Jump to content

HABS AT SENS - DECEMBER 16 - NHL 100 OUTDOOR CLASSIC - GDT - 7PM EST


xXx..CK..xXx

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I will be forever upset we lost out on Radulov and Subban on the same team.

 

 

Ugghh. I feel the same way. Two of the biggest competitors in the league! Bad call zoot suit. Bad call

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

Sould have packaged pacioretty for a center and Subban as capn. Not that I hate Weber. He is great. 

Although the skeptics will argue, we weren’t actively shopping Subban. Poile was the one who approached Bergevin about Subban and mentioned the name “Weber”. The timing of the trade does indicate they may have wanted him gone since his no trade clause was about to kick in,  but that’s what we were told. It wouldn’t surprise me, based on the fact that the talks originated at one of those NHL meetings and something as simple as “Nashville” and “Montreal” being next to each other at those meetings due to their alphabetical order makes it seem like something that may have happened. Bergevin and Poile sit next to each other at all those meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Although the skeptics will argue, we weren’t actively shopping Subban. Poile was the one who approached Bergevin about Subban and mentioned the name “Weber”. The timing of the trade does indicate they may have wanted him gone since his no trade clause was about to kick in,  but that’s what we were told. It wouldn’t surprise me, based on the fact that the talks originated at one of those NHL meetings and something as simple as “Nashville” and “Montreal” being next to each other at those meetings due to their alphabetical order makes it seem like something that may have happened. Bergevin and Poile sit next to each other at all those meetings.

I think was said that Bergevin was shopping him the year before also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24
10 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Although the skeptics will argue, we weren’t actively shopping Subban. Poile was the one who approached Bergevin about Subban and mentioned the name “Weber”. The timing of the trade does indicate they may have wanted him gone since his no trade clause was about to kick in,  but that’s what we were told. It wouldn’t surprise me, based on the fact that the talks originated at one of those NHL meetings and something as simple as “Nashville” and “Montreal” being next to each other at those meetings due to their alphabetical order makes it seem like something that may have happened. Bergevin and Poile sit next to each other at all those meetings.

Weber wasn't the first piece Bergevin wanted. Apparently anyways 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Stogey24 said:

My point is that it's not the outdoors that makes this team terrible.

 

Pacioretty just said in an interview that weather should not affect a team's compete level. Chasing play most of the game is not how you win, indoors or out. 

 

The team is 6-2-2 in their last ten before the outdoor fiasco.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Although the skeptics will argue, we weren’t actively shopping Subban. 

 

Sure that's the case if you ignore the rumours that Montreal was, "gauging the market" on Subban in February.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/report-p-k-subbans-name-has-come-up-in-trade-talks-montreal-canadiens-marc-bergevin-tva-louis-jean/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24
7 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Sure that's the case if you ignore the rumours that Montreal was, "gauging the market" on Subban in February.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/report-p-k-subbans-name-has-come-up-in-trade-talks-montreal-canadiens-marc-bergevin-tva-louis-jean/

I'm sure he was being shopped pretty hard. Bergevin wanted no part of Subban's NMC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Weber is not a better overall player than Subban, the trade made no sense EXCEPT as a manifestation of MB's pre-existing desire to get rid of Subban. That looks open and shut to me. A GM who did not have a prior dislike of Subban would have had no particular reason to make the trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I know you don't, and I respect your opinion; but I wanted to say that there are different opinions in the talent level of this team and the work of MB's management

 

I guess what I'm saying is that our opinion need to be tethered to some sort of evidence or justification. I can see someone arguing that MB has done an adequate job, that he's better than critics like me believe. But 'above average'!?! Based on what, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I guess what I'm saying is that our opinion need to be tethered to some sort of evidence or justification. I can see someone arguing that MB has done an adequate job, that he's better than critics like me believe. But 'above average'!?! Based on what, exactly?

Just how high on the standings the Habs have finished on average over his tenure. They have been top 1/3 most of the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2017 at 7:49 PM, Trizzak said:

I'm finding this a bit difficult to watch. 

 

Nice troll by the sound guy playing "Hot in Herre" though :D

 

I would have found it funny if I hadn't been so bloody freezing out there!  The beer was freezing faster than I could drink it!  Hard to believe that the venue wasn't selling any hot beverages (save bacon corn chowder, I suppose).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stogey24 said:

New lines 

Pacioretty-Drouin-Byron;
Galchenyuk-Danault-Shaw;
Hudon-Plekanec-Gallagher;
Deslauriers-Froese/DLR-Carr

Mixing and matching Hab forwards...putting lipstick on a pig comes to mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

And most sensible habs fans want no part of MB.

Nor Gauthier, Gainey, Savard, Houle, so at least franchise is consistent for past 20+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DON said:

Nor Gauthier, Gainey, Savard, Houle, so at least franchise is consistent for past 20+ years.

 

20+ years of mediocrity will do that.

 

I liked Andre Savard and Gainey...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

20+ years of mediocrity will do that.

 

I liked Andre Savard and Gainey...

'Like' is just like 'deserve' and is all well and good; however, has nuttin to do with winning a cup(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DON said:

'Like' is just like 'deserve' and is all well and good; however, has nuttin to do with winning a cup(s).

 

Well, that's true.

 

Andre Savard, I felt, did a good job of starting to right the ship that Houle had left utterly listing and full of holes. I had the impression of a smart hockey man who was somewhat unfairly shoved aside when the big name, Gainey, became available. Now, I too would have shoved him aside for Gainey; but it's still an intriguing question, what Savard would have been able to do for us, given more time.

 

Bob Gainey was a solid GM who completed what Savard had begun, i.e., reconstructing the Habs into a relevant, competitive franchise. But when I say I "liked" him, I suppose what I mean is that I think he did a solid job and got some bad breaks, but above all that he's Bob Gainey, someone who is impossible not to respect as a human being. 

