The Chicoutimi Cucumber

It's a real mystery, all right. We went from being decent defensively to catastrophic. I think the explanation is: a. injuries b. the team quit on Carbo, but as the losses piled up their confidence started to collapse, leading to a vicious cycle c. too many key young players allowed distractions to eat up their game d. Price got hurt and that killed his confidence e. Koivu is declining, and rapidly - as I've long predicted. This team is not *as bad* as we think it is right now, any more than it is was *as good* as we thought it was in 2008. But retooling is definitely called for: especially in the form of acquiring another top-line centreman by hook or by crook. If Koivu gets much more than 50 points nexts season I will be surprised. I'm very sad. I had such high hopes for this bunch in October. Dis hoits.

I just don't see blaming Price for this particular loss. Guess I'm nuts. The Bruins just have much stronger defensive coverage. Even when we 'dominate' them as we did for the first half, not that many serious scoring chances are generated. The puck flies around but tends not to get on net. When they start pressuring us, though, they tend to get quality chances. Note, also, that Thomas gave up two questionable goals. It's not like the Habs got badly outgoaltended tonight. As for the idea of firing Gainey as GENERAL MANAGER because of decisions he makes as COACH...for Pete's sake. I have a better idea: rational fan commentary. Another observation. Koivu did not elevate his game for this series. He looked just as slow in these three games as he's looked for the entire second half. I love the guy, but he's done.

We can. But it would be easier to do if the team hadn't been one of the league's worst for the past three months.

The PP is missing its main point shot and its main set-up man. Save your bitterness about it. Price has played well tonight and only had a chance on the first goal, maybe. The Bruins are simply one of those teams that gets 'opportunistic scoring' - e.g., we have no one in our lineup capable of a deflection like Kessel's. We, on the other hand, seem to need total domination before we bag one. All you can do is accept that you have to work 2X harder than the Bs to win. I expect them to come out strong in the third. Whether that will translate into results is a whole other question. (Ryder! It is to laugh. Until last season, he was part of that 'toxic core' everyone keeps moaning about. Now they want him back - but they'd start bitching about his limitations the second we re-acquired him. Like I say - it is to laugh).

The most shocking thing so far is that Plekanec has registered two bodychecks. I believe that surpasses his career total. WAY TO GO HIGGINS!!!!

The team is playing balls-to-the-wall hockey so far. Great stuff, but they GOTTA score the first, and soon. I've seen this movie before...

The fanbase is a damned disgrace. They destroy careers for God's sake. But you're 100% right. Bad call. I guess Bob wants to give Carey a chance to fight his way out of it? baffling. Unless Halak is hurt too

Tanguay and Schneider out!!!! Stick in a fork in Carey Price's ass...with a D of Hamrlik, Komisarek, Gorges, Dandy, O'Bryne and Weber, he's done. And so is the season. :puke: Did you see Joel Bouchard's analysis of the goals against Price, by the way? 5 of 8 goals have been scored the stick side and scored by righties, who will apparently be disadvantaged in shooting at Price's stick side. Bouchard - one of the best analysts around - says this is a sure sign of a goalie whose positioning is off and whose confidence is probably low. So...will we keep the Prunes to under 5 goals tonight? That should be the question. :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: On another note: PRICE IS GETTING BOOED??? YA GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! That is a goddamned disgrace. F*CK YOU BELL CENTRE JERK-OFFS!!!! (Please, let the boo-birds be Bruins fans...)

Carbo HAD to be fired because he lost the room. ANY coach has to be fired under those cicumstances. This calculation is so earth-shatteringly simple, and obvious, that all the subsequent hand-wringing just drives me crazy. (Whether Gainey is a 'better' coach than Carbo is hard to tell, but I suspect he is).

Yes. I said at the time that Gainey should have kept Huet and lost him as a UFA (just as he should have traded Souray) rather than go into a playoff in which we actually had a chance to win with an unproven rookie goalie. The only credible argument for trading Huet in my mind was that Carbo was a Huet man and would not have given Price the necessary playoff experience. But this doesn't persuade me. That decision cost us a legitimate chance to reach the semi-finals. But regardless, he could not have re-signed Huet, so we'd be in the same pickle this season either way.

Halak should play tonight. It's not like Price is a proven ace like Patrick Roy. He played OK, no better than that; and what's the point of having depth in goal if you don't use it under those circumstances?

