BTH

But is Campbell even still involved with discipline? Why would Shanahan favour the Bruins and not the Red Wings or somebody he has ties to?

If by that you mean that I tend not to muddy logical issues with emotion and bias (relatively), then I agree with you. As for the question I posed, I don't really have an opinion. It's a complicated moral dilemma. If anything is oversimple, it's to say that abuse victims have no further moral responsibilities because they're in a fragile state. If it comes to a point where their silence is endangering others, I can understand an argument stating that they're morally accountable to act. That being said, we simultaneously need to alter our standards and expectations of their behavior and reasoning abilities. Presumably, there is some line there that can be crossed there. I could see how Hickey's argument could be defended even if I'm not necessarily a supporter of his viewpoint. For one thing, as that blog Commandant quoted pointed out, it doesn't seem like Fleury was that involved in hiring Kennedy. This article makes me like Hickey a little bit more. It's one of the first times I've seen him have an actual opinion on something. Typically, he just says what everyone else is saying.

First time I read that article but I think you misunderstood his point. "Nobody should question Fleury's decision to remain silent. What should be questioned is Fleury's continuing role in James's life. At the time of Kennedy's revelations, James was the coach of the Calgary Hitmen. He was one of the co-owners of the junior team in the Western Hockey League. One of the other owners was Theoren Fleury. Here was someone who had suffered abuse at the hands of Graham James. Here was someone who knew that James had abused other players. Here was someone who was exposing other children to the same sexual predator." He isn't blaming Fleury for keeping silent for so many years (see: the 1st sentence). He's blaming Fleury for exposing other children to somebody he knew was dangerous for them to be around (see: the rest of the paragraph). The question then is: Is trauma from past abuse an acceptable excuse for putting others in a situation where there is above average potential to be abused, when you alone possess the ability to protect them from that threat? I don't think "Not really" is such an inflammatory answer. (But then again I don't really ever get "outraged" by supposedly offensive stuff people say.) Seems like a non-issue to me unless you misinterpret what he said.

Abstract thread title. I like it. HabsWorld, pushing the boundaries of message board posting.

I don't see it as much of a gamble though. The worst case scenario just isn't that bad. So the Canadiens will have a bottom pairing d-man for 4.25M for a couple of years. The trade only looks risky if you stress about the cap implications two years from now. You know who stresses about the salary cap? LOSERS. You know who wins the Stanley Cup? Not losers. That is my motto from now on. Despite all the frenzy over every signing and trade re: players getting overpaid and handcuffing us, I challenge people to name a single player we really wanted to keep that we had to let go of because we couldn't afford him at his market value. There were some (Komisarek, Streit, Wisniewski) that we wanted to keep but that wanted more money than we (almost everyone here) thought they were worth. Some of those decisions might have even been mistakes. There was Halak, who we traded because it wasn't sensible to pay him that much to be our back up (and other reasons). But there was never a case of a core player that we just had to get rid of so that we could keep our other core players. It happened to other teams (Boston trading Kessel, Philly making all sorts of changes, maybe Buffalo and Ottawa) but only in extreme cases where teams carried several stars earning big money combined with albatross contracts, and their trades generally resulted in good returns consisting of high draft picks and blue chip prospects. By the time Montreal's up-and-coming stars get their market value, these contracts will be coming off the books or easier to move. There's just no sense in stressing over contracts when we have no idea what's going to happen over the next two years. Gauthier will make good trades, bad trades, big contracts will leave, big contracts will come, small contracts will come, small contracts will go, the team will play well, they'll play poorly, individual players will play well, play poorly... The top teams think about the short term without making any obvious sacrifices to their long term plans (e.g. trading Pacioretty for Jagr). Besides... Kaberle is coming off a 47 point season. It's too early to say he'll never be the player he once was. He's not like Gomez or Theodore, for who it's been several seasons now. He was a top pairing D last season! And currently on a hot streak.

Right, but to be so horrified at the trade as people are? This is a pretty low risk move. It doesn't warrant panic.

Imagine what the reaction to this deal would have been a year ago! Habs fans were willing to give large packages of picks and prospects for Kaberle and would have been happy to give away Spacek for free... I feel like if any other team made this trade, would be complaining about why Gauthier won't make a deal like this.

Wow, I thought the board was going to be ecstatic about this... (although I admittedly wasn't aware Kaberle was having such a bad season.) Habs just improved the team now (I'm assuming even a fallen off Kaberle is better than Spacek) while getting younger. There is a silver lining to the fact that this gives us cap troubles: it means they'll almost definitely have to get rid of Gomez. Anyway, I predicted a 2nd for Wiz type deal but this is just as good if not better since we get to increase our chances of making the playoffs without sacrificing any youth.

Martin's defensive system is obstructing Youppi from reaching his potential.

Boston, as in Claude Julien's team? They also have Chara (their version of Markov). I bet if Chara was injured, their whole team would have to change their style of play because their remaining D group would be sub par. Their team isn't all mediocrity though. They were a slightly above average team last year without Markov, Cole, Pacioretty for half the season, and Subban sucked for the first half of the season. Given all the changes that took place in the off-season, there's no question that our current team, when healthy, is better than that slightly above average team (AKA they're now a "good" team, should have no trouble making the playoffs). The thing is, with the injuries they have now, they're no better than last season, still missing Markov. With a healthy line up, I think they're one of the 10 best teams in the league on paper. Look at Markov-Emelin Gill-Gorges Weber-Subban Compared to Subban-Emelin Gill-Gorges Weber-Diaz In the first scenario, all three pairings are average to very good. In the second scenario, two of the pairings (1st and 3rd) are noticeably weak given their position on the depth chart. And finally, imagine Markov-Subban Gill-Gorges Campoli-Spacek Emelin Maybe Emelin would be playing over one of the other two, but either way, we'll not only have all our bench players on the bench, but we'll even have a decent starter on the bench. Then consider how Markov affects the PP. Look at how much difference Wisniewski made last season, and Moore made two or three seasons ago. Markov will be huge.

