The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Yep. The Houle era really was THAT bad. Unspeakably, unimaginably bad beyond all infinite dimensions of cosmic badness. Of course, the Leclair trade was Serge Savard's handiwork, but it's worth noting that he did get a bona-fide elite player back (Recchi) and that Leclair benefitted enormously from being centred with Eric Lindros (certainly he had never come anywhere close to producing consistently for us). So that trade at least made a modicum of rational sense. Also Savard had a track record of swinging some damned canny deals (the Chelios trade notwithstanding). What distinguishes Houle is that his trades were just patently idiotic. Now I know that the Roy trade is the worst in Habs' history, and that the Turgeon trade might be the outright *stupidest* of these deals ('we just had no room for Turgeon on the top two lines!' - duh, because you *moved* Damphousse from his natural wing position to centre, you jackasses!). But the trade on that list that I found the most sheerly infuritating was actually the Odelein-for-Richer trade. Odelein was no superstar, but he *was* by far our toughest and most reliable defenceman and a real leader in the room. We had no replacement for him on our top-4. Any fool could see he was a key cog to that defence corps. Yet they dealt him away for a notorious head-case and anti-leader who for his entire career - except for two early seasons - refused to produce at anything like his talent level would imply. What made it worse was that the French media went all ga-ga over Richer ('Bienvenue Stéphane!!' blared the headlines), only to be (predictably) disappointed by the results, and then experssing surprise that Odelein went on to be such a strong contributor to the Devils. Just an appalling act of circle-jerking in collective ignorance. I still smoulder when I think about it.

Wow, looking at the link, that was a kick-ass draft year! While I certainly see that Carter, Getzlaf, Richards and Parise (for instance) were all hugely and irrefutably better picks than Kostitsyn - what we wouldn't give for Richards, Getzlaf or Carter at C! - it's waaaay to early to give up on Kostitsyn or dismiss his star potential. He was a rookie last season and scored 26 goals and 53 points; that's damned good by any standard. Now he's on a 47-point pace, a disappointing follow-up, but still at the same goal-scoring clip. But these numbers surpass what Jeff Carter put up in his first and second NHL seasons. Granted, Kosty is older than Carter was, but then again he's had to adapt to a huge change in culture and language. (Kosty is also significantly outpacing Perry's 1st-2nd-year numbers, BTW). As with a lot of young players, it can swing either way with Kosty. He is learning what it takes to be a consistent NHL producer, and he has to decide for himself whether he wants to be an elite player or just cash a cheque. This is a typical learning curve. We saw something similar with Latendresse, who only this season has shown the maturity and consistency of a real pro, and with Lapierre, who had to be sent down before figuring it all out. We saw it with Komi...for that matter, we saw it with Markov. We're seeing it with Price. Just because Chris Higgins (tagged as a future star, turns out that he's most likely best-suited to be a 2nd-line winger at best) was a tease doesn't mean all the Habs young guns are. Kostitsyn is still a potential star LW as far as I'm concerned. (I suspect we'll get a better feel for him once Kovalev leaves, but even that might be unfair - it could take 2-3 more seasons for him to fully hit his stride. Also, at some point he'll need a decent C. Just something to keep in mind re: his potential).

Gaborik! He's made a real, lasting difference to Minny, hasn't he? Let's talk UFA centremen please. That's what we need. A D-man wouldn't hurt either, but finances are prohibitive.

DOH! I knew my math was bad, but that's ridiculous. I guess weeks of too-little sleep catch up with a fella. Scratch everything I said about Saku's numbers being career bests, although 62 points *is* pretty consistent with his career average points-per-game ratio. At the very least he could argue that he hasn't declined, statistically. But I agree with your assessment, as I've basically been saying for several posts now.

I couldn't agree more. This year has been the result of an unforseeable confluence of two factors: one is that the older players (meaning especially Koivu, Kovalev, and Hamrlik) all seem to have declined more-or-less overnight; the other is that the young players turned out not to have been ready to take another step forward. That doesn't mean that Gainey is a bad GM (nobody can anticipate when a player will lose a step, and everyone expected our young guys to get better, not regress); and it doesn't mean our young players, from Komi on down, suck. (It *does* mean that we need to think about turning over our veteran core; Tanguay is an obvious Kovalev replacement, for instance, and we still need a Koivu replacement. But this team is not and will never be built by UFA signings).

