The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Hear hear! Koivu is not Mario Lemieux - he's not good enough to be effective at, say, 60%. If he struggles during camp and every shift is an act of mere survival, then the proper thing would be to stop hoping for a miracle and bite the bullet and get the surgery. That would minimize the risk of further injury to Saks AND allow the Canadiens to plan to replace him sooner rather than later. (I still say that, if Saks doesn't heal, a big trade for a bona fide #1 or #1 A centreman is our best option. That would be a genuine crisis calling for bold measures).

Sure, Roy should have his number retired LAST in the list of great Habs. Agreed. And after last year's retirees, then Dryden, Savard, Robinson...who else is there? If we agree that he's deserving, why wait until he's old and toothless? (Or dead...) 15 years is enough time to determine that he was a truly great Canadien. There's also a special factor at play here: Roy left Montreal under very unpleasant and sudden circumstances. He and Montreal (fans and organization) have never really had the chance to perform those rituals that should accrue to truly great contributors. Retiring his number in 2008 would be a cathartic experience for all concerned. I think it'd be great, a great moment. And maybe also put a decisive psychological nail in the coffin of those years of mediocrity that followed Roy's departure: closing the book on the era of darkness. I say, do it! :king:

Any 'plan' that banks on an unproven rookie exploding into a major NHL first- or second-liner is no plan at all: it's just delusional fantasy. The FACT is that this team has no proven NHL-caliber centremen of high quality except Koivu. End of story. If some miracle happens and a rookie suddenly dominates, great, but short of divine intervention we will have to make a major deal to shore up the C position if Saks can't return.

A big trade for a legit #1 C will be absolutely necessary if Saks is permanently out of commission. Why or whether it would be this one beats me (Gagne and Daze not being C, after all). I wish people would stop drooling over Daze. Why not bring back Donald Audette while we're at it.

I disagree with the last point, since Ribs is garbage anyway. So making a big move to acquire a bona fide #1 or #1A centreman would simply allow us to move either Koivu or the guy we acquire to a 1A position, once Koivu gets healthy, and finally ship Ribeiro out. The REAL reason for not making a big trade would be a reluctance to tinker with what seems to be a damned good roster with depth at most positions. Imagine how it would damage our D, say, to lose Souray or Markhov. You would only contemplate a move on that scale, then, if Saks is definitely out for a long while. If that IS the case, however, a mega-deal is preferable to any other option. We will go nowehere with Ribs or Bonk as our go-to guy at C; Plecs is too raw to ask to play that role; and remaining UFAs are third-rate at best. Best to roll the dice and at least give the team a chance to compete.

Allison!! Right, they ran him out of town in TO as a second-line C, so let's bring him here to replace our C and heart and soul guy. He can 'work on his speed' at age 32 or whatever it is! Daze!!!! Why not bring back Donald Audette while we're at it? Right, a guy with a broken down back who basically hasn't played in 4 years, he's the saviour. We didn't sign Dumont, so let's run off and sign a winger who's about X10000 higher risk when we don't need wingers anyway. Bob might try to ride out the Koivu injury in the short term by asking Ribs and Plecs and other players to step up. However, if Saks' eye doesn't look like it's getting anywhere by, say, mid-November, then signing useless and broken-down wrecks isn't the answer: a bold trade is.

Bob will wait and see. He usually does. If Saks turns out to be seriously and permanently damaged, I don't believe for one second that Gainey will accept Ribs/Bonk as our 1-2 punch down the middle. Plekanec might be given a chance to show whether he can play that role, but I doubt that Bob will tolerate that as the long-range scenario either. And I would be amazed if Bob tries to present a broken-down wreck like Daze as our 'solution.' My guess is, at that point, we would see one of Gainey's rare bold moves. Souray, Abey, maybe Ryder, these are all players with question marks around them that have some value and could be part of a package deal. More likely, he would have to surrender a young player, PLUS one or more of those guys, to get back a bona fide #1 or #1A centre. That would be nail-biting time for Habs' fans. But no WAY to we go anywhere without Koivu, given our current weakness at C.

What it's about is ratings and readership for certain loser francophone 'journalists' in the highly competitive Montreal market. Nothing more. Remember when the Habs were playing Calgary in the 1989 finals and a journalist wrote a story asserting that Pat Burns favoured English players? THAT'S the obviously crass mentality we're dealing with. This entire issue should be ignored by everybody involved - from management to fans. It's stupid. And worse, it's a total bore.

Well, obviously it's not 'important' in some metaphysical sense. It's just irritating, because it shows a sort of knee-jerk dismissal of the Habs that's a hangover from their years of suckage; I just don't see how anone who has actually thought about the team can think they're gonna do WORSE than last year, assuming a healthy Koivu. The 'too small too soft' argument, besides being one that has been thrown at practically every Habs team in history including several Cup-winners, ignores the new NHL where speed is at a premium. It's just dumb. And this unreflexive 'Habs suck' analysis comes from people who parade around as experts. But these 'experts' seldom face any accountability - they can retroactively change their opinions to fit the facts, they can just ignore idiotic statements they made in the past, they can outright contradict themselves; there's no one to call them on it. (It''s like Off the Record, where the comments of 'non experts' are frequently as good or better than the supposed professional commentators). This makes it doubly irritating when they obviously don't do more than consult prior prejudices when pronouncing on a club. They're not doing their jobs, but they still think of themselves as 'experts.' Good thing they're not building bridges.

