The Chicoutimi Cucumber

In one sense, you can't just 'blame Price' because the team as a whole does not look good. On the other hand, it's precisely like the Philadelphia series last year. Price goes in the tank, and the whole team suffers - plays more erratically defensively, starts rushing shots and consequently missing chances, etc.. The fact is this team, like almost any team (except Detroit, seemingly) needs to have confidence in its goalie in order to play well. Price is rattled and its disturbing the whole team. I've watched the same thing in Vancouver, where I live, every time Luongo struggles. If Price puts together a couple of games in which he makes the big saves AND avoids softies, this team will start winning again.

Can somebody explain to me what's going on with Komisarek?? Please???

Quite possible. Our success 5-on-5 all season is a good omen for the playoffs, for instance. You look at the 1986 team, they were stumbling down the stretch. So did the 1993 team. Anything can happen, assuming we make the playoffs; and we do have a reasonably deep team. However, I'm just saying we need to chill out - a lot of the agitation and proposals for radically exploding the team, or for making some big trade of young guys for some established name, which we're currently reading on this site and elsewhere, are informed by an underlying assumption that WE GOTTA WIN THIS YEAR. And that, in turn, is informed by expectations going into the season (which were not unreasonable, but which are no longer realistic, due mainly to horrible luck). Shift the expectations, folks, and you might find this year a lot less frustrating - and the future is still bright.

Good call. But you know, with his contract, the case for acquiring Lecavalier is not the slam-dunk people seem to think it is. I`m just saying.

In recent weeks, Habs Inside/Out has yielded two excellent analyses of the state of the franchise. Thought I'd share: http://habsinsideout.com/boone/15097 Boone gives a spot-on assessment of the issues around the team. He correctly identifies Price as the key and has lots of accurate, perceptive claims to make about other guys. Not a hatchet job by any means, but a fair, reasonable assessment with the conclusion that this bunch is highly unlikely to win the Cup - this year, anyway. Do yourself a favour and read it. http://habsinsideout.com/otherwing/j-t/14857 I posted this in the `Rumours`thread, but it`s so apposite that it bears repeating. In a nutshell, the Habs`Cup chances have (likely) been done in by sheer bad luck, such as horrible injuries to all of their key offseason acquisitions; and any further major moves are likely to deplete the future in the name of a patch-up job for this year`s stretch drive. All Habs fans should ponder this before rattling on about radical moves to blow up the team or to `save the season.` I think it would behoove us all to get a little more philosophical about things. Gainey made all the right moves to put together a team with a legitimate chance to win. The hockey gods simply have not smiled on us this 100th Anniversary season - that`s all. We should (basically) accept this and pull for the team we`ve got, that they can get their collective game together and gather themselves for a solid stretch drive and playoff run. It`s all coming back to the young guys like Plekanec and Higgins and Price. Let`s see if they can, at this stage in their careers, make something happen. In short, time to relax our expectations and pull for a good, still-young team. Full stop.

Probably the best analysis of the current situation, with the trade deadline in mind: http://habsinsideout.com/otherwing/j-t/14857 Basically, Bob already *made* his moves to solidify the team for a Cup run. His three major off-season acquisitions, Lang, Tanguay, and Laraque, have all been destroyed by injuries. Further major moves are likely to compromise the future, which Bob might or might not do, but certainly shouldn't do. Help, if it comes, will have to come from within: namely the guts of the players we're presently watching. (One scenario he doesn't discuss is trading Kovalev. I increasingly think this is about the only significant card left in Bob 's hand for this season).

Great poll! I voted for Price because I think his merely-average play is hurting us more than any other factor right now. When you're slumping, you really, really, need your goalie to be a rock. But I think the Kovy-Kosto heart exchange will win this contest by a mile.

I've maintained all along that Kovalev would not be re-signed (and I can't resist pointing out that this view was roundly criticized on this board after last season ). What I didn't anticipate is that it might actually help our team to move him at the deadline - I thought we'd take our lumps, try to ride him into a deep playoff run, and then let him walk. He is a playoff performer, but since we'll probably lose him anyway, it might be best to deal him in return for a puck-moving defenceman or else as part of that elusive package for a C. Or whatever. His market value, especially as an impending UFA, shouldn't be exaggerated, but it shouldn't be dismissed either; some offensively-starved team might be willing to give up assets for him (MInnesota, for instance, has a surplus of skilled defencemen and zero offence at forward). That's just how GMs are.

Thanks for that. Did I read it incorrectly, or is no habs mentioned there at all? Somehow that's depressing. Like we barely register. Loads of love for Iginla, though. And rightly so.

