|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 18, 2020 14:26:49 GMT -5
For sure, if someone wants Danault that badly then so be it. But in reality management is probably planning on keeping him and that is likely what he wants too. And, again, I like him as a player. He is a very solid two-way centre. But Montreal has seen the best of him since he has been playing with the Habs best wingers for 3.5 seasons and the productivity is hardly overwhelming. I do not think he has a good case for making $6 million (and probably not even $5.5) on a long-term deal. Bergevin will negotiate: Tatar, Gallagher, Petry, Here is $2 million for two years! First two to sign get the contracts. Take it or leave it!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Apr 19, 2020 14:25:00 GMT -5
I just hope he plays to all the hype and isn't just a future Emelin. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I am hoping for a top two defenceman in a few years time a la Scott Stevens
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 19, 2020 17:20:29 GMT -5
The question mark with Romanov, IMO, is his offensive upside. I personally think it's going to be better than we think. My reasoning is that he's rarely been put in the position of being THE top guy. He was at the wjC and ended up being the top defenseman in that tournament. His KHL tram wasn't going to develop him as he wasn't a long term prospect for them.
What he is right now is a strong skating, agile, good transition, very-very-very strong defenseman with a pretty good head for the game. That's a really good start for me. When we had Sergachev, he seemed the opposite to me. A really good offensive defenseman who would have to learn the better parts of the defensive game. Romanov has a good chunk of the defensive game down better than Sergachev but we haven't seen all the offense he can bring. It will all be up to him unless he plays in Laval. Joel Bouchard has been quoted as saying that in the NHL, it's all on the player. It didn't sound like he was going to get much help at that level, which may explain some of the lack of development with the kids.
I don't know how other NHL teams handle it, but in the NBA, assistant coaches spend at least half their time working with players on improving aspects of their game. That kind of makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 19, 2020 21:36:01 GMT -5
Don’t we say this every year? We have the cap space, other teams don’t, if ever there was a year ...and yet we still wait in the Pumpkin Patch. I’d love to have Hall, but I’m not holding my breath ... my guess, is the roster will look very much the same as pre Covid In the Russian league, x notches below the NHL 2018-19. 43 games played. 1 goal 3 assists 2019-20. 43 games played 0 goals 7 assists 5’ 11” defenseman Am I excited? Not really. Improvement over Scandella? Not really. Has Molson improved the team? Not really. . Is Bergevin any better? Not really. Next year watch some McGill, Concordia and U de M games. Exciting.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Apr 20, 2020 9:52:39 GMT -5
Being a 18-19 year old in the KHL makes you an outlier because it is a man's league and there seems to be a certain pecking order for playing time that runs even deeper than the whole issue of whether your club's management thinks you may be close to bolting to North America.
I agree with you about Sergachev, seventeen. He had the offensive tools on display in the OHL, plus he is taller and rangier so all things being equal he was always top of the radar for NHL scouts since he was 16 years old. And let's be honest now, what people saw as his potential ceiling is now well on the way to coming to fruition in Tampa. He looks like a top pair guy all day long.
