Summer 2014 Target UFAs

[huzer]

I didn't mind the Bourque-Eller-Gionta line.If the Habs can slot a 2nd line Winger ahead of him, I have no issues resigning Gionta, although at a reduced rate from his current deal, obviously.

It seems the bulk of the trade Plex argument is because folks are ready to move Chucky to center. Plex is older than Eller, so he's the one to trade, right? Eller hasn't shown any prolonged consistency to trust him to replace Plex role.

I know the Habs won't re-sign Vanek, but it would've been nice to see him on the left at some point. That'd be a solid 1-2 LW punch of Patches and Vanek. It'd be an interesting lineup of

Patches-DD-?

Vanek-Chucky-Gallagher

Bourque-Eller-Gionta

Darn, our RWers are small. Ha!

Just my miscellaneous ramblings.

[Toronthab]

She's a tough taskmaster this game of ours, my friend. Definitely not for the faint of heart.

So true. Still its an interesting phenomenon to consider. And I don't want Le Gros Bill centreing for us next year.. for everything there is a season.. and all that.

[Habsfan]

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eric-Engels/Size-Physicality-and-the-Habs-Shortcomings/82/60518

If you haven't already read this article, Eric as usual is bang on.

Once again, Engels is absolutely right. In my books, the Habs have a few untouchables: Price, Subban, Patches, Chucky, Gallagher and Markov!(i'd even place Beaulieu and Tinordi in this group) These guys are the core of our team! We need to surround them with solid players, ideally, guys who are taller than 6 feet. Then you've got some important players who you would like to keep, but you might have to trade away: Eller, Prust, Weise, Gorges and DD. These guys are important as well, however they might have to be moved!

I don't know about you guys, but watching our boys get manhandled by the Rangers just reinforced the idea that we are too small. Now you can imagine just how much more that Idea has been shown to be true just by watching the Rangers get manhandled by the Kings.

We have a good team, no doubt about it...but if the Habs wanna play for the cup and compete with the big boys (L.A., Chi, Ana, Bos, etc...) we need to get a HECKUVA lot bigger up front.

[Chris]

Eller Prust and Weise aren't going anywhere. They are the only gritty players they have.

I admit Eller is very frustrating but did have a pretty good playoff run.

I do agree they need to get bigger, tougher and more physical on defense and upfront.

Gorges, DD or Pleks I agree are definitely moveable. They need a RD back, RW power forward type.

Emelin back to the LD Subban

Markov with Weaver on a 1 year deal.

Tinordi and Beualieu split the season paired with a big physical RH RD.

[DON]

Disagree about bigger-tougher up front as a top priority, I would like a skilled winger who competes and scores, couldn't care if 5' or 6'.

Same as draft this year, 4 of top 10 ranked forwards are under 6', size up front is just a 'red herring' that many buy into and endlessly promote that Bigger=Better and BigBadBruins are what most want to be like.

On defense, I agree that is likely best to have at least 2 big physical goalie protectors to discourage running goalie, protecting smaller teammates and for post-whistle BS (Tinordi is it and no one else available at present, till Beaulieu beefs up or a Dietz-Thrower graduate).

[kuternoga]

Dominic Moore probably will be UFA. Maybe sign him?

[Chris]

Don, the Bruins have been to the cup twice in the past 5 years. The Habs not since 93.

I'll take a big tough team over a bunch of smurfs any day.

Obviously skill is needed up front and on D regardless of size.

The habs own 25% of players 5;9" and under in the league.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

We do need to get bigger up front. That said, DON is right to resist the "moar bigger" mentality that makes a fetish out of size. Ultimately, it's not just about getting bigger; it's about getting bigger while remaining just as fast, or faster, and just as skilled, or more skilled. That is extremely difficult to do in the short term (MB is clearly drafting with size partially in mind, as he should).

The obvious short-term thing to do is replace Gionta with a comparably effective RW who is bigger. Three smurfs in the top three lines is excessive, but surely you can carry two. That said, it would be crazy to blow up the team identity as a fast-skating, three-line, gutsy team in a quest to get comprehensively Moar Bigger.

I don't think we lost to the Rags because we were too small up front. We lost to the Rags mainly because they were too fast for our D.

[DON]

Don't think Reway-Lehkonen-Andrighetto-Hudon-Weaver-Bouillon-DD-Briere fit your Bergevin view of all important size, but yes he seems to have gone out of way with McCarron pick and how is that decision looking? Overvaluing sized kids is a real issue, whereas bigger=better is mostly just a myth of old school rock em sock em thinking.

