Top 100 Habs By Decade: 10. 1999-2009

In 5 short days from now, the Centennial that the Canadiens have been promoting for the last 4.5 years will actually arrive. Though this celebration has inevitably lost some steam due to relentless marketing and pre-game ceremonies for all of living memory, it would be a shame to let it pass unnoticed just because Mr. Gilett wanted to cash in before he cashed out.

In recognition of the occasion, we at Lions in Winter have been doing what we like best – making lists. As a precursor to publishing the definitive LIW top 100, we will be couting down the decades from least successful to most successful and naming our LIW top 10 players for the ten-year span. You should expect a few each day for the next few days.

1999-2009

Sorry young fans, but 1999-2009 has without much doubt the worst decade in the hisory of the Montreal Canadiens. Whether you want to look at Cups, standings, scoring or personal awards, things have been pretty thin on the ground for the Habs. Chalk it up to expanded competition, sure, but this organization has lofty standards and a middling playoff team is bottom of the barrel by most counts.

The decade has nonetheless had some very big and notable highs, and we have been lucky enough to watch some very good players grace the ice in Montreal since the turn of the Millennium. here are the LIW cream of the crop. If you don't do anything else, at least check the profile links out – the Habs have done an outstanding job with their history site.


10. Richard Zednik (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	2001-06	322	98	85	183	+2	18
Decade best (Season)	2003-04	81	26	24	50	+5	9
Habs career (Playoffs)	2002-06	21	9	7	16	+10	1
Decade best (Playoffs)	2001-02	4	4	4	8	+7	1

A stretch of reliable goalscoring peppered with promising goals. 2001-02 playoffs were the high point.


9. Tomas Plekanec(Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	2004-09	336	83	125	208	+28	9
Decade best (Season)	2007-08	81	29	40	69	+15	6
Habs career (Playoffs)	2006-09	21	4	9	13	-4	0
Decade best (Playoffs)	2007-08	12	4	5	9	-1	0

Growing into offensive role from solid defensive forward roots. This season gives him a boost.


8. Craig Rivet (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1994-2007	653	39	112	151	-1	5
Decade best (Season)	2001-02	82	8	17	25	+1	0
Habs career (Playoffs)	1997-2006	39	1	10	11	E	0
Decade best (Playoffs)	2003-04	11	1	4	5	+2	0

Stalwart on the Canadiens blueline. A generally reliable character on some shaky back ends.


7. Cristobal Huet (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	W	L	GAA	S%	SO	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	2005-08	117	58	39	2.53	0.920	11	RC, AS
Decade best (Season)	2005-06	36	18	15	2.20	0.929	7	RC
Habs career (Playoffs)	2005-06	6	2	4	2.33	0.929	0
Decade best (Playoffs)	2005-06	6	2	4	2.33	0.929	0

One of the best single seasons in Canadiens history and saving 92% of shots the rest of the time.


6. Sheldon Souray (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1999-2007	324	62	98	160	-44	11	AS
Decade best (Season)	2006-07	81	26	38	64	-28	6	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	2002-06	29	3	5	8	-7	0
Decade best (Playoffs)	2005-06	6	3	2	5	-1	0

Single-handedly revived the PP after years of toil. Never mind that he couldn't play his position very well – this is the 2000s...


5. Patrice Brisebois (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1990-2009	896	87	284	371	+5	18
Decade best (Season)	2001-02	71	4	29	33	+9	1
Habs career (Playoffs)	1992-2009	89	9	22	31	-8	3	SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	2007-08	10	1	5	6	-3	1

Tenure gets him consdieration. Despite some very rough seasons, his contribution over nearly 900 games was worthy of recognition.


4. Alexei Kovalev (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	2004-09	314	103	161	264	-11	20	AS
Decade best (Season)	2007-08	82	35	49	84	+18	5
Habs career (Playoffs)	2004-09	33	17	14	31	+1	2
Decade best (Playoffs)	2003-04	11	6	4	10	+2	1

Thrilling skill and some thrilling gamechanging nights. The best offensive player of the decade by a good margin.


3. Andrei Markov (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	2000-09	572	74	255	329	+18	11	AS
Decade best (Season)	2008-09	78	12	52	64	-2	3	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	2002-09	41	3	11	14	+3	2
Decade best (Playoffs)	2003-04	11	1	4	5	+3	1

The core of the current team. His steady improvement over the years may have seen him reach the pinnacle here with a couple more years time.


