The Chicoutimi Cucumber

The puzzling thing was how well he played against TO. This shows that he's not a totally lost cause and that he CAN play well when rested and focused. I said after the TO game that Gainey should have gone with Huet for the next game, rather than throw Theo back into the fire, and last night proved me right. Theo is almost certainly very stressed and mentally exhausted at this point. We need to give Huet two or three games in a row and then put in Theo for one game...then come back with Huet... Basically: make Theo your #2 guy for 2-3 weeks. Give him lots of rest, without humiliating him. Play him sparingly, against flatter offensive teams, just as you would with a fragile but promising rookie. Don't come close to asking him to steal games or be the team's difference-maker. Then, if he's been looking consistently good in that role, slowly move him back into a 1A position, alternating with Huet for a while...and if he succeeds there, finally back to #1. Baby steps. We have a good backup, and we should take advantage of that to give Theodore some serious time to rediscover his game and his confidence.

This team's line up is stronger, on paper. We've added PROVEN (!!!!) NHL performers Bonk, Dandenault, and Kovalev, all of whom represent either lateral moves or upgrades - ON PAPER. On the ice, it's another story, due to the inexplicable implosion of José Theodore, Bonk's struggles, Zednik's disappearance, the failure of most rookies to really step up (not their fault - no good team can expect to rely on rookies), Dandenault's limitations, Markov's injury, and the more predictable regression of Mike Ribeiro. A lot of things went right with the 03 team; a lot of things have gone wrong with this one. This team should have been at least the equal of the previous one, but...that's hockey for ya.

Outstanding post, Dave. (Incidentally, I live in Port Moody and will have to check out your show). Post of the year!! :king: Interesting about Rivet. That he stuck up for the equipment guys (!) shows he's a real class act - I have even more respect for him than I did before. No wonder he and Saks are pals.

The Canes will be gassed, stoked and ready to go, filled with excitement over the arrival of Weight. The Habs will be playing the dreaded first game back from a road trip. As C3P0 might say: WE'RE DOOMED. :puke: 5-2, Canes.

[Richards will apparently demand the most money you can under this new NHL cap so the Lightning want to get rid of him by March 9th because with St. Louis and Lecavalier's contracts as they stand, they will not be able to afford it. Dumb move by the Lightning - Richards is the best of the three, night in, night out. He's also still young, so if it took surrendering a top prospect to get him, I'd do that. Is it possible that the Lightning are interested in Koivu? He'd make an ideal 2nd-line centre for them...cheaper than Richards, too. Interesting.

Does anyone have any explanation for Zed's wretchedness this season? The guy is a proven 20+-goals-a-year man, and now...nothing. What gives?

Gohabsgo, I appreciate the correction - you're right, that was Demers' main point. But I don't think it makes much sense. A leader's job is to lead, NOW. Who cares about next season? If Koivu said to me, in front of the whole room. 'Cuke, you're playing brutally, suck it up, and follow my example of on-ice excellence,' that would make an impression - there's no way I'd be going 'why should I listen to this guy? His contractual situation for next season is unclear.' Would people stop listening to a Mark Messier or a Jean Beliveau because they are likely to retire the following season? Surely not. So I think Demers is confusing the concept of a lame-duck COACH with a lame-duck captain. I question whether the latter really exists; you either have good or bad captains, period. Jackp, that's a very insightful analysis, thanks. While I think that 'waiting for legitimate opportunities' can sometimes result in too much *precious*play - i.e., the old European failure of dipsy-doodling and passing the puck but never actually driving at the net and shooting the damned thing - the Don Cherry 'shoot from anywhere' philosophy is kind of moronic as well. More importantly, it helps to explain Kovy's headspace, which will always be one of life's great mysteries.

I don't think we should go back to an all-José diet. He looked very strong all night, except on the tying goal, but he'll probably still need some time to achieve real consistency (assuming that he did turn the corner tonight, and that this wasn't just another tease). He's probably quite mentally drained, too, after these awful weeks. Give Huet the next start and then go back to José for two or three games. Don't know why people are saying the Habs looked weak tonight - as a team, they were much better 5 on 5 than they've been in some time. And they only took a couple of stupid penalties. Baby steps, but this is something they can build on at least.

Demers was in good form tonight - he argued that Koivu's bad performance is a result of his being unsigned for next year (an idea Cherry later echoed), and he also mentioned that Kovalev 1. got in a fight with begin and 2. when Julien called the team together to solict player suggestions and analysis of what had gone wrong, Kovalev attacked him saying that Julien was the coach and it was HIS job to find answers. Factor in the further fact that Kovalev criticized the Habs' D for not getting the puck to the forwards quickly enough, and it sounds as though Kovy has been a negative influence in the dressing room for a while. Given his stature on the club, that's probably EXTREMELY damaging to team chemistry. Hopefully tonight's win will help turn the page on all that. As for Koivu, I don't accept distractions over contract as an excuse, unless they're going really badly. But players are human, I suppose. Stangely, I feel better. It helps to have at least SOME explanation for the bizarre meltdown in team chemistry.

