The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Well, if we can't sign other teams' UFAs; and we can't re-sign our own best UFAs, then we're the Montreal Expos of hockey, forever relying on young guys in development who leave just as they enter their prime, and a handful of middling-quality veterans. It's that simple. Maybe there's nothing Bob can do. But before he comes to that conclusion, he might try changing tactics in attempting to re-sign quality players. That's the point.

My point has only been that it's possible Bob's 'approach' is not working - that it's costing us assets unnecessarily. If none of these guys could have been signed at reasonable rates before they became UFAs, then it's hard to be too grumpy at Gainey. But it would be nice to know that instead of (perversely) hoping, or assuming, that we never could have signed Streit for less than $4.5 mil, or Komi for less than whatever he'll get. Again, I kind of agree with MK1. No matter how great the defenders are in the system, they should be assumed to need somewhere between 3-5 years to fully round into form as regulars. It takes a long time to develop as a D. So it's not just a question of toughing out a medicore season next year and then watching triumphantly as the rookies step in and save us. What I'm saying is that I don't see much hope for the D as configured without Komisarek over that span. No one except Markov and Hamrlik look like top-4 defenceman. I'm not prepared to suffer 3-5 years of that. Bob either HAS to sign somebody elite, or re-sign the good D-men he has. Period. Also, at some point you have to lock guys in. Otherwise exactly the same thing will happen with McDonough or Subban as seems to be happening with Komisarek: we endure the guy's growing pains, get one (maybe two) top seasons out of them, and then he leaves just as he enters his prime. This is NOT a recipe for winning. I fear that Wamsley's argument really boils down to a perpetual rebuilding process: waiting 3-5 years for a crop of young D to mature, then losing them and starting over, perpetually. No thanks.

I wouldn't cry with Crawford but his track record is not exactly stellar after Colorado. He failed to control Bertuzzi, repeatedly bombed in the playoffs with Vancouver, struggled in LA AND partially sabotaged the Kings with his ridiculous love affair for that piece of crap Dan Cloutier - plus he's never shown any compelling ability to instil a tight defensive game. Hartley and Robinson have far better resumés in my opinion.

For what it's worth, I think it IS pathological and self-defeating to see the Montreal Canadiens as an affirmative action program for francophones. All that does is create a vicious circle of mediocrity, where the organization you're looking to to represent your nation is unable to give you the glory that the nation wants from it. However, people need to understand where that pathology comes from. For 200 years the French Canadians were a genuinely oppressed, marginalized, vulnerable, and humiliated people in their own province. They were systematically improverished and subordinated in the Quebec economy, marginal in Ottawa, and often surrounded by visible manifestations of the power of the English over their own society (e.g., unilingual English signs all over Montreal). This is no longer the case (Quebec is now only 'oppressed' in the abstruse realms of Canadian constitutional theory, which no one outside a circle of a few hundred intellectuals really understands or gives a damn about), but it can take generations to fully overcome the patterns of thought and self-images left over from centuries of marginalization. The québécois remain extremely attuned to issues of collective dignity. And it's understandable that they are. That's why it's a good thing that we have excellent bilingual candidates for this job. The whole thing is a moot point, and I don't know why we're arguing about it.

I'm trying to discern if this is subtle shot at me for presumptuousness But taking it seriously: first of all, I'm NOT saying Bob isn't fully aware of the sorts of issues I've been raising in this thread. As I say, this summer will tell. If he signs Komi to a reasonable deal, or if Komi walks and Bob scores some coup to bring a JayBo or equivalent in here, then hey, he's the Man. It is possible, though, that Gainey is losing the forest for the trees. You could see where it'd be easy to get caught up in each specific negotiation, in which, as I said earlier, there are ALWAYS good reasons for not signing a given player, in which it's always easy to want to keep cap space, to err on the side of caution, to defer solving problems, to rely on inferior patchwork solutions that leave your team weaker than before in the medium to longer term (hello, Lang and Schneider) etc., etc.; and then wake up after 2-3 years and realize that your team has gotten systematically weaker on your watch. He wouldn't be the first GM to make a bundle of individual decisions and somehow end up worse off than he was. It hasn't happened yet, but the signs are slightly worrisome at least when it comes to the D.

