The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Undoubtedly true, but I recall his 1989 performance as more "solid" than spectacular and I remember him being criticized for not being anything particularly great in that run. (We were a dominant team then, especially defensively, so Roy hardly carried us in that playoff, which explains why these criticisms were possible - not saying I agree with them especially). I also remember him totally stinking out the joint in the 1992 playoffs in particular and being outgoaltended by Andy Moog for a few other playoff series. Nor was he especially great in 1987 (season + playoffs) or in the 1993 regular season. In fact, I had numerous arguments with several Anglo Montrealers over those years where I had to defend Roy's excellence against the accusation that he was overrated. And let's face it, the guy was never really consistently superb on a nightly basis until after the 1993 run (I recall lots of goals on long shots, etc.). The point being that there IS a legitimate analogy between the kinds of debates we're having about Price and those we used to have about Roy - something Price's critics need to keep in mind.

Halak's definitely a good goalie and I don't see it as self-evident that he won't be a successful #1, or even that his career won't turn out better than Price's. I say that because player development is never an exact science. Nonetheless, I agree with those who say that Price is universally viewed as a potential franchise goalie on the level of Luongo or Brodeur, something no one has ever said about Halak; and that it's sensible to prioritize Price on that basis - especially as Price has looked like an elite #1 goalie for signficiant stretches of his young career already. Having said that, Habsfan is right. Halak should get about 30 games a season: he is not Curtis Sanford, a Luongo backup who plays 8 games a year. I see Halak to Price as Brian Hayward was to Patrick Roy, a damned good #2/#1A guy who both pushed Roy and gave the team a safety net should Roy struggle. It's worth noting, BTW, that EXACTLY the same questions were asked about the team's approach to developing Patrick Roy. For all of 1986, many commentators were grumbling about the club's tendency to dress him over proven vet Doug Soetart. And although Roy's 86 Cup run put paid to most of that, the fact is that Roy was still erratic - rather like Price - and only really permanently established his greatness with the 1993 run. Indeed, as late as the 1993 regular season many people were arguing that the Habs should trade him. So the Price doubters will probably never go away. But his pedigree is impeccable and ultimately he should be the priority, not Halak.

+1 That one awful -34 year he was playing on the wrong side...and never complained or used it as an excuse. Nor was it his fault the Habs were so bad that a secondary offensive defenceman like him was miscast as a #1. Classy guy, good hockey player, and like you say, "true habs" at heart.

This just about says it all. Koivu obviously wasn't the problem in terms of work ethic and commitment. Any fool can see that Koivu exemplified those virtues (and I'm sick of people confusing Koivu's limitations as a 1st-line C with issues of character or "leadership"). He was likely part of the rebellion against Carbo, though, which didn't help - although when it comes to player rebellions against coaches we can't automatically assume the players are wrong. If Carbo can't explain systems or teach young players, then players are right to get him out of there. Yeah, much of the Habs' game last season was ridiculous, including that lazy milling around the blueline, the Canada-sized gap between forwards and D in the defensive zone, routinely bungled dump-ins, predictable reliance on the long pass, etc., etc.. It's enough to make you want to puke just remembering it. Martin determined to root out all of that and good on him.

But the personnel are wildly different. So even then we'd be comparing apples and oranges; they're not coaching the same guys. In other words, who is to say that Carbo wouldn't have had great results with these guys, any more than Martin would have had better results with the previous bunch? If Martin bombs it "proves" nothing about Carbo. My point is that the new coach claims that the team has root and branch issues with work ethic, discipline, and professionalism. This suggests that Martin would give Carbo a failing grade. Judging by what we saw on the ice, and considering the respective levels of experience of both coaches, Martin is probably right - although it's possible these are self-serving PR messages by him, or else a strategy for motivating players and getting more out of them. Was it all Carbo's fault? Seems unlikely, but the captain deserves some blame when the ship sinks and you wouldn't have known that from the "Saint Carbo the Martyr" crowd last season.