Well, Koivu has lost a step in my opinion. The strange thing is that statistically, he's on pace for a 75-point season (rivalling his best year), and even in this dismal second half, I calculate that he's played at a 66-point clip for his last 20+ games. But it seems obvious to me, just watching, that he doesn't have the jets he used to. These numbers make it practically impossible that he'll accept a substantial pay cut or substantially reduced role. Why would he? He can just point to the stats and say, "look, I'm as productive as I ever was." I suspect that Gainey will err on the side of caution and re-sign him. But I really believe that it's a lot of smoke-and-mirrors at this point. Maybe Koivu is generating those points through more of a bump-and-grind style that can't be sustainable in the long run. And if he really has lost a step then it's inevitable that the points will dry up sooner rather than later. Anyway, I've gone from a Koivu believer to a Koivu sceptic, because I just don't see as effective a player as I used to see, numbers or not. But last night? Great. No question about it!

Well, I've said that Gainey would re-sign him. But honestly, my conclusions are based on Koivu's second half and the disturbing lack of speed he's shown. It's something I've 'come to accept,' you might say. But you've got me there.

Bob did the same thing with Theodore, after Julien was fired. He was determined to give Theo the chance to straighten out his game. Regrettably that decision cost us a few games, as I recall, before Theo did us all a favour and smashed his heel, allowing Bob to go with Huet. I'm not sure what this tells us, other than that Gainey tends to give his 'star' goalies a lot of rope. Hopefully Price will prove his GM right, where Theo proved him wrong.

The issue is not whether you've always loved Koivu or whether you've always been skeptical of him. That's an old, tired argument. The issue, as I see it, is whether Father Time has caught up to Koivu, in which case he's not the same player he was. I myself don't deny that Koivu in his prime could have been a PPG player with star-quality wingers. But he's NOT that player any more, if he ever was. Kozed, I hear ya - I was arguing that we should trade Koivu for Marleau last season, in anticipation of Saku losing a step. But unlike you, I wasn't convinced until this season that he has indeed lost that step. Thank him for his years of service and unless he is willing to accept a vastly reduced role, at vastly reduced pay, let him go play with his brother and do anything possible to acquire a legitimate top-2 centreman. And so will - or should, if Bob has any sense - end Saku Koivu's sadly wasted career on the Montreal Canadiens.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's noticed this. I've always liked and respected Koivu, so it pains me to watch him suddenly being a low-grade Gary Roberts. But it's a fact that has to be accepted. Koivu is washed up. The worst mistake of Gainey's tenure as GM would be to re-sign Koivu as a top-6 forward, especially for any length of time.

I think Kovalev and Koivu should be allowed to walk, unless they are prepared to accept very substantial pay cuts and reduced roles. Koivu in particular is now, in my mind, a face-off and PP specialist, not a legitimate top-6 forward 5-on-5. But letting Komisarek go is just crazy.

I think Koivu is done. He no longer has the speed his game requires. I don't doubt his heart, and I'm sure that *if* we make the playoffs he'll find a way to deliver. But in my opinion he is no longer even a #2 C in this league. I've seen this before. It happened to Muller and Bellows in 1995. At first you think it's just a slump. But then you realize - no. It's over. We missed the playoffs in 1995 because those key top-line players simply lost a step. And one of the reasons the Habs are likely to miss the playoffs this season is that our top offensive pivot has finally crossed that threshold. Sadly, Lang is unable to replace him, and Plekanec has been a worthless piece of crap until the last 3 weeks. Maybe I'm just being dramatic. But if we re-sign Koivu, it should be as a third-line C and possible PP specialist. Other than that, let him walk and go full-bore after any top-6 UFA C available. That Gainey is cutting his minutes suggests that he, too, may be coming to this realization.

Wow, terrible on-ice results and an unstable ownership situation. Now there's a winning recipe for attracting UFAs if I ever saw one.

Well, any other team would have canned Carbo before Bob did. In fact, if Carbo hadn't won that Dallas game I'll bet he wouldn't look nearly as good as he seems to in retrospect. Let's see: the young players almost to a man regressed this season; the veterans were mailing it in; he lost the room; team defence was catastrophic. And let's not forget his ridiculous slowness in making adjustments (c.f. last season's playoff vs. Julien). I fail to see any argument that Carbo is the answer, or that he had the answers. You can well argue that he wasn't *the problem* - but neither was he the solution. And the fans all chanting his name at games are a pack of hypocrites. I'll bet ANY money that a good chunk of them were calling for Carbo's firing a few weeks ago. So I ain't buying this whole 'Carbo is a misunderstood genius' argument. What Gainey needs to do is stabilize the situation by hiring a veteran coach with impeccable credentials. Hartley may be the best bet, though what we really need is a Joel Quenville. Now, it's increasingly popular to argue that these guys just suck. I dunno about that. Mike Komisarek, Tomas Plekanec, Andrei Kostitsyn, Sergei Kostitsyn, Carey Price - last season, these players were regarded as the core of one of the very best young talent pools in all of hockey. Concluding that they 'suck' is waaaaay too hasty. They're just too young to draw definitive conclusions; for all we know, this season could turn into the most valuable learning experience of their careers. But clearly none of these players were prepared to follow up on last season's breakthrough. Add to that the gruesome-to-behold decline of Saku Koivu and the regression of Kovalev, you've got a dying veteran core attached to an immature young nucleus. That's a bad, bad mix...but it may not really be anyone's fault, when you think about it. Should Gainey have known that Koivu would pick this year to wash up? (And he *did* bring in Lang...) or that Kostitsyn would manifestly fail to step into the role of 'Kovalev replacement?' In theory, the rising young guns should have helped to carry the declining veterans and vice versa. Unfortunately it went the other way. It's a bloody shame and I can't think of another team that has done as the habs did, patiently rebuild with young players, and had it blow up in their faces so badly. It's just...really, really shitty luck, in a way.

