The Chicoutimi Cucumber

If we go with Roy, I'd live with that and cross my fingers. I loved Roy the goalie and will never forget the image of him raising the Cup in front of us in 1993 as we roared from standing room in the old Forum. I have a photo of myself bowing before his statute outside the Bell Centre. However, he is not qualified for the job, outside a mystical belief in his Roy-ness. I know we all want the great champion back in the fold, but I've said it before - he has ZERO experience coaching professionals and any rational analysis suggests this makes him a high-risk choice. Some people seem to take a 'what the hell' attitude about it. But I guarantee you they will not say 'what the hell' if things go spectacularly wrong - and they might well do. I saw Therrien bungle a magical playoff run against Carolina, I saw Tremblay destroy the franchise by going to war with Roy, I saw Carbo's team implode as it quit on him and immolate the centennial season. Think about it for a minute. What if his ego clashes with Price, or Cole, or Subban, or Patches? Do you really want us to have to ship any of those guys out of town just to appease Rookie Coach Roy? People still fume that JM shipped out Sergei Kostitsyn. The costs of a mistake on this front are potentially massive. People are gonna flame me for this, but the more I think about it, the more I think that Marc Crawford is the best available candidate from among the obvious choices. He did a good job in Dallas, coaching a bubble team to within a game of the playoffs, and was fired, not for cause, but because he was never Nieuwendyck's man. He's bilingual and has been through all the wars - a Cup, Nagano, the Bertuzzi incident - and has coached great teams, bad teams, and middling teams; I can't recall any case of him facing player revolts or going to war with his guys. He has seen and done it all such that the insanity of Montreal will not phase him. He has a good media personality and tends to coach that up-tempo style that people want. Unlike say, Hartley or Savard, he has not spent years outside the game. I'm not saying he's the saviour, but he is certain to offer us good, high-quality coaching and matches most of the boxes that both fans and the organization have said they want in a coach. Absent Quennville or Vigneault, he'd be my pick.

Well, I didn't mean to offend. I don't think you're wrong, either. All I'm saying is that it was a tough decision and he made a reasonable choice. I can certainly see where a Nashville fan would be frustrated, and I think that frustration is reasonable, too. Sometimes life just hands you a tough, tough choice, and you can't really be blamed for whatever choice you make. If he puts them in and the Preds lose, then he's getting ripped for messing with a winning lineup and poisoning team chemistry, ya know? 'Talented drunks' - a bit harsh, perhaps, but give me a break. Those guys betrayed the team and deserve to get bad-mouthed on internet forums at the very least!

In my case, it's the opposite of a gut feeling - more a total lack of any intuition about how this kid will turn out. I just, honestly don't even pretend to know. I wouldn't be shocked to see him score 30, I wouldn't be shocked to see him eventually playing in Europe. Yes, he's tall and rangy and has some skills. Yes, he got 16 goals. Yes, he has great shifts now and then. But four of his goals were in one game (remember Bulis's big 5-point game? What did that prove, exactly?); and 12 assists in 80 games hardly shows great vision. I boldfaced what I see as the key bit in your post. It's just too easy to overrate young players and I've seen it happen too many times. I'm particularly cautious about this kid, on whom so much is riding (our future at C, our return for Halak) and yet who has never really put together any convincing offensive stretch at all. So, I'm not saying NOT to believe in the kid. But I'm also saying that Jan Bulis arguably looked better than him, at the same point in his career, and so did Latendresse. Haven't seen enough of Louis Leblanc, but I actually do have a better 'gut feeling' about him - perhaps because of his good play for Team Canada in the WJC? Less of a permieter player, perhaps? That's not to say I expect him to be in the top-6 necessarily, or that I think his potential is higher than Eller's. But he seems a sturdier prospect somehow. I could easily see him maturing into a 20-goal, all-around presence and fan favourite for us.

Staal would be a nice fit, but Commandant's words of caution are well-taken. We probably shouldn't sell the farm for this guy. As for Eller, I confess that I find him extremely hard to evaluate. There is no question that he'll be a good NHLer, but will he ever develop top-6 offensive skills? I have no idea. Remember, guys like Buils, Zednik, Higgins and Perezhogin seemed sure-fire bets to become top-6ers as well. It would not shock me to see Eller entering this list of teasers who never quite became what we hoped they'd become.

