The Chicoutimi Cucumber

I have an oddly good feeling about this one...but what that's based on, other than Price's play of late, I don't know...

Just to irresponsibly raise anxiety levels even more, Arpon Basu is pretty sure that Hamrlik is fairly seriously hurt http://dailyhab-it.blogspot.com/2009/11/guess-whos-back.html Can you imagine? If he's out for any extended period, then lottery here we come. I wouldn't be surprised if the Gionta injury gives Bob the final incentive to acquire another top-6 forward. But he'll only do that after call-ups and current roster players have manifestly failed to fill the void. This seems to be the year when the Gainey regime's failure to develop players is destined to destroy us. We've desperately needed la releve all year and as the injuries pile up the need intensifies - but so far, not one young player has matched let alone surpassed expectations. Oh well.

I'm one who thinks that they've made their point with Sergei. He's been rotting away and watching others get called up for a good stretch of time. It gets silly to deprive yourself of a player who at least has the potential to be tolerably productive just to continue teaching him a lesson.

That game was bone-chilling. If the Habs are anything like a good team, they should have looked a lot better. Remember that this was an absolute 'must win' coming off a humiliation in Nashville. We should have been coming at the Canes in waves. Instead we fluked out a win. Even Benoit Brunet was expressing grave worries after it was over. This team does not look good in any facet of the game, except: It's becoming clear that when Carey Price is on his game, he is already the best goalie we have had in Montreal since you-know-who. He has the great intangibles working for him - presence, swagger - like it the shootout where he simply projected 'You Ain't Gonna Score' as well as any goalie I've ever seen. That aura of near-unbeatability is impossible to bottle and it eventually leads to a goalie being larger than life. I LOVE what I'm seeing from that kid right now. Apart from that, be afraid. Be very, very afraid. This win was in many ways a moral defeat.

I seem to recall Gomez struggling mightily when he was traded to New York, and then catching fire and lighting it up. He could just be a player who takes a while to settle into a new environment. His real weakness in my opinion is along the boards. He seems to lose so many battles. Nonetheless, it is only reasonable to assume that his production will pick up eventually; whatever he is, he's not a 43-point player.

Well, Gomez is a better player than he's showing at present.

I think it's time to be worried. Not panicking, but concerned...it's time to furrow brows and dig in, not time to throw ourselves off bridges. Save that for Game 40.

OK, OK. All I'm trying to say is that the "injury" thing can only go so far, in this particular season. Yer right, lots of hockey left to play.

Right, my bad on Sedin, but Daniel Sedin remains their best position player. They've also been without another top-6 forward (Demitra) and of course Luongo. New Jersey is missing major chunks of its D. Most teams are suffering. Not all are tanking. Point taken on the "team identity" thing. But you'd think that after 20 games without Markov they'd have formed some sort of sense of themselves. In short: the longer this mediocrity goes on, the harder it is to argue that we have some *special* excuse that does not apply to every other injury-decimated team out there. This is a freak year, team after team has grave holes in their lineup due to injury, and I think the slack we cut the Habs has to be balanced against that fact.

I'm not taking the 'Canes lightly. A lot of the time, when a losing team gets the monkey of a losing streak off its back, it rings together a handful of wins before slipping back into mediocrity. I agree that we haven't been too lucky this season, but the fact remains that MOST teams are decimated with injuries. Look at Vancouver, missing their #1 G and #1C for much of the season so far - for instance. I hate to say it, but the Habs really can't use injuries as an excuse when every other team has lots of them too.

Nice post. It's hard to do a better job of articulating the argument that Bob continues to have a tenable and well-developed vision for the team (short of falling into the 'Bob is always right' logic). I don't know if things unfolded quite as systematically as you present them, but I will continue to believe that something along these lines is accurate, unless and until I see Gainey dealing away young assets and picks for short-term help.

Yeah, BTH, the Colorado/Philly model is exactly what we should be striving for. I don't see this as a 'lucky' model, either - too many teams do it consistently and effectively for it to just be random luck. It's simply (but not so simply!) a matter of excellent scouting and strong development. I completely agree that Gainey failed in the first attempt to do this. All I'm really saying is that I think he's making another attempt, without actually announcing it. You're right that it seems peculiar to put all our faith in our development system when it failed us so badly the first time. Of course, Gainey has completely retooled the coaching aspects of that system, so (in theory at least) past performance does not predict future performance in this case. Nonetheless you're correct, it's a leap of faith - and on two levels: first, faith that Gainey indeed has a long-term rebuilding strategy here and will stick with it instead of doing more Schneider-for-draft-pick type deals (this hasn't been proven yet, not by a long shot); and second, faith that the new coaching staffs can make more out of Timmins' picks than the previous groups did.

