Jump to content

Zowpeb

Member
  • Content Count

    1102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Zowpeb

  1. Managed to be at the game. Stuff that jumped out to me: Chiarot and Petry looked very shaky in their own end through the first two periods. The Habs D is really questionable overall. The Habs spent a lot of time fumbling around loose pucks and just struggled to make crisp passes out of their own end and into the neutral zone. The D also kept getting trapped by forechecks and they ended up cycling the puck poorly. Domi can be a real force and this team needs to get him another quality, scoring, line mate to feed. It was an exciting game but, fr
  2. First off, define "near future" - to me, based on the current club, that means 3 years from now. 1) Recognize that there is nothing wrong with a couple years of losing to rebuild - there is nothing wrong with a full reset if the plan and culture is there to build off it. 2) Create a first class player development system 3) Improve on the scouting and drafting 4) Hire the management and coaching staff that have the tools to accomplish the above - the current team is not who we should trust to accomplish this - anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring the results - be ratio
  3. The comment on not buying UFA years is irrelevant. Signing an RFA to an offer sheet is effectively offering a younger player a UFA level of contract...you just also have to pay out some picks as a “penalty”. Frankly, if you expect to be drafting in the 20-30 range I don’t see why folks get their panties in a twist...how many 1st round picks of the Habs (or most teams) in that 20-30 range ever turn into the equivalent of an 80-90 point forward. I think it’s shocking that more teams don’t use offer sheets more often. Given the Habs inability to develop players effectively, and that they can
  4. Some may recall, but Carbonneau was considered a great defensive prospect but was also a high scoring junior prospect when he was drafted - 182 points in 72 games for the Sagueneens in 1980 and had 94 points in 77 games his last year in the AHL. Sure, the QMJHL had some pretty absurd offense numbers those days but that's still good for 23rd best all time there (Lemieux holds the record at 282 points in a single QMJHL season - lol). The Habs developed him mainly as a checking line C and never really gave him a chance to develop his offense. He's the best of his era in that role. He was also
  5. I don't agree for a couple reasons: The Habs had plenty of cap room, he represents a strong upgrade even if RD isn't a significant need, there are no FA's worth signing and no trade targets that provide equivalent return without giving up a lot. The question is whether this would have represented the best use of current resources and assets to improve the club. Frankly, they could have done this and looked to move Weber out in the not too distant future (as he continues to age and his contract becomes an albatross)...and probably looked to move Subban in a couple years as he enters the
  6. Haven't posted in a long time...saw this trade and had to ask...I'm curious what the team looks like if Subban comes back. Only 3 years left on the contract and it doesn't look like the Habs would have much difficultly in managing it under the cap (which is sadly a testament to the lack of high end talent on the club, as well as a lack of high end young talent driving up their contracts, IMHO). Santini and Davies would've been the Habs giving up a fringe d-man and a fringe prospect...and with their additional picks next year they could probably have matched the Devils on picks.
  7. Given the Karlsson trade I'd say the deal looks alright. So hey, we have a better GM then Ottawa...even if it is a pretty low benchmark. For the record, as a fan, I'm appalled that Bergevin wasn't fired at the end of last season. Why they want this guy, who has turned in a terrible performance as GM (the Pacioretty deal aside), to lead a rebuild is just beyond me. They had a clear opportunity for a fresh start. It makes it clear that Molson should be turning the reigns over to someone else.
  8. I'd trade Price. His value is still high, it won't be in 4 years after the Habs allow him to be peppered night in/out. He might get hurt along the way. He might, and I'd say likely will, become vocally disenfranchised if the rebuild takes as long as I'd expect...if he demands a deal, he hurts their ability to trade him for anything of value. Get the value now to speed up the rebuild. Draft some goalies next year, and/or trade for one if needed when they're getting competitive. You don't need a superstar goalie to win the cup. Keeping him to compete years down the road is crazy...
  9. I was very afraid of the return when I read the headline given most of Bergevins deals...maybe it was my low expectation but this is a solid deal. Look how much Vegas traded for Tatar not too long ago...It'd also be really nice to flip him for that now. lol
  10. I think there is a chance he could be a solid 3rd line Center on a good team. I also think some of you are equating the numbers he puts up playing on the top line as equal to what he'd put up on the 3rd line. That obviously wouldn't happen. If you moved him to the 3rd line (meaning possibly a few less minutes and more checking roles), combined with our current wingers, he probably stuggles to put up 30 points in my opinion. Not the stuff of a 3rd line C on a contender...but I'll admit, he still has a little more upside to his game even if the ceiling isn't high. He takes face-
  11. This team isn't rebuilding until it does a whole bunch of things differently (some of this we are doing, some of it we aren't - which is why I think they're just re-tooling to continue be a playoff contender instead of a Cup contender...same old, same old): - Change leadership at the top; why does anyone expect the same group to provide different results? - Improve our development system significantly - that means not only skills development, trainers and personnel but relationships with minor league teams where we need them to help us support our prospects development goals. If th
  12. We'll see...any glimmer of hope about this is still 2 years away from even beginning to being realized. And it only happens if the NHL level also buys into developing our youth...even at the expense of a guys like Danault to use a recent example.
