The Chicoutimi Cucumber

STARTING to? You haven't been paying attention my friend In terms of fan logic, this is Leafs West.

Vancouver radio has the deal as - get this - TINORDI for Bieksa. That'd be...weird.

AK is an established player, not a prospect. The same is true of Gorges. OB may be another story. If I were the Habs I'd be pitching Desharnais to the Canucks. The Canuckleheads need secondary offence. But they probably want Pacioretty. I tend to believe this rumour because of the Brent Burns rumours that surfaced a while back. You can see a thread here - the Habs snooping around for big strong defencemen who may have become undervalued due to injury and other problems.

Bieksa has worn out Vancouver fans with his injuries, erratic defensive zone play and occasional dumb penalties. But he's a mean SOB and can deliver the goods. I think he'd make a very nice addition to our blueline and might be an opportunity to acquire a #4 defenceman when his value is perhaps artifically low. You're right about the cap problems both ways, though. Doesn't seem likely.

The loophole is ludicrous, but consider that any attempt to close it will come at the cost of concessions to the players...most likely in terms of still more player mobility. Get ready for players to turn RFA in half the time it presently takes, something like that.

All valid points, but hypothetical future cap issues are too easy to get tied up into knots about. The cap always (somehow) increases, players come and go, situations change. Consider that in 2007 and you'd never in a million years have imagined what the 2010 Habs would look like. As for the future, Hammer's monster contract will be off the books. Kostitsyn will either have finally put it together or been purged. The other core guys that you're so worried about are all quality players who will certainly be tradeable. (Even Gomez's attractiveness on the trading block increases by the day, because as the cap rises, so does the salary floor teams are required to pay; teams struggling to meet the floor will need to take on salary). There's no way you won't be able to dump those guys, if dumping them is what you have to do. In short, whether we will be able to re-sign all our young guns in three years is the least of my concerns. Three years is an infinity in today's highly mobile NHL. And frankly, if our talent pool turns out to be good enough to make Gionta, Plekanec, Cammy and Gomez redundant I'd consider that to be the best Habs-related news in years. My unsolicited advice would to stop squinting off into the distance and focus on a shorter time-frame when it comes to the cap. EDIT: you also need to consider the possibility of Kovalchuk-like, front-loaded long-term contracts. We could re-sign Markov to 20 years at a cap hit of 2.25 per season: http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-of-law.html

Yeah, I'm not arguing that Price should be 'underpaid' in the sense of being signed to some cut-rate deal. Remember, the figure I've been putting forward is 2.5 mil with gusts up to 2.75 to factor in taxes. I arrived at that conclusion by using Dan Ellis's new deal as a basis for comparison. They're both guys who have been in the league three years and have had good and bad moments, but Price is much younger and has a better overall profile than Ellis - hence the extra mil. And because Price would be certifiably insane to sign long-term at 2.5, and the Habs have neither the cap room nor, hopefully, the stupidity to try and lock Price into a $5 million contract long term at this time, this will be a short term deal.

No it doesn't. And if that's the situation it should definitely start raising serious alarm bells about the extent to which the Molsons are penny pinching on all the essential, behind-the-scenes elements that separate great franchises from crappy ones.

Well, I think we should at least ask that Price put together ONE convincing season + playoff before we start paying out. Call me crazy. But you'll note that RFAs who typically get locked up to sizeable deals usually have at least one bona-fide impressive season under their belts...not just great half-seasons followed by varying degrees of collapse. Beyond that, if you're Price and believe that you have it in you to be Roberto Luongo, are you gonna lock in for 8 years at $3 mil? While for their part the Habs would be just stupid to lock him in for 8 years at $5 mil based on where he is in his career. Unless Price is willing to be permanently underpaid relative to his potential, a shorter-term deal is all that makes sense given his stage of development. If Price wants to play here after all the crap he's been through, he will likely still want to play here in his UFA season; while if he doesn't want to play here longer term, then he won't sign a long-term deal now anyway. Finally, we simply don't have the cap room to sign Price at Halak-sized money in any case. So the idea of overpaying now to get a bargain long-term still doesn't work. So I'll reiterate: anything over 2.5 looks suspicious to me (OK, say 2.75 to factor in the taxes).

