Trade Subban traded to Nashville

[illWill]

It wasn't "some members not reading an email"

it was

a) not knowing enough about the player who won the hart trophy that season to know he had changed positions.

b) not doing the research on the issue before making their votes.

And it wasn't "some members"

it was a large enough number of members, that he accumulated enough votes to be named the second best Left Wing in the entire league. Thats not a small number of people ######ing up... thats a significant number of people.

So you tell me they are going to take the time to figure out if assists are primary or secondary, and they can't even check what position the NHL MVP played for the entire season?

Yeah, I'm not buying this good research part.... sure they have the skills, but I'm not buying they take the voting seriously.

Getting a little off topic here....I am saying that you are arguing both for and against the voting committee depending on whatever narrative it is you are writing about in the moment. Subban won a Norris because he is awesome and yet Weber has lots of Norris votes but they are from a bunch of buffoons. It's a common occurrence throughout this thread. That and cherry picking one or two items that you feel you can debate, but pass on other points instead of addressing them. I'd love for somebody who has no idea what hockey is to read this thread and give their opinion about how this discussion has gone. It would be like: "Well I think the people that like that Subban guy are awfully stubborn and stuck in their ideology. They don't seem to want to hear anything coming from the other side at all despite very valid points. The other people are sad to see Subban go and they value what he brought to the team, but are quite happy to be bringing in that Weber guy"

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Come on Eeyore, you forgot any scenario that Habs win the cup.

If we win the Cup, then it might remain a poor trade looked at objectively - as, say, the Thornton trade was - but winning washes away all sins.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Getting a little off topic here....I am saying that you are arguing both for and against the voting committee depending on whatever narrative it is you are writing about in the moment. Subban won a Norris because he is awesome and yet Weber has lots of Norris votes but they are from a bunch of buffoons. It's a common occurrence throughout this thread. That and cherry picking one or two items that you feel you can debate, but pass on other points instead of addressing them. I'd love for somebody who has no idea what hockey is to read this thread and give their opinion about how this discussion has gone. It would be like: "Well I think the people that like that Subban guy are awfully stubborn and stuck in their ideology. They don't seem to want to hear anything coming from the other side at all despite very valid points. The other people are sad to see Subban go and they value what he brought to the team, but are quite happy to be bringing in that Weber guy"

Actually, I'm hearing a fair bit of Subban-bashing...and relatively little Weber-bashing. I for one have consistently made note of his strengths, and Commandant has mostly produced states ('advanced' and otherwise) showing pretty plainly that Weber has declined in recent years and is worse than Subban on a pile of metrics. You can attack advanced stats, but just citing them is not 'bashing' anyone.

I think that if some other team had traded Subban for a 31-year old with 10 years left on an $8 million cap hit, most people here would be either laughing at the team that made that trade, or suggesting that that team is going 'all in' to win within a narrow window, and damn the future. But because it's our beloved, Habs, we close ranks: 'Weber's our boy, he must be better than Subban because Bergevin said so.' Good that people are 'excited' to see Weber. But you are the only fans in the entire NHL who would rather watch Weber slam Zetterberg's face into the glass than watch PK Subban do stuff like this:

[Commandant]

Getting a little off topic here....I am saying that you are arguing both for and against the voting committee depending on whatever narrative it is you are writing about in the moment. Subban won a Norris because he is awesome and yet Weber has lots of Norris votes but they are from a bunch of buffoons. It's a common occurrence throughout this thread. That and cherry picking one or two items that you feel you can debate, but pass on other points instead of addressing them. I'd love for somebody who has no idea what hockey is to read this thread and give their opinion about how this discussion has gone. It would be like: "Well I think the people that like that Subban guy are awfully stubborn and stuck in their ideology. They don't seem to want to hear anything coming from the other side at all despite very valid points. The other people are sad to see Subban go and they value what he brought to the team, but are quite happy to be bringing in that Weber guy"

I haven't seriously argued for the norris.

I made one sarcastic post about it... in response to a poster who has been nothing but douchey, (and racist); and said something to the effect that the only awards subban wins are pre-season ones.

You guys jumped on it, I made some responses, but throughout the history of this thread I've been very consistent about what I value (and if you look at my history of posts on a ton of players its always the same).

giveaways, takeaways, turnovers, hits, blocked shots, plus/minus... all flawed stats... I don't care.

the other advanced stats, corsi, fenwick, zone starts, qual comp, possession metrics, goal and assist generation, etc....

