Jump to content

5 years from now this team will need a rebuild.. Will fans and media allow it done the right way??


Habsfan1989

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Honestly, I don't get it. Seemingly every team in hockey has moved, or is moving, in the direction of highly mobile, puck-moving defence corps. Bergevin seems to have a completely different model in mind; his vision seems to prioritize, not puck-moving per se, but a good outlet pass. You look at Weber, he doesn't really carry the puck - in this sense, he is a two-zone rather than a three-zone player - but rather he passes it out and then tries to get set up for his cannon at the point. (By contrast, Subban carried the puck a lot). Alzner lacks the point cannon, but his outlet pass is well-regarded. Even Benn is OK at clearing the puck out. The only prototypical puck-mover on the blueline right now is Petry. We have plumbers who can generally pass the puck effectively into the neutral zone.

 

That seems to be what Bergevin actually wants: it's up to the forwards, not the D, to carry the puck through the neutral zone and organize the attack.

 

I'm not sure why he would conclude that this is intrinsically preferable, or that puck-moving D are undesirable. It seems to reflect a very old-school mindset, a version of the old 'keep to your lane!' logic that Europeans and Russians helped to dislodge from the sport.

 

My own view has always been that offence starts from the back end. The Big Three were each capable of single-handedly quarter-backing the transition from defence to offence. The Red Wings in their glory years always had guys like Lidstrom and Rafalski to do this. Even the plodding Devils Cup winners had Niedermeyer. So I just don't understand it. But maybe Bergevin is actually a genius who sees something the rest of us don't - it beats me.

 

 

 

The strange thing is that nearly every defenceman drafted in the last two drafts is of the mould of carrying the puck through the neutral zone.... Sergachev, Mete, Brook, Fleury, Walford, Tyszka.... they can all skate and carry the puck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Commandant said:

We traded a guy who would be Markov's replacement in 2-3 years, for a guy who replaces Radulov immediately. 

 

Short term, yeah we could have kept Sergachev and re-signed Radulov by giving him another 1 million a season, but would that have us further ahead?  How long til Radulov would need replacing considering he's a 30 year old forward?

 

Well...you have to admit: Radulov + Sergachev looks quite a bit better than Drouin and no one else. It's better in the short-term - defined by however long Radu continue to play close to his peak level, say three or four years - and, if Sergachev turns out to be a bona-fide #1 D-man stud, it will be at best a wash in the long-term. 

 

This isn't to slag Drouin, who I'm excited to see in the CH. It's just to say the the team is better with an elite young d-man and a top-line winger than it is with a top-line winger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well...you have to admit: Radulov + Sergachev looks quite a bit better than Drouin and no one else. It's better in the short-term - defined by however long Radu continue to play close to his peak level, say three or four years - and, if Sergachev turns out to be a bona-fide #1 D-man stud, it will be at best a wash in the long-term. 

 

This isn't to slag Drouin, who I'm excited to see in the CH. It's just to say the the team is better with an elite young d-man and a top-line winger than it is with a top-line winger.

 

As I said above, I don't expect to go into the season with 9 million in cap space.  I don't think Bergevin is done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

As I said above, I don't expect to go into the season with 9 million in cap space.  I don't think Bergevin is done. 

 

I expect you're right. It's interesting though - maybe he wants to keep that cap space for next season, when someone like Tavares could be available - ? This could explain his reluctance to sign Markov for two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I expect you're right. It's interesting though - maybe he wants to keep that cap space for next season, when someone like Tavares could be available - ? This could explain his reluctance to sign Markov for two years.

2

 

That's a very likely scenario (at least the wanting to save the cap space for next year part).  The Habs already have nearly $58 million committed to only 15 players for 2017-18 - giving a second year to Markov would make adding any sort of impact player for 2017-18 that much more difficult even with Plekanec coming off the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

That's a very likely scenario (at least the wanting to save the cap space for next year part).  The Habs already have nearly $58 million committed to only 15 players for 2017-18 - giving a second year to Markov would make adding any sort of impact player for 2017-18 that much more difficult even with Plekanec coming off the books.

 

From this perspective, it would not shock me to see MB going into the season with this roster, hoping it can muddle through, and then looking to add an impact rental D-man at the deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dlbalr said:

 

That's a very likely scenario (at least the wanting to save the cap space for next year part).  The Habs already have nearly $58 million committed to only 15 players for 2017-18 - giving a second year to Markov would make adding any sort of impact player for 2017-18 that much more difficult even with Plekanec coming off the books.

 

Thats why Markov has always been a 1 year offer.  Plekanecs money is eaten by Price's extension and Danault's raise... which says nothing about re-signing Jerabek or replacing him depending on how good he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

From this perspective, it would not shock me to see MB going into the season with this roster, hoping it can muddle through, and then looking to add an impact rental D-man at the deadline.

 

I still think Markov comes back on a 1 year deal 

 

and there is plenty of money for your deadline rental being a C... Bryan Little, Paul Stastny, Mikko Koivu, Henrik Sedin, Bozak, Backlund, Turris, Marchessault. 

