The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Lest people get too righteous in sneering at Quebecers' supposedly nativist preferences for a French coach, it's worth remembering how English Canada reacted to Stephane Dion's English.

Every coach since Jacques Lemaire in the 1980s has spoken French, including Burns. (Although Burns, as an anglo, still had to put up with the occasional accusation that he was anti-French). I believe the last unilingual anglo was Bob Berry. While I'm sympathetic to Quebec's distinctive culture, I do think that at the very highest levels of competition, you cannot afford NOT to hire the best person. For instance, Scotty Bowman was the best choice to coach us in the 1970s and that if we hadn't had him - if, say, we'd had Claude Ruel instead - it's conceivable we might not have won the four Cups. Nonetheless, it is a simple fact that a norm has been created in Montreal, where you are not allowed to hire a coach who doesn't speak French. If Gainey does so, I admire his cojones and those of the man-fool willing to take it on, but feel bad for the coach, who will get ripped to shreds, both subtly and crassly, by the French media and fans, night after night. And this in turn will feed an environment where the French players will be highly likely to turn on the coach the minute they feel aggrieved with him - after all, they'll be hearing nothing but horrible things about him from family and friends relentlessly, etc., etc.. It's a bad mix, but an unfortunate one.

Frankly, Gainey mentioned all of the same things that have driven people crazy on this site. -inconsistency from game to game, from period to period, from shift to shift; -emotionless play during games of enormous importance; -ridiculous amounts of shots on goal, night after night, and the inability to protect the goalies. Despite what Pierre Macguire and (shockingly, given that he's been basically calling for Carbo's head for several days now) Mike Boone may say, these things almost certainly have more to do with coaching than with talent or personnel. Couple that with the fact that he had players coming to him claiming that Carbo was ruining their careers (I assume he means Dandy and Begin, possibly Kovalev), that Begin apparently told Renaud Lavoie of RDS that the players were waiting for Carbo to be fired, and you have a portrait of a team that has quit on their coach. And once that happens, it doesn't matter if you're a great coach or not. You're done. Does Lever speak French? And how come no one is identifying Jarvis as a potential head coach - ?

1. Nobody can look at the team in the second half and say, 'there's a well-coached outfit.' Game after game after game of stupid penalties and horrible in-zone coverage. On any other franchise, carbo would have been canned by now. 2. I don't understand the media. Maguire is enraged, arguing that 'the Habs have underachieved all season long' and seeming to think that is an argument AGAINST the coach being fired. Huh? last I head it was the coach's job to get the most out of a team that on paper was universally considered a contender. So much for analysis. 3. The Habs' future, even now, lies with the young players. Other than lapierre and Latendresse and maybe Gorges (not top-end players), NONE - not one - of our major young players got better this season. Pleks, Higgins, Komisarek, the Kostitsyns, Price - they all got worse. Julien was fired because he had Higgins on the 4th line and Komisarek as a 6th defenceman. You can argue that Carbo was fired for analogous reasons - the young guns were regressing under his tutelage. Frankly, more should have been made of this very disturbing development all season. 4. I'm sure Carbo has it in him to be a very fine coach. My guess is, as he himself admitted, he wasn't a good communicator - and that finally he lost the room. He will resurface and probably be excellent, and we'll have to hear about how we lost another great coach, etc., etc.. - everyone forgetting that this team has been absolutely brutal in a year when it was supposed to contend. 5. Most teams have a revolving door at the coaching position. It only stops when the team wins consistently. Carbo's team didn't. 'Stability' is great and all, but this isn't the Scotty Bowman era any more, and we were consistently excellent through the late 80s and early 90s, winning two Cups and going to the Finals one more time under three different coaches. So I'm not too frantic over the stability factor. 6. Having said all that, it seems very un-Bob to suddenly pull the chute like this. For that reason I'll agree that Bob might have been under pressure from above. I hope not. He might just be more ruthless, preoccupied with player development, and/or more determined to win than we think. 7. It is a shame that it came to this. I feel for Guy, a great canadien who deserved better, but it's a brutal business. 8. Our next coach must speak French. The job is stressful enough without having wave upon wave of media hatred delivered your way, and being used to mobilize the fan base against you. Denis Savard is a very intriguing choice. (As comical as it is, I wouldn't rule out Andre Savard either ). Can Jarvis speak French - ? This is not a day to celebrate. But the decision makes sense in pure hockey terms. Guy took a silk purse and made a sow's ear out of it. End of story.

