The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Cool story, seb. Wamsley's right, though, not necessarily about chicken legs but that a certain healthy scepticism is the appropriate approach to Pouliot. He has a track record of failure up until now (unlike Latendresse, who had proven himself to be a solid third-liner in the NHL). It's a Gainey gamble, but damn, we're overdue for one of those to pay off.

Yeah, and Kovalenko? Ruscinsky? Marius Czerkawski??? WHERE?? One guy who did nothing for me was Stephane Lebeau :puke:

Well, hold on there. First, they may have a pre-game routine and not like to muck it up. Second, they might well have felt a bit like intruders doing that - it could have an air of crashing someone else's party. (For instance, if I were a Glen Metropolit, basically a nothing in historical hockey terms, I can readily imagine myself feeling awkward inserting myself into a reminiscing session between Larry Robinson and Ken Dryden on a day like this). And I've been in that lounge, it's pretty small and intimate, doesn't lend itself to a swarm of twentysomethings barging in. Third, the players may have other, ongoing opportunities to hobnob with the greats. Then again, I'm pretty sure guys like the Kostityns don't give a sh*t. I asked this before and nobody answered, so I'll give it one more try: Did anyone else notice Bob Gainey looking kind of isolated out there? I SWEAR I saw him averting Jarvis. Did he talk to Carbo at all? Or am I being melodramatic? Hard to revel in the glory days when you've fired a bunch of the guys on the ice with you, I guess.

That Cammy, he seems to genuinely want to embrace the whole Montreal Canadiens thing. And he has the mojo to use it as an inspiration instead of wilting under the "pressure." :hlogo: I'm sooo tired of players fading instead of stepping up like men. Tonight Cammy and the rest stepped up and it was good to see. It's easy to think that players just see it as a job, but wise ones will understand that, in playing here, they're part of something greater than themselves and that, potentially, it can be something that enriches the rest of their lives. I wonder if a Sergei Kostitsyn can even comprehend that concept.

Yeah, I'm starting to get nervous about Latendresse. Not that I wish him ill or anything, but if he suddenly emerges as a bona fide, clear-cut top-6 forward - and Pouilot doesn't - it may become more than I can take as a fan. Not another asset wasted!!!! :puke:

Yeah, the leaders - or the guys who need to be leaders - delivered tonight. Cammy is the team's best player and man, did he rise to the occasion, as the best player should. Gomez did exactly what Gainey acquired him to do, quietly make things happen. Moen and Metropolit delivered the desperate extra effort you need from "energy" guys. Gill was an absolute rock defensively. And Price was unreal. Key guys delivered key performances, and maybe with more of our key guys actually in the lineup, we can see that more often. One can hope.

It's only fitting that, on the 100th anniversary, the Montreal Canadiens pulverize the Boston Bruins. :hlogo: Maybe the hockey gods haven't forgotten us completely. Yet. Two notes: Price was a BEAST, eerily Roy-like out there. And so, let it be said, was Hal Gill, a bona-fide Macguire-style MONSTER on the 5-on-3. Personally, I think Hal Gill, however maligned and sometimes erratic he is, means a whole lot to this team.

Pouilot is a swing-for-the-fences acquisition. Boom or bust. I really hope he blossoms, because we're long overdue for some good old fashioned luck when it comes to these things.

Oh, I had a couple of tears, all right. And goosebumps when all those former greats stepped onto the ice in full uniform! That was just so great. It was truly touching to see Lach and Bouchard. Only the Habs can do this stuff :hlogo: Is it just me or did anybody else notice that Bob Gainey looked kinda lonely out there? I swear I saw him averting the eyes of Doug Jarvis. And did he interact with Carbo at all? Forlorn, man. Watching this, I had two further sentiments. One is the realization of just how blasted hungry I am as a fan for another Stanley Cup. I'll bet I want it worse than some of the current players, g*dammit!! I also felt a bit queasy. Like: that's IT. The past is officially past. The ceremonies have been marked, the jerseys retired, the legends honoured, the whole thing wrapped up in style. But now, going forward there is nothing but the future...and it looks like mediocrity as far as the eye can see. How I would love for this intuition to be proven wrong :hlogo: :hlogo: :hlogo:

Best of the best. Agreed. That leaves out Cournoyer and Bouchard...possibly even Serge Savard (although he has extra standing as a "builder"). I dunno, maybe I'm too particular. What I'm suggesting is that we are now on the path toward allowing sentiment rather than rigorous standards to dictate retirements. That way lies #11, the most beloved player of his generation. Oh well, I suppose now is not the night for crankiness.

So anyone who was an all star Cup-winning Canadien should have their number retired? This isn't the New Jersey Devils. To have your sweater in the rafters you should rank with Harvey, Richard, Morenz, Lafleur, Dryden, Roy, et al.. "Merely excellent" players need not apply. Koivu will be retired. Mark my words.

