The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Hee hee, that is one abysmal track record of failure at the drafting table! No wonder that franchise sucks: any prospect other than a no-brainer, they'll miss. (This doesn't bode well for Esposito). It's info like that that makes you realize just how good an organization we have here.

Pittsburgh has some very tough choices ahead. They may well be going for broke this season, because they'll have to break up this spectacular nucleus sooner than a lot of people expect. If they don't have another wave of good young players to take over, they'll slide back into the crapper; Tampa Bay is a case-study in how NOT to manage a team in the salary cap era. I doubt they'll keep Hossa, and as Carbo pointed out, that means we'll get another crack at him. Yeah. This is the thing about the team Gainey's assembling...it has no $8 million superstars. That gives us a lot more cap flexibility. and probably creates a more supple organization that can win on a consistent basis over time, a la New Jersey. I think Gainey has done this as much out of necessity as choice; clearly he's wanted to add a Big Name for some time, but hasn't been able to. Still, it has substantial benefits. It also has frustrations. Like everyone else, I'm not immune to the Guy Lafleur syndrome: the desire to see the Habs as a truly feared team, led by a truly lethal weapon like Crosby or Lecavalier or Heatly or Hossa. And I think any team worth its salt can carry at least one player like this. (More than two is too many. If I were Ottawa, I'd prefer to have a strong range of 2nd-liners rather and keep two of the Big Three). It also helps you to win - just remember Game 7 against the Bruins in 1979. No Guy Lafleur, with his ridiculously unstoppable blast from the blue-line, no 4th Cup, no all-time great dynasty. So, mixed feelings - but for sure Gainey did the right thing in not overpaying for a rental. That goes without saying.

Well, thanks, it's nice to be in that group. It's amazing to me how much more I've come to turn to this board for Habs analysis, than to the media 'experts' who for the most part don't know as much about the Habs as the more thoughtful members of this board. Partly, it's just that this board has so much more action - there's always new postings about various topics - but what really counts is that a lot of the postings are thoughtful and thought-provoking. So even living in North America, I get as much from this place as you do

The pattern has been for impending superstar UFAs to sign with their clubs to massive long-term deals. Look at all the guys who were supposed to be UFAs this summer and are now off the market. TB will have the cap space, what with Richards gone, to again open the vault for Vinnie (or else to replace Richards with a great winger like Hossa). Presumably he's comfy in the sun and on the beach. And who knows how good or bad the Lightning will be by then. We all *assume* he'd want to 'come home' to Quebec, but the Briere example shows what a crock that can be - these guys are just as likely to be fully aware of the pressures and craziness of being a French canadian superstar and run in the opposite direction. And even if he doesn't want to re-sign in Tampa, he will be hotly pursued by every team under the sun, including that cluster of teams that seem, for some reason, to have a magnetic hold on free agents: e.g., the Rangers, Colorado, Detroit, Philly. Remember, to most of today's hockey players the 'mystique' of the :hlogo: and the sentimental appeal of being part of the resurgence of the greatest tradition in hockey means about as much as wiping their ass. So in short, don't bet the rent on it.

A worthy member of the classic and indispensable line of 'transitional' Habs goalies, who tended goal and kept us in the game in those periods between the departure of one great netminder and the arrival of another. This line includes people like Gerry McNeil, maybe Gump Worsley, Denis Heron, Jeff Hackett and Brian Hayward. Good goalies who did yeoman's work and are often forgotten among the flashier names and Hall of Famers (Plante, Dryden, Roy, Theodore...Price?). Thank you Cristobal: a class act and a fine goaltender.

Vinny will re-sign in Tampa. Stop kidding yourselves.

Thanks for the link. I didn't hear the original conference, but this transcription is useful. One thing about Bob, when he speaks he's always convincing. This is really reassuring: We added the two best players in the AHL to our roster tonight. Grabovski will play, he's played great...what else can he do? Halak is the best goalie in the AHL, we decided to go with our young players" I love the frankness too: We had chances to trade Ryder over the last two months, and we felt it was a sideways move for another underacheiver Ouch! But he softens it appropriately: This hasn't been an easy year for Ryder. He's an excellent offensive player, with specific talents that are hard to find. We're trying to get Ryder working on all cylinders...it's nothing but win-win with him, and better for us if he plays better, and better for him." Plus a discreet shot, perhaps, at Atlanta's philosophy of team-building along with a message to his players about how you win: The guys here are smart, and understand the difference, we have a complete team, they didn't have one in Atlanta where Hossa was an individual without much around him..." And a direct hit on that idiot Waddell: "We've spoken with Atlanta for the last 3 days. Today they changed their demands." In other words: you're a pr*ck, Waddell. Don't love the move, but I love the Bob!