Oh, I'm just in a foul mood. Plekanec was a disaster for the entire season until the last few games. That's a level of incompetence that's just plain ridiculous, hence my aggravation. He is young and all - I'm just so tired of being disappointed, and his 50-game regression into a worthless perimeter player just epitomized what's gone wrong with our young core. OK, he's not a jerk-off, just a crashing disappointment; harder to take than Higgins because Higgins was never consistent, unlike Pleks last season, and never showed a consistent pattern of annual improvement the way Pleks did. I thought Pleks was rock-solid. So I'm angry at him. One of many Habs I'm angry at right now. Sorry.

Unfortunately none of the teams we're competing against for that final playoff spot (Jesus H. Christ, I can't believe it's come to this!!! ) are in full-blown melt-down mode, playing with an utter lack of will, determination, resilience, or mental or physical toughness. So I suspect there will be many nights of hoping that those teams do like our Habs do and roll over like dead guppies. Whoops! Did I just slip into negativity? Sorry. No, my shiningly optimistic silver lining, as I say in another thread, is that our guaranteed early exit from either the playoffs or the season will give Gainey more time to work out our contract situation going forward. Go Bob go!!!!

Hamrlik was amazing last season - the key to stabilizing our D - and his decline into mediocrity this season has an inverse effect, making him one of the understated keys to our dismal play in our own end. If he keeps playing like this, his contract will be a total albatross around the organization's neck for the next two seasons. I say this because I too think signing Bouwmeester or Pronger is out of the question as a direct result of this contract. No one will take on Hamrlik with that salary. The cap could sink considerably in 2011 (a drop to $45 mil was one scenario I heard reported). So that'd be crazy, even if Bowie/Pronger wanted to sign here. So we just have to cross our fingers and hope Hammer can bounce back. Is Hossa the only other high-value UFA out there this summer? If so, I'd hold off. There are a lot of American teams that will be interested in unloading high-priced talent (e.g., Vinny) and Gainey should be aggressive in pursuing these leads. Obviously we need a centreman. Which is why I remain aggravated that Bob did not go after Jokinen. As for who we should sign, people around here are generally making sense. I'd go with the following in order of priority: 1-Komisarek. You're paying upwards of $5 mil, like it or not; but maybe he'd take less on a long-term deal - ? Worth it if true. 2-Tanguay. A veteran, proven scorer with Cup experience. French Canadian. Relatively young. No brainer. But what, another $5 mil? $4? Somewhere in that range, no? What are his comparables? Thoughts? 3-Koivu. But he has to take a pay cut and a relatively short term deal (2 years), and I doubt that this proud athlete will be very happy about that, especially if an offence-starved Minnesota with cap space starts sniffing around. He likely wants a Cup, too, and after this season it will be hard to argue that we're any more likely to deliver one than any other run-of-the-mill team. He has endured what is perhaps the most punishing career, both mentally and physically, of any major Montreal Canadiens captain. I would not be stunned at all if Koivu wants out. For sure Gainey will want to keep him. The rest are take -em or leave 'ems, but here are some I think we should keep: 4-Schneider. One a one-year deal at an affordable rate. (I can't see him accepting less than $2 mil, though - maybe with a good bonus structure?). IF he's interested. I suspect he will be. Great, high-quality depth with gusts up to top-2 D-man on the PP - kinda Souray on the cheap. If he's not cheap, then cut him loose and take your chances. 5-Kostopolous. A genuine old-school grinder, as good as most 4th liners, seems to like it here. These guys - real grinders as opposed to hopeful grinders, or quasi-grinders - are actually kind of hard to find. Give him a 2 year deal at 4th-liner rates. Lang is a long shot. But I doubt there will be any rush to sign him, so you might wait and see if you can't upgrade at C before making him an offer. Kovalev? No, no, a thousand times no. I love Kovalev as a player for his entertainment value (even when he's sucking ass, his larger-than-life personality is still amusing). But this is why you develop young players, precisely so that you don't have to pay significant dollars to aging enigmas. Like it or not, it will be time to give the ball (or puck, as it were) to Andrei Kostitsyn next season. That's just how it has to work in a cap era. Who knows, it may help Kosty's game. The Old Three on D obviously require no re-signing, although one of either Bouillon or Dandeneault wouldn't be terrible to keep around, at cut-rate prices. Both are maligned for their yeoman's work. Brisebois is of course done; his career ending on an appropriately perverse note, with an unforseeably disastrous centennial season. (Not that it's his fault. I like him, always did). As for our RFAs, all should be tendered the necessary offer to prevent poaching. (But is it the case that a team need merely tender an offer to the player in order to avoid this? There must be more to it than that, no -? Can anyone help me out on this?). Anyway, Latendresse is top priority, followed by (sigh) that jerk-off Pleks (only for the nauseatingly-tiresome reason that we have no centremen) and then Higgins - who has played himself all the way down from 'future star' to 'glorified checker' - and D'Agostini, who should be no problem to sign. The only good thing about our sure-to-be-short season/playoffs is that it will give Gainey a few more weeks in which to sort all of this out before UFA season hits. Worst silver lining ever.

