Montreal at the deadline 2015

[habsask]

Mar 2, 2015 16:52:17 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

I guess there just wasn't a scorer to be found. A couple of *maybes* in Cole and Jagr, but other than that not much high quality talent moved. So Bergevin did the next best thing, which was to add depth throughout the lineup.

I don't think you can say that we "just" added depth in case of injuries to the 4th line though. If we have injuries to the top two we can move some of those bottom guys up *cough Weise cough* and not be forced to go with guys like Thomas or even Bournival in the bottom six.

As for giving up picks, better that then roster players or top prospects I suppose. And besides, Bergevin has a habit of getting other teams to throw those in anyways. Cole, Briere, Gorges, even Vanek - always a pick coming back. I'm sure that if he is so inclined this summer he'll be able to deal guys like Parenteau, Gilbert, or heck even the rights to Petry for mid-to-late picks. Not too worried about that.

Obviously the prize is Petry. He was much sought after, and while he's obviously not a put-you-over-the-top kind of guy none of those were dealt today. So good on Bergevin for getting one of the top "next guys".

Depth is always a good thing. To win the Cup we're going to have to play a minimum of 16 bone-crushing, intense, physical games. And probably something closer to 24-25. That's like a quarter of a season. You can never have too many bodies for that kind of grind.

Good post.

And the assessment I'm most comfortable with....which doesn't mean a thing of course.

All 3 of today's acquisitions are UFAs this July so Berg will be able to assess the overall situation once the Habs' playoffs are over & plan his moves for the summer. He will know by then if any of today's 3 acquisitions are worth keeping over what he has in terms of prospects or others already on the team.

[seventeen]

Flynn is an RFA, with one more year on a cheap contract (under $700M). I can't believe I'm using "cheap" and $700M in the same sentence. How the world has changed.

[Skilly]

Mar 2, 2015 22:27:03 GMT -5 habsask said:

Mar 2, 2015 18:18:31 GMT -5 Douper said:

If NYR lose Nash or McDonaugh
If TB loses Stamkos or Hedman
If Det loses Datsyuk or Zetterberg
If Pitt loses Malkin or Crosby
If Was loses Ovy or Backstrom
If NYI loses Tavares or Leddy
If Bos loses....right they already did

All teams would be hurting if injuries arrise. BUT I think we have more depth than any of those teams. If you noticed, I did not mention any of their Goalies because all of these teams are screwed if their #1 goes down.

Good post douper- it would be a real luxury to have a bona fide top 6 "Hot Spare" on a team in today's NHL. Same with the goalies.

And as Bad Co. pointed out we do have * cough * Weise (a hot...err...'substitute'?) and maybe even....looks at ceiling & rolls his eyes....Smith-Pelly... I mean S-P was thought to be a legit power forward prospect on his draft day. Just saying...

But three of the teams that Douper listed DO have a hot spare.

The other three? NYR have four forwards with 40+ points. And the Islanders have three. The Islanders and the Rangers also have 30 or more goals than us. So even more scoring spread throughout the lineup. And Tampa leads the entire league in scoring

We have two 40+ scoring forwards as of today. Pacioretty and Plekanec, who most posters feel wears skirt in the playoffs. We are the second worst scoring team that currently holds a playoff spot (only the Bruins are worse). It's obvious we need to find a way to get more goals. We didn't get a second line solution, so now we have to find a PP solution ... and fast! I know the theory is that you improve your defense and grit and you open space and move the puck and it should generate more offense ... but we have been riding that horse a long time now and the offense isnt coming. The one time we did start genrating offense (at a 2.9 goal per game clip) was when we in fact acquired an offensive player (Vanek) for the perverbial second rounder (it was a conditional second rounder that turned into Jonathan MacLeod)

[Skilly]

Just to highlight the parallels of last year and this year.

Last year on March 5th (Vanek played his first game on March 6th) we had 160 goals (lowest of any team that held a playoff spot at the time) We had 160 goals in 63 goals (2.5 per game). We were 5th lowest in the entire conference. After the Vanek acquisition, our goal clip rose to 2.9, close to the benchmark 3 goals a game that is the Holy Grail of hockey offense.