Yeah, this gets back to something I said in the Predators thread...there's really no MATERIAL on this team for a fire sale. Only Hamrlik is both expensive and obviously someone with a limited future with us. I could *see* moving Gionta, I guess, but he seems like a great guy to have around for a rebuild, just the right kind of example for young players. Cammy you keep because he's an elite player - also you don't want to sign high-profile UFAs and then ship 'em out of town, not a good signal to send for the future - and Gomez is unmoveable. Pleks is, really, PART of a rebuild, a rare case of a successfully developed young player. So there's only Hamrlik. Don't expect a firesale. Gainey wants to keep his job. I doubt he is prepared to completely repudiate his vision in order to do it. The real question is not whether he is just a crass careerist - we owe it to Bob Gainey to give him more credit than that. It is what his vision IS. Is it a patchwork attempt to win now by flying by the seat of his pants and crossing his fingers? Or is it a 'rebuild in disguise?' For me, the hope lies in the latter. By season's end, based on his moves, we'll know. And BTH you don't need to hit rock bottom to build a strong team. See New Jersey, Philly, Anaheim, Vancouver, etc.. You can build a strong team just by drafting well and developing properly.

You'll notice I didn't slag Vinny, and I have no objection to a player deciding he's happy where he is and playing out his career there. But the case of UFAs who have already decided to leave their teams and therefore by definition cannot be lauded for 'loyalty,' or a player who is willing to accept a trade to markets other than Montreal - these I've got no patience for. And not for a second would I be ashamed to be a Habs player under the Gainey regime; not for a second would I be reluctant to live in Montreal (my home town, by the way) as a Montreal Canadien. How come Lafleur and Kovalev and Koivu and Roy and innumerable other players both francophone and non-francophone can play here with all the craziness it entails and love it, but not putzes like Danny Briere? Because only one name on that list has no soul IMHO.

For what it's worth, you and I are mostly in agreement...we agree that Bob has undertaken a 'rebuild in disguise,' but I think it's a longer-term project than you do. We agree that Gainey's overall leadership has been solid and that he's followed defensible overall strategies, however we might quibble over specific tactic X or Y. I even agree that this team could do pretty nicely IF several things happen: Markov comes back healthy and effective, one or two young guns step up, etc.. Allow me to point out, though, that *most* teams would do all right if nothing serious went wrong. So I'm not too sure that this is saying much. And I do think you're too generous with the previous rebuild. Yes, Gainey has created an organization that is much stronger at all levels than the one he inherited. Granted. But the goal wasn't to improve on mediocrity, it was to be a contender. The goal was also to develop young players who would be integral elements of a contender. Neither of these happened. Praising the Gainey regime for producing 'serviceable NHLers' is setting the bar catastrophically low. Most strong franchises - Anaheim, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Detroit, Vancouver all come to mind - have done better than the Gainey Canadiens at developing excellent players. That is the definition of a failed rebuild in my books. In any case, I believe that Bob has taken the necessary measures to address this weakness by overhauling the coaching staffs at both levels. This comes back to our wider agreement that Gainey knows what he's doing even if things haven't really worked out. But as you say, we need to avoid apologetics here. And if we see Gainey moving young assets or picks for immediate help, then everything we've been saying will be rendered moot - he clearly will be every bit as confused as someone like Wamsley has accused him of being. I won't be fully reassured that the 'rebuild in disguise' is underway unless I see Bob resisting pressures to weaken the future for the present this season.

Oh, the rebuild was very definitely a failure. Not only did we in fact fail to show any 'continual progress' in the standings - apart from the 104-point 2008 finish, we ended with 93, 93, 90, and 93 points - and not only did we fail to seriously contend for the Cup at any point, but the development of almost every young player ended up disappointingly, yielding hardly any top-6 forwards or top-4 defencemen. We were patently unable to replace Koivu and Kovalev with cheaper young players from within. Which is why Bob had to go out and acquire overpriced contracts. Those contracts in turn limit our flexibility as far as your 'three year plan' idea goes, because the *only* way we can ever contend is by the emergence of one or maybe two of our current young guys into major players within that span. I can imagine A. Kostitsyn growing into an elite player within three years (although it puts some strain on the brain and will also entail quite a cap hit); maybe Pacioretty or Lats or O'Bryne can step up (my money's on Pacioretty); but defencemen usually take about five years to hit their prime and the next crop isn't even in the league yet. In short, for the three year scenario to work we'd need to be seeing a significant number of promising young players on the team right now, already well into their development. Maybe if Subban and Weber force their way onto the roster next year, I'll be a little more convinced. For now I think a 5-year-window is more realistic, which means the current core is purely a transitional one to mask the fact of the rebuild. Hope I'm wrong, though.

Ya know, I don't accept this 'we're missing half our D' argument. O'Bryne was not a regular last season, and Gill (who I like) is a 5th-6th defenceman. For a team to go in the tank because it's missing those two is unfathomable. Only Markov is a really heavy loss.

Yes, well, a francophone star who does not want to play in Montreal is simply a soulless human turd in my humble opinion. Such players have the rarest of opportunities to live out one of the great myths in hockey: the French Canadian star playing for the Montreal Canadiens. While I'm very relieved Daniel Briere did not sign for us, I never respected him for his heartless decision to take a few extra mil and sign elsewhere. If Lecavalier also does not want to play in Montreal - something never proven, as far as I know - then he is another mercenary, soulless chump in my books. These players are oblivious to the magical aspects of what they do for a living. And that is a damned shame.