As the debacle of the 100th Anniversary season unfolds, it's probably already time to look ahead. Gainey will have his work cut out for him, given all the RFAs and UFAs. Three questions here, of which the first is most important: -who should he re-sign? -At what rate? -who do you think will be willing to re-sign? It's easy to say 'cut 'em all loose,' but you actually have to have players on your roster. A really sophisticated reply would give some thoughts on how to *replace* the players you'd drop. Habs UFAs: -Bouillon -Brisebous -Dandenault -Koivu -Komisarek -Kostopolous -Kovalev -Lang -Schneider -Tanguay Habs RFAs: -D'Agostini -Higgins -Latendresse -Plekanec Who do we keep? Who do we lose? Why? Discuss!

Jarvis? WTF? *He* is to blame?? Boone is a bit of a fanboy, not offering the detatchment from day-to-day ups and downs that we really need from professional commentators - but he is hardly the only member of the Montreal media guilty of this. On the whole, his is a good voice. And his overall argument is increasingly that Carbo is inept. Frankly, we can all overthink this. A team that, on paper, is close to a contender if not an outright contender systematically underperforms and can't produce a single game of consistent discipline and coherent defence? That's a team that is either badly coached, or has quit on its coach. And there is no practical difference between the two. The other possibility is that someone is sleeping with someone's wife, something like that. Because this isn't normal. This is a total team collapse. And these things don't happen unless there is a serious underlying problem relating either to coaching or deep internal team divisions. Gainey has a major fix-it job to do over the summer. That much is clear.

Great God almighty, do we ever need Tanguay. He could help quite a bit.