This year at the deadline we are a little better. We had 171 goals in 62 games. A 2.75 clip. At least this year we have more goasls than all the non-playoff teams. The thing about this year is that other playoff teams (except the Bruins) are over 3 goals a game. Last night's 4-0 loss dropped our production to 2.7 goals a game.

I get an eerie feeling that this year's playoffs will be a shooting gallery on Price. And I really hope we do not play the Bruins.

[BadCompany]

Mar 3, 2015 7:47:03 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Just to highlight the parallels of last year and this year.

Last year on March 5th (Vanek played his first game on March 6th) we had 160 goals (lowest of any team that held a playoff spot at the time) We had 160 goals in 63 goals (2.5 per game). We were 5th lowest in the entire conference. After the Vanek acquisition, our goal clip rose to 2.9, close to the benchmark 3 goals a game that is the Holy Grail of hockey offense.

This year at the deadline we are a little better. We had 171 goals in 62 games. A 2.75 clip. At least this year we have more goasls than all the non-playoff teams. The thing about this year is that other playoff teams (except the Bruins) are over 3 goals a game. Last night's 4-0 loss dropped our production to 2.7 goals a game.

I get an eerie feeling that this year's playoffs will be a shooting gallery on Price. And I really hope we do not play the Bruins.

So given that this is the internet, where we're free to speculate on what we as armchair GMs would do, what would you have done? You've already said that you don't think Stewart is the solution, so what else was out there? Would you have done something like Gallagher, Beaulieu and a 1st for Kessel?

It's easy to say they should have a cure for cancer, but if it's not there, it's not there.

Personally I think the Rangers improved the most yesterday, though obviously at a very steep price. But I think Yandle will fit in very well there, and they are an extremely well balanced, well coached team, with a very good goalie. I list them as the favorites to come out of the East, and somebody will have to upset them for us to get through (either us or somebody else). As for Bergevin I think he made the best of a bad situation; it wasn't a great year for quality players being available, and the prices were very high. So he added a defenseman, one of the "top" available, and he bolstered the team's overall depth. No, Flynn and Mitchell are not world-class players, but you just want them to be better than Christian Thomas, Michael Bournival, Gabriel Dumont, Eric Tangradi and Drayson Bowman. Obviously not going to put us over the top, but we're a better team today than we were yesterday, and that's his job. Will it be enough? Hard to say, but we should be in the mix. Like I said, I believe the Rangers are now the top team, with Montreal, Tampa and Detroit bunched right behind them. But really any team could come out of the East, just like anybody could come out of the West.

[CentreHice]

Lack of strength up the middle is our Achilles heel…and has been since forever….but other than breaking the bank to pry Eric Staal out of Carolina….there was nobody in that realm to be had yesterday.

Saw a post on the Habs HF boards that resonated with me.

Basic sentiment…...

Gotta love the effort, but DD is not a #1 on a true contender.

Pleks has a tendency to be playoff shy.

Eller…has his confidence been shattered by MT? Now 19-year-old DLR is the current 3rd line centre, isn't he?

Malholtra…wins draws then is pretty much useless in terms of production.


Flynn and Mitchell can both play centre, but not as top line producers.

We have to rank pretty low in terms of centre strength/production for playoff teams.


Too bad Galchenyuk got stuck on the wing upon his arrival. I blame MT for that, as well. Perhaps he still has #1 C potential…remains to be seen.



Man, Price smooths out a lot of rough road.

[Skilly]

Mar 3, 2015 8:16:25 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

Mar 3, 2015 7:47:03 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Just to highlight the parallels of last year and this year.

Last year on March 5th (Vanek played his first game on March 6th) we had 160 goals (lowest of any team that held a playoff spot at the time) We had 160 goals in 63 goals (2.5 per game). We were 5th lowest in the entire conference. After the Vanek acquisition, our goal clip rose to 2.9, close to the benchmark 3 goals a game that is the Holy Grail of hockey offense.

This year at the deadline we are a little better. We had 171 goals in 62 games. A 2.75 clip. At least this year we have more goasls than all the non-playoff teams. The thing about this year is that other playoff teams (except the Bruins) are over 3 goals a game. Last night's 4-0 loss dropped our production to 2.7 goals a game.

