The Chicoutimi Cucumber

If they're the good team we all think they are, then this trip should be no cause for great concern. Then again things have been only so-so lately. I predict a .500 trip, maybe slightly better.

OK, I'll buy that. What I don't buy is that we were in any way outmuscled or intimidated last night.

We didn't need a goon last night. The fact is - and this may be part of what was disturbing Milbury and Stock - the Habs were the more physical team. These guys showed ZERO signs of being pushed around, and with guys like PK and Pacioretty taking a regular shift the team suddenly looks decidedly bigger. A lot of the mewling about the 'dirty' Habs may be a combination of 1. whining about big-mouth irritants like Lapierre and Subban who annoy but don't drop the mitts (but - news flash - being annoying and not fighting is NOT the same thing as being 'dirty'); 2. confused shock at being outmuscled by a supposed team of 'smurfs' (in fact, we're not that small); 3. excuse-making for the fact that Habs are a damned strong team. Of course, I also don't rule out 4, that we can do the chippy stuff with the best of 'em I recall some reporter quoting an opponent as saying that if he's always hacked up after facing Pleks. This sort of argument, especially as it relates to the Prunes, goes way back. Guys like Carbo and Chelios yapped and sliced guys up and tended not to drop the gloves. Now those guys are considered legends. Our boys are in good company as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I think it's an open question. But I'll admit that I'm going out on a limb, and some people may be agitated by what I'm about to say. The key word in my post was 'subliminal.' I don't mean that Subban's critics are consciously manifesting racism; in fact I'm sure they're basically decent men who would be appalled at any overt act of racism. But the fact is that the attack on Subban is unfolding against a cultural backdrop in which those kinds of claims have all too often been levelled against successful black people. The sad reality is that North American culture has long been marked by much broader and deeply-rooted fears of both the 'uppity' Black Man who 'doesn't know his place' and the insolently 'threatening' Black Man who must be contained or jailed. Attacking Subban for being uppity and insolent starts to look slightly suspicious when placed in that wider context. It doesn't help that the NHL has had exactly ZERO all-star players who look like PK. The novelty of his 'racial' - academics would say 'racialized' - identity means that he is likely to be an especially potent trigger for those underlying, half-subconscious fears among whitebread commentators and observers. In short, I don't think we can let them off the hook so easily.

100%, with certain qualifiers. E.g., if a 240-pounder totally destroys Wayne Gretzky, even cleanly, he is likely to face retaliation. And I think that's rather reasonable given that player's importance to the team and to the game, and the nature of his style as a player. But what has happened is that a pretty specific and limited part of the code - 'that if you crush a small, skilled, and key player you are liable to face reprisal' - has somehow been expanded out into the idea that ANY crushing hit has to be met with angry denunciations and fist fights. The double standards around Subban centre mainly on his wearing a Habs rather than a Leafs jersey (how often did the CBC condemn Darcy Tucker for his numerous attempt-to-injure and his ignorant chattering?) - but given the way this narrative has taken off, I really am beginning to wonder whether a subliminal racism is in fact at work here. I hate to say it. But if PK were white I really doubt the indignation over his mouthiness would be as intense. Shame on these arseholes.

I watched the RDS feed, and scanning this thread I am floored to find the CBC slagging Subban for ANY aspect of his behaviour relating to that absolutely spectacular hit. That was one of the best bodychecks of the season, from any team: clean as a whistle and just devastating. Some of these NHL commentators have simply lost the plot. The kid has a big mouth, so he MUST drop the gloves after making a clean hockey play? He shouldn't let the Prunes take a pointless penalty? What the f*ck??? I hope the veterans took PK aside and told him to keep playing EXACTLY like that. The discovery that PK can crush people will really build his mystique and will also start to make people think twice about crossing the blueline with him back there. This kid has it in him to do it all, if he can just keep his head on straight and not get distracted by all the petty losers who don't want star rookies to be entertaining. Great, character win by Les Boys. Watching this, it occured to me that I like this team a lot. Probably the best combination of talent, guts, goaltending and team concept since 1994. :hlogo:

Well, not sure I share this Zen-like detachment...but it's hard to argue with the logic. I guess the key is to care passionately about the outcome (which is the fun part of being a fan) while resisting the attendant trap to draw wider conclusions about the team's prospects from that one game.