Yeah, not trying to demonize Carbo. (And I don't think Martin is either, necessarily). But whether or not he "struggled to communicate" or just erroneously "assumed" that players were MEN like he was/is and didn't need to have their hands held, the net result was apparently a lazy, out of shape squad. Chris may be right that Carbo inherited a mess; but if so then his job was presumably to fix it. Water under the bridge, I guess.

http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/21599 "Changing the culture." "Fitness levels not what they need to be." "Playing a more physically demanding system" than beofre, based on (imagine that!!!) support for the puck carrier and short, crisp passes. Etc., etc., etc.. It seems obvious that in Martin's estimation this team has been allowed to wallow in bad working habits, poor conditioning, and outright laziness. "Changing the culture" amounts to a resounding condemnation of the previous coaching regime and (perhaps) team leadership. Maybe Martin is full of BS, but between a guy with years of experience as coach/GM, and a great player who had one terrific season as coach and two outright disasters, I know whose coaching opinion I respect more. I said at the time that any other organization would have fired Carbo long before Gainey did. And I wonder what all those who leapt to Carbo's defence and painted him as the tragic martyr to Gainey's folly will think if/when they actually see a team playing a DISCIPLINED AND EFFECTIVE SYSTEM out there on the ice.

Yeah, I've thought about that too. In Lapierre's case, he experienced mortifying personal failure a year earlier than the rest of the team (having been demoted in 2007-08), so he may have just been ahead of that curve. Hopefully the Kostitsyns in particular learn from his example. What's really impressive, when you think about it, is Latendresse. I know a lot of people are frustrated by his slow progression. But here's a kid who arrived in Montreal as the Anointed One. French-Canadian kid. Had the whole city at his feet. It's the classic Pierre Larouche recipe for brattiness, immaturity, and career self-destruction. But instead he has quietly put his head down, worked hard, accepted his role, never thought he was more than he was, and has gradually developed into a solid third-liner with hope for more. He seems committed to learning and never seemed to expect to be handed anything. I was also really impressed with his comments last year, when he said that players who don't live in Montreal year-round don't understand what it is to miss the playoffs, and what a disaster that is for the player's own private life. He's showing signs of developing into the Conscience of the Team, a Quebecois who really and truly understands the responsibilities involved in wearing the :hlogo: For all that we'd envisaged Higgins and Komisarek as the core of the rebuild, these two players may yet turn out to be the real heart and soul of the Gainey era.

On Pyatt: I remember when the Gomez trade was made and everybody was ripping out their hair, I did some Internet research into Pyatt, and I remember thinking that, from what I was reading, this barely-mentioned "throw-in" looked like a player that could actually help the Habs out someday. Nice to think that maybe Bob didn't just deplete the system, he actually got a good prospect back, in addition to the best player in that deal.

I suppose, in fairness to both Carbo and Bob, based on 2008 they had reason to think everything was going according to plan, that the kids were coming along just fine. Certainly, I thought so. Nonetheless, I still think that a really on-the-ball management team would have been more attuned to the fact that Montreal was going to eat these kids up - because success is more dangerous in Habsland than failure. 20-year-olds go from being treated like local heroes (because they're on the Habs) to being treated like gods on the earth (because they had a great season, collectively, and looked like contenders) when in fact they had accomplished exactly zero. It's not like the 70s, when players were making nice coin but still basically lived like ordinary people. Now they're multimillionaires in a massive candy store. As I say, good that Bob has taken the necessary steps, but there's no escaping the fact that he was forced into a sudden, massive and expensive Instant Rebuild as a direct result of this crucial oversight. Anyway...spilled milk, water under the bridge, etc. I suppose I'm still feeling betrayed by what happened last season.

As for the interesting question of whether we should mash Gionta, Gomez, and Cammi together on one $18.5-million line: I'm sure Martin will try and spread the wealth and conventional wisdom would indeed put one of those wingers on a second line with Plekanec. But I kinda like the idea of a Super Line and letting kids carry the ball on the second-line. You're right, Kostitsyn seems to work best as the 'Go To' guy on a line (didn't he do better in games where he wasn't paired with Kovalev last season?); and Plekanec has shown tendencies to become neurotic and insecure when asked to centre intimidating veterans (remember him wilting as Kovalev's C in 2007?). Plus, with all the elite talent on one line, the Pleks line won't face any heavy-duty checkers. It just seems like the personalities and talents involved would flourish better under an 'All Eggs in One Basket' philosophy, letting the 'young vets' Pleks/Kostitsyn fly under the radar and find their own groove. Just a thought.