Yes. And, assuming that Gainey is still GM, I can't wait to hear all the anger and resentment spewed his way when he "fails" to re-sign UFAs or when he "fails" to attract new ones. I think we have a chance of keeping Komisarek and other UFAs who may well have a sense of loyalty to the city/team, friends on the club, etc.. But what 'external' UFA in his right mind will sign with a team that 1. has returned to the mediocrity that defined its past decade after one scintillating season 2. has all sorts of rumoured problems in the dressing room (to say the least) 3. has a school of media sharks relentlessly feeding on the chum of players' problems 4. is reportedly on the market, with no more stability at the ownership level 5. has shown cracks at the management level, with that a*sehole Boivin spouting off and rumours of Gainey having been pushed into firing Carbo 6. may not even have a coach (other than the GM) by July 1 7. has no obvious, elite-level 'rising young stars' and only declining veterans who are themselves UFAs 8. plays in a province with a different culture that scares their wives and ignorant family members 9. plays in a province with very high tax rates UFAs will stay away in droves. But all the blame will fall to Bob, even though he is only responsible for #6. You heard it here first. That's why the non-stop suckage of our young players this season has driven me crazy. They don't seem to understand the long-term damage they're doing to the entire rebuilding program of which they're a part. The only way Montreal will attract UFAs is if the franchise is perceived as a winner. But nah, it's more important to party, hang out with mobsters, fail to be prepared to pay the price night after night, and then slip into a catastrophic team slump that corrodes their confidence and undercuts the entire organization. I can't think about it any more, it's too damned frustrating.

I believe that we can sign UFAs. A lot of our unsuccessul pursuits have been a result of simply being outbid. *Some* lame-ass cowards are afraid of the Montreal pressure; but I don't understand why the pressure here is SO much worse than in any other hockey-crazy Canadian market; e.g., Toronto has just as zany a media environment and yet it's considered prime UFA country. (I will grant that the pressure is mostly worse for francophone stars who fear the burden of becoming the Next French Canadian Star). As for non-francophone players, I'd say the main disincentives are: 1 - higher taxes (one reason why we are obliged to 'overpay' - more like 'compensate' for onerous tax rates) 2the Habs' reputation as a crappy, losing team. This is where this disaster of a season desperately hurts us. Had we built on last season with another strong year, dollars to donuts UFAs would be lots more interested. 3 - legal requirements demanding that children, if they use the public system, must send their kids of French schools (this applies to Europeans, Americans, and francophones, not to anglo-Canadians); 4 -and wives and family who are scared of Quebec, thinking that it's 100% French or that English people get tarred and feathered. Say what you like, I guarantee you that this kind of grotesque cultural ignorance is a consideration for a significant percentage of players. Lindros was tip of the iceberg. 3 of these 4 issues are challenges that other franchises don't have to overcome. Having said all that, 1) can be partly addressed with through compensation; 2) is not unique to us and therefore not potentially fatal; 3) wouldn't bother every player; and 4) wouldn't apply to every player. So our talent pool is smaller than the rest of the league's, but if I'm right, there *will* be UFAs willing to come here if we make the best offer.

That's horrible. Just horrible. I'll concede that in, oh, five years that might be a really strong club (except that Hamrlik will be gone by then). But I'm too old to wait another five years! The good news is that I don't think Bob will walk, I don't think we'll lose all our UFAs, we might have the cap room to lure an external UFA, and I cautiously submit that most of your players will be better next year after regressing this season.

Good analysis. Assuming we do make the playoffs, the 'X' factor is the ghost of last year's squad. Remember that we have basically the same team. If these guys can heat up and really start to click like they did for most of last season - that is, if we don't just scrape into the playoffs but really start to find our A-game, rolling four lines, blinding speed, tape-to-tape passing - the Habs could be prime 'upset' material. What I'm imagining is basically the reverse of last year's fabulous season and bungled playoff. It could flip on its head this time around. That's a possibility. But my resolute optimism doesn't look that far ahead. This team will start to play better and will make the dance, I hereby declare. Beyond that? As another great prognosticator once said: 'difficult to tell. Always in motion is the future.'

