|
Post by folatre on May 6, 2020 14:31:26 GMT -5
That would be pretty good for 2020-21, though it is still smallish and soft.
However, I would be scared if this is 2021-22 and I see that many good but not great vets locked into major term.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 6, 2020 14:58:27 GMT -5
Berg hasn't shown a lot of risk taking actions during his tenure. In a recent article, Arpon Basu thought Bergevin was anything but a safe GM, citing trades like the Weber one, the Drouin deal and the Domi one as large risks. I differed with his opinion. There was absolutely no risk consideration in the PK/Weber deal. PK was gone and it was only a matter of what Berg could get back. If the best offer was a package of Timbits, that's what he was going for. PK was not going to be a Hab come July 1, 2016. I agree on one point, disagree on another. I agree that Berg hasn't taken big risks, in the financial sense of risk: something that has a lot of variation between best and worst outcomes. In the deals you mentioned, we weren't going to come out looking terrible. Maybe we lose a trade, but it's always up for discussion, whereas the potential for a complete loss of face went the other way. They took the high risk and high reward, we took the safe bet. They took the dividend paying stocks, we took the bonds. Drouin for Sergachev : getting an NHLer for a prospect always runs the risk the kid works out, but he also might not. If Sergachev turns into Jared Tinordi or David Wilkie (ie, failure at the NHL level), Tampa Bay got hosed. Subban was a high-risk player without much development in his game, he hadn't gained maturity and learned to pick his spots, and apparently hasn't improved on that count, leading to his being essentially a contract dump. We took the reliable high-end D who could be counted as for solid play. Subban had a higher risk in that he could take that next step and become a game-dominating force, but even if he did, we got a damned good player out of the deal, so we couldn't lose the deal. Right now, given how Subban got dumped, you have to consider we won it. I don't view the Subban to NJ deal as just a salary dump. Nashville didn't just get picks and prospects back. They got a huge asset as well, 9 million dollars in cap space, valuable to a GM who knows how to use it.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 6, 2020 15:35:29 GMT -5
I don't view the Subban to NJ deal as just a salary dump. Nashville didn't just get picks and prospects back. They got a huge asset as well, 9 million dollars in cap space, valuable to a GM who knows how to use it. Isn't that the very definition of a salary dump ? When you move a player just to free up cap space ? But yes, cap space is an asset, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 6, 2020 16:23:35 GMT -5
True but it was the large size of the space available that makes it stand out for me.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 6, 2020 17:05:01 GMT -5
Berg hasn't shown a lot of risk taking actions during his tenure. In a recent article, Arpon Basu thought Bergevin was anything but a safe GM, citing trades like the Weber one, the Drouin deal and the Domi one as large risks. I differed with his opinion. There was absolutely no risk consideration in the PK/Weber deal. PK was gone and it was only a matter of what Berg could get back. If the best offer was a package of Timbits, that's what he was going for. PK was not going to be a Hab come July 1, 2016. I agree on one point, disagree on another. I agree that Berg hasn't taken big risks, in the financial sense of risk: something that has a lot of variation between best and worst outcomes. In the deals you mentioned, we weren't going to come out looking terrible. Maybe we lose a trade, but it's always up for discussion, whereas the potential for a complete loss of face went the other way. They took the high risk and high reward, we took the safe bet. They took the dividend paying stocks, we took the bonds. Drouin for Sergachev : getting an NHLer for a prospect always runs the risk the kid works out, but he also might not. If Sergachev turns into Jared Tinordi or David Wilkie (ie, failure at the NHL level), Tampa Bay got hosed. Subban was a high-risk player without much development in his game, he hadn't gained maturity and learned to pick his spots, and apparently hasn't improved on that count, leading to his being essentially a contract dump. We took the reliable high-end D who could be counted as for solid play. Subban had a higher risk in that he could take that next step and become a game-dominating force, but even if he did, we got a damned good player out of the deal, so we couldn't lose the deal. Right now, given how Subban got dumped, you have to consider we won it. The highest-risk move IMO was Galch for Domi, since there's no clear difference in risk between the two guys of similar age and talent level, I guess this is a case of preferring the devil you don't know, since management had seen enough of Galch to be wary of his habits as a pro and his coachability. But seeing Domi flame out and Galch return to 30 goal form is the only scenario in all these deals where we clearly lose a trade outright. Where I disagree is in ascribing (am I using that right?) an intention to Berg (ie: he was moving Subban regardless), because really, we don't know that, and we can't. I don't like assigning perceived motivations to actions, even if it seems 100% certain, we just have a small looking glass into a huge world. I wasn't addressing the value of the trades, Paul, I was rebutting Arpon Basu's belief that Bergevin was a risk taker. The only deal in which I addressed that aspect was the Drouin/Sergachev one because as you point out, it was risky in the sense that we didn't know what Sergachev would turn out to be. That's the case whenever you trade a pure prospect for a somewhat proven player. The Iginla/Niewendyk deal is similar in that respect. No one knew what Iginla would turn out like, but scouts have their opinions, for sure. The point I wanted to make with