Unless he signs for serious term, Price should be paid based on his performance up to this point. Nothing more. Nothing less. By that measure he should make at most $1 million per season more than, say, Dan Ellis. That would put Price at 2.5 mil. That sounds about right to me as the upper limit for a guy with formidable pedigree who has yet to assemble a compelling season/playoff as a #1 goalie in the NHL. 'Paying for potential?' My arse. Let him actually accomplish something first.

Well, what IS market value on a short-term deal for Price? While we're killing time waiting for something to happen, let's throw around some thoughts and comparables.

More proof that Markov is a class act. :hlogo:

According to Price's agent Price was ecstatic when he learned that Halak, not him, was the one to be moved. (I guess everybody except us fans realized that one or the other was going to be gone). I don't think we have to worry about Price wanting to stay...but we may have to worry that he wants to be better paid than we'd like. As mao said of the historical importance of the French Revolution, though: too soon to tell.

That looks like an impressive c.v.. Buffalo and Washington are both admirable organizations (especially the former, which didn't have the benefit of years of suckage in which to draft superstars). Good stuff. Last name sounds francophone...is he bilingual? I ask, not be cause I give a tinker's cuss, but because it gives insight into the degree to which the Habs are making this a priority.

Yes, the scouts thing remains truly bizarre. In a cap system good scouting is of the very essence. And...cost cutting? From the Habs, an organization that is basically a license to print money? Like you, I hope we hear of some hirings in the scouting department fairly soon. More likely the whole issue will simply vanish and then the media will wonder why the Habs aren't drafting more effectively 2-3 years down the road.

No doubt. Although it's a bit unfair to automatically count up injuries and fire the guy. I'd hope there's more to it - e.g., players unhappy with the results, coaches unhappy with team fitness/physical maintenance, simple personality conflicts, stuff of that nature.

As was true of Boyd's salary, that seems slightly low to me - not that I'm complaining and not that Laps necessarily deserves more. It's been a funny year, with RFAs and UFAs for the most part seeming to be confronting teams with cap problems, determined to keep costs down. I think the Habs are definitely playing harder ball than they used to on salary negotiations. (Remember Ribeiro's raise after a crappy season? Those days seem to be gonzo). Guys like Moore, bottom-6ers who want significant dough, are in for a rough ride. As for MacGuire, I had a feeling that posting that link would generate some reaction Nonetheless, the Price pick was generally regarded as odd at the time and I think events have proven that basic assessment correct. On a team with an absolutely screaming, systemic need for elite defencemen and skilled C with size - the case with the Habs at the time - there was in retrospect something almost wilfully perverse in picking a goalie. My sense is the Habs were adhering more rigidly to the BPA philosophy when they picked Price than they do now, and it bit them on the ass. (Did that loudmouth really say 'straight off the reservation' when they drafted Price? Good Lord!!).

Not to revive old arguments - oh heaven forfend! - but people who haven't yet seen it might be interested in the quotes from Pierre MacGuire in this piece: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Ques...3037/story.html Pierre, alas, was right about Huet, is correct that Price was an ill-chosen draft pick, and likely is right that Halak is not a flash in the pan. Whether he is correct that we could have gotten more for Halak is an unanswerable question, but the bottom line is the Habs would have done better had they done what he wanted on the goalie front over the last four years.