I get an eerie feeling that this year's playoffs will be a shooting gallery on Price. And I really hope we do not play the Bruins.

So given that this is the internet, where we're free to speculate on what we as armchair GMs would do, what would you have done? You've already said that you don't think Stewart is the solution, so what else was out there? Would you have done something like Gallagher, Beaulieu and a 1st for Kessel?

It's easy to say they should have a cure for cancer, but if it's not there, it's not there.

Personally I think the Rangers improved the most yesterday, though obviously at a very steep price. But I think Yandle will fit in very well there, and they are an extremely well balanced, well coached team, with a very good goalie. I list them as the favorites to come out of the East, and somebody will have to upset them for us to get through (either us or somebody else). As for Bergevin I think he made the best of a bad situation; it wasn't a great year for quality players being available, and the prices were very high. So he added a defenseman, one of the "top" available, and he bolstered the team's overall depth. No, Flynn and Mitchell are not world-class players, but you just want them to be better than Christian Thomas, Michael Bournival, Gabriel Dumont, Eric Tangradi and Drayson Bowman. Obviously not going to put us over the top, but we're a better team today than we were yesterday, and that's his job. Will it be enough? Hard to say, but we should be in the mix. Like I said, I believe the Rangers are now the top team, with Montreal, Tampa and Detroit bunched right behind them. But really any team could come out of the East, just like anybody could come out of the West.

Well, it's not my job to find out who is available. And most assuredly, people will say "but but but" .. ad nauseum,no matter who I surmise.

But people are going on the fallacy that only the players that were shipped out were available yesterday, and only the prices they went for would have done it ... Not so.
For instance, last year Gaborik went for Frattin, a second rounder and a conditional pick. And matin St Louis went for Callahan, a first rounder and a conditional, .... yet we got Vanek basically for free. (Collberg and MacLeod)

So all of that to say, that it all depends on who you target.

One thing I would have done (and maybe Bergevin did it too) is not wait until February to start looking to address the obvious hole in our lineup. All year we have been swapping in and out third and fourth liners on the first and second line trying to find a solution.
I certainly would have enquired about Ryan O'Reilly after Xmas when PAP got injured. Yesterday's prices might have made that not feasible, but earlier in the year? Certainly there was someone available that was a better option than we currently have there ...

I didn't say Stewart was not the solution, I said he was worth the risk of a second rounder, even if he didnt work out. He might not have been a good fit, but if Bergevin had talks with Buffalo about him (and I have to feel he did, because we traded twice with them) and the asking price was a second rounder ... I make that deal. What's the harm? We try him on the second line, if it doesn't work out, we are right back to where we are now. Perhaps we don't get one of Flynn or Mitchell, ..., that isnt that big a deal. We'd still have a good bottom six, our third line would probably be PAP-Eller-DLR .. and we'd have Prust, Weise, DSP, Flynn, Malholtra for the fourth line. A second rounder is worth that risk. If Stewart doesn't work out , we bump up Eller/PAP/Weise ... and we are right where we are today.

I feel like we approached Buffalo, the Stewart price was too high (maybe Buffalo was looking at it from a package deal perspective? who knows) for MB's liking , and then one GM contacted the other with a "hey, what about this instead" scenario.

But at the end of the day ... we had a glaring hole, and it wasn't addressed. We still have it heading into the playoffs. And I'm not sure we can compete without that missing part in the playoffs.

[Skilly]

Mar 3, 2015 8:30:32 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

Man, Price smooths out a lot of rough road.

He sure does.

We have allowed 139 goals (2 in the shootout).

The average of all the other playoff teams is 162 goals allowed. Imagine if we had an average goalie. Considering we only have 171 goals - 6 of those coming in the shootout. (all other playoff teams average 190 goals for ... 20 MORE)

I agree we should not apologize for having Price, we decided to build around our goalie and not around a superstar forward. But relying on that goalie to only allow 1 or 2 goals is a double edged sword

[CentreHice]

Last night's Sharks' game reminded me of the Rangers' series last year.