that trade was that it was risky in that sense, but not in the sense that the talent differences is not what was driving Bergevin to make that deal. He wanted his local boy, which I understand, but he gave up a lot, and even if it wasn't a certainty at the time, it's looking worse now. Just like the Weber/Subban one, I have no proof that my assertions are correct. I'm just connecting dots. Michael Farber reported that he was having lunch with Bergevin a few months before the Subban trade and Berg received a phone call from another GM or hockey executive. He didn't know who because he was hearing one side of the conversation but filled in some blanks later from investigating further. The caller was someone Berg respected and Berg wanteed this guy's opinion about Subban and whether he should keep him. The answer from the caller was, "if you want your team run by Subban, then you should keep him'. I ask myself who does Bergevin respect? Guys like him? Or guys who like differing opinions? If it was Lou Lamoriello for example who even hates facial hair, you know what his reaction would be to Subban. BTW, that guy without much development in his game, helped his team to the SC finals that next season and was a Norris Trophy finalist the following year. I know PK has faults, but if healthy, he's still a pretty good dman. Weber is too, but his last 28 games or so after Christmas he only scored .25 ppg and did a lot of puck fumbling in his own end. I have a hard time considering him a damned good player anymore. He may have been injured, but that ending to the season didn't look good on him. And its a trend. As the season picks up and the pace increases, his effectiveness goes down. But anyways, that' another argument. I'm connecting dots and PK's performance the 2 seasons following the trade did not support a trade, so why move him and before the NMC kicked in? It wasn't his play, and there is no way Bergevin was keeping him. That's my opinion. Not a hockey trade. It didn't involve risk because only that didn't factor into the equation. He certainly didn't take a risk on the Aho offer sheet. Being willing to give up a first, 2nd and third for Aho is not a reasonable exchange, it's a guaranteed win for Bergevin. He's risk averse, no question at all in my mind about that.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on May 6, 2020 17:54:44 GMT -5
I agree on one point, disagree on another. I agree that Berg hasn't taken big risks, in the financial sense of risk: something that has a lot of variation between best and worst outcomes. In the deals you mentioned, we weren't going to come out looking terrible. Maybe we lose a trade, but it's always up for discussion, whereas the potential for a complete loss of face went the other way. They took the high risk and high reward, we took the safe bet. They took the dividend paying stocks, we took the bonds. Drouin for Sergachev : getting an NHLer for a prospect always runs the risk the kid works out, but he also might not. If Sergachev turns into Jared Tinordi or David Wilkie (ie, failure at the NHL level), Tampa Bay got hosed. Subban was a high-risk player without much development in his game, he hadn't gained maturity and learned to pick his spots, and apparently hasn't improved on that count, leading to his being essentially a contract dump. We took the reliable high-end D who could be counted as for solid play. Subban had a higher risk in that he could take that next step and become a game-dominating force, but even if he did, we got a damned good player out of the deal, so we couldn't lose the deal. Right now, given how Subban got dumped, you have to consider we won it. The highest-risk move IMO was Galch for Domi, since there's no clear difference in risk between the two guys of similar age and talent level, I guess this is a case of preferring the devil you don't know, since management had seen enough of Galch to be wary of his habits as a pro and his coachability. But seeing Domi flame out and Galch return to 30 goal form is the only scenario in all these deals where we clearly lose a trade outright. Where I disagree is in ascribing (am I using that right?) an intention to Berg (ie: he was moving Subban regardless), because really, we don't know that, and we can't. I don't like assigning perceived motivations to actions, even if it seems 100% certain, we just have a small looking glass into a huge world. I wasn't addressing the value of the trades, Paul, I was rebutting Arpon Basu's belief that Bergevin was a risk taker. The only deal in which I addressed that aspect was the Drouin/Sergachev one because as you point out, it was risky in the sense that we didn't know what Sergachev would turn out to be. That's the case whenever you trade a pure prospect for a somewhat proven player. The Iginla/Niewendyk deal is similar in that respect. No one knew what Iginla would turn out like, but scouts have their opinions, for sure. The point I wanted to make with that trade was that it was risky in that sense, but not in the sense that the talent differences is not what was driving Bergevin to make that deal. He wanted his local boy, which I understand, but he gave up a lot, and even if it wasn't a certainty at the time, it's looking worse now. Just like the Weber/Subban one, I have no proof that my assertions are correct. I'm just connecting dots. Michael Farber reported that he was having lunch with Bergevin a few months before the Subban trade and Berg received a phone call from another GM or hockey executive. He didn't know who because he was hearing one side of the conversation but filled in some blanks later from investigating further. The caller was someone Berg respected and Berg wanteed this guy's opinion about Subban and whether he should keep him. The answer from the caller was, "if you want your team run by Subban, then you should keep him'. I ask myself who does Bergevin respect? Guys like him? Or guys who like differing opinions? If it was Lou Lamoriello for example who even hates facial hair, you know what his reaction would be to Subban. BTW, that