Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trizzak

Habs vs Bruins - 7:00 EST.

Recommended Posts

Benn shows why he is and will never be more than a 6/7 dman.. absolutely terrible in front of the net.. give him an assist on the Pasta goal.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trizzak    591

At least I'm done with GDT's for awhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decently entertaining game. Byron was on fire. 

 

Bruins got a bounce or two and ultimately were too fast in the o-zone for Team Leadfoot, on too many shifts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

So it’s clear as day that those I’ve seen who want to see Pacioretty traded are also doomsday prepers when it comes to the future of the Habs. The common reason I’ve seen for trading Pacioretty is the theory that the Habs won’t be very good while he’s in his prime. While I didn’t have much hope for this season based on our off season, there’s no way to fully assess our team of next year or the year after that and so the reasoning isn’t completely accurate. You can place us somewhere in the standings next year and the year after that but the truth is, no one is ever right. 

 

Your apparent attitude that the whole aim is just to make the playoffs - rather than actually be a serious league power, a first-tier Cup contender - is exactly the attitude this loser organization wants of its fans.

 

Unless you actually think the Habs have a good chance of winning next season. In which case: :rofl::rofl::rofl:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    206
1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Your apparent attitude that the whole aim is just to make the playoffs - rather than actually be a serious league power, a first-tier Cup contender - is exactly the attitude this loser organization wants of its fans.

 

Unless you actually think the Habs have a good chance of winning next season. In which case: :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thanks for assuming you know what my attitude is, or that my apparent attitude would even matter to the organization considering I live too far to attend a single game or expend much money on merchandise.

 

The apparent attitude that the Habs have no chance at competing in the next 3-5 years with Price, Weber and Pacioretty is tiring, as well as wrong. 

 

It’s the most silly thing to predict that our team cannot compete in the next x amount of years.  Because of what? Your message isn’t even clear. Is it because Bergevin is the one making decisions? Or is it because Pacioretty will be senile in 6 years?

 

Your apparent attitude is a terrible one to have as a fan and if you’d like to enjoy the next 10 years expecting that we have no chance 10 years in advance, I’ll enjoy reading other comments. I watch the Habs because I enjoy watching hockey and the playoffs are the most exciting time of year. Getting into the playoffs is the first step into giving yourself a chance to go the whole way. There are many championship caliber teams who never win, and there are also Cinderella stories who do better than expected. This is the case especially in the NHL where regular season standings don’t necessarily seem to be the best indicator of who will win during the playoffs.

 

I would much rather make the playoffs than miss them, yes. On the other hand, the “solutions” provided to become a legitimate contender, such as trading Pacioretty, instill no more confidence in me that we would be in any better position to contend for a Stanley Cup. To me, it’s obvious that we have a better chance at winning a cup with a proven elite goal scorer, than to hope some prospects and draft picks will help us lift the cup sometime in the future. Don’t you think every other team are going to be stockpiling “prospects” and draft picks in the meantime as well? What Pacioretty’s return would give us isn’t anything substantial, relatively, and certainly won’t guarantee that we are cup contenders all of a sudden, if we aren’t now.

 

What exactly are Matthews and McDavid doing to help Edmonton or Toronto win a cup?  And they are first overall picks. Unless Babcock truly is the best coach of all time, neither of those teams will be lifting a cup any time soon. 

 

As for next year? Of course we can win a cup. The main reason we had a lesser shot this season is because we saved 8 million in cap space to spend on nothing. It’s not because we have Pacioretty. Anyone who expects that we would win the cup next year is delusional, but anyone who laughs at the possibility has no idea what they are talking about, unless there are no changes made within the organization. I’m sure there will be major changes, but it does not need to be Pacioretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trizzak    591

So it's a small sample size, but in the 4 games that Byron has played center he has 5 points (2 goals, 3 assists), and with his speed he covers a lot of ice. His faceoffs are shit, and I don't know what the analytics say about his play, but is it possible for Byron to be a 2nd line centerman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dlbalr    727
7 hours ago, Trizzak said:

So it's a small sample size, but in the 4 games that Byron has played center he has 5 points (2 goals, 3 assists), and with his speed he covers a lot of ice. His faceoffs are shit, and I don't know what the analytics say about his play, but is it possible for Byron to be a 2nd line centerman?