They went for blood upon Game 1's puck drop….got a quick lead...went after Price and knocked him out….and really didn't let up.

Toker had to be brilliant to get it to 6 games. He kept it closer than it really was.

DD was all but neutralized (not his fault)....and in a year's time nothing was done to improve that situation. (Yeah, MT tried him on the wing…and it worked out alright, IIRC….but it wasn't long before he was back with Max.)


It'll happen again.

[Polarice]

The TSN crew were saying that it's hard to believe that not one top six forward was traded this year.

[Disp]

Mar 3, 2015 10:35:05 GMT -5 Polarice said:

The TSN crew were saying that it's hard to believe that not one top six forward was traded this year.

We didn't need another cupcake top sixer either. We needed a Backes or Stall type. Those guys don't go cheap, if at all.

[blny]

I don't think anyone is going on the fallacy that the only ones available were the ones moved. Look at the prices being paid by GMs for Vermette, Cole, and Jagr, then ask how much offense they can legitimately be expected to contribute. Vermette and Cole can skate and keep up with our style of play, but IMO Vermette was the most overrated player available and Cole is a been there done that. Jagr has had chemistry with Pleks on international ice, but he's slower than molasses.

We know that Kessel and Phaneuf were available. Detroit did more than just kick the tires on Dion, but it's a complicated deal to make this time of year. Trading either player means retaining salary for the Leafs. Kessel IS the kind of offensive production we need to add. It's the rest of the baggage that has people concerned. Problem is, there are few as productive as he is available. I said it on a previous page, but I'll repeat it. Were I the GM, it's the one time where I'd want to speak with the player prior to a deal. I would want a clear picture of who he is. If he and PK are as close as it would appear, I'd pick PK's brain as well. Then, I'd way all of that information against what we know will be a guy who's not a great interview but capable of consistent production of 30 plus goals and more than 70pts. I'd give up three pieces plus a cap dump (if I was happy with what I'd found out): our first this year, McCarron or Scherbak, and PAP as a salary dump and want the Leafs to retain $1.5-2 million in cap hit over the life of the deal. Phil's 27, and would fit into the age group of our core easily. That deal though doesn't get done during the season very often.

Looking for other 30 goal men ... the Canucks aren't parting with Vrbata. Dallas isn't trading Jamie Benn, but I'd inquire. Caps aren't trading Ovi. There are fewer and fewer snipers in this hockey climate. Teams with them signed with term are less than inclined to move them. Wanting one for your roster does mean you can get one. Asking about one doesn't mean you'll be happy with the asking price. IMO, it's easier to go out and shop for a car. At least there are options and you can potentially get the dealerships bidding against one another.

[CentreHice]

Mar 3, 2015 11:07:23 GMT -5 Disp said:

Mar 3, 2015 10:35:05 GMT -5 Polarice said:

The TSN crew were saying that it's hard to believe that not one top six forward was traded this year.

We didn't need another cupcake top sixer either. We needed a Backes or Stall type. Those guys don't go cheap, if at all.

Yep…you usually have to draft them.

And we did.

Can you name another team who needed a big-bodied, skilled #1 centre….who finally got the chance to draft one at 5th overall….only to develop him at the wing…..while a 5'7" (heart and soul notwithstanding) centre continues on?

As time goes on, my head shakes further.

[Skilly]

Mar 3, 2015 11:07:23 GMT -5 Disp said:

Mar 3, 2015 10:35:05 GMT -5 Polarice said:

The TSN crew were saying that it's hard to believe that not one top six forward was traded this year.

We didn't need another cupcake top sixer either. We needed a Backes or Stall type. Those guys don't go cheap, if at all.

True.

I guess the question is, would you have traded Eller, Beaulieu (or Tinordi), a first rounder and another piece (second rounder or prospect) if there was a Stall or Backes type there? Would you have done it for Kessel? I have a hard time believing he wasnt available. How about O'Reilly? Eberle? Sharp?

Everytime one of these possibilities arises, we say that we need them ... but when it comes time to pay, we lament over second and third round picks, and overpaying. For the right price, I am sure we could have gotten someone for the top six. At the end of the day, Bergevin wasn't prepared to pay up.