Ya gotta love Gainey. When told that the Sens were laughing at the Habs, he replied: "Les Sénateurs ne prouvent rien en battant une équipe de 10e place au mois de janvier. C'est en avril qu'ils auront un défi à relever", a lancé Gainey sans jamais hausser la voix. Loose translation: "The Senators are proving nothing by beating a 10th place team in January. The challenge for them is to do something in April," shot back Gainey without raising his voice. :king: That's a Stanley Cup champion speaking, for sure.

Well, that's an interesting perspective. The Gainey-Carbo-Jarvis tandem may indeed lead us down the poisoned chalice of defensive hockey, and that's a legitimate reason for concern about these guys. However, I have immense confidence in the long-term judgement of both Gainey and Carbonneau, not simply because of their track record at the management level but because they have been universally known as two of the smartest guys in hockey, for years and years. This hopefully means that they will implement whatever system is necessary for these players to win (and remember, Gainey himself has said he hasn't changed Julien's system as a coach). Indeed, I found Julien too conservative in the way he always dressed veterans over rookies, even if the former were playing like dogs. That showed an aversion to risk, too. But as for me what I ultimately want to see is a winning team. If it takes defensive hockey to do it, that's OK by me. :king: But I respect people who want to see the firewagon of old :hlogo:

PM Koivu is right - you can't blame Gainey for not anticipating that proven performers like Bonk, Theodore, Zednik, Dandenauly, Koivu and Kovalev would suddenly start sucking ass this season. It's ridiculous.

The big difference between a suckass Leafs team with no goaltending and a suckass Habs team with no goaltending (unless Gainey comes to his senses and dressed Huet) is that the Leafs, unfortunately, have character and grit. And they're just as desperate as we are (or ought to be). Therefore they will destroy us. 6-3 Toronto. :puke:

I'm convinced that there are serious problems in the dressing room - of the 'somebody's cuckolding some else' variety. Then there's those mysterious reports of Begin-Kovalev quarrelling. My question is, has anybody heard anything specific about serious conflicts within the team? To me, that's all that can explain a team as badly out of synch as this one seems to be, but no one seems to be bringing this possibility up...

I'm getting fed up with the hysteria on this forum. Trade Koivu, trade Theodore, trade Komisarek, trade the Bell Centre, trade Sherbrooke Street... Now it's 'is Bob Gainey safe??' Folks...the ONLY WAY the Montreal Canadiens will ever return to the upper echelons of the NHL is by creating a STABLE ORGANIZATION at the level of ownership and management, filled with people with established track records of excellence. We have these people with André Savard and Gainey. Presumably they've hired good people around them. And Gillett seems to be a serious owner. It doesn't take one or two years to raise the Titanic, which is what the Habs became under Houle and the erratic Molson's ownership. Nor does a rotating door of captains and coaches help, although sure, you do sometimes have to remove someone to make room for someone better (e.g., Savard for Gainey, Julien for Carbo). 'GETTING RID' of players, coaches, managers, and owners is not the answer. The answer is to patiently build and improve on what we have. This will take years. Stop, stop, stop looking for the 'magic bullet,' the quick fix. That way lies another decade of mediocrity.

What is wrong with people, to accuse Koivu of being lazy and having no heart? Doesn't 10 years of giving every scrap of his being for the CH prove his worth? I've never seen Koivu so low, except when he's played with injuries - and there was one season in the late 90s when he went on a 5-game point drought after the Habs had been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. So he is either hurt, or something serious has happened to demoralize him. It probably comes back to the under-discussed Begin-Kovalev quarrel several weeks back. Personally, I think somebody is sleeping with somebody else's wife, or some other really toxic thing has gone on. That, or ongoing injuries. Because this is NOT normal.

First, you can't expect to be able to trade garbage. That Bulis is a decent, hard working hockey player is precisely what makes him one of the few Habs other teams might be interested in at the moment. Second, I hope I'm wrong, but apart from last night, this guy has never shown any ability to hit the broad side of a zamboni with his shot. As a finisher he's a joke at the NHL level. This makes him a tease, because he IS able to generate chances...he just can't do anything with them. So he's a third-line player in a top-six forward's body: basically, a Patrick Sundstrom with a bit more zip. And he's never, ever shown anything more than that, on any consistent basis. So I say, trade him, with regret, but make sure you get either young talent OR a gritty character guy, a la Martin Lapointe, back. (The only question mark I have about Bulis is the slim possibility that he might find some kind of reasonable scoring touch as a centreman; so it would be worth putting him at C for a few weeks, to see if he maybe does have some actual, rather than merely illusory, offensive upside).