Markov makes a huge difference. Why is it so ridiculous to think that a team that isn't playoff quality can become so if you add a superstar at their weakest position? Isn't it obvious the impact adding that player will have? Right now, their top 6 consists of one borderline top 2 d-man, one second pairing d-man, 2 bottom pairing d-man and 2 7th d-men. Adding "one top pairing d-man" to the start of that list bumps everybody else back a notch. Add Spacek too and now both your #7s are on the bench. Campoli too and now you have another PP quarterback. Markov's also important because he's the backbone of the powerplay. Teams with All-Star goalies usually go defensive shell mode by the way. It seems to be what works best.

How did they test this, by putting it on people and then pushing them out the window?

A lot of us expect this team to compete for top 4 in the East. I don't think spending draft picks (not 1st rounders) on rental players is a bad idea. I definitely think this team can get its act together when healthy. That being said, a lottery pick would be huge for this team. It's pretty rare that a roster this deep gets their chance to grab a potential star.

Cammalleri is supposed to be a 1st line, 70+ point player. This is where Markov makes a big difference. With him, Montreal has 2 top-notch d-men and 1 elite goalie. With that, they'll be able to get by with their forwards, a very deep group that lacks an elite player.

I don't think sitting back is Jacques Martin's game plan though, he's always said he wants the Habs to be a puck possession team. It's just that with Markov out, this defence sucks and the Habs have to either run and gun, hoping they'll outscore the other teams (don't see it happening) or go into a defensive shell, relying on their PP and goaltending. With a full line up, they're a deep team. Right now, their D isn't playoff team quality. The only way to disguise that is to play all out team defence. Attacking more will probably just expose Diaz and Weber even more. This is about when Gauthier trades a 2nd rounder for a #4 d-man.

...Not sure I believe that. I was under the impression Canadian team games in the winter were pretty much the only sell outs they get.

But you need to have some reason to believe that the replacement will do better or else what good is a new set of eyes? I don't believe in downgrading your coach just to send a message to your players. If they were open to hiring Anglo coaches, there would be a better case for firing Martin.

lol @ Cucumber's sanity grinding down dealing with grumpy Habs in a losing season. I can picture you on the edge of your seat, refreshing the page, waiting for a Wamsley post. Yes and yes. I have heard the same exact criticisms made about every coach I've watched in Montreal - Martin, Gainey, Carbonneau, Julien, Therrien (I feel like I'm forgetting someone) - and will be made about every coach that comes here in the future. It's because they apply to any coach when the team is losing. You are looking at Martin's attempted solutions to losing and calling them the cause of the losing in the first place. Nobody here could deal with the situation any better than Martin can, and no French-speaking coach out there could either.

Think about the playoffs though! Every single year, 4 of these 7 teams will face each other in the first round of the playoffs and then two of them will face in the second round. There is such a small pool of teams to have first and second round playoff match ups against that you can bet there will be numerous repeats, which will lead to the building of rivalries. Agreed. Montreal is in a pretty easy division with Boston being the only really scary team (and Montreal tends to do well against them). Florida teams need us though. Those winter vacation games are huge for them. The divisions seem to be based more on time zone (North-South location) than on geographical proximity. That's why the one that stands out to me is Colorado being with all the teams on the far West.

Anyone know a good site for streaming The Walking Dead Season Two online? I plan to catch up during winter break.

Kanye West and Jay-Z are Freemasons? LMAO Where did you get that from? Symbols in their videos? Certainly not from their own mouths. Both have them have denied those claims many times. Jay-Z even has a verse dedicated to dismissing those allegations. (It's in Rick Ross ft. Jay-Z - Freemasons.) I believe I read an interview where Jay-Z pretty much admitted he inserted the demonic symbols in the On To The Next One video to troll the people that accuse him of being Illuminati. Of all the reasons to dislike Jay-Z...

That article makes it seem like Pacs is in the wrong. I believe Shanahan over him on this. That being said, they are inconsistent. 8$ at St-Sulpice, plus tip it becomes 10. But somehow it's 3$ for a bottle of Labbatt? I got screwed over.

Yep. These 7 teams are going to get very sick of each other, facing each other in the playoffs year after year. We used to marvel at how often Montreal and Boston would face in the playoffs. Not it's statistically vey probable that they continue to do so. The conferences make sense. The only two that really stand out as being strange to me are Colorado and Winnepeg (because it's weird to see them with Dallas lol). Montreal's conference contains two doormats so they'll only have to be better than one other team to make the playoffs, and one of them is the Leafs.

His opinion on when Markov will return is obviously based on what the Habs doctors tell him. If the doctors misjudged, then it's their fault. If this setback could not have been predicted by team doctors and physicians, then it's none of their faults. But there's no reason to hold Gauthier accountable for not predicting that Markov would suffer a setback.

Do people really think Crawford is a better coach though? The Habs have so few choices to pick from and most of them have already coached here and done worse than Martin has. Whether or not the Habs could use a coach is irrelevant unless they can find a better coach. I'd take Martin over Crawford any day. The reason to make that change would be if Gauthier wants to use a coaching change as a slump-ender, a short term payoff. Don't see it happening unless the Habs hit the bottom 5.