Mara was a great signing. Gill is a decent signing, he is much underrated around here. Letting Streit go was unquestionably a mistake. I'm unpresuaded about the rest. Bob offered Komi a generous salary for what now looks like an average D-man and refused to go higher - so my original assertion that he had Komi pegged might in fact be correct. As for Bob not locking up homegrown young talent, the fact is most of that talent has been skull-splittingly average, and I for one am not too troubled that Higgins, Komi and the Kostitsyns are not signed on 8-year deals. We're talking about a GM who has developed exactly two top-4 defencemen (Streit and Komi) and one (!) top-6 forward (Pleks). I don't think we should be calling him a 'numbskull' for not locking that bag of sh*t to long-term deals. The real issue with Gainey hasn't been contracts. It's been player development.

You know, you're right. I really hadn't thought that through. I guess you can look at moving Hammer and trying to get a top pick or some real quality prospect back. I don't think that's impossible, either - Hammer would be a HUGE addition to a team defence gearing up for a Cup run, assuming that team had cap space. It's too early to tell, but I'd also consider ditching Spacek if I got high value back. But like you I wouldn't advocate moving Gio or Cammy, who are authentically quality players, and Gomez is unmoveable...so all we're really discussing is moving Hammer at the deadline. I like what you said about Price. He had a similar evening in Boston a little while ago. These seem to be definite warning signs that the Thoroughbred is still there and perhaps on the cusp of putting a run together. Last night aside, some truly commanding netminding would make a big difference to this bunch. A depressing time to be a Habs fan. I cling to my theory that Gainey is working on a rebuild in disguise - it's all I can base any hope on at this point.

Thanks be to God, I didn't see this game. But it seems to me there's a lot to this post. Yes, we need at least one more forward (or one of our existing forwards to step up) - no question. But the Habs' transition game has suffered ever since the loss of Streit, and in that sense we're not actually seeing anything new this season. When Markov is present, that weakness is heavily masked, but when he's out, you soon realize that we just don't have the horses back there to move the puck out of the zone in a fashion that creatively kindles offence. Forwards need D who can get them the puck on the rush - in other words, offence starts from the back end. Spacek was supposed to be the answer, a second-tier puckmover to supplement Markov; he may yet fulfill that role, but he clearly isn't even close to adequate with Markov out. Hamrlik ditto. Not sure where we go from here. If Bob moves a top-6 forward for a second-tier offensive defenceman, he weakens the team at an area where it's already too weak. If he moves a high draft pick, he further sabotages our only real hope going forward, i.e., youth. If he moves the Kostitsyns, he also risks aging the team considerably at a time when we should be stockpiling young assets. The only thing I can think of, short of hoping the current squad can get its act together and hang in there until Markov returns, is a combination - maybe moving Spacek and Sergei Kostitysn for an upgrade on Spacek. Something like that. But that doesn't seem too realistic, eh? I wonder if Latendresse could bag us a bona-fide top-4 puckmover, from a team looking to shed salary? Just asking. Finally - if this keeps up, then Bob had BETTER do the sensible thing and start shedding expensive assets like crazy come deadline time. If this season is a wash I at least want to see us come out of it with a bundle of picks and/or new young talent.

Interesting question. I could see him signing for 3.5, something along those lines. I can't believe people will rain big dollars on a 36-year-old Hamrlik, but then again, nothing surprises me from NHL GMs.

Good call, brobin. I admire your cool-headedness on this. I also suggested 40 games, and you've reinforce me in that opinion. habs_rule, you make some good points, but more than one player - including Streit and Komi - has said that they wanted to re-sign with Montreal, but as matters drifted and time passed, they began to focus more and more on testing the UFA waters. So I'm not sure that Bob's supposed no-negotiation-during-the-season policy is as irrelevant as you say. Certainly, I can imagine myself in that situation: if I made overtures to the team and got politely told to wait, or if the team just showed no particular interest in re-upping me, I too would likely shrug and shift my mentality toward looking elsewhere. So there may be a simple element of human nature involved here. Yeah, Komisarek really hasn't made a case for himself, either last season or this year so far. He looks harrowingly average, and it's possible that Gainey had him pegged all along.

You can't just look at the guys lost, you also have to consider the guys brought in as their replacements. No offence, but I get sick of this list (Komisarek, Souray, Streit, etc.) without the inverse list of replacements and whether they are better value. E.g., Hamrlik brings an all-around game that is arguably an improvement on Souray. Komisarek has been replaced by a committee of Mara and Spacek - two top-4 D-men for nearly the same price as what Komi would have cost us. Streit has never been replaced, so that's a legitimate grievance. Anyway, the point is we shouldn't only focus on one side of the ledger. Having said all that, yes, Pleks should be re-signed, it's a matter of timing; 20 good games is not a sufficient case, though.

Gainey is the only name on mine, and I stand by it. Not that I think he's infallible - not by any means - but I just like the guy. He has a quiet, determined dignity all too rare in public life. (It is, though, unquestionably a problem when the GM tends to overshadow the players on the team, which has been as true of the Gainey era as it's been of Burke in TO. Not Bob's fault per se, but it speaks to the weak performances of the teams he's iced).