 

Worth noting on the faceoffs is that Hudon has been taking them on that line for the most part.  In the last four games, he's 15/42 while Byron is only 4/12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Thanks for assuming you know what my attitude is, or that my apparent attitude would even matter to the organization considering I live too far to attend a single game or expend much money on merchandise.

 

The apparent attitude that the Habs have no chance at competing in the next 3-5 years with Price, Weber and Pacioretty is tiring, as well as wrong. 

 

It’s the most silly thing to predict that our team cannot compete in the next x amount of years.  Because of what? Your message isn’t even clear. Is it because Bergevin is the one making decisions? Or is it because Pacioretty will be senile in 6 years?

 

Your apparent attitude is a terrible one to have as a fan and if you’d like to enjoy the next 10 years expecting that we have no chance 10 years in advance, I’ll enjoy reading other comments. I watch the Habs because I enjoy watching hockey and the playoffs are the most exciting time of year. Getting into the playoffs is the first step into giving yourself a chance to go the whole way. There are many championship caliber teams who never win, and there are also Cinderella stories who do better than expected. This is the case especially in the NHL where regular season standings don’t necessarily seem to be the best indicator of who will win during the playoffs.

 

I would much rather make the playoffs than miss them, yes. On the other hand, the “solutions” provided to become a legitimate contender, such as trading Pacioretty, instill no more confidence in me that we would be in any better position to contend for a Stanley Cup. To me, it’s obvious that we have a better chance at winning a cup with a proven elite goal scorer, than to hope some prospects and draft picks will help us lift the cup sometime in the future. Don’t you think every other team are going to be stockpiling “prospects” and draft picks in the meantime as well? What Pacioretty’s return would give us isn’t anything substantial, relatively, and certainly won’t guarantee that we are cup contenders all of a sudden, if we aren’t now.

 

What exactly are Matthews and McDavid doing to help Edmonton or Toronto win a cup?  And they are first overall picks. Unless Babcock truly is the best coach of all time, neither of those teams will be lifting a cup any time soon. 

 

As for next year? Of course we can win a cup. The main reason we had a lesser shot this season is because we saved 8 million in cap space to spend on nothing. It’s not because we have Pacioretty. Anyone who expects that we would win the cup next year is delusional, but anyone who laughs at the possibility has no idea what they are talking about, unless there are no changes made within the organization. I’m sure there will be major changes, but it does not need to be Pacioretty.

 

So despite your umbrage, it turns out that my assumption about your "apparent attitude" was completely accurate. You think making the playoffs means being a Cup contender, full stop.

 

To me it is crashingly obvious that this is not the case. 15 years of having a team that makes the playoffs more or less reliably, but NEVER does jack sh*t in those playoffs, proves this. Your theory is, put an OK team together and hope for a miracle run. How about the following alternative: put together a league power. A team that is consistently ranked among the very best year after year. A team for which making the playoffs is a given and the only question is whether they will make the Finals. The simple reason for doing this is that this will maximize your odds of winning. Granted, building such a team is no easy task, and still no guarantee of winning - see San Jose - but it heavily skews the odds in your favour. Most Cup winners are teams that have been in the conversation as possible Cup winners for a number of years, not miraculous "Cinderella stories." (Incidentally, the 1993 team is sometimes seen as such a Cinderella story. This is bullshit; that team had been consistently among the league's best all year and in previous years).

 

Now what about next year and all that cap space that Bergevin incompetently retained? In other posts, I've said that IF we sign Tavares, then we have an actual chance of winning the Cup in Pacioretty's window, and therefore should keep Patches. I don't believe that Tavares alone makes us contenders; Bergevin's complete ineptitude has created a roster full of holes, especially on D, but it puts us in a position to focus all our energies on fixing the defence and making a couple of Cup runs before Patches runs out of steam. Note that most observers think the odds of Tavares signing with us are small. As for spending the cap space on other non-franchise-type players, hey, if it were that easy to fill holes via free agency, how come Bergevin couldn't do it last summer? There is something amusing in trusting Mastermind Bergevin to fix everything via summer UFA signings when this boob couldn't even retain players he already had on his roster last year. And all of this assumes that major pieces will be available on the market anyhow.