2. Jose Theodore (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	W	L	GAA	S%	SO	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1995-2006	353	141	158	2.62	0.911	23	H, V, RC, AS
Decade best (Season)	2001-02	67	30	24	2.11	0.931	7	H, V, RC, AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1996-2004	28	11	15	2.54	0.921	1
Decade best (Playoffs)	2003-04	11	4	7	2.39	0.919	1

Probably the best single stretch of goaltending I've ever seen and may ever see in 2002. Hart trophy, Vezina trophy – the main trophies won this decade by the Habs. Steady in other years (until the flop) with sold dave percentage and good shutout numbers.


1. Saku Koivu (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1995-2009	792	191	450	641	-10	35	BM, KC, AS
Decade best (Season)	2002-03	82	21	50	71	+5	5	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1996-2009	54	16	32	48	+11	1
Decade best (Playoffs)	2003-04	11	3	8	11	+1	0

Captain for the decade, as well as offensive engine throughout. Played better than his numbers seem to indicate, and his ability to ratchet it up in the playoffs will be missed.


* Awards: H = Hart trophy; V = Vezina trophy; RC = Roger Crozier trophy (save %); BM= Bill Masterton; KC = King Clancy; AS= All-star; SC = Stanley Cup.

Letting Players Go For Nothing Vs. The Desperate Grab

Because I took some shots at Jack Todd, and I guess Andre Savard, I have found myself in several arguments on the merits and pitfalls of various moves across the years.

While I can't really argue when there's a clear disagreement about the worth of a player, there are places where I think my point of view needs better airing. One area that keeps coming up again and again in arguments (and it's really getting my back up now) is faulting the GM for all the players he lets go for "nothing" – supposedly in contrast to the massive yields he could have reaped in a last minute trade. I have never accepted this line of thinking, nor will I ever, probably.

But in the interest of at least seeming open-minded, I will lay out both sides of the case as I see it.


What is nothing?

"He let the player go for nothing..."

Ah, that old chestnut. Some people would accept it outright, not me. To start with, I think we have to be clear about what we actually mean by nothing. I'll take trade vs. no trade at the deadline to provide the example. Since we have such a convenient recent example in Cristobal Huet, I'll illustrate using his case.

Cristobal Huet was not let go for nothing, not in the immediate sense of the word. Bob Gainey traded him to avoid that eventuality. He was let go for a 2nd round draft pick that eventually became Mathieu Schneider (when combined with another pick) who then became nothing.

The initial trade
What is hardly ever mentioned in this trade is that another team was involved – the Washington Capitals. The Capitals (a team behind the Canadiens in the standings) needed a goalie to sure themselves up for a playoff run. Just like the Canadiens, the Capitals in taking on Huet would be taking on a player who might amount to nothing come July 1st. In fact that is what ended up happening.

So why did the Capitals trade a 2nd round pick for nothing?

Well, they didn't. Did they? What they traded that 2nd round draft pick for was 2 whole months of Huet's services – something which amounted to 13 regular season starts and 7 in the playoffs. They traded for an 11-2 finish to the season and an being an OT goal away from the second round. It's hardly nothing. In fact, it could be argued that the latter portion of the season and the playoffs is when you most want a star player like Huet was that season.


Now, in fairness, when Huet was traded Gainey was not trading away an 11-2 record with league-leading goaltending to be followed by taking Philly to the limit. What Gainey was trading was probably more like 6 or 7 starts as a back-up and an insurance policy against a rookie who might falter or crumble under fatigue (what a radical concept). He traded a back-up option that his coach might actually use, vs. the other young guy who hadn't earned any trust yet. Not, perhaps, 11-2 and playoff heroics; but hardly nothing.

At the time it seemed a lot to give up for a 2nd round pick. In retrospect, it looks like even more.


Speculating on returns

The other trading scenario in this game is the trade unmade – hanging onto a player for 20+ games of service, all in the knowledge that come July that player might leave town.

Here things get even more interesting, because unlike Huet, Recchi and Damphousse who have values attached that we can measure and evaluate after the fact, the hypothetical trade only gets imaginary value. It tends to get very interesting indeed because often what we imagine a GM can get and what he actually can get is separated by quite a gulf.