guy without much development in his game, helped his team to the SC finals that next season and was a Norris Trophy finalist the following year. I know PK has faults, but if healthy, he's still a pretty good dman. Weber is too, but his last 28 games or so after Christmas he only scored .25 ppg and did a lot of puck fumbling in his own end. I have a hard time considering him a damned good player anymore. He may have been injured, but that ending to the season didn't look good on him. And its a trend. As the season picks up and the pace increases, his effectiveness goes down. But anyways, that' another argument. I'm connecting dots and PK's performance the 2 seasons following the trade did not support a trade, so why move him and before the NMC kicked in? It wasn't his play, and there is no way Bergevin was keeping him. That's my opinion. Not a hockey trade. It didn't involve risk because only that didn't factor into the equation. He certainly didn't take a risk on the Aho offer sheet. Being willing to give up a first, 2nd and third for Aho is not a reasonable exchange, it's a guaranteed win for Bergevin. He's risk averse, no question at all in my mind about that. Berg is risk averse unless he dislikes you... letting Markov and Radulov walk was a risk trading patches was a risk trading PK was a risk because he was going to a stacked team and if he wins the cup, chances are he brings it to the montreal children's hospital In the Patches and PK scenario Bergs buddy MT hated both of them, so it made doing it easier imo
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on May 7, 2020 8:59:07 GMT -5
Don't know Dadonov that well, stats look decent. Who do you see bumping out of top 6? Or do you trade somebody? I'd be shopping Gallagher, as I have mentioned a few times. People were all hot and bothered to deal Tatar and Petry - our top scorer and our #1 defenseman - because they were one year away from UFA, and yet few are willing to deal Gallagher. Even though he too is only a year away from UFA. The difference, in my mind, is that Gallagher is going to get a much bigger raise than either Petry or Tatar will get, Gallagher is the LEAST likely (in my opinion) to age well, AND Gallagher probably has the highest trade value of the three, because of the combination of low salary, character rep, and big game attitude. Pretty much any team in the league, including the contenders, could fit him in. If we're looking at a double-dip, like the Avs and Sens have done (i.e., two 1sts, with the second one turning into a lottery pick), then Gallagher gives us that best chance. But I'm in a very small minority with that opinion. So for me then, Armia gets the short-shaft to start the year. Assuming, of course, everybody is healthy, which is a large assumption. While Armia brings size and shows flashes of skill, he has a career high of 16 goals, set last year, and mostly due to a hot start. He had 4 goals in the 23 games he played after coming back from his injury. So which is the real Armia? The career tease? Or the guy we saw for the first 30 games of this year? People don't put any faith in Drouin's hot start, so why trust Armia's? He has less of a career track record than Drouin does. I say all this even though I like Armia, I really do. Tatar - Danault - Gallagher: The Usual Suspects Domi- Suzuki- Dadonov: I'm not a huge fan of moving Domi to the wing, but Suzuki has earned the right to at least try center for an extended stay. Drouin- Kotkaniemi -Kovalchuk: Has potential to be the best third line in hockey. Byron- Poehling/Evans -Armia: Evans and Poehling battle it out for the 4th line spot, with the loser getting 1st line center in Laval. (Lehkonen, Weal): My injury replacements. Lehkonen probably deserves better, but what are you going to do? We don't have any big horses up front, so rolling three, or even four lines, pretty much evenly shouldn't be a problem. There is nobody that screams out "he should be playing 20 minutes a night!" so Julien's job will be easy; just open the door and yell "next!". Yup, I am for trading Gallagher also. With 4 reasons, lots of hard miles on him, going to take a ton of money to sign him and he will be 29 when current deal is up, the 4th is the trade return. I never said before because he is a fan favorite and be many objections to trading him. Going to get huge return on Gallagher because his contract is cheap, great signing by Bergevin. Wears his heart on his sleeve and is a two time 33 goal scorer on a bad team. If Draft is held after July 1st, hope it is, be a trade and sign scenarion. He should return more than Pacioretty. If we buy out Alzner, chance we do, gives us in range of 11 million in cap. If Gallagher is deal gives us around 15 million to spend. EIther in free agency or take on a player from a team looking to move a contract. Be many available where cap at best, be frozen. Petry we can get big return on also. Tatar will return less. Danault I am for signing long term. The other 2 free agents Armia and Domi haven't made my mind up on.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 7, 2020 15:03:20 GMT -5
I'm with 17.
Bergevin is not a risk-taker. He's the king of hedges and half measures and the results bear that out. We and the media tend to evaluate each move on its merits and decide "good trade or bad trade" or "risky" or "safe" trade, but you have to step back and look at the context to figure it all out.
Subban for Weber: Risky trade? I suppose it was depending on your perspective. I thought it was a dumb trade that was made for all the wrong reasons, but even so the implication was that trading for Weber was a signal that Berg was "going for it".
And he was close to pulling it off after he signed Radulov and we finished 1st in the division before losing to the Rangers in the 1st round. So then what did he do? He trades Sergachev for Drouin to address the scoring deficiency, only to let Radulov and Markov walk which just cancelled out the Drouin trade and we ended up sucking the next year. He needed to act more aggressively (i.e. risky) at that moment.
