Leaderboard

After weeks or months of speculation, The Habs have locked down Joel Bouchard as their new head coach in Laval. Between Ducharme and Bouchard, I think we have a real solid duo that could be leading our team in 5 years. Their was some discussion that Bouchard could be hired in a management capacity, and I still wouldn’t be surprised to see him there someday, but I think being talented enough to both coach and manage is a great asset for Bouchard to have. Five years time, would anyone be surprised to see Ducharme as head coach of the habs, and Bouchard up as well, perhaps in a management position? Good for the future

I’m no moderator, but I couldn’t agree more. Just as a regular poster, I’d love to see people only downvote comments that cross the line in terms of vulgarity or insults, or comments that take away from the discussion. IMO downvoting a comment simply because you disagree isn’t having a discussion. That’s why we have these boards. People have differing opinions and that’s the entire point.

You mean the trade that sent arguably the best goalie of all time to a powerhouse Avalanche team and got back garbage in return? The one where the player demanded a trade? Not even comparable to this deal. That's the crux of this discussion. People acting like we got garbage back in the deal. We were able to acquire a "lateral at best" player for what was perceived to be a problem in the room. Who cares if there was or wasn't a problem? If looked at as a hockey trade it is one great player for another. That should be the end of it. And what people are you referring to that never liked Subban? I haven't come across one on here that didn't like him or want him as a Hab at the time. I just want the Habs to do well. They did not this season but it had ZERO to do with this trade.

So do we get to talk about all the “pointless” “lateral” moves that “served no purpose” in the history of the NHL? Or just this one? There is without a shadow of a doubt a few players on the team who were happy with the transaction for whatever reason they feel. I would be surprised if there were a single player on the team who were like oh no we lost Subban and are getting Weber. While I do not know for a fact, it does seem that both sides of this argument are true. In that case, we got a player who is a 47% vs 53% at worst, judging by their career statistics and leaving defense out of the equation, but also had players on his own team happy to see him leave. It seems as though at least Gallagher felt that way.

I would like to commend all of those who downvote me over the years for their excellent perception and good judgment. Keep up the good work.

When i look at the chances of a player making the NHL, I'd rather keep our two 50s picks than get say 25. That said, most teams won't give you a pick at 25 for 2 picks in the 50s. Historical results... what is the trade value of a pick vs how often players in those picks succeed tells us that NHL teams generally are overvaluing late first round picks vs second rounders and have been for quite some time. Its a market inefficiency. I'd even trade down... something like my 35th pick for say 45, plus a 2nd rounder in 2019. The market hasn't caught up to the research right now... and generally in those spots you are better to lose a few spaces and gain extra picks. (The same may not apply to picks in the very top of the draft though).

I feel better now for the development of prospects that we get out of all these draft picks we have going forward.

Subban helps his team win by contributing massively on the ice game-in and game-out. Bergevin hurts his team's chances of winning with his incompetent decision making. This is the reason for my "bias" whereby I see Subban as an asset and Bergevin as a liability - which is less a "bias" and more a set of conclusions derived from observation. On this question of The Room, Commandant is bang-on. In 2014-15, all we heard about over and over was the incredible chemistry in the room. Come 2015-16, suddenly chemistry is a "problem." Well, what happened? Did Subban become MORE of a jerk overnight? Unlikely. What in fact happened, almost certainly, was the team cratered due to Price's injury, and amidst all the negativity, egos and squabbles took over. An intelligent general manager would have diagnosed the REAL problem - losing due to Price's injury - and created a 'fresh start' by firing a coach who was at his best-by date anyway. This would have created the conditions for everyone turning the page more or less (after all, there is never a requirement that players love each other, just that they be professionals and not allow personal enmity to get in the way of the job). But no. Instead of doing what any other GM would have done in his position and fire the coach, MB had to stick with his bum-buddy and blame PK Subban, who we all know was too uppity anyhow. So I'm pretty sure the room would have resolved itself if he had left it alone and done the sensible thing. Besides...according to our Idiot in Chief the trade did NOT resolve the 'attitude' issues on the team anyway. So how can the trade be defensible on those grounds? This is all more bafflegab justifying an arbitrary deal that didn't make any hockey sense and which succeeded only in making the Habs older, slower, less spirited, more boring and less fun to watch, and possibly even less effective on the ice.