Here take the oft-cited (frustratingly often now) example of Mark Streit.

In 2006-07, Mark Streit had a breakout season scoring 10 goals and adding 28 assists to float well up the defenceman scoring leaders list for the year. While this misleading statistic made him a hockey pool favourite, those who didn't have wool over their eyes remember that a lot of those points came as a sometimes 1st, sometimes 3rd line forward (several with Koivu as his centre).

The trend continued in 2007-08 as Streit racked up a whopping 62 points. But again at the trade deadline, it was hard to dissect whether he was a forward playing at a good second line clip 58 GP, 43 Pts or whether he was actually an elite offensive defenceman being misused by his coach. Though it was clear he was a good player, I don't think anyone could have predicted the 19 points in 18 games that followed the Huet trade – a period that vaulted him to all-star contender.

So to those who lament losing the 62-point PP wizard for nothing when we could have traded big, I ask first for you to wind back the clock and remember the time spent at forward. Seeing as Mark himself had made it clear his goal was to make his next NHL season one spent on the blueline, what Gainey had on that day was more like a 50-point defenceman with inflated stats thanks to shifts with Koivu. He had value, but a couple of notches below.

So instead of being able to fetch what free agent defender Brian Campbell did, for instance (Steve Bernier and a first rounder), Mark was in a more unproven zone. He probably fell into the league of Brad Stuart 2007-08 (a season removed from being a pretty reliable 30-point D) and Marc-Anre Bergeron (an offensive PP specialist coming off seasons of 35, then 46 points with no time at forward). Neither of these players was had for nothing (it was 2nd/4th and 3rd round picks, respectively), but neither did they return the moon.

Even assuming a generous and slightly deluded GM like Holmgren (who paid a 3rd for Modry that day), I don't think Streit would have fetched Gainey more than a 2nd round pick and a dead-end minor leaguer. Not a really franchise-changing moment lost for the Habs then.


Those last 20 games...

I have already touched on the idea that keeping a player beyond the deadline is not nothing as the infuriating ones imply it is. But there's more here. ot only is that 20+ games, it is also often the most important 20 games of the entire season.

Why? Because as frustrating as it is for fans of teams other than the Red Wings, nobody cares about anything other than Cups. And, as we know playing for the Cup isn't an open invitation, but an honour won by edging out rivals. Therefore, to trade a player, a good player, in the closing stages of the season, while the jockeying for position continues could result in missing an opportunity to luck all the way to a final (like the 2006 Oilers, say).

The 2006 Oilers might well have been on the mind actually when Bob Gainey stared down the barrel of the 2007 playoff race. That year, Sheldon Souray and Craig Rivet were both coming up for free agency and amateur capologists the world over could see that room was not there for both to be signed, not with Markov the priority.

We do know that Gainey had an eye on the future, because the smoke that indicated fire was all there to see. He was talking up his defencemen to any ears that would listen in hopes that he could get some return.

So to trade Rivet or Souray?

My choice would have been Souray, but it appears the GMs who were hearing both names chose Rivet. And like him they did, because that trade now looks like the best Habs deal in years.

Once Rivet goes a few days before the deadline, the question is no longer Rivet or Souray, but just trade Souray or not. At the time, views were mixed. Very much in the hunt for a place in February, Gainey must have wrested with the notion of trading one more of his most valuable players and risk missing the playoffs completely.

In the end, the Canadiens did miss the playoffs – a fact that makes the job of critical naysayers easy now. However, they missed on the very hurdle, on a 2-goal comeback by the Leafs in the final 20 minutes of the Canadiens season.

So you tell me, should Gainey really have given up his main offensive engine (who contributed 5 goals and 12 points over the 18 games post-deadline) when a playoff berth hung in the balance? Would we all really be talking up his-long-term vision then? Or might we, just might we criticise Gainey for giving up on a season where even the Ottawa Senators managed to finally get their playoff act in gear and become the third consecutive Canadian team in the final?

I wonder...


Damned if you do, damned if you don't

I think the reality of being the GM in Montreal is that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. With exception of that Gorges trade, which we all like now (but not so much back then), it's hard lot to please, these Montrealers.

But even in the uber-critical world of Canadiens fandom, talking about losing players for nothing is a petty game. A game I'd like to see the end of. I hope my case will convince at least a few of you of the same.