I don't take the NHL awards seriously, at least not ones vote by the PWHA caquse its clear that they don't... but I made that response to cause that guy was saying Subban only wins pre-season awards.

As for the main issue... it still all comes down to the fact that Subban's numbers are are far superior to webers over the last four years. And that the eye test confirms why. Weber is still very good, but he's lost half a step and it takes him out of the discussion of super elite defenders.

As for the rest of your post.... I'm not even gonna bother responding to that bullshit.... you can call me stubborn or anything else you want, just cause i refuse to address things like +/- or giveaway stats (and I have addressed them, I've shown that they are horrible stats).

sorry just cause i won't drink the koolaid that tells us this was a fair trade doesn't mean you should attack me as "bashing" weber, or being hypocritical in my position.

I've always maintained that Weber is a very good player, one who was elite four years ago, but today is not as good as Subban. Not sure why that is called bashing.

[DON]

If we win the Cup, then it might remain a poor trade looked at objectively - as, say, the Thornton trade was - but winning washes away all sins.

Objective, hmmm. Most stuff I would agree you are better than most, this topic though...

[Commandant]

Does a cup wash away all bad trades?

I'd say no.

The 1986 cup doesn't make the Rod Langway trade look better

The 1993 cup doesn't make Chelios and Savard look better.

If Weber plays a huge role in the cup win, then yes... that's one thing.

If the player doesn't play a huge role, but you still win the cup... and the player you traded away is doing much better (ie Savard was injured, Chelios was winning more Norris trophies and playing 20 more years), then you still have to call the trade a loss.

Winning a cup means you are the best team in the NHL that year. It doesn't mean you achieved perfection and never made mistakes along the way.

[DON]

Does a cup wash away all bad trades?

I'd say no.

The 1986 cup doesn't make the Rod Langway trade look better

The 1993 cup doesn't make Chelios and Savard look better.

If Weber plays a huge role in the cup win, then yes... that's one thing.

If the player doesn't play a huge role, but you still win the cup... and the player you traded away is doing much better (ie Savard was injured, Chelios was winning more Norris trophies and playing 20 more years), then you still have to call the trade a loss.

Winning a cup means you are the best team in the NHL that year. It doesn't mean you achieved perfection and never made mistakes along the way.

That's right, if not an impact player, you are irrelevant to the roster and don't even deserve a ring do they, useless bottom six and 3rd pairing guys didnt get any GWGs, did they, so screw them and the injured guys shouldn't even be in the team cup winning picture.

[hab29RETIRED]

Yep. Bet Calgary would like a do over for the Brett hull and Steve bozak for rob Ramage and Rick frigging wamsley.

But hey, they would never have won the cup without a depth dman and a backup goalie.

Does a cup wash away all bad trades?

I'd say no.

The 1986 cup doesn't make the Rod Langway trade look better

The 1993 cup doesn't make Chelios and Savard look better.

If Weber plays a huge role in the cup win, then yes... that's one thing.

If the player doesn't play a huge role, but you still win the cup... and the player you traded away is doing much better (ie Savard was injured, Chelios was winning more Norris trophies and playing 20 more years), then you still have to call the trade a loss.

Winning a cup means you are the best team in the NHL that year. It doesn't mean you achieved perfection and never made mistakes along the way.

[illWill]

I haven't seriously argued for the norris.

I made one sarcastic post about it... in response to a poster who has been nothing but douchey, (and racist); and said something to the effect that the only awards subban wins are pre-season ones.

You guys jumped on it, I made some responses, but throughout the history of this thread I've been very consistent about what I value (and if you look at my history of posts on a ton of players its always the same).

giveaways, takeaways, turnovers, hits, blocked shots, plus/minus... all flawed stats... I don't care.

the other advanced stats, corsi, fenwick, zone starts, qual comp, possession metrics, goal and assist generation, etc....

I don't take the NHL awards seriously, at least not ones vote by the PWHA caquse its clear that they don't... but I made that response to cause that guy was saying Subban only wins pre-season awards.

As for the main issue... it still all comes down to the fact that Subban's numbers are are far superior to webers over the last four years. And that the eye test confirms why. Weber is still very good, but he's lost half a step and it takes him out of the discussion of super elite defenders.

