The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Don't forget all the UFAs that would 'breeze by' him on the way to signing elsewhere (Actually, I feel that Breezer was, in the main, unfairly maligned by Habs' fans who punished him for being the #1 D-man on a horrible team and for playing on the wrong side for the entire year when he went -35. But what the hey).

I always thought Kariya should have been a Hab. Fast, flashy, stylish, smallish, classy player - he was the prototype, really, except for not being French.

Zany question. My view is, the lower the better. I'm old school. If you're gonna go for a higher number, it had better be a snazzy one. 77 is very cool in particular. THE number of all time is #9: the Rocket, Mr. Hockey, the Golden Jet - it's a shame that subsequent generations of superstars abandoned the tradition of sporting this number. It used to be almost a standing announcement that you were THE MAN.

Great thread! I've been enjoying these sarcastic game-day threads since they started surfacing in January. Truth to tell, I feel a little lost with my Habs out of the playoffs. This is usually an exciting time of year. Instead there's a CH-shaped void in the normal routines of spring. Blech.

AHAHAHAHA, can you imagine??? That would be awesome.

Right. MacGuire's media charisma and big mouth would be a great asset to an expansion team or a struggling team with a low profile in its market. I would certainly give him serious consideration in that context, for PR and business reasons more than hockey reasons. But that logic certainly doesn't apply in Montreal. This team does not need PR, it needs a sure hand on the rudder building toward elite-level on-ice success.

This makes me slightly uneasy in that we'd better hope this isn't one of those 'bad' concussions that lingers and lingers. Price, Patches and PK are the core of our future - it'd be just our luck to have one become damaged goods.

Saskhab makes a good point about Carriere. Just as we would be correct to be frustrated with an inadequate search process or with someone being chosen simply because of his language or popularity, so we should be wary of the idea that no one associated with the outgoing regime must ever be our new GM, even if he is the best qualified. Carriere would be a bad PR choice but quite possibly a good hockey choice. As for MacGuire, it's not just about his seemingly photographic memory, it's about leading a team. Is he a leader? Would YOU want to work under this guy? Is he the type of boss you'd serve with dedication and loyalty? His only experiences in a leadership role were disasters. He is not a leader of men, he is a guy with an extensive memory, so-so hockey judgement, and a gift for self-promotion. That's a whole other thing.

Yep, we're on the same page. I don't flip out because of mid-range contracts and with apologies to habs29, I don't think Kostitsyn is all that difficult to replace, in principle. Cammy's slot is another story. Top-3 wingers don't grow on trees. We'll see how it plays out.

I felt Savard did a good job, notwithstanding that comical Asham trade (which I supported at the time, silly me). Machine's analysis of Gainey's performance is fair. The Ribeiro and Gomez trades really hurt us, but other than that, he certainly brought order to the team and made us competitive year after year, a highly respected organization around the league. I still believe that the rebuild of 2009 is being unfairly maligned based on a lot of things that went wrong this particular season (plus Gauthier's inability to plug the holes on D). Bob left a team that needed some work but had a lot of ingredients to like. A good (not great) GM on the whole; but he did make those two glaring mistakes and - it must be said - didn't get a whole lot of luck either.

The issue may be less Cammy per se, as the role Cammy played in our lineup, at least on paper, and for some stretches during his time here. Most people would still regard him as a legitimate top-3 player. With him out we have a major roster hole. Your question about rep is interesting. I tend to agree with you that we'll be OK. The Habs had solidified their image as a good organization that makes the playoffs annually and can offer you some real thrills (e.g., the semi-finals last season, the 2008 year, etc.). I doubt one season is enough to wipe all that out. Now if Gauthier had been retained, it might be another story. But as long as we get a credible GM and above all a credible coach, I don't see why UFAs would be leery. In fact, the Habs are likely to bounce back nicely next year; might be fun to be a part of that.