  13. To me, McCarron is more evidence of the Habs failure to develop players. McCarron's BEST AHL year, at least statistically (and by a decent margin), was his rookie season as a pro. How do they not get his skating addressed over the past 3 years? If his skating is that poor they should have him in skating clinics and speed skating (those are the obvious ones) but even telling him to get into figure skating and martial arts in the off-seasons to work on balance and footwork...yeah, it sounds funny but this stuff helps. He should be doing explosiveness drills to improve his first step. He sho
  14. Holy balls. You have some serious selective memory if you thought Gomez was pretty good at the time that trade was made for him. I don't recall too many people thinking that was a good deal from the moment it was announced. There were A LOT of people scratching their heads about the Sergachev deal too. I agree, we'll leave the Subban deal alone because it's been beaten to death (because again, so many disagreed with it). Let's just say your optimism is impressive given the perspectives at the time and the actual hindsight of those deals. I have some Blackberry stock if you want to buy it
  15. Hey, I'm not your typical pessimistic Habs fan...I may rarely post in recent years but I've been around the board longer then probably 99% of members...since the first days of the boards creation. Those who remember me will know I'm not the "complain about everything" fan. I'm also not a "praise everything" fan. If recent comments are more negative it's largely because there has been little positive out of Bergevins time here. It's a red herring to blame fan reaction. IMHO this team is being run by folks that struggle with asset evaluation and risk/reward. The draft was just more evidenc
  16. Again, my issue is that they didn't optimize the value of each pick. You want guys that you could have got lower...fine...trade down. Wasting pick value like that is the problem. The consensus, to define BPA at the time of each pick, is just an easy way to compare that value pick to pick.
  17. In Ylonen's case there were a number of players ranked higher still on the board. I've been consistent in saying that, at each pick, you need to evaluate who is still available to properly consider if they made a smart selection...perhaps they had Ylonen ranked ahead of the 6-8 other guys that were sliding but that would seem strange, particularly since they were doing this on sooo many picks. I find it unlikely that their "list" was so far off the consensus rankings from so many orgs that they continually ranked all these guys higher. I think it more likely that they had their mind set on
  18. This is doing what Commandant is saying...evaluating what they got instead of how well they used the picks available. Eg. in the real world we don't have clueless owners like Molson allowing Bergevin to run amok and use those picks on flyers as a mulligan. If I have a deadline and I'm scrambling to meet it and being forced to cut corners to get it done on time when suddenly I get an extension...how would my boss react if I just decided to take that extra time and go to Starbucks, chat on Habsworld (lol), etc? I'd lose my standing internally, possibly get fired or warned, for not
  19. That line of thinking ignores that each pick is in actual fact an organizational asset. The goal is to maximize those assets. I don't think there are two correct but different angles to evaluate from...it should only be measured against whether you maximized the value of your picks (each viewed in the context of your pick at that moment in time - otherwise everyone could just submit their "list" and they wouldn't actually hold a draft). And yes, Calgary should be evaluated on what they picked with what they had...and that includes the value of the players they traded picks to g
  20. I think that's a big maybe on the Coyotes...that was a big enough reach by them that they may have been taking him either way. Hayton was arguably the 3rd or 4th best C in the draft IMO. As for Ylonen, there were multiple "late first talents" available then too...many ranked ahead of him by quite a few publications and their final rankings. Olofsson was good value at his pick. My main issue is expected value at each pick. They really didn't get full value on the majority of their picks.
  21. Nice work Dlbalr and all who've contributed similarly. It's not that I dislike the kids drafted so much as I have serious concerns about how they "valued" each pick. It seemed like they completely ignored pick value and BPA in the first 2 rounds before starting to trade down...so maybe the trades weren't there for them earlier. I can give them that out. I just don't agree that they should have been locked in on the players that filled a "need" at the places they did then pick. For that reason, I'd grade Kotkaniemi as a B+ pick...they should have draft Zadina to get
  22. Yes, there were a number...particularly when you compare each pick at the time and what was still available. With so many picks the odd one would have been okay but most were stretches against most ranking systems (again, even more so when compared against what was still available at those times.
  23. Disagree...when they took their first two 2nd round picks they had a whole bunch of guys sliding from the first round too. So, if you had him at 38 and 5-8 guys were sliding out of the first then there were over 10 guys ranked ahead of him (that's a lot for an early 2nd round pick). He might be great BUT it's a reach and bad value for the pick. The Romanov pick is just brutal as a reach. Then, trading down repeatedly was a mistake...they should have been packaging their 2nds to move up into the first round. I also simply have no faith in the org to develop players so the adde
  24. All the picks now are either projects or kids with only a couple notable tools. You can get shooters still but they may not be great skaters, could be poor defenders, or could just be very raw but have the physical tools (that last one isn't good for the Habs considering their development program is so poor).
  25. Sportsnet basically ignoring Habs during picks...lol
×
×
  • Create New...