Lots of potential Rental Cs, depending on how their team's season goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

I still think Markov comes back on a 1 year deal 

 

and there is plenty of money for your deadline rental being a C... Bryan Little, Paul Stastny, Mikko Koivu, Henrik Sedin, Bozak, Backlund, Turris, Marchessault. 

Lots of potential Rental Cs, depending on how their team's season goes. 

 

That'd be an attractive scenario for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

As I said above, I don't expect to go into the season with 9 million in cap space.  I don't think Bergevin is done. 

 

If he's not done it's nothing that was originally planned. Radulov was supposed to be taking up that cap space along with Markov. He likely would have had to trade Davidson to make it work, but it's not like anyone acts like he exists anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

If he's not done it's nothing that was originally planned. Radulov was supposed to be taking up that cap space along with Markov. He likely would have had to trade Davidson to make it work, but it's not like anyone acts like he exists anyway. 

 

A good GM has a Plan A, a Plan B, a Plan C, and a Plan D.

 

Why is it a bad thing if he is doing something different than the original plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24
3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well...you have to admit: Radulov + Sergachev looks quite a bit better than Drouin and no one else. It's better in the short-term - defined by however long Radu continue to play close to his peak level, say three or four years - and, if Sergachev turns out to be a bona-fide #1 D-man stud, it will be at best a wash in the long-term. 

 

This isn't to slag Drouin, who I'm excited to see in the CH. It's just to say the the team is better with an elite young d-man and a top-line winger than it is with a top-line winger.

That's the only reason i ask the question about the Drouin trade. 

 

I also think the trade was a bit of P.R move. Sergachev said it himself 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

A good GM has a Plan A, a Plan B, a Plan C, and a Plan D.

 

Why is it a bad thing if he is doing something different than the original plan?

Bergevin has had no plan A for his top six centres and no plan A for replacing Markov. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stogey24 said:

Did we need Sergchev more than Drouin? 

 

It's honestly feeling like it now, just saying. 

 

If you look at the trade we basically gave up Sergachev, 2nd rounder, 5.5 in cap space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No 

 

Sergachev would have MAYBE stuck with the club, and still played a very reserved role IF he did, probably 3rd pairing and some PP on the 2nd wave, his minutes would likely remain around 18 or so minutes majority of the season while he learned and attempted to adapt to the NHL game.

 

On the other hand, Drouin is going to be a top line player, who could easily hit anywhere between 50 - 65 points if he remains healthy next season, and be an integral part of the PP.

 

Which one of these 2 scenarios help improve our chances of putting a few more pucks in the net in the 2017-2018 season? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well...you have to admit: Radulov + Sergachev looks quite a bit better than Drouin and no one else. It's better in the short-term - defined by however long Radu continue to play close to his peak level, say three or four years - and, if Sergachev turns out to be a bona-fide #1 D-man stud, it will be at best a wash in the long-term. 

 

This isn't to slag Drouin, who I'm excited to see in the CH. It's just to say the the team is better with an elite young d-man and a top-line winger than it is with a top-line winger.

 

Sure when you put it like that it obviously looks worse.

 

However Plan A, was supposed to be going into a season with Drouin and Radulov, and that is more attractive, when you consider this team's lacking top 6 punch, than Radulov and Sergachev. It looked to me, while that was the plan, that Bergevin had identified our lack of scoring potency as an issue that cost us a deep playoff run, and was making an aggressive and intelligent move to try and improve that, which is what I like to see from a GM, identifying an issue, actively trying to fx it.

 

Now the end results were not as planned, we have now moved laterally in that department unless there is either some growth from within or another acquisition. Although another top 6 acquisition would still be the sure fire way to improve our offensive numbers, Growth from within is still very possible and easily overlooked. Consider this, Drouin could out produce Radulov as early as this season, Gallagher could easily return to 20+ goal form, Galchenyuk could improve his numbers if healthy and given an opportunity to feel confident for majority of the season. Lehkonen could become a 25 goal scorer this season depending if he stays in the top 6, gets PP time all year, and if he remains healthy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24
5 hours ago, Link67 said:

 

No 

 

Sergachev would have MAYBE stuck with the club, and still played a very reserved role IF he did, probably 3rd pairing and some PP on the 2nd wave, his minutes would likely remain around 18 or so minutes majority of the season while he learned and attempted to adapt to the NHL game.

 

On the other hand, Drouin is going to be a top line player, who could easily hit anywhere between 50 - 65 points if he remains healthy next season, and be an integral part of the PP.

 

Which one of these 2 scenarios help improve our chances of putting a few more pucks in the net in the 2017-2018 season? 

 

 

Well in my scenario I was saying if we didn't trade for Drouin we could have afforded to over pay a bit to keep Radulov(extra 1 million) and that in turn allows us to keep Sergachev. We're then left with 5.5 million in cap space. Offer Markov a 2 year deal worth 5 million per; if he doesn't take it, we're in the exact same spot we are now, except we'd have a top line winger along with a kid who should ironically be replacing Markov.  

 

If Markov does take the deal, you now have Radulov, Markov, and Sergachev all in a Habs uniform. With .5 million in cap space.