As for the rest of your post.... I'm not even gonna bother responding to that bullshit.... you can call me stubborn or anything else you want, just cause i refuse to address things like +/- or giveaway stats (and I have addressed them, I've shown that they are horrible stats).

sorry just cause i won't drink the koolaid that tells us this was a fair trade doesn't mean you should attack me as "bashing" weber, or being hypocritical in my position.

I've always maintained that Weber is a very good player, one who was elite four years ago, but today is not as good as Subban. Not sure why that is called bashing.

So basically any stat that Weber is superior is one that you just so happen to not care about. The same stats and intangibles that the entire hockey world talk about and adore. I've never in my life heard a single hockey player say they need to improve their corsi or fear an opponent's possession metrics. We get it, you don't like the deal. But the fact is that the people whose opinion actually matters think that Weber is a better fit for this team. Bergevin, Therrien, Price, heck even the damn owner signed off on trading his marketing cash cow. There aren't enough analytics in the world to disprove what these people believe was the right move.

To paraphrase the general discussion throughout this thread:

Weber had more Norris votes last year - "only cause Subban was injured did he receive less votes, but the committee is a bunch of idiots anyway so it doesn't matter"

Weber was an automatic selection for Team Canada while Subban was passed over for much less talented players - "yeah but Rob Zamuner got picked for Canada 18 years ago so they don't know shit"

Weber hits like a truck and blocks shots fearlessly - "those stats are flawed, therefore they have no real value"

Weber is one of the best leaders in hockey - "I don't see that on my spreadsheet anywhere, if it was real it would be there"

Weber fits the structure of this team better - "blame the idiot coach for holding Subban back, it's all his fault "

Weber is a better goal scorer and will help the powerplay - " It doesn't matter who scores the goals on a goal-deprived team, Subban's analytics are superior"

Any point that is brought up to shed Weber in a positive light is immediately shot down. Liking or disliking a trade is one thing, but to be so completely biased that it affects a rational debate is another. At the first of this thread I was pissed off about the deal, and I still am upset that PK won't be around to watch. However, the more I learn about Weber and the trade, the more excited I am to get the season going.

[DON]

Yep. Bet Calgary would like a do over for the Brett hull and Steve bozak for rob Ramage and Rick frigging wamsley.

But hey, they would never have won the cup without a depth dman and a backup goalie.

See, even 29 agrees that you are out to lunch and if Flames hadn't made trade, the Habs might have 25th banner, not lost cup on home ice and Flames would have same # cups as Winnipeg. Meanwhile St Louis spun its wheels for a decade, but had one good sniper. Same likely in Nashville, where they are middle of pack in NHL goal scoring and adding a d-man who dosent score a lot, unlikely will change that.

[Commandant]

So basically any stat that Weber is superior is one that you just so happen to not care about. The same stats and intangibles that the entire hockey world talk about and adore. I've never in my life heard a single hockey player say they need to improve their corsi or fear an opponent's possession metrics. We get it, you don't like the deal. But the fact is that the people whose opinion actually matters think that Weber is a better fit for this team. Bergevin, Therrien, Price, heck even the damn owner signed off on trading his marketing cash cow. There aren't enough analytics in the world to disprove what these people believe was the right move.

To paraphrase the general discussion throughout this thread:

Weber had more Norris votes last year - "only cause Subban was injured did he receive less votes, but the committee is a bunch of idiots anyway so it doesn't matter"

Weber was an automatic selection for Team Canada while Subban was passed over for much less talented players - "yeah but Rob Zamuner got picked for Canada 18 years ago so they don't know shit"

Weber hits like a truck and blocks shots fearlessly - "those stats are flawed, therefore they have no real value"

Weber is one of the best leaders in hockey - "I don't see that on my spreadsheet anywhere, if it was real it would be there"

Weber fits the structure of this team better - "blame the idiot coach for holding Subban back, it's all his fault "

Weber is a better goal scorer and will help the powerplay - " It doesn't matter who scores the goals on a goal-deprived team, Subban's analytics are superior"

Any point that is brought up to shed Weber in a positive light is immediately shot down. Liking or disliking a trade is one thing, but to be so completely biased that it affects a rational debate is another. At the first of this thread I was pissed off about the deal, and I still am upset that PK won't be around to watch. However, the more I learn about Weber and the trade, the more excited I am to get the season going.