Then when it's obvious we are rebuilding, he does well with the Pacioretty and Galchenyuk trades, but refuses at the deadline this year to part with the likes of Tatar, Petry, or even Gallagher when their value was pretty high. I think he's afraid of tanking, because that would be too risky.
The pattern is clear. When the situation calls to go "all in" Bergevin blinks. He should have loaded up after the 2016-17 season by trading for Drouin AND keeping Radulov and Markov. But he didn't. And when it was obvious this year that we were going to miss the playoffs for the 3rd straight year, he should have been aggressive in maximizing value for Tatar, Petry, and maybe even Gallgher/Weber/Price. But he didn't do that either. Meanwhile we are nowhere close to contention, Tatar, Petry, and Gallagher will all be UFAs after next year, and the clock keeps ticking on Weber and Price.
Bergevin will do just enough to make you think he's doing a good job, but not enough to put his neck on the line. It's all hedges, half steps, and smoke and mirrors with him.
I can't imagine Molson has much more patience. Berg has 2 years left on his contract. My guess is Molson gives him next year to show that some aspect of this plan is working. Which plan, you ask? It depends on what happens. Either the rebuilding plan in terms of development of some of the key young players or the playoff plan if more comes together. That's another classic Bergevin move. Keep moving the definition of success around to suit the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 7, 2020 15:44:20 GMT -5
....I wasn't addressing the value of the trades, Paul, I was rebutting Arpon Basu's belief that Bergevin was a risk taker. .... He certainly didn't take a risk on the Aho offer sheet. Being willing to give up a first, 2nd and third for Aho is not a reasonable exchange, it's a guaranteed win for Bergevin. He's risk averse, no question at all in my mind about that. Well, I don't see where we disagree on risks - he doesn't take them. As I like to say, he's a good middle manager. Makes sure we field a full lineup of decent players, without any bad apples as far as possible, so the team often overperforms. The problem is that it overperforms relatively to low expectation, linked to a lack of high end talent. -- It's just in ascribing motives that I disagree. I think we have so little inside knowledge that it's hard enough to rate these guys, even more to try and get in their heads. As to the Aho deal, I think he got roped into that by Aho's agent. Absent inside knowledge of financial weakness, there was no reason to offer that contract, which was sure to be matched, if it was financially possible.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on May 7, 2020 16:02:22 GMT -5
Tatar - Danault - Gallagher: The Usual Suspects Domi- Suzuki- Dadonov: I'm not a huge fan of moving Domi to the wing, but Suzuki has earned the right to at least try center for an extended stay. Drouin- Kotkaniemi -Kovalchuk: Has potential to be the best third line in hockey. Byron- Poehling/Evans -Armia: Evans and Poehling battle it out for the 4th line spot, with the loser getting 1st line center in Laval. (Lehkonen, Weal): My injury replacements. Lehkonen probably deserves better, but what are you going to do? I thought i missed something and was looking when we signed Handy Dandy Dandonov. Found nothing. You shouldn't fool your elders like that...it can destabilize our fragile id. Try our lineup without Dandy and Kova. Report back on how impressed you are without them. Also presume nothing about KK. Insert Evens for good measures. Are we contenders? Or bottom 5 pretenders?
|
|
|
Post by folatre on May 7, 2020 16:11:58 GMT -5
Hockey is debatable, for me Montreal with or without Dadonov is a playoff bubble team on paper. Unlike the Penguins and Blue Jackets of the league that survived insane roster attrition through injuries, the Habs are in free fall less than two weeks after the injury bug visited. That seems like a team with more bottom five potential than deep playoff run potential.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on May 7, 2020 16:12:06 GMT -5
I'm with 17. Bergevin is not a risk-taker. He's the king of hedges and half measures and the results bear that out. We and the media tend to evaluate each move on its merits and decide "good trade or bad trade" or "risky" or "safe" trade, but you have to step back and look at the context to figure it all out. Subban for Weber: Risky trade? I suppose it was depending on your perspective. I thought it was a dumb trade that was made for all the wrong reasons, but even so the implication was that trading for Weber was a signal that Berg was "going for it". And he was close to pulling it off after he signed Radulov and we finished 1st in the division before losing to the Rangers in the 1st round. So then what did he do? He trades Sergachev for Drouin to address the scoring deficiency, only to let Radulov and Markov walk which just cancelled out the Drouin trade and we ended up sucking the next year. He needed to act more aggressively (i.e. risky) at that moment. Then when it's obvious we are rebuilding, he does well with the Pacioretty and Galchenyuk trades, but refuses at the deadline this year to part with the