I see Romanov with way more confidence with the puck on his blade than a guy like Emilin every displayed. It is hard to make comparisons, though for me I see quite a bit of Chelios in Romanov -- same size, super strong, very mobile, basically a todo terreno type d-man. I am not saying that Romanov is going to become a legend of the game like him and the Russian is not going to put up the big points numbers that Chelly did in the 1980s, different era, different players. I am just saying the confidence, the presence all over the ice, and the physicality remind me of Chelios.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 20, 2020 14:20:15 GMT -5
Being a 18-19 year old in the KHL makes you an outlier because it is a man's league and there seems to be a certain pecking order for playing time that runs even deeper than the whole issue of whether your club's management thinks you may be close to bolting to North America. I agree with you about Sergachev, seventeen. He had the offensive tools on display in the OHL, plus he is taller and rangier so all things being equal he was always top of the radar for NHL scouts since he was 16 years old. And let's be honest now, what people saw as his potential ceiling is now well on the way to coming to fruition in Tampa. He looks like a top pair guy all day long. I see Romanov with way more confidence with the puck on his blade than a guy like Emilin every displayed. It is hard to make comparisons, though for me I see quite a bit of Chelios in Romanov -- same size, super strong, very mobile, basically a todo terreno type d-man. I am not saying that Romanov is going to become a legend of the game like him and the Russian is not going to put up the big points numbers that Chelly did in the 1980s, different era, different players. I am just saying the confidence, the presence all over the ice, and the physicality remind me of Chelios. Let's hope he becomes a Chelly.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 20, 2020 17:48:53 GMT -5
Being a 18-19 year old in the KHL makes you an outlier because it is a man's league and there seems to be a certain pecking order for playing time that runs even deeper than the whole issue of whether your club's management thinks you may be close to bolting to North America. I agree with you about Sergachev, seventeen. He had the offensive tools on display in the OHL, plus he is taller and rangier so all things being equal he was always top of the radar for NHL scouts since he was 16 years old. And let's be honest now, what people saw as his potential ceiling is now well on the way to coming to fruition in Tampa. He looks like a top pair guy all day long. I see Romanov with way more confidence with the puck on his blade than a guy like Emilin every displayed. It is hard to make comparisons, though for me I see quite a bit of Chelios in Romanov -- same size, super strong, very mobile, basically a todo terreno type d-man. I am not saying that Romanov is going to become a legend of the game like him and the Russian is not going to put up the big points numbers that Chelly did in the 1980s, different era, different players. I am just saying the confidence, the presence all over the ice, and the physicality remind me of Chelios. I'd been trying to think of a comparable and Chelios may be the closest. There's a difference in offensive abilities so far, but that could be hidden in the leagues the two came up in. At the same age of 18 Chelios was putting up a bit over a point per game (average of 18 year old seasons) in the Saskatchewan Juniour A league, 1 level below the WHL. As a 19 year old his freshman year at Wisconsin, he had a point per game, which is extremely good for a defenseman in the NCAA. He was a year older than the average freshman, however. So my initial impression is that Romanov doesn't have the offensive skills Chelios had, but he's as good a skater and might even be stronger than Chelios, pound for pound. Good comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Apr 21, 2020 8:04:44 GMT -5
Chris Chelios is high praise indeed. Another one of my favorite Habs from the 80s. Chris was the complete package: 2-way defenseman, he put up points, tough, physical, and a bit dirty to boot. He played bigger than his size too. Hockeydb lists him at 6-1, 190 lbs but it felt he was bigger than that with the way he played. Romavov is listed at 5-11, 182 lbs,
I remember hating the Chelios for Denis Savard trade when it happened in the summer of 1990. We were coming off a poor year in 1989-90 (finished 3rd and lost to the Bruins in the playoffs after going to the Cup finals in 89), but Savard was clearly in decline offensively and that trend just continued in Montreal. Meanwhile Chelios had several more peak years and won another Norris trophy as well. I know Savard was part of the Cup run in 1993 but that was still a bad trade.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 21, 2020 8:14:24 GMT -5
Chris Chelios is high praise indeed. Another one of my favorite Habs from the 80s. Chris was the complete package: 2-way defenseman, he put up points, tough, physical, and a bit dirty to boot. He played bigger than his size too. Hockeydb lists him at 6-1, 190 lbs but it felt he was bigger than that with the way he played. Romavov is listed at 5-11, 182 lbs, I remember hating the Chelios for Denis Savard trade when it happened in the summer of 1990. We were coming off a poor year in 1989-90 (finished 3rd and lost to the Bruins in the playoffs after going to the Cup finals in 89), but Savard was clearly in decline offensively and that trend just continued in Montreal. Meanwhile Chelios had several more peak years and won another Norris trophy as well. I know Savard was part of the Cup run in 1993 but that was still a bad trade. many consider it the worst trade in Habs history. the Molsons and the GM (sound familiar?) didn't think Chelios had the right character to be a Hab. and it's obvious that character is more important than winning.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 21, 2020 12:33:18 GMT -5
Chelios was a nasty piece of work....the way i like them.
He was also very offensive minded with a very good shot.
I don't see the shot or the offensive abilities in Romanov. More like a younger Emelin. Top 4 in a few years.
I think what we will have in time is a very good player, maybe, which is good enough. But he's no Sergachev. Or Markov.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 21, 2020 12:47:31 GMT -5
Here is a short clip of Romanov highlights. I’m not a scout or anything, but here are a few things I noticed:
* All these clips are either from the KHL, where he is playing against men, or from the WJC, a best-on-best tournament. So the quality of his competition is high in all of them.