Right. The biggest test of that policy will be Komisarek (or whatever Bob comes up with to replace him, and what that replacement costs). It's not so much that we didn't sign Streit - I agree that almost nobody foresaw him being worth what he's now paid. But it's the death of a thousand cuts. You can take each case individually and discern very good reasons for not signing ANY player. And pretty soon you end up with an AHL team. It's not the specific instance, it's the overall pattern that counts. Are we progressing? Getting better? Or are we just patching up an increasingly fraying garment and crossing our fingers year after year? Gainey's JOB is to get the best possible players locked in with the organization. If we observe more talent bleeding away from the blueline than coming back, then we have no choice but to question the pattern, and by extension Gainey's managing. This is especially true given that defencemen, always more valuable than forwards, are especially valuable to this franchise, because the young goalies *clearly* need better insulation. If Komisarek leaves without being replaced, we have a blueline of Markov/Hamrlik Gorges/Schneider (if he returns)/ Dandenault (if he returns)/ Weber/O'Bryne ...and no young D, with the unlikely exception of Weber, who you can plausibly be expected to step into the top-4 pairing on a regular basis for maybe 2-3 years. Nor is there any reason to expect any of the guys listed above except the bottom-pairing to improve. That is patently ridiculous. Throw an Ohlund or comparable in there, it's still worse that 2008, let alone 2009, both talent-wise and in terms of overall age. Yes, it's all hypothetical. But as hypotheticals go, this is the sh!ts. If it comes to pass, the buck has to stop with Gainey. No excuses.

Look, to some extent it comes back to results. No one who's read any of my posts should mistake me for a Gainey-basher. But losing two top-four defencemen in two years, without adequate replacement, is simply not good general managing. I don't see how you can argue otherwise, without resorting to excuses and special pleading. (In fact, upgrading should be our goal, not just patching holes, especially given the importance of insulating Price). I don't see why JayBo is out of the question. Unless people know something I don't about his and his agent's inner thoughts, that strikes me as knee-jerk Montreal-fan pessimism. But experience suggests that the most likely scenario is that Gainey signs someone like Ohlund. That will staunch the bleeding, but it would hardly represent an upgrade on Komisarek. Even trading to acquire a top-4 defenceman would deprive us of assets that we would not have had to sacrifice if Streit and/or Komisarek had been handled properly. Again: weak. Of course, this is all contingent on Komisarek walking and not being able to sign an elite UFA replacement. I'm not on Gainey's case...yet.

Actually, several teams won't be able to compete due to cap issues. I don't *expect* it, but I say that IF he can't sign Komisarek (and at a reasonable rate), AND if he doesn't sign 'JayBo,' or somehow acquire some other elite defenceman without sacrificing major young talent or high draft picks, then Gainey stands guilty of horrendous asset management. The key to Boumeester is his combination of high-end talent and youth. We can reasonably pencil him both to improve on his past performance - he's only now coming into his prime - and to sustain an elite level for a long long time. That is a rare case where opening the vault and doling out massive duration might actually make sense. And don't forget that the future of this franchise is supposed to be that kid between the pipes. If we want Price to develop properly, we absolutely must insulate him with an effective defence corps, one that can clear and rush the puck with efficiency. A new coach will help. Boumeester's talent will help even more. This is one negotiation that Bob needs to approach with the eye of the tiger.

No, no, I was just trying to point out how many times we hear from various quarters that this or that player is a 'cancer,' or 'the' problem on the team, and how stupid it is to think you can improve your organization by just unloading such players. I don't pay any attention to any of that crap. You'd think the whole Ribeiro fiasco would have proven how silly the 'addition by subtraction' idea is, but...apparently not.

It's a moot point anyway. There are at least two excellent bilingual candidates in Hartley and Robinson. If Lemaire is interested, he is a third. I don't see any unilingual guy out there who is OBVIOUSLY superior to any of these. And if Bob hires none of the above in favour of (say) Don Lever, then he needs his head examined.