 

I guess there wouldn't be money to sign Chucky. Forgot about that one :blush:

 

I'd still consider the above scenario though. Just the the cap space going to Chucky, instead of Markov. Still keep Radulov and Sergachev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stogey24 said:

 

Well in my scenario I was saying if we didn't trade for Drouin we could have afforded to over pay a bit to keep Radulov(extra 1 million) and that in turn allows us to keep Sergachev. We're then left with 5.5 million in cap space. Offer Markov a 2 year deal worth 5 million per; if he doesn't take it, we're in the exact same spot we are now, except we'd have a top line winger along with a kid who should ironically be replacing Markov.  

 

If Markov does take the deal, you now have Radulov, Markov, and Sergachev all in a Habs uniform. With .5 million in cap space.

 

I guess there wouldn't be money to sign Chucky. Forgot about that one :blush:

 

I'd still consider the above scenario though. Just the the cap space going to Chucky, instead of Markov. Still keep Radulov and Sergachev.

I would have preferred keeping Radulov and Sergechev - I like Drouin, but Sergechev offered some hope for this D - which was horrible last year and without Markov will be worse.  I really wish we could have made a bigger push for Drouin back when he walked out on his team.  Hell, I'd rather have moved Gallahgar as part of a package for Drouin than Sergechev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Hell, I'd rather have moved Gallahgar as part of a package for Drouin than Sergechev.

1

 

Who wouldn't have?  However, there's a significant difference in trade value between those two.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Link67 said:

 

Sure when you put it like that it obviously looks worse.

 

 

 

Yep...when I describe what actually happened, it looks 'worse.' But more important than what actually happened is what MB's intentions were. :rolleyes: And hey, maybe every last possible thing will break the Habs' way in 2018, in which case it's all good, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Good thing the NHL isn't a results-based business or MB might be in trouble.

 

Why don't you just admit that

 

(a) this team was better off with Sergachev and Radulov on an overpay than with Drouin and nobody else. In other words, this particular set of GM decisions made the team worse off.

 

while pointing out that

 

(b) the team has lots of cap space, so MB is presumably not done yet, and therefore we still have to wait and see how things plays out.

 

The case for MB's summer activities has to rest on (b) IMHO. Not on a bunch of good intentions and hypotheticals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

 

Who wouldn't have?  However, there's a significant difference in trade value between those two.

I meant for Drouin back when he walked out on the team.  I think back than, with the TBL going into the playoffs a package of say Gallagher and say a Beaulieu probably would been attractive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I meant for Drouin back when he walked out on the team.  I think back than, with the TBL going into the playoffs a package of say Gallagher and say a Beaulieu probably would been attractive 

 

If I remember correctly, Yzerman wanted Galchenyuk+ for Drouin back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

If I remember correctly, Yzerman wanted Galchenyuk+ for Drouin back then.

He must have been smoking the same stuff that Sakic is now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24
11 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I would have preferred keeping Radulov and Sergechev - I like Drouin, but Sergechev offered some hope for this D - which was horrible last year and without Markov will be worse.  I really wish we could have made a bigger push for Drouin back when he walked out on his team.  Hell, I'd rather have moved Gallahgar as part of a package for Drouin than Sergechev.

I think Drouin is going to be great, but I agree about the d-core. 

 

People seem to forget how many times last year this team was stuck in their own end. Things changed quite a bit when Julien took over, but the last the 2 games of the playoffs this team had those defensive lapses creep back in 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stogey24 said:

I think Drouin is going to be great, but I agree about the d-core. 

 

People seem to forget how many times last year this team was stuck in their own end. Things changed quite a bit when Julien took over, but the last the 2 games of the playoffs this team had those defensive lapses creep back in 

 

Mostly because of defensive lapses from guys like Emelin and Beaulieu in which both have been replaced by far better defensive players. 

 

Even Markov had his warts last year especially in the playoffs. It seems the Rangers knew to target him and it paid off. I still want the old Russian back but hopefully on a one year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Yep...when I describe what actually happened, it looks 'worse.' But more important than what actually happened is what MB's intentions were. :rolleyes: And hey, maybe every last possible thing will break the Habs' way in 2018, in which case it's all good, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Good thing the NHL isn't a results-based business or MB might be in trouble.

 

Why don't you just admit that

 

(a) this team was better off with Sergachev and Radulov on an overpay than with Drouin and nobody else. In other words, this particular set of GM decisions made the team worse off.

 

while pointing out that

 

(b) the team has lots of cap space, so MB is presumably not done yet, and therefore we still have to wait and see how things plays out.

 

The case for MB's summer activities has to rest on (b) IMHO. Not on a bunch of good intentions and hypotheticals.

 

Four hypothetical situations (on the offense alone) to improve a team that bowed out in the first round.

 

The Panthers are in the same boat with their offense. They have three players, and two that are injury prone, (Barkov, Huberdeau, Trochek) that they need 60-70 points from, or it's hard to see how they make the playoffs. Then Tallon went full-MB with a cotillion dance of KHLers, rookies, and discount UFAs to color in the lines.

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...