Jump to content

George Parros to Montreal for Phillipe Lefebvre and a 7th in 2014


Recommended Posts

Laraque should explain to us how useful he was to us when he signed here? The only fear he put into anyone was a buffet owner. What a waste of space. I am glad we sign parros even if it is for only a few games he will play. It will allow prust to play hockey and not be in the box as often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laraque should explain to us how useful he was to us when he signed here? The only fear he put into anyone was a buffet owner. What a waste of space. I am glad we sign parros even if it is for only a few games he will play. It will allow prust to play hockey and not be in the box as often.

BGL had a back injury which limited his effectiveness. i'm not going to pile on him along with the Gainey and Martin apologists. He did change the momentum of a few games,one with San Jose and another with Philly off the top of my head. Martin has been quoted numerous times that "toughness is overrated" and didn't want to use him. And Gainey was a nutcase. How do you go acquire the "3 amigos" and a bunch of other smurfs,and then hire a coach like JM who believes in a shutdown defense 1st system that requires bigger, stronger players. Another among the long examples of Habs management bashing an ex-player. That's why UFAs don't come here unless overpaid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why UFAs don't come here unless overpaid

UFAs didn't come to Montreal unless overpaid because of the taxes.

That's also an old concept because Prust would have been paid more money had he taken the deals in Calgary or Nashville based on taxes, Danny Briere turned down a better deal in Nashville to sign here and a couple more players like Paul Mara came to Montreal despite being offered better deals elsewhere. Since 2009-2010 we don't have to overpay for UFAs and now Bergevin is even telling players, "Want to play in Montreal? Agree to my numbers, not your agents."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree to my numbers, not your agents.

Which would be a great catchphrase if Bergevin was on "Shark Tank." There's more to winning than getting players under the cap. I think it's great that he can nickel and dime these guys, but at some point he has to make something happen on the trade front if he's going to thumb his nose at free agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BGL had a back injury which limited his effectiveness. i'm not going to pile on him along with the Gainey and Martin apologists. He did change the momentum of a few games,one with San Jose and another with Philly off the top of my head. Martin has been quoted numerous times that "toughness is overrated" and didn't want to use him. And Gainey was a nutcase. How do you go acquire the "3 amigos" and a bunch of other smurfs,and then hire a coach like JM who believes in a shutdown defense 1st system that requires bigger, stronger players. Another among the long examples of Habs management bashing an ex-player. That's why UFAs don't come here unless overpaid

The back injury is a valid point.

The UFA thing is nonsense. When are fans going to get over these tiresome myths.

The supposed "nutcase" strategy of Gainey took us to the Conference Finals, then to Game 7 OT against the Bruins, in case you didn't notice.

Sheesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which would be a great catchphrase if Bergevin was on "Shark Tank." There's more to winning than getting players under the cap. I think it's great that he can nickel and dime these guys, but at some point he has to make something happen on the trade front if he's going to thumb his nose at free agents.

If Bergevin accepted the numbers on Clowe, Horton, Lecavalier or Clarkson he'd have failed us this free agency as a GM.

Briere took a two year deal. Not a huge commitment for a guy who proves it in the playoffs. For all our size inadequacy issues as fans, we couldn't score on Anderson first and foremost. Now we have a veteran who can show young kids how to go that extra mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The back injury is a valid point.

The UFA thing is nonsense. When are fans going to get over these tiresome myths.

The supposed "nutcase" strategy of Gainey took us to the Conference Finals, then to Game 7 OT against the Bruins, in case you didn't notice.

Sheesh.

Wow, where do we hang the banner for losing in game 7 of the 1st rd. How about next to the Maple Leafs banner for losing in ot game 7.And 1 final 4 appearance in 10 years. Yippee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which would be a great catchphrase if Bergevin was on "Shark Tank." There's more to winning than getting players under the cap. I think it's great that he can nickel and dime these guys, but at some point he has to make something happen on the trade front if he's going to thumb his nose at free agents.

I agree that he needs to make a trade...however, he does have three months in which to do it. So, y'know, a little patience. (As one who is convinced we need a trade for the blueline, I know that this patience is hard).