I'm halfway between Wamsley and MK1 on this. On the one hand, Gainey's calm patience and belief in the young players are good things, as is the combination of sheer dumb luck and good judgement that has prevented this organization from being saddled with idiotic contracts on the scale of Lecavalier's or Briere's. On the other hand, asset management IS an issue. I've cautiously defended Bob's approach to contracts in the past. But IF (and it remains an 'if' at this point) we lose Komisarek, then we have to conclude that his approach has yielded very serious failures. We let Streit walk and part of the argument was that that was for the best, because we would need the money to re-up Komisarek. That made sense to me (and the claim that we 'could have signed Streit for $2 mil' strikes me as fanciful back-seat driving). But if you end up letting BOTH Streit and Komisarek players walk, you've lost two top-4 defenceman in two years for nothing, with no obvious replacements ready to step in. And don't tell me that Weber is the answer. Raw rookies are almost never the answer. Sorry, but that is simply terrible asset management. No matter how you slice it. While I'm sympathetic to Wamsley's idea that we should wait until big names start dropping like plums in 2011, the more I think about it, the more I think that if we lose Komisarek our best option might be to push really hard for Boumeester. He's only 26 and has already proven himself a Markov-like all-around all-star defenceman. $6-7 mil for him might represent a good long-term investment, and he and Markov would make a hell of a 1-2 punch on the back end. It is sheer idiocy to keep waiting and waiting for Subban and McDonough and these other D-men in the system given that it often takes defencemen about five years tor eally mature at the NHL level. If Gainey lets Komi walk he HAS to do something like this. Otherwise this team is right back in the crapper. And that is not acceptable in Year Six of a five-year plan, only one year of which has been any good at all. Like I say...I'm pro-Gainey, but he has to make the right moves this summer. If he can't re-sign Komi at a reasonable rate, then Boumeester becomes almost a must.

Ribeiro was a cancer. Theodore was a cancer. Koivu was/is a cancer. Kovalev is a cancer. Price is a cancer. The Kostitsyns are a cancer. Gainey is a cancer. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Addition by subtraction is LOUSY MATH.

Pretty good analysis. I don't agree with everything - for instance, trading Streit at the deadline last season would have been a strange move and universally attacked - but most of what you say here seems spot-on. In general terms, there does seem to be something strange about NOT being concerned to maximize the value of your assets. For instance, Komisarek. If we're just going to lose him for nothing, as seems likely, then cripes, we should have traded him at the deadline. Gainey should be questioned for this. Now, he'd say that it's the Souray situation all over again: whether or not the 'asset' wants to sign with us, the fear is that moving them at the deadline will fundamentally undermine the team in the stretch drive. OK...but Gainey has adopted this 'keep them for the playoffs and let them walk' philosophy with Souray, Ryder, Streit, and now probably Komisarek, but he didn't do it with Huet - a player who could conceivably have meant the difference between beating Philly last season and losing! I generally support Gainey, but come on, that's Bizarro World managing. The key variable should be whether the team has a genuine chance to go deep in the playoffs. If it doesn't, and if you can get decent value back, you move the asset. In my perfect world, we'd have dealt Souray at the 2007 deadline, kept Ryder, Streit *and* Huet because we actually had a shot that year, and moved Komisarek this season if it looked like he wouldn't sign. And if Gainey had no idea that Komi might walk this summer, then he is simply negligent. As for Carbo, you're 100% right about everything IMHO. And if Gainey hires ANOTHER inexperienced coach with no NHL credentials - hello, Don Lever - I'll defer judgement until I see the results, but I'll also tilt over from qualified support into serious skepticism about Gainey. At some point you have to face the real world, not some fantasy land in which you just love coach X and so you hire him despite the pile of corpses of coaches with exactly the same profile. This will, I believe, be the defining summer of Gainey's tenure. Will he hire the right coach and save cap room for the right player? Will his signings be foolish or well-judged? Will he swing for the fences on a blockbuster trade? It'll be fun to see, but also nerve-wracking given the stakes.

