Top 100 Habs By Decade: 6. 1929-1939

In recognition of the Canadiens Centennial next Friday, 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 counting 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.

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. Gillett wanted to cash in before he cashed out.

1929-1939

Fans from the 1990s and beyond can take some comfort from knowing that the Canadiens weren't always a win away from the Cup. The decade from 1929-39 started like 89-99, full of promise and trophies, but by mid-decade the Canadiens were in up-and-down form and had not yet found their killer instinct that was to com in later years.

There were good finishes like the back-to-back Stanley Cups and some top of the table efforts in the regular season, but this decade finds itself in sixth due to the stiff competition put forward by decades previous and following. On many other teams (Maroons, Rangers) this would have been franchise making results.

Once again, we've selected 10 players from our voting to fit the decade they best represent (no repeats). With 5 decades to come, the star power of the 1930s gives a feel of what awaits.

[Note: Each player only appears in one decade's top 10 – sorry Brisebois fans]


10. Wilf Cude (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	W	L	T	GAA	SO	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1933-41	220	82	100	38	2.65	18	AS
Decade best (Season)	1936-37	44	22	17	5	2.18	5	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1935-38	10	3	6	1	2.71	0
Decade best (Playoffs)	1936-37	5	2	3	0	2.22	0

Never blessed with a very good team in front of him, Cude made the best of a tough situation – putting up a couple of very solid seasons in the 1930s.


9. Wildor Larochelle (Not ranked in top 100, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1925-36	404	81	63	144	197
Decade best (Season)	1931-32	44	18	8	26	16
Habs career (Playoffs)	1927-35	32	6	4	10	24	2 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1930-31	10	1	2	3	8	SC

A member of the productive second wave of offense from the earliest Habs dynasty.


8. Alfred "Pit" Lepine (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1925-38	526	143	98	241	392
Decade best (Season)	1929-30	44	24	9	33	47
Habs career (Playoffs)	1927-38	41	7	5	12	26	2 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1930-31	10	4	2	6	6	SC

A talented local boy who helped greatly in winning the Stanley Cups of 1930 and 1931.


7. Johnny "Black Cat" Gagnon (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1930-40	406	115	137	252	286
Decade best (Season)	1936-37	48	20	16	36	38
Habs career (Playoffs)	1931-39	31	11	12	23	37	SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1930-31	10	6	2	8	8	SC

From rookie riding the coat-tails of Morenz and Joliat to Habs leading scorer in 1936-37 after Morenz's injury.


6. Albert "Babe" Siebert (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1936-39	125	25	38	63	130	H, AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1936-37	44	8	20	28	38	H, AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1937-39	11	2	3	5	2
Decade best (Playoffs)	1936-37	5	1	2	3	2

A converted forward, the Maroons player found new legs and talent at his new position, winning another Hart trophy and a recovery to top tier of the league for the Canadiens.


5. Georges Mantha (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1928-41	488	89	102	191	148
Decade best (Season)	1937-38	47	23	19	42	12
Habs career (Playoffs)	1929-39	36	6	2	8	24	2 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1930-31	10	5	1	6	4	SC

Versatile, mostly defensive player, deployed either up front or on D. Noted for his clean and intelligent play (which really stood out in the 1930s).


4. Sylvio Mantha (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1923-36	538	63	78	141	669	AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1929-30	44	13	11	24	108
Habs career (Playoffs)	1924-35	39	5	5	10	64	3 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1929-30	6	2	1	3	18	SC

Lynch-pin of the Canadiens defence for the early 1930s Cup dynasty years. Cup-winning captain and coach, Sylvio did it all with the Habs. His 3 Cups (tied with Joliat and Morenz) were a team record until those 1950s came along.


3. Aurele "The Might Atom" Joliat (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1922-38	655	270	190	460	771	H, AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1933-34	48	22	15	37	27	H
Habs career (Playoffs)	1923-37	46	9	13	22	66	3 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1929-30	6	0	2	2	6	SC

Brought in via trade for Newsy Lalonde. A complete player with a good nose for the net. He formed a dynamic duo with Morenz for most of his career.


