Canadiens: Cristobal Huet Named NHL's Third Star of the Month
The Montreal Canadiens' success can be attributed to several factors, such as the rebirth of Alex Kovalev, their strong defensive line, or the participation of Carbonneau's four lines during big games.
But let's not forget the one at the far end of the ice, between the pipes, and we say...
The arrival of Carey Price among the Habs did raise numbers of debates about Huet's future with the team. Some arguing it was time for the Habs to complete their "youth makeover" and not resign him. Others see Huet as Price's backup, bringing even more argument about Huet’s salary of $3 million for 33-year-old backup goalie.
But at the end, it seemed that most agreed in seeing Price as the goalie of the future.
Indeed, Huet had to deal with being in the shadow of his young partner, but still being a big brother for the rookie.
But with Price sent back to the Canadiens’ AHL team in Hamilton, Huet is literarily shining like a star.
In the net for every game of the Montreal Canadiens this January, Huet earned the NHL third star of the month with a 8-2-2 record and a shutout.
Even his teammates do not understand how he doesn't get all the credits he deserves. Tomas Plekanek said in an interview that the media still consider the Habs to be weak in the net; Plekanek said he strongly disagrees.
Decisions are still on hold about which of the young guys should back him up in the net, as the coach of the goalies Roland Melanson is now back from Hamilton after spending a few days with Price.
In the big city, there are already questions about whether or not Huet will be able to stand strong for consecutive games; many fans remain skeptic. But Huet stays calm and informs the media that he played 44 consecutive games back in Switzerland.
And about Jaroslav Halak, he had not seen action since his recall from the Bulldogs and coach Carbonneau seems to think about sending Huet in both of the games this weekend in Montreal.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?