The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Well, I dispute that Price stole that series. Montreal had a huge psychological advantage in that series and was expected to demolish the Prunes. Going to game 7 was a disappointment - not Price's fault - and the game 7 shutout, while impressive, was as much a team effort as the mediocre series results up to that moment. So my recollection is that he played well, period, before proceeding to basically stink out the joint against Philly. His subsequent playoff was middling at best and nothing he did this season impressed either. Halak, meanwhile, gave us a performance of historic significance in Game 6 against the Caps and was just a huge force through the first two rounds. Sorry, there's no comparison between Halak of 2010 and Price of any previous playoff. Price has ranged from quite good to average to bad. Mostly the middle one, I'd say. While Halak also had weaker results at times, he also dominated at really key points and was an immense difference-maker. As for the comportment issue...I liked the 'no emotion' Price and thought the fan criticisms were silly, but that's beside the point...the point being that there seems to have been a maturity issue around Price. (Not that we can know for sure, since none of us are in the dressing room). Of course immaturity is completely normal when you consider his age. Nevertheless. The question is how Carey Price can win over Habs fans. To do that he will need to avoid doing boneheaded things (i.e., act maturely), AND deliver the goods on the ice. (He can get away with only the latter, but immaturity will destroy him if he starts to struggle). If Halak dominates even maturity + strong play won't suffice, but it's all the lad can control.

What's gonna bug me about the Bolts is the way they're suddenly going to become the consolation prize if the Habs gulp and blow. I hate it when fans of one team adopt some second team as their 'next favourite' to make themselves feel better should their team stink. I recall a Montreal relative of mine, before the 2008 season, saying that the Habs were garbage but he was all excited about Pittsburgh (another one of these 'Montrealers'-second-favourite-teams' because of the Lemieux/Fleury/Rimouski connection). I dunno, it just irriates the sh*t out of me. I live and die with the Habs and expect true fans to do likewise.

It's simple: Price needs to play well early and the Habs need some wins. If he struggles, or the Habs suck and he can't carry them on his back, things risk going south in that uniquely catastrophic Montreal way. I could see him being dealt by February under those Theodore-like implosion circumstances, his career possibly in ruins. Of course this is a dramatic scenario. If plays well but not superbly, he could gradually win fans' respect and relieve the pressure, but then a great deal hinges on what Halak does. If Halak dominates and Price doesn't, it's going to be a nagging blister all season, intensifying to a cancerous all-consuming tumour should Price enter one of his patented annual funks. As to how he needs to act, beyond the obvious - stopping pucks, including that elusive key save at the key time - he needs to drop the Pampers routine. Stop punching holes in walls, giving the bird to the crowd and getting penalties for hurling pucks at the opposition. The Price who first came up had a surreal calm about him. Whatever the fans say, that's the Price that had the scouts mesmerized. Many are saying Price seems to have matured through the humiliations of last year. Trouble is, last season's Price was supposed to have started the year with a New and Better Attitude as well. This supposedly 'mature' kid is the guy who shot the puck at his opponents, so I'll wait and see, thanks. I'm likely in a minority, but while I was willing to roll with the Halak trade at the time, the further we get from it the more uneasy about it become. Halak was gigantic against Washington and very strong against Pittsburgh. He got in the opposition's heads. The sceptics will say that one playoff proves nothing (Steve Penney, anyone?), will stress that the team played an incredible defensive system around him, and will point out that he failed to defy the odds against Philly. Nevertheless a goalie who can dominate in key playoff games, and steal series, is among the most precious commodities any team can possess - our ace in the hole against the Chicagos, Washingtons and other stacked teams that have somehow accepted mediocrity in nets. But we ditched the guy who has delivered that in favour of the guy who has never come close to doing anything like it, on the theory that the latter might be able to rise to that level one of these days. In effect, I'm worried that the Habs have allowed theory - scouting reports, draft position, pedigree, theories about the Ideal Goalie Profile - to trump practice - i.e., what actually works. If they have just theorized their way out someone who turns out to be among the NHL's best money goalies, I'm gonna have a hell of a time coming to terms with that. And so will most fans.

