The Chicoutimi Cucumber

If Hasek remains injured, then definitely Ottawa. Especially given the Sens' history of pathetic playoff collapses - if we can steal a couple from them, they might crumble ('oh nooooo it's all happening again!!!')

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOHABSGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :king: :king: :king: :king: :king: :king: :king: :king: :king:

You know, there's a case to be made for carrying two strong goalies instead of one 'star,' despite the fact that the latter has become the dominant model in the NHL for the last two decades. The simplest reason for going with two goalies is that you have some protection in case of injury - a HUGE advantage IMHO. The second reason is that even Brodeur has slumps and it's nice not to have to go down in flames just because one player has a cold streak. Think back...even the great Ken Dryden had Bunny Laroque spelling him off for about 30 games a season, while Roy's backup Brian Hayward got about the same share of starts for several years. Nowadays noone can afford to carry a Patrick Roy-type salary AND another good goalie, but the Habs are lucky enough to be in a position where they have two good cheap netminders, and this depth could prove to be an enormous asset going forward. So people need to ease up on the notion that Huet must play every single game from now until 2010.

Hip Hip Huet is UFA this summer. I say, around $2 mil with bonuses up to $3...it's hard to see another team topping that, unless the Habs make the playoffs and he steals some rounds for 'em (in which case, open the fershlugginer vault!)

That loss was IN NO WAY Aebisher's fault. He played well, every bit as well as Huet generally does. So it makes no difference. I can't believe anyone's bringing it up, actually. Gainey's official logic was that Buffalo hasn't seen Aebisher this season and he thought that might offer the Habs an edge. Seems sensible to me. People seem to forget that Abby is a legitimate NHL starter who has at least one stellar season under his belt - which is more, frankly, than Huet has. However, I do agree that Huet should be in the pipes for the fatal game against NJ. You dance with the lady that brung ya, and Huet is the reason we're in a position to make the playoffs. (Indeed, is it inconceivable that he wanted Huet well-rested and hungry for that pivotal contest?)

Both sides of this debate are right. We SHOULD be shitting bricks. The odds of our making the playoffs plunged from about 80% to about 50% in one night. But neither a Montreal loss nor TB/Atlanta victories are as guaranteed as the pessimists seem to think. The fact is, the Habs CAN at least TIE Jersey and, quite simply, need to play their very best game of the season for #82. If they do that, they'll either make it or go down proudly deserving better. And remember things could a whole heap worse - we could be Vancouver. So...let's bite our nails, lose sleep, sweat, suffer...and see. I barely slept last night. That's how bad it is.

Easy there, folks. I agree it's nerve wracking, but come on...all we need is a tie. Have faith - especially in Huet and Kovalev...

Bertuzzi is poison. I live in Vancouver, take my word for it - bad mouthing the coach, sulking whenever things don't go his way, taking stupid, undisciplined penalties...who needs it? If we can get him for a song, then sure. But Souray (which was the big rumour)?? FORGET IT!!!!!

It's cool, although a lot of the time all you get are hollers such as 'c'mon c'mon c'mon,' etc.. My favourite is when they mike the coaches - that's when you really hear some interesting analysis.

The best thing about our making the playoffs this season is that this makes us more attractive to free agents...don't be surprised if that good nucleus gets beefed up by at least one significant signing. (Arnott?) Definitely need some young D. Too bad about the loss of Hainsey, who seems to have become a stud for the Jackets. Looks like I was wrong about him, as were the Habs :puke:

Cheap shot. I despise Cherry as much as I despise their nativism; I hate anyone who allows ethnicity and raw bias to distort their assessment of performance. True, they do say bad things about French players, and they say do nice things about non-French players. But the general pattern is to inflate French talent and be, in an almost cyclical way, abusive of specific non-francophones (e.g., Koivu. Yes, he deserves criticism when in a slump. But to go from there to systematically questioning his leadership? Come ON). Does anyone remember the way they all went berserk when we traded our best defensive defenceman, Lyle Odelein, for Stephane Richer? 'BIEVENUE STEPHANE!!!' Meanwhile, no mention that we had just gutted our D of its toughest, steadiest performer and leader. Then they expressed surprise on-air that Odelein went on to become a key cog on the vaunted Jersey defence, doing EXACTLY what he did for the Habs. Or, they used to crap all over Turner Stephenson - same deal, get rid of him, he's nothing...just a Cup winner with the Devils and blood-and-guts contributor. How about Mike Keane? ENEMY OF THE QUEBECOIS NATION, run him out of town. And all he did afterwards was win Cups. F**king idiots.

I'm in BC, on Shaw, and---yep, it's RDS and their English-hating gibberish for me, all the way.

ps...could this finally be a cup year??? Oy vey. Let's not take leave of our senses.