I’ve been on this board for more than 10 years and had never been downvoted prior to the Pacioretty and Subban discussions. In both cases, I’m defending my own team. (And I don’t feel blindly) What can ya do?

The only issue I have is people constantly repeating that there was no reason for the move in the first place. It’s simply possible that there were indeed actual valid reasons for the trade. Shea Weber has just as much pedigree as P.K. Subban. We had P.K., wanted a different look, and had the opportunity to get one of the 8-10 or so defenders one could even have a discussion about as a Norris candidate. In terms of leadership, again Shea Weber isn’t some mythical leader who would improve the chemistry on any single team in the NHL. There are already Sidney Crosbys, Jonathan Toews’, Sedin Twins, Bergerons, Blake Wheelers, Jamie Benns, Zetterbergs etc. in this league. When people discussed leadership with Weber, it was in comparison with Subban. Subban leads in his own way and actually says a lot of the right things, but if we’re going to say Subban had issues with even one or two people, Shea Weber will have more of a positive impact in the locker room, where not one person has anything but respect for him. That the Habs haven’t had relative success since the trade does not mean that it did not solve any issues. All of our issues have nothing to with this move. Not signing Radulov and Markov and trading Sergachev for Drouin had nothing to do with an old school mentality. Signing Streit after Markov bailed is also a stupid one, but one that demonstrates the knowledge of how the modern NHL supposedly works. We have Weber, we have Petry. Now let’s get some top 4 defensemen who can help offensively on the left side.

As for the downvote brigade... its pretty clear that we have one of two things happening. 1) either people don't want to hear about Subban and have decided to downvote everything with his name in it good or bad. or 2) a group of people vote down everything bad said about subban and a group of others vote down everything good said about subban. I can't for the life of me, see any other reason why either of these two posts would be downvoted, and its bullshit.

The problem is that, in my opinion, management is on the wrong side of the chicken and egg debate. Winning brings a feeling of hapiness, of satisfaction, or accomplishment. Losing brings frustration, finger pointing, pressure, etc... Winning teams are generally speaking (and the Hawks are the exception).. more cohesive. They have a better attitude. They get along better. There is less pressure and less issues. Losing creates the opposite. See this management thinks the attitude and the lack of character are leading to the losing, rather than seeing that if you have talent,, and win, most of those problems will solve themselves. That's what this trade is a sign of to me... that management is attacking things from the wrong end (and the press conference this season indicates that they are continuing to attack things from the character and attitude side of the equation), not recognizing that if they inject talent, and the team wins, the attitudes will take care of themselves... as there are more good feelings going on in the room.

Great hiring, it shouldn't be too long before he is up with the Habs in some capacity.

I agree with everything here till the end. We don't know what the breakdown of who liked him or hated him or how many. Maybe it was most of the room, maybe it was only mostly management. And just because the Blackhawk dynasty was able to overcome issues that year, doesn't mean that most teams can. It's possible for me to come to work everyday and not like my coworker but still perform at my highest level. But I'll tell you that it would be much easier for me to do so without putting up with said coworker.

All of the Laval assistants are now officially not returning. Bouchard can hire his own assistants.

Look, its clear that SOME of his teammates didn't like him. I don't think thats a big debate. Others liked him a lot. That's normal, not everyone is going to like everyone else. The thing is, that when the team was winning, there were no issues... and when the team didn't win, there was more talk of issues in 2016. That's also normal. Teams that win are happy and get along. Teams that lose, have more finger pointing and fights. The issue is whether it was necessary to trade him cause he had some issues with a few players. Judging by the Blackhawks that won their third cup despite massive locker room issues, not it was not necessary.

What did the Habs win with Subban? What have the Predators won with Subban? Does Subban get praise for the team accomplishments as a Hab but Bergevin doesn't? Please explain your obvious bias further There are plenty of examples of players who are on their way out being traded for much less. Management made the decision to trade him much prior to it happening. We don't know the exact reason, all I read around here is pure speculation about egos and racism. They decided he had to go and the fact that they were able to get Shea Weber out of it was a good deal. Again, his former Habs teammates didn't seem to mind one bit, so that's more telling than anything. I'll also add that Weber is cheaper than Subban in salary cap and also in actual salary paid.

