|
Post by Willie Dog on Jan 27, 2016 8:22:36 GMT -5
A huge issue is that since the 2007 draft, only 3 habs draftees have played 100 NHL games... that means we are not developing our own assets or drafting poorly. I also heard that we have only had 32 draft picks in that time because we would always trade picks to get rentals...
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jan 27, 2016 8:25:30 GMT -5
This is lost season. I do not advocate asset fire sale because there is no way Carey Price wants to play the remainder of his prime years on a club targeting window that opens in 2020. But the empirical record (2011-2016) confirms there is no way forward in the Stanley Cup playoffs with Plekanec and Desharnais 1-2 down the middle. Bergevin is not astute hockey man if he cannot see this and act accordingly. The GM must be the GM and Therrien preference for who plays centre in 2016-17 and future deserves no consideration. One small offensive centre must be traded. Bergevin overinvested on defense. 29 million USD on d-corps annually is not justifiable by the team play. Sure, Gilbert is gone, hopefully at the deadline. But another high price d-man should go and the obvious choice based on supply and demand is Markov. Call it a strategic fire sale. Primarily, we're talking about getting rid of guys either outside the age group of the core, or not good enough for the role MT expects. Regardless, they're not players that will get the Canadiens over the hump and they're money can be better used elsewhere. The priority is clearing cap space. However, if it means taking a contract back, hopefully it's someone that can score regardless of their age; even if it meant taking more term back than the outgoing player (see the Hartnell scenario for such a move). This is all about a quick turn around. It's not based on taking shortcuts though. It's about a purposeful cleanse of the right parts, followed by submitting to defeat by a bad season instead of fighting for mediocre. That means tank. Plummet like a rock in water. Do what's necessary to ensure a high lottery pick. This draft year looks to have some rather dynamic players - even outside the top 3. I don't want to beat around the bush though. Short term pain for long term gain. Once you're through the draft, make a bold UFA signing. This is the hardest part to pull off. We all know who the premiere ufa-to-be is. You could try and spread the new found cap space over more than one forward, but there aren't a lot of young ufas. The RFA pool is decent, but not spectacular. I've tried, briefly, to find out if there is a limit to the number of buyouts a team can have against the cap at one time. There doesn't seem to be a hard limit. Buyout rules for players over 26 are 2/3 the remainder of the total contract spread over twice the remaining years. If there are no takers for Eller and Desharnais, buy them out. DD becomes $1.1725 in space next season and the season after. Eller is the same amount over 4 years. It sucks, but it's one way of freeing up space. That's $4.65 million in space you didn't have. You could conversely offer to eat the same amount in a trade. It accomplishes the same amount of space, and perhaps you get something noteworthy back. Tampa bombed in 2013, despite good seasons from a number of players. They were undermined by poor goal tending. They got 3rd overall that year. Drouin hasn't worked out, but they got a great pick, addressed the goalie situation and rebounded quickly. That sort of turnaround can happen here if done correctly. imo, Eller would be an easy trade... big strong 3rd line centre... the issue with Larry is the expectation that he should be a scorer but he isn't. DD, I have no idea if he could be unloaded, a buyout is the only way... unless the Keebler elves get an NHL team.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 27, 2016 9:50:48 GMT -5
It could easily be argued that Price's two BIGGEST saves have been Therrien's butt and Bergevin's butt.
4 years in, Price goes down....and we're right back at 2012.
The mood is likely worse. The fans are dumbfounded....but eyes are opening....and tongues are wagging.
I can't see how Therrien and his staff survive past Game 82. If Bergevin keeps him on, there will be protests at the Bell Centre calling for both of their jobs.
I read that Bob Newhart once described stand-up comedy as "going on stage naked...and getting dressed in as dignified a manner as possible...."
That's the position in which Bergevin now finds himself.
No more hiding behind #31.
Can he be trusted to do it correctly this time around?