Good to hear. But it is a fair question to ask why it took so long. The Great Gainey Rebuild was basically sabotaged, partly by bad luck and injury, but also, it seems, by the immaturity and unprofessionalism of a lot of our young players and 'young veterans' (Higgins, Plekanec, etc.). Perhaps if management had taken seriously the question of off-ice mentoring players like Kostitsyn, Price, Pleks, and Higgins would have delivered the goods in a year when we were supposed to be 'going for it.' As our master architect, Bob is supposed to have the expertise to anticipate problems, not just try to put them out. Better late than never...but dammit, it shouldn't have been this way.

Not to be a killjoy, and NOT to deny that those are good players...BUT: It's preseason. Let's see if Gionta is still wowing us as much when the other guys start giving a sh*t. I'm just sayin'. (The inverse is true, too...let's wait to see how he does when the games actually matter an iota before shipping Kostitsyn out of town, shall we?)

Don't worry so much. Kessel might turn out to be brilliant, but as we know better than anyone, lots can go wrong in the development of a young player. And think of it this way - if Kessel and Grabovski were the HABS' two main C, would you really feel like a dangerous team? I doubt it, and I'm still waiting for all the "experts" to crap all over the Leafs for being so tiny and unproven down the middle. Komi I like, but can the Leafs' D handle our speed? And really there isn't much depth in that system as far as I can tell. Habs fans live in fear of the Leafs. Frankly, I've got bigger fish to fry than that certifiably garbage franchise, thanks.

IF this new injury is another back problem, which apparently the team is denying, then BGL is almost certainly finished as an NHL player. Even if it's *not* a back injury, it may be a sign that his body has just quit on him; the guy is hurt almost all the time. Hopefully he will do the decent thing and save the Habs the cap space by retiring. Having said all that, BGL's veganism is a principled ethical stand and he is courageous for going public with it. Respect where it's due.

It's fine to blame Carbo for giving Higgins top-6 minutes, but then again if he hadn't gotten those minutes, we never would have *known* what his ceiling was. Last year excepted, he certainly looked on many nights like a top-6 guy. Remember, when Gainey took over after Julien's firing he put Higgins with Koivu and the guy scored about 20 goals in 40 games. Besides, the jury remains out on Higgins. I agree that the 'breakout' many analysts expected now looks like a more remote possibility, but if it did happen this year or even next, I wouldn't be stunned. The same is true of Komi. Is he Craig Ludwig (who I liked!), or is he a bona-fide elite shutdown defenceman? Again, for me the jury is still out, although, just as the odds have titled against Higgins's ever becoming a star, they may have tipped against Komisarek. Maybe I'm not as good at reading talent. But people seem only to remember a player's last season (and it's telling in this respect that both men had horrendous seasons last year). Me, I'm reluctant to pronounce these Final Verdicts on players in their mid-20s (c.f. Mike Ribeiro). In short, I'm not certain you can blame Carbo for playing these guys in those roles, nor that you can blame Gainey for supplying Carbo with those guys. Developing talent is never an exact science.

Well, the *direction* - dealing away picks - is obviously wrong, although it's Burke's modus operandi (only now is the Vancouver system beginning to recover from his scortched-earth policy). On the other hand, Kessel is only 21, and is probably about as good as you can hope any 1st-round pick to be; so you can rationalize the trade by seeing it as "really" only a 1st and 2nd-rounder (Kessel being conceived as the equivalent to the other 1st-round pick). That's still a hefty price, of course. But it's not like dealing away draft picks for an old man like Lang or an impending UFA like Tanguay As for the cap rising, well, some GMs may be worrying about it and planning for it, but most seem to be working from other assumptions and spending to the cap if necessary...including our man Bob. So presumably a cap collapse is not a given. On the other hand, Burke, unlike Gainey or even Mike Gillis in Vancouver, actually has the luxury of a few years' grace for rebuilding; that being so, throwing money around does seem pointlessly impatient. I think the trade is questionable - "really only" two high picks for Kessel - but not what I'd call an obvious blunder from Brian Jurke. Who knows, maybe Kessel will develop into a player you can really build around and who will anchor the Leafs' attack for (conceivably) 10-15 years. If so, then Jurke scored a big one. I don't see Kessel as that kind of player myself - he seems to be more of a human torpedo than a guy who runs the offence per se. I'd also be a bit leery of the fact that his stock steadily declined late in his junior and college careers, that Julien benched him in the 08 playoffs, that he's only had one decent season, that he's had health and injury issues (not his fault of course) and that as solid a developmental organization as Boston did not see Kessel as part of the future core. Having said that, I'd take him on ye Habs It will also be interesting to observe whether the same "experts" who pronounced Gainey crazy for signing proven PPG-player Cammalleri for $6 mil, or reliable top-6 winger Gionta for $5, will castigate Jurke for signing the far-less-proven Kessel to a $5.4 million deal. Something tells me they won't.