likes of Tatar, Petry, or even Gallagher when their value was pretty high. I think he's afraid of tanking, because that would be too risky. The pattern is clear. When the situation calls to go "all in" Bergevin blinks. He should have loaded up after the 2016-17 season by trading for Drouin AND keeping Radulov and Markov. But he didn't. And when it was obvious this year that we were going to miss the playoffs for the 3rd straight year, he should have been aggressive in maximizing value for Tatar, Petry, and maybe even Gallgher/Weber/Price. But he didn't do that either. Meanwhile we are nowhere close to contention, Tatar, Petry, and Gallagher will all be UFAs after next year, and the clock keeps ticking on Weber and Price. Bergevin will do just enough to make you think he's doing a good job, but not enough to put his neck on the line. It's all hedges, half steps, and smoke and mirrors with him. I can't imagine Molson has much more patience. Berg has 2 years left on his contract. My guess is Molson gives him next year to show that some aspect of this plan is working. Which plan, you ask? It depends on what happens. Either the rebuilding plan in terms of development of some of the key young players or the playoff plan if more comes together. That's another classic Bergevin move. Keep moving the definition of success around to suit the circumstances. So what are you saying here? Another 5 year extension? Given that Mol$on has not taken any steps to deal with failure, you are describing the low risk bosses lackey. If there isn't anothr collapse, which given enough mediocre players and a decent goalie, there shouldn't be, the slow, do nothing crazy manager is the shadow of do-nothing-crazy-and-earn-money owner.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 7, 2020 17:29:21 GMT -5
....I wasn't addressing the value of the trades, Paul, I was rebutting Arpon Basu's belief that Bergevin was a risk taker. .... He certainly didn't take a risk on the Aho offer sheet. Being willing to give up a first, 2nd and third for Aho is not a reasonable exchange, it's a guaranteed win for Bergevin. He's risk averse, no question at all in my mind about that. Well, I don't see where we disagree on risks - he doesn't take them. As I like to say, he's a good middle manager. Makes sure we field a full lineup of decent players, without any bad apples as far as possible, so the team often overperforms. The problem is that it overperforms relatively to low expectation, linked to a lack of high end talent. -- It's just in ascribing motives that I disagree. I think we have so little inside knowledge that it's hard enough to rate these guys, even more to try and get in their heads. As to the Aho deal, I think he got roped into that by Aho's agent. Absent inside knowledge of financial weakness, there was no reason to offer that contract, which was sure to be matched, if it was financially possible. Fair enough, I misconstrued your comments. He's not a risk taker. Regarding motives, I can only speculate and I admit when I'm speculating. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..... I don't think Aho's agent should have had any material impact on the offer sheet. Let's do an experiment. You, or I, are the GM of the habs and we see an opportunity to submit an offer sheet to a guy we think is a difference maker. In that regard we are correct. He's an elite centre and he'd be 22 years old for the upcoming season. We suspect the owner of the Canes is in perhaps not financial trouble, but certainly he is metaphorically near his CAP. There are 2 considerations and only 2 that we have to weigh. The first is what kind of offer sheet will Aho sign? In my mind at least, it has to be 5 years for CAP reasons and at least $8.5 but probably more because.... the second aspect is the more important one. At what level of compensation will Carolina be susceptible to not matching? This is more important than the first consideration because any reasonable compensation will require a contract figure above $8.5MM so that one really is unimportant. At no time is anything required from Aho's agent. I don't even need to talk to him. If Bergevin did and got suckered, that's not a good take. The agent is immaterial. The minimum offer Carolina might accept is the 2 first rounders, a 2nd and a 3rd. You might have to go to 4 first rounders, but offering anything less than that second level of compensation makes no sense. The Canes would match. Again, I don't know if Berg talked to the agent. If he did, fine, but if he actually took anything the agent said into consideration, it wasn't wise. There was only one factor that mattered. Really, it was just more proof that he hates taking risks. Offering 4 first rounders would have been risky. Not in my opinion, because none of those picks (unless Caroline gets really, really lucky) is going to end up being anywhere near as good as Aho. I would have done it. With Aho, we make the playoffs, each year in these next five years. Tbose picks are never going to be better than 16th.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on May 7, 2020 17:40:31 GMT -5
Well...i hope we go to the wall for Dubois. He alone wont turn us into a contender, but it's one giant step towards it....for the next 16 years.