Presto. I *believe* that that's what Bob has been doing and that one reason for going behind the bench may have been to sharpern his judgement about the character of these young men going into a crucial off-season for the franchise. It'll be very interesting to see how he decides to proceed. Nobody knows better than Gainey the importance of a team game.

I agree with everything you say, Wamsley. But let's remember how Price was sold to everybody, by everyone from Gainey to the media to scouts - almost universally, except (ironically) Carbonneau, who turns out to have been absolutely right. But the hype was that this kid is the Sidney Crosby of goalies, a player of destiny, The Natural: a sure-fire superstar. If Crosby had gotten middling totals - say 20 goals and 55 points in his sophomore season, while not coming up especially big in the clutch - people would have attacked him in just the same way they're attacking Price. I'm not saying it's fair, but in the context of the mystique that was built around Price by a great many very knowledgable hockey people, it's understandable. On Gainey's gamble: correct, and that's another reason why this disastrous season is soooo unfortunate. First, we blow our best chance in years to contend. Second, the negativity makes it harder to re-sign UFAs and to attract new ones. And third, the terrible team play puts a very dangerous level of pressure on Price (I for one do not rule out the possibility of permanent damage to the young man's development). Frustrating. But the good news is it's almost over...

I believe they will lose. This team finds ways to lose. Sorry, but that's just how I feel. The only possibility is that Halak will get hot. On a related note, while I think Gainey is a good coach and a substantial upgrade on Carbo, I think he may have made a basic, if understandable, strategic error in this series. Instead of playing to his team's strengths, he's built a game-plan around neutralizing those of the Bruins. This may be a classic case of a syndrome I increasingly recognize in NHL coaches: over-coaching. For instance, putting Laraque out there on the first line was an interesting ploy for neutralizing Chara. But it has two effects. One is that it breaks up our best line and prevents us from getting the most out of our three best players (one reason why Kovy is slipping into the do-it-yourself mode, for instance, is likely that he doesn't see Laraque as a serious playmaking option). The other, subtler effect is what it conveys to the team: our best isn't good enough to beat their best. This is not a healthy message for a team with a very fragile self-belief. It's worth noting that our success last year came after, by his own admission, Carbonneau decided to stop constantly matching lines and hyper-strategizing. He just let the team loose, and they actually started winning. I also remember 1993 very well. In Round One against the Nordiques, the first two games in Quebec City were dominated by a game plan built entirely around containing the Nordiques' formidable offence. The general tone was the the Habs were overmatched. The result was disastrous. After Game Two Roy and Carbo stood up in the room and told their mates to stop worrying about the other guys so much, that they could beat them man to man and to just play their game. Lo and behold, four straight wins. Now, this is nothing like that outstanding 1993 team, and I don't think we are even as good as the Bruins, not with the Kostitsyns and Plekanec playing like they are, and not with Markov injured. But still, it may have been wiser just to sell this team on an identity - e.g., 'we're a fast team and will skate them into the ground' - and turned 'em loose. Go down swinging, rather than micro-managing. The trouble with the latter is that if it doesn't work, you don't have a team with any self-belief to fall back on, because you've sold them on the message that they can only win if they can somehow get the Bruins *off* their game. And here we are: it hasn't worked. Anyway. Easy for me to say. Koivu and Halak will need to surpass themselves tonight.

Jokinen does pretty well. Whether he's a superstar is another story. My point is, he's about 2X better than whatever we've currently got. You may be right about Bob's logic; good call. But I don't think Gainey should have approached the deadline in terms of immediate short-term help for the team. A legitimate #1 C was available. He should have pursued that deal as a longer-term fix for a long-standing roster problem. The foibles of this year's squad should have had no bearing on that calculation. Anyway...water under the bridge.

That Habs house is incredible! Oh good. Another two hours of punishment comin' right up.

Fair points, Mr. habs29. I'm not sure about trading Plekanec, though. He's right around the age when Ribeiro was traded, and if he has less offensive talent than Ribs, he has a far better all-around toolkit when he's on his game. Even if he blows his next chance, I think you're better off keeping him on grounds that trading a 25-year-old who has already spent a season and a half as a bona fide #2 C is almost certain to blow up in your face. Do we *really* think he is going to continue to suck in the playoffs, or be as useless as he was this season, when, say, he's 28 or 29? Why should we suffer the growing pains without reaping the rewards? (Of course, if you can package Pleks as part of a deal for an elite C, that's another story. But I'm addressing the idea that we should give up on him, i.e., 'ship him out'). The same goes for Higgins and the Kostitsyns, BTW. None of these guys are close to their prime. Unless Gainey has detected fundamental character flaws that will likely prevent them from ever fulfilling their potential - or unless a deal emerges for that mystical stud #1 C the organization has needed for a decade - we should hold on to these young guys. Otherwise we'll be reproducing with players what we've been doing with our coaches: providing quality on the job training that ends up benefitting other organizations.