It would have been nice, I think, to hang onto Sekac for a package to get that non-cupcake. Looking at our line-up now ... we arent using Tinordi, Eller is misused and could find himself odd man out, and if we had Sekac (instead of DSP) ... well that has the good makings of a possible deal. Oh well.

I really think the problem is that other GMs dont view our prospects or roster players we are willing to part with as highly as us fans do.

Eventually though, Bergevin is going to have to bite the bullet and pay up. This probelm isnt going away.

[Skilly]

Mar 3, 2015 11:37:47 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

Mar 3, 2015 11:07:23 GMT -5 Disp said:

We didn't need another cupcake top sixer either. We needed a Backes or Stall type. Those guys don't go cheap, if at all.

Yep…you usually have to draft them.

And we did.

Can you name another team who needed a big-bodied, skilled #1 centre….who finally got the chance to draft one at 5th overall….only to develop him at the wing…..while a 5'7" (heart and soul notwithstanding) centre continues on?

As time goes on, my head shakes further.

3rd overall ... realizing of course that this little correction doesnt hurt your argument one bit

[Skilly]

Mar 3, 2015 11:32:41 GMT -5 blny said:

I don't think anyone is going on the fallacy that the only ones available were the ones moved. Look at the prices being paid by GMs for Vermette, Cole, and Jagr, then ask how much offense they can legitimately be expected to contribute. Vermette and Cole can skate and keep up with our style of play, but IMO Vermette was the most overrated player available and Cole is a been there done that. Jagr has had chemistry with Pleks on international ice, but he's slower than molasses.

We know that Kessel and Phaneuf were available. Detroit did more than just kick the tires on Dion, but it's a complicated deal to make this time of year. Trading either player means retaining salary for the Leafs. Kessel IS the kind of offensive production we need to add. It's the rest of the baggage that has people concerned. Problem is, there are few as productive as he is available. I said it on a previous page, but I'll repeat it. Were I the GM, it's the one time where I'd want to speak with the player prior to a deal. I would want a clear picture of who he is. If he and PK are as close as it would appear, I'd pick PK's brain as well. Then, I'd way all of that information against what we know will be a guy who's not a great interview but capable of consistent production of 30 plus goals and more than 70pts. I'd give up three pieces plus a cap dump (if I was happy with what I'd found out): our first this year, McCarron or Scherbak, and PAP as a salary dump and want the Leafs to retain $1.5-2 million in cap hit over the life of the deal. Phil's 27, and would fit into the age group of our core easily. That deal though doesn't get done during the season very often.

Looking for other 30 goal men ... the Canucks aren't parting with Vrbata. Dallas isn't trading Jamie Benn, but I'd inquire. Caps aren't trading Ovi. There are fewer and fewer snipers in this hockey climate. Teams with them signed with term are less than inclined to move them. Wanting one for your roster does mean you can get one. Asking about one doesn't mean you'll be happy with the asking price. IMO, it's easier to go out and shop for a car. At least there are options and you can potentially get the dealerships bidding against one another.

I realize the issues, and I agree with everyone ... but thats Bergevin's job. Find someone.

Last year he did, this year he didnt. That's all I am saying. I don't think he made us any better this year. Whenb he traded Sekac, he probably made us a little worse, from an offensive potential perspective. I could live with it, if we replaced him with another offensive player capable of playing on the second line.

I'm not sure why the player we acquire, or potentially should have acquired had to have 30 goals though. Our second line right now has two guys that will crack the 20 goal mark (Plekanec and Galchenyuk) but that third guy? Eller 9 goals, Weise 9 goals, PAP 6 goals, Prust 4 goals, torrey Mitchell 6 goals, Brian Flynn 5 goals ... even someone who scores 15-20 goals would have been welcomed. Last year we got Vanek, who had 17 goals at the time of the trade, and scored 6 more with us. I'll go back to Stewart, ..he has 11 goals. If we acquired somenoe with 11-15 goals now, and he scored 6 with us, he'd be pushing 20 goals or over at the end of the season. Three 20 goal scorers on the second line, I'd take that. Right now, if you shut down the first line, we have trouble scoring.