Summary of notable trades and non-trades

On a final note, I provide (because I did the research anyway) a list of some UFA dump trades and some stats from people who weren't traded – just for fodder:

UFA dump trades

Season	Playoffs?	From Habs	To Habs
98-99	Not close	Mark Recchi	Dainnius Zubrus, 2 conditional picks
98-99	Not close	Vincent Damphousse	1st (2000), 5th (1999)
00-01	Not close	Eric Weinrich	Patrick Traverse
01-02	8th seed	Brian Savage, 3rd (2002)	Sergei Berezin
02-03	Missed by 6 points	Jeff Hackett	Niklas Sundstrom, 3rd (2003)
02-03	Missed by 6 points	Oleg Petrov	4th (2003)
02-03	Missed by 6 points	Doug Gilmour	6th (2003)
06-07	Missed on last day	Craig Rivet	Josh Gorges, 1st (2007)
07-08	1st seed	Cristobal Huet	2nd (2009)

Non-trades

Player	Season	RegS GP	G	A	Pts	PlOff GP	G	A	Pts
Alexei Kovalev	08-09	17	11	8	19	4	2	1	3
Saku Koivu	08-09	19	5	10	15	4	0	3	3
Alex Tanguay	08-09	17	6	9	15	4	0	1	1
Mark Streit	07-08	18	3	16	19	11	1	3	4
Sheldon Souray	06-07	18	5	7	12	–	–	–	–

Game #52Komisarek One Ups Rivet in Defencman 'How Not To' Department

The Canadiens Game in Review

Date: Friday February 6th, 2009
Opponent: Buffalo Sabres
Venue: HSBC Arena, Buffalo, NY

Team Stripes

Final Score: 2-3 - Loss

Habs starting goalie: Carey Price (L)
Opposition starting goalie: Ryan Miller (W)

Habs goalscorers: Saku Koivu, Roman Hamrlik
Opposition goalscorers: Jaroslav Spacek, Nathan Paetsch, Tim Connolly

Play of the game
The play you're straining to see on the press catwalk monitor...

I really liked Saku's goal. On our first PP of the night we were applying all sorts of pressure. After D'Agostini was hit by a wayward Gorges point shot in the face he was replaced by Pacioretty. Max did very well in the corner as he laid a hit and won the puck for the Habs. Koivu collected the puck in the corner and walked right out into the slot. Possibly not wanting to do all he knows how on his best friend (cross check) Rivet let Sak right in on net. The result was Saku's ninth and yet another PP goal for the Habs.

Game puck
Trophies are for the end of the year, play well in the game, you get a lovely puck...

Roman Hamrlik
The Hammer is simply on fire as of late. He has been one of our best players for a few games now and I really like what he is bringing to our team. Unfortunately the rest of the defensive corps (save a couple of exceptions) hasn't been that great recently and neither has our goaltending. Roman is setting an incredible example, but I wish more of his blue-line teammates would follow his lead.


Dome hockey team
We're going into the last minute with these 6 (and they're attached to the ice, so they're not coming off)...

Forwards

Saku Koivu
Once again Saku was our best forward. He was very energetic all night and I felt that his linemates, despite their lack of raw skill, responded very well. Koivu could have easily had a 3 or 4 point night if he had the 1st line wingers we have deprived him of since Recchi's departure. Instead Saku only got the one point, a goal. I felt that he fought all game long and that he constantly won battles against the Sabres' defencemen.

Christopher Higgins
Can you imagine if Higgins scored on just 10% of his chances? Tonight he took 5 shots, missed the net with another 2 and I think fanned on at least 3 more. He was always in the right spot and actually had a good passing game, but he should have not left the ice pointless at the end of this one. I did, however, like the energy that Chris brought to the game and I feel with a proven goal-scorer (Tanguay) on his line with Saku it should fall into place a little easier.

Maxim Lapierre
Max had a great effort tonight. I think he has earned a spot as our 3rd line centre as I find myself looking forward to his shifts. He tries so hard in every situation that I am no longer surprised that he occasionally scores and that he has won a permanent spot on the team. He had a golden chance towards the end, but unfortunately he fell on his potential breakaway. Then Rivet lifted the net off to kill any and all chances of that rush.

