REV-G

Ok, so isn't this absolutely insane?? And you've got to ask, is this what we're going to face every 5-6 years if we follow the NHL? I read an artice earlier today [Toronto Star-sports section] and the writer asked the question, is it time for a group of wealthy businessmen to start another pro hockey league? The reason I've picked up on his question and am rewriting it here is because I think there are many many true hockey fans who right now, and it's difficlut to find the right words here that express everyone's frustration, are so fed up and frustrated with these greedy, uncaring owners that many have been brought to the point of asking, is there anything we can do to get rid of them because it is obvious they are just thinking of themselves and no one else. And perhaps the only way to get rid of them is to start a new league, in places like Quebec city and Hamilton, and start like the WHA did many years ago, only better. If course there are negatives that go along with this idea. It would dilute the talent for sure. Current teams would see some loss of players jumping to the new league. And I'm sure there are numerous other negatives and problems. But would it be any worse than having to deal with what we have to deal with right now? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I read that last year the NHL brought in 83% of the NBA's revenue. But now they;ve lost that momentum and they will slide further away again. There have been opportunities for the NHL to move forward and these owners seem to continually shoot themselves in the foot. We lose a year of hockey in the last lockout, the owners get a salary cap and an instant 24% salary rollback for a deal that they again have locked the players out for because they say it's not fair. And coming into this lockout they couldn't sign players fast enough to contracts worth close to $100 million dollars. Insane or what? At the beginning of this lockout by the owners I don't think I favoured a side, owners or players. But I'm beginning to ask what I would do if I was in the players shoes. In the last CBA agreement the players gave in and gave up a lot. The owners were so happy and privately told people how great a victory they had won. And the players had to live with it. But it turned out it wasn't so bad after all for the players. They did much better than they expected. So now at the expiration of that CBA the owners want another immediate salary rollback and more salary cuts. If you're a player would you just give in or would you say, enough is enough, this will never end. So now, I am on the players side and personally, mainly because of all the arrogance and greed, I would support a new league and would look forward to seeing what they could do. Now, I wonder if this idea will get traction??

Depending upon how these CBA negotiations go it may be time for the NHL to find a new commissioner. I read a report the other day that stated that Bettman's legacy may be that he was the one who led the NHL into 3 lockouts. His approach seems to be, give me what I want or we lock you out. Case closed. The NHL PA removed their leader after the last mess and it may be time for the NHL to do the same. Bettman seems to be very heavy handed and I don't think that is the approach that wil be successful. At any public event he seems to be very unpopular with the fans, and I'm sure he has very few fans among the players or the media. He doesn't seem to understand that there is another way to move forward. That may be his undoing.

What makes you say that?

The Petteri Nokelainen signing is a surprise. I wonder if he was signed because there wasn't much available on the market and I believe he was our top face off man?

Eklund just wrote that he has heard and is confident Montreal is not targetting Teravanein.

At 5' 11" and 165 pounds isn't that a bit small for us to be drafting when we desperately need to get bigger?? That would be a surprise to me if they went that route. But I'm assuming that Leroux must have heard something from an inside source for him to say that.

You said something that I have been wondering about. Whoever we take at # 3, do you think if Grigorenko had not yet been selected by say the 15th or 17th pick, would we consider packaging our two 2nd round picks and try to swap with another team for their first [if it's after the 15th picks or so] and try to get Grigs?? What do you think? Would we do it and would another team think that would be a worthwhile trade down??

It's amazing how the perception of how this draft will unfold seems to change from day to day. As I've read over numerous mock drafts the majority seem to have Nail as #1, but some don't. And after that there does not seem to be much concensus at all. The top 5 picks seem to be interchangable depending on who you are reading. It wasn't that long ago, 2 weeks, that Gregorenko [sp??] from the Remparts was a small possibility to go #1 but most likely 2nd, maybe 3d. Now TSN has him down in the mid teens and others have him well out of the top 10. This is where guys who have talent for being able to pick the pretenders from the contenders can make or break a draft for a team. When I read over our first round picks during the Houle years it is embaressing. But that obviously had more to do with who Houle had put in place in the scouting department. FInally, I wonder if Dudley will be used behind the scenes and if he will/can be used at all this week in deciding what the order of our picks will be?

