The Chicoutimi Cucumber

A walk in the park! I'd expect the opposite to be just as likely, maybe moreso. The Habs now have nothing to play for except the principle of rounding out their game for the playoffs. If you want to see how this can work, check out the Canuckleheads' last two games, both losses to the pathetic Oilers. The odds favour Montreal taking a vacation out there tonight. 4-2 Sens.

JM has lost the room, and Price is a complete bust who was a waste of a high draft pick. There's a reason for the old adage that if you listen to the fans, pretty soon you'll be sitting up there with them. The 'room' issue is especially irritating because it was started by that impeccable Habs insider with no conceivable axe to grind at all: Georges Laraque. The media and blogosphere then ran with it like turkeys with their feathers on fire. If you need greater evidence of the inanity of discourse in a hyper-wired world, it's that.

Game 'o the year, and I have to miss it!! Still, sounds as though les boys pulled together for one of their classic 'bend-don't-break' performances, EXACTLY what I was hoping for coming out of the promising contest in Jersey. Maybe we have reason to believe this bunch can get it together in time for the dance: because if they bring their 'A' game they are a dangerous playoff opponent, and that's when it gets REAL exciting.

Kind of a big game - not because of the standings but because of the necessity of the Habs putting the slump behind them. This is a perfect opponent to build on the Jersey game: a significantly better team, but not an overpowering team (at least, not this season). Win or lose, what I want to see is the Habs building on the New Jersey contest, with really strong puck support, alert team defense. good goaltending, and some drive to the net and opportunistic scoring. Let's see Pleks and Cammy in particular stepping up their games. If the team puts in a strong overall effort I'll be happy that we're getting back to the fundamentals and that the results will soon follow.

I don't think a buyout of Gomer is a good idea, because unless you're ready to throw Eller or Desharnais in there, the $3 mil you save - plus some extra - will likely have to be invested in another 2nd-line C; while this would represent an upgrade at the position (almost anything would) it wouldn't represent any cap savings. Heck, it might end up costing more. The options with Gomez seem to me pretty clear-cut. Trade him, demote him and eat the salary, or keep him around. The third option is the worst option, and this gets to what I've been saying in this thread. It's time for the Habs to become what the elite teams generally are: absolutely ruthless bastards when it comes to cap management. Both Gomez and Spacek ought to be in the managerial crosshairs for 2011-12 as wastes of cap space that are preventing us from potentially becoming contenders. Move heaven and earth to dump those salaries. Don't resign Hammer (Wiz brings more, surely). OK. That saves what, $15.5 mil? Say another $4-5 mil added to an NHL-quality 2nd line C. $11 mil to play with. Not too shabby. Now I don't know how feasible that specific scenario is. But I am sick and tired of the Habs being a 'good team' with only a remote chance of actually winning the Cup, which has been the norm for the last 3 years, to say nothing of the dismal decade before that. Assuming that Patches recovers, we have three elite youngsters on the cheap and some good core guys who are getting no younger. It's time to take a step up. Trading draft picks is out of the question. Standing still is out of the question. Therefore coldly ruthless cap management is the only way to do it.

Whatever. Again, if it's not Wiz it'll have to be someone else - at least if we want to contend and not just spin our wheels.

If we lose Wiz, then any of the first three D-men would be wise acquisitions. Probably in that order. Niether of those forwards floats my boat, but likely would be useful additions. Don't know enough about Upshall to speculate on that, but Frolov seems to have the *wrong* profile for us: an unreliable talent akin to Kosty or Pouliot.

What I liked about that game was how tidily it fit the team identity ('New New Jersey' - remember earlier in the year, when that seemed to be an apposite label?). All kinds of puck support + team defence + saves from Price when needed + timely goals = a W and a steadier overall effort than the Atlanta game. Of course, the opposition was sketchy, but beggars can't be choosers. My hope is that our last two wins help to re-instil in the players' heads what this team needs to do to be successful. Pleks was feisty tonight but seemed a touch slower than his old self on that 1st period breakaway. Like Cammy, he's still hurting I suspect.

OK, 5-2 Devils. And it's Guaranteed Win Night - for the home squad natch.

NJ in town = Guaranteed Loss Night. 4-1 Devils.

This is one of those rare posts - I agree with every word.

