The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Exactly. The root problem of the entire organization has been the inadequacy of the young talent developed during the Gainey rebuild. This is quite a different problem from Gainey's supposed lassitude or incompetence in 'not locking up RFAs/UFAs.' Much of that 'core' turned out to be (more or less) garbage that you wouldn't WANT to see locked in for years to come anyway. And this root problem is why there's been so much turnover in the core. Bluntly put, the core sucked. Now, however, at least, in my opinion, the core is at least adequate and I don't expect it to be the revolving door it's been in the past. Certainly the lengths of the contracts Gainey signed in the summer suggest 3-4 years of stability in key positions.

Yeah...again...I'm not denying that the Habs might have managed some of this better. Streit to me is the main exhibit in terms of failing to lock up UFASs/RFAs. But I just don't see it as this cut and dried. You assert that Pleks 'would have been' locked up for under $4 mil after last season. What's that based on? WHY would Pleks agree to a long-term contract after he had had a disastrous season? If you're Pleks, wouldn't you want a short-term deal so you can pad your numbers instead? Komisarek at $3.5...is there *evidence* that Komi was willing to lock up for years at that rate? Or is there just a mystical belief that young players who KNOW (or believe) that they're still getting better will be willing to lock themselves up at below-market value, and that if they don't it's the Habs' fault? (For that matter, how do we know that guys like Higgins and Komi didn't plan to go UFA all along?) There's a certain underlying pattern of thought to your post here, which is: the Habs are always wrong. It's like your comment about Higgins: it's not that he turned out to be a turd, oh heavens no!! It's that the Habs 'ruined' him. Sure...they ruined him by putting him with our best players and giving him a lot of ice time (Just like they are 'ruining O'Byrne by NOT putting him with our best players and giving him lots of ice time - right?) Face it, on your model he'd be locked up for 6 years at (say) $4 mil. Ditto Andrei Kostitsyn and probably Ryder too (your retroactive devaluation aside, Ryder looked pretty damned good his first two seasons). So, yes, the Habs could have done better is some cases, but they also did well in others. Like I keep saying: not cut and dried.

That'd make a huge difference for sure.

Yes, I think part of the principle at issue here is that you want to treat your people fairly and be a good organization, one that people want to work for. Presumably that serves the organization best in the long run. If you treat Boucher as chattel who is trapped by his contract and prevented from pursuing his life-long dream, he will rebel and your organization has turned into an oppressive exploiter of its own talent. Not the way to go.

Yeah, you certainly have a valid point here. All I would want to do is soften your point a bit by suggesting 1. there remains an inescapable element of uncertainty in dealing with most young players; no matter how much you watch them, it is impossible to determine whether they will fully realize their potential, fail to realize it, or exceed it (who imagined that Halak would put together a season like this one?) - let alone whether they will become injury prone or fall into any of the innumerable traps facing them. I don't find this all that surprising. In the milieu in which I work, one sees a lot of young people training for careers in a demanding field with few opportunities. Some look brilliant early but fade out. Others have all the tools but end up losing the will as they get older (they get distracted by family or whatever). Some are plodders but manage to succeed on sheer determination and work ethic. Some start out average yet later blossom. A few are superstars from the get-go. But no matter how much you track most of them over 4-5 years, their ultimate tragectory always has that uncertainty to it. It's likely the same in the NHL. Consider Komi. A stud, heavy-hitting shut-down D-man his entire career, his 'toughness' was arguably exposed as fraudulent by Milan Lucic and now he is emerging as injury-prone. I seriously doubt there was any way of anticipating this based on his career up to the moment of that Lucic fight and the subsequent injuries. He had to rise to the level he did before these weaknesses were exposed. Had you locked him in as a near-elite bruising shutdown defenceman to anchor your D for the next decade, you might well have faced a nasty surprise. 2. To lock up an RFA, the player and the team have to agree on his likely potential. Higgins saw himself as a future 40-40 man. Good luck locking him up with that self-image. (Higgins is also a nice example of the uncertainty principle. He always had the profile of a blood-and-guts natural leader, a captain in the making, he seems to have fallen off the rails. Who knew?) 3. It remains possible that Bob never locked up his RFAs because he in fact was aware of their limitations and was just not convinced. Those who reply that he should have locked them up and then traded them need to consider point (2) above, and also the desirability of carrying a bunch of Higginses and Ryders at $4-5 million for 6 years and how tradable they would be. Note that of all the young guys of Gainey Rebuild 1.0, the only one who was clearly a disastrous mistake NOT to lock up was Streit. It's not like there is this huge pile of great players he allowed to leave. Few of us miss any of them. As for your Halak comment, well, throwing him to the lions in Game 4 of that series was a bit much. We unquestionably needed Huet for that playoff run. But I always liked Halak and thought the Habs treated him shabbily - although I certainly never expected Halak to dominate like he did this season.

