Jump to content

xXx..CK..xXx

Member
  • Posts

    3048
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Everything posted by xXx..CK..xXx

  1. Although I just made a post in another thread including Bergevin's name, none of my posts here are really against Bergevin, although this would be the place to do it. They're more about losing out on Radulov.
  2. I agree that what will disappear in the fog to some is that Radulov ultimately was the one who made the choice. If he and his agent made it impossible, there you have it. I do believe that resigning Radulov should have been a priority though and I'm not saying that Bergevin didn't, but I would hope that Bergevin would have tried to get a feel for what it would take to resign him before it came to dire straights. Drouin does have a higher ceiling than Radulov but that's not even the reason Bergevin acquired him. He clearly acquired him with the intention of adding him to our core, not to replace Radulov. Those stating he has a higher ceiling than Radulov are using that as a cop out for the move after the fact. Drouin also has a higher ceiling than Gallagher so I guess our team could go without him as well. Whether it's his fault or not is another question, but Bergevin won't be gong into next season with the team he envisioned, and I'm not sure why that should leave anyone feeling great. We'll be alright because we have some good pieces but I think we had the opportunity to be even better and I don't always feel that way.
  3. It's true though, if the tax thing is anything, it's an excuse. I'm not saying Radulov's agent didn't bring it up, but it's the reality that our team has to live with and you have to identify your priorities and go after them. It's entirely possible Radulov would have said no to 6.5 but I would have given it to him. If we didn't trade for Drouin our offense would be weak without him and Radulov but if we didn't trade for Drouin, we wouldn't have lost our best prospect and may have been able to give Radulov a little more money to make him stay. We spent the extra million on Hemsky now so let's see what we do with the other 6 mil. Markov & Hemsky vs Radulov perhaps. I certainly see both sides of this debate. Did we sign Radulov thinking he would stink and we could afford him the following year? Or did we sign him because we were all in last year, knowing we wouldn't be able to afford him in 2017-2018? It's really one or the other and neither one is a pretty reason. As for the tax thing overall, it's certainly relevant but New York, Toronto and Montreal all landed some of the bigger fish this year in free agency in Shattenkirk, Marleau and Alzner. California also attracts players and generally has competitive teams and their tax situation is high as well.
  4. Yeah there are some people who think Radulov is going to regress and perhaps by the end of his contract he will but I don't see much reason why it can't be argued that he would have been even better this season now that he got his feet wet again. I think it's a decently large issue when talking about a contending team. Our offense has more talent that it's being given credit for but we're one step closer to being a legitimate contender with Radulov on the team. I agree that he brings more than goals to the table and especially appreciated how strong he is on the puck. At this point, I'll feel better if we resign Galchenyuk and Markov because we really wouldn't have been able to afford all three. The annoying part is that it doesn't seem like this was the plan. It's just what needs to happen now.
  5. No but it shouldn't have taken 7.25 million to sign him. Everyone can spin it that way but we still have 12+ forwards, 6+ defensemen and 2+ goalies who play for us despite the tax situation. It can be viewed as though Bergevin was stern and that's fair as you don't want a GM with no backbone. On the other hand, Radulov was an important piece for us and you don't throw him into a bucket with Markov and say "first come, first served." That shows a certain level of indifference to the individual. I think Radulov should have been enticed to a greater extent prior to the Canadiens having to compete with other teams. No, I don't think Radulov should have gotten 7.25 million but you're basically telling me that it was going to be impossible to sign him or resign him at any point ever and I don't buy that. Would I have given him slightly more than Dallas to stay with us? I sure would have. When Radulov was doing well with us 20 games into the season, it was "too early" to tell if he was really that good according to Bergevin. He was already starting his hardball negotiations then. Radulov was Bergevin's best acquisition and one year later he has nothing to show for it. I'm not on the negative side of the fence for the Weber trade but so much for their friendship being an enticing reason for Radulov to play with us. I understand that some posters get tired of the negativity but I'm often the one on the supporting side. I need to see more what happens throughout the rest of this off season before I pass my final judgement.
  6. You're putting too many peanuts into one basket. What happens when Drouin gets injured? I understand that sometimes timing is everything but Bergevin should have been focused on locking up Radulov prior to trading for Drouin. It seems as though he was fine with either outcome. We can argue all we want but having Radulov on the team would have clearly given us a better shot at the ultimate goal next year. Not only that, it seems as though it would have been possible if he were more focused on the task at hand. Tell him to entertain other offers but to get back to us if something better comes up. I'm not pleased with Radulov either though and there is a chance he really was the one being difficult.
