Jump to content

The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Member
  • Content Count

    15488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    326

Everything posted by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

  1. Could Turris be a useful depth C for the Habs?
  2. Yes. I think it's quite unwise - indeed, downright foolish - to go into a season relying on 3 C who have about 170 games of NHL experience between them. Whether Mikko or someone else, a veteran #4C is needed.
  3. Like I said in the "Bergevin 2020" thread, I think MB will be UFA shopping for an experienced bottom-6 C. It's harder to see a likely UFA fit as a top-6 LW. I can see Bergevin going, "well, between Drouin and Byron, maybe we'll be OK for a #2 LW." I agree that that's kinda crap, but I won't be surprised if that's the outcome.
  4. I agree with the gist of PM Koivu's assessment...it's nice to see Bergevin actually making concrete moves to address glaring roster holes. For once.👍 The revised Habs are going to be interesting. On the one hand, this is a significantly beefier Habs team than we're accustomed to seeing. The blueline has grinding, physical, strongmen in Weber, Chiarot, and Edmunson. If KK brings the power game we saw in the playoffs, then between him, Armia, and Anderson we will suddenly have three "power" guys in the top 6 or at least top 9 - plus Gallagher. If that team gets to the playoffs healthy, it will be a tough out. But can it get to the playoffs? The addition of Allen probably means a few additional regular season points in itself. However, we are awfully dependent upon two unproven C. If either Suzuki or KK craps out or gets injured, the team will struggle. Having Domi at least offered a fallback position at C, but with him gone, we no longer have a safety net. Indeed, it's quite striking that other than Danault the Habs basically have ZERO proven NHL centremen anywhere in the organization. That's...weird. And unsettling. Everyone wants MB to go and get a star winger, but I would not be surprised if he acquires a proven bottom-6 C before all is said and done.
  5. I’m a BPA guy, we don’t even know how this ‘glut’ will play out at the NHL level. Sort it out further on down the line.
  6. Habs seem to be big on size, suddenly? Interesting pick. I’m a huge believer in the importance of quality D-men, so I won’t complain.
  7. The point is a simple one. Throwing away draft picks is stupid. That is what my reductio ad absurdum was trying to illustrate. You claimed the trade "makes the team better" and nothing else matters. And my rebuttal illustrates the point that throwing away draft picks does matter. I don't know why you are doggedly denying this simple principle. It's common sense. Now, is a lost 3rd rounder the end of the world? Of course not. But I suspect that if Bergevin had traded Anderson for Domi and a 3rd, you would be cackling at the unsurpassed transcendent genius of our brilliant GM who just fleeced Columbus. Because at the heart of your position seems to be axiomatic reasoning: ANYTHING BERGEVIN DOES IS AWESOME. (And for the record: I'm happy with trading Domi for Anderson, I just think the 3rd is a moderate overpay).
  8. OK, so let's imagine he had traded Domi plus out 1st overall pick plus every other pick this year, and every other pick next year and the year after, for Anderson. Since by your logic this "makes the team better" next year, it is a HUGE WIN for Bergevin.🙄 Like I said: asset management matters. It's not a bad trade at all. But for better or worse, that's not the trade we are discussing. 🙄 MB gets full marks for dumping Galy in return for Domi. A clear win. But we don't then get to praise him for trading Domi in a deal that is not a clear win, and pretend that it is, because Domi actually "is" Galchenyuk. What you can argue is that from an overall asset management perspective, losing the 3rd doesn't hurt so much because the original Domi-Galy deal was so lopsided. But that still doesn't make the waste of a 3rd round pick defensible in itself. It's not as though the Habs are some powerhouse that can cavalierly toss picks around. The overpay on this deal takes some of the lustre off the original fleecing of Philly. All that being said - I'm not so worked up about the overpay as to be in a blind rage about it. I can live with the deal and think it helps us now. I'd have preferred not to throw in the 3rd, that's all.
  9. I think the team is better, but that’s NOT the only question. Asset management matters.
  10. Well, this gets to a point I asked in the Rumour thread and didn't get much uptake on: what is a reasonable return one-on-one for Max Domi? I posited an Armia-type player and that is exactly what we got, albeit one with (probably) more offensive chops than Armia. I'm still waiting for other suggestions. As for the idea of packaging Domi to get a star-calibre player back, it's an appealing scenario, but also one that lends itself to wishful thinking. When people say Domi + 16th overall + prospect for a star W, they tend to judiciously leave out exactly which prospect they mean. Caulfield? Romanov? I'm not sure I'd throw in either of those guys in such a deal. If you mean (say) Juulsen, it is unlikely that package brings back an elite W. So the "package Domi" argument sounds a lot better in the abstract than it does when you start to talk with some granularity about the assets involved. I agree that the 3rd was an overpay. That said, Domi is not exactly a blue-ship asset, and if Anderson is healthy, he doesn't seem like some gigantic risk. 20/40 seems realistic. I mean, jeez, before his injury he was getting this kind of write-up: https://ottawasun.com/sports/hockey/nhl/combining-size-skill-and-speed-blue-jackets-josh-anderson-is-the-type-of-player-every-team-covets No way do you get that guy back for a sub-par 2nd line C in Max Domi.