I find it hard to believe that they will be scooped up so rapidly, unless they are considered elite at their job. So I wouldn't put anxiety too much into that. What *is* weird about the timing is that there is no way for their replacements to get fully up to speed in time for the draft. Presumably the Habs already have their basic list assembled - ? My guess is that Gauthier has been unhappy with the scouting end of the operation and is now free to apply the axe.

One word: MEH.

It beats me why the Habs wouldn't counter with an offer to make him Martin's assistant. Who knows, maybe they have already, or will. It's worth a shot.

Of course Streit is much better than MAB. The analogy lies in the fact that most people saw Streit as a one-dimensional player who could not play D at all, and a beneficiary of, rather than a key contributor to, our league-leading PP at the time. It is hypocritical of such people to now condemn the Habs for failing to lock up Streit. That was my point. You can talk all you want about shipping Komi out at the deadline, it was not going to happen in that season. The organization clearly made a decision that it was going to go for broke that year. Period. Did it work? Of course not. What I'm saying is that any individual in Gainey's situation would have done the same thing and not blow up the core, because of the overall fan and ownership context. (Also, if the Habs hold a fire-sale, do we then lure Cammy and the other UFAs? One thing to consider is that perception of your team as a 'playoff team' is important in being deemed an attractive destination on the UFA market). Anyway, again, I'm not saying everything Gainey did on this front was great, just that his record with UFAs and RFAs defies facile condemnation or fawning applause.

Well, I wouldn't argue that Gainey's asset management was above reproach. I thought the case of Souray was understandable because we were in a playoff race, but I still supported trading him at the deadline because that team, even if it had made the playoffs, had no reasonable chance of doing any damage at all. Better to move Souray and reclaim assets. Komisarek would have been ridiculous to trade because there was NO WAY any GM could have blown up a team for the stretch drive during the Habs' 100th anniversary. Tanking simply was not an option that year, no matter what happened. However, Wamsley is correct that in hindsight it would have been wise of Bob to lock up Komi long term when he was RFA. With Streit, the error was not in failing to trade him; in fact we had a real chance of going all the way that year, so trading him would have been irresponsible (just as trading Huet that year was irresponsible and arguably cost us the series against Philly). No, the error with Streit was in failing to lock him up as an RFA and then compounding the mistake by not signing him as a UFA. However, it's worth remembering that there was near-unanimity on this board and elsewhere that Streit was terrible defensively and not worth signing, sort of an early version of MAB. Anyone can be a genius (and criticize others) with hindsight. Gainey's failing may have been an unduly rigid approach to RFA signings. He did seem to have a philosophy of not locking up RFAs. This was a reasonable, principled philosophy, because if you sign a player too soon in his career, you risk getting burned by paying for potential that never materializes (Higgins, the Kostitsyns, Ryder and even Komisarek are all object lessons here); and the player risks locking for the long term below value (Kesler). Nonetheless, you also need to make exceptions where warranted. Had we locked up Streit as an RFA we'd now be laughing our heads off. It's a mixed record, but that's why anybody who makes blanket declarations that Gainey was either a genius or an idiot in managing RFA/UFA assets is off-target. Whether Bob did more good than harm in this respect is a complicated question calling for balanced judgement.

Your point is valid of course. But then again, do we really wish that Gainey had locked in Higgins, Ryder, and Kostitsyn for 5 years at (say) $4 mil per? As for Pleks, do you think he would have signed for significant term coming off an awful season like that when he was massively undervalued? (Streit and Komi, on the other hand, would have been nice signings). On balance, I'd say while Gainey's approach was costly in some cases, in others it saved us from locking in several promising players who turned out to be pieces of crap. Part of his reticence may have been a dawning awareness that many of the key cogs in the rebuild were not the diamond stuff of which winners can be made.

No question Kesler's better - I see lots of Canucks too - but if he got $5 mil as an RFA, presumably he could have gotten substantially more as a UFA especially after the season he had. If he were on the open market this summer, he'd bag $6 mil easy. $5.5 for Pleks in that context does make some sort of comprehensible sense. It's just sheer luck that the Canucks got to lock up Kesler while he was still improving, while the Habs faced the dilemma of a Pleks who had scored 39 points last summer and couldn't possibly have locked him up under those circumstances. Timing is all.