1) For the stats i used... again giveaways and takeaways are not allowed to be used in NHL arbitration; but possession stats are. Why? Cause even the freaking league and the NHLPA know those stats are flawed. And if you check my post history, I've said the same about those stats long before this trade was ever made.

2) "At the first of this thread I was pissed off about the deal, and I still am upset that PK won't be around to watch. However, the more I learn about Weber and the trade, the more excited I am to get the season going. "

So when you had actually watched games, you didn't like the trade. Now, with no new evidence, and no new games being played you love it. I'm sure the organization loves that you are a sheep, drinking their koolaid.

3) as for your little paraphrasing.. None of those I have said. And DO NOT EVER put words in my mouth.... thats being an asshole..... you want to quote me, quote me... but don't change my words slightly to make them more in your favor.

Changing what i wrote, into what you want it to say is a huge asshole move, and I'm done discussing with you if that's all you have. Welcome to my ignore list.

[illWill]

Easy tough guy, I said paraphrase

[Commandant]

Easy tough guy, I said paraphrase

You didn't paraphrase though, you entirely changed the meaning of many of those statements.

[Guest Stogey24]

I think you two are more upset than Subban and Weber are about the trade.

It's not worth getting feisty over.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

With the Canadiens starting up soon, three questions to consider:

1. With Subban gone, who carries the Canadiens offence in the playoffs?

2. If Weber's analytics were bad due to shifts with Paul Gaustad, how many shifts will he have when the Habs fourth line is playing, and will they be better for him than Gaustad?

3. Markov played with Subban last year, getting an equal number of even strength points. It's hard to see Weber and Markov playing together due to their lack of speed from the back-end. If they do separate them, who plays with Weber? Who can put up Markov level points with Markov level minutes with Weber? Will Markov's even strength scoring drop? Will Weber score as much even strength without a partner like Josi (who outscored him even strength the past two seasons)? Is Weber being set up for success with who his left side partner could be?

[Guest Stogey24]

Like I've said before, Beaulieu is the X factor in this trade

[DON]

Who said Weber was slow?

Subban carried the offense, exactly when was that?

Who gives a rats behind what his analytics are (other than one lawyer-type fellow on here of course) and I just expect he will play well period.

Agree, will be interesting to see how much faith they put in Nate and how he will respond if given prime minutes.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Yeah, there's really nothing left to say until these two guys get back on the ice. We've reached a critical mass.

[Scott462]

I'm sure Nate will get the chance to play next to Weber. If you look at how Josi developed into the kind of player he is while playing with Weber their certainly leaves room to be optimistic. I'm not comparing Beaulieu to Josi but I think Nate has a lot of potential

[JoeLassister]

Who said Weber was slow? - I did

Subban carried the offense, exactly when was that? - In 2012-2013 playoffs, when he finished with the most points. In 2013-2014 playoffs, when he finished with the most points. In 2014-2015 playoffs, when he finished with the most points.

[DON]

Who said Weber was slow? - I did

Subban carried the offense, exactly when was that? - In 2012-2013 playoffs, when he finished with the most points. In 2013-2014 playoffs, when he finished with the most points. In 2014-2015 playoffs, when he finished with the most points.

Considering got knocked out each of those years, primarily due to lack of scoring, pretty low bar to say carried anything but of course his huge ego. Also playing 1/2 of each game and every second of the PP (which simply sucked), he should score a few points than Doug Murray shouldn't he?

[JoeLassister]

Considering got knocked out each of those years, primarily due to lack of scoring, pretty low bar to say carried anything but of course his huge ego. Also playing 1/2 of each game and every second of the PP (which simply sucked), he should score a few points than Doug Murray shouldn't he?

Yes. And he did just that.

[DON]

Well then, wont he make a nice Predator and just hope he likes country music.

[Link67]

They spent hours in a room with Subban's GM, and Subban's GM didn't defend his own player.

Its human nature to say... hey this guy, who is my peer, sees Subban 82 games, 180 days a year, and he isn't supporting him. there is something there I'm not seeing. But lets forget that Bergevin wasn't in there. Lets cherry pick the guys in the room and not say that he had any influence.

And of course... team Canada has always been a room full of well respected hockey guys. Rooms full of well respected hockey guys selecting team canada...

picked Kris Draper and todd Bertuzzi over an 18-year-old Crosby on international ice.

