xXx..CK..xXx

I said something similar in Markov's thread but the reason I was silent in response to this is because it immediately made me think, half seriously, that I should have purchased a Markov jersey as he may have soon filled at least one of those bills when it comes to the NHL. I was just hoping that it wouldn't be the case. As time wears on I'm sure my desire will wane, but I really wouldn't mind showing up to a Habs game in Anaheim or LA all the while sporting a Markov jersey. At the same time, I'm still looking forward to receiving my Weber jersey in the mail

I'm similar in that while I'm not generally critical, I've had my ups and downs with individual moves and I have to agree that Bergevin is clearly in the midst of making defining changes to the team and it pretty much is his final chance unless things go well. As a fan I won't love it but I do think when looked at rationally, making the first or second round of the playoffs will still be enough for him to be safe. But if things go south, all eyes should be on him at this point. I think that's just a fair assessment of where the team stands.

The argument makes perfect sense in theory. Imagine we had already signed said "top 6 center", would people still be questioning that Markov was let go? Of course not, because we wouldn't have the cap space to have signed him. When looked at this way, I don't think which event (Markov walking or signing Top 6 C) comes first matters much. My question is what will be said by the same people making this argument when (if) we haven't made any additional moves to acquire this top 6 center by the beginning of the season? I have to think that it's a very black and white outcome here and it really depends what he does with the cap space as well as when he uses it. If letting Markov walk NOW gives us an impact player like Tavares THIS season, then sure it was great. If he acquires another impact forward in the offseason, it could also be beneficial to the Habs or a wash. I just don't think things work that way. If we're able as fans to summise that Bergevin may be saving cap space to make a splash, then it's hard to believe other GMs would not be aware of that as well and they're not going to just gift things to us. As has also been stated, the pickings are getting slimmer and to be honest when looked at that way, unlike earlier, I do believe Bergevin shouldn't have waited until last minute to address the issue that can be resolved with our remaining cap space even if it is more important than having Markov back.

I would have preferred signing Markov and upgrading our offense. The amount we've spent on defense even without Markov signed can be spun in a negative way as well and isn't necessarily a defense of why we shouldn't have signed Markov. It could be more along the lines of why did we sign (some of) those other players? This off season we lost Beaulieu, Emelin, Sergachev and now Markov. In addition, we shouldn't have to wait until our very last move to upgrade the offense. If this move allows us room to acquire two more players then it's a good thing but if all it does is allow us to sign a Jagr or Vanek up front, then it's a wash at best. We can pick the better of two evils but we did still need help both up front as well as on the back end. Our defense hasn't been an issue, but we've had Markov for the past 15 years and legitimately replaced him with no one. Unless Schlemko really is something else, Streit IS the closest thing to his replacement. Yes, we need to wait and see what happens. Of course this is just speculation, but I think it came down to two men and their pride and by the end of it, Markov would have been the only one willing to bend and it was probably too much bending needed and he had to stick up for himself. After his comments, that's the way I view it. Nothing against Bergevin as I say it, I just think that Markov already "bent" a little in saying that he would accept a 1 year deal but then Bergevin would have been like alright but it now has to be for this x$ amount since it took so long, and we made other moves in the meantime.

I'm not heavily on the fire Bergevin wagon as there is only really so much he can do. I was pretty upset about Radulov but I don't think Radulov gave him much of a choice. With that being said, our GM did seemingly get burned on a couple of occasions this off season. We can talk about Plan X,Y and Z but the truth is the Plan was to get both Radulov and Markov signed, so if this works out, I'm not sold that praise should be given due to premeditated genius. We signed Alzner because he was the best available and we signed Streit because we needed a little more puck movement coming from a player who has a left curve on his stick. Well guess what, sometimes the best player available still isn't what you're looking for. I know I'm going to like Alzner but heading into the off season he wasn't the type of player we were (should have been) targeting. He's a nice bonus *in addition* to that top pairing defenseman but he's not that piece. We'll still have a decent squad next season but I think this off season was a mess.

I knew it the minute CC started talking about retired Hall of Famers. I should have bought a Markov jersey!

I don't mind it. The best part of it is that it does still give us a lot of room to make other moves. I know he's older now but I'm still pretty sure he's better than Davidson.