One thing about this - we're talking about a possible loss of peripheral vision, of uncertain maginitude, in one eye. It's not like he's going around with one eyeball hanging out like a cartoon zombie. I think we should remain cautiously optimistic that Saks can make the adjustment even if one eye is, say, 80%.

Well...IF Koivu's peripheral vision doesn't come back, we could well find ourselves out of a playoff spot. I don't think people are taking this problem seriously enough. However, those idiots were presumably assuming a healthy Saks. In that case, their 'predictions' are asswipe - as others have eloquently stated

This might be the apocalypse disguised as good news. For a playmaker and smallish player to have his peripheral vision compromised...not only will it increase the odds of serious injury, but it will could undermine his passing skills. I fear there's a very real chance that Saks could struggle through much of this season, a shadow of his former self - UNLESS things improve, or the loss of p.v. is less pronounced than it sounds. (Maybe he should give Berard a call?)

Muller for Richer! Holy crap, I forgot about that one - the trade that won us a Cup by dealing a floating piece of dog-poop for a blood-and-guts 40-goal scorer and all-around leader, the man who, after Roy, was most responsible for the 1993 Cup. Richer brings to mind another nightmare of a deal: Lyle Odelein for Richer. OK...on a team with feeble D, we deal away our leader on the blueline, our only tough D-man, and our best checking defenceman and in return we get...said piece of floating dog-poop. AAAARRRRRGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I remember a quote from one of the players at the time, on being told of the deal: 'who else did we get?' 'Nuff said).

It definitely makes sense to deal an exciting prospect for a YOUNG proven all-star. I don't know how old Gagne is, but I suspect he's heading into his late 20s. If so, you can look at another 6-7 years of excellence from him; which is plenty. Therefore, I would happily trade the risk (prospect) for the sure thing. What I wouldn't do is trade a promising top-ranked prospect for anyone over the age of 30, unless the latter was a Gretzky.

Roy trade is the worst by a country mile. We traded the goalie that had won us two Cups, PLUS our only decent face-off artist and a Cup-winning heart and soul guy, for...NOTHING. However, the Turgeon-Conroy-Fitpatrick deal for Corson and Murray Baron was also a huge stinker. Granted, Corson had a couple of very effective (if injury prone) seasons for us. However: -we traded Turgeon, a 100-point man, because that idiot Mario Tremblay insisted on playing him on the third line, on the grounds that Koivu and Damphousse were better C. But Damphousse was a NATURAL WINGER!! So Turgeon could have been returned to his natural position as an offensive centreman without any problem. The trade was completely unnecessary - a response to a problem singlehandedly created by our drooling imbecile of a coach. -the trade then exposed Koivu, an unproven but spectacular young player, as our #1 centre, THE key to our offense (Vinny was more of a two-way guy at that point). Koivu almost immediately revealed his injury-prone nature, suffering the massive ACL tear that effectively ruined him as a superstar talent. -we threw away Conroy. Another of Houle's patented 'throw-ins.' This on a club that needed checking C. Jesus. Thanks, Reggie. Unlike these deals, the Recchi trade made sense at the time, with the information available to the GM. I think you can certainly say that a trade did or didn't work out, but you can't expect GMs to be soothsayers; all I ask is that their moves be reasonable and well thought-out.

Here's another angle...don't Malkin's current problems (no one knows where he is, mixed messages from his agent, possible mob issues, etc) suggest that he is the latest in that long line of supremely talented Russian head cases? Do we really want to build our franchise around a Yashin or even Pavel Bure type (or Jagr, even if he's Czech), a guy who has some unbelievable seasons but gets everyone pissed off with him, alienates teammates and fans, goes in the tank unpredictably, etc, etc.? Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-Russian or anything of the sort. But surely we want to fill our nucleus with Saku Koivu types - bona fide winners - not erratic loony tunes. Which is not to say I wouldn't make the trade. But Malkin's mental state is worth bearing mind. It's not raw talent alone that wins Cups. (Remember Richer?)

If we get rid of Bonk, who fills his appointed role as shut down checking centreman? Why make ourselves still weaker at C (our weakest position) in order to sign yet another offensive winger? (Samsonov, Kovalev, Ryder, Higgins...not to mention young guys like Perezhogin and Kostitin). So I wouldn't sign Dumont unless I had an agreement in principle with some other team, such that they would agree to trade us a legitimate first- or second-line centreman, or legitimate #2 defenceman, in exchange for one of our top-six wingers (Ryder or Dumont) plus another player or players (e.g., Souray). No WAY to I go deep into the season with a Dumont or Ryder on the third line - all that will do is drive down their value by lowering their offensive stats, as well as create possible friction within the team among players who legitimately feel that they belong on the scoring lines. It's a good problem to have. But at times like this, I thank God Gainey is in charge, and not someone who listens to the fans or (even worse) the Montreal hockey media.