Komi may accept less money and longer term. Of course that carries other problems (imagine if he loses a step at age 34 and we're stuck with a $4.5 mil cap hit until age 40? ) Bob's policy has been that it's fairest to wait when signing young players: fairest both to the organization, since we don't get stuck paying big dough for promising youth that fails to pan out (imagine if Pleks had been signed after last season? - the mind boggles!!); and fairest to the player, who ends up neither with the pressure of playing up to a bloated contract when it turns out he can't deliver, and also doesn't get ripped off if his development surpasses expectations. You can disagree. But I suspect it's part of Bob's wider vision for the organization - that it deal in a fair and principled way with its 'assets,' even if this means occasionally losing players to free agency. (That's why you need a strong developmental system, to replace those guys). He's tried really hard to create a kind of coccoon-ish quality to the Montreal Canadiens, where people who come through the system are thoroughly loyal to it. This is one aspect of that, perhaps.

Price is resembling Luongo. Both came back from groin pulls, and both are failing to make the key saves at the key times, or else letting in softies since their return. It may just be a question of getting back into the groove, or it may be a psychological reluctance to put pressure on the groin (in which case you're not going to be as effective as you can be). Not coincidentally, both Montreal and Vancouver are mired in dismal slumps. I'm not saying he's wholly to blame, but he's a big part of the equation, and he needs to find 'it' soon.

In. Bob. We. Trust.

I totally agree. I don't think we need some big offensive superstar defenceman. When I say we need another puck-moving D, we need an upgrade on Gorges, not necessarily Markov 2. That's why we miss Streit, I think - not so much for the shot from the point (frankly, I never thought his shot was all that great) but for the ability to rush the puck and kindle the offence from the back end. In this respect, we need a legit top-4 puck-mover, not some Big Name All-Star. As for HelmetHead, obviously we all want that big star C, but in moving Markov to acquire him, you're basically exchanging one major weakness for another. That's a lateral move at best.

Credit to Helmethead for thinking outside the box. Nonetheless, I too find this 'trade Markov' argument too radical. Unlike many on this board, I think the Habs have a pretty good team; the debate is whether we are Cup-worthy. The emerging consensus seems to be that we probably aren't the top-tier contenders we hoped we were, mostly for the reason KoZed identifies (although the lack of a second puck-moving defenceman is an even more fundamental problem IMHO). On the other hand, we're far better than much of the hysteria on this board would suggest - almost every NHL city outside of Detroit, San Jose, Chicago, Washington and Boston would love to have our 'problems.' If we trade Markov we blow up our defence. Then we wait 3-4 years for the young studs HH mentions to grow into the role. That's not the way to win, not when your team is already a top-10 team.

Boy, I tell you, whether the Habs 'fail' to win 25 in 100 in the least of my worries. Most Leafs fans can't work out the 1-in-4 ratio anyway.

Considering that this could be career-jeopardizing, have any fans considered circulating some sort of 'best wishes' petition for this player whom so many fans seem to truly appreciate? Just asking.

Trading Lats would be the height of stupidity. A move worthy of Rejean Houle. At 21, he has the potential to become the kind of hulking top-6 power forward this organizaton desperately needs. He may or may not achieve that, but there's no way you can dismiss the possibility in his case.

KoZed has a good point. I just wouldn't blame Koivu for the lack of team toughness, that's all. 'Toughness' being defined here as a refusal to be intimidated or to back down, and to stand up for one's team-mates where called for. Ironically, to me Koivu is 'tough' in these ways, especially the first. If everyone had Koivu's heart, we'd probably have won by now. And we do have a nucleus of players - Kosto, Lapierre, Komisarek, even guys like Gorges and Bouillon and Begin who scare nobody but also absorb punishment and bounce back as strong as ever, backing down to no one - who have the requisite character. The question is whether we have enough *key players* who have these traits. This is important, because no matter how gutsy your third and fourth lines, it's your top-6 forwards and top-4 defenders who are on the ice for most of the game. If they're not tough, your team isn't. Sergei Kostitsyn probably has the right character profile, but he just hasn't been good enough this season that it makes any difference. Andrei Kostitsyn doesn't. Plekanec wants to but doesn't. Kovalev is capable of taking guys' heads off (c.f. that wonderful elbowing of Tucker) but only rises to that standard when the moon is aligned with Jupiter or something. That Markov's playoff record is horrible at least suggests that he can be intimidated off his best game. Hamrlik is solid, but sort of a gentle giant and doesn't seem to like the rough going either. Higgins is probably just too brittle to play that way consistently. Tanguay? I doubt it, but I haven't seen him in enough hard-hitting situations to know for sure. (The O'Byrne bashers might want to take note of the fact that he seems like a guy who could bring the right kind of casual toughness to the core, if he can ever become a top-4 defenceman). Most of the nucleus of this team may well be too 'soft' in the specified sense. They've shown that they can rally and play tough for specific games and stretches. But what's not clear is that they yet understand how to do it, or are willing to do it, shift in and shift out for 20-30 playoff games, which is what we'd need to win. Probably Gainey is hoping that guys like Pleks and Kostitsyn (and even Markov, now that he's in the playoffs regularly) will learn both that that's what it takes, and will be willing to grow into the role. This is a reasonable hope with young players. But it would certainly be reassuring to see them doing it day in and day out during the season.

