Jump to content

Subban traded to Nashville


Recommended Posts

I think this is what people are questioning. One for one, Weber is a downgrade on Subban. But did the trade bring the team further from their goal? I don't know that yet. Will Weber's style fit better or worse? Will room chemistry improve now that the Subban and his constant self promotion has moved on? Will Weber improve team balance? Will the team suffer or profit? I tend to think it will suffer at containing speed and transition, but I'm not ready to say that the trade most certainly made them worse.

intangibles are fun.... but the thing is most things that are described as intangibles can be measured.

Raising the play of your teammates... that can be measured

Grit and Heart... that will show up in stats in increased possession.

etc....

Eventually though, you come to realize, that intangibles might matter, but there is no way they matter more than tangibles. Skill and ability to play is still king.

Just look at non-leader Phil Kessel and his playoff performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

72 pages of debate in this thread alone plus the countless times it cropped up in others, and it all ends up with Nashville sending him away in a cap dump. We can now officially put this baby to bed.

F**K YOU MARC BERGEVIN.

He did not "get dumped because he is a liability to his team".  That's not true. He got dumped because his GM has mismanaged the cap and no one will take players who suck like Nick Bonino or kyle T

Posted Images

There are at least 9 different scenarios that can come from this trade.

The Habs get better, the Preds get worse

The Habs get worse, the Preds get better

The Habs get better, the Preds get better

The Habs get worse, the Preds get worse

Added:

The Habs stay the same, the Preds stay the same

The Habs stay the same, the Preds get better

The Habs stay the same, the Preds get worse

The Habs get better, the Preds stay the same

The Habs get worse, the Preds stay the same

Then you can add short term and long term etc.

Based on the statements and numbers which have been provided, I think every option has at least a 5-10% chance of happening. The top 4 possibilities are especially close, which were the only ones I included at first. Sure, it's an arbitrary number but the point is that each option has a possibility of taking place and none of the outcomes have that much of a higher chance of happening than any other. It's not as clear cut as those who are against the trade are portraying it, especially since the move involves only one player from both teams, albeit of the elite variety.

If the return weren't Weber, it would be much more clear cut.

This is where opinion comes in because it is impossible to know for sure. If you ask my opinion, it is that the highest likelihood is that the trade is a WIN-WIN for both teams. I could state why but it would be regurgitation. People are trying to pick a winner and a loser but I can easily see it working out for both teams both in the short and long term.

I hope I'm right but we'll be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I will also be interested to see what it does to the PP. One would think things will need to be adjusted and it will need to be much more forward focused. That may end up being a bad thing, but part of me thinks it may end up being better because the players and coaching staff can no longer resort back to the old stand bye of feeding it to Weber and hoping he gets that shot on net. We talk about Weber's PP goals, but when you look at the number of chances he gets vs the number that goes in each year it might not be a bad thing to have a break from long term."

Wait until that Preds fan gets a load of Subban and all the chances he misses on the PP, he's in for a rude awakening

Link to post
Share on other sites

intangibles are fun.... but the thing is most things that are described as intangibles can be measured.

Raising the play of your teammates... that can be measured

Grit and Heart... that will show up in stats in increased possession.

etc....

Eventually though, you come to realize, that intangibles might matter, but there is no way they matter more than tangibles. Skill and ability to play is still king.

Just look at non-leader Phil Kessel and his playoff performance.

Ugh, spoken like a true, non-hockey player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is starting to feel pretty grim.

A lot of negativity flying around but I'm feeling pretty optimistic about what Weber will bring and looking forward to seeing him play.

I have said my piece on what I think about what kind of player Weber is and people can make up their own minds

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trades can bring you closer to your goal or further from the goal... this one did the latter.

And those who don't agree with that pronouncement, are they wrong? :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things that can't be quantified numerically may be classed as "intangible" but they are still real. Psychology is a recognized field of science. Not to mention that all the "numerical evidence" being brought up to support Subban's case cover an extremely narrow spectrum of the hockey performance chart. I'd venture to say that Weber has as many numerical advantages as disadvantages if you get into it. BUT I certainly don't want to "get into it". The deal is done, and I think it will work out well for all parties involved. That is the purpose of a sports trade. Not to "win" or "lose".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said I was against toughness.... Weber is a better hitter and better at clearing the crease. Those things certainly matter.

