The Chicoutimi Cucumber
-
Posts
19518 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
484
Posts posted by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
-
-
Not a terribly significant trade - a potential bottom-pairing defenceman for a potential bottom-6 forward - but given cap considerations and OB's redundancy I'd rate this as sound asset-management by a GM who is quietly fulfilling his profile as a maker of small, intelligent deals that gradually improve a team.
I used to think OB would amount to something, but repeatedly watching his apparent inability to rise above obstacles (to perform when things weren't optimal), coupled with JM's obvious conclusion that this guy was not a significant talent, led me to conclude otherwise. Happy we got back a player who seems to fit exactly the identity that this organization is building: smart, committed hockey players (Plekanec is the archetype of this vision of the Habs). Too bad he isn't bigger, though; he also fits the team identity in that other respect
-
Further to what has evolved into a discussion of the strengths and weakness of the team, check out Engels' excellent analysis here:
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CT...=MontrealSports
Bottom line: he rates this team as the league's best at controlling the middle and shutting down any team playing an 'east-west' game (i.e., a skill game with lots of passing and puck movement). And it's also a team that is highly beatable when facing a team aggressively playing a 'north-south' game (i.e., a crash & bang, up and down style a la Philly). Teams that fail to make the adjustment against us are generally doomed. But if they do adjust, we're the ones on the defensive.
Sounds about right to me. As simple as it is, in fact, I think it explains a lot about this club.
-
I am not concerned with Halak, just like I am not concerned with Latendresse.
If I can move on from Patrick Roy being traded for Thibault, Rucinsky and Kovalenko, losing Halak when they
have Price to replace him is the least of my concerns.
I haven't watched more than 10 minutes of Halak this season, but people need to stop acting like he is the reason
they are killing it. That team is stacked with young talent, especially on the back end with Johnson and Pietrangelo.
They are taking 35 shots per game and allowing only 26. That is an absurd differential so far.
Oh yeah, that's the other thing that drives me batty that I wanted to mention - the general narrative around Halak is that he's single-handedly turning the mediocre Blues into contenders. Never mind that that team was already well on the path to emerging as upper-echelon due to good drafting, high picks and internal development.
The glib ignorance of the hockey media will drive me to drink if I let it. -
Or the fact that they didn't trade Halak and go with Dan Cloutier.
A lot of people will be eating crow on Price this season.
Hey, Halak is doing amazingly well. More power to him. But Price has also been excellent, and he's cheaper. But I won't drone on about lazy media, I've bored people enough with that particular rant.
The good news is that today's coverage of the Habs out here generally had a respectful tone regarding the team and organization as a whole (Don Taylor, who I generally think is OK, referred to the Halak trade as a 'mistake by a team that doesn't make a lot of them' - so you can read that as a backhanded compliment to the Habs, in a way). We're getting some respect nowadays. Not a ton, but some. Makes a nice change.
-
I am particularly pleased by this win partly because I had to listen to a day's worth of commentary on Vancouver radio to the effect that the Halak trade was sheer lunacy by the Habs (no consideration given, of course, to the salary cap issues whereby re-signing Halak might have meant losing Plekanec, and the total minimization of the value of Eller and Shultz as prospects). From where I stand Price just issued a big f*ck you to the smug know-nothings in the Vancouver media
-
I think the beating that was taken at the hands of Philadelphia last spring should be taken as with a grain of salt. Montreal had two huge series lasting 7 games each in the first two rounds, which is considered incredibly draining both mentally and physically.
I googled it, but can't find the data. But I'm pretty sure it's something like 8 teams before the Habs had played 14 games in the first two rounds, and none had ever won the third round. I'm also pretty positive that of those 8 teams, a fair number were swept. Now I'm not saying it's an excuse, or it was impossible for the Habs to win, it just added another element against them, something which is statistically proven to be a disadvantage. So when we say the Habs were walloped by Philly, it's true. But let's keep in mind how the previous series had affected each team. And the next logical argument is that, if you want to win, you've got to be able to beat everyone. Which is true, but it's important to not ignore the cumulative effect of the "road to the cup" as well as the head to head matchups in each individual series.
Montreal lost pretty convincingly, but they climbed a heck of a mountain to get there (so did the Flyers I guess, the whole 0-3 thing, but they were pretty rested before that series [and slept through the first 3 games too]).
Anyway, this is just what runs through my head when someone mentions the 3rd round performance. Which I don't deny was poor.