Great analysis, Wamsley. I wasn't really trying to 'mourn Komi' in this thread, just trying to get a bead on what our (or my) expectations should be in terms of our shedding the identity of a soft team. Otherwise put, it's an exercise in qualifying all the the Kumbaya optimism of training camp. I do regret that we couldn't re-sign Komisarek and I *do* think the Ludwig parallel is a bit harsh, but I agree that our D as a whole is substantially better now. Whether or not we agree with his signings up front, Bob really did quite an impressive job in refashioning his defence corps this summer.

It's a very cool mask. From his deliberate and calculated echo of Roy's f*ck-you to the Bell Centre crowd, to this interesting evocation of the Gumper - a comparatively obscure goalie by the Habs' epic standards (Vezina, Durnan, Plante, Dryden, Roy) - it sounds Mr. Price has a real awareness in his predecessors and the history of the Habs. Having players who identify with the CH in all its richness can only be to the good if you ask me.

OK...but how come they almost coughed up the lead? Fire Martin!!!

Good analysis, saskhab. I was wondering what to make of that Moen stat, and your thoughts are appreciated. Your defenseman analogies are probably better than mine too. Let's see...in terms of 'battling,' Mara < Komisarek Spacek > Schneider Gill > Bouillon - although Bouillon battled like crazy, his size was his disadvantage. (Has anyone signed him, BTW? I forget). On the other hand, Gill will resemble a pilon much more often than Frankie B did, so I think Gill's advantage here may actually be somewhat slight.

We'll see. Gionta is by all accounts a tenacious player. I haven't seen enough of Cammy to be able to comment. But Gomez is nobody's idea of a super-gutsy player. (Not saying he's soft, just that he's not necessarily 'tough'). In this specific respect of tenacity and battle-winning, Gionta >> Tanguay Cammy > Kovalev (although not when Kovy felt motivated) Gomez < Koivu Mara = Komisarek Gill > Schneider (? maybe) Spacek >>>> Brisebois Moen = Kostopolous Higgins > Pacioretty or whoever It's a net gain and might bring us, finally, to a critical mass of 'toughness' (in the sense of winning battles and paying the price). But this team still has lots of players (e.g., the Kostitsyns and Plekanec) who were part of the problem in this respect last season. And also the tenaciousness of Komisarek and Koivu shouldn't be forgotten, nor what Higgins could bring in the 40+ games annually when he was healthy and feeling his oats. (Finally, how come nobody mentions that Moen was -18 last season? He may be 'tough' but that doesn't suggest to me a guy who wins all the key defensive battles; or more accurately, he wins the battles and loses the war, i.e., watches his team get scored on). So I think it's an improvement, but we may still be facing nights where we look soft. Not trying to be negative about it - I like our new team and do think it will be more resilient and harder to play against - but we need to be careful about the fog of optimism that wafts out of training camp every year. My own suspicion is that the real improvement in these and other areas will come from the coaching staff simply insisting upon it and instilling it effectively.