Yeah. They "needed" this because they are a bunch of hide-bound dinosaurs who prioritize bland company men and who don't understand the value of puck-moving/possession in today's game. In other words, they didn't need to do this at all for reasons except ego and ignorance. Their premise was false. Anyway, we shouldn't be making trades that are at best lateral moves. Rather we should be making trades that are lateral moves at worst. After the disaster of 2016, their priority was not improving the team. It was protecting a coach who got fired six months later and also getting rid of PK Subban. 'nuff said. The inability to fill all those pieces - the actual, as opposed to fairy-tale, team needs - is of a piece with these incompetent priorities. It's all part of the same problem, i.e., a management group that does not know what it is doing.

You also don't lose with a lateral move. Every trade doesn't have to be a win or loss, they felt that they needed to ship Subban out, and they were able to get back an elite player in his position. They didn't trade him for a bunch of bums or low round draft picks. In terms of moving the puck up the ice, they need to fill those voids on the left side. Saying it falls solely on Weber is like saying he is not a capable NHLer. This team is not "fundamentally flawed" because of Bergevin's character mindset, it's flawed because he decimated the left defense, didn't fill the holes at center and the team has an abundance of left handed wingers.

The way that the trade is brought up doesn't come across as simple symbolism. The way it is usually presented is that the team would be much better if it didn't happen, as if the marginal difference between the two players would propel this team up the standings. Who cares if Bergevin throws around words like character and attitude? We should be focusing on the deficiencies down the middle, on left defense and also the lackluster performance of Carey Price. You're ostracizing Bergevin for having an ego, but yet when he trades away Subban, who arguably has the biggest ego in the league, it's a problem. So is having an ego an issue or not? Anyone here from what I've read over the last couple years who have either defended the trade or simply are neutral on it, are definitely less biased towards Bergevin. I would consider myself in the neutral category, but I find that I have to come across as an opposing view because some of the statements I read are ridiculous and unfounded.

I haven’t mentioned trading up before. The only time I remember us trading up recently in the first round was to draft Tinordi - another pick driven by size and character fetish (bloodlines. If we are going to trade up, I would hope it is to draft guys like Fowler, or Forsberg who inexplicably dropped - I remember at one time, Forsberg, galchenyuk, yakapov, Murray and gigerenko were all considered as potential #1 picks.

I think you make that move at the draft, if there is someone that has slipped a bit that you really want and don’t think will be around in the 2nd. I don’t see the point of making a move like that earlier, not knowing who will be on the board when you pick.

Look. The trade did not give us the better overall player by any non-bullshit measurement standard, did not make us a better team, and obviously did not solve the supposed problems of 'leadership' and 'character,' since our idiot GM is still citing those as excuses. So it was either a pointless lateral move, or a failure - on its own terms. I don't know why this is so hard to recognize, or why people seem to think that saying this is somehow an attack on Weber, blaming him for the Habs' suckage, etc.. The trade served no good purpose and still doesn't.

I guess you forgot that Bergevin said the attitude problem started before the team played a game. Which would include Weber. But again, I agree with the Joe Morrow's that it's Bergevin making excuses and not something he actually knows. The first time Julien contradicted Bergevin was on this. "Attitude" and "Character" are just buzz words. The whole reason people say Weber's influence is exaggerated is because it's treated as a major reason to have a Shea Weber on the club. He's supposed to be a mythic leader. That's not Weber's claim. That's the claim from people trying to make Weber seem more valuable than he is. He's a well respected hockey player. That's it. The locker hasn't turned around with him being there but anyone thinking it would was just buying into the hype. Any award for leadership with Messier's name on it shouldn't be taken serious. Fact is, if anyone says "personality issues" is a reason for the trade, it was in Nashville's favour. They have been 100% positive about him. Say he's a major part of the locker. Laviolette loves him. To remove Weber and add Subban to Nashville, it seems like a team with a lot more unity. Not saying that's because Weber was a problem, but he certainly didn't seem like a solution.