I think this argument that Carbo changed his lines too much is weak. The fact is, most coaches do that when the team struggles. Look at Alain Vigneault in Vancouver. When the Canucks were struggling with Luongo out, he was changing lines like crazy and being ripped for it. It's (basically) standard NHL practice and I don't think Carbo should be gassed for that. (Whether it's *good* practice is another matter. Personally, I think most coaches are way too micro-managing). Kozed reiterates his well-established argument that the core of this team has killed coach after coach and that it's the players' fault. There may be some truth to this, although other than Koivu and Kovalev the personnel on this team has changed considerably from year to year, and it's dubious to attach too much continuity across a four or five season span. My rationale is somewhat simpler. If you took any coach, and watched every single key young player massively regress over the season; had a third overall team from the previous year suddenly start giving up 35-45 shots a night, night after night, with no improvement in sight; observe no discernable system or team identity; watch the losses pile up for weeks and months; watch the team's most talented player float around in confusion (Kovalev - admittedly a head case) to the laughable point where the GM has to step in; and factor in that the 2006-07 season was *also* damaged by similar issues of miscommunication and disorganized team play with the same coach; you'd see that coach getting canned. In other words, Carbo would have been fired by any other organization in the NHL. Probably a lot sooner than Gainey did it. As for mentorship, I wouldn't disagree that there may be a void among the players themselves. (Guys like Markov and Kovalev are almost certainly lacking in this respect). But that just increases the need for very strong coaching in this regard. Carbo clearly as NOT a good communicator and therefore not a good mentor. That means he was not the right coach for this club at this time. All of which is to re-affirm that coaching was a major issue this season and that we need a seasoned, proven coach with a track record of dealing with young players in here before we start blowing up the organization. Finally, Gainey on self-criticism: you may be right, and if the Habs are not internally self-critical that is a grave problem. But we need to distinguish between self-criticism in public and in private (or within the organization). I don't assess a GM based on what he shares with the media, unless it's directly relevant to his job performance; e.g., if he says something brilliant or incredibly stupid. But that Gainey has not adopted a True Confessions approach to media relations is, again, irrelevant in my book.

Honestly, I somewhat agree with KEEP26, short of coming out and saying Carbo was a 'bad coach.' But a major reason why this season was lost quite likely had to do with coaching. First of all, we can blame Gainey for failing to create a mentoring culture for the young guys, etc., but surely the primary responsibility for that rests with the coaching staff. I think again of the article on Marc Savard in The Globe where Savard described a personal mentoring relationship with the coach that elevated him into a team player (note that it wasn't the GM's job). And then I wonder why we *never* hear seem to comparable stories from the Habs; rather we tended to hear rejected players shaking their heads saying they didn't know what the coach wanted from them (e.g., Ryder). Second, based on media reports of a rebellion and subsequent rather cold comments by key vets, Carbo clearly lost the room. No team wins when it reaches that tipping point. Third, it's been a longstanding complaint around here that the Habs never seemed to play a disciplined system and a committed team game - again, classic coaching responsibilities. Add crucial and devastating injuries to that mix and you've got a recipe for an implosion. Which is just what happened. So what am I saying? That Gainey is Mr. Perfect? Not at all. I agree that the inability to bag a quality Koivu-replacement C is getting to be a joke, and I agree that we need to get tougher up front. (I cannot BELIEVE that Bob doesn't see this). And of course Gainey hired Carbo. What I'm saying is that this was one of those 'lost seasons' that strike all clubs from time to time, and that it was significantly (but in now way exclusively) due to coaching issues; and that an organization as a whole (not to mention a GM) shouldn't be definitively judged or condemned on that basis. Yes, Bob needs to tweak the lineup. But more fundamentally, we need to get a credible coach in here and allow him to implement a system and team identity. Then let's see where we are.

I don't see what relevance it has to his GMing abilities whether he publicly admits mistakes or not. To me, this is confusing PR with hockey operations.

A fair question. But first, what would your assessment have been in September 2008, when we had added Laraque, Tanguay, and Lang after a 1st-in-the-Conference season? EVERYONE had the Habs sized up as an elite club. It all went to pot, but I don't think Gainey's tenure should be assessed based on a three month span in which everything imaginable went pear-shaped. This is what is so ridiculous in the fan/media hysteria. Second, how would the Habs look with Chara and Savard? Those are two absolutely core UFAs the Bruins were able to sign. Boston is a prime example of the price the Habs pay for not being a desirable UFA destination. Third, how will the Bruins look in a couple of years when they run out of cap space to sign Kessel, Lucic, etc.?

It's funny how underrated Markov is. He's in the range of a top-5 NHL defenceman in my book. Part of the reason is that he's never done a thing in the playoffs, though, which are the NHL's main star-making platform. Kozed, I'm not sure Gainey's been all that conservative, nor all that 'unsuccessful' in trades. He made three *major* acquisitions last season - Tanguay, Lang and Schneider. Granted, he didn't trade roster players for them, but to me that says he's smart, not that he's unsuccessful. (Although we sure put a dent in our draft position with those moves). One of those players, Tanguay, is elite, albeit not a superstar. I wouldn't complain if Gainey went out and got more elite players, but I think the Gainey/Timmins model is more about having lots and lots of good players, overcoming the opposition with waves. Certainly that was the model on display in 2008. It failed this season for several reasons, but one of them is that so many of our young players regressed. No team succeeds when its entire second line evaoprates. The immediate question is how to get more out of people like Plekanec and the Kostitsyns, who are far too talented to have the kind of seasons they did, and how to get a team that actually plays competent defence. Also, I don't think the goal is to 'contend' next season. I would look for a stabilizing season, in which the new coach instils his system, and the whole team recommits to excellence and progressing in all aspects of the game. My goal would be a solid playoff team (not a bubble team) that gets into the second round and acquits itself well. In fact, I think the idea that we have to contend next season is an example of the mentality that can get you into trouble. So I still doubt that we need to go out there and nab a Big Name in the short term.