No, you're quite right that Niemi is nothing special. I was really just using this as a launching area for the wider point that goalies have suddenly become the lumpenproletariat of the NHL. I think this is really very stupid - an exceptionally moronic version of faddish General Managerial groupthink that will come back to bite several of them on the ass. It's clear that a tremendously strong team can win a Cup with average goaltending (c.f. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago). It's also clear that a good team with great goaltending can beat a loaded team (c.f. the 2010 Habs). Why you would consciously downplay this potential advantage simply beats me, but several teams appear hell-bent-for-leather determined to deprive themselves of it.

This fad whereby teams have all decided that goaltending is unimportant, and therefore an area in which to pinch pennies, will come back to bite them on their collective asses. Mark my words. Hopefully the repudiation of this ridiculous trend will occur at the hands of Price rather than (as seems more likely) Halak :puke: ...or even Luongo. Of all the GMing fads over the years (bulking up after Anaheim won, aping the New Jersey trap, etc.) this one might be the dumbest.

Yeah, I had the same thought. If Ryan was available for Price, then we should have traded Price and kept Halak, no question. I know there'd have been cap implications, but give me a break, you have a chance to get Ryan while remaining strong in goal, you get him. Then again, do you NOT acquire Ryan now because it would make the Halak trade look foolish in retrospect? While I'm sure the Habs would indeed reject the trade for that reason, it remains a horrible reason. Anyway, this is all sheer speculation so it's not worth getting excited about one way or the other.

I'd be tempted by that deal...

You may be reading too much in...it's standard NHL management procedure to amass as much depth as possible, especially given the injury to Markov. This tells us that Carle and Weber are far from sure things, but everyone knew that already. I doubt OB is the main target.

Well, the cheapness of this signing surprised me. I see the value in going with youth, but I also hope that the Habs don't find themselves looking for 'a player to solidify the bottom 6' around deadline day and have to deal another pick to get the equivalent of Moore.

WHAT!!??? I've had it! 17 years and this organization still isn't serious about WINNING. Fire Gauthier NOW!

I hear you brother It's summertime, the perfect atmosphere for pointless hockey-related speculations.

Certainly a deal that included a franchise player + a credible starting goalie would be worth considering. But why would the other team make that deal? A fun scenario to throw around, but sheesh.

No, don't get the wrong idea - I was discussing my views on MT more generally. Whether he'd bring his nationalism to the table was/is an open question in my mind. If he doesn't, then his politics become irrelevant. It sounds as though he has been exemplary in this respect in the past, in which case I'll have no beef with his on-air performance as long as he supplies strong analysis.

I hate neither Tremblay nor Houle. They obviously are the two masterminds behind the destruction of the Montreal Canadiens we all had to suffer over the 1990s, but first, I see Houle as the more profoundly damaging of the two; even though Tremblay was a huge cause in the catastrophic expulsion of Roy, it was Houle who accepted crap in return (*and* threw in Keane!) and then subsequently dismantled the pretty-good team that was in place even without Roy. More fundamentally, the reason it's hard to HATE either of these guys is that they were so obviously and pathetically ill-equipped for the jobs they were given and foolishly accepted. It's like putting a 10-year-old at the wheel and then 'hating' him because he runs people over. I recall Tremblay's wife publicly saying that she was worried about his health while he was coach - that he was basically throwing up regularly from the anxiety, not sleeping, etc.. And I remember Houle expressing fear that he would be booed during the 100th anniversary celebrations; plus if you read Dryden's The Game you realize how profoundly painful to Houle's entire self-image and identity his failure as a GM must be. Ultimately, these guys are for me figures of frustration and pity. The real villain was that bungling arsehole Ronald Corey who panic-fired Serge Savard without bothering to line up an adequate replacement, and the skinflint Molsons who ran the team on the cheap and into the ground. Having said all that: do I like Tremblay? Not really. Yes, he was part of the last dynasty, which means he deserves a bedrock level of respect. But he is also a Quebec separatist - there's one strike against him right there - and he's another one of these nativist nationalists who think the Habs are an affirmative action program for francophones, substituting analysis and insight for 'emotion' and a childish kind of nationalism, like Michel Bergeron. (Demers usually pulled for francophones, which is fine, because seldom attacked the team for not having enough of them, and also didn't need an Anglo whipping boy like so many of these type of nationalist commentators). We hardly need another one of these ignorant nationalist voices polluting the Montreal airwaves. However, he may surprise me; if he focuses on objective analysis then his smelly personal convictions become irrelevant and I have no beef with him having this gig. Surely years at Lemaire's knee have given him some actual insights into the bigger analytical picture. If he shares that, then hey, bring him on.