Confused. I don't see how dumping Huet makes us any better. Just can't see it. But am I overly concerned? Not really. I like Halak. Price is a total question mark at this point in my book. I think we'll be OK. Just not sure why we had to add a question mark instead of addressing a weakness. (On another note, I'm really, really tired of Montreal being a joke in media circles. You should hear how this trade is being portrayed in Vancouver - we're a minor laughing stock. This has no bearing on my assessment of the move, but it's just frustrating - for once I'd like to hear us being discussed with fear and awe, the way they're currently talking about Dallas or Pittsburgh. I also think this sort of thing hurts us in the UFA hunt, because players are generally every bit as moronic and ignorant as the media and tend to go by a team's 'image.' Not that Gainey should be swayed by that).

Hey, it's not like I'm enraged. But I don't see this as a sensible gamble. Why (partially) deplete your depth at a key position in the short term for a marginal long-term asset? I can't figure that out. I don't feel the need to give Bob the 'benefit of the doubt' because I don't see this as a major move. It won't affect us any year accept this one. But making us (at least marginally) weaker this season - that's a bizarre 'gamble' in my books.

I would have kept Huet for the dance, that's all, and then him walk for nothing. I don't see the low 2nd round pick as having such great value that it's worth thinning out our depth at G, given that we at least have a chance to do some damage in these playoffs. It's especially puzzling when you remember that Bob kept Souray, on the grounds that we needed him to achieve the pathetic goal of finishing 8th. But he wouldn't keep Huet, who could have been useful down the stretch in our new goal to actually win a round or two. So he kept the guy who could have bagged a major asset (e.g., a high 1st-round pick, perhaps) and lost him for nothing, in order to try to achieve a lame objective, while dealing the guy who got us back little of value, and who could have helped us achieve a more substantial goal. That's weird. However, as I say, if Price/Halak find the groove, we won't miss Huet any more than we missed him down the stretch last season, so hopefully it will prove only a minor irritant in the short term. In the long run, it makes no difference. The failure to get Hossa bothers me not at all - not at those prices.

Well, I don't think the loss of Huet will have any impact in the long run. But I don't see the sense in hurting yourself for no reason and minimal return in the short run, either. Huet should have remained with us as a good 'room' guy and to add to our depth in goal for our playoff drive. As for Wadell, well, if you think that Huet is a pretty good goalie and that our depth in goal was a team strength, then he did achieve one thing with his admittedly dumb trade: weakening a conference rival for the stretch run. I have full faith in Bob, but THIS was a bungle. Hopefully either Halak or Price will find the zone and this bungle will prove to be insignificant. But the point of trade deadline day is to strengthen your team for now or for the future, and he achieved neither.

OK. That still doesn't explain undermining our depth in nets for questionable value back. Hopefully we can resign Hossa in the summer - that was my preferred option all along - but I'm guessing Pittsburgh has a young enough club that they can afford the cap space. As discouraging as it is, stars seem to attract other stars, and Hossa may well stay in Pittsburgh because they 'have a better chance of winning' than us.

It doesn't make sense. Sure, Ryder can bring value in the playoffs. So can depth in nets. So much for that argument. If Bob wants to resign Ryder then I suppose this move acquires some logic. But then you have to ask why the hell he wants to resign Ryder, or even thinks he can. Streit you don't necessarily move, because he might be worth resigning. Sorry, I just can't see any way around the fact that Bob screwed up. All he did was weaken us in goal for the playoffs in order to gain a middling pick. Huh? I really believe (based on rumours, and the fact that this deal makes no sense) that he moved Huet in good faith thinking he had a deal with Waddell. Otherwise this would be the first deal Gainey makes that seems to have no sound thought pattern behind it. (Even Ribeiro for Ninimaa made some sense, at the time).

I still think Bob moved Huet because he thought he had a deal for Hossa. That's the only way this makes sense. I don't think it matters all that much in the long run, but you hate to see a head-scratcher like this.

If it's about the future, why not trade Ryder too? That's what wrecks the whole 'we got value for a UFA' argument. Bob got burned.

Sorry for the duplication - I posed this in the rumour thread, but I think it belongs here. I appreciate Wamsley's perspective, but it's hard to look at this and say that Gainey did not get burned. First, if the goal was to trade UFAs you can't re-sign or don't want to re-sign - which would explain the Huet trade – then WHY KEEP RYDER? Indeed, he and Huet together could have been the nucleus of an offer to beat, say, Dallas's offer for Richards. (Just an example). So that argument is a wash. If the point was to get value back for UFA assets, Bob failed to do this. We had two significant UFAs we were unlikely to resign, Huet and Ryder, and what he we got to show? One 40th overall pick (or thereabouts), while the other is still playing out the string with us, likely to vanish in the summer. If, on the other hand, the point was to move Huet to make room for Hedberg/Hossa, as had been rumoured right to the last second, then Waddell simply screwed Gainey over big-time, or Gainey screwed himself. Either Wadell misled Gainey into thinking they had a deal before he shipped out Huet, OR Gainey simply (and uncharacteristically) acted prematurely in shipping Huet to the Caps, before he had Hossa sealed and delivered. I'm guessing the first of these scenarios is closer to the truth. And I'll bet Gainey is even now letting it be known to the other GMs that Wadell is not a man of his word, just a dishonourable pr*ck. The only other possibility I can see is that Gainey came to an arbitrary decision that he wanted to unload one soon-to-be-gone UFA but not another, weakening the team's depth in nets for the stretch drive. But this makes no sense, since if they wanted to give Price the #1 job they could simply have done so. If they wanted Halak as backup they could have called him up and let Huet stew in the press box. So the only possibilities I can see are that Bob either screwed up, or got screwed. I’m betting the latter.