I just spontaneously got excited for next season, having a feeling that Weber was going to be a beast for us on the back end. So I went to check the cost of Habs jerseys and purchased my first ever Habs jersey with a name on the back... Weber's. He gets a lot of hate (he does) but he was our all star last year along with Carey at the game in Los Angeles which I managed to attend. Once I got to the website, I was like do I really want a Weber jersey when there are other options? I've always been a center or wing myself and so I probably would have ended up going with Galchenyuk but Weber's also happened to be on special so I knew it was a sign! I actually did find it funny that the only jerseys on special where I visited were Weber, Pacioretty, Gallagher and Shaw. In one respect, those are some of our leaders but on the other hand, they are players who receive a lot of turbulence. It's like they want more people to have Weber, Gallagher and Shaw jerseys in order to be able to say, "hey they're loved here." I look forward to getting my jersey in the mail. I've never had a red one and red is my favorite color!

If it really is to "save the trees", then why not simply eliminate paper tickets altogether? Because people will complain? Alrighty then.

I appreciate the optimism and it's very convincing. Perhaps it's even possible. Centers 31 through 60 in scoring last season had 44-55 points, however. Philip Danault ended with 40 points all the while playing with Max Pacioretty and Alexander Radulov. I'll concede that it was his first season at it but will also argue that he may not get the chance to have linemates as skilled again to help inflate his stats. Interestingly enough, Danault isn't even listed as a center on NHL.com. The other issue is that while I've agreed that we don't necessarily need an elite center and rather just a top 6 center, we don't have a Joe Thornton or Evgeni Malkin to insulate the fact that Danault would be our top 6 center. In addition, we have the same centers as last season and so there's no reason at this point to believe that he actually wouldn't be our top line center, once again, unless Drouin is thrown into the role. It could be simply argued that the reason our center depth looks weak is because Danault is in that top 6 role.

The issue for me is that I don't want to see Danault in the top 6 just as much as I wouldn't want to see Hemsky. It probably will be what happens, but I'll quietly dislike it whenever I see the pregame lineup. I'd rather see Danault as a top 6 winger which admittedly is a very strange thing to say about a team who needs top 6 centers. I'd be perfectly fine with trading Gallagher for Nugent-Hopkins and them signing Vanek/Jagr and Markov for a year. I even thought of that as I posted. The only thing is that Nugent-Hopkins carries a larger cap hit than Gallagher which would probably make my suggestion impossible. With the NHL off season quieting down, it also seems like that would involve a lot more musical chairs moving around considering how quiet everything has been. I'm not sure I expect 3 more moves from the team this off season.

I definitely understand the skepticism about our defense. I haven't heard anyone say they wouldn't mind having Markov back this year, myself included, but at the same time, early on last season and even years before, it seemed to have been a consensus that we need to limit Markov's minutes in order to have him be effective come playoff time. Now we've reached a point where many are hoping Markov will resign and in my opinion, it's never been as clear as day that he would be resigning to be our top pairing defenseman. Even last year, many went into the season with hope that Beaulieu might be able to grab the bull by the horns and become a respectable #2 alongside Weber. In the back of our minds, many also held the belief that we had Sergachev in the fold to eventually become Markov's replacement. As has been stated, there might be more to be done by MB, but the truth is that we either have Alzner on the top pairing, which still isn't ideal or we have Markov on the top pair, who already a few years ago, needed to have his minutes cut back. This issue never seems to be brought up anymore due to the reality that we have no other choice. Last year, I remember suggesting that Markov should play on the top pairing after Beaulieu didn't pan out and Emelin was spending a bunch of time there; but I never expected for it to continue for years to come. On the complete other side of things, it's true that we acquired some upgrades on defense and perhaps someone we don't expect can play a bigger role than we realize. I think some of those who aren't confident with our defense may see that we have more than we expected once we actually see the players on the ice.

I don't think Hemsky belongs in the top 6. This was my post a few weeks ago when someone suggested he would be in the top 6. [From the Galchenyuk Signed Thread] "Hemsky is probably going to disappoint you on the second line and I have Czech heritage and want to like him. I also think there is something to the nationality thing and that it would be fine to see Plekanec-Hemsky as a duo next season on the 3rd line. Either way, I do believe our second and third lines will be somewhat interchangeable in how we label them next year." That's exactly my point though. If you trade Gallagher, Hemsky is the second best right wing on the depth chart. If you place Drouin at center, this also becomes the case. Right now the only way to solve not having Hemsky in the top 6, is playing Danault as a top 6 center which also isn't ideal in my books. If you trade Gallagher, you solve one problem, only to cause another.