When a choice of a more skilled forward (Erne, Zykov, Klimchuk, etc) or any of numerous solid looking d-prospects (McCoshen, Hagg, Santini, Heatherington with 36th or 55th pick) would seem to of been a 'much safer' choice.

3 small forwards in top 9 is bout average isn't it.

I would say lost to Rangers because Subban-Markov-Price-Emelin-Vanek-Pacioretty-DD etc didn't/couldnt step up (as some were physically worn out partly due to Olympics, which is where Hab MVP was originally hurt).

If you look at Kings reg season team stats, they were just slightly better in many key catagories than Habs were and didn't think would go well once got past Rangers.

But anyways to make most happy, seems most likely UFA target wingers for Beregevin are not 'smurfs' and should find out which it is in just over 2 weeks.

[Chris]

We'll see how McCarron turns out. I didn't expect him to be a top RW. If he turns into a solid 3rd liner who drives the net, hits, wins some fights and chips in 10-15 goals i'll be happy. De La Rose is also big and the picked a top rated goalie. I don't care what order they picked those 3, I liked the picks.

MB will get bigger and faster in the offseason I believe.

I also think he'll go with some size with the first pick,

[DON]

If commandant stats tell real story, McCarron probably wont even stick in AHL long and 3 year entry deal may be a big waste.

Of course we all hope he turns into something useful, but odds against him already and very few juniors who play as he did last year ever crack a NHL roster (even Jody Shelley had 25 goal season in CHL).

Doubt Timmins is ranking prospects by size, though most airchair scouts (as well as owners/some dumb GMs named Burke) do drool over a Tuch @6'4" 213lb and wrongly undervalue/dismiss, say a Brayden Point because he is @ 5'10" 160lb even though he had 36goals/91pts on a crap low-scoring WHL team.

(and you really wont like Bergevin's latest invite to rookie camp, he is 5'8" 150lb, nor top Hab forward smurf prospects in Hudon, Reway, Andrighetto, Thomas, so you will be complaining bout size for foreseeable future)

But, maybe Habs can add a Hemsky, who would likely make you somewhat happy, as he is 6' RWer.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

DON, I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing with you. I wouldn't trade skill and intensity for size either. But having three of the smallest players in all of hockey on your first three lines is not an optimal scenario. MB knows that, and no, he is not drafting ONLY for size - but he does value size, as does any other hockey person in existence. As for McCarron, the kid is a project. Hopefully he can end up wreaking havoc somewhere in the bottom six someday, because I sure wouldn't mind have a behemoth like that somewhere in the forward rotation!

[habs rule]

If there are 2 picks, one is say 6'3" the other is 5'8". They both have the same potential to be a top 6 player. Who do you pick? The big guy of course. I agree with CC that size is definite factor. It is not every thing but it is a big thing.

[DON]

Why not stay off-topic;

You notice, even in your description HR you automatically favour and simply assume bigger is better (should be common sense right) and include that in valuation, which is not objective.

Which is exactly what I was saying, Size blinds many and influences judgement to make poor choices. This guy is 2inches taller and 20lbs heavier, but might be a Bourque and be soft as a marshmellow.

Also bigger typically is slower and less agile (cept for very elite kids in top 1/2 of first round). You just don't see 7' point guards or 6'6" guys stealing bases, 235lb soccer players, or 280lb wide receivers, for a good reason.

Skills, athletic ability, size, hard working and dedicated teamplayer, are rare combo and holy grail of all scouts. Easy to have a couple of these traits but darn impossible to find a well rounded 17year old (without a high pick and even then is a bit of crapshoot).

Sure, the Tim Conboy/Ian Shultz/OByrne/McCarron types look good on paper, but where are they now.

Do you need mix of players yes, but if have 2,3 or 4 smurf forwards is irrelevent, dosent mean you have any worse a team than one with all 6' 2" forwards.

Can you name a big forward with more determination/drive/desire/gumption than a Gallagher? Give me a line with 3 Gallaghers and would be some fun to watch and I think would be hard for any team to defend against.

(Why was he a 147th pick? One reason only, simply because he wasn't tall)

[KoRP]

I don't think anyone is advocating drafting players on size alone though Don, skill is the most important thing, closely followed by CHaracter, I think MB understands what it takes to be an NHLer don't you?