Fascinating post. One thing I'd point out is that I only see ONE good year there - 2007-08. From 2004-2007 the numbers show a bubble team. Why is a team that makes the playoffs with 93 points 'good,' when a team that misses the playoffs with 90 points is 'bad?' If you're medicore, then making the playoffs will be a crapshoot. That you happen to squeeze in one year doesn't mean you're any less mediocre. Second point. The big picture with this team, it seems to me, is that we spent three years bringing along young talent, and it finally bloomed in 2007-08. What we've seen this season has been a massive regression in nearly all of the young players, which goes some way to explaining our falling back, if not quite to 'bubble' status, something just above it. So I think in some ways it's healthier to see 2007-08 as a fundamental break with teams of the past. That was the season when the core officially changed. (The change actually started the year before, when Pleks, for instance, led us offensively down the stretch - without the help of Kovalev, incidentally). Those earlier teams didn't have a veteran Komisarek, a Higgins and Plekanec with 2-3 seasons of experience under their belt, Lapierre and Latendresse as reliable regulars, Carey Price, or the Kostitsyns. Looking for too much continuity with those earlier teams obscures the fact that the bulk of this club is made up of completely different players. Otherwise put, the 2009 Habs are much closer, in terms of composition, to the 2008 Habs, than the 2006 team. The REAL question, IMHO, is why this new core - our young players - have nearly all regressed. What happened? Is this something that was, in retrospect, predictable, part of a typical arc of development whereby blossoming young players hit a speed bump? Or does it relate to a deeper problem? Were these players, for instance, highly motivated to play over the heads in order to establish themselves as NHLers, and are now 'settling in' to middling NHL careers? (Kosty, Pleks, Higgins, Komisarek)? In which case they're just not that good. Or were they spoiled by last year's success, in which case they might be learning valuable lessons this season? Or was last year the result of a kind of youthful enthusiasm that is hard to reproduce annually - in which case these talented young guys need a strong coaching system that will give them a fundamental platform from which to succeed - and Carbo isn't supplying it? The various explanations lead to various 'solutions.' If the young guns aren't that good, then we have a grave problem and need to start upgrading them ASAP or else hope that the next wave is better (or some combination). If the young guns are still works in progress who are right now learning invaluable lessons about how to be NHLers, then we need to tough it out, stand by them, and reap the benefits of these hard-earned lessons over the next couple of seasons. If the young guns are suffering because of bad coaching, then Carbo needs to go. Before the inevitable 'blame Koivu' debate begins, let me try to pre-empt it. The other explanation is that Koivu and Kovalev have been there all along, continue to define our core, and so there is in fact a deep continuity with those earlier bad teams. I wouldn't deny the importance of these two players. But I find it hard to explain that the performance of 16 other guys is contingent on the mood swings of these two. Look at the rosters of 2004 and now. Big, big, big difference. I say we're a different team, a team that emerged in 2007-08. The question is how we can get back there.

It's true. The most effective way to get Price out of his slump will be for the team to actually play decent defence on a regular basis. We talk a lot about goalies carrying teams, but sometimes a goalie needs the team D to carry him a bit. The way the Habs are hanging their goalies out to dry is disgusting.

Funniest game thread of the year so far Keep 'em coming!

Fair enough, but how many new faces do we need? Metropolit and Schneider are both veterans, the latter a major addition and grizzled in the extreme. Why would one more make the difference? Why is three the magic number, exactly? You're right about Price, but he seems some distance from finding his form. Personally I think Gainey should have someone like Luongo or Roy call him up, give him a little heart to heart. Luongo in particular has experienced dry spells and inevitably works his way out of them. He could be a fount of wisdom on how to do it. I guess that I think this team has deep 'issues' that have nothing to do with its formidable talent level. This is why I'm pessimistic that Tanguay and Latendresse can save us. Hopefully I'm overreacting, like most Habs fans usually do.

I like Macguire, and I've insisted that we should have made a push for Jokinen, so in a sense I agree with him. But my argument for Jokinen has less to do with this season than with the longer-term void at C. Macguire is speaking solely of a run in 2009. In this sense I disagree with him. Gainey has made tons of additions to improve a team that finished 1st in the East last season. In the process he has already weakened our draft position in the future. Further major moves would likely have eroded our future even more - and given that this team's problems seem to be 90% mental, and also coaching-related, I'm not sure adding a big piece (except perhaps a big C) would have made any fundamental difference this season. Macguire's argument is contradictory in a way. On the one hand, he obviously thinks we should be considered contenders, based on talent; otherwise he wouldn't be declaring the season a failure if we don't get to the Finals. This means that Gainey has assembled a team that, on paper, should win. And yet it will be 'all on Gainey' if this excellent assemblage of talent he put together doesn't win. It's not quite a contradiction, if you see the basic problem as coaching. Gainey is responsible for hiring and firing the coach, so if the coach fails to get the most out of the players, Gainey has to wear it. But granting this, it still makes no sense to attack Gainey for not making trades at the deadline. An extra player or two will not fix a poisonous team culture or a crappy coaching system. I dunno. I keep hearing people attacking Gainey. I find it bizarre. Stepping back from the deadline and looking at the big picture, Bob addressed every obvious weakness the 2008 team had. Fixing the 2009 team is a much more vexing problem because of the catastrophic gap between talent and performance, and I'm not sure hasty dealing at the deadline is the right way to approach it.