* The big hits obviously get the most attention, but what I like is his awareness, and ability to find a “safe space”, either by making a short-little pass to a teammate, or by turning, and protecting the puck with his body until he’s in the open. That little pass between the oncoming forechecker skaters was so sweet… not only did he have the presence of mind to make it, under heavy pressure, but he then flipped the forechecker’s stick to give his teammate a fraction of a second more time to escape. Same with the little back passes behind the net. He knows where his partner is, and moves the puck into a safe space. Julien is going to love that.
* Speaking of the big hits… two things I noticed. One, Romanov doesn’t fall down when he does them. Oh I’m sure there are other clips where he does fall down, but in these ones he lays the hit and is in a position to skate away. That speaks to his strength and balance. Too many players take both their opponent AND themselves out of the play when going for the hit. Two, his closing speed laterally is unreal. He goes from center ice to the boards, sideways, faster than his mark can go forward to squeeze past him. He might get caught on that in the NHL – players are even faster still – but it’s still impressive.
* He can step into a shot. I don’t think he’ll be an elite scorer, or even an offensive force really, but the way he can step into a shot while in full stride is impressive. That’s second-power-play impressive (not that I think he’ll get second-power-play-duty, but nonetheless).
Like Cranky, I don’t know if he is as mean as Chelios was – Chelios hit to hurt, with his stick just as much as his body – but it’s a fair comparison stylistically. I think the hype on Romanov is probably getting out of control, but I’m still very high on him. Another reason why I like the Petry comparison is because it took Petry a few years to really come into his offensive-own, and I think the same will happen with Romanov. But I think in 3-4 years he’s going to be a top 2 defenseman.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 21, 2020 12:51:55 GMT -5
Chris Chelios is high praise indeed. Another one of my favorite Habs from the 80s. Chris was the complete package: 2-way defenseman, he put up points, tough, physical, and a bit dirty to boot. He played bigger than his size too. Hockeydb lists him at 6-1, 190 lbs but it felt he was bigger than that with the way he played. Romavov is listed at 5-11, 182 lbs, I remember hating the Chelios for Denis Savard trade when it happened in the summer of 1990. We were coming off a poor year in 1989-90 (finished 3rd and lost to the Bruins in the playoffs after going to the Cup finals in 89), but Savard was clearly in decline offensively and that trend just continued in Montreal. Meanwhile Chelios had several more peak years and won another Norris trophy as well. I know Savard was part of the Cup run in 1993 but that was still a bad trade. Savard wasn't much of a factor in the 93 run, didn't even score a goal in the games he played. Where the Habs blew it with Savard was at the draft. It seemed like a no brainer that the Francophone star would be their pick but they went with Wickenheiser. I just looked at the 1980 draft, they also could have picked Larry Murphy or Paul Coffey. My recollection of the trade is that this was forced on the GM by the team president (Corey?) because of off ice stuff. You are absolutely right, it was a dumb move.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 21, 2020 14:28:58 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the Habs had the top pick that year. Wickenheiser was the consensus #1. Any team would have picked him. Some years, you're just better off not having the top pick (2006, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017).
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 21, 2020 17:45:08 GMT -5
Like Cranky, I don’t know if he is as mean as Chelios was – Chelios hit to hurt, with his stick just as much as his body – but it’s a fair comparison stylistically. I think the hype on Romanov is probably getting out of control, but I’m still very high on him. Another reason why I like the Petry comparison is because it took Petry a few years to really come into his offensive-own, and I think the same will happen with Romanov. But I think in 3-4 years he’s going to be a top 2 defenseman. Emelin did hit but he wasn't quick enough to get back if pulled out of position so he was smart enough to pick his shots. Like Emelin, I don't think Romanov has a mean streak. Cheliios was nasty animal, picked his shot to hurt or maim and quick enough to get back in position. Right now, it's Emelin Jr but who knows, he may be a nasty version and closer to Chelios without the offense. All this super duper hype reminds of of Komisarek, that's up to when I saw him up close and saw all the marks on him getting beaten like a rented mule. Never got better. Sidebar....one of the players that baffle me is Beaulieu. He had the staking, the nasty, the offensive instinct....but working with a crippled Atari between his ears. I thought he would be a Chelios Lite...but nope. He had 28 points with us at 23 and then backslid into a bench warmer.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Apr 21, 2020 18:35:04 GMT -5
Good observations boys.