You can't win as a GM anyway. Gainey ran the table on UFAs in 2009 and then had to hear unending griping about all the "overpaid" talent. Bergevin shows a very keen, tactical approach to UFAs, refusing to bite on massive contracts and term, and he is raked over the coals for doing nothing. We have a damned strong forward corps despite the lack of size at RW - there is zero urgency to get anything done at FW at this particular juncture, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UFAs didn't come to Montreal unless overpaid because of the taxes.

That's also an old concept because Prust would have been paid more money had he taken the deals in Calgary or Nashville based on taxes, Danny Briere turned down a better deal in Nashville to sign here and a couple more players like Paul Mara came to Montreal despite being offered better deals elsewhere. Since 2009-2010 we don't have to overpay for UFAs and now Bergevin is even telling players, "Want to play in Montreal? Agree to my numbers, not your agents."

Sorry but Montreal is not a great enough UFA destination for Bergevin or any Gm to be able to pull a mythical stunt like that. That happens for either a player who wants a chance at the cup (not here), a low tax burden (not here) or a a better climate.You can't believe everything Bergie says. Mara got offered nothing,nowhwere else. Where did he play after his last year in MTL ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, where do we hang the banner for losing in game 7 of the 1st rd. How about next to the Maple Leafs banner for losing in ot game 7.And 1 final 4 appearance in 10 years. Yippee.

Sigh. Losing in Game 7 OT is basically a crapshoot. To call a GM a "nutcase" for assembling a team that does that - while missing its #1 defenceman, I might add - is itself the act of a nutcase. And going to the Conference Finals is obviously not the Cup, but it's still pretty good. Fact is, the JM team was a good, competitive team until it all melted down due to Gauthier's inability to patch over the injury to Markov and the player rebellion. You're allowing one catastrophic year to colour your assessment of the overall era.

As for UFAs, there's a long list of them that we've signed. You can say "overpay" but almost ALL UFAs are overpaid. Like Pleks's supposed vanishing act in the playoffs, this is just a myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that he needs to make a trade...however, he does have three months in which to do it. So, y'know, a little patience. (As one who is convinced we need a trade for the blueline, I know that this patience is hard).

You can't win as a GM anyway. Gainey ran the table on UFAs in 2009 and then had to hear unending griping about all the "overpaid" talent. Bergevin shows a very keen, tactical approach to UFAs, refusing to bite on massive contracts and term, and he is raked over the coals for doing nothing. We have a damned strong forward corps despite the lack of size at RW - there is zero urgency to get anything done at FW at this particular juncture, IMHO.

I don't see this "strong forward corps". I see some prospects that may or may not pan out,and I see 5 out of our top 9 5'10 and under,and I see two of the rw's on the downside of their career.Like bergie says,we need balance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. Losing in Game 7 OT is basically a crapshoot. To call a GM a "nutcase" for assembling a team that does that - while missing its #1 defenceman, I might add - is itself the act of a nutcase. And going to the Conference Finals is obviously not the Cup, but it's still pretty good. Fact is, the JM team was a good, competitive team until it all melted down due to Gauthier's inability to patch over the injury to Markov and the player rebellion. You're allowing one catastrophic year to colour your assessment of the overall era.

As for UFAs, there's a long list of them that we've signed. You can say "overpay" but almost ALL UFAs are overpaid. Like Pleks's supposed vanishing act in the playoffs, this is just a myth.

Most would agree that the final 4 appearance was as much as anamoly as the #28 finish. That was Halak's and cammi heroics. You can praise gainey til your blue in the face but he sucked as a GM.he didn't pick up a single player that played the way he does. And the way he put price above the team was bizarre,but that's old news and I'm so glad he's gone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this "strong forward corps". I see some prospects that may or may not pan out,and I see 5 out of our top 9 5'10 and under,and I see two of the rw's on the downside of their career.Like bergie says,we need balance

Galy and Gally "may or may not pan out?" I suppose a regression is always possible, but surely they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

The FW corps is strong in that, barring regression, we can roll three dangerous lines. We're not built to throw 2-3 supserstars at you, we're built to throw wave after wave of good players at you. That is a less flashy but very effective model and can certainly work in the regular season. It's a legitimate question whether or not it can work in the playoffs given the concern about size and toughness, so "balance" is a valid concern in the longer run - the point being that MB has until next playoff to address it, unlike the D in my view But other than Desharnais, I don't see too many weak links up front as we head into the season.