Feels like a lateral move to me. The only reason I ever considered moving Galchenyuk was because of the uncertainty surrounding his position, not because of his skill set. With Gallagher, we know where he belongs and what he brings. I guess Nugent-Hopkins is more defensively responsible than Galchenyuk but I've never been overly concerned about Galchenyuk's defensive capabilities, personally. The reason I compare Nugent-Hopkins to Galchenyuk is because they're somewhat similar and we already have one for free. It's another move where we acquire a player to fill a roster spot of need all the while losing something of equal or better value. Our top 6 could be Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Gallagher Byron-Danault-Drouin or Pacioretty-Drouin-Gallagher Lehkonen-Galchenyuk-Hemsky or trade for RNH Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Drouin Lehkonen-Nugent-Hopkins-Hemsky It might look a little better which I guess is the point, but there goes our depth at right wing. I wouldn't have thought Hemsky should be top 6 either way but trading Gallagher might force the issue. I'd be fine with getting Nugent-Hopkins and am all over the get a center idea but I don't think I'd be ecstatic about the trade. It's close to a wash for me and I think there might be better ways to get a center in the future, whether it's trading a pick at the deadline or some other route.

I don't love the trade myself but I'll keep myself out of it. I think the reason most Habs fans seem to be fine with the thought of the proposal is because, even if subconsciously, there's the question of whether or not Gallagher is permanently damaged goods in the back of their minds. Sure, we have an excess amount of wingers but Gallagher was developing into a 60 point winger before his first injury. 40 points in 53 games two years ago will tell you that. Nugent Hopkins has never reached 60, although I would take him on my team. The question does become whether or not Gallagher can ever be 100% healthy again. If we know something Edmonton doesn't, ship him out. If he can have a healthy career, there's no doubt people are forgetting what he can be, in my mind.

This trade won't happen and I'm not saying I would make it but your analysis of the players are your own. If that trade were to take place, I'm sure it would be because our inner circle would view Duchene as a center and not Galchenyuk. At the same time in their respective careers, Duchene had a higher point total than Galchenyuk. If one is already worried that Duchene is so much older than Galchenyuk, then be prepared for Galchenyuk 3 years down the road because it won't be pretty in his "old age." Reasons the trade migh be considered: 1) Duchene viewed as a center by our team while Galchenyuk is not. The supposed 5-10 optimistic point difference doesn't mean as much because we are acquiring a position of need. In my opinion Galchenyuk can play center as well, but who knows if that is realistic. 2) Change of scenery for both players

I agree with that being the way it should be but the reality is that the ship has already sailed for those who are arguing against him. There's little he could have done to please those who have already dumped him out of the bus. Whether it would have been signing Joe Thornton to 8 million or doing nothing at all, both would have been bad moves for that group. Perhaps either of those moves actually would have been bad, but let's just throw in everything in the middle. Still bad. The problem begins when one can't have a rational discussion about the present because one is stuck judging the past. It's important to look at things in less of a macro level at times, otherwise it's hard to value a statement. I'm not ecstatic about our off season thus far but I'm ready to be proven wrong and there are a lot of question marks in a positive sense within our roster as well. I was simply responding to the claim that we are stagnating as a team when it was also shown that the team has improved analytically this off season by the same person. It's true that it's only a slight improvement, but many teams, especially the already better teams, got worse and so while I don't agree with it, any improvement should be given credit, to be honest. As I said, I was just responding to the fact that you said Bergevin improved our team, whether slight or not in one post and then said our team hasn't improved to prove a point in the next. As much as I've pointed out the center issue myself in some debates on here about this off season, the answer can already be found on our roster if need be, making the whole topic seem silly come January. I'm not saying it will happen, but a team that has Drouin Galchenyuk Plekanec as their top 3 centers along with Carey Price and Shea Weber on the back end, and Max Pacioretty up front can be competitive. The only issue I have with Bergevin here is that he hasn't made it clear that he believes Galchenyuk or Drouin are outright centers. I believe there should be some communication there between coach and GM because otherwise they don't even know what they have. Outside of the confusion of who plays where, we possess the talent to be strong up the middle. I agree Danault should not be a top 6 center on this squad but he doesn't have to be. The only question mark becomes Julien.

What's going on here? I've been throwing out ideas all summer when it comes to acquiring a center, whether it's Duchene, Thornton, etc. I also wasn't happy about losing Radulov. So I haven't been particularly pleased with this off season, while others have been. That being said, did you not just defend Bergevin's off season saying it hasn't been that bad, all the while posting an analytical graph which shows that the Habs improved slightly in the off season? The need for a center point aside, your arguments aren't adding up.

I could go a lot more in depth about this but I'm going to simply predict that Duchene is going to have a solid year wherever he ends up and say you heard it here first. That said, my definition of solid year is 60+ points. He's a good player in my own opinion but people keep saying we would be acquiring Duchene expecting him to be a PPG player and while that would be fantastic, I don't think that should be the expectation of him. All I know is that people are high on Drouin and yet the expectation of him is 60+ points. Duchene is 2 years removed from a 59 point season and he can do it again. I agree that their asking price is to high though and it probably means they don't want to actually trade him. Their ask should be similar to what Tampa Bay got form Drouin at best. Not Sergachev + Anything... Let alone Galchenyuk.