I appreciate Wamsley's perspective, but it's hard to look at this and say that Gainey did not get burned. First, if the goal was to trade UFAs you can't re-sign or don't want to re-sign - which would explain the Huet trade – then WHY KEEP RYDER? Indeed, he and Huet together could have been the nucleus of an offer to beat, say, Dallas's offer for Richards. (Just an example). So that argument is a wash. If the point was to get value back for UFA assets, Bob failed to do this. We had two significant UFAs we were unlikely to resign, Huet and Ryder, and what he we got to show? One 40th overall pick (or thereabouts), while the other is still playing out the string with us, likely to vanish in the summer. If, on the other hand, the point was to move Huet to make room for Hedberg/Hossa, as had been rumoured right to the last second, then Waddell simply screwed Gainey over big-time, or Gainey screwed himself. Either Wadell misled Gainey into thinking they had a deal before he shipped out Huet, OR Gainey simply (and uncharacteristically) acted prematurely in shipping Huet to the Caps, before he had Hossa sealed and delivered. I'm guessing the first of these scenarios is closer to the truth. And I'll bet Gainey is even now letting it be known to the other GMs that Wadell is not a man of his word, just a dishonourable pr*ck. The only other possibility I can see is that Gainey came to an arbitrary decision that he wanted to unload one soon-to-be-gone UFA but not another, weakening the team's depth in nets for the stretch drive. But this makes no sense, since if they wanted to give Price the #1 job they could simply have done so. If they wanted Halak as backup they could have called him up and let Huet stew in the press box. So the only possibilities I can see are that Bob either screwed up, or got screwed. I’m betting the latter.

I hope there's another deal coming. But I won't COUNT on that. To me, Gainey has known all along he wasn't going to resign Huet, and had planned all along to unload him at the deadline. Fair enough. I also think the media reaction is undervaluing Halak, who, as far as I'm concerned, showed last season that he belongs in the NHL (not to say that he's a #1, just that he will be fully adequate to take some starts for us if Price flags). More bothersome to me is that Tampa obviously wanted a goalie, and Huet has far better credentials than Mike Smith. So...couldn't we have made a deal for Richards? THAT'S why I really hope the Hossa deal, or something comparable, is in the works. Because otherwise we probably should have gotten Richards back for Huet. Nonetheless: the benefit of the doubt always goes to Bob.

Might be worth waiting until Hossa hits the UFA market. How is Ottawa going to be able to afford him anyway, with all the dough they've invested in Heatly and Spezza? They don't want to be Tampa Bay redux, do they? So perhaps the waiting game is the way to go, rather than losing picks/prospects/players - especially if you consider that according to Pierre Macguire, Waddell wants 'a player of Higgins' calibre PLUS Ryan McDonagh or Yemelin, PLUS a pick. So much for Hossa...and Waddell, f*ck you.

Remember the stories about how GMs had 'learned their lesson' when it comes to rentals? Har har de har, what a joke.

You know what that scenario reminds me of? Trading Recchi for Desjardins and Leclair...then getting Recchi back for Zubrus :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: Next time you get frustrated at Bob, remember that little doozy.

With Tanguay out and Ottawa in the hunt for Hossa, I'm definitely among the pessimists. Ottawa is desperate for a Cup and we're not - therefore they'll be willing to sacrifice more of their future than us, and therefore they should get Hossa, not us. We seem to be out of the running for Richards too, and Jokinen rumours are sparse (probably for good reason - the price on him is liable to be extreme). Dollars to dougnuts Gainey shifts his sights to a defensive forward and maybe a solid defensive defenceman.

It's a weird decision. However, there's been some thought around here that you don't do your goalies any good by punishing them for a weak goal or two by threatening to let the other guy carry the ball (i.e., 'oh gosh, if I have a mediocre outing I'm condemned to be a backup'). There's something to be said for giving a goalie a few games in which to work his way back to form - what surprises me is that they're giving Price rather than Huet this chance.

When he played for us earlier this season, from what I saw, I thought that Grabs had a chance to grow into a player of the Briere/St Louis type, albeit of a lesser order - by which I mean a late bloomer who tends to get overlooked but ends up becoming a little offensive dynamo. I fear that WE are going to turn out to be the team that overlooked him. Ultimately, though, we may be in the process of becoming what the Habs of the early '70s were - a team with so much depth in prospects that they could scatter their seeds throughout the league while retaining the best and using the rest to improve the club. If we do deal Grabovski I'll try to think of it in that light.

Sundin's 'no' is the best 'no' since the 95 referendum! That really shoots TO in the foot What a great time NOT to be a Leafs fan.