Don't forget the Markov injury as well.
-
So let me ask you CC? How far would you like to go this year? Are you convinced this team as is, even with G & G turning around, will be a SC contender? That's what I'm hoping for, aren't you?
Good question! Realistically, no, the Habs are obviously not among the handful of teams you can pin down and call 'bona fide Cup contenders.' We have a good team that can do some damage; I suppose the question lies in how we respond to this. What I reject is the hysteria and bitterness that follows any no-show or mini-slump, irrational loathing and overblown blaming of specific personnel (e.g., Martin), and the idea that there are somehow easy answers to the mystery of how you take a team from good to contender.
Take the attitude to coaching. When Carbo faced a season-destroying player rebellion, a lot of posters on here ranted and raved about how wrong it was to fire him - that players had to take responsibility, etc., etc.. Now we have a regime in place that makes it very clear, especially to young players, that you do as you are told or you sit; so now what we've got is a consistent stream of posts blaming the coach instead of the player. It's Martin's fault Boyd sucks! Martin is the one who made a hash of Pacioretty's various shifts in the NHL! Martin is the reason O'Bryne is a fringe player!! Etc., etc., etc.. For a certain segment of the fan base, this organization is always wrong, no matter what it does or how much success (short of a Cup) it produces - e.g., a Semi-Finals appearance. And when the Habs lose, this element comes out full bore. And it's silly.
It's a matter of balance. We have a 'pretty good' team and organization. That's not a bad foundation. Can we get to the next level? Well, let's wait and see how Eller, Pouliot, Subban, Kostitsyn, Price, and others work out, shall we?
EDIT: just saw Wamsley's post above. Looks like we agree again
-
Watched every habs game thus far and when Boyd's played he gave 100%, has speed and better size than Pyatt and Darche. Opening night, goal, break away, buzzing all around until Martin likely pulled the reins. Yes, his +/- is a problem for the # of games he's played, but everyone is afraid of "Big Jerkes" and they get nervous and do stupid things because they know they will be benched next game. Frankly, I'm shocked. Here's another young kid with potential and prospect. Time for Muller to take over, he knows how to communicate and motivate the players. See him instructing the players at the bench when Price was pulled in the Ottawa game? Oops, forgot, he doesn't speak French, can't happen.
The guy's been a bust everywhere he's gone, and it's all Jacques Martin's fault!
-
If we don't see the concern, we either have our heads in the clouds or in the sand. While I agree not to become too one-sided, some of the points raised are extremely valid, especially hab29Retired who so accurately points out that we should compare Boston and Philly's 3rd and 4th lines to ours. That's what did us in both play-off years. Those lines beat the crap out of us and we had nothing, other than sore, tired bodies. Remember 4-straight against Boston? Every coach in this league knows what to do to beat us, they just don't always execute it. Sure, you can point to Washington and Pittsburgh victories, but they don't "INTENTIONALLY" play that way because they know they are better and don't have to change their style. Boston, Philly, NYR on the other hand know we can beat them, so they play the style that beats us, and they have the 3rd and 4th line guys who will do it. The road to the cup includes these teams, unless of course making the playoffs for a round or two satisfies you.
As for JM, I would love to see him go tomorrow. His experimenting for 1 or 2 games and passive play is frustrating. We hardly hit, we run around in our zone like "who's on first?" We need offense and he breaks up the only 2 guys consistently getting points? Kostitsyn is flourishing this year with Plekanec and you break those 2 up? Okay fine, we need to get G & G going, but after 2 perioods it "ain't" working. Against Ottawa he keeps the line together all game!! He switches lines when he shouldn't and doesn't switch when he should. I feel sorry for a kid like Eller because JM's going to ruin another good young prospect with his infant psychological garbage. The longer Martin's in Montreal the more I question Gauthier's vision. Martin's not the guy, end of story.
I don't get worked up over specific line changes in specific games and I think it's silly how much energy people pour into indignation over these sorts of things. However, I agree that there is a case to be made that JM is not an especially great tactician, although I don't think it's as self-evident as some people make it sound, and (as I said in some other thread recently) he certainly performed admirably in the playoffs. We should remember that ALL coaches make these kind of changes, and the fans in ALL cities make the same kind of criticisms when the coaches do that. JM is nothing unusual in this respect.