 

My formula is, see what you get in summer and if you don't add major pieces like Tavares, trade Patches for younger core pieces. Let the young FWs grow together and take a couple of years to reconstruct the D-corps. This seems reasonable to me, and is why I suggest we can contend within 3-4 years via a "retool." Note that I say "contend," not just "make the playoffs and hope something happens," which is what the Habs have done for 15 years.

 

You want to see the right recipe? Look at Boston, an organization whose internal development system is so strong that it could throw away Seguin and Hamilton and STILL emerge as a pretty damned good, exciting, mostly young team with a great future. All without tanking. How about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    716
14 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

Trade them both before they cool down.

 

Heck Cammalleri them if you have to.

 

Okay no don't. Just kidding.

 

But seriously trade them with their value high.

 

I dont think a game or two makes value higher or lower.

 

Teams know who pacioretty is.  They arent goung to say... oh he scored a goal... thats the goal.scorer we need.

 

They already knew hes a goal scorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    206
1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

So despite your umbrage, it turns out that my assumption about your "apparent attitude" was completely accurate. You think making the playoffs means being a Cup contender, full stop.

 

To me it is crashingly obvious that this is not the case. 15 years of having a team that makes the playoffs more or less reliably, but NEVER does jack sh*t in those playoffs, proves this. Your theory is, put an OK team together and hope for a miracle run. How about the following alternative: put together a league power. A team that is consistently ranked among the very best year after year. A team for which making the playoffs is a given and the only question is whether they will make the Finals. The simple reason for doing this is that this will maximize your odds of winning. Granted, building such a team is no easy task, and still no guarantee of winning - see San Jose - but it heavily skews the odds in your favour. Most Cup winners are teams that have been in the conversation as possible Cup winners for a number of years, not miraculous "Cinderella stories." (Incidentally, the 1993 team is sometimes seen as such a Cinderella story. This is bullshit; that team had been consistently among the league's best all year and in previous years).

 

Now what about next year and all that cap space that Bergevin incompetently retained? In other posts, I've said that IF we sign Tavares, then we have an actual chance of winning the Cup in Pacioretty's window, and therefore should keep Patches. I don't believe that Tavares alone makes us contenders; Bergevin's complete ineptitude has created a roster full of holes, especially on D, but it puts us in a position to focus all our energies on fixing the defence and making a couple of Cup runs before Patches runs out of steam. Note that most observers think the odds of Tavares signing with us are small. As for spending the cap space on other non-franchise-type players, hey, if it were that easy to fill holes via free agency, how come Bergevin couldn't do it last summer? There is something amusing in trusting Mastermind Bergevin to fix everything via summer UFA signings when this boob couldn't even retain players he already had on his roster last year. And all of this assumes that major pieces will be available on the market anyhow.

 

My formula is, see what you get in summer and if you don't add major pieces like Tavares, trade Patches for younger core pieces. Let the young FWs grow together and take a couple of years to reconstruct the D-corps. This seems reasonable to me, and is why I suggest we can contend within 3-4 years via a "retool." Note that I say "contend," not just "make the playoffs and hope something happens," which is what the Habs have done for 15 years.

 

You want to see the right recipe? Look at Boston, an organization whose internal development system is so strong that it could throw away Seguin and Hamilton and STILL emerge as a pretty damned good, exciting, mostly young team with a great future. All without tanking. How about that.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with being content that your team makes the playoffs. Second of all, there is no evidence to suggest that I am merely content with making the playoffs without having a legitimate chance at winning the cup. Especially since I am the one who was saying we should go “all in” this year, prior to the season by paying Radulov what he would have needed to stay here. Every playoffs, 16 teams enter and only 1 team wins. It’s easy to say in retrospect that we haven’t had a chance at winning in 15 years, but this is an entirely false premise. This is my 11th plus year of reading things on this website, and it’s usually the negative nancies who are complaining about a team that is actually quite good. This year, their voices don’t stand out as much because it was glaringly obvious what we had on paper heading into the season was not going to be enough.

 

If you knew every year since 2000 that we had zero chance at winning a cup based on our squad, congratulations. You were right. 

