Jump to content

The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Member
  • Posts

    19366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    477

Everything posted by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

  1. That's why I find the rumour that the two sides are agreed on money so perplexing. It doesn't add up. As for Edler and the Canucks, Habs29, you'll find that that organization has done quite nicely in getting many players to play at a discount. That's a model to follow, but - arguably - you don't get there by throwing big money long-term at RFAs based on potential rather than performance.
  2. Well, yes and no...if you've got a kid who is endlessly being told how great he is all summer long, sleeping with every woman he wants, basically being a god on earth - which is what happens in Montreal - you can see where the kid isn't going to listen, and where the organization is going to get damned frustrated after a while. Insofar as Bergevin is skeptical about PK - which is on possible reason for the delay on the contract - then this suggests MB is sufficiently 'old school' that he will not be much more tolerant of insufferable young punks than Gainey or Savard were.
  3. Only in that Edler has a better NHL resumé than Subban and therefore should make more money than him. Hell, I wouldn't mind it if Bergervin made that the hill he'll die on, to coin a phrase. Machine, the deal with Subban has potential long-term implications for the franchise. I don't want MB to feel forced into fundamentally overpaying because he HAS to make the playoffs with a mediocre team. Look at Gillis in Vancouver, letting Ehrhoff walk rather than pay him a deal that made no sense; ditto New Jersey when their salary structure was still under control, with Gomer and Gio. Well run teams don't keel over every time a player makes a demand. Bergevin will never have more leverage than he has right now. He should use it. (I'm just worried he's using it for the wrong reasons, e.g., being 'unconvinced' that PK really is a strong player).
  4. I keep coming back to the question of dollars, about which, according to one rumour, the Habs and Meehan agree. If they do, that's a real stumper...and can only mean that Bergevin is concerned that Subban will regress and therefore doesn't want a longer-term contract. In other words, he's not yet convinced that PK truly is a high-quality player. (Like I say, he is a #2 legitimate defenceman on a good team. People who try to pretend otherwise must not have been watching the same player I have). All I can say is, if we are in a position to lock up Subban long term for under $5 mil, then Bergevin would be clinically insane NOT to do it. If both sides agree on something over $5 million, then I find that an overpayment based on PK's actual performance and I don't understand why Bergevin would agree to it, even contingent upon the deal being a 'bridging' contract only. I'm all for MB *if* he is making a stand on paying for performance only, rather than potential. But these other scenarios are head-scratchers. I guess time will tell.
  5. Huh. Well, this is puzzling. If money isn't the issue, then how can term be the problem? Say, for the sake of argument, you agree that PK is - at present - worth $4.5 million a year (not unreasonable for a #2 defenceman on a good team, which is what PK is at this stage in his development). Let's even be generous and adjust for Quebec taxes; that comes to $5 mil per. OK. Buyouts considered, is that really sufficient to put us way over the cap next season? Are there other huge RFA contracts we expect to be signing this summer? Then what's the problem? Or does MB (somehow) think we can contend next season and wants the extra cap space in order to sign a short-term UFA who he thinks will put us over the top? If, again, you agree on the salary that PK's performance warrants, why would you want PK to sign at that rate for only two years rather than, say, 6 - unless you think his game is going to regress?? I can see Bergevin digging in on salary and saying, look, you're RFA, take less now, you'll make it up later. I can see PK wanting to be paid big dollars on a long-term deal predicated on his continued ascension to 'star' status. That's the dispute that makes sense. But I don't comprehend the idea of Bergevin agreeing that PK is worth X, but not wanting to lock him up. Maybe I'm missing something. Help me out.
  6. Yeah, they're the clowns who took to the streets protesting our failure to re-sign a washed-up, broken-down, erratic and moody Kovalev. Great hockey minds right there. The choice is clear. Either stick to your principles - like Gillis on the Canucks, who let Ehrhoff walk rather than destroy his salary structure and team-building philosophy- or else end up overpaying left and right for reasons that have nothing to do with the goal of winning the Cup. Ruthless commitment to winning, or mediocrity and crossed fingers.