Today the report is that Daigneault is saying he doesn't think the Rangers have even been asked by the Canadiens for permission to speak to him and he is saying that he has had no contact with Bergevin or Therrien at all. This could be another Bob Harley is about to sign with Montreal scenario. Maybe there's no truth to it, simply a rumour and no more. Let's hope the report that Robinson has been promised an interview is true.

I would love for us to get Robinson, but this week I emailed an insider and he responded saying he didn't think Robinson was particularly interested in leaving NJ. He said he believed the comments made by Robinson's agent about Larry wanting to come to Montreal might have been because there was some concern Robinson wasn't going to be offered a contract extension and the agent's comments might have been a ploy to something done. Even still, I believe we need a strong coach for the defensemen and Robinson would be a great fit. If it's not Robinson, I wonder who else could fit that coaching position for us?

I predict that many will be very pleased at how well the team plays and how successful we end up being.

Hey, that's what I'm talking about!! GIving him a chance! You've got the spirit!

I've heard and read more than a few reporters and commentators say recently that Pittsburgh has missed the defensive schemes and system that Therrien had put in place while he was there. He was also a finalist for coach of the year in the NHL. He also coached his team in Pittsburgh to first place finishes and a berth in the finals against Detroit one of those years. He has also been spoken highly of by Sidney Crosby and Doug Gilmour, players he coached. And he has coached teams at every level to either first place finishes or championships. Let's at least give him a chance before we are so negative and critical.

Do you really think Kaberle will still be with us next season. I was thinking/expecting both Kaberle and Gomez to be gone. What do you think?

Can someone explain to me why Donald Audette was even interviewed. If he has not coached anywhere in pro hockey, other than midget??, why would we even be interviewing him???? Why spend the time and money when you have a guy like Gallant, who has done his time and has lots of coaching experience at the junior and pro level. Unless there's something we don't know that sounds very very strange to me. I wonder if he was the one who pushed for us to sign Kaberle?? That alone could be the reason.

If Edmonton does take a defenceman and then Nail goes next and we end up being able to choose between Galyenchuk and Grigerenko, my choice would be Galyenchuk. I sure hope it goes that way. For us to be able to end up with a big, skilled centerman would be just what we've needed for many years.

For the past few months I thought the draft order was pretty well established as Yakupov, Grigerenko and then Galchenyuk. A few questions. I'm reading that according to various reports Grigerenko's stock has fallen and he may be further down the list now. Is that right?? Secondly, I was really hoping we would get Galchenyuk because he is a center, very hard working, a great skater, and probably almost no threat to bolt to the KHL. What do you think the chances are of us being able to draft him at #3??

He looks like a good choice, seemingly well respected by the players. But one of the comments of the above quoted article reported: "Hawks' coach Joel Quenneville, who made the decision to cut ties with Haviland after the assistant coach had lackluster results directing the power play and penalty kill last season, said after letting him go that there had been "dysfunction" among his coaching staff during the campaign". We all know our PP has to improve if we are going to make it onto the playoffs. I wonder who is available who has a really good track record running a PP?

Personally I think this is a ridiculous thread. Michel Therrien is a very good coach and he has proved it at every level he has coached at. Some people simply refuse to look at the positive accomplishments he has achieved. For example: in junior he had a winning percentage of over 700 during a 4 year period. Shabby? I don't think so! In 2003 he led Pittsburgh’s AHL team, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, to the AHL finals. A bad coach? Not even close! The next year he coached that same AHL team to a 92 point season. Anyone would take that, gladly!! And the year after that his team started out with an AHL record of 15 straight wins and a record of 21-1-2-1, and the Penguins immediately promoted him and in his second year coaching in the NHL he was a finalist for coach of the year with a 105 point season. Was he able to do all that because he was a bad coach? If he was a bad coach he could never have accomplished those things. Instead he was voted one of the very best coaches in the NHL. And what happened after that??? Only that the next year Pittsburgh went out, under his system and coaching, and had another 102 point regular season and made it to the Stanley Cup final, where they lost a six-game series to a powerful Detroit Red Wings. Bad coaching? I don't think so. Those are facts. That is his track record. Nothing is made up. So why in the world, after a very strong front office staff went through all the interviews and could have chosen any one of the other candidates, why do you think they chose Michel Therrien? Because they wanted to fail and lose their jobs and be critized?? Maybe it was because these experienced, very good evaluators of talent, came to the conclusion that he was the best candidate and would do a great job. Let's try supporting their choice and at least give him a chance to succeed. It's a much better way to live life.