Surely a 15 goal man wasn't going to cost us the moon. Someone better than what we have there now ...

It's all hypothetical, but it is nice to mull over ... be better over beer.

[seventeen]

One thing that has happened recently and that it's hard to get my head around is that a 20 goal scorer is a valued commodity now. Twenty is the new thirty. Or something like that.

[Disp]

Sure, there was only 20 or so 30 goal scorers last year. Kind of makes me chuckle when guys predict Sekac to be one of them.

-Trading for guys like Kessel isn't the answer. I don't think he's the type of guy to get us over the hump. Plus you give up a ton of assets and capspace. Which severely limits your future options. That's how you end up in a never ending cycle of not quite good enough, with no easy way out. I want a cup, if there isn't a deal that will take us to true contender status, I don't want moves that make us a better pretender. I think MB feels the same.

-Galch doesn't want to play center.

[Skilly]

Just for &^%$ and giggles I went back to the "Path to 240" thread.

For the most part, most predictions are pretty close. I realize a staright comparison can't be made with players being swapped in and out and some of our predictions were based on certain players being slotted in certain positions.

The first line predictions ranged from 80 goals to 65 goals, and the first line currently has 58 goals. This is a byproduct of using fodder on the first line. We could add a few of Weise's goals there, and it would be reasonable to say we have gotten more than 60 goals from the top line.

For the most part, the second line was nailed by all predictors. The predictions ranged from 50-60 goals. We all thought we needed three 20 goal scorers, or at the very least 2 -20 goal scorers and a 15 goal scorer.

The third line ... pretty disappointing. We all thought they needed to be around the 50 goal mark. They probably have somewhere between 20-30 currently.

The fourth line. We all had them around the 20 goal mark. If we look hard we might find 10.

The defense. Predictions ranged from 46 goals to 30 goals. As of today we have 26.
So why arent we going to get 240 goals? There is no real spot to point the finger, it appears to me thatthe problem is throughout the lineup ..... we didnt have a real first liner, and had to use scrubs, then we we switched lines up and used someone producing on the second/third line on the first this hindered two lines.

Most 240 predictions had the entire lineup playing at above average clips though.

[franko]

Skilly, I think we had the PP playing at a better clip too . . . a big difference because it's been a big bust.

[franko]

Mar 3, 2015 13:12:18 GMT -5 Disp said:

-Trading for guys like Kessel isn't the answer. I don't think he's the type of guy to get us over the hump. Plus you give up a ton of assets and capspace. Which severely limits your future options. That's how you end up in a never ending cycle of not quite good enough, with no easy way out. I want a cup, if there isn't a deal that will take us to true contender status, I don't want moves that make us a better pretender. I think MB feels the same.

this is the "'round and 'round we go" discussion.

if we trade assets we don't know what we'll get, and expectations may not be met and assets are wasted and future options are limited, or we hold on to assets because we don't know what we'll get so things stay the same BUT assets are not wasted though who knows what is going to happen with those future options . . . but either way nothing ever happens and we don't improve (but whew, we don't get worse either).

this isn't a criticism of either camp, just a frustrated guy after 20 years of not being close to the holy grail. but not as frustrated as a Leaf fan at least!

[Polarice]

I think a big issue with the 3rd and 4th lines is that they are not seeing the ice in the 3rd period mainly because we are always chasing the lead!! And when we have the lead in the third they are playing a shut down role.

[CentreHice]

Mar 3, 2015 11:49:43 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Mar 3, 2015 11:37:47 GMT -5 CentreHice said:

Yep…you usually have to draft them.

And we did.

Can you name another team who needed a big-bodied, skilled #1 centre….who finally got the chance to draft one at 5th overall….only to develop him at the wing…..while a 5'7" (heart and soul notwithstanding) centre continues on?

As time goes on, my head shakes further.

3rd overall ... realizing of course that this little correction doesnt hurt your argument one bit

Right….I was thinking Price.

Thanks…..in fact it makes my argument two notches stronger!

I know I'm far from a lone wolf on this criticism.

