Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/15/18 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    We Ok lets look at the Entire body of work: 2012 off-season. His first big free agent move was overpaying and wasting cap space on Brandon Prust. At the same time he made this move, he was overpaying Travis Moen, a contract he'd later have to dump, taking back the decrepit body of Sergei Gonchar just to get rid of him. 2013 off-season The next year, he took Michael McCarron in the first round, and Connor Crisp in the third round. Both for their character. More talented players like Anthony Duclair, and Pavel Buchnevich were available in the third round but had character concerns. He then signed Douglas Murray and George Parros in the off-season. He allowed Michael Ryder to walk, instead signing Daniel Briere. Later Briere was shipped out and Parenteau brought in. At the 2015 deadline Defense was improved with Petry. We needed more scoring.. what did we add for forwards... character in Torrey Mitchell, Bryan Flynn, and Devante Smith-Pelley 2015 off-season after we failed to score enough goals. We brought in Fleischmann and Semin instead of you know... talent. 2016 we flamed out. Subban was traded for Weber We overpaid for Andrew Shaw We signed Radulov, but only one year cause character was a question At the deadline when we needed scoring, we instead got Martinsen, Ott, Nolan, Benn. 2017 we let markov and radulov walk we grabbed character in Alzner. There are a shit ton of moves that can be traced back to ####ing character.
  2. 2 points
    The only forward we’ve had since the mid 90’s that can be considered a guy to build around, is a leader and makes everyone around him better was Koivu - and he was never the guy he could have been I’d he didnt blow out his knee. That’s a terrible indictment on the habs management teams for over two decades. maxpac and Kovolev are great complementary players you need to win, but they aren’t the straw that stirs the drink. We had one of those on the backend and dumped him.
  3. 2 points
    I see many of you taking your shots, but he produced more and put on a better show than any forward on the current roster does. I'd rather watch him play hockey than Patioready any day.
  4. 2 points
    Plus he specialzes in long walks by the Yangze earnestly discussing life.
  5. 2 points
    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
  6. 2 points
    "Okay guys get out there and either try or float your hardest, whatever you feel! And let's see those silky mitts too!" - Kovalev probably
  7. 2 points
    I couldn’t actually careless about upvotes or downvotes. Most of the time I forget we even have that option here.
  8. 2 points
    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.
  9. 2 points
    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.
  10. 2 points
    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.
  11. 2 points
    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.
  12. 2 points
    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).
  13. 2 points
    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
  14. 2 points
    On a different (but similar) note. I hate the team, but I look at what Bill Belichick does every single year in New England and it works. never trade up. Trade down and get more picks whenever possible. Statistically people overvalue the trade up. I already hear a ton of people saying we should trade 35 and 39 for a pick in the mid-twenties... thats dumb. Accumulate picks... take more swings... the more second rounders you have, the better. We have 4... if two become top 6/top 4 players and two bust out, we are already ahead of the game. There are a ton of centres and puck moving D in the second round. Guys who have real potential, but have one or two small flaws to work on. Take 4 of them... and figure out if a couple can fix that issue. There is very little statistical difference in players making the NHL and being impact players drafted at 25, or drafted at 30-40.... so keep the extra picks.
  15. 2 points
    Cool, so the Habs will finally get Hossa!
  16. 2 points
    Some might say the fact that they always got scored on in bunches is a character flaw. Not being able to recover from adversity. If that is the case.... then the GM who preached character from day 1, and whose team in year 6 has a serious character flaw... should be fired.
  17. 1 point
    That’s the thing. I think people forget that your team having a terrible offence means naturally the other team is likely to put up solid gold attending stats. We’re talking about the goalies as if it’s a complete individual stat. No doubt the goalie plays a huge part, but your own teams defence, and the opposing teams ability to score plays a massive amount into it. lets stop acting like it’s all in the goalies hands, and recognize that it takes the full team. We don’t have the full team. edit: Goaltending not gold attending Hahahah. Hilarious autocorrect
  18. 1 point
    Man I hope not. I would love to see ovie win the cup. Guy is a beauty. One of my favorites in the league. And number 1 for player I'd like to go drinking with.
  19. 1 point
    I dislike Bergevin, relatively speaking, but it gets tiring hearing the mistakes he might make rather than discussing the ones he already has made. What’s even more peculiar is that no one agrees on the mistakes he has made. There are groups of people who hate this move, but didn’t mind another, and then there are groups of people who disliked the move other people liked and vice versa. People want him fired. That’s fine. Making up futuristic moves that look bad and saying them out loud won’t get him fired though. Bergevin has been questionable, in my opinion, but our team isn’t the circus act some people describe. I want to wait until late August before I criticize Bergevin for another bad off season. It’s easy to say it’s too little too late, or whatever, but we don’t have the power to fire him and it’s also not true that he can’t right the ship. I personally sincerely feel that Bergevin could produce an effective team with some of the pieces we have, he just doesn’t really deserve that opportunity.
  20. 1 point
    I get that Kovolev was never going to be mistaken for bob gainey, but do you hate all Uber skilled offensive players, or guys that have flash and dash, rather than being boring vanilla or granola robots?? That’s been the issue with habs management for far too long. Everyone has to be bob gainey to be considered a guy that should play on the habs. How often did guy lafleur or Steve shutt backcheck, kill penalties or block shots??? Hell in the 81 Canada cup my leaf fan friends in school ridiculed me for Lafleur turning away from a fake slap shot from a Russian, who than preceded to walk around him and score. we don’t need every player to be a penalty killer. We’ve been one of the lowest scoring teams forever and the main reason is the coaches and managemt have been hung up on trying to turn goal scorers into bob gainey and guy carboneau, or they keep wafting first round picks on guys like chipchura and Mccaron, or play guys like Weiss and Moen on the top PP unit. It’s no wonder why we can’t find and develop offensive players.