 

Otherwise put, Savard and Gainey seemed competent. The other GMs were/are not.

 

The bottom line, of course - as you somewhat uncharacteristically say - is that none of our GMs after Serge Savard have gotten the job done. The "job" in question, to my mind, is not necessarily winning a Cup; that requires a lot of luck; but simply to build an elite, bona-fide contender. Not once since about 1994 have the Habs been taken seriously as heavy-duty contenders. Not once.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well, that's true.

 

Andre Savard, I felt, did a good job of starting to right the ship that Houle had left utterly listing and full of holes. I had the impression of a smart hockey man who was somewhat unfairly shoved aside when the big name, Gainey, became available. Now, I too would have shoved him aside for Gainey; but it's still an intriguing question, what Savard would have been able to do for us, given more time.

 

Bob Gainey was a solid GM who completed what Savard had begun, i.e., reconstructing the Habs into a relevant, competitive franchise. But when I say I "liked" him, I suppose what I mean is that I think he did a solid job and got some bad breaks, but above all that he's Bob Gainey, someone who is impossible not to respect as a human being. 

 

Otherwise put, Savard and Gainey seemed competent. The other GMs were/are not.

 

The bottom line, of course - as you somewhat uncharacteristically say - is that none of our GMs after Serge Savard have gotten the job done. The "job" in question, to my mind, is not necessarily winning a Cup; that requires a lot of luck; but simply to build an elite, bona-fide contender. Not once since about 1994 have the Habs been taken seriously as heavy-duty contenders. Not once.

Lack of all star talent up front has been downfall for so long now, is one reason I still am OK with Sergachev trade. Simply need more skill up front, more guys who can create scoring chances for themselves...

I cant like/dislike any of GMs personally as don't know any of them. Some people are good with media and some arnt and come off as an a-hole...no doubt some are jack-asses but I wont rely on Steve Simmons or Doug Maclean's word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DON said:

Lack of all star talent up front has been downfall for so long now, is one reason I still am OK with Sergachev trade. Simply need more skill up front, more guys who can create scoring chances for themselves...

I cant like/dislike any of GMs personally as don't know any of them. Some people are good with media and some arnt and come off as an a-hole...no doubt some are jack-asses but I wont rely on Steve Simmons or Doug Maclean's word for it.

I won’t beat a dead horse but the thing about the Sergachev trade bringing in Drouin is that we lost Radulov (and Markov) in the same year that we acquired Drouin and traded Sergachev. We got some and lost some. I don’t see it as us having added. I would have preferred resigning Radulov while losing nothing other than available cap space, and then go from there. Some say imagine what we would have looked like without Radulov or Drouin and I say imagine what we could have looked like with both. 

 

I’m one that constantly mentions that Radulov and his agent played hard ball, and so I understand that, but is there even any communication? We have Pacioretty stating that he misses Radulov as a line mate and then we have Markov stating that Bergevin wouldn’t even speak with him during negotiations. Why do players like our captain and long time general have no voice? Because obviously we no longer have Markov and Pacioretty enjoying having Radulov as a line mate was probably never even considered. I find it hard to believe that It was always going to be absolutely impossible to resign Radulov and still contend that while it’s stupid we would even have to, I would have given him 500k-1million more than he was offered in Dallas to make sure he stayed here and helped us contend for a cup.

 

Radulov’s physicality along with his skill would help us during the playoffs. Drouin’s great but the trade in context of everything will always be questioned in my books. There are too many variables at play, and the main one is that it seems as though Bergevin himself had no clear idea of who would be on the team come training camp. He merely had expectations, which is a terrible way to operate the team. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I won’t beat a dead horse but the thing about the Sergachev trade bringing in Drouin is that we lost Radulov (and Markov) in the same year that we acquired Drouin and traded Sergachev. We got some and lost some. I don’t see it as us having added. I would have preferred resigning Radulov while losing nothing other than available cap space, and then go from there. Some say imagine what we would have looked like without Radulov or Drouin and I say imagine what we could have looked like with both. 

 

I’m one that constantly mentions that Radulov and his agent played hard ball, and so I understand that, but is there even any communication? We have Pacioretty stating that he misses Radulov as a line mate and then we have Markov stating that Bergevin wouldn’t even speak with him during negotiations. Why do players like our captain and long time general have no voice? Because obviously we no longer have Markov and Pacioretty enjoying having Radulov as a line mate was probably never even considered. I find it hard to believe that It was always going to be absolutely impossible to resign Radulov and still contend that while it’s stupid we would even have to, I would have given him 500k-1million more than he was offered in Dallas to make sure he stayed here and helped us contend for a cup.

 

Radulov’s physicality along with his skill would help us during the playoffs. Drouin’s great but the trade in context of everything will always be questioned in my books. There are too many variables at play, and the main one is that it seems as though Bergevin himself had no clear idea of who would be on the team come training camp. He merely had expectations, which is a terrible way to operate the team. 

 

 

 

When we acquired Drouin, I praised the move conditional on our retaining Radulov. Once we lost Radulov, the net result became one whereby we traded our only elite prospect in order to not get too much worse. The Drouin trade did not make the team better relative to last season; it merely prevented the team from falling back to a catastrophically bad level at FW. Given that the team needed to IMPROVE, the incompetence speaks for itself.

 

Letting Markov go for no apparent reason was just the icing on the cake of managerial ineptitude.

 

Bergevin is the king of lateral moves, but there's a basic problem with making lateral moves when you're not good enough in the first place; and when your prospect pool is thin, the net result is slow corrosion - which is arguably just what we've seen over the past three seasons.

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...