Carbo missed the playoffs one season, had a terrific 2008, and then oversaw a complete and total meltdown in 2009 in which it was glaringly obvious that the team quit on him. With hindsight, we know that the 2009 team had a ton of problem personalities, and it's probably fair to say that that bunch of talented head-cases would likely have imploded sooner or later, under any coach. Then again, even class acts like Koivu didn't seem to have much good to say about Carbo, and when Martin took over his first agenda item was to destroy the 'country club,' bad work ethic and poor fitness levels among the lingering survivors of the Carbo reign. So, while we can justifiably say that Carbo was dealt a crummy hand in terms of the players and characters he was asked to coach, we can also say that his teams did not show conspicuous evidence of being terrifically well-coached. The idea that we lost some coaching gem in Carbo is not supported by an objective look at the evidence. As for Julien, he was a good coach for us. But he was never Gainey's man, his teams sucked, and he did not appear to be great at developing young players. When Gainey fired him and took over as coach, the first thing he did was put Higgins with Koivu and Komisarek with Markov. This made both of those young guys suddenly blossom. Of course, you can argue that this 'blossoming' was illusory and that Gainey's changes amounted to artificially inflating Higgins and Komi (which we now know to be true). But at the time, it seemed a net gain; all we knew was that the young talent was languishing under Julien. Over the past 15 years, I'd say our good coaches were Vigneault, Julien, and Martin; I'll include Gainey in the 'good' group as well, although the sample size is small The rest - Tremblay, Therrien, Carbo, and Cunneyworth - were all forgettable, although Carbo was the most successful of the latter group. But unless you insist on the Barry Trotz/Lindy Ruff model of 'permanent coach,' I don't think we should be beating our chests over the loss of any of these guys. Except for Cunneyworth, they all had a fair kick at the can, and all were fired for defensible reasons. Remember, they're hired to be fired, and if our next guy lasts more than 3-4 years, I'll be amazed.

That's true. I was thinking about it more from the Habs's point of view. They may or may not want him as coach, but if they don't, they will no doubt be relieved that the Quebec City thing is out of the equation. Two interesting candidates I failed to mention earlier: Jacques Martin and Jacques Lemaire. Both long shots, for obvious reasons... I dunno, my gut says it's going to be Crawford, or else somebody that noone sees coming.

There's not much to be gained in attacking Trotz's decision after the loss. Anybody can look through the rearview mirror. The tough part was deciding what to do before game 4. I thought about it myself, between those two games, and immediately saw how tough a call it was. Trotz went with the group that had put together any excellent season before these two talented drunks were added to the roster and I can completely understand the decision to go with cohesion and chemistry rather than talented unprofessionalism. It didn't work out, but it was a reasonable choice, and as Commandant says, there's no guarantee that the Preds would have won even with those two guys. Certainly Kostitsyn, anyway, has never been a difference maker in his life. I'll be interested to see if Kosty's hijinks cost him on the UFA market this summer. They pretty much exposed him, to my mind, as a guy who just doesn't care - answering the long-standing question of whether his constant inability to use his gifts to their fullest extent is a result of an attitude problem or something else (like lack of confidence, injury, or just needing time to put it all together). Despite the proven stupidity of NHL GMs, I suspect this stunt will cost Kostitsyn, in that it will remove a good number of teams from the competition for his services. I would expect the remaining team to either be struggling franchises desperate for talent and willing to turn a blind eye to questions of character, or elite teams like Vancouver, Boston or Detroit that tend to have faith that their internal leadership is strong enough to trasmute assholes into committed professionals. The broad mass of NHL teams may well stay away unless they can sign him at cut-rates.

Well, the Canucks wisely extended GM Mike Gillis's contract, so this almost certainly means that Vigneault is off the market. The main page includes a link to a TSN report that Quennville isn't going anywhere either - another wise move by that organization. This takes the two top candidates out of the equation. I'd expect the speculation now to centre on Crawford, Hartley, Denis Savard, and of course our old pal Patrick Roy. Carbo has, I suppose, an outside chance, but given dubious results the first time around, this'd surprise me. The non-move of the Phoenix Coyotes takes Quebec City off the table for an NHL team, at least in the short term. This may remove one source of pressure to sign Roy. So, some interesting developments of late. Anybody know if Bergevin has a prior relationship with any significant bilingual coaching candidates out there, other than Crawford? And are there any strong, bilingual AHL coaches that haven't been mentioned?