Ah, memories. Obviously I agree with you on Koivu. Fun stuff right here: Points to note: 1. Huet came up huge in the second half of the game. 2. Gomez, playing for the other guys, nearly spoiled everything. Lucky his shooting was just as bad then as it is now! 3. What a killer move Koivu puts on Lundvquist in the shootout. :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo:

Yeah - this is a game we should expect to lose, especially considering our walking wounded. (That Gomer and Spacek are dressed doesn't mean they're anywhere near 100%). Philly is a team basically constructed to beat us. Unfortunately, this game follows on the heels of two losses (one good, one bad) and so a loss tonight will really compound a narrative of doom and gloom around the Habs. Get ready for lots of bitter commentaries, attacks on Martin, fuliminations on how we're 'really a bubble team,' etc., etc.. The task for the Habs will likely be to ignore all of that crap, put their heads down and play their game like they can -which, I suspect, they will. Like you, I believe in the system.

My own view is that, if the Habs want to be true contenders this season without Markov, they will have to add a top-4 defenceman somewhere between now and the deadline. I agree with CoRvInA to that extent.

Wellllll...I *did* point out that Higgins flourished artificially from being placed as Koivu's winger... I always found it interesting that the first thing Gainey did when he took over from Julien as coach was put Komisarek with Markov and Higgins with Koivu. Clearly, there was little doubt in Gainey's mind as to the capacity of Msrs. Markov and Koivu to make their linemates better. Ironically, though, those moves - while beneficial at the time - ultimately inflated expectations (and contract demands) for those players and contributed to the outcomes we're now discussing. Wamsley was bang-on about Komisarek at the time. I confess to wavering on the question of the Komisarek contract, but in the end I did want us to re-sign him at, say, $4.5 mil. My bad! And Wamsley is also correct that contracts and the related expectations have a deleterious effect on players' careers. But I'm sure their extra, unwarranted millions help them to sleep at night.

Not sure I want to be on the hook for him at 2.5 for 2011-12, though.

Very realistic assessment. I want as much as anyone to believe that MaxPac will deliver. But rookies generally don't step in and deliver 'answers' for teams in anything other than the short term, and I do not believe that JM will suddenly deviate from his pattern of demoting young players who are failing to contribute effectively in offensive situations. Contra Latendresse, JM does not believe in a philosophy of young players being 'entitled' to ice time or plum deployment. MaxPac will have a narrow window in which to show the coach something. The most likely scenarios, then, are either that MaxPac steps in, fails to deliver offence, gets demoted to the bottom-6; or else that MaxPax steps in, delivers offence in the short term, then cools off and gets demoted to the bottom-6.

Congrats on a very interesting question. Kovalev is probably the easiest to explain...a combination of the player's innate nature (moody, inconsistent) and physical decline. Komisarek? It's probably too pat an answer - my chronology may even be wrong - but for me he was never the same after the Lucic fight. Before that, he had an emerging reputation as this hulking, menacing shutdown defenceman. That fight exposed him as nobody to be afraid of, and drew attention to his pattern of acting big against smaller, weaker players. Add to that the absence of Markov, which exposed limitations in other areas of his game, and you've got a diminished player: not scary enough to intimidate, not quite mobile enough or a good enough passer to be top-4. Indeed, his own self-image or self-belief has probably been taken down a few pegs since his best year with us. Higgins might be the biggest puzzle of these. It could be argued that he never really had the profile of an offensive player, that his background revealed a player best suited for third-line duty and that he was miscast when coach Gainey put him with Koivu and he had that great offensive breakout. But even so, he had wheels, showed moments of brilliance as a two-way player, had pedigree as former captain of the US world junior team, and seemed to have a high level of commitment and leadership potential. I was sure that his worst-case scenario was that he'd be a Mike Peca type, an elite defensive player. Yet he now seems to be a quasi-marginal NHLer. The most obvious explanation is that injuries ruined him. He's on IR again, I notice... Having said that, there will always be a big question mark around the players who formed the nucleus of that disastrous 2009 team that imploded from within and then scattered to the four winds. It is striking to me that Bob Gainey, after having coached these guys, was all too willing to let them go (even if he did extend serious offers to Komi and Kovy). As Wamsley says, nothing proven, but I continue to wonder whether Montreal - with all its attendant distractions and ego traps - got to them one way or the other (overconfidence, indiscipline, 'personal problems' which usually implies substance abuse issues, whatever. I'm not making any accusations, just contemplating the possibility that they got ruined by the 'star' complex that Montreal can instil in undeserving, immature players). Finally, of course, it's possible they just weren't particularly good: basically mediocre talent who had some hot spells and in Komi's case one very fine season. What we thought of as the tip of the iceberg was actually the whole thing.