Well spoken. (For the record, I *do* think that re-integrating a bunch of injured players is difficult and DOES often lead a team to struggle briefly - especially when the team never gelled in the first place. However, we're getting to the point where the entire season hangs in the balance, so KoZed's attitude really is the bottom line).

Lach deserves it, but Butch Bouchard...? 4 All-Star berths in 15 years, no significant individual honours, no real mythic dimension: what gives??? (I'll tell you what gives: politics. They want to retire a French Canadian hero along with Lach on this 'special night.') If Bouchard gets in, how does a Koivu stay out? This is a very significant dropping of the standard as far as I can see, compounding the earlier error with Cournoyer. Goddammit, can't they do ANYTHING right any more?

Horrible, but he's had slow starts before, so let's wait a little longer before we start crapping on his head.

Wamsley, I think that blowing up the core comes down in significant measure to the decline of Koivu and Kovalev, especially the former. Presumably Bob had no interest in re-signing Saku Koivu for any duration of time because Saku Koivu is no longer a top-6 player. Presumably he was willing to let Kovalev walk for related reasons. Locking those guys in for 2-3 more seasons would mean accepting steeply-diminishing returns from the veteran core over that span. Given the (assumed) desire to remain competitive during the rebuild, this wouldn't have been an option. (It's easy to say that he should have re-signed those guys to cheap contracts for only one season, of course. Easy, and totally unrealistic). As for the young vets Gainey has moved, I think he just gradually concluded that they were never going to become elite players. Patience, yes, but at some point you cut bait. Personally, I think Gainey was correct that the old core was not a good bet to be competitive over a 2-3 year span. Koivu especially had to be replaced.

I think Wamsley's position that BG can't be trusted with a second rebuild is reasonable and defensible. However, in my view rebuilding is not an exact science and therefore I tend to shy away from a punitive attitude toward failure. For instance, Bob had faith that Carbo could make the jump in a relatively short time frame. He based this, presumably, on his extensive previous experience with Carbo (and perhaps his sense that a guy with extensive experience in Montreal might be the right person). Lever and Jarvis also had credentials that suggested they were good choices. Obviously these decisions didn't work out, but I don't think that makes Bob an idiot or means that his decision was idiotic. Similarly, players such as Higgins, the Kostitsyns, Streit, Lats and Komisarek were all highly-regarded as prospects and the crop of young players Gainey and Timmins assembled was universally viewed as one of the best in hockey. We can therefore infer that they were reasonable draft picks - not obvious blunders or idiotic choices. Philosophers refer to this process of making reasonable-yet-unpredictable choices in a murky world as the "burden of jugement." Gainey has generally made what seem to be reasonable decisions given radically imperfect information. Now, one can take a purely results-oriented view and say "you only get one try." Like I say, that's a reasonable conclusion. But given the inherent unpredictability of a rebuild, the real issue to me is whether the reasons for the earlier failure have been identified and fixed. I think it's reasonable to argue that Gainey seems to have identified coaching (and perhaps veteran leadership/team culture) as the principal causes behind the failure of Rebuild 1.0 and has taken comprehensive steps to address those underlying problems. On that basis, I think it's equally reasonable to give Bob the opportunity to try again. We can also argue that our drafting has just sucked. Maybe. Or maybe the real issue has been in player development. Again: either view is reasonable, given that none of us really "knows" the truth of the matter. So we have an honest disagreement here. If I see Gainey dumping youth and picks in a desperate drive to make the playoffs, then I will definitely swing to the Wamsley side. For now, I'm still with Bob.

You don't need to finish last to rebuild. It's a myth. 40 years of Habs dynasties proves it. Detroit and New Jersey prove it, along with lesser examples such as Anaheim, Vancouver, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.. Finishing last is also no guarantee of successful rebuilding. See Columbus, Atlanta, etc.. IF we are indeed "rebuilding in disguise," it's really just fine by me.

The guy must have been damaged goods as a result of that catastrophic injury. But I never saw anything other than brief flashes out of him and never understood all the hype. He looks like the quintessential marginal NHLer. He's been "knocking on the door" for about five years now. Give me a break. I agree with the general sentiment here: this is about Martin and his vision for the team. OK by me.