As for injury at RW, assuming Gallagher doesn't regress we should have enough depth there to have at least 2 quality RW at any given time. I agree that an extra body there who can jump into the top-6 now and then would be nice, but we're slipping here into fantasizing about a team that is absolutely indestructable against every contingency, rather than a realistic NHL squad in the cap era.

And Gainey didn't "suck." He was solid but made too many key mistakes to make us genuine contenders. His tenure brought lots of good times, just not championships. Get sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galy and Gally "may or may not pan out?" I suppose a regression is always possible, but surely they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

The FW corps is strong in that, barring regression, we can roll three dangerous lines. We're not built to throw 2-3 supserstars at you, we're built to throw wave after wave of good players at you. That is a less flashy but very effective model and can certainly work in the regular season. It's a legitimate question whether or not it can work in the playoffs given the concern about size and toughness, so "balance" is a valid concern in the longer run - the point being that MB has until next playoff to address it, unlike the D in my view But other than Desharnais, I don't see too many weak links up front as we head into the season.

As for injury at RW, assuming Gallagher doesn't regress we should have enough depth there to have at least 2 quality RW at any given time. I agree that an extra body there who can jump into the top-6 now and then would be nice, but we're slipping here into fantasizing about a team that is absolutely indestructable against every contingency, rather than a realistic NHL squad in the cap era.

And Gainey didn't "suck." He was solid but made too many key mistakes to make us genuine contenders. His tenure brought lots of good times, just not championships. Get sensible.

I agree with most what you said. my worry about gally is that he needs to be insulated because of his size and the game he plays. he has a concussion history dating back to juniors. i have no worries about Galch,as long as his minutes are managed and patience is shown.Like you said my concern is the playoffs where the whistles are put away and a more grinding type of play is needed. Especially net front and along the boards which is our weak points on both ends of the ice. Obviously the regular season model is needed to get to the playoffs. we'll disagree about Gainey,maybe because my expectations of him were so high when he got here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parros fought 9 times in a lockout shortened year.

Laraque fought 4 times in the year he was sent home in Feb and bought out.

9 times in the full season before that.

Seems to me that Parros is fighting a lot more than Laraque did with us.


The back injury is a valid point.

The UFA thing is nonsense. When are fans going to get over these tiresome myths.

The supposed "nutcase" strategy of Gainey took us to the Conference Finals, then to Game 7 OT against the Bruins, in case you didn't notice.

Sheesh.

BGL showed up to training camp out of shape.

Pulled his groin due to being out of shape.

Skated to early on the pulled groin.

Re injured his groin and his back.

Who is to blame for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gallagher needs to be insulated?

You can't stop his game. He's going to play it and that's that.

Fleury played during the headshot Scott Stevens era and there was nothing stopping the way he played.

Gallagher needs to play like that. Can't be scared of injuries all the time.

My god, McCarron has an Eric Lindros physique! Can't be putting him out there, he might get a concussion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gallagher needs to be insulated?

You can't stop his game. He's going to play it and that's that.

Fleury played during the headshot Scott Stevens era and there was nothing stopping the way he played.

Gallagher needs to play like that. Can't be scared of injuries all the time.

My god, McCarron has an Eric Lindros physique! Can't be putting him out there, he might get a concussion!

Gallagher has to play his game, that's for sure. However, his concussion history IS a red flag about his long-term durability. I hate to say it, but it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It absolutely is. But that's for the doctors to deal with, not Michel Therrien.

Agree 100%. There is only one way for Gallagher to play, and it's all-in. I'm sure he understands that even better than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree 100%. There is only one way for Gallagher to play, and it's all-in. I'm sure he understands that even better than we do.

It's one thing where you got a guy made of glass like Marc Savard who's reaction time was getting bad after the Steve Begin crosscheck and he gets blindsided by Matt Cooke. People completely forget that the Bruins ended up clearing him for play so he could be ready for the playoffs. You just know that was more about team pressure than the health of the player. Savard came back and his play was good but he was clearly reacting to things slowly and then came that last concussion on the boards against Colorado. People forget he played after the Cooke hit. He probably shouldn't have, or at least as early.