Interesting question, but you should read the profile of Marc Savard in today's Globe and Mail. Hartley took a whiny, defensively irresponsible Savard under his wing, mentoring him and teaching him how to be the star Hartley knew he could be - including having him over to his house for rounds of bubble hockey Savard credits Hartley for moulding him into the bona-fide team player he's become. The contrast with Carbo, about whom there are no such stories, is instructive. And coupled with Roy's claim that Hartley has the best understanding of hockey of anyone he's met, leaves me feeling pretty good about Hartley. Between him and Robinson, we have at least two excellent candidates for this job.

Don't pay Vinny for that categorically insane contract. And don't pay Gaborik the $7 mil or whatever he's demanding, because you only get 20 games out of him. 'Misdiagnosis' or not, the Canadiens are not as bad as they showed this season and do not NEED to take on these kind of risks. We are not the New York Rangers or the Toronto Maple Leafs, looking for quick fixes to basic problems. Save the money and make your move if and when a bona-fide elite player shows up who doesn't carry a raft of risks, and doesn't have an obsence contract. (That's why I couldn't grasp Bob's reluctance to pursue Jokinen). What we really need is not a Superstar Saviour. We need new coach who will implement a system, and a team culture that insulates rather than exposes the kids. We need the young players to man up and come to play next season. And we need an upgrade on the blueline, especially if we lose Komisarek. A decent C would obviously be nice, but rather than overpay we might be better off staggering through another year with Lang/Pleks/Koivu, or else looking for a mid-range player to tide us over, waiting until something falls from the tree.

Wow, Larry Robinson! I can't believe that he would survive the insane pressure, but just the thought of him back there is wonderful. (Then again, so was the thought of Carbo - but Robinson has much better coaching credentials). Maybe he's grown into the idea of a higher-pressure coaching challenge. A big plus for Big Bird, apart from the aura, is that if I remember right he had a great rep for being good with young players. That, along with commitment to a system, is the key.

The mighty Roy adds his 2 cents: "Myself, I think that Bob Hartley could do a real good job. He possesses a good track record, he's dedicated, an excellent teacher, and hockey is his passion. He's probably the person in my time, that I've come across who understands the game best." "Hartley would be ideal for the Canadiens, but the dream candidate would be Jacques Lemaire." http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2009/4/3...roy-is-all-ears A pretty strong endorsement. Of course, it could just mean that Hartley made sure to massage Roy's ego in Colorado. All the same, this helps relieve any niggling doubts about Hartley's competence.

Beautifully put.

Jacques Martin, interesting call. His track record of abysmal playoffs is not encouraging however. To me, Lemaire is a no-brainer, and the only explanation for his not running away with this poll must be that people are (correctly) assuming he won't come here. I for one would LOVE to see him back there.

I think people are underrating Lecavalier. Crunching his career numbers overlooks the fact that he broke in very young and developed somewhat slowly and awkwardly. As a 23/24-year old, he was a 30-goal man and in the 75-point range. But once he hit age 27 or so - the classic age at which a player matures - he exploded for 102 and 92 points. Last season, seriously hampered by injury and an abysmal supporting cast, he regressed to 67 points. But to me there's no question that a healthy Lecavalier is a top-5 NHL player - certainly in the top 10. Were the Habs to acquire him, I wouldn't be crying in my beer because it would be fun to see a francophone player of that calibre on the :hlogo: . But I am one of those who thinks his contract is ridiculous even for a top-5 player, especially given that the cap is likely to shrink. Longer-term, it would be a terrible move for the franchise, especially since we don't know if last year's injuries are a sign of things to come. Nonetheless, you don't need to denigrade Vinny's on-ice abilities in order to argue that we shouldn't trade for him. He's a franchise player, but *still* not worth it IMHO.