I’m certainly not crying about downvotes considering it’s the first time I’ve used the word after having been on this website for over 10 years. However, when all I’ve done is make one post in a 24 hour span on the topic and find myself having multiple downvotes on previous posts from days ago that I wouldn’t even be able to find and may even be unrelated to this topic, just because of that one post, I have to conclude that people are over sensitive on the topic. The point is that even if a perceived character issue was the initial catalyst for the trade, the Habs then still got an elite all star caliber player on their team in return. One cannot say that the trade was only because of character, had no hockey reasons, and then also add that Subban has zero character flaws. I also personally do not agree that Subban is so much better than Weber. He is a better point getter, smoother on his feet and with puck movement, but scores less goals and turns over the puck in higher risk situations. That’s without taking into account their different demeanor. I understand people don’t like turnover numbers. I understand Weber turns it over as well. I understand Habs stats at the Bell Center are skewed. This doesn’t change the fact that their styles are different and that comes with the good and the bad. I still think that trades like Karlsson for Burns, Byfuglien for Carlson or Subban for Weber are relative washes and not such a big deal. Different looks for each team. I’ve seen a comparison to the Savard trade and people forget that if it were the Savard trade, it would have been Subban and a pick for Shea Weber. This entire time, I’ve rarely seen any of the people who dislike the trade mention how great it is to have Weber on the team. I’ve seen things like “this isn’t about Weber”, “it wasn’t Weber’s fault the trade happened”, “no one is saying Weber is bad”. Fact is, it’s a great thing to have Shea Weber on this team. The main reason people are actually judging this move to such a serious extent are because they hate Bergevin in general, or had a preconceived notion that Subban was absolutely untouchable prior to the trade.

Goals per game average 16-17 and 17-18 (regular season) Weber: 0.22 (2nd) Subban: 0.18 (5th) Assists per game average: 16-17 and 17-18 (regular season) Weber: 0.34 (37th) Subban: 0.49 (15th) Points per game average: 16-17 and 17-18 (regular season) Weber: 0.56 (23rd) Subban: 0.67 (11th)

Sure they do some different things. But honestly... the #1 reason for the trade was off-ice character considerations. Its been part of every report on the trade. Every story... whether it's the King Clancy stuff.. or the whispers of fights with teammates, or the Bergevin press conference, or the talk of how Weber is a leader, or the fact that the Analytics were heavily swayed in Subban's favour but Bergevin ignored them saying that it was more than just the numbers, or the coach banning the triple low five, or the fact that no one from the organization showed up at the hospital for his announcement, or the fact the team didn't like the PK76 branding that he's done, and on and on. The price interview about the trade with Friedmann, Gallagher's comments on Subban this year, all of it is about character. Or the reports that Bergevin was concerned about Subban having too much power after his no trade clause kicked in. Or Therrien calling out subban in the media. The marinaro report the next day that was a total attack on Subban that came from "inside sources"... all of it. Its simply not a believable narrative that the Character issue was anything less than the #1 reason for that trade. If you believe anything else, I'd like to sell you my ownership stakes in the brooklyn bridge, or perhaps some florida everglades waterfront property. As for complaining about downvotes... join the club... I've been downvoted twice for my post above and 5 times for the post on Weber/Subban last week, so don't cry to me about downvotes on the issue.

Tinordi and Crisp were two of most recent trade-ups...how did that work? When were more skilled guys available, without trading up at all. But, I still think was a push from Molson to add size, so his team wouldn't be called smurfs any more. No, likely better value to trade down or even to next year's draft, to trade up you need to overpay in pick value. Here are two of a hundred different draftpick value bits: http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/Schuckers_NHL_Draftchart.pdf https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131