I heartily endorse Colin's assessment. That they've ragged relentlessly on Koivu is ridiculous, and their inclination to forgive Ribeiro in particular is grotesque. I like Mitch Melnyk's argument...this is the first time in a decade that the French media have exactly ZERO influence over Habs management, and they don't like it one bit. At least Demers refrains from ATTACKING English players; his failing lies in the tendency to romanticize French guys. That's easier to swallow than, say, the unforgiveable attacks delivered on Koivu by much of the french media for his supposed 'manque de leadership' for much of this season. If it were up to these guys, we'd be a team of 100% francophones, and last overall.

That's the trouble. He plays great, then evaporates, etc.. Last season - hot and cold but basically fine; then come playoff time, he's a no-show (except for showboating in the worst possible way against the Prunes); then this season when we really need him to step up, he's vanished again...and now, a sustained run of good play. What do you do? Keep this guy? If you're a coach/GM, do you really need these headaches?

Roy was a dog in the regular season in 1986. I was one of those fans who ripped out their hair that coach Perron didn't dress Doug Soetart more often Shows what I know.

One area where this team has it all over the 1996 edition is management and coaching. Give those players to this braintrust and we're talking MORE than one Cup, by Howie Morenz.

The team that breaks my heart is the 1995-96 team, which was probably more talented than the 1993 edition. G Patrick Roy (Jose Theodore in the wings) D Odelien, Malakhov, Rivet, Quintal, Daigneault, Brisebois F Pierre Turgeon Vincet Damphousse Mark Recchi Saku Koivu Craig Conroy (!) Valeri Bure Mike Keane Darcy Tucker (!) Martin Ruscinsky Turner Stevenson Oleg Petrov Now THAT's a nucleus. If it had been left intact instead of destroyed by that drooling jackanapse Rejean Houle and his bungling sidekick Mario Blueberry, we could very well have contended for a 24th Cup somewhere in the late 1990s. Assholes. :puke: And by the way, the current team couldn't hold a candle either to the squad above OR the 1993 edition. But with all the young guns we may yet do so, in 2-3 years.

True, but all the same faith in a player has to be based on SOMETHING. Apart from his wheels, I don't know what that would be in Bulis's case. He's been in the league nine years and has never shown anything more than what he's shown with us this season. 17 goals...well, that may have *led the team* for a while, but that's precisely what's wrong with the Habs at this point, that middling talents like Bulis can do that. The player he reminds me of is Benoit Brunet, only with less grit; both were effective third-liners prone to occasional scoring streaks, and then both would revert to their usual inability to score on open nets. Nothing against the guy, but holding onto him instead of making ice time for the youngsters seems dubious to me.

Good points all...except that I honestly don't think Bob Gainey gives a tinker's fart about the media or whether the nativist francophone fan base is getting its jollies. I seriously doubt that Bob would be willing to overpay JUST because someone is French, whatever the marketing morons say about it; especially when Montreal is for francopones what Toronto is for Ontario boys, the city where family are and where they dreamed of playing growing up. Other than that, you're on the mark; I think Arnott, along with anyone else who has worked with Bob in the past, might be one of the few 'anglos' willing to come here without extra pecuniary inducement.

I'd rather have Arnott because of the physical dimension he brings, but either would be swell. On the other hand, they'd likely have to overpay any non-francophone player since Montreal is few players' destination of choice - a point in Briere's favour, surely. But I think Bob would like to get away from the 'Smurfs at Centre' shtick.

The only team I can see people preferring to face than us is the Lightning. They don't have a goalie and their D is in tatters. Other than that, we're the draw of choice. Not that players on the opposition will say that - they'll spew on about how balanced the habs are with great goaltending etc.. Doesn't mean a thing. I like our chances against Philly...that's about it. Still, the way we're playing we could at least steal a couple from Ottawa. Carolina - yikes.

Great as the Habs' recent record is, NOBODY in the conference is worrying about drawing them. Gimme a break

Bulis is far too popular on this board. Yes, he's got wheels and a sound defensive game, but really, he hasn't shown anything in his time in Montreal that would indicate that he's more than a fast third-line winger. A useful player, sure, but really - what's the big deal?

Well said, Bulis. Everyone who is all doom and gloom about this trade, based on...THREE GAMES!!!...should remember the Huet/Bonk-Garon trade. Remember, folks? Remember how everyone wanted Huet run out of town after a shaky game or two and then his extended injury? And remember all the moaning about how we gave away a number one goalie, etc., etc.. OK. NOW. Who would you rather have - Garon or Huet? An erratic starter or the best save % in hockey? And to think we got Bonk as a 'throw in.' You'd think that after that whole experience, people would be a little leery of hurling anathema upon trades based on immediate results. You'd THINK that...