Took Chris Kunitz last olympics

took Rob Zamuner over Ron Francis

blackballed Yzerman off the team when he was the third leading scoring in the NHL.

thought Bill Ranford was better an Patrick Roy

They may not be the same management team as today, but they were a room full of people who were just as respected on the day of those decisions, as the room is today.

Come on man, you really trying to say that a 4 year experienced GM is controlling a room full of guys like that? Subban is an elite talent, but above talent comes many aspects in hockey, and in those aspects they don't like what they see. There is no way to twist that, no way to look past it. Bergevin is a supporting cast member here, he knows it and so should you, he is there to throw some 2 cents around but he is certainly not going to be the guy to sway a major decision like leaving Subban off the squad. There are far more experienced and knowledgeable guys in that room that even he respects enough to make those kinds of calls.

Say what you will of other groups picking these teams, but this group has been excellent for the better part of a decade now, Ken Holland, Bob Murray, and Doug Armstrong have all masterfully built strong teams and have hockey I.Q for days, they are all in the top 5 of their profession hands down. Babcock, Quenville, Trotz, and even our old pal Julien have some of the longest reigns as coaches and coached teams to excellence for years, they see how a game is structured at an elite level, that quite frankly, no spreadsheet or amount of games we watch on our couch can make up for. Between these 7 guys alone, if they were able to agree that Subban does not fit on their team, but Weber is one of the first guys they pick, i'm opening my eyes wide and tuning my ears, because these guys CANNOT be ignored on the matter.

Now i'm going to make something clear, i've done it a few times in this thread already but i'll do it once more. I was sad when this trade was announced because we lost PK, as a fan of this team, I loved having an elite level d-man of his caliber on the ice. With that said, In my eyes, Weber is far from finished, he is far from junk, and he is currently, one of the top d-men in this league. The way some have treated him in this thread is really what fuels me to even continue to beat this dead horse, We traded Subban not for a piece of crap, but for another Elite d-man, who some of the greatest hockey minds in this league agree holds more value to a team than Subban does. Is that not what we are supposed to do here? Build a team? Every page there is almost always a comment of some sort trying to say Weber is going to be a bum within 3 or 4 years, so how does a guy who has been at the same elite level as a guy like Chara for several seasons now, barely had any injuries that could slow him down in the near future suddenly become useless in 3 years? That doesn't smell like Biased, nonobjective opinions to continue to twist the main plot in here to anyone? that we traded the Great PK Subban for Master Splinter?? For god sakes Andrei Markov, who has been a very good d-man his whole career, suffered back to back major knee injuries in his mid 30s still kept his game in top line form until last season, at the age of 37. Zdeno Chara finally showed he was no longer elite last season, at the age of 39. is it really insane to think Weber could at least do what those guys did? If Weber's first season in Montreal where we start thinking "eeehhhh this is probably the begining of the end" as we just did with Markov last season, is at the age of 38 then we get 7 awesome years of all the great things this guy brings to the table, F'n enjoy it, Christ.

[Meller93]

Link, I honestly don't think anyone has trashed Weber on this thread. Maybe some minor stuff early on about his age out of frustration. But In fact I think what has been mostly said is that Weber will likely give us 3-4 years of elite or near elite play. But then he'll be 35 and noticeably declining (or at least this is reasonable prediction).

Yes both sides are beating a dead horse. Yes this thread is circular. But I've seen so well worded, reasonable and supported arguments from posters like commandant, MOLG and Chicoutimi Cucumber that I have a hard time seeing how people disagree with the conclusions. I'm not saying everyone has to dislike the trade, but I am saying it seems like many supporting the trade are in blatant denial or ignoring facts at times.

I'll reiterate, we have ALL agreed that Shea Weber is elite right now. We also seem to all concede that this trade COULD make the team better in the short term. But it seems that people in favour of the trade are unwilling to objectively look at the negative aspects of it, and if anything, I see FAR more Subban bashing than Weber bashing. There's so many backhand comments of Subban's character in the thread it's ridiculous.

I feel you're right that people are biased when looking at this trade, and to an extent from both sides, but I think it's more biased in the opposite direction of what you think. Biased FOR Weber. Do you think Any Habs fan wants this to be a bad trade? Clearly no. But it's like some habs fans are afraid to admit we very very likely lost this trade.