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jan 27, 2016 9:59:50 GMT -5
It could easily be argued that Price's two BIGGEST saves have been Therrien's butt and Bergevin's butt. 4 years in, Price goes down....and we're right back at 2012. The mood is likely worse. The fans are dumbfounded....but eyes are opening....and tongues are wagging. I can't see how Therrien and his staff survive past Game 82. If Bergevin keeps him on, there will be protests at the Bell Centre calling for both of their jobs. I read that Bob Newhart once described stand-up comedy as "going on stage naked...and getting dressed in as dignified a manner as possible...."That's the position in which Bergevin now finds himself. No more hiding behind #31. Can he be trusted to do it correctly this time around? Bergevin needs Molson to tell him to clean up this mess or he'll be looking for a job... that will motivate MB to do something. I have no issue keeping MTHead until the end of the season if it means we tank... I've gotten used to them losing (how sad is that) but MB better have a plan to clean out the dead weight, players and coaches.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 27, 2016 10:10:08 GMT -5
imo, Eller would be an easy trade... big strong 3rd line centre... the issue with Larry is the expectation that he should be a scorer but he isn't. and the contract
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Jan 27, 2016 10:33:09 GMT -5
And that's the way I'm feeling also.
Keep Therrien until the end of the season, then dump him and his staff and the minor league staff. Keep Waite and that's it.
Dump DD, Plekanec, Markov, Eller (maybe) and UFAs at the trade deadline.Get draft picks and prospects.
Look for a #1 C in the summer. Either trade, sign, or draft. Use Chucky and this new guy as your 1-2 punch down the middle.
Going to need a new #2 D also. Markov can't do it and someone has to play with PK for 25 minutes a game.
Now I said a maybe for Eller because if we can dump both DD and Pleks, we will need a #3 center and Eller can do that job. Give McCarron time to adjust to the NHL for one season (only one not three) before he has the responsibility of centering his own line. Although he does seem a natural for the defensive responsibilities.
Bergie can identify the guys that will bring him to a cup. The real core of this team which starts with the two main injuries this team had this year. Price and Gally.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 27, 2016 11:32:46 GMT -5
Just heard on TSN690...
The drafts from 2008 to 2012 have us near the bottom of the league in terms of number of players who have appeared in 100+ games. We have 3. Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, and Gallagher.
I heard numbers as high as 11...and many teams with 8 and 7.
We have to hope 2013-16 hold more promise....
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 11:39:01 GMT -5
Just heard on TSN690... The drafts from 2008 to 2012 have us near the bottom of the league in terms of number of players who have appeared in 100+ games. We have 3. Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, and Gallagher. I heard numbers as high as 11...and many teams with 8 and 7. We have to hope 2013-16 hold more promise.... Get a top three pick and any one of them will play 82 next year.
|
|
|
Post by habsburgher on Jan 27, 2016 12:28:49 GMT -5
Just heard on TSN690... The drafts from 2008 to 2012 have us near the bottom of the league in terms of number of players who have appeared in 100+ games. We have 3. Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, and Gallagher. I heard numbers as high as 11...and many teams with 8 and 7. We have to hope 2013-16 hold more promise.... Get a top three pick and any one of them will play 82 next year. This illustrates to me time to move on from Timmins.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 12:44:06 GMT -5
Get a top three pick and any one of them will play 82 next year. This illustrates to me time to move on from Timmins. I'm not sure how you jump to that. Maybe you meant to quote WD? Given where Montreal has placed, on average, each season since 2007 are any of the teams that sit in that same group any better? If we look at the two teams with the most Cups in recent seasons. Both teams have two high picks leading the way. Anze and Doughty were high picks. They're cornerstones. Quick and Toffoli were 3rd and 2nd round picks. The rest of their core group can be argued to have been acquired through trade (Carter, gaborik, etc), or UFA. Chicago is lead by their two early picks - Kane and Toews. Seabrook was a mid first, and Keith a second. Crawford a second as well. They've augmented through free agency. Montreal didn't have two years of very high picks. There are a few of us here that thought for the long term success of the team, a second tank year after Galch might have been best. Still, gotta have the right coach.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 27, 2016 13:18:44 GMT -5
Chris Nilan none too happy; calling for MT's head.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 13:45:40 GMT -5
Chris Nilan none too happy; calling for MT's head. He's been somewhat quiet on twitter during games, but when he does speak up it's nothing flattering. Nor should it be. Despite the fact that one winger that can score and a better coaching staff would fix a lot of what ails the club, I'm in favor of doing whatever ensures a high lottery pick. The order in which the tank, the trades, the lottery pick and the new coaching staff gets done is semantics.