You were implying that one of the reasons Montreal sucks is because of Subban for Weber. That's where we disagree. Having one elite #1 right defenseman instead of another isn't why they were so bad. One of the reasons is the #1 elite defenseman we have was injured in the 1st game of the season, played well for a couple dozen games and then was shut down with said injury. Name me a team that doesn't suffer because of a loss like that. Everything is amplified here because of certain circumstances and it is being twisted into false evidence. Along with Weber, losing Radulov and Markov for nothing, Carey Price playing worse than the waiver wire backup goalie and a coach who doesn't seem to have pulse on this team are the reasons the team failed this year, not Subban for Weber. If you want to talk about other problem character players on the team, I'll give you Karl Alzner. Dumb signing, way overpaid and for too long. Andrew Shaw is a good hockey player. Maybe a bit overpaid but a meaningful player who can produce. What's wrong with Jordie Benn for a million per season? And why bother mentioning the other bums? Let's talk about who was brought in. How about the supposedly bad character Jonathan Drouin, he is fairly talented. Jeff Petry would be considered a skilled defenseman. Thomas Vanek can stickhandle in a phone booth. Drafting Galchenyuk, Lehkonen, Mete, Hudon, Andrighetto, Reway, and Scherbak indicates hope for talent. Signed Radulov and offered him an equal extension that was turned down. I don't think he signed Ales Hemsky to put up points with his character. Long before he was captain, the talented Max Pacioretty was signed to one of the best deals in hockey. The character and attitude narrative is blown out of proportion. One trade and a few soundbites don't corroborate with the entire body of work.

Can you provide some examples where he traded away talent for character?

What's funny to me is that Patrick Roy had his own charity not associated with the team (Ronald McDonald House) and had teammates who hated him, and got traded after the worst game of his career, and everyone knows that trade was a terrible idea. The team had a good season without Roy and finished Top 10 in most categories before losing to the... Rangers. Oh my. But nobody gives Houle and Corey the excuse of oh he was bad for the locker and a change was needed. But make it Subban? Make it a not terrible return? Suddenly having a small issue with Gallagher and maybe Pacioretty is a good reason to trade him. Or it's obvious this has everything to do with people that never really liked Subban and will defend it for any reason. They just wish Subban gave them one.

“We talk here and there,” Galchenyuk said after practice Friday “We always hung out a lot,” Galchenyuk said about his relationship with Subban in Montreal. “When I first came here, he was one of the younger guys on the team and young guys usually always hang out. He was younger, wasn’t married, didn’t have kids. So we hung out.” Sounds like best friends for life I think it's pretty common for former teammates meeting a player coming back to the arena, and usually it's more than two. How many of his teammates went to the hospital donation/PK Subban party? How many votes did he get for captain? How about the King Clancy? You've named a couple of examples from the dozens of teammates he had. Just because a few didn't mind him or even liked him, doesn't mean he's not a problem overall. Even Sean Avery had friends

Did you not see the anger in Gallagher’s demeanor when discussing P.K. Subban? That’s not something that stems from one incident. From everything I’ve gathered it does seem that there were issues in the locker room and that the main way to solve those issues would have been to ship someone out. It is not only Therrien and Bergevin that may have had issue with Subban. It was actual players on the team. A more fair argument in my eyes would be not to state that Subban was traded for no reason, but that whoever else was involved could have been the ones moved with Subban instead being kept. What none of us know is how many people felt a certain type of way. Did only one person have issue with Subban? Did Subban have issue with anyone? However you want to call it, Subban has an extremely extroverted personality. I’d imagine that it would be a very touchy subject but as much as I’ve seen the racism cards played out, I’ve also seen constant mentions of narcisstic traits in relation to Subban now and then, not only on this site. Please do not misconstrue what I am saying as an attack on Subban because I am not defining Subban as a narcissist. I don’t know him at all. What I do know is that he rubbed at least one or two players on our team the wrong way and that Gallagher mentioned something about “P.K. making it all about P.K.” I’ve also seen fan reaction and mentions of how losing P.K. was like losing a girlfriend. In fact these people are reacting the same way someone would act after a relationship with a narcissist. They have you convinced they are your soulmate, only for them to eventually reveal their true colors to those who are closest to them, unless they still need something from you. I once dated a narcissist myself. You know what she would say whenever she got a parking ticket? “I consider it a donation.” Kind acts are often done for themselves and eventually, the mask wears off. Any comments about how Nashville has embraced Subban in the early going are of no surprise even if one were to agree with what I just said. What would be more surprising if that were true is whether it would last in the long term. If Subban remains a predator for the next 5-10 years, I’ll eat my words. If he doesn’t, this doesn’t back up my claims either but I will not be surprised. Bergevin did not explicitly go out and look to trade a puck mover for a dinosaur who cannot move the puck. Nashville starts with the letter “N”. Montreal starts with the letter “M”. At GM meetings, teams sit arranged by alphabetical order. It is no surprise then, that Poile and Bergevin would interact at such occasions. At one of the general manager meetings, Poile was the one who approached Bergevin and mentioned the names P.K. Subban and Shea Weber. While I can agree that perhaps the initial thought process behind trading P.K. Subban weren’t purely based on hockey, the player we got in return helped our team in many hockey related areas. The trade could have been much worse. The players are quite close in caliber and here’s to hoping Weber has a great year next year. ——— I understand that I may have opened a can of worms with some of my comments but I only speak based on observation. I’m sorry if I offended anyone by attributing narcissism with P.K. Subban, I just tend to notice narcissitic traits in people because of my past history. Having narcissistic traits is a good thing and is a far cry from actually being a narcissist. That could very well be P.K. Subban as well. What I do know is that P.K. Subban did rub some people on our own team off the wrong way (whether narcisstic or not) and that it is therefore just as incorrect to state that the trade happened for no reason at all.