I went through a phase of deep depression about this team, a phase which reached its nadir with the Devils game. Now I've basically decided to have blind faith that this nightmare will end. Rather than give up on the team, or Gainey, or the whole damned rebuild, I'm approaching the second half up to this point as just a really long, catastrophically dramatic slump. Teams DO get out of slumps. But, contrary media chatter about some win that serves as a magical 'turning point,' it usually works by baby steps. E.g.: -Players that were desperately struggling start to recover their games: we see this happening with Pleks and Price and maybe Kovalev. -Injured players return: Tanguay, Latendresse, plus the flu that's been working over our guys is bound to recede. -Overall team play begins to improve: the team is *beginning* to do little things better, and put in a solid 40 minutes against the Rangers instead of 30 (plus Gainey has clearly defined his coaching goal as getting the team to play sound fundamentals). -You win/lose a couple of squeakers before getting on a roll: we scrape by Edmonton, we lose lose to NY in a shootout. -Team confidence (maybe the most important thing) begins to recover. I don't know if we've seen signs of this yet, but it should follow on the other things. So I think we have a ways to go, but that the signs are pointing to an eventual turnaround and thus, a playoff berth. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but this outlook feels a lot better than the blues.

They're playoff bound. :hlogo:

I agree that it's foolish to pencil in Emelin or ANY young player. Remember the enthusiasm around here over D'Agostini and Pacioretty? So much for that. Rookies hardly ever make the difference. Beggars can't be choosers. We should look to sign ANY legitimate C we can, provided they can be had at tolerably sensible rates; with Koivu's ongoing decline our situation at that position is approaching crisis point. The Sedins would be a massive boost because you'd get two top-6 forwards with ready-made chemistry. Pony up the dough and save the money somewhere else. Cammalleri would be a straightforward Koivu replacement - certainly we'd be no worse off. Boumeester is the pick of this litter, but whether it makes sense for us to tie up massive dollars in four defencemen is a good question, especially if our system is as deep in defencemen as advertised. havlat! gaborik! Just what we need - NOT.

According to Habs Inside Out, a virus has been decimating the Habs' dressing room. Tanguay might not dress next game. To me, this is good news in a weird way. It explains at least some of the team's lacklustre performance of late. A sick team usually looks pretty horrible. Once the thing works its course, we could *suddenly* start to notice more consistency and energy from the Habs. (And of course everyone will start praising Gainey to the heavens ). Anyway, it's one reason not to be TOO demoralized by recent games - and Lord knows we need every straw we can grasp at!

I dunno. I seem to recall that Jean Perron 'lost the room' in 87 (a 'room' that included Gainey and Robinson and Carbonneau) and we fired him and brought in some new guy, Pat Burns, who did OK. Then Pat Burns was fired for 'losing the room' in 1992. We brought in some guy called Jacques Demers, who did...OK. It is frankly dishonest of Todd to end his list of examples at Jacques Demers. What that does is delude his readers into thinking that good teams (e.g., the Habs prior to 1995) don't fire coaches. The Perron/Burns examples shows that indeed they do. Each firing has to be taken in its own context. A further problem with Todd's argument (apart from Todd's longstanding general idiocy) is that he denies that losing the room should be the kiss of death for any coach. But it's ridiculous to deny that. I remember reading Steve Shutt on Scotty Bowman, saying that Bowman's genius was in handling the room so as to prevent a total rebellion. Shutt's underlying assumption was that if a coach loses the room, he loses his effectiveness, and ultimately his job. So this is not some novel theory in hockey circles. Other than 'stability' - valuable to be sure, but not as valuable as having a respected and effective coach who is not driving away veterans and (perhaps) making it even harded to attract UFAs - there really was no overpowering reason for keeping Carbo. It's not like he was the second coming of Toe Blake. People should get over this.

But see saskhabs' post. Koivu is just not good enough a player any more, if he ever was, to 'take care' of results on the ice. He is not that kind of dominating presence. But that just means he's not a great player - not that he's not a great leader. Anyway, this argument is like the moon - it goes round and round and round.

I agree, but you're describing this season, not 'the team' more broadly viewed. It's like Patrick Marleau. He had two straight seasons of 78+ points. Then last year he was universally derided as an overrated, overpaid piece of human excrement because he had 48 points (in fact, I was laughed out of town when I urged that we tried Koivu for him on the grounds that he was undervalued). This year, he is back on a PPG pace and is being universally praised for his play. So, was Marleau a 'lousy player' last year, or was he a good player having a horrendous season? Something like that is the situation our team is in. We have a raft of youngsters long viewed as 'blue chip.' Last year they stepped up and delivered. This year, as you say, they're 'shell shocked.' Which is the real team? That's the $50 000 000 question.