Between Aho and Dubois, i take Dubois every day of the week. Size, disposition, size, truculent, size, bad hair days...all matter
Then if he steps up to be the face of the Habs AND Quebecois, double bonus.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on May 8, 2020 6:03:48 GMT -5
I agree on one point, disagree on another. I agree that Berg hasn't taken big risks, in the financial sense of risk: something that has a lot of variation between best and worst outcomes. In the deals you mentioned, we weren't going to come out looking terrible. Maybe we lose a trade, but it's always up for discussion, whereas the potential for a complete loss of face went the other way. They took the high risk and high reward, we took the safe bet. They took the dividend paying stocks, we took the bonds. Drouin for Sergachev : getting an NHLer for a prospect always runs the risk the kid works out, but he also might not. If Sergachev turns into Jared Tinordi or David Wilkie (ie, failure at the NHL level), Tampa Bay got hosed. Subban was a high-risk player without much development in his game, he hadn't gained maturity and learned to pick his spots, and apparently hasn't improved on that count, leading to his being essentially a contract dump. We took the reliable high-end D who could be counted as for solid play. Subban had a higher risk in that he could take that next step and become a game-dominating force, but even if he did, we got a damned good player out of the deal, so we couldn't lose the deal. Right now, given how Subban got dumped, you have to consider we won it. I don't view the Subban to NJ deal as just a salary dump. Nashville didn't just get picks and prospects back. They got a huge asset as well, 9 million dollars in cap space, valuable to a GM who knows how to use it. That is a cap dump. They just moved him for peanuts for the cap space. Subban has an attitude also. Hard to get along in dressing room. There were trouble with Gallagher here, Prust, Markov, etc... Imagine it happened in Nashville also. It will come out when they retire. There is more to it than meets the eye. Have a good idea what it is
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on May 8, 2020 6:08:11 GMT -5
Koktaniemi with Joel next year in Laval be best for his career. He needs to work on a lot. If we wait another year we can't send him down. Koktaniemi needs to improve on faceoffs. Needs to work on his core strenght, he is way too easy to knock off the puck. He needs better body positioning. He needs to learn to lessen impact, seen him put himself in some awkward positions. It is a long career and high impact one in NHL. It will save him a few injuries along the way.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 8, 2020 12:24:44 GMT -5
I don't view the Subban to NJ deal as just a salary dump. Nashville didn't just get picks and prospects back. They got a huge asset as well, 9 million dollars in cap space, valuable to a GM who knows how to use it. That is a cap dump. They just moved him for peanuts for the cap space. Subban has an attitude also. Hard to get along in dressing room. There were trouble with Gallagher here, Prust, Markov, etc... Imagine it happened in Nashville also. It will come out when they retire. There is more to it than meets the eye. Have a good idea what it is Or you can look at it as Subban for Duchene. Almost immediately after that NJ deal, he signed Duchene. Also, I don't know about Prust or Gallagher, but there seemed to be no problems between Subban & Markov. He had great things to say about Markov after his retirement was announced & I'm pretty sure he went to Markpv's wedding.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 8, 2020 13:36:24 GMT -5
I don't think we disagree that Subban was a hard teammate to get along with for some players. What I have an issue with is that there are numerous champions (in fact probably most) where very little is hunky dory until the day they're hoisting that trophy. It's like a funeral. No one is going to say anything bad about the deceased, no matter how big a jerk and horrible person he or she was. Yet so many of those championship teams had guys like that who were THE reason for winning. Does anyone think Patrick Roy was easy to get along with? Does anyone have a bigger ego than him? The issue is that management can't manage the situation. They prefer to simply get rid of the perceived problem. In this case, they disposed of a guy whose game was better suited for the new NHL than the guy they picked up.
As an aside there was an article on the Athletic about the Habs PP and why it sucks so much, despite having such a great weapon like Weber. The problem is Weber. He can't pass through the Royal Road and if you can't do that, you're easy to defend. Markov, on the other hand, was an exceptional passer and the Habs PP was just fine when he was around. Duh.
Anyway, the main point is this. How many World Series would the Yankees have won if they didn't have Reggie Jackson? Would the Bulls have won their championships without Dennis Rodman (one of the all time greatest weirdos in sports)? It doesn't hurt having difficult players on a team, at least not to winning. How have the Habs done since they traded Subban? One quick first round exit and 3 viewings from the golf course. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 8, 2020 14:59:40 GMT -5
As an aside there was an article on the Athletic about the Habs PP and why it sucks so much, despite having such a great weapon like Weber. The problem is Weber. He can't pass through the Royal Road and if you can't do that, you're easy to defend. Markov, on the other hand, was an exceptional passer and the Habs PP was just fine when he was around. Duh. How have the Habs done since they traded Subban? One quick first round exit and 3 viewings from the golf course. Hmmmm. THIS AND THIS. Weber is basically a statue at the point, while the most effective power plays have guys moving around and dmen that can curl down low to find a better angle on those cross ice passes or just generally disrupt the defensive box and force guys to move, which creates passing/shooting angles. Weber has a great shot if it can get through but he's entirely predictable on PP from the defensive standpoint and unlike guys like Subban and Markov, he doesn't have the movement and creativity in his game to be a threat with the puck on his stick. And the results of the Weber trade are that: a 1st round exit and 3 straight playoff misses. Seriously, if you were told when Berg made that trade that the Habs wouldn't win a single playoff series and miss the playoffs in 3 of the next 4 years you would have said NFW! Now the comeback is Weber isn't the sole reason why that happened, but that only validates that the trade did nothing to make the Habs better.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 8, 2020 17:36:20 GMT -5
Yes, I didn't elaborate enough, of course. Weber is only 1 reason (among many) why the Habs haven't made the playoffs the last 3 seasons. If you want to blame the PP, however, he is a key part of that equation which isn't adding up like it should.
A friend of mine was watching the replay of the 86 playoffs and re-iterated that the team wasn't that great but it just came together for them. Yes, they got lucky with other teams knocking off powerhouses so that the path to the Cup was easier for them than it might have been, but it wasn't like the 86 squad was a bunch of slugs loaded with horseshoes. Comparing the line-up of that team and today's and two obvious things stand out. Bobby Smith, Ryan Walter, Guy CArbonneau and Brian Skrudlund at Centre. Robinson, Chelios, Green and Ludwig on defense. The 3rd pair had Schneider and Lalor!