I wonder what Burke would do in this instance? Would he politely wait until after the draft, or grab his man and let the other GM lump it?

So, one of Bergevin's first acts is to get under Burke's skin! I like

If Quenville is available and speaks French, then he rockets right to the top of any list IMHO. The idea of choosing, say, Roy over him is just nuts, with all due respect to the Roy boosters. The guy has won a Cup as coach, has a busload of experience and is universally regarded as among the coaching elite. It's a quintessential no-brainer. Vigneault: he's the consensus second-favourite option after Quenville, and absolutely my next choice. That being said, people need to keep their expectations realistic. With Vigneault, you are guaranteed an authoritative, seasoned, and proven coach. But his tenure in LotusLand has not been without controversies which will undoubtedly surface in Montreal as well. For instance, he has a fine track record of developing young players (Kesler, Edler, Bieksa, Burrows, Schneider, Hodgson), BUT he is regularly accused of the opposite because he gives youth inadequate ice time in the opinion of many, and he certainly leans on veterans in the crunch. Given that this fanbase mercilessly attacked JM for doing exactly the same thing, with comparable - i.e., good - results, I have no doubt Coach V would soon be lambasted on a regular basis for 'misusing' young talent. Similarly, he breaks up lines when they are not succeeding. Worse, in what was his only obvious blunder in vancouver, he actually hurt the team by breaking up successful lines heading into the 2012 playoffs and has been hearing about it ever since. This practice of line-tweaking has landed him in plenty of hot soup with radio call-in shows and will do the same in Montreal. Finally, despite coaching the Canuckleheads over a span in which they're one of the offensive powerhouses of the NHL, fans routinely complain about his 'stifling system' that supposedly impedes team success. So, again, if we hear this in Vancouver of all places, we will certainly hear the same whining relentlessly in Montreal. In other words: if you're one of those who thinks the only way to develop young players is to play them 25 minutes per night, that lines must be held together with Crazy-Glue so players can develop 'familiarity,' and that non-stop offence with minimal attention to systems and defence is the way to go, then you will HATE Vigneault. The rhetoric around Jacques Martin suggests that about 90% of fans thinks this way. They will consequently come to hate Vigneault. All he will do is put the team in a position to succeed, not any of this other stuff. So if you're one of those who prefers this 'other stuff' to seeing the team actually play proper hockey, don't push for Vigneault.

I'm tempted to say that my list looks something like this 1. Vigneault 2. Vigneault 3. Vigneualt 4. Vigneault 5. Vigneault but it really goes like this: 1. Vigneault 2. Crawford 3. Roy 4. Hartley 5. Anybody but Therrien Doug MacLean was on Vancouver sports radio saying that Joel Quennville might either be pushed out of Chicago or want to leave. He cited him as a possibility in Montreal. Take that for whatever it's worth.

How much more punishment do we have to take from that schmuck? He is human garbage. Stop dreaming about him suddenly returning to form and dump his sorry arse.

Wow! That would be a shocker. The whole move would hinge on the belief that Staal has it in him to produce much more offence than he has done behind Malkin and Crosby. Considering that he's only 24 and coming off his best offensive season, I'd say that's a reasonable gamble. I'd nervously support this trade. What does McGuire think about it?

5 years is fine with me (according to RDS, four years is the industry standard). The guy is dragging his family and kids from the US to Montreal, after all. Besides, stability in the GM's chair is highly desirable. It's all good.

I want to say that if we'd kept Ribeiro, we probably wouldn't be hearing so much about it. Then again, when we had Roy, Carbo, Denis Savard, Eric Desjardins, Patrice Brisebois and Vincent Damphousse, we were still hearing about it. The 'French talent' thing isn't an argument, it's a quasi-religious belief in the mystical link between Frenchness and the Habs and therefore defies any rational analysis. No matter how many we have, it will never be enough. Unless, perhaps, we have a francophone superstar.