Defencemen

Roman Hamrlik
Roman scored a very nice goal late in the third to give the Habs hope. The refs, however, had a different plan as they soon called Kovy on the hold, but overlooked the obstruction against him. Hammer was the only Hab with a positive rating tonight and led the team in blocked-shots with 4. I never saw him out of position and as usual his pinching was bang on.

Andrei Markov
Andrei played another great game offensively as he led the team in shots with 6. He did very well at the blue-line on the PP keeping pucks in the zone. Defensively he played a solid match, but once again his +/- takes a hit thanks to yet another horrible play by Komisarek. Like Koivu longs for a winger I can bet you that Andrei longs for a partner. Can you imagine how impressive a Norris win would be knowing that he didn't play with Pronger, Rafalski or Beauchemin all year. Mike, unfortunately, played more like his ex-mentor, Craig Rivet, than anyone else present tonight.

Goaltender

Jaroslav Halak
The lack of focus after a bad goal and the inability to win us games is getting a bit tiring. How long must I watch the same display in our net before Carbo considers an alternative approach? Price let in 2 (possibly 3) goals that he should have stopped tonight. We were facing a team right behind us in the standings, one that has a goalie who is red-hot, so we needed a big performance. I can't remember the last time a goalie stole us a win and that makes doing anything considerable this year seem like a long shot. I am not saying that Halak is a lock to steal us some games, but right now I know that Price certainly isn't.



Eye-Openers
In this new section we are going to try and shed some light on certain plays or events that would otherwise go unnoticed

This section is supposed to talk about events that would otherwise go unnoticed, so I thought of talking about Laraque's return to the line-up. A lot has been made in the french media ( I wonder why?) about Georges' return as if he was a regular before his 'injury'. Well tonight I felt that he cemented his spot as a press-box observer. He did absolutely nothing all game and it was really painful to watch. RDS may tell a different story, but they are just so desperate for this story to pan out that they will dream up anything. I really don't know why we have him. Is it to fight? Didn't do that. Is it to agitate? It can't be, after all we have about 10 better players at that. Is it to score or skate? God, no. Is it to protect our players? Against who, Kaleta? Maybe it is to be intense and to always be in the middle of scrums? Nope, afraid to fight smaller players. Tonight's game was a glimpse at what Georges has done in his 52-game Habs career: absolutely nothing. I cannot believe we are wasting a roster spot for this guy. Giving up the puck and always being behind the play aren't really great ways for a player to make his mark on a game.

Overall Comments

We have to start scoring the first goal. When we don't, like tonight, we seem to implode. If the opposition also happens to score a weak one (like their first) then not only is our team playing with low-confidence, but our goalie at that point seems to be playing with none. This was a game that we could have won, a game that Buffalo, I felt, invited us to win. They managed 22 shots, 15 less than us, but were still able to hold the momentum for more than half of the game. Miller did play a strong game, but I felt that quality chances weren't really happening for us. We showed quite a bit of spirit along the boards and in the corners against what seemed to be a bit of a wimpy team, but we didn't have that fire around their net, or ours for that matter. It is a shame to lose games that you really could have won without exerting too much effort. The worst part about this loss, of course, is the fact that Buffalo is catching us fast. Eventually we are going to have to start winning more games than we lose (or at least we could start losing some in OT) because we won't be able to hold onto to our playoff spot with play like this for very long.

The Brisebois FileThe Player And Where He Fits

I have been very restrained on our friend this year I think. Last summer I was livid about the re-welcoming of Brisebois into the fold. That event alone kept this blog alive when it could have died out over a first August. But since then, I think I have been more restrained.

I can tell you I felt just as physically ill when we signed the Breezer this summer as I did last, but I kept it too myself. For one thing, I thought why rehash the same old stuff? For another, I thought – this is now a team with depth, how much harm can Brisbois do as an 8th D?

After Saturday night's win, and Tobalev's interesting game review, a comment from Dishonest John brought all the feelings welling up to the surface again. Now, I know Tobes explained his ire and this may have been done before; but for the my well-being and the benefit of new readers I would like to explain what it is that infuriates me (us) about:

a) Brisebois the player
b) The GM that keeps signing him
c) The coach that plays him more than would seem prudent

The player
Tobalev has admitted he is not unbiased, and I should do the same. There are players I like better than others. Some play the way I like hockey to be played, others less so. I don't think bias is a problem in editorial "journalism" like blogging. In fact, i feel it is an asset. If we had no opinions and biases, none of you would have any reason to visit us like you do.