That might be my all-time favourite fight by a Hab Talk about schooling a guy!!

Look, I'm not going to go all OCD on this point. All I'm saying is that if we rely on Markov-Subban we are asking for trouble, in particular when Markov goes down with his inevitable injury and you've got a sophomore working as your #1 defenceman. No capologist I; but looking at Gomer, Spacek, and Hammer, I see a ton of cap savings that could potentially be put in part toward Wiz's salary *provided* the Habs are prepared to emulate the ruthlessness of teams like Chicago and Philadelphia when it comes to dumping sh*tty contracts. Having watched those two teams ascend to the Finals, along with teams like Boston and Vancouver take the same approach, I am firmly of the 'sign-the-guy-you-want-and-sort-out-the-cap-issues-later' school. The goal is to win the Stanley Cup, not spin your wheels.

Wamsley, thanks for that reminder. Ewen was absolutely one tough mofo. I remember one fight, he literally picked the guy up and dumped him on the bench... As for how we got away from our past tradition of 'requisite (but not excessive) toughness:' the team from around 1997-2003 was constructed without any sort of competent plan at all, although we did have the glory of Ulanov for a while When Andre Savard took over and was asked what his priority was, his answer was: 'to get some players...' So the real question is why Bob Gainey declined to build a team with the requisite means streak. I would guess that it had more to do with timing and the vagaries of drafting than any overall intent. For instance, rumour had it that Bob withdrew from the Arnott sweepstakes due to caution about the salary cap (if true, this was a mistake he clearly decided not to repeat, as he subsequently joined the ranks of the NHL's overspenders). That's a matter of timing. His team brought along Komisarek (only later exposed as a fraud) who was presumably slated for that role until Lucic schooled him. And of course he (disastrously) signed Laraque, not to mention Ivvannis or whatever his name was. As for drafting and development, the first Gainey rebuild was mostly a disappointment, whether the players were big or small. In short, I doubt that some big edict came down from Bob's office that he wanted a team of small gentlemen. He made some efforts that didn't really work out. Relatedly, I'd speculate that The Great UFA Rebuild of 2010 was not a result of a deliberate plan to build a team of smurfs. It was, again, timing. This was the year Bob had set aside where he could make a massive UFA splash. And he ran the table on premium UFAs that season. The trouble was, by this point teams had gotten in the habit of locking up 'core' young guys long-term. All Bob had to choose from were skilled, small players. So, again: mostly timing and luck. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if Bob saw the direction the NHL was taking after the lockout - speed and skill - and came to the conclusion that the old truths about needing to be big and strong would not apply to the same extent. This could perhaps explain the seeming lack of urgency about addressing the issue, especially at the draft. Whether Bob could be expected to have known that the NHL would allow players to commit attempted murder on an ongoing basis is another question.

Dlbar, I anticipated this response. First of all, filling the Streit absence has cost us a substantial number of draft picks (as you document above) and we need to staunch the bleeding somewhere, surely. We can't keep throwing out 2nd and 3rd rounders to fill the same vacancy. Wiz is here and offering us an opportunity to do stop the hemmoraging, assuming he's willing to sign. Secondly, Bergeron and Schnide were hardly home runs; one was too old to stay healthy, which bit us on the ass down the stretch, while the other was a disaster in his own end, which bit us on the ass from start to finish. Of the three, only Wiz has represented a genuine solution. Thirdly, Markov is high risk and PK will be a sophomore. Any seasoned hockey-watcher will know what folly it is to place your destiny in the hands of players of that profile. Relatedly, Markov-Subban-Gill-Gorges-Spacek-Hamrlik gives us at best three top-4 defencemen, only one of which is not on the decline. That shouldn't exactly set our minds at ease. Final thought: I don't want a merely serviceable D corps sewn together on a wing and a prayer. I want the Habs to be contenders. In the unlikely event that Markov doesn't get hurt, Markov-Subban-Wiz gives us a top-3 to rival anyone's. That should be our goal, not standing still or declining due to ridiculous cap problems. Now, having said all that, it doesn't HAVE to be Wiz. Any legitimate top-4 defenceman of a similar profile would suffice.