He certainly shows good judgement in strongly endorsing Timmins and Carriere. I noticed that his talk about 'waiting until he can evaluate the entire organization' before making decision, etc., etc., did not apply to those two. Nor did it when it came to Price and Subban. Clearly, despite his stated diffidence, he has a good read on who the keepers are. The presser itself didn't blow me away per se. He doesn't have the presence of, say, a Gainey, Burke or Yzerman. This in no way means he is not the right guy, of course. His style is almost quintessentially ''ti gars du Quebec' (what we used to call 'a Jean-Guy' back in my Montreal days). This will endear him to the French media and probably the fans His emphasis on Quebec talent is questionable in hockey terms, although he is absolutely correct that having one scout in Quebec is ridiculous (but wasn't this Molson's decision last summer? I seem to remember us having three Quebec scouts before). The other slightly troubling thing was the emphasis Molson put on 'communication.' I understand that, after Gauthier, everybody wants a more agreeable human being running the show. But I hope we didn't choose the anti-Gauthier. It would be a mistake to allow your choice of GM be defined by the limitations of his predecessor. Anyway - reservations are moot at this point. Good luck, MB!!!

I'd rephrase the question: what is the advantage to Molson of either option?

The Dudley rumour keeps popping up. I don't see him as some genius, but he seems OK. I wouldn't be in any great hurry to expel Larry Carriere from the organization, BTW. And presumably Serge Savard will still be hanging around in some capacity. Which, provided he's merely an advisor rather than the man behind the curtain - or someone who will undermine the GM with the owner - is a good thing. Any speculation on coaching choices? Naturally, I've seen Denis Savard's name arise, an obvious bit of internet spitballing given the Chi-town connection. But does Bergevin have any clear prior link with obvious candidates like Crawford, Roy, or Hartley?

What constitutes 'marginal savings' here? Wouldn't a buyout save Molson over $3 million? That's what I don't grasp about Bob Mackenzie calling for the firing of whoever decides to buy out Gomer Pyle rather than bury him in the minors. The owner needs to agree to bury a guy; and if he doesn't agree to eat millions, what other choice do we have?

First, thank God it wasn't that blatherskite McGuire. This is clearly a solid, professional choice, a good sign that our owner is not going to run the operation like a private club for him and his pals. Reminds me of the André Savard hiring: they seem to have similar profile, with a background from playing to coaching to scouting and administration, both having established themselves as relatively young managerial hotshots before making the Big Jump. Good that he has experience in pro scouting, too, because McGuire is right about that as a huge organizational question mark. I'd have liked someone with more experience, admittedly. But what I really like are the comments about his personality: you hear things like 'natural leader,' 'someone people gravitate towards,' that he has extensive connection, etc.. These are promising characteristics. Plus he looks like a badass. I look forward to the press conference and trying to get a feel for the forthcoming direction. His choice of help and - most of all - the new coach will tell us much about how we're shaping up

He's a solid 20/20 man statistically and that will keep him in the NHL, but that little escapade really does tend to confirm what most of us have suspected - the guy is not a winner, he's a passenger. Either attitude or alcoholic stupors explain his 50+ games per year of floating around in a haze despite his undoubted talent. I'd be tempted to say 'good riddance'...except that we managed to replace him with Bourque What is it with Gainey Rebuild 1.0? Ribeiro, Grabovski, Sergei, Andrei, Latendresse, Lapierre, Higgins...all these guys, and probably more, have had 'issues' relating to lifestyle, personality, work ethic, or character. That must have been some dressing room. To think, we used to fancy them the core of a future Cup team!

On my list, McGuire is, too quote John Lennon, FOOKIN' LAST. I guess it's Bergevin or bust for me.

Actually, the latter two are at least highly valuable players. Overpaying for such a player is one thing - always controversial, but often justifiable. It's paying massive dough for guys who are of only marginal value - Huet, Redden, Gomez - this is the real managerial Mark of Cain to my mind. Thanks for the McKenna reference, I like any tidbit that seems to reduce uncertainty on this front. Is he credible?

If Talon is the guy who gave Huet that $six trillion contract, we ought to think twice