2. George Hainsworth (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	W	L	T	GAA	SO	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1926-37	318	167	97	54	1.78	75	3 V, AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1930-31	44	26	10	8	1.95	8
Habs career (Playoffs)	1927-33	31	13	13	5	1.70	6	2 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1929-30	16	5	0	1	0.75	3	SC

Had big skates to fill and filled them ably. Won the first 3 Vezina trophies with 49 shutouts in 132 games. Amazing to think that 5-0-1 in the playoffs with 3 shutouts and a 0.75 GAA isn't the standout stat of his career.


1. Howie "The Stratford Streak" Morenz (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1923-37	460	257	160	417	499	3 H, AS
Decade best (Season)	1930-31	39	28	23	51	49	H
Habs career (Playoffs)	1924-34	37	13	9	22	58	3 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1929-30	6	3	0	3	10	SC

The first NHL superstar, and with good reason. He revitalised the new lower-scoring era with flashy displays of goalscoring for more than a decade. First number retired for the Habs, and anywhere.



* Awards: H = Hart trophy; V = Vezina trophy; AS= All-star; HOF = Hall of Fame; SC = Stanley Cup.

The Insufferable Gagnon Character Assassin At It Again

I've told you all about Francois Gagnon before, but let me assure you I wouldn't be writing this article today if I wasn't irate.

Yesterday, Gagnon on a slow news day once again took up his favourite topic: Andrei Kostitsyn. It's another in a long line of attacks on the player, as Gagnon slowly deteriorates into the tabloid caricature that he is now.

His piece begins:

La semaine dernière à Pittsburgh, j’ai mis table pour le match Canadien-Penguins en me posant des questions sur les chances répétées accordées à Andrei Kostitsyn et au fait que les sanctions qu’on lui imposait étaient vite levées.

Je me demandais pourquoi Guillaume Latendresse était «victime» d’une situation inverse.

L’une des raisons est certainement le manque de constance et l’impression de demi-mesure que démontre parfois Guillaume Latendresse. Trop souvent à mon goût si je peux me permettre d’en rajouter un peu.

Cela dit, le plus vieux des frères K n’est pas un exemple d’éthique de travail et de don inconditionnel de soi pour la cause et l’équipe...

While he asks whether Guillaume is suffering from a double standard while his sanctions are not lifted as promptly as AK46's, despite (what Gagnon says is) a virtual carbon copy career.

First off, I'll be clear here. I think both players should be within the top 6 players. I have been saying that since the summer, I have been consistent in my call for best hands on deck on offence. I can't say I approve of Jacques Martin's approach to teaching (punishing) young forwards, but I accept that he is probably trying to do it for rewards down the line.

I didn't want to get into an Andrei vs. Guillaume post, because who's 5 and 6 in the top 6 isn't really that relevant to me at the moment when our offence needs a 5 or a 6 to emerge at all. I approach this as a statement of the facts that have been misused, misquoted and used to mislead. Guillaume Latendresse and Andrei Kostitsyn have not, for a start, had carbon copy careers.


Opportunities

Throughout Gagnon's piece, the continual implication is that Latendresse hasn't been given a fair shake with the Habs. While, there may certainly be a case with Jacques Martin's one month of handling personnel decisions, to extend the conclusion to a career is ludicrous.

A little education on Latendresse for those (like Gagnon, and Latendresse himself!) who really can't remember past this September:

Latendresse's rookie year, he played 36 games on one of the top two lines. His longest stint was not limited to 3 or 4 games as Guillaume cries about now, but rather 18 consecutive games with Saku Koivu from game 14 to game 31 of 2006-07.

And he hasn't been deprived of chances latterly either. In 2007-08, Kostitsyn started with a 5 game audition on Grabovski's wing with Kovalev, but from games 6 to 13 in 2007-08, it was Guillaume who got first dibs on trying the Plekanec, Kovalev combination.