Did anyone ever say this? The trade is a symbol. A symbol of ossified, old-school management that doesn't seem to grasp the direction in which the game is going and which prioritizes its own ego over results on the ice. And which is chronically incapable of addressing ACTUAL rather than make-believe problems.

Lol, "fact" Okay, can you at least admit it served no bad purpose? Then perhaps we can all just realize that this trade isn't the issue with the team.

Character, attitude and leadership. Oh wait, those are still issues. But hey we did get older and added more senior citizen years of cap hit.

Unauthorized donation???? Really??? A hockey player needs authorization from his hockey team to make a large donation??? Are we talking about an employer-employee relationship, or a master-slave relationship??? Or I guess since Subban is black, he should have checked with his masters!!!??

Boy I’m sure the hawks should have traded Kane for his issues with teammates and cab drivers??. Could have avoided all of th hassles like winning a friggin cup. could it be that he is more coachsble, because he is actually has a legitimate coach and not some ex-bouncer bafoon who likes to make up stories about his broken hearted captain crying in his arms?

“Apart from the first month where Weber went on a crazy and unsustainable scoring tear, this team's record has been absolutely execrable since trading Subban. And that's WITH Price in the lineup. Results speak for themselves.” “Second, the core is stale; frankly, it has looked unconvincing ever since Subban left (or, if I wanted to be generous, ever since Weber stopped scoring at a crazy pace in his first six weeks with us). The team has a piss-poor record over an entire year, and even when it made the playoffs looked insipid. At some point, you go, 'well...let's try something else.'” “Y'know, my math is terrible. But I believe the latter half, extrapolated across a full season, put us on pace for 93 points - i.e., out of the playoffs. So, OK, yes, better than .500. But a bubble team at best. It therefore seems to remain accurate, then, to say that since combining Carey Price and Weber the Habs have indeed stunk, except for that initial spectacular six-week explosion by #6. Of course you can't just discount that initial explosion, but when a core player is scoring way off the chart of his career patterns, you'd also be crazy to take that as the default setting. Once Weber reverted to norms in December, the Habs basically became a bubble team or worse. Where they have remained.” “It's also true that the team has basically sucked since it traded Subban, apart from Weber's aberrant six-week explosion when he first artived. The fact is that the longer Bergevin has been in charge, the worse the team has gotten.” Do any of those comments sound familiar? Seems to me some people think the issue with the current team stems in large part from the deal we speak of. I think Machine of Loving Grace said it best.... ”2013-2017, only two Habs defencemen have more than five points in the playoffs: Subban and Markov. They "replaced" Subban with Weber. There isn't even a backup to Markov like Petry could be to Subban. The left defence is pretty much offensively inept without Markov, and there's absolutely nothing to replace him in the present or future. Except cap space! Can't wait to see what cap space can do in the playoffs.” We have Shea Weber and a puck mover in Jeff Petry on the right side in the top 4. What we need is a puck moving left handed defenseman. We would still need that even if P.K. Subban were on the team.