  11. Well...I am basically supportive of Anderson-for-Domi, but you know, we can't simultaneously act like draft picks are valuable and act like they're not. Because player for player this seems an even swap, it is legitimate to argue that the Habs overpaid by tossing in the 3rd. That said, am i losing sleep over it? No. But let's not start suddenly declaring that picks are worthless because we want to justify some decision MB made.
  12. Agree. That said, I do think this trade improves the team. 20-goals, 40-points seems a reasonable projection for Anderson. Domi, meanwhile, was not going to be used in the top-6. There wasn't much point in having him noodling around unhappily on the fourth line passing the puck to cement-handed depth players like he did in the playoffs. So we subtract a guy who had no real role on the team for Joel Armia II. That's a plus.
  13. Well, I've been arguing in the Rumour thread that "Domi for Armia" is a reasonable trade in theory. And that seems to me a plausible interpretation of this deal. Yeah, yeah, maybe Anderson will revert to 26-goal, 47-point form. But he sounds more like a safe bet to be a big body in the top-9 who can approach 20 goals. A lot like Armia. Given the apocalyptic season he just had, I have a hard time defending the "throw in" of a 3rd-rounder to make the deal happen.
  14. Yeah, the whole point is that Armia and Domi are very different players with different attributes. That's kind of why you would trade one for one. If you want a 50-point one-dimensional C, just keep Domi. Which I said when I brought DD's name into it. My point was merely that they are in the same category, i.e., 2nd-line C with significant limitations and holes in their games. I don't get it. I thought Domi actively disliked being on W? And that his production level at W has been substantially below what it's been at C? If either is true, then this is no solution.
  15. Domi's career points totals: 52 38 45 72 44 DON is trying to make him out to be a 70-point C because of one outlier season. In fact he is clearly in the 45-50-point range. That is, he is OK second-tier offence coupled with zero defensive acumen and poor faceoff %. The parallel with David Desharnais is not so far off. Domi is chippier and quicker, better overall, but in the same broad category as DD IMHO: a so-so 2nd-line C at best. Now, Armia is nevertheless a significantly less productive player offensively. But while Domi is a question mark - is he a serviceable if limited #2C, or is he really a tweener, not good enough to be a top-6 C on a good team, and comes with concerns about a me-first attitude? - Armia is a clear-cut, prototypical #3 W with excellent size and physicality, solid defensive game, who sometimes can play on the second line. That's why I say he's a reasonable return. He brings different attributes but is probably comparable in overall contribution to team success.
  16. I don't doubt that Domi + 16th overall pick + prospect might bring back an impact W. A lot would probably depend on the prospect, though. The question of what Domi is worth, straight up with no extra incentives, is interesting. I see a 50-point C with zero defensive game and lousy faceoff % and I figure a rock-solid, physical 3rd line W like Armia is a reasonable return. What would you expect to get back, one for one?
  17. I don't know anything about Anderson either. But apart from last season's abortion (injuries?) he's a big body, 20-goal forward whose points totals are in the same region as Armia's. That's why I brought up the Armia parallel. What I was saying is that "Domi for Armia" would be a fair trade. Whether or not Anderson is as good as Armia is a whole other question. You can talk about Domi's 70-point season, but you can also talk about the fact that he has played himself out of two NHL cities at age 25, is a one-dimensional player, carries baggage as a non-team-player, and has lost his spot on the Habs to an unproven sophomore who had all of eight point to his credit last season. Other GMs aren't idiots. We're not getting a star back for Domi in a straight one-for-one trade.
  18. I would as well, but in terms of one-for-one value for Domi, that seems like a reasonable and fair return.
  19. Is "Domi for Joel Armia" a fair summary of this trade concept?
  20. Ha ha, you guys are a couple of tough nuts! I wasn't saying he should be brought up or anything like that, just observing that his NHL dreams were destroyed overnight right when he probably expected it least. Y'know, money is a nice consolation prize, but that's still a harsh fate, on a human level.
  21. Poor Alzner...the guy hits the UFA market, scores a big contract, thinks he's about to embark upon a new chapter in his career, and BAM!!! He's in the minors and done as an NHLer. While I'm sure his money offers some consolation, it's still a striking lesson in the capriciousness of a career in pro sports.
  22. So Domi (marginal top-6 C), Byron (marginal top-6 FW on the downside), and a 16th overall pick for a MaxPac? That sort of thing? Still seems doubtful to me. Maybe I'm too skeptical.
  23. I am skeptical about this. It would nice to be proven wrong, but that sounds like another "quantity for quality" proposal of the type which only rarely get made. We keep fantasizing about a Joe Thornton-style trade (i.e., a stud in return for a bunch of so-so parts) but those hardly ever happen.
×
×
  • Create New...