His single goal was to be typical of all his future auditions. Take last season for example. Far from a couple of games, Guillaume actually started the first ten games on the top line for the Habs with Koivu and Tanguay. The line was agreat success, but Carbonneau must have deemed that Koivu and Tanguay were the main catalyst (they were) as Guilaume for his 7 points, only managed one goal again.

In all, he's played 76 games on one of the top two lines, and that's to say nothing of the times he's played on Robert Lang, Bryan Smolinski and Maxim Lapierre's line and received top ice time. To say Latendresse hasn't had a fair shake, therefore, is more than a bit disingenuous, and Gagnon must know it. He's had many, at least 4 or 5 very extended long looks and each time the coaches in charge have decided against granting him the permanent freedom of that designation.

Kostitsyn isn't really so different. He too has been given chances. The main difference being that in 2007-08 he made it count to the tune of 20 goals in his last 46 games.

But know this, as well. Andrei Kostitsyn got his chance after serving an apprenticeship in the AHL of almost 3 seasons. He played 180 games in all down in Hamilton where he scored 51 goals and 71 assists. His final season was 2006-07 where (with Guillaume 2 years his junior already in the NHL) he scored 20 goals and 32 assists in 50 contests.

When he came up to the NHL and finally earned a top line position around Game 63 of the 2006-07 season, he seized his opportunity by earning 11 points in those last 18 games. What's more, for his decent points total, his line was a constant threat and Plekanec was set alight with Andrei at the side.

Even then, nothing was earned for the young Belarussian. Leading the Hamilton Bulldogs in scoring, playing inspired hockey with the entrenched number 2 centre and already acknowledged for his talent was not enough to get a pass. Nor should it have been. As mentioned, once Grabovski sunk, it was Latendresse who auditioned for the wing to complement Pleks and Kovalev. Only after 8 games of Guillaume's tantalizing size, teamed with frustratingly few goals did Carbo shift Andrei in. Though Andrei did well, he like Gui didn't explode for points. But perhaps he was saved by the fact that Plekanec and Kovalev looked better with him at their side. Carbo's rare patience wasn't tested too much either, since Kostitsyn within a month of being given the opportunity was driving the line into December.


Stats play

One of the things that most frustrated me about Gagnon's thin excuse for journalism was this:

Kostitsyn qui a joué avec Plekanec et Alex Kostitsyn pendant une saison, qui est presque toujours au sein des deux premiers trios et qui profite d’une majorité d’attaques massives affiche 53 buts en 200 matchs dans la LNH.

Latendresse? Son but de samedi était son 48e en 223 parties.

Le Québécois n’a donc marqué que cinq buts de moins que son coéquipier en dépit d’une utilisation beaucoup plus timide.

It's a classic hatchet job on the stats. Opportunity to incorporate 34 games for Andrei where he largely did nothing during his adjustment (3 G in 34 games). Opportunity to ignore assists and what we can all see with our eyes altogether. Opportunity to put similar totals side by said and say they are the same.

It's a mess. Start with the goals. 53 in 200 is not 48 in 223. Andrei's scoring 0.265 goals a game, while Gui's clocking up 0.215. it may not seem like much, except over 82 games it's 4 goals – the difference between a proven 20 goalscorer for instance, and an aspiring one.

Next the assists. I think we know hockey is more than goals by individuals. Even with all the flaws of assists as a stat, I think we can appreciate that someone with an assist has contributed somewhat to a goal. I think we can appreciate how someone with 59 career assists has done a lot more than someone with 38. Pro-rate those and you get 0.295 vs. 0.156.

But let's all be sensible here. We have been watching as well. Until 2 years ago, Andrei Kostitsyn was a name to us, but not a player. In the two seasons since, he has actually been a 26 and a 23 goalscorer and had flashes of brilliance. Guillaume on the other hand has been about as good as the day of his promotion for the past 3 years. His rookie season he was a 16 goal man, the next season the same. Last season 14 goals. Seeing him as a one-day 20 goalscorer is debate enough, putting him the proven category is daydreaming.