You know, if I recall Round One in 1993 correctly, we lost a heart-breaker in Quebec City in Game One and then got utterly demolished in Game Two. So only one conclusion is possible: we got 'em right where we want 'em! And with that, I'm gonna go to bed. Or else throw myself off the balcony. Haven't decided which. :puke:

Maybe. I've heard that song and dance before, though: about Jokinen, Ribeiro, Marleau, and several other excellent players who the habs would be better off with than without. Anyway, I'm not going out on a limb over O'Sullivan; the point is that Bob didn't seem to aggressively pursue available options at C. And he should have, not just for this season, but as a longer-term necessity.

Well, Gainey added two top-six forwards. That shows that he was aware that you couldn't count on every one of those key young guys improving. But no team can survive when so many of their blue-chip young guys tank all at once. (Also, what does it mean to say that Kostitsyn, Pleks, and Higgins had 'career' years? They're under 26 years old, for Pete's sake). I also predicted going into this series that people would be drawing apocalyptic conclusions about the club while totally forgetting that we're missing our single most important player, the player who organizes our offence and PP and clears our zone better than anyone. Lo and behold. Judging this team on this playoff effort without Markov is like judging Calgary without Iginla, Vancouver without Luongo, Boston without Chara, Ottawa without Alfredsson, etc., etc.. The unsigned thing...meh. Gainey's policy has been that it's fairest for everybody to re-sign when the contract is up. That way you don't shortchange still-developing young players, and you don't lock the organization into contracts with one-year wonders. In fact, you're contradicting yourself a bit: on the one hand, this team is not very good, on the other, all those young guys should have been locked up after 'career years...' Hmmm. I think you just made Gainey's case for him. A 'better' candidate for GM...yes, I agree that if Kevin Holland is looking for a challenge we should upgrade to him. Other than that, stay the course. If Bob fails to RETOOL (not rebuild) effectively, then you make a change after next season is over. Before that is just panic.

No, what I'm saying is that firing Gainey for this season's results would be characteristic of the Ballard Leafs. A dumb decision motivated by short-term hysteria. Brobin, was it really possible to anticipate that both Kostitysns, Plekanec, Higgins, and Komisarek would all regress massively this season? Also, remember that he added Lang. Not saying this team is as good as those 80s clubs, but come on - it's not as BAD as it now appears, either. Nonetheless, I agree that the situation at C is unacceptable and if Gainey cannot address it this summer, we will be in deep trouble.

I'm sorry, but a shake up in management was a TERRIBLE idea in 1995. And it took us 10 years to recover. If people want the Habs to be run like Harold Ballard's Leafs, that's their business. At the very least Gainey deserves the opportunity to make the adjustments he thinks are required. No one knows this team better than him. As for the Bruins' rebuild - it's worth noting that the two cornerstones, Chara and Savard, were acquired as UFAs. This is a systematic disadvantage the Habs face.

For chrissakes. He built a team that finished third overall least season. To that nucleus he added Schneider, Tanguay, Laraque and Lang while losing Streit. 'This team' is THE SAME TEAM as last year's but with more talent. The drastic regression of both Kostitsyns, Plekanec, Higgins and Komisarek could not have been anticipated any more than the injuries to Lang and Markov. To that you can add a player rebellion against Carbonneau. These are all impossible variables to anticipate. He then did what he could to address some of these contingencies, but refused to blow up a third overall team because of a second-half slump. All reasonable managerial decisions. Like I say. Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong this season. Blowing up the team, firing gainey, burning down the Bell Centre, nuking Mount Royal, executing Stephen harper...these would all be overreactions. (And other than the last, each would be a huge panicky mistake).

Not clear at all.

Well, this has degenerated almost as quickly as discussion on Habs Inside/Out. Fire Gainey What a joke. Sign Huet as a UFA An even bigger joke. Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong this year. It happens. We need retooling, that's for sure - not nuclear devastation. But I guess perspective is an unreasonable expectation under these circumstances.