I just fully agree with it.

[Douper]

Good article on MB.,... Not sure if it's been posted anywhere

www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canadiens-show-patience-perspective/

[seventeen]

Thanks Douper. Always good to hear more about our guys.

[Boston_Habs]

Mar 3, 2015 13:17:06 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Just for &^%$ and giggles I went back to the "Path to 240" thread.

For the most part, most predictions are pretty close. I realize a staright comparison can't be made with players being swapped in and out and some of our predictions were based on certain players being slotted in certain positions.

The first line predictions ranged from 80 goals to 65 goals, and the first line currently has 58 goals. This is a byproduct of using fodder on the first line. We could add a few of Weise's goals there, and it would be reasonable to say we have gotten more than 60 goals from the top line.

For the most part, the second line was nailed by all predictors. The predictions ranged from 50-60 goals. We all thought we needed three 20 goal scorers, or at the very least 2 -20 goal scorers and a 15 goal scorer.

The third line ... pretty disappointing. We all thought they needed to be around the 50 goal mark. They probably have somewhere between 20-30 currently.

The fourth line. We all had them around the 20 goal mark. If we look hard we might find 10.

The defense. Predictions ranged from 46 goals to 30 goals. As of today we have 26.
So why arent we going to get 240 goals? There is no real spot to point the finger, it appears to me thatthe problem is throughout the lineup ..... we didnt have a real first liner, and had to use scrubs, then we we switched lines up and used someone producing on the second/third line on the first this hindered two lines.

Most 240 predictions had the entire lineup playing at above average clips though.

ESPN has the Habs at 171 goals in 63 games, but I believe they credit 1 goal for a SO win so in reality we have 165 goals, which translates into 215 goals for the season or 25 goals short of the 240 target.

I think the missing 25 goals is on the 3rd line, and to a lesser extent on the 2nd line. Pacioretty, Gallagher, Pleks, DD, and Galchenyuk are all on pace to meet or exceed expectations. The injury to Parenteau brought his numbers down, but Weise has made up part of the difference. It's really the 3rd line which is where the problem is for most teams. You can say we haven't gotten enough out of the top 2 lines, but I don't think anyone expected those guys to crack 30 goals after Pacioretty.

I thought Eller needed to score 20 this year. He's on pace for 12. I thought we needed 15 out of the spot occupied by Bourque and then Sekac, and that position is on pace for 9 goals. I thought Bournival would contribute more than he did. The 4th line guys like Prust, Malhotra, Weise, etc. have been fine and the defense has been where I thought it would be with Subban on pace for 15 goals and Markov on pace for 10.

My fear going into the season was that we would never replace the production we lost with Vanek. His presence made the 1st line really dangerous and it allowed everyone else to be slotted in the right roles. OTOH, Vanek is having a pretty poor year in Minnesota by his standards (on pace for 17 goals and 52 points, compared to 27 goals and 68 points last year).

Ideally, we would add another legit top 6 winger into the mix or get another 15-20 goals out of the 3rd line.

[Skilly]

Mar 3, 2015 17:31:06 GMT -5 Boston_Habs said:

Mar 3, 2015 13:17:06 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Just for &^%$ and giggles I went back to the "Path to 240" thread.

For the most part, most predictions are pretty close. I realize a staright comparison can't be made with players being swapped in and out and some of our predictions were based on certain players being slotted in certain positions.

The first line predictions ranged from 80 goals to 65 goals, and the first line currently has 58 goals. This is a byproduct of using fodder on the first line. We could add a few of Weise's goals there, and it would be reasonable to say we have gotten more than 60 goals from the top line.

For the most part, the second line was nailed by all predictors. The predictions ranged from 50-60 goals. We all thought we needed three 20 goal scorers, or at the very least 2 -20 goal scorers and a 15 goal scorer.

The third line ... pretty disappointing. We all thought they needed to be around the 50 goal mark. They probably have somewhere between 20-30 currently.

The fourth line. We all had them around the 20 goal mark. If we look hard we might find 10.