|
|
|
Post by halihab on Jan 27, 2016 13:53:25 GMT -5
Just heard on TSN690... The drafts from 2008 to 2012 have us near the bottom of the league in terms of number of players who have appeared in 100+ games. We have 3. Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, and Gallagher. I heard numbers as high as 11...and many teams with 8 and 7. We have to hope 2013-16 hold more promise.... Not with our present scouting staff.
|
|
|
Post by halihab on Jan 27, 2016 13:58:56 GMT -5
This illustrates to me time to move on from Timmins. I'm not sure how you jump to that. Maybe you meant to quote WD? Given where Montreal has placed, on average, each season since 2007 are any of the teams that sit in that same group any better? If we look at the two teams with the most Cups in recent seasons. Both teams have two high picks leading the way. Anze and Doughty were high picks. They're cornerstones. Quick and Toffoli were 3rd and 2nd round picks. The rest of their core group can be argued to have been acquired through trade (Carter, gaborik, etc), or UFA. Chicago is lead by their two early picks - Kane and Toews. Seabrook was a mid first, and Keith a second. Crawford a second as well. They've augmented through free agency. Montreal didn't have two years of very high picks. There are a few of us here that thought for the long term success of the team, a second tank year after Galch might have been best. Still, gotta have the right coach. I can think of a few teams with better prospects than the Habs. Detroit, Rangers, Penquins, and Sens. All of which have finished in the playoffs or near, in recent years. How about Anaheim and Dallas ?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 27, 2016 13:59:46 GMT -5
Bergevin overinvested on defense. 29 million USD on d-corps annually is not justifiable by the team play. Sure, Gilbert is gone, hopefully at the deadline. But another high price d-man should go and the obvious choice based on supply and demand is Markov. Reality check - Bob McKenzie was asked if there would be any deadline interest in Markov: "No". Better temper these plans with much less return that we're expecting. There is really only one option at this time. 1) Don't bring Carey back. Why on earth would you do that? 2) Stick it out with Therrien because we want the team to progress as it has under his watch. That will, very likely, provide us with a bottom 5 draft pick, perhaps better if we get lucky in the lottery 3) start the following season with a new coaching staff, some kids from St. John's, perhaps Auston Matthews or at least a talented 18 year old Finn. 4) Win the cup This season has many similarities to 20011/12. The team was much better than it showed, but long term inadequate coaching strategies, some fascinatingly unusual line-up choices and a key injury caught up to the team. The team rebounded the following year and it can easily do so again. The core players (Pacioretty, PK, Price, Gallagher and Galchenyuk) should be back, along with some supporting players (Carr, Mitchell, Eller, Petry, Beaulieu and Pateryn. Markov will also likely be back because there are no takers for a 38 year old dman making $6.5MM. I don't much care what we do with the rest. Emelin may still have some value, or not. Move whoever you can for draft picks, perhaps sign a free agent, suit up Hudon, McCarron. Give Reway an opportunity. Take a run at Stamkos, though who knows if he'd ever want to play for an organization that let this season happen. You won't be able to do all of the above, and you may end up with some players on the roster you can improve upon, or some guys will continue getting better (Barberio for example), but it will be a good start. Therrien, over the years (not just this year), has been degrading the talent level on the team. So when Berg tries to make a trade, the money in his pocket has depreciated like the Canadian dollar. Some of us remember the good old days when we'd trade for someone and they'd get better playing for us and be worth more than when they arrived. You can't keep a coach who, one day, makes excuses for and supports his most tenured, aging defenseman, and a few days later says his best defenseman and pretty well only player who is producing, "can't make the passes he made". He threw him under a D-8 cat, not just a bus. No need to wonder why there's no chemistry on the team and no support for each other. Going to be a tough 2 and a half months, guys. Hang in there.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jan 27, 2016 14:11:33 GMT -5
Therrien, over the years (not just this year), has been degrading the talent level on the team. So when Berg tries to make a trade, the money in his pocket has depreciated like the Canadian dollar. Some of us remember the good old days when we'd trade for someone and they'd get better playing for us and be worth more than when they arrived. When was the last time we won a big trade outright? (Weise for Diaz doesn't count). Actually having trouble thinking of the last big trade...Gomez and Cammalleri trades maybe?