There's five words I never thought I'd hear on this board

Yes, we are worse now on paper than at the start of the season. Cammy in particularly leaves a gaping hole in the roster. As for Hammer, re-signing him for two clearly would have been a mistake, but we needed to replace his role on the back end, and we didn't.

A few things to remember: 1. The team is playing for nothing. 2. The team has had a lame-duck coach since January. 3. Markov is still in pre-season shape. 4. We lost two of our top-6 in Cammy and Kosty (Bourque may prove to be more interested once we get our house in order, but as of now he's a third liner if that). Add the Gio injury to that, hey presto, we suck. 5. The team is still short a Hamrlik replacement. The first three should in principle be different next year. It will be up to the new GM to address 4 & 5. #4 will be toughest.

Gauthier seems to have been genuinely unloved in hockey circles, outside his tiny cohort. His ridiculous treatment of Cunneyworth and Martin didn't help, nor did the bizarre mid-game trade of Cammy. I don't see any similar animus being directed at Martin, who may bore the hoi polloi but is an old-school guy with an extensive network. MacGuire apparently left a ton of bad will behind him in Hartford. While he had two shining years as an assistant coach - and both "assistant" and "coach" are worth underlining - in Pittsburgh, his track record at the NHL level is otherwise one of dismal failure, not to mention 15 years mouldy. Nothing in his self-presentation suggests him to be a sound manager either. While John Davdison shows that you can be a successufl GM coming straight out of broadcasting, Davidson at least had a successful playing career and also comported himself quite differently from MacGuire as a broadcaster: i.e., as a diligent, calm, serious and thoughtful professional, not a one-man PR machine for himself/baying loudmouth. MacGuire might be a good choice for an expansion team looking to up its profile. That he was passed over by St. Louis and Minny, two solid organizations who nonetheless probably would have benefitted in PR terms from His Royal Baldness, suggests that our august organization can also pass. We don't need their sloppy seconds.

I want to say that if MacGuire becomes GM I will stop being a Habs fan. But I can't bring myself to go that far; probably I'll either stop following them until the inevitable day when he is fired, or else watch in the fatalistic expectation that we have decisively entered Houle Years 2.0. The groundswell of fan support for this guy is the inverted mirror image of the groundswell that attacked Martin: total, abject confusion of style vs. substance. I get really sick of the English-Canadian media ALWAYS emphasizing the PR aspect of the job. You read things like, 'Roy wouldn't be a top candidate anywhere else but he's a fit for Montreal,' or 'MacGuire would address the PR issues that are so important...etc.' There is an underlying contempt for Montreal as a pure hockey market in a lot of the comments - an assumption that nobody here really cares about excellence. Below that surface may also be an underlying contempt for francophone Quebec, which has historically been portrayed in English-Canadian discourse as passionate and irrational. Just saying.

Machine, this Roy question is tricky. If you hire Roy as GM, then you are taking a big risk in hockey terms, but hoping for the high ceiling. If you hire a GM other than Roy, you cannot proceed to dictate that he hire Roy as his coach. That is a recipe for disaster. Nor is a GM (other than a senior management type with huge credibility, such as Nill) liable to hire Roy for this job, both because Roy is under-qualified and because Roy will probably end up unseating him as GM before all is said and done. Therefore, hiring a GM other than Roy most likely means no role for Roy in the organization. No role for Roy with Montreal means that he will end up running the Quebec City franchise: a gigantic PR disaster or epochal proportions and one whose pscyhology will probably see the Nordiques owning us on the ice more often than not. It's a frigging time-bomb is what it is. Other than hiring him as GM, I just can't see Roy being anything other than a pain in our backsides.