Yeah, you're right about that. My comment about being tired of watching other teams make the bold moves is nonsensical in those terms. And yet...I still feel as if there's something valid in what I say. But I admit it's hard to capture what that something is. It may be as simple as the lack of really bold trades. Or it may be that the Habs seldom seem to do what teams like Philly and Chicago do, basically saying we want player X and damn the torpedoes. I find it hard to envision the Habs making the Pronger deal, for instance - an absolutely horrible deal in cap terms, but one that carried Philly to within a couple of games of the Stanley Cup. (For some reason, Philly fails to apply the same determination to their netminding). Would teams like San Jose, Chicago, Philly or Boston have tolerated the kind of glaring gaps at C, and size in the top-6, that Habs fans have been asked to tolerate for over a decade? Gainey finally went out and got Gomez, and my affection for Gomez's game is well-known around here, but really...that was Plan B or C and everyone knew it. I dunno. There's just that sense that the Habs seem to struggle at going out and boldly addressing glaring issues that most other elite franchises would move heaven and earth to address. That's what I like about the Bobby Ryan scenario. It would show the Habs willing to be really bad-assed risk-takers in the quest, not just to be good, but to be a powerhouse - thinking really big and bold. But I could be just plain incoherent here.

I am no expert on Bobby Ryan. However, sometimes I get tired of watching other teams make all the really bold moves. If the Habs were to attempt a strike on him, it would make great sense in terms of team needs and I'd support it in principle. However, we should all then expect a retaliatory strike (e.g., on Price or Subban) somewhere down the line.

Well, see Wamsley's post above. Once burned, twice shy; until we see young guns stepping up and delivering instead of disappointing, I think caution regarding our prospects is the sensible approach. Subban is certainly a good start. But the entire Gainey era yielded one, count 'em one, clear-cut top-6 forward (Pleks). CoRvInA's concerns are legitimate. (Having said that, I've got an open mind, especially since the entire infrastructure for player development was fire-bombed and rebuilt by Bob in 2009 - which is why I'm not totally pessimistic that we can contend within Gio's window).

Love the 'turds in the pitcher' metaphor You're focusing only on the first of my two scenarios (i.e., this core tides us over until the next wave of talent comes up, then we contend), and not the second, which sees us contending within the Gionta/Gomez window. I think that, with some luck, the latter is possible. Price and the combo of Pouliot/Kostitsyn/other young forwards are the main keys to this happening. And as somebody pointed out, we'll have more cap space to play with next year. More broadly, after all the disappointment and heartache, I don't share your grumpiness about it. Perhaps that's because I do think the current core has a chance to contend if 2-3 young guns come along...or heck, maybe because I just like a lot of the players our current roster (Gomez, Gio, Cammy, Gill would top this irrational 'likeability' list).

Gagne HAS to tempt the Habs, whatever the cap issues he raises.

Good point! Gauthier is clear as the cross on top of Mount Royal that further improvement is likely going to have to come from within and from young players. I wish I had more faith in our track record with young players, but I suppose that's what a 'rebuild' looks like. (Then again, I've almost forgotten what I meant by my original 'rebuild in disguise' hypothesis. The original idea was that the team would be competitive over 4-5 years, giving the Habs breathing space to stockpile young talent to build a REAL contender for years following the Gomez/Gionta era. However, a case can be made that this core in fact IS good enough to be the nucleus of a contender within that window. What it would take, arguably, is for at least one young player, and probably two, to emerge as bona-fide top-6 forwards and one young player as a top-4 defenceman, without us getting weaker in any other area. Added size would also help. With Subban on board we've ticked one of the those boxes. But we're weaker in goal and possibly on the bottom six, and we will need to somehow replace Hammer's contributions in order for this to happen.

It's not a bad lineup - lots of very likeable, quality players - but it's clearly not a contending lineup either. We're decidedly reliant on totally unproven young guys such as Eller, Pyatt, Pacioretty, White, Desharnais and Trotter to provide us with NHL-calibre depth in the bottom six; and then we have TWO massive question-marks in the top six (Pouliot and Kosty). I don't mind relying on youth in principle, and we probably have no choice as long as we're carrying Hammer's contract, but Habs' youth has been all too often disappointing, so suddenly assuming they can stand and deliver seems unduly optimistic. One injury up front and we likely have big problems. And then there's the mystery of Carey Price in net. Too many question-marks for my taste. Especially up front. It's definitely a season that will require some exceptionally deft coaching. What we really need, given this arrangement, is that magical combination of youthful enthusiasm and veteran leadership to catch fire in the way that it did in 2008. Short of that happening, it's liable to be an up and down season with several near-death experiences assured.