It's another thing to try to figure out ways to make sure Gallagher doesn't get a concussion on the ice. He could get hit with a puck, collide with a teammate or ram himself into the net. There's nothing stopping or even limiting the chances. He's gotta play his game. History be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know whether wearing a full face shield has a demonstrable effect on reducing concussions? It seems to make intuitive sense, but I never hear the idea discussed.

If it does, don't tell the NHL. It's still illegal to wear a full face shield without a doctor's reason and it must be temporary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that he needs to make a trade...however, he does have three months in which to do it. So, y'know, a little patience. (As one who is convinced we need a trade for the blueline, I know that this patience is hard).

You can't win as a GM anyway. Gainey ran the table on UFAs in 2009 and then had to hear unending griping about all the "overpaid" talent. Bergevin shows a very keen, tactical approach to UFAs, refusing to bite on massive contracts and term, and he is raked over the coals for doing nothing. We have a damned strong forward corps despite the lack of size at RW - there is zero urgency to get anything done at FW at this particular juncture, IMHO.

Gainey ran the table because all of those were terrible contracts. Every last one of them. Then he traded for a top 5 worst contract in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're arguing that players don't sign in Montreal on a discount, I'd be inclined to agree. Although apparently Briere took less than he could have gotten elsewhere. And it's also interesting that we read of Brenden Morrow "reaching out" to the Habs. I guess those guys don't want to play here either.

If you're arguing "UFAs don't want to come here, so we have to overpay," then, I don't agree. 99% of the time big-name UFAs get overpaid, period. If Clarkson had signed with us, everyone would be saying we only got him because we "overpaid." They don't get unduly overpaid in Montreal (although there *is* the tax issue to think about - we may have to pay more to compensate - but that's not the same as saying "UFAs don't want to come here"). In short, they come if we pay them to come, and paying them means fowarding an offer that is higher than or equal to what other teams are throwing at them. Just like every other team that is UFA shopping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're arguing that players don't sign in Montreal on a discount, I'd be inclined to agree. Although apparently Briere took less than he could have gotten elsewhere. And it's also interesting that we read of Brenden Morrow "reaching out" to the Habs. I guess those guys don't want to play here either.

If you're arguing "UFAs don't want to come here, so we have to overpay," then, I don't agree. 99% of the time big-name UFAs get overpaid, period. If Clarkson had signed with us, everyone would be saying we only got him because we "overpaid." They don't get unduly overpaid in Montreal (although there *is* the tax issue to think about - we may have to pay more to compensate - but that's not the same as saying "UFAs don't want to come here"). In short, they come if we pay them to come, and paying them means fowarding an offer that is higher than or equal to what other teams are throwing at them. Just like every other team that is UFA shopping.

Brandon Prust took a discount to come to Montreal. Maybe people don't believe me on that so I'll just let Brandon Prust tell it: http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/calgary-flames/Stubbs+Brandon+Prust+chose+Montreal/7269458/story.html

“Montreal just seemed like a good fit for me, especially after Michel and Scott showed up and told me they wanted me. It was a crazy experience, having teams and coaches call and say they’d like to have you play for them. At the end of the day, you want to be wanted.”

Prust had roughly similar contract pitches from Calgary and Nashville, those offers providing “way more” take-home pay, he said of Quebec’s notorious tax bite.

What carried the day, he said, was “to have an organization like Montreal say they want you to play for the best team in history in the biggest hockey town in the world.”

Also, people forget that it's a free market and you're bidding for player services. You rarely get deals. Dave Clarkson, according to some, took a pay cut in going to Toronto based on what other teams were offering. $5.25M per year, seven years. And he took a pay cut!? Yikes. Why would anyone want to touch that? I mean I rant about Bourque but that's a guy with three 20+ goal seasons. Clarkson has one season of 30 goals and everything else is under 20. Bourque is a third liner getting paid like a third liner. Clarkson is a third liner getting paid like Pacioretty. Doesn't take long to go, "Oh yeah, Pacioretty wasn't paid on an open market. He was groomed through the system." You know, the best way to get players paid for their value instead of an inflated market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...