OK, I don't follow our prospects closely, but looking at that roster, we need an offensively skilled C. Which begs the question - why not give Desharnais a shot? Just asking. As for using Pac on the top-6, I agree that it seems sensible, but JM's general MO appears to be to let young guys 'learn the game' on the lower lines. Unless Pacioretty really makes a statement with whatever chances he gets in an offensive role, I'd expect him to be quickly bumped down. But I've been wrong before.

I can't pretend to be an expert on Habs' prospects, but on the face of it I think Desharnais has every right to be feel he warrants a legitimate chance in the NHL. If he weren't a shrimp, don't you think he'd be highly touted? His numbers bespeak outright dominance at his present level. While it is true that the Habs have a glut at C (at least with Gomer in the lineup) as well as a size issue, to what extent is this simply more of the Briere-on-waivers syndrome, irrationally devaluaing the little man?

Say it, brother! I remember in '93, people saying how great it would be to have a Leafs-Habs final. And my view was that I wanted no part of that series. If the Habs won, it would be treated as 'just another' Cup for the Habs and all we'd hear about for the next 50 years would be The Great Leafs' Run of 1993 (along with memories of 1967 of course). I mean, we STILL hear more about Gimour in 1993 than we do about the truly historic Habs run of that same year. If the Leafs somehow won that series, meanwhile, why we'd never hear the end of it. Look at 1967. The Habs have won 10 Cups since then; yet none of those, including the genuinely miraculous runs of 1971 and 1993, has generated anything comparable to the mystique and subsequent media coverage of the Leafs' last Cup, at least not from the comically Toronto-centric CBC. In short, all that counts is what the Leafs do. So we can't win no matter what happens when we play the Leafs. As far as I'm concerned, Saturday night's listless performance was a result of a high-end team being unmotivated for a game against bottom-feeding garbage, especially after an emotional and truly meaningful game the previous night. Not exactly a towering moral victory for TO. But try finding that perspective presented anywhere in our 'national' media.

That's a nicely thoughtful assessment, dlbalr. Well done as usual. As I said earlier, because one can't just infer that Kovy's performance with us would mirror his performance in Ottawa - that's what it means to be mercurial - I think Kovy *could* work for us as a rental, but there's no question it would be a high-risk high-reward type of move. Gauthier is not the type for such moves, so I don't think it'll happen. Besides, the Markov injury changes the calculation. Between MaxPac, Pouliot and possibly even Eller, we should take our chances up front; I'm ultimately with those who think that if we go for a rental it should involve an impact blueliner. No Kovy for us.

Yes. A very reasonable, realistic assessment.

Regehr, baby!

The Habs could really use an impact power forward. More realistically, though, he will see bottom-6 duty and be brought along gradually. Either way, I'm rooting for him because if he does materialize, we're a significantly better team.

In retrospect, Richards would have been a MUCH better acquisition than Gomez. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20. I'd love to have him and think he would be an exemplary fit for our system and team concept. But is that really where we should be investing? What do we do with Gomez, then? I think a major move for a blueliner is far likelier.