I'm not surprised at all. Markov is the Wikipedia entry for 'Strong Silent Type.' And the last thing we need, frankly, is our most important player (after Price, perhaps) thrust into a role in which he feels uncomfortable. What puzzles me is Martin's declaration that he and Bob will choose a captain coming out of training camp. I don't think that's enough time to determine the authentic go-to leader on the team. Everybody puts on their best face for camp. We need to know the *real* person in order to know whether they've got the royal jelly. And since making the wrong call can have damaging consequences - as we saw with Turgeon, and the Chelios/Carbo fiasco before that - this haste seems ill-advised, not to mention out of character for the two men. My guess? Based on what we've heard out of camp: Gionta. Not only does the media seem to be gravitating to him, but Martin was just singing his praises (how he does the little things, leads by example, etc.; but again, will he still be doing that in February? Or when he's in a slump and the media are turning on him like the pack of slavering hypocritical jackyls they are? That's my concern about making a decision too soon). Gorges would be an excellent under-the-radar choice, but does he have the stature to bear the burden? He's still a young guy, and his exact on-ice merits remain uncertain (remember the debate over whether he's really a top-4 guy?). Indeed, he may be among the Most Likely Habs to be Thrown Into a Trade Deal. Not prime material for the C. Gomez, an obvious choice, but the last thing he needs is more pressure. Hamrlik needs a bounce-back year; maybe not the best person upon which to drop a C-shaped nuclear bomb. Gill would be an eccentric but plausible choice. Trouble is, he was a healthy scratch a few times last year; do you want your captain in the press box? Et cetera. There simply is no obvious candidate, at least not that outsiders like us can detect. So count me among the people who think three 'As' and maybe a rotating captaincy is the way to go. Obviously the brain trust thinks differently...

Great thread. There's an old saw to the effect that 'consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.' Part of the process (at least for me) of refining my opinion is posting my views and hearing responses; and also opinions shift over time, and with context. E.g., I might have said two months ago, 're-sign Tanguay.' But then Bob gets Gomez and makes Tanguay redundant. So you change your mind. That's not 'inconsistency.' Similarly, sometimes you can see two, or several sides, to an argument. E.g., had Gainey followed Wamsely's advice and waited out the 2010 season by re-signing the old core to short term deals in the hope of pouncing on teams shedding salary, I'd have supported that. But I also support what he did instead (while crossing my fingers that the cap won't collapse). That's not 'inconsistent' either; it's just not being dogmatic. More than one way to skin a cat, more than one way to build a team. Having said all that: -I've lived through many Habs Cups but have clear memories of only 2, the 86 and 93 runs. I was in the Forum in 1993 both for Game 2 (the McSorely stick, greatest game of my life) and Game 5 (the Cup). I have fairly clear memories of every team from the Pat Burns era onward. -I predict a 6th-place showing, but of course prediction is crazy with a bunch this unknown. BTH makes good points about the 'slow start' being possibly a myth. I still think it's the most logical thing to expect given all the changes; I would anticipate a quick start, motivated by the excitement of a new team, etc.; followed by a drop off as chemistry issues and adjustment to new coaching, etc., start to kick in; media hysteria and fans howling for Gainey's head; followed by a gradual turnaround sometime December/January. A strong second half, with serious playoff upset potential, is my guess. -Price will be fine. Not amazing, but probably will re-establish himself as an upper-echelon goalie. Martin is not a Lemaire-style defensive specialist and so Carey will not post *insane* numbers. But look for him to be a lot steadier, because the team will play with so much more structure. -BTH is right that the real key to the season is...Martin. That, and not having Markov injured. -Gainey will give Lats/Pacioretty or whoever, some chance to establish themselves as top-line wingers, just like he will give Pleks some rope. If these 'solutions' seem to be failing, Bob will not sit on his hands and will be shopping by Christmas. -Andrei Kostitsyn is my candidate for a 'breakout' season. Lats is a more remote possibility. I don't see any other breakouts. -No prediction on Pleks. He could recover fine, he could be out of the league within two years. More likely he will blow hot and cold and be gone as a UFA by 2011. -Higgins will thrive in New York (30 goals, 60-ish points - barring injury) and Tanguay will excel in Tampa. These, especially the latter, will be trotted out by irate fans every time one of our new guys struggle or the team loses two games or more. -Kovalev will kill us at least once. -Komisarek and Grabovski will drive us nuts. But Komi will be burned to the outside by our speed more than once.

Well, given your 'death of the bandwagon' thread, now I'm even more paranoid. Just to be clear, BTH, I was NOT trying to say that I agreed all along with Chris that the team needed to be blown up. What I was saying is 1) I HAVE been consistent in lobbying for a Koivu replacement (for different reasons than Chris); 2) with Koivu gone it stands to reason that other players might be moved around (e.g., Tangs becomes redundant because of Gomez, etc.); 3) I agree with Chris that the net result of all this maneouvering is a promising-looking team (although we did lose Komisarek, an unmitigated negative), and that a lot of media 'experts' seem oblivious to this; and 4) the old 'core' really did nothing to warrant the sentimental hysteria that some fans are giving it. OK...onwards.