I was thinking more his best trade and free agent signings a la Vanek and Radulov. Shaw brings a mixed bag of emotions. Alzner counts but I wasn't personally high on the signing, although he was the best available. Petry, I'll give you.

I'll just say this.... Since Bergevin became GM of the Habs, he's made the most trades of any manager in the league. As a result, I think it's fair to say he deserves to be scrutinized, whether positively or negatively. I'm happy being a Habs fan and couldn't care less about the Predators but with Bergevin being as active as he's been, I can't see the argument that he's done some amazing job with his overall body of work. Many of his best signings are no longer here and so while they were good in the short term, they're no longer here. Drouin is the first one he's locked up and we'll see how it goes. I think at the same time, his bad moves are also looked at through a microscope which isn't fair. But the truth is he's clearly made some mistake throughout his tenure in my opinion. Often many of us differentiate between which of those moves should be deemed the mistakes, but they're out there. As a result, I don't see why he should be heavily defended by anyone, outside of one getting tired of hearing constant negativity and trying to place a positive spin on things.

I guess what I was saying is that regardless of the management group, I can't possibly envision us having a better shot at the cup without Carey Price. Outside of the Bruins, I can't think of a recent contender who didn't have multiple elite forwards on their roster. Chicago has/had Toews, Kane, Sharp when he was healthy, Hossa and much more. Pittsburgh has Crosby and Malkin but then also Phil Kessel and LA has had players like Kopitar, Carter, Gaborik, Richards when he was useful and much more as well. What's different about that Bruins team is that they had a goalie who played at an elite level. As it stands this season, we have Max Pacioretty and then the potential of Drouin and Galchenyuk. I've watched Drouin closely before and have seen him outshine pretty much any of the names I've listed but he hasn't yet reached 60 points in a season so we can't pretend he's at a Crosby or Malkin level yet. I understand that what I've just summed up proves the point that things need to change on the offensive side of things but I sincerely believe that if we were to lose Price, it would take at least 2 elite forwards to make up for that loss with the way our team is configured. I'm not convinced on a personal level that something like a Mikko Koivu and Dubnyk would help our chances at a cup after losing Price. There are probably better examples out there but I don't imagine losing Price would allow us to get something like Bishop and Seguin on our team at the snap of a finger and even then I'm not thrilled. The point is, I don't see us as ever having a better shot without Carey Price, despite the reality that he's never won it himself. That's what I mean by there's no guarantee of a better outcome. Perhaps there are better options out there when it comes to the management team, but that's another story.

Did you ever think of the possibility that Carey Price genuinely doesn't feel that way about the Habs? You can throw him into the bucket of Leaf Fan Homers who think the Habs can be competitive. The reason Carey Price needs to believe this team has a chance to compete is simply because of himself. He doesn't need to focus on all the other noise and things he cannot control. Price leaving for that reason would please the 5-10% of fans who agree with you and demonstrate a certain level of unprofessionalism to the rest. It would never happen because that's not who Carey Price is. I would be very irritated if I found out Carey Price played for this team with thoughts like that in his head. As fans we can think that way, but if someone is going to try and convince me that Price doesn't think we can win a cup as a result of the players in front of him, I'm going to tell them that they are incorrect and that there's a possibility they've never played sports at a competitive level before. We're getting played with this topic. People are complaining about constant mediocrity and think the answer is to trade away or lose for nothing our hero simply in order to make our team worse, accomplishing nothing more than getting someone fired, with no guarantee of a better outcome on the other side.

Having Price gives us a better chance at winning. Carey Price is better than 9 out of 10 1st overall picks. He actually does have his weak moments but he's still a great foundation to build on. If our management team after Bergevin happen to be as incompetent as some feel Bergevin is, then there's no guarantee that we have a better offense even without Price on the team. Even if we did have better offense, it's so obvious to me that we would soon miss our goaltending of the past. I've been fine being a fan of Jose Theodore playing above his potential, Jeff Hackett making highlight reel saves, Jaroslav Halak emulating a stop sign and the organization making the decision to keep Carey Price. The opposite extreme is being a fan of Philadelphia who have been a mess in goal and had their best season behind Michael Leighton, which consequently happens to be when clever hockey people began questioning... Does one really need an elite goalie to compete for the Stanley Cup? I feel as though the Habs have been more consistent than literally any of the other teams people have been comparing them to outside of the Chicagos and Pittsburghs. Heck, when talking about the past decade, we've even been more consistent than a team like Washington as well, who only relatively recently developed their drafted Carey Price light.

Interesting graph there ?