Gagnon called out

The one thing I take heart from is the fact that Gagnon's blog generated a lot of commentary yesterday. And, while there were plenty of sycophants hoping for a pat on the back in return, a vast number (perhaps even the majority) of readers told him largely what I just told you.

Paul Bernier said this:

Quand on a plus rien à écrire, on parle de Latendresse.

Ceux qui connaissent un tant soit peu leur hockey voient indéniablement la différence de talent brut entre AK et Latendresse. AK est en court de changer sa façon de travailler, son implication au jeu. Quand ceci arrive, un joueur est déboussolé, déstabilisé, il perd ses repères.

Croyez-moi, son jeu se replacera très bientôt, et vous ne le reconnaitrez plus.

En ce qui concerne Latendresse, il ne peut donner plus que ce qu’il a présentement. Il se place encore à 10′ de la face du gardien malgré toutes les directives et se sort systématiquement du jeu à chaque mise en échec, comme un Peewee. Le talent ne s’apprend ou ne s’achète pas, malheureusement.

Jejol8 said this:

C’est très gentil pour Latendresse… mais Kostitsyn a beaucoup, mais là vraiment beaucoup plus de potentiel et c’est la raison pour laquelle on lui donne plus de chances.

“C’tivident” non??

Teamstef said this:

Lâchez-nous avec Guillaume! Non mais sérieusement, c’est fatiguant cette histoire qui revient toujours sur la table avec les médias franco. Guillaume la victime! SVP! Andrei a déjà montré qu’il pouvait dominer. Je n’ai pas encore vû ça de Guillaume.

De toute façon, quand on est rendu à dire que Guillaime Latendresse dervait être sur le deuxième trio d’une équipe de la LNH, c’est vraiment qu’on a pas de club!

It continues...


Francois Gagnon, in his unexplained character assassination attempt on the Kostitsyns is apparently only digging his own grave. I can only assume he's consumed with it and doesn't even realise. If I ever descend into this state, I implore you all – tell me.


The Habs top lines then

All this to say, it's all nonsense. If the Canadiens want to score more goals they must stop trying to choose between Kostitsyn and Latendresse and choose the two of them. Yes Kostitsyn is ultimately the more talented, but Guilaume has his merits and at his best offers the 6th best skill set on the team.

I suppose the day that Glen Metropolit and Travis Moen stop scoring from behind the goal line is the day the coach can put his best PP out and start forming lines that will last.

Rethinking Andrei Kostitsyn

Having a good scan of the Habs universe yesterday brought me to this very salient piece on Francois Gagnon's favourite player, Andrei Kostitsyn.

Take it from me, it's nice as a blogger to find a piece you wanted to write yourself. It gives time back to watch more highlights and read more trade rumours.

Anyway, I thought the piece was very well stated, a good indictment of those who relentlessly malign the young Belarussian. The aim of its writing, would also be as my own:

"The intention of this article is not to absolve Kostitsyn. He is responsible for his play, his attitude and his work ethic. It's simply to encourage a more balanced assessment of all players regardless of their birthplace."

I think this is fair enough, don't you?

I know that Andrei's had a sluggish start to the season relative to some others, but it hasn't been as abysmal as some commentators (Brunet, Gagnon) constantly suggest that it has been.

Gagnon, never missing an opportunity to continue the agenda he set off last spring, seemed to display real elation in his headline as wrote: "Kostitsyn demoted, finally". Brunet, as you know only takes breaks from boosting Guillaume Latendresse to sling insults at the Kostitsyn brothers.

Rather than ask those commentators to find nasty things to say about 1-goal men Latendresse and Pacioretty, I would simply prefer that they back off a little on Kostitsyn, as I think many do. After all, this season is 11 games long and our top remaining goalscorer from last year is only a three-point game away from springing back onto his usual pace.


Jacques Martin's move misread?

Though Gagnon leaped on the practice alignment for his agenda-fitting headline, I think it may just be possible that Jacques Martin's move was blown out of proportion. For one thing, the "demotion" from Plekanec's line where he wasn't clicking anyway only lasted 30 minutes. In the end, Andrei played only a shade less than Latendresse at even strength, and saw a lot more ice than new golden stick Glen Metropolit, which doesn't exactly scream doghouse.