So you have the formula....strength up the middle, Check. Two studs on defense who can basically play the full 60 minutes if needed, check. A scorer (Naslund), check. These aren't my criteria, btw, they're Brian Wilde's. It didn't hurt having one of the all time greats in goal either, but if "anything can happen" in the playoffs, you should have those 4 key attributes or you'll still be outside looking in. Goaltending, btw, wasn't one of them. If you check out the 93 squad, you'll find many of those same attributes. Minus Chelios. Bergevin hasn't been able to duplicate that formula. He had Markov and Subban, but he didn't have the scorer and he was woefully out of the park in strength up the middle. He tried with Galchenyuk but went another 4 more years before drafting a centre in either the first or second round. He did take advantage of a 9th overall pick in 2016 to nab Sergachev but then traded him for a winger!
He was swinging for the fences to get a scorer and a Quebec kid at that, but in doing so gave up one of the cornerstones of championship clubs...that dman who can play 25-30 minutes and hopefully control a game.
Berg has a different path than Serge Savard did, that's for sure. Serge did always understand those core pieces and was willing to take risks to get them. The times he messed up, he went against those basic rules (Desjardins for Recchi, Chelios for an aging Savard).
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 8, 2020 19:35:02 GMT -5
Yes, I didn't elaborate enough, of course. Weber is only 1 reason (among many) why the Habs haven't made the playoffs the last 3 seasons. If you want to blame the PP, however, he is a key part of that equation which isn't adding up like it should. A friend of mine was watching the replay of the 86 playoffs and re-iterated that the team wasn't that great but it just came together for them. Yes, they got lucky with other teams knocking off powerhouses so that the path to the Cup was easier for them than it might have been, but it wasn't like the 86 squad was a bunch of slugs loaded with horseshoes. Comparing the line-up of that team and today's and two obvious things stand out. Bobby Smith, Ryan Walter, Guy CArbonneau and Brian Skrudlund at Centre. Robinson, Chelios, Green and Ludwig on defense. The 3rd pair had Schneider and Lalor! So you have the formula....strength up the middle, Check. Two studs on defense who can basically play the full 60 minutes if needed, check. A scorer (Naslund), check. These aren't my criteria, btw, they're Brian Wilde's. It didn't hurt having one of the all time greats in goal either, but if "anything can happen" in the playoffs, you should have those 4 key attributes or you'll still be outside looking in. Goaltending, btw, wasn't one of them. If you check out the 93 squad, you'll find many of those same attributes. Minus Chelios. Bergevin hasn't been able to duplicate that formula. He had Markov and Subban, but he didn't have the scorer and he was woefully out of the park in strength up the middle. He tried with Galchenyuk but went another 4 more years before drafting a centre in either the first or second round. He did take advantage of a 9th overall pick in 2016 to nab Sergachev but then traded him for a winger! He was swinging for the fences to get a scorer and a Quebec kid at that, but in doing so gave up one of the cornerstones of championship clubs...that dman who can play 25-30 minutes and hopefully control a game. Berg has a different path than Serge Savard did, that's for sure. Serge did always understand those core pieces and was willing to take risks to get them. The times he messed up, he went against those basic rules (Desjardins for Recchi, Chelios for an aging Savard). Whose fault? Weber, PK, Drouin, Markov, Gallagher, Pacioretty? There is only one person who is 100% responsible for all decisions and blame.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on May 9, 2020 12:06:49 GMT -5
As an aside there was an article on the Athletic about the Habs PP and why it sucks so much, despite having such a great weapon like Weber. The problem is Weber. He can't pass through the Royal Road and if you can't do that, you're easy to defend. Markov, on the other hand, was an exceptional passer and the Habs PP was just fine when he was around. Duh. How have the Habs done since they traded Subban? One quick first round exit and 3 viewings from the golf course. Hmmmm. THIS AND THIS. Weber is basically a statue at the point, while the most effective power plays have guys moving around and dmen that can curl down low to find a better angle on those cross ice passes or just generally disrupt the defensive box and force guys to move, which creates passing/shooting angles. Weber has a great shot if it can get through but he's entirely predictable on PP from the defensive standpoint and unlike guys like Subban and Markov, he doesn't have the movement and creativity in his game to be a threat with the puck on his stick. And the results of the Weber trade are that: a 1st round exit and 3 straight playoff misses. Seriously, if you were told when Berg made that trade that the Habs wouldn't win a single playoff series and miss the playoffs in 3 of the next 4 years you would have said NFW! Now the comeback is Weber isn't the sole reason why that happened, but that only validates that the trade did nothing to make the Habs better. I'm having trouble putting the PP ineptness on Shea. How did the PP do when Shea was injured or when the other unit was out there? Same or worse ineptness.Shea's key function is to shoot and he can do that like few others which is why most teams have a defender focused on Shea. (Was Souray a great passer when we had a great PP with him as the cannon?) While it would be amazing if Shea also had Orr's playmaking ability, that is not his role - that should fall on the other point man who MB, CJ, or Muller have not been able to find. How many players have been tried at that position, including forwards (even Weal!) and NADA. If Shea is easy to defend than that's because the other point man or the guy on the half-wall (again many have been auditioned) should be able to let one of the 4 penalty killers isolate on Shea thus creating a 4 on 3 PP. But we have been unable to do that and not because of Shea. Nope - the least of our worries on the PP is Shea.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 9, 2020 16:26:28 GMT -5
I'd say it's an overall lack of movement in the 5-man unit. The best PP have guys that move around, switch positions, and try to break down or confuse the PK box. The Bruins are awesome at that. Often they have Pastrnak at the point to give themselves options or confuse the D, but their movement, creativity, skill, and quick decisions is what ultimately leads to those high percentage cross ice passes below the dots or in the slot.