Emelin was a strong dude who could blow guys up, but for me he never looked very confident with the puck. Hockey is debatable, but for me Romanov's offensive upside is greater notwithstanding his point totals at age 18/19 in the KHL.
You are right, Cranky, about Beaulieu. He is good sized and mobile, along with the tools and willingness to engage in some rough stuff. Though, as you suggest, he is a d-man prone to bad decision-making and I think early in his career he may not have been very receptive to coaching. However, there is enough skating and size there that it would not surprise me to see him hang around the league for another five years. Sadly, Beaulieu has played considerably more NHL games than Alzner and Schlemko since that fateful summer of 2017.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 21, 2020 19:58:39 GMT -5
The problem with Beau is that he never had a good coach to develop him properly. He was unlucky to be in on the full reign of our MThead clown. Daddy Beaulieu was also a junior coach and obviously had as much development IQ as MThead. Between them, they formed rock garden and destroyed a player who had all the tools.
If Beau had a real coach and maybe a good mentor to play besides, I'm pretty sure he would NOT be an AHL lifer that he's turning into.
I can see him playing a conservative game besides Petry and Weber, matching Petry speed or providing more offense on Webers side. Plus actual size and nasty. The problem of course is that he would have to have lots of go/no-go discipline in his game, which he never got to learn when in Montreal. Too many times I would see his lonely journey into into the offensive zone and wondered, ummm, "what are you thinking dummy? Where is your support?". He even did that when there was a line change and the closest support was half a rink away. TERRIBLE thinking. Next thing you know, he's caught and there is a two on one break. The the clown would "solve" the issue by sitting him on the bench for a period. This is where a good coach and a good mentor would teach him when not to do what he wanted to do.
Beau had the tools with questionable hockey sense........but his failure was sealed by coaching clowns.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Apr 21, 2020 20:16:01 GMT -5
I was really pulling for Beaulieu. His production was starting to ramp up and he was really starting to grow into his role as a crazy SOB on top of that. Then he got KO'd by Nick Foligno. His development really stumbled after that iirc.
As for Romanov, I dislike the Emelin comparison. Emelin could hit, but wasn't even all that defensively aware. Romanov is in way more control of his game and has more offensive tools. And when there's an opening, he becomes a very enthusiastic skater. Stylistically, I liken him to Ivan Provorov on Philly, who plays an extremely efficient game. Not very flashy, but always in control and can really take advantage of situations when the opening is there.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 21, 2020 20:45:32 GMT -5
The problem with Beau is that he never had a good coach to develop him properly. He was unlucky to be in on the full reign of our MThead clown. Daddy Beaulieu was also a junior coach and obviously had as much development IQ as MThead. Between them, they formed rock garden and destroyed a player who had all the tools. If Beau had a real coach and maybe a good mentor to play besides, I'm pretty sure he would NOT be an AHL lifer that he's turning into. I can see him playing a conservative game besides Petry and Weber, matching Petry speed or providing more offense on Webers side. Plus actual size and nasty. The problem of course is that he would have to have lots of go/no-go discipline in his game, which he never got to learn when in Montreal. Too many times I would see his lonely journey into into the offensive zone and wondered, ummm, "what are you thinking dummy? Where is your support?". He even did that when there was a line change and the closest support was half a rink away. TERRIBLE thinking. Next thing you know, he's caught and there is a two on one break. The the clown would "solve" the issue by sitting him on the bench for a period. This is where a good coach and a good mentor would teach him when not to do what he wanted to do. Beau had the tools with questionable hockey sense........but his failure was sealed by coaching clowns. Joel Bouchard alluded to the fact that development and improvement takes place in the AHL, but when you get to the NHL, you're on your own. I found that really puzzling, but if he's right, one can never expect a kid to get help on the big team. Somehow that doesn't seem accurate, but who knows? So, maybe Beaulieu could have been better with more focused coaching, but I can't help feeling that that one synapse is missing as he doesn't see the game well enough to anticipate where he should be. Rather than being ahead of the play, therefore, he's chasing, and that's where he fails to fulfill his potential. Otherwise, good skater, good shot, passes ok, and he backs his teammates. I certainly prefer him to those guys picked up to replace him, but that doesn't mean he'd have improved this defense to an acceptable standard. It could get really ugly, guys. The upside is that Romanov and Juulsen come in, make the team and bring some added speed and transition to the club. The downside is that Weber's game continues to slow down, and that Chiarot is less than the guy who played his butt off this year. If those latter two take place, even the first 2 may not be enough to improve matters back there.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 21, 2020 23:48:20 GMT -5