No doubt.

Subban is still ahead in many key areas. Hence the lower shots and scoring chances against, and less zone time.

The fighting.. meh...

Yup, turnovers and embellishment penalties he is NHL leader, they are facts I wont argue against. :D

'Key' areas? OK, what might be the value of trading away a 'controversial' teammate, who ego might of rubbed some teammates the wrong way? What might be the value of adding the 2016 NHL leadership award winner to a roster?

Would you know how many different teammates Subban fought with at practices? more or less than 10?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely hypothetical speculations about Subban's private relationships are not a way to justify the trade (or anything else). Why don't you speculate about him being a drug addict while you're at it?

As for the question of whether Commandant thinks that people disagree with him are 'wrong,' well - quite obviously, he does. That's what it means to have an informed opinion. :rolleyes: We argue our positions because we think they're right. Some defenders of this trade make some really weird claims, like 'it doesn't matter if you trade away a better player for a worse one because Boston won after trading Thornton,' or 'no one can see the future, so no one should have opinions about trades,' or 'everyone is entitled to their opinion' (as if that's an argument).

I do agree, however, that if we just ignore the many areas of the game - such as puck-possession, clearing the defensive zone, and generating offence from the D-zone - in which Subban is far superior to Weber, as well as age, contract, and all the other things in Subban's favour, then why yes, then this trade looks great. :scared: Just like if we ignore Claude Julien's face, he might be a good-lookin' guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think anybody loves this trade. I know I don't. But when someone says hey he lead all defense last year in PP goals, the answer is "second assists are the same as goals. You are stupid" I still don't like the trade but the physicality could help balance the team. "Fighting is stupid. Go watch mma" he is a good leader. "He was awarded that by one guy, don't be stupid" I would say that the general tone in this thread has been like that.

Again, I am pissed that PK wad traded, and Weber one for one is a bad trade. I get that. If you look through the thread, I have been one of the haters of this trade. So I will end my posts on this thread and hope for the best and cheer for the habs as I always have. I will also keep my uneducated foolish prattling to myself and go play with my crayons. Haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is one difference between the two sides of this argument. It comes down to this:

People arguing against the trade are looking at how the trade looks today; using the numbers we already have to work with.

People arguing in favour of the trade are looking ahead to how the team will perform going forward.

Prior to next season, it is hard to argue anything but we lost a player with more trade value. I.e, we could have got more in the trade, making this a bad trade TODAY. My point is, the present is the only concrete thing we have to work with, so leave the future where it is. Today this is a bad trade because we lost a more valuable assets with nothing to balance out our lost value. That's the against argument.

If you look back, very few from either side of the argument have stated that they think the team will perform worse next season. I certainly think the team will improve upon last year. But it's hard to know how the team would have performed had the trade not been made. Attributing team performance based on the trade screams hindsight bias. The best statistics to get an idea of the impact of an individual are ones like relative corsi, but most supporters of the trade tend to dislike them. As for the intangibles, they are just that, intangible. In my opinion both Subban and Weber bring intangibles. Probably both will benefit their teams. Subban's energy, Weber's leadership. It's hard to make solid arguments for them because of their intangibility for lack of a better word.

But still there is always the retrospective aspect of a trade too, of course, once those post-trade numbers become reality; but we aren't there yet. Perhaps Weber has the next best 6-7 years (wanna bet?) and then we'll be able to say which side of the trade played out better. That doesn't change whether you lost out on a trade in the present. This is also why I think the argument for the trade is pretty weak in the present. Hopefully for the Habs the argument becomes much stronger in the near future.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, spoken like a true, non-hockey player.

oh go ###### yourself.