The defense. Predictions ranged from 46 goals to 30 goals. As of today we have 26.
So why arent we going to get 240 goals? There is no real spot to point the finger, it appears to me thatthe problem is throughout the lineup ..... we didnt have a real first liner, and had to use scrubs, then we we switched lines up and used someone producing on the second/third line on the first this hindered two lines.

Most 240 predictions had the entire lineup playing at above average clips though.

ESPN has the Habs at 171 goals in 63 games, but I believe they credit 1 goal for a SO win so in reality we have 165 goals, which translates into 215 goals for the season or 25 goals short of the 240 target.

I think the missing 25 goals is on the 3rd line, and to a lesser extent on the 2nd line. Pacioretty, Gallagher, Pleks, DD, and Galchenyuk are all on pace to meet or exceed expectations. The injury to Parenteau brought his numbers down, but Weise has made up part of the difference. It's really the 3rd line which is where the problem is for most teams. You can say we haven't gotten enough out of the top 2 lines, but I don't think anyone expected those guys to crack 30 goals after Pacioretty.

I thought Eller needed to score 20 this year. He's on pace for 12. I thought we needed 15 out of the spot occupied by Bourque and then Sekac, and that position is on pace for 9 goals. I thought Bournival would contribute more than he did. The 4th line guys like Prust, Malhotra, Weise, etc. have been fine and the defense has been where I thought it would be with Subban on pace for 15 goals and Markov on pace for 10.

My fear going into the season was that we would never replace the production we lost with Vanek. His presence made the 1st line really dangerous and it allowed everyone else to be slotted in the right roles. OTOH, Vanek is having a pretty poor year in Minnesota by his standards (on pace for 17 goals and 52 points, compared to 27 goals and 68 points last year).

Ideally, we would add another legit top 6 winger into the mix or get another 15-20 goals out of the 3rd line.

A lot of the predictions had six 20 goal scores. Two on the first line, all three on the second line, and one on the third. And there is no way we are getting the 80 goals on the top line.

[Disp]

Mar 3, 2015 13:41:37 GMT -5 franko said:

Mar 3, 2015 13:12:18 GMT -5 Disp said:

-Trading for guys like Kessel isn't the answer. I don't think he's the type of guy to get us over the hump. Plus you give up a ton of assets and capspace. Which severely limits your future options. That's how you end up in a never ending cycle of not quite good enough, with no easy way out. I want a cup, if there isn't a deal that will take us to true contender status, I don't want moves that make us a better pretender. I think MB feels the same.

this is the "'round and 'round we go" discussion.

if we trade assets we don't know what we'll get, and expectations may not be met and assets are wasted and future options are limited, or we hold on to assets because we don't know what we'll get so things stay the same BUT assets are not wasted though who knows what is going to happen with those future options . . . but either way nothing ever happens and we don't improve (but whew, we don't get worse either).

this isn't a criticism of either camp, just a frustrated guy after 20 years of not being close to the holy grail. but not as frustrated as a Leaf fan at least!

Hey, I'm frustrated too. I'm willing to be patient though.

Some of these assets that we could acquire, we know what we are getting.

[PTH]

Mar 3, 2015 8:54:18 GMT -5 Skilly said:

But at the end of the day ... we had a glaring hole, and it wasn't addressed. We still have it heading into the playoffs. And I'm not sure we can compete without that missing part in the playoffs.

I agree with you, but there's one thing: Bergevin tried. There are multiples articles about it (cyberpresse sports section is a must for any Habs fan IMO), and given that no big names were available, he had no choice but to go for depth instead of adding a top guy.

[Disp]

Mar 3, 2015 12:10:59 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Last year he did, this year he didnt. That's all I am saying. I don't think he made us any better this year. Whenb he traded Sekac, he probably made us a little worse, from an offensive potential perspective. I could live with it, if we replaced him with another offensive player capable of playing on the second line.
*Snip*

Last year he failed though. We didn't win. A run to the semi's is nice an all, but it makes very little difference now. Just imagine doing that year after year and never getting over the hump. Eventually you're used up with very little left. Would we be very happy with the Vanek deal if DLR was skating for the isles right now? Keep trading picks and prospects to partially plug deficiencies and it'll happen eventually.