  7. All of those were players resigning for their previous team. A better comparison would be if the Habs were to give term term to say, Radulov.
  8. I don't think it's a move that can really be argued. Whichever team had Price in this league, they would have signed him to the same deal and I'm not convinced by any means that it's a bad thing. I think he still has his best year ever ahead of him, and he was pretty stellar in the regular seasons a few years back.
  9. I agree. Sign Radulov and Galchenyuk and we can compete with some savvy deadline moves and actually that's due in part to having acquired Drouin for a win now mentality this season. If we don't, I can see the side that it was a mistake to trade Sergachev and having Sergachev in the pipeline was one of the reasons that people argued the Subban trade would turn out alright in the long term.
  10. Drouin is a good player but so is Radulov. Sergachev was our replacement for Markov and now we still need one. The difference with Radulov and the other teams involved is that they won't be losing him, they'd only be gaining. We can't really afford to lose him even with the addition of Drouin. It hasn't happened and probably won't but if you're fine with adding Alzner and Drouin versus losing Galchenyuk, Sergachev, Radulov, Markov, Beaulieu and Emelin then by all means. I would have preferred keeping Radulov and Sergachev over Alzner and Drouin and that's only two of them. Drouin is a great player and no one is unhappy about the move on its own, but I can't imagine we wouldn't have kept Radulov+ out of that list without it even becoming an issue if we didn't make a trade which included our best prospect for Drouin.
  11. It's true that if we didn't acquire Drouin, we still may have lost Radulov. In that sense, it's a defendable move. What's somewhat of an issue is that MB has given a final offer to Radulov which MB fully "expected" would be "good enough". As a result of signing Drouin and Price, he literally doesn't have wiggle room. If it becomes an issue of 500k-1 million and we lose Radulov because of that amount, it wasn't handled well. What people are saying in a different way is that we could have had Radulov and Sergachev because Sergachev's contract is cheap or Drouin. I think we should have had the upper hand on Radulov and hopefully it still works out. If we keep Radulov, Drouin and Galchenyuk, only then is the move that included Sergachev really favorable for us. I've made a point on not commenting on the topic until now, because losing Radulov is something I am not willing to fathom.
  12. He broke a bone in his right hand during the playoffs but he's not damaged goods.
  13. I'm not ecstatic about the Alzner signing. I almost started the second sentence about speed with "Ulike Alzner". He'll be solid and nothing more. Who knows maybe Alzner-Weber become a steady pair even though I didn't want it. I'd have to think it would be a huge coincidence if Alzner or Marleau miss any extended periods of time this season though. If we signed him when he became damaged good after not missing a regular season game since 2010, then I don't know what to say.
  14. I'm also glad they didn't sign both Thornton and Marleau. I would have hated the Leafs so much.
  15. Marleau isn't normal though. He's like Alzner in that he plays every game. He can still skate with some of the horses in the league as well. I didn't believe in them as stated in another thread due to their youth but I'm excited if I'm a Leafs fan for the first time in awhile.
  16. I'm not pleased that Nashville will be able to comfortably use Emelin on the 3rd pairing knowing that we used him on our top pairing for much of last season. We now signed Alzner who many call an upgrade on Emelin so how are we to be sure that Alzner won't be considered "good enough" for the top pairing since Emelin was and is lower on the totem pole than Alzner. The alternative, which wouldn't be any better, seems to be to trade Galchenyuk for a top pairing defenseman. Hopefully those are both simply assumptions.
  17. Does someone like that have a shot at the big club? How does someone who led the league in scoring not get mentioned as a possible NHL depth player at the very least? I know it's a two way deal but it doesn't seem like people are mentioning him as a possibility to crack the lineup. Time to go look up how old he is...
  18. I'm interested to hear the opinion of those who discuss Poile and Nashville's supposed vision of acquiring high skilled puck moving defenseman after acquiring someone like Emelin. I'm not one to talk though as... 1) I was about the only one who thought Emelin was a good pick by Vegas and all it turned out to be worth was a 3rd round pick. 2) I always liked Emelin and still do.
  19. It hasn't happened yet but it really makes my head spin. Trade Sergachev, acquire Drouin. Lose Markov Trade Galchenyuk, acquire Markov's replacement Galchenyuk for Drouin Sergachev for Makov's replacement OK, but why? Still early, just seems the most common assumption amongst people.