Plenty of hockey players believe in the analytical approach and reject the idea of intangibles. Tom Rowe was just named general manager of the Florida Panthers taking this exact approach. Or does 357 career NHL games mean he must not be a real hockey player?

This whole idea that only non-athletes believe in analytics is such bullshit and is ######ing condescending. People forget that moneyball was brought to the majors by Billy Beane, a former MLB player.

I considered you a good poster Will, i expected more than this shit from you..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is one difference between the two sides of this argument. It comes down to this:

People arguing against the trade are looking at how the trade looks today; using the numbers we already have to work with.

People arguing in favour of the trade are looking ahead to how the team will perform going forward.

Prior to next season, it is hard to argue anything but we lost a player with more trade value. I.e, we could have got more in the trade, making this a bad trade TODAY. My point is, the present is the only concrete thing we have to work with, so leave the future where it is. Today this is a bad trade because we lost a more valuable assets with nothing to balance out our lost value. That's the against argument.

If you look back, very few from either side of the argument have stated that they think the team will perform worse next season. I certainly think the team will improve upon last year. But it's hard to know how the team would have performed had the trade not been made. Attributing team performance based on the trade screams hindsight bias. The best statistics to get an idea of the impact of an individual are ones like relative corsi, but most supporters of the trade tend to dislike them. As for the intangibles, they are just that, intangible. In my opinion both Subban and Weber bring intangibles. Probably both will benefit their teams. Subban's energy, Weber's leadership. It's hard to make solid arguments for them because of their intangibility for lack of a better word.

But still there is always the retrospective aspect of a trade too, of course, once those post-trade numbers become reality; but we aren't there yet. Perhaps Weber has the next best 6-7 years (wanna bet?) and then we'll be able to say which side of the trade played out better. That doesn't change whether you lost out on a trade in the present. This is also why I think the argument for the trade is pretty weak in the present. Hopefully for the Habs the argument becomes much stronger in the near future.

I like your post Meller this is some sweet wording, props to you.

I think the Habs are going to be better next year as well and Weber will be an excellent D for us but\and his game will be greatly bettered\aided with a CP31 getting the puck to him at the hash marks more then a few times a game. CP is so solid at getting the puck to the D, he pushes the break out and that can only help SW6's future ad stats numbers, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh go ###### yourself.

Plenty of hockey players believe in the analytical approach and reject the idea of intangibles. Tom Rowe was just named general manager of the Florida Panthers taking this exact approach. Or does 357 career NHL games mean he must not be a real hockey player?

This whole idea that only non-athletes believe in analytics is such bullshit and is ######ing condescending. People forget that moneyball was brought to the majors by Billy Beane, a former MLB player.

I considered you a good poster Will, i expected more than this shit from you..

That's fairly aggressive for 8 in the morning. I suppose you're right that I crossed the line with my drunken comment so I apologize. Was celebrating a big win at ball with the boys, had a few too many pops and the ill came out of the Will

In response to your response, it's also condescending to discredit intangibles because you can't find them on a spreadsheet anywhere. They're real and they matter. I think that analytics are a great measuring tool and do have a place in the game. But they are definitively not the be-all and end-all of a hockey game as you have been presenting them to be. Just different perspectives and there's nothing wrong with that

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First bit was simple harmless cheap shots at Subban, just for fun but also facts.

Did I mention Subban's name in hypothetical scenario? Wanted to know if 'key area' would include something like I noted and can you put a value on that or not?

And the last bit was a valid question, the old adage mixing it up at practice is all good and happens...however Subban was always one of those involved, just a coincidence or he is overly competitive would explain it?

Subban is a drug addict?, bit out of left field and you are on a roll and cheerful yet again today. :thumbs_down:

Completely hypothetical speculations about Subban's private relationships are not a way to justify the trade (or anything else). Why don't you speculate about him being a drug addict while you're at it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fairly aggressive for 8 in the morning. I suppose you're right that I crossed the line with my drunken comment so I apologize. Was celebrating a big win at ball with the boys, had a few too many pops and the ill came out of the Will

In response to your response, it's also condescending to discredit intangibles because you can't find them on a spreadsheet anywhere. They're real and they matter. I think that analytics are a great measuring tool and do have a place in the game. But they are definitively not the be-all and end-all of a hockey game as you have been presenting them to be. Just different perspectives and there's nothing wrong with that

I don't deny that they are real.. but again, are they important? If they actually matter and are important there is one key place where they should show up... Wins and Losses.