Gee, it was only one game ago that everyone was talking about this plucky, never-say-die bunch that was buying into Martin's system and forging an identity in front of a blossoming young goalie I propose re-naming this site to BI-POLARWORLD. :hlogo:

I think this is a mix of hope and informed speculation on my part. I have never said that this IS what Gainey is doing. I've said that it offers a credible explanation of what he's really trying to do. Until I see hard evidence to the contrary, which would be Bob trading young players or picks for immediate help, I'll work with this theory, because it is an optimistic reading of the situation. I've boldfaced some claims where you point to mistakes on Gainey's part. Yes, Bob has made mistakes. The real mistake, at least as we can infer from his actions, was in hiring the wrong coaching staffs. Firing them was not the mistake; hiring them in the first place was. (But please, Julien? Talk about yesterday's news). Boivon remarked that Bob was considering firing Lever at al. in 2007, before the Dogs won the championship. That little nugget is what got me thinking that Gainey in fact realized something was rotten in the state of player development before the rest of us. Unfortunately, he got thrown off-course by the Hamilton victory and then the spectacular 2007-08 season. This may help to explain why he took the drastic action he did in 08-09. The fundamentals of the rebuild had turned out to be wrong, and the disaster of that season re-affirmed Bob's original suspicions. The primary target was the coaches, but veteran "leadership" may also have been deemed lacking in his estimation. As for the Higginses, Latendresses, and Komisareks, he obviously did not believe they had developed as originally hoped and cut them loose. So far, his judgement about players surrendered looks pretty good. Now you're right about the lack of cap flexibility. But that *also* can be related back to the "rebuild in disguise" idea. Young players are cheap. So IF you're planning on staying competitive during the rebuild, you may as well spend close to the cap and manage those headaches in the interim. (Plus, he presumably felt that guys like Gionta and Gomez represented better "surroundings" for young players, as well as just better players, than Kovy et al.). As I've said before, Rebuild 2.0 poses no cap problems because guys like Subban and whoever are not going to cost much. By the time they're blossoming, in 3-5 years, the Gomez era is going to be winding down. The real trick will be in the interim: re-signing holdovers from Rebuild 1.0 (Pleks, Price, etc.). But I'd like to wait and see how it plays out before throwing myself off a bridge about it. Your fundamental point, Wamsley, seems to be that we should follow the Pittsburgh/Tampa model of being absolutely awful for a few seasons and then rebuild with superstars. I just do not believe this to be feasible in Montreal, especially not (ironically) after 15 years of futility. Neither fans nor owners will tolerate utter wretchedness for any extended period. (In fact, they don't tolerate it too well in those other markets either. The Penguins were touch and go for a while). Besides, you don't need to rebuild that way. Teams like Detroit, Philly, Anaheim, New Jersey and Vancouver - or the Montreal Canadiens, prior to 1996 - have been able to develop high-end young players from within while avoiding scraping the basement for long periods. This has to be the model Gainey is looking to. Hopefully he gets it right this time. (You can always argue that Bob has "proven" that he isn't the right man for the job, but I don't see too many better options out there. Indeed, having been through the previous exercise he must have a very steely-eyed vision of how to a rebuild properly this time - assuming that I am correct about his intentions. If any human being alive has earned a second chance from Habs fans, it's Bob Gainey).

The difference is that the coaching staffs in place seem to be a substantial upgrade over what we had. My theory has been that Gainey has identified coaching, not drafting, as the key to our disastrous player development. Accordingly, he has given up on most of the guys from Rebuild 1.0 - deeming them a spoiled batch, basically - and is starting over with a new core that will hopefully keep us in the mix while we rebuild properly this time. The "hope" consists in the premise that Gainey does NOT view the current team as the end game, but rather a transitional phase, much of which will be on the way out by the time Rebuild 2.0 really picks up steam. This is a hopefully scenario because the current bunch is clearly not Cup-ready, and if Bob lets his tactics become defined by short-term goals ("making the playoffs!") then he will sabotage any possibility of the Habs becoming more than the Leafs, a perpetual mediocrity going forward. That's what worries me - that Gainey has lost the plot and is flying by the seat of his pants. For me, the main thing is to see a coherent and defensible plan in place now that the original rebuild has failed. There's no point in ridiculing it as a "10-year plan." We tried a rebuild, it was partially successful but ultimately a flop. We have no choice but to try again. If this is Bob's strategy - and as I say, the signs are pointing in this direction, but this remains unproven - then it seems sound to me.

Sure, I've been advancing the "rebuild-on-the-fly" hypothesis for a while.

It's been an ongoing discussion hereabouts whether or not Gainey is using the new core as, basically, a beard, trying to keep the team competitive in the short term while more-or-less disguising the fact that he is trying for a second rebuild - a second 3-5 year plan after the spectacular flame-out of the Komisarek/Higgins group. The Pouilot trade was significant inasmuch as it did NOT show us a Bob interested in trading any youth for veteran help. Now there's this from the Molsons: http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/24992 This quote seems significant: "I feel we are in the process of building a great organization," Molson added. "The most important thing is to have a winning team." At the risk of reading too much into the tea leaves, it sounds as though Gainey has sold them on a rebuilding plan. We'll know more as trade deadline approaches. These early signs are good.

That was before the salary cap era, when it was simply a matter of what owners were willing to spend. In that context, you can assess trades in pure hockey terms. In those terms, Savard got a top-6 forward for a bag of pucks. I call that a fleecing.

100% For heaven's sake, I want Markov back ASAP! Just striking a note of caution before we get TOO euphoric.