We can't seem to do that with any consistency. It's not Weber per se that is the problem, but you have to admit he's a one dimensional threat on the PP. He doesn't help you with zone entries so you don't worry about him as a puck carrier and he doesn't give you a lot of options other than shooting from the point, which is a legit weapon but it's not enough. We need a guy like that on the bak end.
It's still weird that they have not been able to figure out a PP formula that works.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on May 11, 2020 16:15:09 GMT -5
Looks like Borgstrom wants out of Florida... MB should see what they want for him.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 11, 2020 16:47:41 GMT -5
I was high on Borgsgrom coming out of Denver, but his progression since then hasn't been all that positive. Superficially, he put up 0.36 ppg with Florida as a 21 year old, then .47 ppg in the AHL in 49 games the following season. That's not the trend line you like to see. If the eye test is different, then it's worth kicking tires.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 11, 2020 16:48:12 GMT -5
I was high on Borgsgrom coming out of Denver, but his progression since then hasn't been all that positive. Superficially, he put up 0.36 ppg with Florida as a 21 year old, then .47 ppg in the AHL in 49 games the following season. That's not the trend line you like to see. If the eye test is different, then it's worth kicking tires.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on May 11, 2020 17:44:45 GMT -5
Well, generally speaking, talent does not simply disappear. What is holding him back? I was under the assumption that when they moved Bjugstad, it was to open a spot for Borgstrom, though in fairness at that point Barkov and Trochek were still the 1-2 down the middle. Maybe he was one of those kids not well suited to or unenthusiastic about a bottom six role. I really don't know.
I guess it would depend on what Florida wants for him. He is three years older than Kotkaniemi and the Habs are pretty well stocked with green centres (Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Poehling).
Who knows, supposedly that Lias Andersson kid is available and we all know Puljujarvi is waiting on a trade. Sometimes a change of scenery can help, but some guys just don't manage to figure it out playing against men in the best league in the world.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on May 17, 2020 5:58:08 GMT -5
Well, generally speaking, talent does not simply disappear. What is holding him back? I was under the assumption that when they moved Bjugstad, it was to open a spot for Borgstrom, though in fairness at that point Barkov and Trochek were still the 1-2 down the middle. Maybe he was one of those kids not well suited to or unenthusiastic about a bottom six role. I really don't know. I guess it would depend on what Florida wants for him. He is three years older than Kotkaniemi and the Habs are pretty well stocked with green centres (Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Poehling). Who knows, supposedly that Lias Andersson kid is available and we all know Puljujarvi is waiting on a trade. Sometimes a change of scenery can help, but some guys just don't manage to figure it out playing against men in the best league in the world. Puljujarvi I don't know about. On one hand Oilers back then many underachieved. Petry? Hall? But his hockey smarts seem low. Could be another Galchenyuk. I guess it all boils down to what they want for him? Holland is a veteran hockey man, if he is moving him that cheap, I would likely stay away. Would you pick up Subban? He finished third in Norris year Nashville dumped him? He just turned 31 last week, had no major injuries, he is not done. In bad situation. He is a cancer in dressing room, but we are not close to winning anyway. How much damage can it do? Have to trade Gallagher. But I was thinking on trading Gallagher instead of signing anyway. If Subban going to Moontreal can light a fire in him, will recharge his career, and he learns from his mistakes. Could get a Norris caliber year out of him and flip him for good return?
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on May 17, 2020 12:20:26 GMT -5
I'm of the view PK still has it. This past year was about losing confidence and being unsettled. PK needs to be loved, in fact he thrives on it. After being dumped by MB and Preds that was a kick in the gut to PK and he's still reeling. I know he said he was over the moon to be traded to NJ (something like "I just about jumped over the counter"?) - as if. Who wants to go from Nashville to NJ. Anyway he's put on a good face, but I believe his confidence has taken a serious hit. I'm betting he'll get over it. Coming back to Mtl to feel the love would be the best thing for him - not sure it's the best for the team though. But I give the guy credit as he's still contributing to the Children's Hospital when a lesser guy would have packed everything up and left!
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on May 17, 2020 15:16:42 GMT -5
You can lose interest.
You can lose desire.
You can lose the willingness to fight through pain and perform.
You can NOT lose talent.
If PK wants to take a low salary commensurate with the risk, like a two year by 3 million contract, I would take a chance on him.
|
|