If they don't lead to wins... explain why teams should care about acquiring them?

The thing is if the theories on Intimidation, Heart, Grit, Leadership, and other intangibles are correct... they will show up on the spreadsheet. If its true that intimidation changes the way the other team plays, it will be seen by the other team giving up possession more quickly;

If heart is a thing, shouldn't that lead to better play and winning more puck battles and thus having more possession?

If leadership is a thing, shouldn't that raise the play of at least some teammates and lead to more wins? If leadership is important won't we see it this year with players following Weber and the overall team play will be better and possession will increase because those players didn't follow Subban? Wouldn't we have observed this in previous players who were Leaders and switched teams?

The idea that spreadsheets can't capture these intangibles is false. They can capture it, assuming that the theories that have been stated for years are actually true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fairly aggressive for 8 in the morning. I suppose you're right that I crossed the line with my drunken comment so I apologize. Was celebrating a big win at ball with the boys, had a few too many pops and the ill came out of the Will

In response to your response, it's also condescending to discredit intangibles because you can't find them on a spreadsheet anywhere. They're real and they matter. I think that analytics are a great measuring tool and do have a place in the game. But they are definitively not the be-all and end-all of a hockey game as you have been presenting them to be. Just different perspectives and there's nothing wrong with that

Brought the ill out of Will hahaha, I like it.

Definitely a little fiestyness up there. Since I mentioned intangibles I figured I'd make a comment too. I completely agree they're real and they matter. I just think they're much harder to observe and because of that much harder to use in support of an argument. It could end up being that the single biggest benefit from either side is some intangible one of the players bring. I'm just not sure how we'd ever know that.

And thanks ehjay, I could see Carey having a good impact on Weber for sure since he's known as a top puck moving goalie. How was Rinne in Nashville though? I have no idea. I'm also not sure if the difference betwen Laviolette's system vs. Therriens system makes it a moot point though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brought the ill out of Will hahaha, I like it.

Definitely a little fiestyness up there. Since I mentioned intangibles I figured I'd make a comment too. I completely agree they're real and they matter. I just think they're much harder to observe and because of that much harder to use in support of an argument. It could end up being that the single biggest benefit from either side is some intangible one of the players bring. I'm just not sure how we'd ever know that.

And thanks ehjay, I could see Carey having a good impact on Weber for sure since he's known as a top puck moving goalie. How was Rinne in Nashville though? I have no idea. I'm also not sure if the difference betwen Laviolette's system vs. Therriens system makes it a moot point though.

There is an easy way to see it.

If a players has leadership... that means his teammates play better right? Shouldn't that be seen as the entire team (or at least a majority of it) seeing a boost after a trade that acquired him. A boost that isn't related to his on ice play cause it happens for players who don't even play regularly with him?

If a player has intimidation... doesn't that mean other teams will be a little more afraid to carry the puck and get to high danger areas when he is on the ice? This is all measurable.

If a player has heart... doesn't that mean winning more battles for loose pucks?

There are all ways to see these intangibles in action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an easy way to see it.

If a players has leadership... that means his teammates play better right? Shouldn't that be seen as the entire team (or at least a majority of it) seeing a boost after a trade that acquired him. A boost that isn't related to his on ice play cause it happens for players who don't even play regularly with him?

If a player has intimidation... doesn't that mean other teams will be a little more afraid to carry the puck and get to high danger areas when he is on the ice? This is all measurable.

If a player has heart... doesn't that mean winning more battles for loose pucks?

There are all ways to see these intangibles in action.

I suppose we should start calling them tangibles

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we should start calling them tangibles

If they exist at any level that is meaningful towards wins and losses, sure.