A lot of people seem confident that Wiz is gone. It may indeed be that we can't afford him under the cap. However, the 'Wiz is gone' crowd overlooks the fact that we NEED Wiz and that our season could well have been a dire disaster without him. The ease with which people seem to be imagining Wiz's departure is eerily reminiscent of the carefree attitude we took to Streit. The fact is, we have been scrambling to fill the hole left by Streit ever since (first with Schneider, then with Bergeron, and now with Wiz). With Wiz, we have a heavy-duty, real-deal PP cannon and all-around good defenceman entering his prime. Just letting him walk strikes me as pretty ill-advised. And if we do have to let him walk because of weighty contracts to people like Spacek and Gomez, that is a frightening indictment of the Habs' cap management.

One interesting question is whether the 1993 team was 'deficient' in terms of physical intimidation. Off the top of my head I remember a lot of players who were willing and able to do what it took to win - also true of the current team IMHO - but I don't remember any intimidators on that squad. Maybe (quietly) Muller, who would occasionally put guys out with clean, crushing bodychecks. That aside, I totally agree that it's not a goon we need. It's mean-assed guys who can take a regular shift and inflict punishment. The goings-on this season, and not just in Montreal, prove that you need a certain critical mass of those type of guys, and it doesn't matter if they're just old-time tough like Robinson, dirty tough like Ludwig, or vicious cheap-shot bastards like Cooke. You just need guys whose very existence is a red light to the opposition: hurt us, and we will hurt you back and kiss your health goodbye.

Yeah. As you know, I get very aggravated at the way the Habs are routinely viewed as mediocre, when in fact they've shown strong signs of being a team that could indeed have hit 'another gear' except for brutal injuries (one of which was the result of Chara's reckless endangerment of a young man's life). And that image of 'bubble team' probably compounds my frustration at all the injuries. Still, there may be a lesson here, which is that WE need to be the team meting out the injuries rather than absorbing them. In both the McLaren and Chara cases, the Bruins had a hulking beast with a mean streak on the blueline who decided to destroy a Hab in the heat of a rivalry game. I know we're not built to be that kind of team. But given the repeated evidence that the NHL regards deliberate attempts to injure and/or recklesss endangerment as just 'boys being boys,' maybe we need to face facts...until we get some Craig Ludwigs/Milan Lucics on the team, this sort of thing may keep happening. Remember the Chelios/Ludwig/Corson teams of the 80s? Between vicious cheap shots and crushing hits, nobody f*cked with them, that's for sure.

No, I agree with your approach in general terms. It's just that with a handful of games remaining, and the team desperate for a spark, I feel that I'd quietly loosen the reins on PK, under the circumstances. However, you might be right - making exceptions might teach PK that he will ultimately be rewarded for not listening to the coach.

Hmmm. Could be that my frustration over what happened to Koivu has coloured my reaction to subsequent grave injuries. What's so frustrating about Markov is that we're now in a position when he could really help to elevate us into elite or near-elite status. All those years of having him toiling on useless teams seem wasted, when now that he could actually be in a position to have a chance to win something, he's hurt all the time. Anyway...three straight injury-decimated seasons blows chunks. Thank God for last year's playoff run, or I'd really be fuming about it

I understand that JM is trying to teach PK the finer points. He has a very firm hand with young players and this has served those players well over the years. Having said that, I agree with you on the specific case of Subban. Unlike Weber, Pouliot, Eller or the others, this kid is a genuine thoroughbred and we're only hurting the team by NOT unleashing him for 30 minutes a night with tons and tons of powerplay time. He is possibly the best position player on the entire club, night in and night out. Now is not the time to be imparting lessons. Give him the ball. Our injuries to D have nothing to do with Martin or his system. Spacek is injury-prone and so is Markov. Gorges carried his injury for years before it got to him. I actually agree that he doesn't hold veterans accountable. (The case of Gomez alone proves that). However, I think there's a defensible rationale to this. In today's NHL the veteran core of any team has to be self-policing; a coach who goes to war with it will simply get himself fired, or else watch as cranky vets demand trades and get shipped out of town, usually to the team's detriment. This ain't the old days where you could just brutalize their asses and rule by fear. Also, JM knows that at the end of the day - and especially in the playoffs - this team will sink or swim on the basis of its veterans. He is giving the veterans all the rope they could possibly ask for, within a system that has been proven to work. If they fail, he will not be to blame. They will.