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 14:19:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you jump to that. Maybe you meant to quote WD? Given where Montreal has placed, on average, each season since 2007 are any of the teams that sit in that same group any better? If we look at the two teams with the most Cups in recent seasons. Both teams have two high picks leading the way. Anze and Doughty were high picks. They're cornerstones. Quick and Toffoli were 3rd and 2nd round picks. The rest of their core group can be argued to have been acquired through trade (Carter, gaborik, etc), or UFA. Chicago is lead by their two early picks - Kane and Toews. Seabrook was a mid first, and Keith a second. Crawford a second as well. They've augmented through free agency. Montreal didn't have two years of very high picks. There are a few of us here that thought for the long term success of the team, a second tank year after Galch might have been best. Still, gotta have the right coach. I can think of a few teams with better prospects than the Habs. Detroit, Rangers, Penquins, and Sens. All of which have finished in the playoffs or near, in recent years. How about Anaheim and Dallas ? IMO there are least three factors that go into comparing draft success. You can't blindly compare teams without taking these factors into consideration. 1. Establish a formula that equates probability of success for each draft position, 1 through 200 and something. 2. Over an established period, determine a team's average drafting position. Make adjustments if picks are traded (should decrease overall probability of success). 3. Weight each draft in terms of depth. Comparing a weak draft year to a deep one is next to impossible without doing so. Only then can you realistically compare teams. You'd expect a team drafting high in every round to have the greatest number of kids who make it to the NHL and play a minimum number games. Then, it's a matter of comparing the teams that drafted immediately before and after you. If a team hits a home run one year (after your pick) it's a statistical anomaly. If that team is behind you every year, and they're consistently drafting better ... From 2008-12, Montreal had 4 first round picks. They traded away their first in 08. If you take overall draft position for their first pick in each year and average it out, that's 23rd overall. Someone else can do the probability of success for drafting 23rd over all 5 years in a row.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 14:21:35 GMT -5
Therrien, over the years (not just this year), has been degrading the talent level on the team. So when Berg tries to make a trade, the money in his pocket has depreciated like the Canadian dollar. Some of us remember the good old days when we'd trade for someone and they'd get better playing for us and be worth more than when they arrived. When was the last time we won a big trade outright? (Weise for Diaz doesn't count). Actually having trouble thinking of the last big trade...Gomez and Cammalleri trades maybe? Cole to Dallas. He got Ryder AND the pick, and he was the one trading a player with term. Cole has not been good in Dallas. Ryder was good down the stretch. That third rounder was used to select Connor Crisp. Perhaps the most notable player passed on was Anthony Duclair. It's debatable whether or not he's better than Andrighetto. Would Sven, who is similarly sized and had similar numbers in junior, put up a half a point a game playing regular minutes with skilled kids in Arizona? I think so.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 27, 2016 14:23:05 GMT -5
Therrien, over the years (not just this year), has been degrading the talent level on the team. So when Berg tries to make a trade, the money in his pocket has depreciated like the Canadian dollar. Some of us remember the good old days when we'd trade for someone and they'd get better playing for us and be worth more than when they arrived. When was the last time we won a big trade outright? (Weise for Diaz doesn't count). Actually having trouble thinking of the last big trade...Gomez and Cammalleri trades maybe? Kovalev for Balej worked out in the Habs' favour...but only because of Balej's injury-riddled career. The second round pick that went along with Balej to the Rangers turned out to be a career minor-leaguer, Bruce Graham.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jan 27, 2016 15:45:31 GMT -5
When was the last time we won a big trade outright? (Weise for Diaz doesn't count). Actually having trouble thinking of the last big trade...Gomez and Cammalleri trades maybe? Kovalev for Balej worked out in the Habs' favour...but only because of Balej's injury-riddled career. The second round pick that went along with Balej to the Rangers turned out to be a career minor-leaguer, Bruce Graham. That Kovalev deal is going back pretty far in time. However it shows that it's a part of our managements team lack of ability to knock one out of the park. For me the 3 keys to running a good franchise: - Draft well - Able to lure impact free agents - Cap management I excluded the coach, because as some have said - show me a good goalie and I'll show you a good coach. (Not including Babock or Quenneville)
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jan 27, 2016 15:47:04 GMT -5
Based on my criteria I would say were average on two but haven't lured a big fish in ages...