If you can watch the Kings, and what they won the cup with, it was a lot of skill, character, and physical play. Their players aren't giants, but they sure are tough, and play physical. Williams isn't big, but look how he plays, he's a wrecking ball, but a decent sized wrecking ball.

A player doesn't have to be 6'4", 250 lbs to be a physical player, but he can't be a very effective physical player at 5'8" 160 lbs against NHL players in this decade...

[hab29RETIRED]

Don't forget speed. Skill, size and speed are the foundations. Character is something that can be fostered and an developed. Carter and Richards were lazy party boys before going to LAK. Hell if they were playing for Bob gaineg they would have been moved for a ninnemma type trade.

I don't think anyone is advocating drafting players on size alone though Don, skill is the most important thing, closely followed by CHaracter, I think MB understands what it takes to be an NHLer don't you?

If you can watch the Kings, and what they won the cup with, it was a lot of skill, character, and physical play. Their players aren't giants, but they sure are tough, and play physical. Williams isn't big, but look how he plays, he's a wrecking ball, but a decent sized wrecking ball.

A player doesn't have to be 6'4", 250 lbs to be a physical player, but he can't be a very effective physical player at 5'8" 160 lbs against NHL players in this decade...

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Don't forget speed. Skill, size and speed are the foundations. Character is something that can be fostered and an developed. Carter and Richards were lazy party boys before going to LAK. Hell if they were playing for Bob gaineg they would have been moved for a ninnemma type trade.

Boy, Flyers fans must be absolutely sh**ting themselves They traded two guys right at the classic age (26) where players often take a jump in maturity level, and now their former core are two-time Cup champs.

The real lesson is, as you imply, not assuming that an immature player's character is permanently formed when they're in their early 20s. That's the error we made with Ribs and to a lesser extent Grabovski, giving those guys away for the equivalent of a wet fart. But you probably also need a critical mass of internal leadership in order to enable those players to become mature pros. It's far from clear that Gainey Rebuild 1.0 had that; Kovalev was a huge presence on that team, and that tells you something about the state of its veteran leadership. Think about it...from The Three Amigos to a critical mass of punks and head-cases like Komisarek, Higgins, the Kostitsyns, Kovalev, etc., the leaders were hugely outnumbered by the jerks and immature pukes for years and years in Montreal. It must have been lonely (or frustrating) being a Koivu or a Gorges in that room.

I think Bob only realized the extent of the culture problem when he took over behind the bench in 2009. His response was one of the most dramatic GMing acts in NHL history: blowing up of the entire roster and rebuilding it with UFAs. It brought mixed results - if only he hadn't dealt McDonagh in the process! - but was probably necessary under the circumstances.

[hab29RETIRED]

I still maintain there was no reason to trade Koivu, unless it was with a far superior centre. Gomez was already seen as an anchor with the NYR. They NEEDED to move him. So regardless how I feel that a declining Gomez was the wrong guy to go after, there was no reason to "throw in" McDonough or Valetenko. Hell, I wouldn't have traded Higgins straight up for Gomez - we should have gotten a 1st rounder for taking that horrible contract off their books, particularly since it was clear they wanted gaborik, but couldn't get him with Gomez there (posted that here at the time).

It was asinine of Gainey wanting to change the culture with a plan to let koivu walk and bring back Kovelev and his lazy ass disappearing act that was getting old. Don't forget we dodged a bullet since Gainey only went after gionta, when Kovelev tried to hold out for more money.

Gainey and his staff were part of the primary reason for the culture. The way he coddled Kovelev and then gave him the C when koivu was hurt was ridiculous. When Hainsey was sent back to Hamilton, when he was clearly better then some Dmen we had was an example of fostering a culture of complacency - which ended up costing us a top 4 dman.

The guys that Gainey and the coaching staff should have been having walks alone were the kids like Higgins - who were hard working kids, but were miscast as top liners. The fact that we lost Hainsey, ribeiro, and now Leblanc for nothing is because Gainey first rushed kids to the level that they were best suited for (a small, slow skater like Leblanc was the poster child for the kind of player that college would have helped to get bigger and stinger) and didn't have any guidance or support to develop kids. Having Martin come in to yell and scream at SK74 or bench Subban is NOT how you nurture and develop young players.