As for your first paragraph: well, yes, I agree that this team is not at present a top-tier NHL team. Who ever said they were? But 'evaluating' a team based on its performance when its two offensive leaders are on pace to get 17 and 23 points, respectively, is obviously ridiculous. When G & G (and Markov) get rolling, we will have a better sense of exactly what we've got here. BTH is wise to say that just ebcause we're not #1 doesn't mean we're #30 either. We've got a good - not world-beating - group here, but how good remains to be seen.
-
Maybe he complained that he wasn't playing.
"I've been a starter for the past 2 years. I deserve better!"
"Oh yeah? Then how come nobody claimed your ass for free!? Nobody messes with Big Jacques!"
It does seem consistent with the organizational philosophy since JM arrived. You do as the coach commands or you are out of here...but only after consistent signals to this effect are sent. The point is to humiliate Boyd by showing him that it's not ONLY JM who is picking on him, that he is poorly regarded throughout the league. If that does not turn things around, then I would expect a demotion or else see him shipped out as a throw-in (perhaps with Pacioretty
) This, coupled with his track record of changing teams, suggests Boyd has a significant problem between the ears. -
Actually that is what he said.
"If it's not in that situation, I don't feel the need to be in Montreal," said Pacioretty. "They have enough third-, fourth-line players to take on that load. If they think they can plug me into the top-6, I'd be happy with that. Probably would be the best thing for me.
"Hopefully if that does happen, I'd be able to stick there and have the coaches show confidence in me if I make a mistake. Hopefully stick with that line instead of getting put down on the bottom two lines," he said. "If I did get put down on the bottom two lines, I rather stay in Hamilton."
But like Seb says, this just isn't realistic. Unless you're a super-prospect, you're going to have to work your way up the depth chart.
Spot on. This looks suspiciously to me like yet another example of the profound rot that seems to have run through an entire generation of players brought up through the first Gainey rebuild...some sort of attitude of entitlement and a related willingness to blame others when things go wrong rather than look inward and make the sacrifices needed to excel. We saw exactly the same sort of crap with Sergei, Grabovksi, Latendresse, arguably with Carey Price to some degree, even Perezhogin and perhaps a few others (Higgins and Komi?). I'm beginning to wonder whether part of Pacioretty's problem was not so much confidence as counter-productive self-pitying and coach-blaming (the preferred strategy of most of these other guys). Once you buy into the argument that it's not YOUR fault, it's the ORGANIZATION'S fault, you are not going to succeed, because you're not taking responsibility. Remember, this was the generation of Habs that spent most of 2008-09 trying to get Carbo fired rather than zeroing in becoming the Conference champions many expected that team to become.
There is a story to be written on how this catastrophic rot set into the deepest roots of this organization even under the watch of one of the greatest character guys of all time (Gainey). The best move Gainey ever made was to utterly purge the entire organization in the summer of 2009 and replace everyone with players and (hopefully) coaches who, whatever their limitations, have the character to succeed. It would not surprise me at all to see Pacioretty shipped out eventually.
-
Ha ha, we go from posts speculating that maybe this is a solid top-6-in-the-conference-with-great-depth-players team to the usual the-sky-is-falling-Martin-is-evil-our-dpeth-sucks Chicken Little routine. The team is slumping, partly as a result of the re-integration of Markov and partly as a result of horrendous starts by two key scorers - simple as that. We're clearly a good team (but then again being good is no guarantee of making the playoffs). I will say this: any assessment of the Habs that assumes that Gomez will remain at his current 17-point-pace and Gionta at his current 23-point pace is simply hysterical. You want to know what's wrong with the PP? Start there. Not with Martin, or with Gauthier, or with Gainey's cap management, etc., etc., etc..
-
I don't give a rat's ass if Martin is popular with his players. What interests me is whether he knows how to develop those players. His track record is in fact very good on this score. Indeed, three high-profile star-calibre players achieved their highest success under JM and, in his absence, slipped into inexorable mediocrity: Jay Bouwmeester, Olie Jokinen, and Wade Redden. Never again did they approach anything close to the excellence that Martin coaxed out of them. And then there's a pile of other higher-end players that developed extremely well under Martin's tutelage. So you've got a raft of young players who fully developed under JM and a handful of others who only excelled under JM. I offer some lengthy thoughts on this issue in this thread: http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=22142 The upshot: his record is quite impressive on this front and anyone attacking his handling of young players needs to confront that record, not just traipse along in some delusional belief that the path to player development is to be beloved by players.