Secondly, Chipchura had been a warrior the game before, a possession centre without a finisher – the demotion for Andrei was also a nice attempt to see if Chips could benefit from some extra talent around.


Patience

As a frequent winner of my hockey pool's October standings, and a very infrequent winner of the April edition, I've learned a lot about patience. The players we rave about today will not be the same group we rave about on the eve of the important games. Nor will the players who are dogging it in our minds now there interminably.

Some patience needs to be exercised in watching and evaluating young Andrei Kostitsyn, before we boo him off the team in a trade we may regret because:

"By all accounts, the Canadiens are short a top six forward. It would be a shame to lose another one."

Apology

Just as a note on something else that the AllHabs article brought up for me. I hadn't really thought about it before, but Rocket at AllHabs puts it very well when he asks just why there hasn't been any sign of apology from the reporters who slandered (and continue to slander) the Kostitsyns as criminals:

"Both Kostitsyn brothers and Roman Hamrlik were the victims of rumours, embellished associations, and shoddy journalism by the Montreal media last season. To date, there has been no public apology for the outrageous accusations made by certain journalists and commentators. Some even continue to defame the three by referencing the false stories."

And to requote myself:

"No one really cared whether they were criminal or not, what will be remembered is that game with frenzied hacks claiming the scoop of the century – and that said scoop implicated the Belarussians. It's propaganda 101, people don't care too much about the facts. Give them a "juicy" (to borrow a term from the man himself) headline and they'll remember that."

Come to think of it, I do think an apology is due. And though I never expect one, perhaps in lieu of one, Gagnon and Brunet in particular could offer some peace for the winger trying to crack a 5.3 shooting percentage slump.

Gagnon Asks: Who Will You Blame Now?

Could be an interesting debate, but I feel the answer's already in.


Maybe Francois has missed it, maybe I'm imagining things, but from what I saw and read the people who blamed Koivu for everything wrong with their team and their failed dreams moved on to Andrei Kostitsyn some time around March.

Why Kostitsyn?

Indeed, I have asked that question myself. I suppose for people who could find ways to blame Koivu for all ills of the past 5 years, though, the question isn't why Andrei, but why not?

Coming from that angle, you can really start to narrow down the choices, and it makes it easier than justifying why (especially for players who are doing just fine, best among their peers, even). You can eliminate those that you'll never be able to get a critical mass of booers behind and those that you wouldn't ever criticise thanks to their special skills.

Why not blame:

Koivu?
We've done our work now, he's a goner. Check it out, we even dug up this really relevant Ribeiro stuff a few days before the playoffs as a going away present

Kovalev?
That committee is already established to work in cooperation with this one

Lang?
Injured and no one would buy it

Bouillon? Dandenault? O'Byrne?
As bad as they are sometimes, they don't play enough to change outcomes

Brisebois?
I can't believe how humble he is, and so strong to come back to Montreal, too (actually, same as above)

Kostopoulos? Latendresse? Lapierre? Metropolit?
Trying their best, just have limits

Markov?
He is making it hard on us. We certainly don't like that he doesn't speak French, but then he doesn't really speak at all. Plus, slamming the best player we have might make us look stupid

Price? Halak?
Can't criticise goalies, all commentators (all former goalies) will get angry

Tanguay?
Come on...

Komisarek?
Blocks like 2456 shots while playing goalie on the PP

Sergei Kostitsyn? D'Agostini? Pacioretty?
Young, learning to play in the NHL

Plekanec?
He'd probably want to sit in on meetings and table new reasons to criticise, too much work

Higgins?
Getting his trade value to sink any lower could be really counterproductive here

Hamrlik?
Good possibility, but he's oh so boring

Laraque?
He might cry to the commissioner or tell us we're not in his league

Gainey?
Doesn't react to criticism – may react by spiting us


See, you can really start to narrow down with a little view into the mind of a Saku critic:

Yup, Andrei Kostistyn really doesn't offer us any reason to not choose him. It's his own fault really. Yes he may be our best first round pick in 10 years, but in a way that's what we look for – first rounders who succeed. Plus, we could have had so many others in his place (though without Koivu, they'd be right in line for this prestigious place themselves). We can also keep our embroidered Coalition to Oust Captain Koivu (COCK) gear – we'll just think of a new "C".