  7. The ONLY question here should be what is best for Galy's development. Not cap implications, not pleasing the fans after a lockout, not helping a mediocre team go from 10th to 9th place. It's another case, like PK's contract, where the Habs have to keep their eye ruthlessly trained on the question of what will make us contenders going forward, rather than get distracted by irrelevant crap. So where does that leave us? Prima facie, Galy will benefit more from a full season in junior (after all, he missed a whole year) and a bit of AHL seasoning after that, than he will from being thrown prematurely into the NHL. I say 'prima facie' because that is the scenario that would apply to 99% of players in his situation. The wild-card is the possibility that he might truly be that rarest of gems, a genuinely 'special talent' who well and truly does not need the kind of seasoning that any normal player would require. I'm not sure I see this myself - he got points but didn't seem to do much that was particularly exceptional in the WJC - but I haven't seen his camp and I'm no expert at assessing young talent. Maybe he is that extraordinary player who can skip two whole seasons of junior and excel in the NHL. I do think it's a long shot, though, and if there is any doubt that he is ready, he should be sent down.
  8. The first time I heard the quote it was from Harry Neale: If you start listening to the fans, pretty soon you'll be sitting up there with 'em. Yup. I've moved toward a hard-liner position on the PK thing. Bergevin must do what is best for the organization in pure hockey terms. That means not knuckling under to agents or fans - and hopefully not to interfering ownership either (some posters have suggested that Molson will 'force' Bergevin to sign PK, apparently failing to realize that if that happens, it will be a very ominous signal for our ability to ice a winning team going forward). MB has to make his stand here and now and establish that the Montreal Canadiens are an elite organization committed to excellence and winning...nothing else.
  9. I don't want to see PK traded because I think it makes no sense, as we would then need to acquire a player like PK in order to fill the massive hole he'll leave. But I have to say, I hate these references to his 'popularity,' as if that is relevant to the hockey decision of how good a player he is on the ice and therefore what his compensation should be. Montreal absolutely needs management that ignores these sort of pandering considerations and makes principled hockey decisions. More and more, I'm coming to the view that I really want Bergeron to stick to his guns just to make that point.
  10. As for fans chanting for PK, in a weird way I like it. If Bergevin lacks the stones to coldly ignore the baying fools of the Montreal fans and/or media - if he fails the test of ruthlessly doing what he thinks is best for the team no matter what the masses say - then he will not survive as GM in Montreal. Period. We may as well find out sooner rather than later if he's got the requisite ice in his veins.
  11. My impression is that everyone in hockey recognizes that PK Subban is an excellent young player. But there does not seem to be universal agreement that he is in the very highest echelon of young defencemen...there's a school that is, I think, unconvinced that he is (say) the second coming of Chelios. They see him as a work in progress and a player who could potentially fall short of our lofty expectations. To my mind, PK is, right now, a #2 defender on a good team. That is not worth $6 mil. IF MB digs in his heels, I can live with that.
  12. Good point, Commandant. I really am all over the place on this one. Will being prematurely rewarded stunt PK's development? Will doing so create a dangerous RFA precedent for the organization? Will it give MB a rep as a pushover, making future negotiations harder? Conversely, do we risk losing PK as a UFA if we make a stand insisting on a 'bridge' deal? Isn't PK's performance worth something in the domain of $5 mil (adjusting for Quebec taxes) and don't we want to treat guys fairly? Wouldn't it be nice to have PK locked up, even if it's a slight 'overpay' based on current results? Heck, don't we want to see PK on the ice this year? - and how does losing a whole year, potentially, affect his development?? Beats the heck out of me. Times like this, I'm glad I'm not making the call.
  13. Don't remind me of the quality players we squandered in the Houle years (Roy, Bure, Tucker, Conroy, Keane, Brashear, Stevenson, Odelein, Thornton, even Turgeon and Recchi got poor returns). But Koivu's situation was heartbreaking...it was his destiny to be so much more. I hate that so few fans remember that.
  14. What are you talking about? Koivu was the LEAGUE'S LEADING SCORER (or worst case, if memory fails, top-5) before he had his knee destroyed. He was emerging as a superstar, unquestionably the top offensive talent we had produced since Lafleur. The Koivu we saw after the injury - i.e., almost his entire career - was a shadow of himself. If Galy turns out to be as good as THAT Koivu, we will be sitting pretty.
  15. Ha ha, I forget if I said this about Gomez (more likely, I argued that we couldn't just dump him without an adequate replacement); but I won't deny that I fretted greatly about losing both Souray and Komisarek and wanted us to shell out substantial dough to try to keep those guys. So my judgement is hardly infallible. That said, Subban is in another category from any of those guys. Those were all one-dimensional players and two of them were recently coming off career years that would prove to be their peak. Not so Subban. Brobin's point about us being contenders (or not) is a good one, though. Assuming this season to be a write-off anyway, it might indeed be worth taking a principled stand on Subban. The only danger in doing so is in poisoning the well such that he is turned off of Montreal altogether. But presumably you can rebuild the relationship later. Whatever happens, this just might prove to be a defining test of Bergevin. His knowledge of this will probably make him more determined not to cave.