Whether Martin is able to win the Big Game is another question. That's more about bench managment and tactics than about player development. The argument that Martin is comparatively weak in this area is much stronger, although you'd think that last season's playoff run would at least partially insulate him from vehement condemnation of this front from Habs's fans.
You'd think. -
I didn't say immune, vets do get demoted, I realize that. Although, one mistake from O'bryne had him nailed to the bench, yet Spacek has made terrible terrible mistakes this year and they kept coming back to him. I'm not even advocating playing Ob.
Your post was very knowledgeable but it doesn't counter my point that JM treats young players harshly, and I believe, just my opinion, this is not a great way to develop players, sure some may work, but in Pax case he said it wasn't great for his development. I have no problem in what he said.
Like I said earlier, JM has a good track record in developing young talent. While this shouldn't absolve him in specific cases where he may mishandle a guy, all things being equal it should relieve him of blanket criticism of this type. Ottawa fans said he was treating Spezza harshly. It turns out that he was exactly right - that Spezza needed to learn to compete harder and become a responsible player. On most accounts, he still does.
A coach isn't only trying to develop young players. He is also trying to win hockey games. This means he has to factor in the player's actual overall performance as well as his potential. Look at Subban. He makes gaffes but he still gets the ice, because Martin recognizes the many positives he brings as well as his formidable potential. O'Bryne, in contrast, is clearly not a player that Martin believes will ever become more than a depth player in the league; nor is he a great asset in any particular facet of the game; and he is treated accordingly. Sometimes people confuse 'not developing' a player with that player simply being mediocre.
In the case of Patches, I'd have to go back and look at the games in question, but offhand I cannot recall him doing a whole lot with the opportunities he was given. It is the player's job to make the case that he deserves more ice, that he should be used in situation X or Y. On an uncharitable reading of his comments, Pacioretty seems to feel that because he has a top 6 'profile' (in his own mind - as far as I'm concerned he is more likely to end up as yet another third liner) he is entitled to extended use on the top-6 at the NHL level. It doesn't work like that, especially on good teams; and it would not surprise me at all of this attitude was part of the package that let to Martin concluding he wasn't ready.
Veterans are held to a somewhat different standard because they have proven that they can help teams day in and day out. Remember, the coach is also trying to win. Martin allowed Spacek a good chunk of time to work out his problems and then started to lower the boom. That's as it should be. If Wayne Gretzky hits a slump for five games, you don't bench him in favour of Max Pacioretty. Why not? Because one has a track record, the other is a nobody who has yet to show you anything notable. The examples are extreme but the principle is sound.
Bar, you say we need 'quality minutes from young players.' I agree. But the key is to get quality minutes. We are getting these, at present, from Pouliot, Lapierre, and Subban and maybe a couple of others. We did NOT get them from Pacioretty. The reason most likely lies with Pacioretty, not Martin. The sooner he figures that out, the rosier his prospects will become.
-
Martin has an excellent track record of player deveopment - enough to defer to his judgement rather than that of some 20-year-old punk. The fact is, Patches brought NOTHING last season and if he had actually shown something, he might have gotten the ice time. It's this mentality that "I am entitled to be on the top line even though I suck" that is so irritating. You're on the top line if you DELIVER. Yes, Martin gives more rope to his vets. That's because they have proven that they can deliver. This is the NHL, not a baby-sitter service.
-
Well, despite the fact that I can't watch all the games due to time-zone and work issues, I do like to try to analyze the general trends going on to some degree. This includes being attuned to the possibility that the team is better (or worse) than previously thought. For instance, that we went 7-2 without an effective PP, without Markov, and without Gomer and Gio is (or was) a promising sign. It would be foolhardy to draw aggressive conclusions from 9 games, but that *was* interesting and potentially significant.
This team remains an unknown to some degree. Last season we had a brand-new team with huge chemistry and injury problems and all kinds of weaknesses in the bottom 6. Then again, we kicked ass in the playoffs. This ambiguity is a further reason for not dismissing outright a hot start like the one we had and automatically lumping it into the previous patterns (which, let's face it, reflected a completely different lineup than the one we have now).
I don't think I'm 'trying to be the genius' who sees it all coming in advance. It's more just engaging the ongoing reality of the Habs. :hlogo:
All that being said, Wamsley's basic position is quite sensible. This is a bubble team (or, as I argue elsewhere, a 'high-end' bubble team) until proven otherwise. But there should be some sort of middle ground between hysteria and a zen-like detatchment vis-a-vis the team's ups and downs.