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 27, 2016 17:39:51 GMT -5
Kovalev for Balej worked out in the Habs' favour...but only because of Balej's injury-riddled career. The second round pick that went along with Balej to the Rangers turned out to be a career minor-leaguer, Bruce Graham. That Kovalev deal is going back pretty far in time. However it shows that it's a part of our managements team lack of ability to knock one out of the park. For me the 3 keys to running a good franchise: - Draft well - Able to lure impact free agents - Cap management I excluded the coach, because as some have said - show me a good goalie and I'll show you a good coach. (Not including Babock or Quenneville) That doesn't exclude obtaining a great coach. There are a few coaches whose goalies got hot and won the Cup (Ward/Laviolette) (Khabiboulin/Tortorella) and I wouldn't class them as great coaches. Then there are those who won without necessarily having a great goalie (Quenneville, Bowman in Detroit, Babcock in Detroit). There are also some really good coaches who have never won the cup (Trotz, Tippett, Vigneault). It's not commutative. Great goaltending can make coaches look great, but great coaches don't necessarily make goaltenders look great. So while it may not be the most important aspect for a team to win, it's very beneficial to have an excellent coach. Don't pick one for skills unrelated to hockey or because they are a friend. I can't see how it's that hard to pick the right one. Make a short list of guys with championships on their resume or a history of improving the teams they coach and then find one that suits your philosophy and is a rink rat. There are various subcategories (are their teams disciplined, are they calm under pressure, are they good communicators?). I'd add, "Do they have a pet", but then everyone thinks I'm nuts. A real pet, not an attack dog, and one that interacts, not fish or reptiles. There you go, Readers Digest Hiring 101 primer.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 17:54:50 GMT -5
I keep coming back to the question: if Bergevin hadn't called Therrien, would he still be sitting by the phone? I just didn't get the impression he was high on many teams' lists.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 27, 2016 18:25:52 GMT -5
He'd still be blustering on Antichambre. When your team wins the Stanley Cup, after you're fired, it doesn't look well on the CV.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 27, 2016 18:26:44 GMT -5
I keep coming back to the question: if Bergevin hadn't called Therrien, would he still be sitting by the phone? I just didn't get the impression he was high on many teams' lists. At the time of his hiring, he had been out of NHL coaching for 4 years…
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 18:26:55 GMT -5
He'd still be blustering on Antichambre. When your team wins the Stanley Cup, after you're fired, it doesn't look well on the CV. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 18:27:38 GMT -5
I'd love to send him back to the "anti-chamber"
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 27, 2016 19:29:21 GMT -5
I can think of a few teams with better prospects than the Habs. Detroit, Rangers, Penquins, and Sens. All of which have finished in the playoffs or near, in recent years. How about Anaheim and Dallas ? IMO there are least three factors that go into comparing draft success. You can't blindly compare teams without taking these factors into consideration. 1. Establish a formula that equates probability of success for each draft position, 1 through 200 and something. 2. Over an established period, determine a team's average drafting position. Make adjustments if picks are traded (should decrease overall probability of success). 3. Weight each draft in terms of depth. Comparing a weak draft year to a deep one is next to impossible without doing so. Only then can you realistically compare teams. You'd expect a team drafting high in every round to have the greatest number of kids who make it to the NHL and play a minimum number games. Then, it's a matter of comparing the teams that drafted immediately before and after you. If a team hits a home run one year (after your pick) it's a statistical anomaly. If that team is behind you every year, and they're consistently drafting better ... From 2008-12, Montreal had 4 first round picks. They traded away their first in 08. If you take overall draft position for their first pick in each year and average it out, that's 23rd overall. Someone else can do the probability of success for drafting 23rd