  20. That's all fine and dandy if you think Markov and Weber should be your top pairing defenseman or if you wanted Markov off the team as soon as next season. My hope for this season would have been to see Markov and Petry on the second pairing and to acquire an upgrade on the top pairing rather than signing upgrades for Beaulieu and Emelin. I love Markov but as a result of this signing, it might be smartest to let him walk now and sign/trade for another younger top 2 caliber defenseman if they're even out there. With that context in place I can't say I love the deal until I see who Markov's replacement will be. Alzner is a good defensive defenseman so on its own it's not a bad signing. I just don't think it was a priority of ours to acquire one and it still leaves question marks. Last year I wanted Markov on the top pairing and I even suggested it. This season, I was hoping to see change on the top pairing but not at the expense of losing Markov altogether.
  21. This is going to sound like I'm still pushing for it which I'm not unless it's realistic but if he goes to LA then there's no reason he shouldn't have wanted to come to Montreal at any point in his career. Sharks and the Kings have a rivalry equivalent on a relative scale to that of the Habs and the Bruins. LA vs Anaheim is more like Habs/Sens or Habs/Leafs. After more than 10 years on this website, I'm not happy that my 1000th post is one that's discussing Joe Thornton coming to the Habs. I'm going to make a wish now.
  22. I don't see how we're not truly contenders if we were to have added him. Our forwards corps would matchup with every team out there with players like Thornton, Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, Radulov, Gallagher, Drouin, Lehkonen.... 20 goal scorer Byron... Former 1st liner Danault... Etc. on the team. Our defense would be weak but we have Weber (Markov) and Price back there. It won't happen but I think it's the move you try to make if you want to win this year. Hopefully some more, and even better opportunities present themselves at the trade deadline if nothing happens this summer.
  23. I think the Habs could be a solid team with Drouin and Galchenyuk at center Pacioretty-Drouin-Radulov Lehkonen-Galchenyuk-Gallagher The problem is Danault was played higher on the depth chart than Galchenyuk at the end of last season so the feeling I get, like with Jumbo Joe, is that acquiring another top 6 would settle the issue. If we keep Galchenyuk and start the season with him and Drouin at center, there's always the risk that Plekanec or Danault, or even worse, both will end up back in the top 6. I do get the feeling that if we don't acquire a top 6 center, we might end up seeing what you suggested to start the season but in all honesty it's just as likely that we see Danault in the top 6 again. Although I keep slotting them in on the 3rd or 4th lines in my mock lineups, it's hard to envision either Plekanec or Danault actually centering the 4th line and they're both still on the team. As it stands right now with the team we have, I'd be interested in seeing a Drouin/Galchenyuk 1a 1b. I think the more likely outcome with Julien would be a Drouin/Danault 1 2 and I'm not so thrilled with that. With all the names out there, my preference would be to go with a Thornton/Drouin combo up the middle. We need a center like that more than anyone and it would give us a real chance this year. I think I'd be just as excited about our chances as I was after acquiring Vanek.
  24. I'm confused as to how we can have it both ways. Some are complaining that we may not have the team to win now despite an ageing core of players because we are not going for it and then others are saying we are not looking at the future because we are going after win now veterans all the while losing our prospects. I think the plan was legitimately to build through the draft under this regime but years pass by and one has to be able to adapt. We're saying the same thing in a different way tough. I don't have confidence yet in the Edmontons and Torontos of the league. I think they are young and will have to go through some growing pains before they achieve their goal. I mentioned that the Habs have been more consistently competitive than other Canadian teams and as a result, we haven't had the privilege of drafting the McDavids and Matthews of the league. Those teams are able to build through the draft because of their continual bad seasons. Our highest pick has been Galchenyuk and while people are questioning his development, the first overall pick that year was Nail Yakupov. If you want to know the truth, one could argue that Edmonton has done a terrible job of developing its players. They've drafted players like Hall, Eberle, Nugent-Hopkins and Yakupov and may end up without any of those players ever having achieved a thing wearing their jersey. I'd like some better talent in the pipeline but I do think part of our developmental issues have to do partly with the fact that more than half the teams have generally had higher picks than the Habs.
  25. We're forgetting that we need a top 6 center. Beggars can't be choosers. I'd rather acquire Thornton than leave it at the status quo. Patrick Marleau is also the model of consistency. He will score 25 goals this year and play 80+ games. He just always does. If part of the package includes getting such a consistent player and getting a presence at center, I'm all for it. I've long agreed about the Sharks never winning with Thornton and Marleau at the core but they tasted it two seasons ago and lost to the same team that beat a popular team this season. If Montreal takes the east, Thornton and Marleau have shown they can compete with most teams in the West. I don't think Thornton or Marleau have been linked to the Habs anyway and hopefully we keep Galchenyuk.
×
×
  • Create New...