-
Gionta is shooting at a 2% clip, when his career number is 11%.
Even if he replicated his career low 8% he would have 4 goals instead of 1. That puts him at 6 points
in 12 games, not fantastic, but not dragging anything down. If you make the assumption that Gomez
is in on those, then he is at around 7 points as well.
It happens, the optics of it look worse because it is to start the season, but in order for your fears
to be realized, we would have to make the leap that he is starting a monster career decline.
We are talking about a player who is 7th in the league in SOG. The company he is keeping in that category
are among the elite of the game. Ovechkin, Crosby, Carter, Malkin, Parise, Nash, Staal etc.
He will continue to shoot and when he heats up and runs a 10 game stretch with a 25% accuracy like he did
in the playoffs he will push his shooting percentage to his career average.
If you judge a 12 game portion of the schedule based on statistics, we might as well rename the Vezina the
"Tim Thomas" trophy. Things will change and your viewpoint will be much different come Christmas.
This happens in some form or another every year. Remember, through October last season Jaroslav
Halak's SV% was .893. 6 months later and everybody wants to kick Price out of town and is outraged
at a 1st and 3rd round pick return.
It is no different than expecting Kostitsyn/Plekanec and Cammalleri were going to put up 80-90 points each.
A characteristically excellent post. I have no doubt that it will even itself out - that our 'depth' scoring will fall back to its normal level (already happening) and that Gomez and Gionta's production will rise up to its normal level. What is alarming is the possibility of a significant gap between the first and second occurence - in which case we could be looking at an agonizing November. :puke:
Kostitsyn is a wild card IMHO. Career stats would put him at 20-25 goals and 50 points. But the possibility of him actually putting it together in a more serious way is not complete fantasy considering that he's in the right age bracket for that to happen. But smart money wouldn't bank on it.
-
Two points:
1. We've seen this movie before. How many times does a team do surprisingly well without its best player, only to hit a slump the moment that player returns? It happens all the time. The reason seems to be that there is a psychological let-up: 'now that X is back, I can take it easy a little bit.' It may take another 2-3 games before Markov gets his sea legs and the team starts to realize they can't coast on his back. So frustrating as it is, there's some normalcy to this. The message here: ride it out and don't panic as fans.
2. We may also be seeing the inevitable result of Gomer and Gionta not producing. You can only have your top line carried by depth scoring for so long. Their window is slamming shut - if they don't get cracking soon, Gomez in particular will begin to enter to jaws of Montreal hell (blame, recrimination, boos, the whole bit). The message here: panic no, increasingly grave concern, yes.
-
Speaking of Komisarek, the leafs must realize that they need to move a defenseman to have any chance of getting scoring up front. I wonder if we offered Gomez up for Kommi orBeauchamin, took Finger off their books if we couldn't get a nice young asset to make the deal work for us?
Then we enter the market for a top-6 centreman - trading to improve an area of relative strength (D) at the expense of an area of relative weakness (proven top-6 players). No thanks
But I'll admit it suuuure would be nice to have Komisarek around in order to school that asshole Lucic -
Eller to Hamilton? No Freaken way! This kid should be playing on the same line with Gionta and Gomez. I understand Jacque Martin's motives for placing Eller on the 3rd or 4th line however bluntly speaking that's just a waste of good talent. If management didn't believe that Eller can play with the top 6 they simply would not have traded for him. So enough with the bullshit this kid has the talent with great ice vision and must be playing on the top 6 otherwise theres a risk that we might in fact be destroying him and most of us can agree that montreal has a reputation for doing just that with young talented players that want to play here. :hlogo:
I appreciate your passion, but sheesh. They hand Price the #1 job and they are attacked for 'ruining' him by not bringing him along more gradually. They bring Eller along gradually and they are attacked for not putting him on the first line. In fact, the traditional 'Montreal Canadiens' way of developing young players - the method we used in the dynasty era - was to bring them along gradually. Even Koivu spent a year on the third and fourth lines. The Detroit Red Wings do the same thing. Jacques Martin has a proven track record in developing young players and there is no indication of anything wrong with Eller at this point. This is what Wamsley means when he counsels 'patience.'