The loss of Lang is very serious. I don't believe that we can go really deep in the playoffs with Koivu and Pleks at C. I'd love to proven wrong, but Pleks has severely disappointed this season. I don't trust him to deliver at this point. Beyond that, there is no reason why the premise of this thread is wrong. On paper, with the addition of Tanguay and Schneider, we're better than last year even without Lang. On paper, the young guns should be older, wiser, and better, too. Too bad this game isn't played on paper.

I wonder if this team misses Ryan Walter more than we might think. Walter was hired as some sort of special motivational therapist (or something) last season - then he got headhunted by the Canucks. In short, we had a professional on staff whose role was to facilitate a positive attitude and some sort of psychological mentorship among the players. Given the difference in psyche between this year's team and last year's, it's at least worth asking the question. More broadly, are the Habs providing the young players, especially, with all the resources to cope, emotionally, psychologically, etc., with the craziness that's happened to them in the last 2-3 years? Kids from northern BC or wherever suddenly becoming celebrities and millionaires, having a city at their feet, and facing tremendous amounts of pressure to perform? You'd think the veterans would do it...but maybe having a couple of counsellors around or Ryan Walter-types is in order? Just thinking out loud.

I loved the Laraque sgning. Shows what I know. He may just be too old to be effective (I realize he's relatively young, but different players age at different rates, especially when they can't skate to begin with). Also - more philosophically, is a guy like Laraque really the answer for this particular team? I see guys like Kostitsyn losing battles for the puck or pulling up at the last second to avoid getting hit, or else playing the perimeter. A fighter doesn't fix that.

It's worth noting that, at his press conference, Gainey DID throw down the gauntlet to the coaching staff. He said, in effect, that under-performing players need to do better, AND that it's up the coaches to squeeze more out of them. That has to be counted a surprising shot across the coaches' bow, as it were. I wouldn't be surprised if Bob cuts Carbo loose (or shuffle him elsewhere in the organization) should the Habs continue on their current path. One thing Gainey has always been, is a winner. He will do what it takes even if that means knifing Carbo. And check out Elliotte Friedman's insightful take on Gainey's non-action: http://habsinsideout.com/main/16731 In effect, Bob did nothing because he knows the team isn't good enough to win. So don't give up youth or picks for that big piece. This is precisely the opposite of his official rationale, but it might be closest to the truth.

I like what Prime Minister Koivu said. The team has been completely sucking ass defensively. It's ridiculous. That is the absolute worst situation in which the develop a young goalie who has hit a bad patch. There's a real danger here of ruining Price. That is a notorious risk when you bring up young goalies too soon on bad teams (and while I don't think the Habs are a 'bad team', they've certainly been playing like one for the entire period after the All Star break). Remember Dan Blackburn? Highly touted, brought up too soon by a crappy Rangers organization, ups and downs, struggles, declining confidence, injury - ruined. Price has to take responsibility for his own woes, but fer chrissakes, the Canadiens also need to put him in a situation in which he has a good chance of succeeding. Their play has been unforgiveable in this respect.