  21. 1 point
    I am in favour of it. When I went to the game this year, I decided I was cheering for them this year. It's a cool story.
  22. 1 point
    "If you get wacked...I wanna see a yard sale...gloves and stick flying in the air while you drop to the ice like a sack of Georgian potatoes and cry like a wounded Sun Tzu!"
  23. 1 point
    Honestly I enjoy this debate. I would say a lot of people do. They are the most interesting threads of the offseason. To me it's one of the better ones.
  24. 1 point
    I can see which posters are up/downvoting and I can safely say it's number two with a side of some downvoting almost every post from a particular poster they dislike, seemingly regardless of content. Same here - that's basically what the system is for. Ideally, the hope is that there are more upvotes for quality posts and that we only see the odd downvote.
  25. 1 point
    I feel better now for the development of prospects that we get out of all these draft picks we have going forward.
  26. 1 point
    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?
  27. 1 point
    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.
  28. 1 point
    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.
  29. 1 point
    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.
  30. 1 point
    Great hiring, it shouldn't be too long before he is up with the Habs in some capacity.
  31. 1 point
    All of the Laval assistants are now officially not returning. Bouchard can hire his own assistants.
  32. 1 point
    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.
  33. 1 point
    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.
  34. 1 point
    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.
  35. 1 point
    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.
  36. 1 point
    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.
  37. 1 point
    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.
  38. 1 point
    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.
  39. 1 point
    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.
  40. 1 point
    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)
  41. 1 point
    Drafting, trading for, and signing players with skill instead of getting Brandon Prusts, or Travis Moen, or Andrew Shaw, or Jordan Nolan, or Torrey Mitchell, or Michael McCarron or whoever it is would make this team better. Question... if this team drafted Shea Theodore instead of Michael McCarron, would that have solved the hole at LH Puck-moving defence? Would theodore have made a good partner for Weber? if this team had drafted Jake Guentzel or Pavel Buchnevich instead of Connor Crisp, would that have helped. If we gave Radulov a long term deal from day 1, instead of a one-year prove your character deal, woudl that have helped the top 6? If we traded for a goal scorer at the 2017 deadline and re-signed him, would that have helped? Would any of the players we could have gotten 3 or 4 years ago, been able to be traded for better talent than Zach Kassian, or the rotting corpse of Sergei Gonchar? It all has an effect when you use your resources (cap space and draft picks), on taking character over talent.
  42. 1 point
    I think the point may be that the message from management has been that their is a character or atitude problem. Not that there's a talent problem. That would put it squarely on MB shoulders. He deflects by saying there is a character problem and then proceeds to sign character players. I agree that the first pairing right d is not the reason that the team sucks. But it wasn't before either, so why make the trade in the first place?
  43. 1 point
    If they are trying to sell the pick then somebody will move up and get Svechnikov. I'd rather it be the Habs that does than anyone else.
  44. 1 point
    Can you provide some examples where he traded away talent for character?
  45. 1 point
    Like I've said, Molson is allowing this circus to continue. Maybe this team should focus on talent. Get your top 6 and top 4 in place, then sprinkle in your "character" and "glue" players. Talent needs to trump all. I rememer Bobby Clarke talking about the era of the broad street bullies and how tough and scary they were to play against, but he also said those characteristics were basically just the cherry on the cake. The talent won games.
  46. 1 point
    I think I'd like him in an AGM role, if he has real influence.
  47. 1 point
    Tampa technically also has Peter Budaj and the man who was drafted but never played in Ryan McDonaugh. Gabe Dumont played seven regular season games. Winnipeg has Joe Morrow, who has played five playoff games. Vegas has Stefan Matteau, who played eight regular season games. He won't see a playoff game. Washington also has Jakub Jerabek who has actually played two playoff games.
  48. 1 point
    Klefbom sure would make a nice addition playing along side Weber, a good Puck Mover playing with Weber is exactly the combination that would yield tremendous success for that top pair. Because it is so obviously a good fit for us, I am going to go ahead and predict we sit on our hands about it, and let the opportunity to balance our top pair in such a great way, slip on by.
  49. 1 point
    Most players selected will be 18 and will be with CHL teams, in the NCAA, or in Europe next year. There wont be a logjam. By the time they are ready for laval, the prospects there now will either be in the NHL or out of the organization.
  50. 1 point
    I'd like to see Niemi, Cracknell, and Terry retained from the UFA list, but I doubt they all resign. Lindgren just signed a 3 year extension earlier this season, so I doubt Niemi stays unless he re-signs for the same amount of money or if the Habs are looking ahead to the next expansion draft. Cracknell and Terry would be good for Laval, but I have a feeling that Terry will look for greener pastures. Cracknell I'm not sure of. Hemsky is gone for sure. Not much use for him this season and I don't see much use for a player like him (always injured) in the future. Out of the RFAs, Parisi is the only one that I think will be let go for sure. Gregoire, Eisenschmid, Fucale, and Shaw are question marks. Danault gets resigned for around $3M is my guess. I think the rest get re-signed mainly because they are young and probably have some value to both the team and in potential deals.
×