The problem with Beau is that he never had a good coach to develop him properly. He was unlucky to be in on the full reign of our MThead clown. Daddy Beaulieu was also a junior coach and obviously had as much development IQ as MThead. Between them, they formed rock garden and destroyed a player who had all the tools. If Beau had a real coach and maybe a good mentor to play besides, I'm pretty sure he would NOT be an AHL lifer that he's turning into. I can see him playing a conservative game besides Petry and Weber, matching Petry speed or providing more offense on Webers side. Plus actual size and nasty. The problem of course is that he would have to have lots of go/no-go discipline in his game, which he never got to learn when in Montreal. Too many times I would see his lonely journey into into the offensive zone and wondered, ummm, "what are you thinking dummy? Where is your support?". He even did that when there was a line change and the closest support was half a rink away. TERRIBLE thinking. Next thing you know, he's caught and there is a two on one break. The the clown would "solve" the issue by sitting him on the bench for a period. This is where a good coach and a good mentor would teach him when not to do what he wanted to do. Beau had the tools with questionable hockey sense........but his failure was sealed by coaching clowns. Joel Bouchard alluded to the fact that development and improvement takes place in the AHL, but when you get to the NHL, you're on your own. I found that really puzzling, but if he's right, one can never expect a kid to get help on the big team. Somehow that doesn't seem accurate, but who knows? So, maybe Beaulieu could have been better with more focused coaching, but I can't help feeling that that one synapse is missing as he doesn't see the game well enough to anticipate where he should be. Rather than being ahead of the play, therefore, he's chasing, and that's where he fails to fulfill his potential. Otherwise, good skater, good shot, passes ok, and he backs his teammates. I certainly prefer him to those guys picked up to replace him, but that doesn't mean he'd have improved this defense to an acceptable standard. It could get really ugly, guys. The upside is that Romanov and Juulsen come in, make the team and bring some added speed and transition to the club. The downside is that Weber's game continues to slow down, and that Chiarot is less than the guy who played his butt off this year. If those latter two take place, even the first 2 may not be enough to improve matters back there. I think there are lots of players with Ataris but they learned to play safe and created a career out of that. Jordin Benn and Scandella don't have much of a toolbelt and yet, made NHL careers out of what little they have. Both learned to play low risk games. Beau never did and I put that on lack of coaching....or too much clown coaching. As for learning, I understand if Bouchard made that comment as he laments the lack of coaching at the NHL level, but he better not carry that as his philosophy. Further, if players are not coached, then exactly why do they have assistant coaches? For drinking budflies? I'm worried more about Weber then Chiarot. Chiarot is barely top 4 so him playing in the top 2 pairing is gravy. Better him then Benn or Mete. Don't expect much from Juulsen or Romanov. At best, they are 3rd pairing for now. If that. I suspect Kulak and Fluery to step up one notch. Although at 1 point in 41 games, Fleury is begging to become a stepping stool to those behind him.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Apr 22, 2020 10:10:14 GMT -5
Don't expect much from Juulsen or Romanov. At best, they are 3rd pairing for now. If that. I suspect Kulak and Fluery to step up one notch. Although at 1 point in 41 games, Fleury is begging to become a stepping stool to those behind him. The improvement is going to have to come from SOMEWHERE, right Cranky? The Habs blue line is a weak spot and there is no scenario that contemplates contention without a legit D corps. Right now we have Shea Weber, Jeff Petry and a that's it. And it's even worse than that because even if one assumes we will be a contending team in 2 years, Jeff Petry is a UFA after this season and Shea Weber will be 36 years old. So we could be looking at either being forced to probably overpay to keep Petry (who will be 33 when he hits UFA) or losing him and relying on a 36 year old Shea Weber. The Habs simply can't afford to miss on these prospects. At least 2-3 of the group that includes Mete, Juulsen, Romanov, Brook, Fleury, Harris, Struble need to emerge at top 4 guys, if not top pair guys. There's just no way around it. Failing that, the option is to explore trading the likes of Domi, Drouin, Kotkaniemi, Suzuki for a sure fire #1 dman. I'm fine with that as it's always good to deal from a position of surplus (young forwards) to address an area of need (defense). I'd rather not let Bergie make that trade because I just don't trust the guy not to screw it up. I'm fine rolling out more or less the same team next year, but with a focus on making sure 2-3 of the 6 D spots are occupied by the young guys.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 22, 2020 12:31:16 GMT -5
I'm fine rolling out more or less the same team next year, but with a focus on making sure 2-3 of the 6 D spots are occupied by the young guys. Do you think that will happen with Julien as coach? In my mind, I've had 2022-23 as a target season for 'putting it all together'. It seemed reasonable, given the numbers and ages of the kids in the pipeline. The braintrust, however, has approached it differently. For them, or at least for Berg and Julien, it's win now. They have not deviated from that goal and perhaps their own survival depends on it. Mete was used as a 19 year old, but his path was up and down and was basically forced on the team because he was better than the numerous chaff they signed in an effort to replace Markov. I could see Juulsen winning a spot. Romanov too possibly, but I'd be on pins and needles each time he made a mistake. I'm with you. I'd play those guys and work with them, thick and thin. I'm just not sure Julien has the patience for that at this point in his career.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 22, 2020 13:58:14 GMT -5
The problem is gping to be....