Did anyone note how many giveaways that McDonough and Doughty made in the finals??? When was the last te you heard about their coaches yelling at them, or declaring to the media they need to mature or stop taking chances??? The only time I ever heard anything negative about those two players from their organizations, was regarding Doughty's conditioning and fast good diet.

We have a fitness freak and a elite defensive talent who has been ragged on by his last three coaches. We have Tinordi, Beaulieu and Patyrn who should have been given at least 10 more games each this year, but instead of developing our talented young players, we play washed up guys like Bouillon, or big, slow footed bums like Murrey.

Boy, Flyers fans must be absolutely sh**ting themselves They traded two guys right at the classic age (26) where players often take a jump in maturity level, and now their former core are two-time Cup champs.

The real lesson is, as you imply, not assuming that an immature player's character is permanently formed when they're in their early 20s. That's the error we made with Ribs and to a lesser extent Grabovski, giving those guys away for the equivalent of a wet fart. But you probably also need a critical mass of internal leadership in order to enable those players to become mature pros. It's far from clear that Gainey Rebuild 1.0 had that; Kovalev was a huge presence on that team, and that tells you something about the state of its veteran leadership. Think about it...from The Three Amigos to a critical mass of punks and head-cases like Komisarek, Higgins, the Kostitsyns, Kovalev, etc., the leaders were hugely outnumbered by the jerks and immature pukes for years and years in Montreal. It must have been lonely (or frustrating) being a Koivu or a Gorges in that room.

I think Bob only realized the extent of the culture problem when he took over behind the bench in 2009. His response was one of the most dramatic GMing acts in NHL history: blowing up of the entire roster and rebuilding it with UFAs. It brought mixed results - if only he hadn't dealt McDonagh in the process! - but was probably necessary under the circumstances.

[dlbalr]

The guys that Gainey and the coaching staff should have been having walks alone were the kids like Higgins - who were hard working kids, but were miscast as top liners. The fact that we lost Hainsey, ribeiro, and now Leblanc for nothing is because Gainey first rushed kids to the level that they were best suited for (a small, slow skater like Leblanc was the poster child for the kind of player that college would have helped to get bigger and stinger) and didn't have any guidance or support to develop kids.

I don't think you can pin Leblanc's stalled development on Gainey. He was gone before Leblanc even turned pro. The others you can make a case for but not Leblanc.

[hab29RETIRED]

First off all if leblanc's name was Len leeman, he would never have been drafted by the Habs. Just like Mccarron, he does not fit the profile of a guy Timmins would draft. Other then being players that were initially going the USA college route, neither is a Timmwns type, because neither can skate.

All the rest of Timmins USA college picks have been guys that can skate. Leblanc and Mccarron don't fit the mould. Gainey drafted Leblanc, because after a lousy year the draft was in Montreal and he was trying to please the masses and media, rather then do his job. I don't care where TSN had him ranked, on skating alone, Leblanc did not fit the Timmins profile, just like Mccarron was drafted for his size. If anything, Kreider, was more the Timmwns type of player than Leblanc.

secondly, Leblanc should have gone to college and the Habs really pushed him to go the junior route. Given his frame, a guy like Leblanc would have been better served going to college where he was going to get more time to work out and fill in his frame. Even his college coach hat the time said it was a mistake for these same reasons. But Gainey had a horrible habit of rushing guys- ribeiro, lats, and even Price, before they were ready for full time NHL duty.

He was impatient with McDonough who did go and benefit from the college route. Leblanc was a PR pick by the Habs, and then they made things worse by trying to rush him.

I don't think you can pin Leblanc's stalled development on Gainey. He was gone before Leblanc even turned pro. The others you can make a case for but not Leblanc.

[dlbalr]

secondly, Leblanc should have gone to college and the Habs really pushed him to go the junior route. Given his frame, a guy like Leblanc would have been better served going to college where he was going to get more time to work out and fill in his frame. Even his college coach hat the time said it was a mistake for these same reasons. But Gainey had a horrible habit of rushing guys- ribeiro, lats, and even Price, before they were ready for full time NHL duty.

You make a good case with most of this but of course the college coach would say it's a mistake. What coach isn't going to stick up for his program? I'm not sure I've seen a comment from the coach when a player has left a program early that he thinks it's a terrific idea.

[Kiwihab]

Isn't Benoit Pouliot a UFA now? I thought he played well against us. Any thoughts on chasing him?

[dlbalr]

Isn't Benoit Pouliot a UFA now? I thought he played well against us. Any thoughts on chasing him?