 

In the past decade however there have been Habs squads which have been “second tier” contenders at worst, as you would put it, in at least 3-7 seasons. This is a far cry from

never having had a legitimate shot, and Pacioretty was on most of those teams. In one of those years, our starting goalie got injured in the Conference Final in what quite possibly could have been a very different outcome had Tokarski not been called upon to work miracles. Sure, our team had trouble scoring in the crunch, but our whole team played differently in front of Price during that period of time.

 

It is quite possible to have an elite contending team with Pacioretty on the squad. Your premise is an illusion in that we can all of a sudden become elite by gathering prospects or even a second line center in return for Pacioretty. There is simply no reason this would be the case, and your argument that we shouldn’t be able to trust Bergevin to retool the team can be said both for trading Pacioretty, or utilizing the cap space we have. If Pacioretty had an extremely high cap hit, sure he would be slightly less valuable on the market, but not at the trade deadline, and I would understand trying to relieve our team’s cap in addition to receiving a solid return for our future by trading him away. This is simply not the case.

 

Once we trade Pacioretty, we will be relying on players like Hudon, Lehkonen, Galchenyuk and Drouin to fill his void on wing. That should be fun to watch our team trying to score goals with those players as your star power. I would trade each of those players, outside of Galchenyuk before Pacioretty. I would also trade Gallagher before Pacioretty. His contract at 4.5 million is not hindering us from competing and similar to

the fact that you don’t trust Bergevin to reshape our team with the 8 million in cap space, I don’t trust that trading Pacioretty would make us any more of an elite contender than we could be with him on our team. 

 

It’s amazing to see some people so upset about the Subban trade and then vehemently argue that we should trade Pacioretty only a few years later. If I didn’t know any better, I’d have to conclude that there is something subliminally related going on there. 

 

You are going to be a very grumpy fan for a long time if your expectations are that in a league of parity, the Habs should be far and above other contending teams. This doesn’t make me “happy enough” just to make the playoffs, but making the playoffs sure beats the alternatives of tanking, or trading away our captain in hopes that we magically become more of a contender as a result. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toronthab    354
19 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

First of all, there is nothing wrong with being content that your team makes the playoffs. Second of all, there is no evidence to suggest that I am merely content with making the playoffs without having a legitimate chance at winning the cup. Every playoffs, 16 teams enter and only 1 team wins. It’s easy to say in retrospect that we haven’t had a chance at winning in 15 years, but this is an entirely false premise. This is my 11th plus year of reading things on this website, and it’s usually the negative nancies who are complaining about a team that is actually quite good. This year, their voices don’t stand out as much because it was glaringly obvious what we had on paper heading into the season was not going to be enough.

 

If you knew every year since 2000 that we had zero chance at winning a cup based on our squad, congratulations. You were right. 

 

In the past decade however there have been Habs squads which have been “second tier” contenders at worst, as you would put it, in at least 3-7 seasons. This is a far cry from

never having had a legitimate shot. In one of those years, our starting goalie got injured in what quite possibly could have been a very different outcome had Tokarski not been called upon to work miracles. Sure, our team has trouble scoring in the crunch, but our whole team played differently in front of Price during that period of time.

 

It is quite possible to have an elite contending team with Pacioretty on the squad. Your premise is an illusion in that we can all of a sudden become elite by gathering prospects or even a second line center in return for Pacioretty. There is simply no reason this would be the case, and your argument that we shouldn’t be able to trust Bergevin to retool the team can be said both for trading Pacioretty, or utilizing the cap space we have. If Pacioretty has an extremely high cap hit, sure he would be slightly less valuable on the market, but not at the trade deadline, and I would understand trying to relieve our team’s cap by trading him away. This is simply not

the case.

 

Once we trade Pacioretty, we will be relying on players like Hudon, Lehkonen, Galchenyuk and Drouin to fill his void on wing. That should be fun to watch our team trying to score goals with those players as your star power. I would trade each of those players, outside of Galchenyuk before Pacioretty. I would also trade Gallagher before Pacioretty. His contract at 4.5 million is not hindering us from competing and similar to

the fact that you don’t trust Bergevin to reshape our team with the 8 million in cap space, I don’t trust that trading Pacioretty would make us any more of an elite contender that we could be with him on our team. 