There may not have been a good reason to criticise Kostitsyn in January when the Coalition to Oust Captain Koivu general meeting decided they had achieved their most recent mandate. Luckily, someone noted that being a 25-goalscorer with so many goals already, he'd probably go through a statistical slump that they could talk up no matter how he actually played. Another coalition member left smugly (with a leave it to me guys) confident that years of noticing Koivu didn't shake hands with every child would stand him in good stead to rustle up hype over a deplorable act.


The scandal

Remember the scandal? Of course you do.

Now we all call it the scandal, but of course with the benefit of the facts, we know that in terms of criminal seriousness, the Kostitsyns were not in trouble at all. Sure they were mentioned. Sure, it was a distraction (though strangely it seemed to spark wins, not losses). And of course the great organization would want to avoid things like this. But really it was pretty low-key.

Tellingly, the night before the "scandal" broke, the cartoon tabloid writers were drumming up one heck of a storm. To borrow from James Mirtle's piece on the topic:

Jacques Demers: "Honestly, there are things I know, and what looks like what's going to come out [in the papers] tomorrow, I swear to you, I thought about Mr. Beliveau tonight ... and I just hope I'm dreaming. I'm a proud Canadien, the Canadiens are my life, and I hope I'm dreaming but I don't think I am."

Michel Bergeron: "I feel the same way. It's unbelievable. Tomorrow, hockey will be second. I don't like at all what I've heard today."

Bob Hartley: "If everything we've been told is true, I've never seen that in my life. If it's true, I'm going back to Atlanta [joking]"

Michel Bergeron: "The Canadiens are my roots, and my idols, like you guys...and it looks like the foundation is going to be shaken. Not just for the Quebecois but for anyone who wears the Canadiens sweater around the country. To me, what's happened, it's unacceptable".

Cyberpresse.ca reporter Rejean Tremblay, meanwhile, said he's recently received calls from police, a lawyer and those close to the team, and that the tales he's hearing are "juicy."

Let me join with James in asking what all the fuss was about back then:

"For now, given what information we have, I think you can chalk all this up to the fact these are two young guys from another country who were caught up in the wrong crowd."

Yet the damage to the Kostistyns has been done, hasn't it?

No one really cared whether they were criminal or not, what will be remembered is that game with frenzied hacks claiming the scoop of the century – and that said scoop implicated the Belarussians. It's propaganda 101, people don't care too much about the facts. Give them a "juicy" (to borrow a term from the man himself) headline and they'll remember that.


Gagnon himself

Am I dreaming that it's Kostitsyn. Apparently not. The man asking the question in July answered his own question 2 months earlier.

May 5th, 2009 on Team 990 radio (look for it in the little player on the right hand part of the screen) – Francois Gagnon did a number on the alpha target and thought he'd throw Sergei under the same train.

And, since "Gagnon is always scrupulously fair and brilliantly analytical in his assessments of players and teams", it won't be long before the rest of the media catch up to this little trend.


Jacques Demers

Now I'm not suggesting that Jacques Demers is some kind of mastermind behind the Koivu coup or that he had anything to do with targeting Andrei Kostitsyn. But for me Jacques is a bit of a bell weather. That's to say, he seems to get swept along by whatever underlying campaign is currently ongoing.

His capacity to be down on Kostitsyn before games, in between periods and after games was amazing. It would only take 3 goals without a goal sometimes (did I mention 25-goalscorer = 1 goal every 3 games or so) to call for him to be sat down. After that news story broke, though, every penalty by Kostitsyn became a crime, every bad line change was reason for analysis and discussion, every time he passed he should have shot, every time he shot he should have passed.