-
http://video.canadiens.nhl.com/videocenter...=DL|MTL-fr|home
LMAO @ Kostitsyn and Spacek!
Poor Hal Gill, he looks like he's about to break into tears over his sad history of failed Halloween costumes
And...a Sumo costume??? Isn't that basically a thong???? The mind boggles.'Smurf' Gionta dressing as a jockey is pretty funny. Maybe painfully so.
Spacek = funniest looking NHLer by some distance.
-
There is little difference between seed 5 through 20 that a hot goaltender, injury or dedicated game plan can not overcome. Then you have the top 5 seeds who are decimated by the cap the next season and reduced to level
5 through 20. If the home crowd at the Bell Center is even worth 2 goals in a series, it could be enough to turn the tide.
This is Gary Bettman's NHL 2.0. Parity and everybody has a chance. Which makes the Red Wings accomplishments
and the Leafs/Panthers/Thrashers all the more shocking.
Everybody is excited about the October start, myself included, but since the lockout the Habs are a .716 hockey club
in October on average! Yet 4 out of those 5 seasons resulted in a desperate last week playoff run. Last seasons 7-7
is by far the worst start. In 2007 the Habs started 13-5-3 and through December were 22-11-5 (.645 W%) and went
19-24-1 to miss the playoffs.
Next question: what explains that pattern of hot starts?
No, just kiddin.I too am cautious about making too much out of a hot October (I spent too many seasons watching Brain Savage!!), but as we've both said, the underlying patterns - strong 5-on-5 play, loads of wins without Markov, controlled shots against, incidents of total domination of opponents - DO point to the possibility of a team that is fundamentally stronger than in years past. Another 15 games like this and my cautious optimism will begin to turn into confidence. Fingers crossed.
-
dlbar in the rumour thread presents a scenario whereby sending Eller down, along with trading away a couple of players to the Canucks, would free up sufficient cap room to add Kevin Bieksa. We can have a discussion about whether or not Bieksa is a good fit; but my point is, I would only send Eller down if I thought that it was necessary to create room for a player I really wanted to add to the lineup. I would not send Eller down as a developmental move. He is learning tons right now about what it means to be an NHLer. Let him go through the learning process. Only if he is in the press box for extended intervals would I consider sending him down, because at that point he is no longer learning much, just sitting on his ass.
-
Putting it all together, here'd be my conclusion:
1. The Habs have been a 'bubble team' over the past 6 years, but also consistently one of the best bubble teams over that span. This means that after the ice chips have settled, they will be in the playoffs more often than not. This helps to explain the 84% success rate in making the playoffs. Not all 'bubble teams' are created equal - a point usually lost on commentators and pessimistic Habs fans.
2. The difference between a high-end bubble team and a top-4 or top-5 team in the Conference manifests itself most clearly over the long, sustained grind of a regular season. Thus, over 82 games, Team A clearly pulls ahead of Team B and finishes with, say, 10-12 more points. In a seven-game winner take all series, though, the difference between the two becomes much finer. The fundamental underlying reality of today's NHL is parity in this sense: all teams have real weaknesses, and on any given night Team A really isn't that much better than Team B. Therefore, Team B often has a legitimate chance to defeat team A in a playoff series. (In this context, it helps if Team B is a high-end bubble team rather than a weak one that somehow squeaks in due to competitors' injuries or other flukes). This helps to explain why the Habs have gotten out of the first round three times in the last five years despite their 'bubble' profile. We're not THAT much weaker than Boston or Pittsburgh, and if we bring our 'A' game and they don't, we win.
3. Other variables, such as stability in management, a conservative style that doesn't take big risks heading into the stretch, and - I still cling to this - a fanatical fan culture that can really put the winds in the sails of a team that is having success, as well as produce true desperation in a team that need it - all of these also contribute to giving the Habs an edge over their 'bubble' competitors, as well as giving them an extra edge, perhaps, once in the playoffs.
This would seem to be a reasonable explanation of the peculiar mix of success and failure that characterizes the Gainey-era Canadiens. The glass really has been half full. :hlogo:
Permanent Rumour Thread
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
A nice idea. I said in the summer that Guerin would be a wise signing for a team with no guarantees at the wing. Bieksa or someone comparable (remember the rumour about Brent Burns?) is another possibility - probably more realistic given the likely need to replace Hammer after this season, and the decline of Spacek. I think Gauthier will use that money and try to address whatever he deems to be the team's most important underlying weakness.