When it comes to Brisebois, it would be fair to say I am biased. But, conversely, it would be unfair to say that I jumped to a conclusion about Brisebois or didn't give him a fair shake. In fact, back in 1991, Brisebois was a prospect I longed to see in the Habs lineup. I had his Laval Titan card. I knew his birthday. I could have told you all his stats. No, the fall of Brisebois was long and painful. It coincided with the fall of the Canadiens and the realization that Stanley Cup finals every 3 or 4 years were not normal – quite the opposite.


Whether it's fair or unfair that Brisebois was thrust into the number one defenceman role or not is up for debate. But, it was during this period (and also those 4 years where he would be the highest paid Montreal Canadien in the history of the team!?!) that his plummet would accelerate. Being thrust into the limelight and onto the ice for greater lengths of time exposed the fact that Brisebois could not compete with the best NHL forwards physically

At first, I was most frustrated by his weakness and misjudgments. But over time, my ire was reserved for his response to mistakes. For me the shoulder shrug and glare at the bewildered goalie of the day was enough to ruin an evening at the time. When you extrapolated his indifference to mistakes in game over a season and over many seasons, the frustration as a fan was mounting.

In fairness to the player, he has seemed to at the very least relent in his quest for headlines. He seems to want to do his job in a simple and straightforward manner now, and this certainly seems to be limiting his most obvious gaffes. There has been much more feeling of relief as his shifts end in line changes rather than faceoffs early this season than there ever used to be. And with regard to the simmering of the summer , one can hardly fault the player himself for signing an NHL contract when someone is offering (but please don't ask me to call $700,000 a pittance or call him a bargain).


Expecting (hoping for) more from management
It was commonplace for Breezer, our "number one" defenceman, to be overtaken by rookies and up and comers in the old days. There were many: Rivet, Bouillon, Robidas, Souray, Markov, Komisarek, Streit. It was frustrating to see. More frustrating was his reserved place at the top of the ice-time leaderboard amidst all the other progress around him.

It is this once again that frustrates a fan. A team of managers that had no qualms about benching and ostracizing our best even-strength goalscorer last year is now digging their heels in for this guy.

I don't think I'm alone when I say I just don't see why.

Mistakes
I fully understand the benefit of riding out mistakes with young players. I understand and endorse that approach. I would have once advocated it for this very young man. I have seen enough hockey to know that the best players are born out of the fires of their own worst crashes. It is imperative to let players fail to see if they emerge out the other side.

But if they don't emerge from the other side? If they've crashed hundreds of times and never learn? This is a puzzle. I personally don't see the benefit of riding out rookie mistakes when they are a result of the play from a player one year away from retirement (or more if he swindles the Canadiens again).

My view is that we could get the same efficacy with the same mistakes out of a youngster, say Shawn Belle or Yannick Weber (O'Byrne even) and the risk could lead to benefit. But I emplore management not to take the risk for nothing. It is akin to buying stock in GM at the moment.


I think that this frustration with management, more than anything directed at Brisebois himself (who for after most games I have been happily indifferent towards this season) is the primary source of editorial energy at the moment. I think that this too was Tobalev's impetus on Saturday. Because though he slighted Brisebois, his conclusion was that the Habs should be promoting from within – decisions which are out of Brisebois' control.

We started this summer asking to become a Stanley Cup contender. And the hope that was built over last season was a good foundation. But hope of gettng there by anyway other than luck is waning as management simply plays out the minutes. At current pace we are well past the point of asking Gainey to be proactive about reassembling a decent defensive 6. We can only hope that his reaction to Komisarek's injury will not take a further 9 games.

10 Questions

Pierre Durocher of the Journal de Montreal had 10 burning questions today about the upcoming season for the Habs. I wanted to take a look at his answers and give mine:

1) Is Carey Price ready for the NHL?

Durocher's answer: Yes.

My answer: Yes.

In my opinion, this was never the question. It should have been: Is Carey Price going to have a good enough camp to unseat two pretty good goalies in Huet and Halak?


2) How will the PP be without Souray's slapper?

Durocher's answer: Worse.

My answer: Worse.

