or, as per one of my theories, at the quarter pole of next season). But when you hear that Brad Richards and possibly Paul Stastny are in play, you do kinda get Trade Deadline envy. Quality 1-1a C right there, and here we are with Gomer Pyle.(*wistful sigh*)

Yeah. I just can't understand the Halpern call, though. I mean, if you're going to call a penalty that will make it a 5 on 3 - basically coming as close to guaranteeing a goal as you can get as an official - at least be sure the infraction is signficant. A marginal call leading to a 5 on 3 is just bush league, period. EDIT: I just noted Fathead Hickey making the case for Desharnais in this context here: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Desharnais+getting+credit+deserves/4333925/story.html The guy's bang on.

No, the dodgy hooking call - which stuck us with a 5-on-3 disadvantage - was on Halpern. What a bad call. But Pouliot cross-checked a guy away from the puck. Totally dumb penalty in a tight game we needed to win and he deserved to be stapled to the bench. But why staple Desharnais with him? Something to do with not wanting to muck up the balance on the other lines, maybe? Anyhow - in a game like that I don't blame the coach for going with what he thinks will win, and I can't criticize him for delivering the goods!

On the face of it, that was a bit unfair to Desharnais, who scored the first goal on an outstanding move, and to my recollection did not make any egregious blunders. Pouliot, though, did cost the team with an irresponsible penalty and deserved benching - maybe his linemates were collateral damage. Ultimately, it's hard to argue with a victory.

We won for two reasons: Carey Price Hal Gill Anyone not wanting us to re-sign Gill should consider what he can bring in a big game. And an honourable mention to Kosty for playing one of his 10 great games per season. Just don't anyone get excited that he's finally 'figuring it out' It was rather like last season's playoffs. Habs get the goals they need, then hold on. I was pleased to see my prediction - that the Canucks would be flatfooted due to the return of two major regulars after injury - come to pass, at least in the first period Good game to get out of a slump. The machine is not fully firing, but it's one that can rally the team and renew their self-belief.

It's about structure. When this team plays a focused, structured game with tight D, then it doesn't have to score 4 goals to win. But when your guys are pressing, 'trying to score,' they're abandoning puck support, giving up the middle, and losing the structure. What happens then is you end up scoring fewer goals because you're running around and relying on individuals plays. I'm no coach, but I've seen this movie play out many times.

I think we have a secret weapon tonight, which is (ironically) that in Ballard and Hamhuis the Canucks are getting two regulars back after a fairly extended absence. Sometimes teams suffer a letdown when significant players return: the rest of the team lets the foot off the gas a bit, and the newly-inserted guys aren't quite in sync. OK, I may be grasping at straws...but I have seen this sort of thing before. And Martin is right, by the way, to say that the Habs have been 'too focused on offence' for the last little while. There is ONLY ONE WAY for this team to be good, and that is to play JM's system to a 'T.' If they get back to that, they can win tonight. But it's a tall order against one of the NHL's only truly rock solid, bona-fide Cup contending teams.

Well, my previous post was directed at the idea that these injuries are an excuse for preventing us from winning our share of games. We should make the playoffs with the team we have and with the cushion we have. Now as for being a bubble team, this is one time where the excuse is arguably legit. This team needs Markov, and is well above a bubble team with him in the lineup IMHO, especially if you add Wiz into the equation. It's been well above a bubble team with him OUT of the lineup for most of the season. Having said that, between his contract and his shitty play, Gomez is a major roadblock to this team really contending. He's either gotta get better or go.