I like this analysis. In fact I lobbied (impotently natch) for Regher when Markov went down. Of course it all depends on what goes back the other way. Then again, this game was obviously a 'let down' game by a team that had been psyched up for a major test against a great team and had trouble being motivated for a back-to-back against bottom-feeding suction eels. Not a surprise, really. In the bigger picture: this team is good enough to survive an injury to Markov, but it leaves less wiggle room for other players to struggle or be injured. Talent is talent, and no matter how great the system, sooner or later its absence will tell. As long as we remain well-positioned in the standings, though, there is no need to make a bold move. At this stage I would be seriously investigating options, but no more than that. Gomez will eventually come back, Spacek and Pleks will heal, etc.. And this supposedly battered team did outshoot Detroit 19-3 in the third period three nights ago. People will say we're only .500 without Markov, but things looked lots better before the last two games. No need to panic. For this team to contend, though - and I suspect we CAN contend if everyone is healthy and playing the system - we will need a Markov replacement. So it'll be interesting to see whether PG uncharacteristically rolls the dice at the deadline, which Gainey likely would do under these circumstances. Incidentally, I find it amusing to note that the fans who until a few games ago were making suggestions like 'send Gomez down and eat his contract' are now acting as though his absence is a key factor Even slumping horribly, he's still a big cog for this team's transition game.

Well, I think this argument has rather played itself out, but what the heck. No, I do not believe that Halak single-handedly defeated Pittsburgh or Washington, and I said so quite vehemently at the time. But when you produce a 53-save performance in Game 6 against the Capitals, even if many of those shots came from outside, etc., the fact is that you have triumphed in an absolutely clutch situation. Add to that two series of very strong netminding and you have a guy who has delivered all that you could ask of a goalie on an 8th-seeded team at playoff time. Now, the Philly series was a different game; the Flyers dominated a tired and battered Habs defence and a team system that excels against teams that play east-west hockey but struggles against physical north-south teams, and Halak was merely ordinary. This shouldn't subtract from the fact that he excelled in the two previous rounds, which is more than Price has done. Carey Price has never had a comparable playoff run at the NHL level. Sure, his teams weren't as strong. Nevertheless, an excellent goalie makes his team better; and at no point in Price's career, including that Boston series, have we yet been able to turn to one of his playoff performances and say, 'wow, he really helped to take the team to another level.' Let him beat Pittsburgh and Washington and then he'll have begun building the rep. Until them, has not proven that he can be an integral part of an impact playoff run. This doesn't mean I don't think he can do it. It just means the obvious: that Halak has done it and Price hasn't. Your response to this seems to be to diminish the importance of goaltending altogether. 'Look at Detroit with Osgood, look at Chicago with Niemi - it's all about team and system, not goaltending.' I agree to an extent, but it seems absurd to deny that netminding IS an independent variable in team success. Ask teams like Vancouver and Ottawa, who had good teams that suffered chronically from goalies who could not be counted on to make the clutch save at the clutch moment. Or Carolina in that series against the Habs where we owned Geber. Or Pittsbrugh last playoff where Fleury couldn't stop a medicine ball. Or ask the 1970s Montreal Canadiens; everyone on that team, and many of the Habs' opponents from that period, will comment on how Dryden typically didn't have much to do, but made the key save when it counted (except in 79 and in the Red Army game, when he frankly sucked). No matter how good the system, you need a goalie who can make the save when it all breaks down. Halak did that in a huge way for two series in which the Habs were massive underdogs and massively outshot, as well as in the Olympics, albeit with diminishing returns. Price hasn't. Period. You're right, though, that Halak has never won anything. That's why I like the Curtis Joseph analogy - Joseph is another guy who looked really hot for a series or two and then tended to fade. Of course, it's not ALL on the goalie. Joseph would tend to carry a team for as far as they could go until they were overmatched, just like Halak did last season. It's not goalie OR team; it's both. None of this is to bash Price or to buy into the media spin of 'saviour Halak.' It's to maintain that the playoffs are a special situation, that not all good players come up to their very best in that situation, and that Halak has given considerable proof that he can do that while Price hasn't yet. That's all.

JM has a good track record in player development. He should get the benefit of the doubt - but won't, of course. As for Subban lacking confidence, everyone will fixate on how being sat out destroyed him, but the fact is his game was slipping before the benching and what we're seeing is a logical progression of that. Indeed, none of this should be viewed as surprising. PK is at about the 1/3 mark into his first NHL season. This would be about the point at which other teams have adjusted to his game, his own rookie enthusiasm is starting to peter out before the relentless grind of a full NHL season and can no longer carry him, and weaknesses in his game are beginning to crowd out the strengths. It's a normal rookie pattern, really. The real issue is that most of us believed PK would be immune from these patterns. Turns out he's a mortal human after all.