Jim Nill. It's a no-brainer. Other than that, I have no strong preference from among the standard list of choices. People such as Brisebois, Loiselle, or Bergevin are safe, conventional-wisdom picks who are qualified and would likely do a professional job (which is not the same thing as making a champion). I am not wholly averse, though, to the 'swing-for-the-fences' choice; I saw Vancouver do this, going off the chart to pick Mike Gillis, and that has worked superbly. So if in the interview process somebody like Roy steps forward and impresses Molson/Savard, not merely with his name and rep but with his managerial vision, I wouldn't be up in arms. But I'd also be under no illusions that such a step would be other than a high-risk, high-reward move. I really think that being a great GM is not just about resumé and experience. Serge Savard, Bobby Clobbers, and Mike Gillis are all examples of guys with no previous experience who stepped in a did very strong jobs. Conversely, two of the most seasoned and impressive c.v.s out there belong to Bob Gainey and Brian Burke, neither of whom are rated as successes in their most recent gigs. Dave Nonis represented the 'conventional wisdom' choice in Vancouver, yet he was turfed out for the neophyte Gillis and has substantially improved that organization. So there are different directions we could take. But if we want to win a Cup, I believe we'll need an ineffable combination of professional managerial competence (the 'conventional wisdom' types) with that mysterious X-factor (excellent intuition, ruthless drive to win rather than just be good). The choice will lean more to one side of these poles than the other, but ultimately whoever we choose must have both qualities if we hope to do more than tread water. BTW, we won't do better than Farber's list, which should be taken as pretty authoritative: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_farber/03/29/pierre.gauthier.fired.new.gm/index.html?sct=nhl_t11_a0 Plus, I kinda like his idea of Roy + Savard staying on as éminence grise to keep the lid on Roy's fiery nature.

I said all along, based on actual evidence rather than hysterical outrage over his boring press conferences and funny looks, that JM was a good coach and should not be fired. But the fans got what they wanted. That usually a recipe for losing, which this was. Ah well. Water under the bridge. This team is short two top-six forwards, having dealt away Cammy and Kostitsyn without adequately replacing them. My own view is that we can survive at C if we can add dangerous wingers. Interesting to read Dutchahek (sp?) in the Globe, suggesting that if we hired Roy we might be able to lure Radulov. Add to that one of the Russians at the draft table and we could fix the problem overnight - provided we are willing to roll the dice on Russians.

All I can say, BC, is that I wish I'd been wrong. One point that hasn't been mentioned enough is how nice it is to see Serge Savard back in the fold. He was wrongly dismissed back in 1995 and it's only fitting to see him come back for one more round and helping us to right the ship. Whether his counsel will be well-suited for today's NHL, that's another question - but let's hope so. Incidentally, inferring from JT's analysis, it looks as though Patrick Roy is the most obvious choice based on Savard's criteria (and note that in the Gazette interview he pointed to himself and Bobby Clarke as former players with 'no previous experience' who did a good job as GM): http://habsloyalist....t-with-old.html Carbo or Damphousse might be other possibilities - Savard boys in whom he probably retains a strong belief: French, local, part of the 'family,' Cup ring(s), burning desire to win. I'm just speculating of course.

I agree with the specific claim that it's time for a fresh start, not more of the same Gainey-Gauthier crew. Of course, whether this gut feeling can be rationally defended is another matter. But psychologically it really does seem to be time to get some serious fresh blood in here. That Molson made sure to dispose of Gainey for the GM search indicates he thinks the same way; wouldn't even allow the old guard a say in the process. Gauthier, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Bob Gainey, I am sorry that it ended like this. And I just feel that fans should be a little more gracious to this guy (as they should have been to Martin) rather than gleefully cackling at his departure. Despite the disappointments of his tenure as GM (which brought highs as well as lows, it should be remembered) Gainey is a dyed-in the wool Montreal Canadien great and should always be treated with the respect and admiration he has earned by his lifetime of service.

Question. Are the Habs in a better position as an organization than the Leafs? - in terms of young talent, guys on the farm, quality veterans with gas left in the tank, contracts, the whole bit? Explain your assessment.

I admit I've been watching erratically, but from what I've seen Staubitz has made a good case for a regular 4th line role. DON seems right to me on this.

Yeah, but it doesn't work that way when people move from elsewhere to Montreal