Thanks. I e-mailed him a while back asking where he's gone...turns out he's dedicating his energy to his blog. I don't have the link here (at work) but I'll post it later today or tomorrow, if I remember. Too bad. His blog is thoughtful, but I enjoyed his contributions more as part of this overall conversation. EDIT: Wamsley01's blog: http://fantasysensehockey.blogspot.com/ No kidding this guy was an amazing contributor - he must eat, sleep, and drink hockey and hockey stats! Impressive stuff to say the least.

Yes, I remember that Ottawa claptrap too. Still, I can't see Spezza being *the man* on a Cup-winning team, at least not at this stage in his career. The difference with Richards is that Richards has indeed been that very 'man;' and that Cup run wasn't wildly aberrant, it was a logical extension of his career up to that point. Having said that, I grant that he's not big or physical, and that his +/- has been disturbingly awful-to-mediocre since the Cup run. Conversely, he's at roughly a PPG pace in Dallas (so he remains a consistent offensive producer), has a Conn Smythe, is still young and doesn't represent the long-term commitment Spezza would. I just think Richards would be a better fit than Spezza here, especially given the prevailing sense that our team has a few too many players with 'issues' like those attributed to Spezza (soft, don't have the fire in the belly, not 'leaders' etc.). But, you know, it's not like I have a hate-on for Spezza. Beyond that, Richards (or Modano) are far more likely to materialize than Spezza, given Bob's contacts in Dallas and the difficulty of trading to divisional rivals within the Conference. Finally, Spezza will cost more in terms of assets surrendered. Put it all together, that's why I favour Richards over Spezza, as far as these rumours go.

Uh...yes, I was saying that Koivu leads in the same basic manner as Sakic and Yzerman, not that he is somehow as good a player as those guys. (He might have been, but that awful ACL tear he suffered in 1995-96 ended that). The point is, as everyone has said, there's many different styles of leadership. Frankly, I would be just astounded if every single player in that dressing room - with the possible exception of Kovalev and maybe one or two of his Russian proteges - doesn't look at Saku Koivu as a living example of commitment, passion, and intensity. Gorges called him the best captain in hockey. Gainey called him a champion. I myself have watched a player who gives his all on a nightly basis (but who has, sadly, been periodically hampered by injury and the limits of size and physical endurance). He clearly asserts himself to his teammates - have you heard him miked on the ice? Clearly this guy is The Man vis-a-vis his linemates - and has always stood up for himself, within reason, on the ice. He always wants the puck at key times and more often than not delivers. That's a 'leader.' Is he the greatest player in the world? No. Should he have his number retired? No. Is he an elite #1 C? No. Is he in any way the 'problem' with this team? NO.

Koivu used to be much more aggressive, but the endless parade of injuries taught him to marshall his energies more efficiently. I for one don't particularly want him fighting and "jumping guys." With respect - did Yzerman do this? Sakic? Anyone who doubts Koivu's passion and commitment hasn't been paying attention to the last 10 years.

Great game against the kind of team the Habs can beat on most nights - a team with soft defence and no real physical edge. Nonetheless, it's great to see them play so cohesively as a team and this might be just what the doctor ordered for team confidence. I never thought I'd say these words, but what a difference Gorges makes! With him on his game, it's easy to forget that we need another puck-moving top-4 defenceman (but we still do). O"bryne was spendid. Higgins was vintage. Even Plekanec had some offensive flair. Promising signs.

Spezza is a huge talent, but he's had question marks all along about his commitment (remember when Ottawa kept sending him down to the minors because of his weak defensive game?). A quintessential soft player, it seems - although he's still young and may grow into his talent. Basically, the asking price for him is likely to be too high given that we're not an expansion team looking to get good, we want to win the Cup. Nothing indicates that he's a guy who can bring the kind of determination and leadership that can justify paying that salary, long-term, on a team that wants to win, not just be good. Richards is another story. He at least has shown that he is capable of elevating his game in the playoffs, and he is a useful and productive centre. Still, that contract is a lot to swallow. A better risk than Spezza, though, IMHO, but it's imperative that Bob not overpay. To some degree we'd be doing Dallas a favour given that contract. Still, Richards in the CH, I wouldn't complain - but say goodbye to Kovalev (either as part of the deal, or as a UFA this summer).

Thanks, Helmethead! Since you ask...I'm a decrepit old man of 38. I can't claim any *particular* hockey-related experience, I'm just a guy who's closely watched lots and lots of good Habs teams (mid-to-late 80s, early-90s) and lots and lots of bad Habs teams...plus I've lived in other cities and followed the travails of their teams and their fans...all of which might help to give a guy some perspective (I also have a PhD, which might help contibute to an 'analytical' disposition slightly at odds with the hysteria often prevalent around here - not to say that I'm immune, either ). Anyway, while I may never reach the heights of of the long-departed Wamsley01, I try.