If the level they exist at is so minute that they aren't contributing to wins and losses, then yes, they are intangibles.... but if they are at that level, is it worth giving up tangible assets to get them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they exist at any level that is meaningful towards wins and losses, sure.

If the level they exist at is so minute that they aren't contributing to wins and losses, then yes, they are intangibles.... but if they are at that level, is it worth giving up tangible assets to get them?

Funny enough intangibles is a pretty terrible word for them if they're to have any significance. But I still think the reason they're hard to measure is because the team functions as a whole, and therefore even if Shea positively impacts the teams game, it could be negatively affected by something else, making Shea's impact look negliable. Maybe the loss of PK and Eller demoralized a few players and they perform worse, while others play better. Basically maybe, maybe, maybe maybe.

Also correlation is not causation. Just because other people are playing better (or worse) after a trade does not mean the trade was the cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an easy way to see it.

If a players has leadership... that means his teammates play better right? Shouldn't that be seen as the entire team (or at least a majority of it) seeing a boost after a trade that acquired him. A boost that isn't related to his on ice play cause it happens for players who don't even play regularly with him?

If a player has intimidation... doesn't that mean other teams will be a little more afraid to carry the puck and get to high danger areas when he is on the ice? This is all measurable.

If a player has heart... doesn't that mean winning more battles for loose pucks?

There are all ways to see these intangibles in action.

Sure. But there are no records about them. There is no one asking every other teams players after a game how many times they made a quick pass or dumped a puck because of another player who was intimidating him.

There is no way to count how many times X player used to dive in front of a slapshot when Y player was on the ice with him compared to how often he does it now with Z player now playing on his team.

There is no statistic tool to rate the degree of motivation coming out of a locker room speech by X or Y player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But still there is always the retrospective aspect of a trade too, of course, once those post-trade numbers become reality; but we aren't there yet. Perhaps Weber has the next best 6-7 years (wanna bet?) and then we'll be able to say which side of the trade played out better. That doesn't change whether you lost out on a trade in the present. This is also why I think the argument for the trade is pretty weak in the present. Hopefully for the Habs the argument becomes much stronger in the near future.

The voters for the Norris trophy believed that Weber had a better year last year than Subban. Does that not hold any merit? Why did Subban have an off year but that's just an anomaly on his guaranteed path to super stardom? How is his performance last season being paid as the best defenseman in the world justified? In what world is 1.5 million dollars per goal scored deemed acceptable? If you're the highest paid player in your position and you don't perform like it, it is detrimental to the entire team. I don't understand saying for certain that Montreal lost this trade today. Because based on last season it seems like we won. For all we know, this could be the start of Subban's decline and Weber could go on to win a couple Norris trophies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'The start of PK's decline'...sure, that is theoretically possible. But usually elite players don't keel over at age 27. This is yet another far-fetched scenario invoked to support a poor decision by management. By far the most likely explanation is that PK's 'off' season was caused by trying too hard to pull the team out of its skid. Unless something extraordinary happens, PK will be a dominant player for the next 10 years.

Meller93's post was excellent. And yes, the team will certainly be better this year. I would expect it to revert back to what it was before Price's injury, which is to say, a top-10 team. (In fact, before the injury, the Habs were top-5). Meller93 is quite right that it will be very difficult to determine Weber's impact one way or the other, for the obvious reason that other big changes, especially the return of Price, are complicating variables. No doubt the Trade Defenders will ecstatically use team success to prove that it was a good trade, conveniently forgetting that the team also had great success with Subban.

Where I'm a bit puzzled by Meller's post is his assertion that supporters of the trade are looking at its effect 'going forward.' I say that PK is a better overall player right now, and that the separation between them will most likely grow over the next decade. So 'going forward' I think the trade will only grow worse and worse. If by 'going forward' we mean only the short term, then I can agree that the drop-off will not be huge enough to seriously handicap the Habs, except perhaps against ultra-fast teams. But my belief is that it's a bad trade right now and will in all likelihood only get worse.

Link to post
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...