over all 5 years in a row. I think it's just a matter of rating individual drafts, and seeing where your team falls that year. You don't need to compare each draft and weight the depths. For instance, the argument can easily be made that the Habs, so far, have won the 2012 draft. We have the player with the most games played, the most goals, the most assists, and the most points in that draft. Even though only one other player from that draft class has suited up for Montreal (Hudon, 2 games), we win that draft. Unless someone wants to argue that Filip Forsberg and Tom Wilson (both first rounders) are better than Galchenyuk. It would be easy to develop a formula (Success Ratio) to calculate a team's success using variables such as games played, goals, points, and round selected in a single draft year.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 20:34:29 GMT -5
But we had the third greatest probability of success in that draft. That's where weighting each pick comes in. The probability of success in a given year is also affected by depth of the talent pool. If more than one draft comes into play, you have to do something to equate different years in order to compare success or failure from year to year and team to team. If a team picks top three 5 years in a row you can't compare them to a team picking in the 20s on average over the same period without equating their probability of success. In other words, who's doing the most with the least.
There are successful player all over the board every year, that's not the analysis. The analysis is the likelihood a team picks a successful player in the position they've been seeded. That's why saying there are such a number of teams who've got more players that have played x number of games than Montreal is a huge generalization and one that goes to serve an agenda.
I work with people who have Masters degrees in statistics, they consult with a psychometrician, and I see processed data on a regular basis. Without getting into specifics, we can't compare project x to project y without equating them. That means taking each piece of a project and valuing it. It produces a scaled score that can be compared from one project to another. It's a big undertaking, and any time a piece of a project changes you have to value that new piece. The result could change the scaled score for the whole project.
Each project is a draft. Each pick is 'scaled'. If every team had an equal chance in the draft, the #1 pick wouldn't mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 27, 2016 21:20:13 GMT -5
But we had the third greatest probability of success in that draft. That's where weighting each pick comes in. The probability of success in a given year is also affected by depth of the talent pool. If more than one draft comes into play, you have to do something to equate different years in order to compare success or failure from year to year and team to team. If a team picks top three 5 years in a row you can't compare them to a team picking in the 20s on average over the same period without equating their probability of success. In other words, who's doing the most with the least. There are successful player all over the board every year, that's not the analysis. The analysis is the likelihood a team picks a successful player in the position they've been seeded. That's why saying there are such a number of teams who've got more players that have played x number of games than Montreal is a huge generalization and one that goes to serve an agenda. I work with people who have Masters degrees in statistics, they consult with a psychometrician, and I see processed data on a regular basis. Without getting into specifics, we can't compare project x to project y without equating them. That means taking each piece of a project and valuing it. It produces a scaled score that can be compared from one project to another. It's a big undertaking, and any time a piece of a project changes you have to value that new piece. The result could change the scaled score for the whole project. Each project is a draft. Each pick is 'scaled'. If every team had an equal chance in the draft, the #1 pick wouldn't mean anything. The method I've always wanted to try would be to compare one team's drafted players to the players taken with the very next pick, each and every draft. It only works for comparing the team in question to a random combination of other team drafting, with the same talent on the table, minus the guy we actually picked. In theory, the team picking first should be better than the team picked with the next picks...
|
|