Sh*t, sorry saskhabs, missed that. My bad. Anyway, good news nonetheless.

I'm surprised no one's brought this up, but the purged scouts have been replaced: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Cana...0755/story.html At face value this is good news, assuaging any fears that the Habs were just cutting costs under the new regime. :hlogo: And nice to hear from Serge Boivert, a player I took a small shine to back in the 1980s but who just couldn't overcome the size problem.

On Halak: I've expressed similar doubts in the past. He's never been a #1 goalie at the pro level - a shocking fact that his advocates seem to overlook - he is still unproven over the longer-term, and the 'pad size' question is a very legitimate source of anxiety. At the same time, credit where due. Halak has consistently surpassed expectations over his young career (of course, this is partly because expectations were low, but nonetheless, you can certainly argue that he's a guy with a pattern of rising to the occasion). To my mind, Price has never come close at the NHL level to pulling off a performance equivalent to Halak's Game 6 performance against Washington, nor to getting in the other team's head the way Halak did for much of the Washington series and, to a lesser degree, in the Pittsburgh series. (Yes, Price shut out Boston, but that was hardly series-stealing - we had a huge psychological advantage over the Bruins that series - nor was it a performance of historic calibre). Again, I was among those who stressed the degree to which the Habs' system was a factor in those two huge playoff series. But there seems to me to be no point in denying the scale of Halak's contributions to those victories. See this for further confirmation: http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/h...-was-halak.html On Price: I am in no way trying to belittle him. I feel I'm looking at him objectively. He's a very promising young goalie who is still suffering growing pains and who has yet to put together a compelling season + playoff. It remains entirely within the realm of possibility that he will, in the end, emerge as a merely adequate NHL starter, or as a very good/great regular season guy who can't raise his game in the playoffs, or as a bona-fide elite goaltender. Given this fundamental uncertainty, combined with the fact that he will not sign long-term for discounted rates, we should be looking at a shorter-term deal (2 years) at moderate value (under $3 mil). That's not 'suckering' him. That's treating him fairly based on where he is in his development. I'm not saying we should have kept Halak over Price, but the ability to rise to the occasion and dominate at key moments is something you can't quantify and should not be discounted when we consider the case for Halak, given that Price hasn't shown it yet at this level. Having said that, it was a rational decision to keep Price given his profile and (hopefully!) more affordable salary. Like I say, if he ends up costing nearly as much as Halak, then one major part of the 'keep Price' argument dissolves...but not the entire argument.

100%. But at least Halak has done it. Price hasn't come close - yet. Anyway, I'm NOT bashing Price, just supporting my original assertion that there are reasons for not locking into him long term just yet.