He is a UFA. I'd stay away, the role of enigmatic big winger is already filled in Bourque. I'd be leery of committing multiple years to Pouliot given how up-and-down he has been throughout his career. If he's smart, he re-ups in New York, don't mess with a good thing after bouncing around from team to team.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I still maintain there was no reason to trade Koivu, unless it was with a far superior centre. Gomez was already seen as an anchor with the NYR. They NEEDED to move him. So regardless how I feel that a declining Gomez was the wrong guy to go after, there was no reason to "throw in" McDonough or Valetenko. Hell, I wouldn't have traded Higgins straight up for Gomez - we should have gotten a 1st rounder for taking that horrible contract off their books, particularly since it was clear they wanted gaborik, but couldn't get him with Gomez there (posted that here at the time).

It was asinine of Gainey wanting to change the culture with a plan to let koivu walk and bring back Kovelev and his lazy ass disappearing act that was getting old. Don't forget we dodged a bullet since Gainey only went after gionta, when Kovelev tried to hold out for more money.

Gainey and his staff were part of the primary reason for the culture. The way he coddled Kovelev and then gave him the C when koivu was hurt was ridiculous. When Hainsey was sent back to Hamilton, when he was clearly better then some Dmen we had was an example of fostering a culture of complacency - which ended up costing us a top 4 dman.

The guys that Gainey and the coaching staff should have been having walks alone were the kids like Higgins - who were hard working kids, but were miscast as top liners. The fact that we lost Hainsey, ribeiro, and now Leblanc for nothing is because Gainey first rushed kids to the level that they were best suited for (a small, slow skater like Leblanc was the poster child for the kind of player that college would have helped to get bigger and stinger) and didn't have any guidance or support to develop kids. Having Martin come in to yell and scream at SK74 or bench Subban is NOT how you nurture and develop young players.

Did anyone note how many giveaways that McDonough and Doughty made in the finals??? When was the last te you heard about their coaches yelling at them, or declaring to the media they need to mature or stop taking chances??? The only time I ever heard anything negative about those two players from their organizations, was regarding Doughty's conditioning and fast good diet.

We have a fitness freak and a elite defensive talent who has been ragged on by his last three coaches. We have Tinordi, Beaulieu and Patyrn who should have been given at least 10 more games each this year, but instead of developing our talented young players, we play washed up guys like Bouillon, or big, slow footed bums like Murrey.

Classic "Habs29" post! I'm not as cranky about it all as you - e.g., I think the idea behind letting Koivu go was a fresh start for the entire organization, including, very significantly, in the image we projected to UFAs. The Habs had the image of a loser and I remember reading a couple of UFAs commenting that the Gomez deal showed the Habs were finally "getting serious." I know it's insane, but I really think that was how the move was taken. And in fairness, the trade would remain significantly less cataclysmic (though still bad) if Gomez had simply remained a 60-point playmaking whiz and puck-rusher par excellence instead of completely disintegrating as an NHL-calibre player. His disintegration was an X-factor I don't think anyone could have reasonably expected, given that he was still relatively young. As for Kovalev, Gainey's logic was probably that a player with that kind of elite-level talent was almost impossible to acquire, so it was ultimately better to have him on your roster as a "project." You're right, though, that given how crucial Gionta turned out to be in changing the team culture, passing Gio over for Kovalev probably would have mucked up any hope of getting the right leadership core.

And all that aside, you're absolutely correct on the broad point that player development (not drafting!!) was absolutely disastrous in the Gainey era. It's as though this prototypically old-school hockey man simply could not adapt to what was involved in developing "Generation Y" hockey players.

Unlike yourself, I think it's too soon to condemn Gainey's successor regimes on this score. Yes, I share a certain unease about Therrien on this front. But still, Pacioretty, Price, Gallagher, and Subban have developed very nicely, thank you. The same appears to be true of Galchenyuk and Bournival. Young players are not simply "blank slates" that a quality organization can turn into gold overnight. Maybe Leblanc was messed up by the Habs; or maybe he just isn't all that great, y'know? Maybe Tinordi and Beaulieu could have been worked into the lineup this season...or maybe they just sucked ass and were not ready. Time will tell. If at some point Galy, Gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi, Patches, Eller, etc., are all operating as strong NHLers you're just going to have to concede that the Habs did a decent job of handling their young talent!

[DON]

I would like to see Ott signed by Bergevin.