Play the rookies tillthey drop but chances are, no playoffs....
Bye Bbinz. Julien is on the ropes.
Play the vets and make the playoffs....
Bbinz has a job. And so does Julien.
Be serious now, which do youthink is more likely?
We need to look at what we have on hand and realize that our top rookies and Kk have not shown a Suzuki like growth. Chances are that Romanov/Juulsen become legit top 6. Which by definition are equal or better then anyone not named Weber/Petry.
BTW...i expect Petry to sign a home discount 5x5 year contract. The virus will eat into RFA and FA expectations.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 22, 2020 17:00:46 GMT -5
The problem is gping to be.... Play the rookies tillthey drop but chances are, no playoffs.... Bye Bbinz. Julien is on the ropes. Play the vets and make the playoffs.... Bbinz has a job. And so does Julien. Be serious now, which do youthink is more likely? What I think is likely is that whether you play the kids or the vets, it's going to be a struggle to make the playoffs. Julien and Bergevin are convinced that what derailed the team this season was injuries. Quite possibly, but if they think the team is going injury free next year, I'm going all in that they're not. Injuries will happen. The severity and impact can vary, but you have to be very, very lucky to avoid injuries and that may be the only way this team can make it.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 22, 2020 19:23:26 GMT -5
The problem is gping to be.... Play the rookies tillthey drop but chances are, no playoffs.... Bye Bbinz. Julien is on the ropes. Play the vets and make the playoffs.... Bbinz has a job. And so does Julien. Be serious now, which do youthink is more likely? What I think is likely is that whether you play the kids or the vets, it's going to be a struggle to make the playoffs. Julien and Bergevin are convinced that what derailed the team this season was injuries. Quite possibly, but if they think the team is going injury free next year, I'm going all in that they're not. Injuries will happen. The severity and impact can vary, but you have to be very, very lucky to avoid injuries and that may be the only way this team can make it. Julien will play the vets... MB will pick up guys on waivers... and they'll hope they make the playoffs.. and if by some stroke of luck they make the playoffs then it it is all on Molson... if he extends MB after his current contract... then all hope is lost.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 22, 2020 21:05:37 GMT -5
Don't expect much from Juulsen or Romanov. At best, they are 3rd pairing for now. If that. I suspect Kulak and Fluery to step up one notch. Although at 1 point in 41 games, Fleury is begging to become a stepping stool to those behind him. The improvement is going to have to come from SOMEWHERE, right Cranky? The Habs blue line is a weak spot and there is no scenario that contemplates contention without a legit D corps. Right now we have Shea Weber, Jeff Petry and a that's it. And it's even worse than that because even if one assumes we will be a contending team in 2 years, Jeff Petry is a UFA after this season and Shea Weber will be 36 years old. So we could be looking at either being forced to probably overpay to keep Petry (who will be 33 when he hits UFA) or losing him and relying on a 36 year old Shea Weber. The Habs simply can't afford to miss on these prospects. At least 2-3 of the group that includes Mete, Juulsen, Romanov, Brook, Fleury, Harris, Struble need to emerge at top 4 guys, if not top pair guys. There's just no way around it. Failing that, the option is to explore trading the likes of Domi, Drouin, Kotkaniemi, Suzuki for a sure fire #1 dman. I'm fine with that as it's always good to deal from a position of surplus (young forwards) to address an area of need (defense). I'd rather not let Bergie make that trade because I just don't trust the guy not to screw it up. I'm fine rolling out more or less the same team next year, but with a focus on making sure 2-3 of the 6 D spots are occupied by the young guys. Excellent analysis, i fully agree. Weber is slower than he was and currently better than he will be and he is our beat. Years ago he made up for PK’s mistakes and PK covered for Webers lack of speed. Petry is our #2, in his 30’s and our second best. Little Mete is fast, carries the puck but lacks a shot and strength. From there its downhill on D. Romanov doesn’t score at all against weaker competition (unproven at best. There is no hope. If Molson didn’t fire MB after year 5, year six, year seven.... i cant imagine any scenario where he would????Even if MB is fired at this point the damage is done and the uphill climb is difficult for any new GM plus Molson has to admit his past mistakes and being too slow to rectify them. Harold Ballard the second.