Of course, that would mean trading Price instead of Halak. The real point is that there is no way we could keep both and stay under the cap because both were due for raises. (Also, since the end of the season it's become clear that keeping both was widely viewed as untenable - by the goalies, by the other players, by management - regardless of cap considerations). I have no problem with someone who says that we should have kept Halak instead of Price, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking we could have kept both under any circumstances. I do agree that the closer Price's contract inches towards that of Halak, the dodgier that trade appears. Like it or not, Halak has PROVEN that he steal playoff games and dominate a series. This is a major argument in his favour. As for Wamsley's post above...I agree with most of it, but I massively disagree that Price's playoff performance is irrelevant. First of all, I do not agree that his 'questionable' playoff track record is a media myth. He was good against Boston in 2008, and absolutely wretched against the Flyers that year. He was mediocre - certainly not an asset - against Boston in 2009. And he was a merely-OK playoff backup last season. That record does not suggest 'money goalie.' Now, Price is still a work in progress and it would be ridiculous to project him to be a playoff bust on the basis of that limited a sample. All I was saying is that he has left the door open for doubts on this score. Now, do you NEED a money goalie to win in the playoffs? Not necessarily. But Leighton and Nabokov are examples of cases where having a money goalie might have made the difference between winning and losing playoff rounds and indeed the Stanley Cup. The Wings won DESPITE Osgood in 2007 because they were so massively superior to the opposition (he played better in 2008), which will NEVER be the case with Montreal for the forseeable future. That leaves Niemi as the outlier case. In short, it is certainly better to have a money goalie than not and always better to have a goalie who performs in the playoffs than Marty Turco or Jim Carey. If Carey Price evolves into a Turco, then we should have kept Halak, who has at least given solid grounds for optimism that he can steal games and dominate series when it counts at the NHL level.

Let me just add my voice to the chorus of praise for that article. It's yet another exhibit in the kind of thoughtful analysis that the 'professional' media hacks are chronically incapable of providing. (They are more interested in scrambling like hungry terriers after Mike Cammallerri quotes at golf tournaments than in actually THINKING about why Price's contract is taking so long, or INVESTIGATING whether the Molsons are starting to systematically muscle in on hockey decisions - potentially one of the most important habs-related developments of the decade). Articles like this, by stark contrast, actually address important issues and add much-needed reasoning and analysis to fan discourse. Nicely done.

Well, Price had a junior/AHL track record that was as impressive as they come and makes Desjardins' look like a pile of week-old dog puke. If minor-league performance is your primary justification for faith in Desjardins then your faith in Price should be ten times that. And if you give up on Price at 22 despite his already having had substantial stretches where he's been excellent at the NHL level, what are you planning to do with Desjardins when he struggles as a result of having been rushed into the league too early? Run him over repeatedly with a Zamboni? Not to be a grouch about it, but there's just no leg to stand on with this scenario. Now whether or not trading Halak was a mistake, that's another question.

What did the article say? You're right about red flags (the purge of scouts - still not fixed? - is still the star attraction on this front), and if ownership really is muscling in on hockey decisions, that is pretty much a guarantee of slow disaster for years to come. But was this just an off-handed remark within the article - the reporter's impression, which is probably just rooted in innuendo and ignorance as most sports journalists' opinions are - or was it the result of some actual research, with sources and evidence?

? Not gonna happen. And frankly, if it did, Gauthier would need his head examined. Price is still (probably) a relatively affordable G with exceptionally high upside - exactly the kind of asset NOT to trade, especially when the alternatives for his position are the complete garbage you describe.

Actually, credible sources have Anaheim willing to offer a pick AND prospect for Bieksa. Defencemen seem to be sexy among GMs nowadays, just as goalies have suddenly become viewed as luxury items. You're right, though, Vancouver's leverage is shrinking by the hour, especially given their current and upcoming defeats at the arbitration table. They'll be desperate to move salary if this keeps up.

I'm inclined to say two years. Not that I don't have some faith in the lad, but we have a short-term need for cap savings, and the fact remains that he's still a work in progress. There remains a real possibility that Price will either bomb out or just plateau at merely competent. (Other possibilities, too: the Marty Turco phenomenon of good regular season goalie comes to mind, a legitimate concern given Price's less-than-awesome playoff track record). The Habs have generally asked their young players to earn their long-term deals, and while I realize that many people curse them for this, the main criticism centres on their failure to lock guys up long term at cut-rate prices (Streit being the star and maybe the only example). Since Price clearly will NOT lock in at cut rates, the criticism wouldn't apply in his case. Therefore, let him continue to develop (or fail to) and then re-assess, just as we did with Higgins, Plekanec, Markov and a few others: fairest all around, avoids us getting stuck with another dog contract, and gives us a tiny bit of cap breathing room short term.