habs29, when will you learn. NHL 'justice' has nothing to do with words or actions, it has to do with whether or not you are popular and/or respected (Chara) or loathed (Avery, Cooke). If you are the former, then you are, axiomatically, innocent. And it's probably the injured guy's fault to boot. Wamsley makes a great point about the Chara hit, of course. And your rememberance of Zedniks past is well-taken too. I recall making a list of catastrophic injuries to key players that have afflicted the Habs over the past decade and a half. It's really quite depressing. -Koivu, destined to be a superstar but destroyed by a brutal knee injury; and let's not forget his eye being gouged out against Carolina on an unpenalized high-stick, a turning point in a series we might have won; -Donald Audette, a PPG player on a team desperate for offence, destroyed in his prime when his arm was sliced off in a career-ending injury; -Zednik, dramatically blossoming as the league's leading playoff scorer, demolished by a vicious clotheslining from McLaren and never the same again; -Robert Lang, an absolutely key piece of the puzzle in 2009, and an irreplaceable cog at our weakest position, suffers a season-ending injury that begins the downward spiral of Year 100; -Markov, shattered for three straight seasons by injury and probably permanently damaged goods -I sure hope I don't have to add Pacioretty to this list as permanently compromised by Chara's act of unpunished brutality. I could be perverse and include Brian Savage, who also had his neck broken; but there's the suspicion that Savage was never going to amount to much anyway. I dunno. Is it normal for teams to endure a situation where almost every edition suffers such big injuries to such key players, year after year after year? Maybe I'm just whining. Or maybe we have a legitimate grievance with the hockey gods.

habs29retired, I agree with most of your points, although obviously I wouldn't fire JM. In truth, what I'd be really interested in is a 'what do we do next year' thread. But of course this would be premature.

Well, while you're right that noone can really know what's up except the players and coaches, I think fans are within their rights to make reasonable speculations based on what we're seeing. I'd say there's a few possibilities for what's going on. 1. The team is simply slumping, like all teams do. The timing of the slump - at the tail end of an injury-ravaged season in which Hammer and Price have arguably been way overworked - is just sheer coincidence. 2. The team is exhausted. 3. The team is tired AND knows that the odds are very much in favour of them making the playoffs. So intentionally or otherwise, they're not bringing their lunch-buckets. (IMHO this is most likely what happened last season). 4. The team is not tired. They're just intentionally or unintentionally surfing because they know they're likely to make the playoffs. 5. Losing MaxPac and three of the top-6, without having any young players step up to fill the breach, leaves the team fundamentally exposed. Unless Pouliot or someone else really steps up to plug the whole left by Patches, and unless Weber or someone else really steps up on the blueline, we just don't have the horses to compete. 3 & 4 are the most attractive answers because they suggest that guys are husbanding their energies for a playoff push. Every other scenario is unsettling. One thing I'll say: while all teams go through injuries, this is the third season running where the Habs have massive, season-ending injuries to important players. I'm really sick and tired of it. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if, next year say, the Habs remain healthy and suddenly 'surprise' everyone with a stellar season. Three years in a row is sick. EDIT: is it just me, or is Hamrlik calling out his teammates here? http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/didn+compete+Hamrlik+says/4532328/story.html 'I'm not happy just to make the playoffs. I want to go deep and win the Cup.' I dunno, he seems to be implying that not all his colleagues feel the same way. Just curious.

You really have to wonder whether the Habs - posibly including Price - are basically done in, exhausted. A small team with an aging defence corps, simultaneously ravaged with injuries, that's a dangerous mix; factor in the psychodrama surrounding Pacioretty and you may have the final X-factor that brings you a team that's fundamentally out of gas. (More an more I think that's the key to the Patches hit: not that it somehow 'destroyed our spirit' but that the hoopla surrounding it was one more drain that the team's collective energy didn't need). This team has been blown out in three of its last seven and shut out in three over that span. The former in particular is worrisome because it's radically out of character. I think we have a burnt-out bunch here. They may make the playoffs, but they're going to need some key guys to find their second wind in order to do any damage at all. (In this vein, it's good that Gomez, Cammy and Pleks are showing signs of life. The question is: what about the D? Do they have anything left?)