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Apr 22, 2020 23:04:46 GMT -5
The problem is gping to be.... Play the rookies tillthey drop but chances are, no playoffs.... Bye Bbinz. Julien is on the ropes. Play the vets and make the playoffs.... Bbinz has a job. And so does Julien. Be serious now, which do youthink is more likely? We need to look at what we have on hand and realize that our top rookies and Kk have not shown a Suzuki like growth. Chances are that Romanov/Juulsen become legit top 6. Which by definition are equal or better then anyone not named Weber/Petry. BTW...i expect Petry to sign a home discount 5x5 year contract. The virus will eat into RFA and FA expectations. I believe that you are right that this public health crisis will hurt everyone's bottom line. According to LeBrun, basically the best case scenario for the players is a cap freeze for the next three seasons. So, yeah, I could see Petry lowering his pretensions a bit. He could do a Markov and say just keep me at my same AAV from one contract to the next, perhaps 5 years/$27.5 million.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 23, 2020 14:24:24 GMT -5
The problem is gping to be.... Play the rookies tillthey drop but chances are, no playoffs.... Bye Bbinz. Julien is on the ropes. Play the vets and make the playoffs.... Bbinz has a job. And so does Julien. Be serious now, which do youthink is more likely? We need to look at what we have on hand and realize that our top rookies and Kk have not shown a Suzuki like growth. Chances are that Romanov/Juulsen become legit top 6. Which by definition are equal or better then anyone not named Weber/Petry. BTW...i expect Petry to sign a home discount 5x5 year contract. The virus will eat into RFA and FA expectations. I believe that you are right that this public health crisis will hurt everyone's bottom line. According to LeBrun, basically the best case scenario for the players is a cap freeze for the next three seasons. So, yeah, I could see Petry lowering his pretensions a bit. He could do a Markov and say just keep me at my same AAV from one contract to the next, perhaps 5 years/$27.5 million. 5.5 x 5 is generous and takes him were he may be bottom six by the end of it. If Petry is still our top 4 at 38, then this is would be an epic failure of a team. Also, no guarantee that the virus hasn't fixed stupid. He's not worth 7 by more then a few years. So a 7x5 would mean....we got no defense.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Apr 28, 2020 18:01:05 GMT -5
Bergevin needs to be careful and not let his affinity for this veteran group seep into his decision-making. Long-term deals for 30+ year old are risky propositions. I like Petry's game a lot and feel half-way confident that his skating and health will hold up, but having said that I prefer he gets four years and certainly five would be the max.
Look at Seabrook in Chicago. His current eight year contract ($6.875 AAV) started when he was 31 years old and the Blackhawks have won precisely zero playoff series since the deal kicked in. It's brutal. He's 35 now, totally broken down and there are four years left on the contract.
No one is perfect, real world decisions have to be made with less than ideal trade-offs embedded in every choice. So I can live with the last year or at the most two years of a deal for an important vet not turning out great for the club but three, four, or five years of a guy vastly underperforming on a major cap hit really hurts bad.
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on May 8, 2020 7:41:05 GMT -5
Ho hum, boring news day.
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on May 8, 2020 7:42:53 GMT -5
Good little tidbit.
|
|