I couldn't agree with you more. Well stated!!

I think we’ve focused too much on the negatives regarding Michel Therrien so now let’s choose to look at the glass half full and see the positives that Marc Bergevin must have seen. When you look at his record Therrien has had a winning record at every level of hockey. Overall I would say that he has been very successful. In 4 seasons of coaching in the QHJML his winning percentage was an outstanding .712! In 1996 he won the Memorial cup coaching in Granby. In 1997 Michel Therrien began coaching our AHL team in Fredericton and led them to the Eastern Conference finals. In 1990-2000 he coached the Quebec Citadelles and led them to the Atlantic Division Championship. In Nov. 2000 he became the coach of the Montreal Canadiens and led them to the playoffs for the first time in 4 years. In 2001-2002 he took us to the eastern conference semi-finals. With not very good teams in Montreal his record was 77 wins, 77 loses and 36 ties. In 2003 he led the Pittsburgh’s AHL team, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, to the AHL finals. In 2004-2005 he led that team to a 92 point season. In the 2005-2006 his AHL team started out with a 21-1-2-1 record with a league record 15 straight wins. He took over the head coach position of the Pittsburgh Penguins and in his second season there he was a finalist for the Jack Adams Trophy as NHL coach of the year after leading the Penguins to 105 points and a 47-point improvement over the previous season. It was the fourth-biggest turnaround from one season to the next in NHL history. In 2007-08 Therrien's Penguins kept the same pace and earned 102 regular season points making their way to the Stanley Cup final, dropping a six-game decision to the Detroit Red Wings. I think that according to his record we have a very good coach. Better than some that we interviewed and the truth is that most likely over these past years he has grown and improved and will likely be better that he was before, not worse. So I think we have to trust Marc Bergevin and his team and begin to believe they’ve made the best decision and let’s go forward knowing we have some exciting times ahead!

So this morning I read that RDS is reporting Roy is now officially out of the running. Other than a darkhorse appearing that none of us were anticipating the media is saying it is down to to Therrien and Crawford. So why are the panel at AntiChambre pushing so hard for Therrien and why is he a finalist with our management team? I've heard and read a lot of negatives about Therrien, but let's force ourselves to look at the positive for a minute. On the positive side, what does Therrien bring to us that would cause Bergevin and his team to choose Therrien over say Crawford? There must be some things we're not seeing or not wanting to see! What do you think?

Question: who would contribute more to our team next season, Brian Gionta or Jaromir Jagr? Evidently he wants to play another year but isn't committing to Philly at this point. Would he be a good fit for us?

It's getting kind of funny hearing everyone, including me, going up and down and back and forth on this one. Some have stuck to their guns and named the guy they wanted from the beginning and stayed with it. I thought Hartley was going to be the man. Not neccessaily my first choice, but I thought he was the one we'd choose. So now that we're back to square one I think we have to admit that we really have nothing to go on other than our hopes and little bits of rumours we hear from the media, who also have gotten it wrong [with many saying last week [including me] it looked like Hartley was going to be the man]. At this point, today, after all our talk and speculation it looks like we have simply eliminated one candidate, Hartley, and we're still where we have been for a while, asking ourselves could it be Roy, Crawford, Therrien or a dark horse we didn't really think was in the running!! Personally I think we said no to Hartley, or he read between the lines, and that's why he accepted Calgary. But that's just my own gut feeling. I don't know about you, but at this point, I think I might have moved into the Roy camp. Younger, fresh, passion, fire but unproven at NHL level. But someone already stated, Deboer came from junior, and so did Dale Hunter and they both did pretty good. So for what it's worth, my top choices are now any of Roy, Lemaire or Robinson as head coach. The rest would all be second and third choices. But I do have a lot of trust in our management team led by Marc Bergevin. Hopefully this will come to a conclusion soon!!

Well said. I agree totally and I was born and raised in Montreal.