Yeah, here's a guy who regrets NOT throwing away this playoff run so we could trade Pleks instead of trying to sign him It never ceases to amaze me to see how many fans genuinely desire for the Habs to be continually trading away their best players just entering their prime, for picks and young guys who they will in turn demand be traded for more picks and young guys. They want us to be the Edmonton Oilers circa 1997. dlbalr, thanks for that clarification. If kesler was RFA then 5.5 for Pleks as a UFA does make perfect sense. My bad.

Halak might want out. I could understand that, although he also seems to be overlooking the fact that under Jacques Martin, the goaltending position finally became a pure meritocracy: the guy who played best got the starts. But yeah, if he does want to go, it makes management's job easier. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Plekanec wants to stay but 'only at market rate.' Fair enough, but if Pleks starts taking offers, he will probably command upwards of $6 mil. At that point, I think we really should drop him and go after Marleau, who is a better fit given team needs, or else take our chances with Trotter + a Koivu-type patch-up signing as backup. Even 5.5 for Pleks is a stretch (although, as I've said, I'd pay that). The frustrating thing about the Plekanec situation is that Ryan Kesler is the obvious comparable...and Kesler commands exactly $5 million per. The rumours have Pleks signing for more than that. Looked at rationally, this makes no sense, because Kesler is a significantly better player: bigger, tougher, yet equally fast and young and at least as effective offensively and defensively. So more than $5 million for Plekanec makes NO sense really. I suppose the inflated figures for Plekanec are a product of him happening to go UFA in a year with a thin talent pool. Bad luck there.

Yep. I think you have to gamble that we can survive two months without Markov and Hammer. It's an alarming thought, but you can't make longer-term decisions based on two months. What you do is move Spacek to his proper side and hope for gains there; then go with a defence-by-committee arrangement, hoping the forwards will backcheck like they did this playoff, actually trusting O'Byrne with some regular playing time, perhaps re-signing Mara at cut rates, crossing your fingers that Subban can eat major minutes, continuing to throw MAB out there on the PP if he signs for cheap, using Scott Gomez to lead the rush out of our zone whenever possible - and most of all, if you still have Halak, rely on a goalie who has proven he can excel when he gets barraged. Another option is to trade a Kostitsyn for a young, cheap defenceman a la Gorges. If possible. Then when Markov returns, try to move one of the D for help elsewhere. In short, better to try other options than mindlessly re-signing Hammer. His salary MUST be redistributed elsewhere. I do not believe Pyatt will go. He's a Martin favourite. On another note, can I ask why noone ever mentions David Desharnais as a possible cog in our roster going forward? 78 points in 60 games and a very strong showing in his brief call-up with ye habs. I know he's yet another shrimp, but if he looks good, he gives you an offensive option and some flexibility to make a trade. Finally: the possible departure of Kirk Muller raises the question of why the Habs don't promote Boucher to assistant coach. I know he will likely get a head coaching offer, but the chance to be an assistant might make a more logical progression as well as position him even more perfectly as JM's next successor. Is this not a possibility?

Moore on the second line Hey, if you're happy missing the playoffs by icing garbage in the hope that some cash-strapped team will someday throw a cheap and near-elite player our way for minimal return, be my guest. (Remember, these salary dumps invariably come with a substantial price tag in picks and young talent - exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Teams like Edmonton are not looking to unload cheap young players; they are looking to unload Sheldon Souray). Me, I have no particular desire to give away a major asset at the thinnest position in the entire organization. Your final sentence, I think, underpins a lot of the sentiment against signing Pleks: he had an awful semi-finals. But five games seems like a pretty thin sample from which to make this decision. Despite injury, he was good in the first two rounds - a significant improvement on past playoff performance - and excellent all season. He is still improving as a player and just now entering his prime (27). Beyond that, all things considered, we want to BUILD on what we accomplished this season, not revert back to a bottom-feeder. Pleks at 5.5 may be 'overpaid' but by how much, really? Maybe half a mil. Part of the problem is fans' fantasies about players' market value. It's like when people say that Gomez is overpaid by $3 mil; I mean, on what planet does a Scott Gomez get paid $4 million? Like Pleks, looked at objectively, he is worth somewhere in the $5-5.5 million range. I don't want to sound like a mindless Pleks booster. I've been skeptical of him at times, and of the danger that this was a Contract Year. Then again, he could be emerging as a sort of mini-Pavel Datsyuk. There's an element of risk, but sure things are rarities. At some point you DO have to sign the quality players you develop especially when you have no cheap replacement to hand.