Humiliating your heart and soul guy (Koivu) would be idiotic, unless he is acting like a SERIOUS asshole in practice or something. Koivu has always given everything he's got - personally I still think he's injured; but if he's healthy and struggling, that's probably because he is either carrying the weight of this horrible slump on his shoulders and trying too hard, or, more likely, because he's finally become completely demoralised by the sustained crappiness and lack of effort in the team around him. Benching him would only make matters worse, in either case. Kovalev - there's nothing to be gained in humiliating him, either. He's never been the type of guy to pull a team up by its bootstraps. He'll come around when the team comes around.

While I've never seen any goalie meltdown as spectacularly (and gruesomely) as José Theodore has this season, I am reminded of certain parallels. Does anybody recall the way Patrick Roy played in...I think it was the 1992 playoffs? He looked exactly like Theodore does now - dazed and confused, horrifyingly unsure of himself, out of position, letting in beachballs. I remember one goal where a Bruin just lobbed the puck from the corner and Roy practically steered it in his own net. (The team in front of him also resembled our present team, in that the players seemed completely out of synch, with no heart, no determination, just lacklustre and baffled. They squeaked past a dismal Hartford team only to be swept by the Prunes). Our current debacle looks very much like that, only with a weaker overall roster. This is NOT to say that Theodore is about to bounce back and win us the Conn Smythe like Roy did in '93. It's just an interesting parallel, and a reminder, maybe, not to define a player by his all-time worst slump. For the record, Savard cleaned house after the season, dealing Courtnall, Richer and Corson and getting back Bellows, Muller and Damphousse - the nucleus that won us the Cup, and one of the finest feats of GMing in Habs' recent memory.

On a more serious note - it's interesting, inasmuch as it tells us that Bob believes the problem is that the players are too tense and uptight and/or not close enough to each other, as a team. Clearly, he's looking for solutions from within for this dismal malaise.

Maybe a less extreme solution would be to give him some time off, or a 'conditioning' stint in the minors. Don't humiliate him, just take him out of the pressure cooker for a while.

Theodore must be in real pain right now. To flop so disasterously, night after night, with the rep he has, and in the merciless Montreal meat-grinder...it's a hockey player hell. It really is. I pity the man. And I hope he can recover the confidence that defined him and that has totally deserted him. By season's end, dealing him may be a simple act of mercy, no more (or less) than that.

Here's what I think about Theodore. He came up as a hot young goalie and pulverized the league with his MVP season. BUT teams have now thoroughly studied him; they know his weaknesses and keep exploiting them. This is compounded by his apparent confusion over 'the new NHL" (which I find unexpected, since I thought his excellent footspeed would translate into success). Anyway, the question - still unanswered - is whether he'll be able to adjust and take his game to a new plateau, or not. It's not a matter of 'recovering his old form,' because opposing shooters have SOLVED that goalie. Patrick Roy did it, mutating from a flopping, instinctual goalie to a very sound positional one. Felix Potvin didn't do it, and petered out after some stellar seasons in TO. Can a new, improved José emerge, with different mechanics? Depends... but it could take a while.

I agree I'd like to see a real, scary heavweight. We'll see if Downey is the guy, but he sounds like another 'make do' goon. All the same, I can't see the sense in criticizing the Habs for picking him up - he's cheap and probably a reasonable gamble, all things considered. 'Bob blows' - puh-lease. Bonk is still unproven in a habs's uniform - you can't evaluate a player based on a groin injury. And nobody in a GM's chair, and I mean nobody, would have kept Garon over Theodore. Let's keep our heads here, Bob will need at least 3 or 4 years to completely turn this ship around. It's not HIS fault Theodore, Ribeiro, Zednik, and Bonk have all turned up duds this season; three of the four are proven veteran NHLers. Nor is it his fault about the injuries. Stay cool, all.

Thanks for the link. Interesting to read Bob saying that (and I paraphrase) he's not sure that all of his players understand what they're capable of doing for the team. His whole argument seems to be that these players have to reach their full potential as individual hockey players. But the players themselves may have internalized their own mediocrity, or else they're looking around for someone *else*, some other player, to take charge and lead them out of the wilderness. What he's describing, then, is a young and/or insecure team that is too accustomed to losing fully to grasp that only they have the capacity to change things - AND that they do indeed have the talent to become winners. Effecting such a cultural shift on the team will, I suspect, take a good long time. But acquiring a Stanley Cup champion veteran or two - Mike Keane types - might help the process along. Just a thought.