  16. I dunno. 'Minutes' can be filled, but the question is quality. I don't see how losing Subban can possibly be other than a huge blow to our D. We might be able to paper it over - certainly if Markov remains Markov we will be no worse off than last year; but then again, Markov cannot be relied on to be durable, nor can we be sure he WILL be Markov. And besides, our D last year was a disaster, so lateral moves are not what we want. Fact is, this team needs PK Subban, both now and (more importantly) going forward.
  17. The problem I have is that when you get down to brass tacks, I think PK has all the leverage in this negotiation. Imagine our blueline without him. You're now relying on Markov and Kaberle - declining, older, expensive players - to carry the corps, spelled off only by sophomores like Diaz and defensive types like Gorges and Emelin. Given how important rushing defencemen and PP quartebacks are to a healthy team offence, that is bad news all around. And PK logs huge minutes in both ends. You have to somehow patch up the D to replace those minutes. Meanwhile, other young defenders are probably 2-3 years away, and there is no guarantee that they will be anywhere near PK's calibre. It's a disastrous scenario. Suddenly the Habs go from a team with a good young nucleus to a desperate patchwork job with no hope of near-term improvement on the backend, short of a hugely expensive UFA signing. But if you're dropping big bucks anyway, why not just sign PK? People say, trade him. OK. Unless you get a comparable defender in return, you're still looking at a radically problematic blueline. But what are the odds of getting a comparable defender, at substantially cheaper rates than you'd be paying PK? No one makes that trade. If you get a star-quality young forward (say, from Edmonton), that's great; but it still doesn't solve the problem that you can't hope to win without a quality blueline. Do you then trade a forward to fix the blueline? How are you further ahead, then? Unless PK is unprepared to sit out the season and is willing to take a contract he doesn't like in order to play 48 games, it's a bit of a no-win scenario for Bergevin. It's another case where being a mediocre team hurts you. A Vancouver could just let Ehrhoff walk and still be considered contenders; not so for us.
  18. Wow, $6 mil for 5 years - that's pretty massive. If this is accurate, I may become more pessimistic on this front. As for the NHLPA, I don't quite grasp their beef. Gomez is getting paid $7 mil (or whatever) to sit on his arse. Where is the injustice?
  19. Right. I don't hate Kaberle at all, and find all the ragging on him to be totally irrational overblown. But if Markov comes back effectively, I think we can find better uses for that cap space given our team profile. If Markov turns out to be a shell of his former self, then we might have more reason to keep Kabs. Don't have strong feelings about it either way.
  20. I think that IF Kaberle comes back strong and produces at his usual 45+-point clip, there is a significant chance of moving him at the deadline to teams looking to add offence and help their PP heading into the playoffs. The guy for whom the Bruins traded a 1st round pick was not massively less one-dimensional than the current edition. His stock has dropped sufficiently that a high pick is a pipedream, but a team that is hungry for the Cup will cough up something for a guy who puts up those kind of numbers. Based purely on what we saw from Habs' players last season, Bourque might be a more likely buyout candidate. At last Kabs was reasonably productive for us.
  21. If you discount his disastrous stretch with Carolina - clearly a huge aberration - you'll find that his numbers with Montreal extrapolate to 42 points over a full season. This is a drop-off from his heyday of 50+ points but it's still good for 17th overall among defencemen. Diaz's numbers extrapolate to 27 points over a full season. Not in the same category. Anything can happen, but I think it's massively more likely that Kaberle will produce at a 45+point pace this year than that Diaz will. The discourse around Kaberle is delusional. People act as though his stretch with Carolina is representative of what he is as a player rather than marking a total outlier for him. Yes, he is one-dimensional. Yes, he is overpaid. And yes, his offensive production is well above-average for a defenceman. Now, he may continue his decline this season, in which case the last point will no longer hold, but with the info now before us, we should classify him as a 45-point defender and therefore in the top 15 in this respect.
  22. That'd be great, but somewhat unlikely. Kaberle is one of the most offensively productive defencemen in the league (top 15). Projecting Diaz to be 'on par' with Kaberle offensively while surpassing him defensively means that you expect Diaz to be an all-star quality defender. Possible. But implausible.
  23. Vancouver's an interesting team...you can't really bet against them, and their top-4 is excellent, but they are in danger of being a one-line team, which killed them in the playoffs. Kessler is kind of their Markov-equivalent...they guy they absolutely need to have at 100%.
×
×
  • Create New...