...but if he's cheaper why would he be a salary dump...?

Well, Marleau would be a great fit given team needs, if he can somehow be squeezed under the cap, which is unlikely. In a perfect world, we'd get Marleau, not Pleks. I agree as far as that goes. But rolling the dice on acquiring Marleau is a dodgy strategy because if you don't get him, you lose Pleks and are left with garbage. (Besides, the cap hit is prohibitive). As for the 'patchwork' strategy, what are your chances or signing a big-name UFA (if there are any; more and more teams are locking up their quality guys) a year after we miss the playoffs because we have no second line? The idea of keeping the space vacant and trying to wheedle a C from a cap-stretched team is interesting. But what are the odds that C will be a major upgrade on Pleks? How many teams are looking to dump a big, physical, PPG C? So ultimately, I tend to be of the 'bird in the hand' mindset when it comes to these things. But heck, I've been wrong before. BC Habsnut makes a sound point, too. Is the problem at C, or do we have a dearth of wingers who can enhance and support our mid-sized C? Keeping Pleks and upgrading on Pouliot/Kostitsyn might be a more realistic strategy. At least there you're upgrading on crap instead of rolling the dice on the slim chance of a major upgrade on a player who is already pretty damned good.

Stevie Y, one of the great winners/leaders of his era and totally immersed in the Wings' culture of success, will excel. This is crappy news as far as I'm concerned.

But there's probably lots of examples where signing the guy DID make sense. E.g., Ryan Kesler. Everyone laughed Boston out of town when they first signed Marc Savard. For God's sake, consider Mark Streit...a player who, if we'd signed him, would have made an immense difference to our club. I personally would rather we go after Marleau. But heck, he might be looking for a RAISE. 6.5-7 mil, yikes. And besides, realistically, won't he re-sign with San Jose? Other than Marleau, it's Pleks or bust. People can point to Pleks and say, 'well, we need a Jason Arnott type behind Gomez.' Yes, and I need Uma Thurman backing up my wife. Not gonna happen. It makes no sense to compare Pleks to some hypothetical player who does not exist. Compare him to the alternatives available. Hey, if you'd rather we re-sign Koivu, or sign Kyle Wellwood on a one-year deal, be my guest.

If MAB wants $2 mil, then you tell him to f*ck off. Half that, I'd consider it. Pleks...look, despite all the braying that he'd be 'overpaid' at 5.5 (ever notice how fans always think EVERYONE is overpaid once they become a UFA?) you can always trade the guy later. He brings legitimate value both offensively and defensively and teams will be interested. The point is that right now, to my knowledge, we have NO other option. None. Sign him, then concentrate on developing his replacement.

Honestly, if they buy out Hammer, MAB remains a very cheap option as a 7th defenceman/PP specialist. His shot + cap hit give him some value to us, although I concede he was used waaay too much in the playoffs. Nonetheless. Used sparingly, a useful cheap guy. Next year OB and Subban have to become lineup regulars. In OB's case, no more of this in-and-out stuff. He should be ahead of MAB on the depth chart: Markov-Spacek-Subban-Gorges-Gill-O'Byrne-MAB. (Of course, I haven't work out the righties and lefties here, but in terms of sheer on-ice performance it should go like that). Pleks will command $5.5 mil, live with it.

Our goal should be to win the Cup within Markov's window of prime performance. I'd put that at about 4 years. As I've said before, I think this is feasible, although Gauthier definitely cannot afford any mistakes. I understand the idea of trading your best player to get great assets back, but at the end of the day, when you have an elite player, you ought to try to win with him. Markov remains the anchor of this team and he will offer a tremendous mentor/buffer for Subban. Once Markov really starts to slide, Subban will be entering his prime. Sounds like a good transition to me.

Interesting. Two seasoned pros with Cup rings, working out fundamental differences...good on them. That's leadership. I was fascinated by the habs' strategy in the third period of Game 5. It was basically: dish the puck to Gomez deep in our zone every time he is on the ice, then let him lead the rush. It was impressively effective, and seems as though it could represent a legitimate offensive strategy with Gomez going forward, helping to alleviate the lack of rushing defencemen other than Markov. Thoughts?

In 1987 we lost in the semi-finals...to Philly.