What is so humiliating about getting traded for Mark Recchi?

Well, I don't think we should abdicate all critical sense. If you think a player sucks, you should say so - look how much animated and at leats half-intelligent discussion the mere statement that Ryder is overrated produced. As for the end of the distinction between lines, well, this IS the direction the Habs seem to be taking; but nothing will ever remove the distinction between a line composed of Spezza, Heatly, and Alfredsson and (say) a line of Ribeiro, Downey and Youppi. Talking about 'first line talent' is really just a way of saying we need players a cut above the ones we have now. And I think this is true in the case of C and D - we still need a #1A C and a #1A defenceman. We could just say Ryder is a second-tier forward rather than a first...maybe that would solve your problem.

It's also worth remembering that similar criticisms are ALWAYS directed at pure goal scorers. Brett Hull, one of the all-time greats, had to hear year after year that he was questionable defensively, didn't skate fast, etc.; so did the unbelievable Mike Bossy, for God's sake. Any goal scorer - at least if he isn't a power forward - gets this. What I find odd is that nobody attacks a checking forward as 'one dimensional' because he can't score goals ('all he does is shut the opposition down' is high praise, but 'all he does is score goals,' well holy cow, drum him out of town). Now I'm not saying Ryder is in the same league as Bossy and Hull. But that's the TYPE of player he is: invisible until the puck is in the net. A team that can't make room for at least one guy like that, that's a team that's off its beam.

Ryder, yeah, ship him out, he's ONLY a natural goal scorer, right? We have so many of those. It's just like the 'dump Souray' crowd...people focusing on what a player doesn't do instead of his obvious and considerable strengths. Ryder scores 30 goals with a bad back in the (notoriously dodgy) sophomore season of his career. And he gets a lot of goals on the PP, eh? Gee, what a drag. If only he were Brian Skrudland Having said that, IF we get a great player back, then sure, trade him. But there's no one on the team I WOULDN'T say that about.

Either way is good. If Bob signs him, we have more assets to package for a heavy duty C. If he doesn't, good for him for committing (within reason) to developing the young guns. We can't lose. As for TO, what the hell, there's always gonna be SOME decent players over there. It's interesting to notice how things are shaping up these days. The Canucks pick up Habs' cast-off Bulis to play as a top-6 forward...Buffalo 'star' Dumont wants to come here and we don't want him...this just shows how much more fundamentally solid our team is now. Four years ago we'd have been begging Bulis to stay, and doing cartwheels that Dumont wanted to come. Slowly but surely we are beginning to approach the league from a position of STRENGTH. And damn, it's feelin' fine.

Hear hear! It's not that Souray is a superstar. He's just (!) a big, puck-moving, hard-shooting leader on our blueline, who gets lots of points and has an Old School attitude that's all too rare in the NHL these days. Tons of character, one of the most fearsome shots in the game (even if it is erratic), physical presence, good skills. And also occasional defensive blunders so spectacular they make you want to rip your hair out. So what's more important? The handful of times a season he gets completely undressed, or the day-in, day-out qualities the man brings? 30 teams in the league would love to have Sheldon Souray. As a 3rd defenceman, he's one of the finest around. The problem in Montreal is that we're using him as our #1A guy. That's not his fault, it's the team's lack of all-star talent on D that exposes his weaknesses unnecessarily.

The pessimism may be premature, if Hickey knows what he's talking about: PAT HICKEY The Gazette; CanWest News Service contributed to this report Saturday, August 05, 2006 The Canadiens will start the season without defenceman Francis Bouillon. Bouillon, who received a hefty raise this summer, underwent knee surgery in Vail, Colo., on Wednesday and won't be able to play until the first week of November. Dr. Richard Steadman, the orthopedic surgeon who replaced team owner George Gillett's knees last winter, removed scar tissue from Bouillon's left knee. The defenceman complained of pain in the joint when he resumed skating last week. He will return to Montreal tomorrow to begin a rehabilitation program. Because he will miss only about a dozen games, the Canadiens aren't expected to make any drastic moves to replace Bouillon. The injury will give holdover Mark Streit and prospect Jean-Philippe Cote a chance to see more ice time. Streit was having knee problems of his own when the season ended, but a Canadiens' spokesman said the Swiss defenceman has recovered from tendinitis. In other medical news, the Canadiens said they expect forwards Michael Ryder and Saku Koivu to be healthy when training camp opens in mid-September. Ryder is home in Newfoundland where he is receiving treatment for a troublesome disc in his back, while the team is expecting an update next week on Koivu, whose sight is improving after he took a stick in his left eye during the playoffs.

The Souray bashers are like the Ryder bashers: out of their minds. There's not a team in the NHL that wouldn't gladly add either guy to their roster, warts and all.