I think, that Souray had a once-in-a-lifetime year last year. Even with him back, we would have slipped. Plus everyone knew our tricks. Hopefully, we have some more. Remember that Malakhov pass that used to work so well?


3) Who will fill the leadership void left by Rivet and Souray?

Durocher's answer: Higgins and Komisarek.

My answer: Hamrlik and Smolinski.


4) Is it a crucial season for Koivu?

Durocher's answer: Yes.

My answer: Yes.

They all are. But Koivu wants to see the team improve, and may get antsy if 13th place is on the horizon.


5) Where will Brisebois fit in?

Durocher's answer: 4th to 7th defenseman.

My answer: 7th defenseman who is slowly worked out of the team over time.

I can't see him sustaining a level worth a place for very long. Our defense is not full of Traverses and Laflammes anymore.


6) Who will play with Hamrlik?

Durocher's answer: Could be anyone.

My answer: Streit.


7) WWill Carbonneau be able to get Kovalev back on track?

Durocher's answer: Hopes so.

My answer: Won't have anything to do with Carbonneau, everything to do with Alex.

He has pride, and it was injured. I think he comes back.


8) Who will Smolinski's wingers be?

Durocher's answer: Begin and Kostopoulos. Possibly Kostitsyn.

My answer: Kovalev and Lahti.


9) What will the next controversy with the club be?

Durocher's answer: Kovalev or Dandenault ask for a trade.

My answer: Brisebois refuses to report to Hamilton.


10) Where will the Canadiens finish th e season?

Durocher's answer: 11th or worse.

My answer: 6th or better.

We will beat Buffalo at their own game this time around.





Type rest of the post here

Sheldon Souray and the leadership void

Season previews are out and it seems like the Habs have gotten worse. Some say slightly worse, some say much worse. I don't know how I would do if someone asked me to predict how each team would finish (on a deadline), but I don't think it's easy. My problem with their assessment of the Habd is not so much where they end up, as the assumptions upon which their predictions are based. The one that has got me most up in arms is the total void of leadership left behind when Rivet and Souray departed.

My issue is this: if Rivet and Souray were the leaders of the Canadiens last season (if), then where exactly were they leading us?

We were a playoff team who missed the playoffs, or a non-playoff team who almost made them. We did not clinch in February or March. We did not sweep aside our first round opponents. We did not win the Cup (right?). Our leaders led the club to the golf course.

If you base the success of a season on the final result (as most should and do), then 9 teams in the Eastern conference alone outperformed us. Chances are the 9 teams also had a better leader than we did in Rivet and Souray. Toronto had Sundin, the Rangers had Shanahan, Buffalo had Drury. But who did the Thrashers have? Well apparently, not all the leaders in the league are recognised leadership guys. Maybe Holik led them, who knows. He couldn't save the Rangers all those years, but with the right defense behind him...

Rivet and Souray may talk a good game to the cameras, but if he was so blessed in leadership, why couldn't he talk to Samsonov, Kovalev and Perezhogin?

We need to face the fact that the Habs were in disarray from February on, and Rivet and Souray nor anyone else was not leader enough to unite the troops to the cause.

So, if they weren't the solution to the problem, what were they? Well here's the unasked question:

Were Craig Rivet and Sheldon Souray part of the problem?

Rivet was traded during the slump, maybe there's something in that.

Souray was never really given an offer he would accept, maybe that was intentional.

We know Gainey cleaned house when he got rid of Dagenais, Theodore and then Ribeiro. Maybe Souray and Rivet were always slated to leave. Maybe they aren't good with the younger guys. Maybe they aren't willing to adapt (ahem, pass the puck on the PP) when the going gets rough.

I don't think it's likely that either guy was what people call a cancer in the locker room, but players that are in the plans are kept no matter what (read: Andrei Markov). Both are gone, and both have been replaced. I don't think we are too worse for wear having lost them.

All this gushing praise for their leadership and intangible qualities simply ignores the fact that the team achieved nothing of note while they were part of it.

Obviously, this implies that every player we have had in the past 14 years has been a washout. So do we throw everyone out and start over? Of course not. But I like to think that the people in charge are sticking to a plan and keeping the components they need to achieve their goals.

I look forward to a season where the team makes the playoffs, someone new speaks to the reporters and we anoint someone new the leader of the group. To the season...