And while certain players benefit from the "learning the game" excuse, there's no such excuse for Kostitsyn. He's spent that now (he of 186 NHL games). It was interesting to see how a player scoring 49 goals over two seasons could be trashed so thoroughly towards the end of this past season. It was fun when juxtaposed with the hyperbole reserved for others scoring 30 goals over – talked up as the most glorious progression a prospect has ever seen.



It will be a shame if Kostitsyn really does cop it for the lack of another lightning rod (Koivu)on the team. Perhaps Gainey thought he could protect him by bringing in the two highest paid Canadiens ever – one of whom is sure to do less than his salary, draft status, trade return or signees missed to take him would warrant. Perhaps, he'll be gone as Gagnon so rabidly asserted.

I can only hope that those who wish to spread displeasure for the sake of it – no matter what shape their coalition now takes – will be the most disappointed of all Habs "fans" this season.

Larry Robinson night: Can 'Sweet Lou' say dix-neuf?

Larry Robinson is having his number retired on Monday night. What a great way to remember one of the greatest defensemen to ever play the sport, and probably the greatest to play in Montreal.

Among the remarkable accomplishments being bandied about by blogsters and reporters ahead of the big event, the thing that stands out most is his winning of the Conn Smythe trophy in the 1978 Stanley Cup playoffs. On a team with a multiple Art Ross trophy-winner, a former 60 goalscorer, 8 future hall of famers, the most successful goalie (percentage-wise) to play post-WWII, and several Conn Smythe trophy winners and winners to be, the task was no easy feat. Perhaps even more impressive was him leading the playoffs in scoring that year.



In addition to all that Larry Robinson never once missed the playoffs. Of course, he played in a league where it was near impossible for a team like the Canadiens to ever miss, but he did keep the streak alive with the LA Kings, perhaps with a little help from Gretzky…

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of all the reports on “Big Bird”, one in particular got my attention – probably for the wrong reasons. Francois Gagnon of La Presse (aka, the sane one on 110%) wrote at length about the ceremony, but his twist (or hook, if you will) was that Larry had quite an unusual choice as announcer for his ceremony.


It turns out, of all his friends and former teammates, Larry Robinson chose Lou Lamoriello to announce at the ceremony. Gagnon briefly points out that the Canadiens maintain that the choice was up to Larry and they had no say in the matter. However, before pondering a list of possible alternates, M. Gagnon feels the need to point out that Lamoriello is an anglophone American. In what may have well been a throw away line, he states: Yet another night where French is pushed aside:

Il faut dire que la sélection de Lamoriello, un anglophone américain, mettra une fois encore de côté le français dans cette portion de la cérémonie.

While it may be puzzling to us why Robinson chose Lamoriello for a ceremony recognizing his outstanding play and contribution to the Canadiens, I’m sure it would be no mystery if we all got a chance to hear what Larry had to say about it. I can only speculate that Robinson and Lamoriello are very good friends and Larry wanted him to be there in some official capacity.

Although I don't think it was a well-thought out gibe at the Canadiens for laying the French language battle aside for a few minutes while they honour a great player, it's the recurring nature of these comments that gets me going. This could have been a story about Komisarek or Higgins after a game, or Koivu visiting children or Markov giving his first interview of the season.

Quite frankly, I could just shrug my shoulders and say “That’s just how they are”, but I don’t think that’s right. If I didn’t think it affected the team in any way, then I could let it slide, but let’s face it, it does. I think it's time the Canadiens are left alone to think about putting together a dominant season for the first time in ages. The Bell Centre should be a battleground for well fought hockey games, language battles have their place elsewhere.

Here I was innocently thinking Gagnon’s blog title “Sans ligne rouge” referred to hockey, when it may be that the red line he was referring to was the three rows of General Wolfe’s men who loosened the French hold on North America (and hence the NHL) on the plains of Abraham.

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I hope he can stick to the stuff going on the painted ice from now on.

In any case, here's to Larry and his friends having a great night...