Yes, we need a system. In fact, if you look at our personnel, we have an awesome team. More bodies is not the answer. In short, I am officially starting to turn against Carbo. And all this love for Lecavalier! Yes, he's an awesome player. But can I ask - have ANY of you Vinny-boosters given any thought to how his contract will look in two years when the cap shrinks to $45 mil? Or when Vinny is 38 and washed up and we're paying him a gagillion dollars to score 15 goals in a cap system? Just asking. Tampa Bay didn't have to give him that preposterous contract, but they did, and that should at least dampen our enthusiasm for acquiring him.

Really, really excellent post. I also have never had it in for Carbo and have been reluctant to call for his head. And I think that if we do can him, he'll resurface elsewhere, wiser for this experience, and go on to be terrific coach in the mode of Julien. But when you've got a terrific team on paper that plays as dimsally as this bunch has done, there may be no easy way around your conclusions. People will, as you say, point to Therrien and Julien and blame the players. I like your response. And I would just add that we should consider that their experience in Montreal may have led to their becoming better coaches than they were for us. Which is why I'm frankly tired of Montreal being a training ground for rookie coaches. That was OK when we were bottom-feeders and a 'developing' organization. Now we are supposed to be contenders, goddamit! Bring in someone with a track record. I don't know who at this point, though - but experience and discipline would be my first criteria. Were it not for his tragic illness, Pat Burns would be absolutely perfect.

Just to be clear, it's not that I have a hard-on for Jokinen. The point is that he would address a longer-term dilemma that is extremely worrisome for this franchise: the lack of ANY quality top-6 centremen other than an aging Koivu. People who say we should hold out for better than Jokinen...hey, I admire your optimism. All I know is that we haven't had a top C since Koivu's knee was destroyed in 1996-97. That's 12 years of waiting. Godot showed up sooner. Huge opportunity missed. And don't give me this cap stuff. Waivers, minors - that's the way to dump salary if you absolutely have to in order to solve a massive problem like that. As for tonight's game, I think it was a big statement. And that statement is: sorry, Bob, but we suck.

Lots there, good stuff. I can certainly understand criticisms of Carbo. I've said several times, on any other franchise his job would at least have come into question by now. As you say - he has a team that should be doing much better. This gets to my (respectful) criticism of your post. You can't say that 1. the Canadiens are a talented team that should be among the league's elite (as it was last season) AND 2. then blame Gainey for doing a bad job of managing. Look at this season: he added Tanguay, a bona fide first-line winger; Lang, a bona fide 2nd line C; Schneider, that elsuive 4th D-man and PP quarterback we needed; and Laraque, toughest guy in hockey. All this, added to the many talented young players his regime has developed and inserted into the lineup. Granted, I'm disappointed that he neglected to solve our longer-term problem at C by not pursuing Jokinen. I'm not saying Gainey is perfect. But while one problem on this team *may* be coaching, there is no way there is a problem in 'administration,' as you put it. Gainey assembled a Cup contender on paper. That it has failed to gel is not his responsibility.

I would trade Higgins and a pick for Jokinen. Preferably not a 1st rounder, though; but if that's what it took, I'd do it...without too many misgivings. The guy is a legitimate, relatively young, hulking #1 C. He's exactly what we'd be trying to draft with that #1 pick anyway. And he's not a rental. And he's reasonably cheap for a front-line C. Indeed, I would rather have him than Lecavalier for one simple reason: his contract will not hamstring the organization for the next decade. As I say, if we had any elite C prospects in the system, I wouldn't be as passionate about this. But we don't. We have an aging Koivu and an erratic, mostly-perimeter-player C in Plekanec. What happens when Koivu goes? Pleks is our go-to guy? We cross our fingers that we suddenly become the prime destination for any star C UFAs? Come on. Now I agree that Bob can't ADMIT to any of this. His main message today was, I believe, aimed at the players: "we believe you are good enough to win the Stanley Cup. We have faith in you and your talent. Now stand and deliver." That's good management. But that doesn't mean that failing to get Jokinen was not a mistake. If the return was Higgins + 1st rounder, you try to bargain them down on the picks, but ultimately pull the trigger IMHO.