 

It’s amazing to see some people so upset about the Subban trade and the.ln vehemently argue that we should trade Pacioretty only a few years later. If I didn’t know any better, I’d have to conclude that there is something subliminally related there. 

 

You our are going to be a very grumpy fan for a long time if your expectations are that ima league of parity, there Habs should be far and above other contending teams. This doesn’t make me “happy enough” just to make the playoffs l, but making the playoffs sure beats the alternatives of tanking, or trading away our captain in hopes that we magically become more of a contender as a result. 

I'm not smart. I may not be right, or close to right, but I agree with this post. With me its a sports philosophy. We have a game coming up. Ice the best team you can for the game. That's my strategy. I hate to think its ever a legitimate thing to do to disagree with me and I wouldn't trade a 23 year old developing talent for a 58 year old on a hot streak to "win the next game", but that said and maybe "my team" isn't what "my team" was a few decades ago; maybe it never was, but Beliveau was a Montreal Canadien and we were his fans. Price is a Montreal Canadian , and we are his fans. I'm (as far as I know) not a Habs fan because the Habs win; I'm a Habs fan because I remain through life a Montrealer, and this is my team. All is finite here. All is forever in some degree of flux, but some things at least have some kind of stability as Aristotle showed so that we can at least use nouns to describe them in reality. I think MB simply by his approach or style , cost us PK , Markov and probably Rad. True.. he got Rad originally but a fax doesn't build a relationship of love and respect. Shipwreck in one season. So what do we do? Trade our captain? A really good player who regularly does good things for us?

I don't think so. We are a team. A weaker one, but a team. Its not only the superstars , the Bobby Orrs who "are" the team. I don't want a "five year plan", even if it wins a cup. I kinda like the idea of icing the best team you can year after year as a team and not simply as a collection of players. I'm not saying this is easy or even "smart", but I do know that when we traded a bright dark light on our D... the team disassembled. My parents could have traded for much nicer kids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Pacioretty can be a key player on a Cup winner. He is an excellent hockey player. It's precisely his excellence that means he can command a very fine ransom on the trade market, bringing back players who can be part of our core for years and years to come, rather than three or maybe four years, as per Patches.

 

As I say, the issue is simply asset management, in light of probabilities regarding,first, a player's likely window of top-level performance, and second, the team's likely positioning during that window

 

This isn't novel thinking. The Habs used to do this sort of thing all the time. We flipped Ralph Backstrom, who was in his early 30s but still producing very well, to the Kings for the pick that became Guy Lafleur. We traded Peter Mahovlich in his prime for a young Pierre Larouche (a deal that would have succeeded admirably if the sublimely talented Larouche had not turned out to be a head case).

 

Under Bergevin, of course, we trade a PK Subban just as he is entering his prime, for a Weber, just as he is exiting it - the exact reverse of the above pattern.  :rolleyes:

 

Also being forgotten is that Pacioretty will be due for a huge raise when he turns 31. In other words, we will be asked to make what, a $6-7 million investment, with term, in a guy who probably only has a couple of years of top production left. Dubious, especially on a team that is not a legitimate contender.

 

Sure, we can do with Patches just as we did with Pleks - i.e., keep him around (on a big ticket) until he declines into a shadow of his former self, then trade him at some deadline for a fraction of what we could have gotten had we been slightly more forward-thinking. (And note that I was sounding the alarm about a decline in Pleks's game a couple of years before his numbers cratered). Given that this squad has been a borderline joke for three consecutive seasons now, there is even less excuse for not practicing sound asset management with Patches than there was with Pleks.

 

The guys I would keep from the current veteran core are Weber and Price. Price, because superstar goalies seem to continue to perform until their late 30s. Weber, because the D-corps is a complete tire-fire without him - I don't believe in tanking - and he can serve as a valuable mentor to whatever young D-men we do manage to add to our system, much as Chara has with his colleagues in Boston (although I doubt Weber will play as well, for as long, as Chara has). Pacioretty? He's the key cog you move in order to retool the franchise, building the pieces we get back plus our existing crop of young forwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link67    131
3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Of course Pacioretty can be a key player on a Cup winner. He is an excellent hockey player. It's precisely his excellence that means he can command a very fine ransom on the trade market, bringing back players who can be part of our core for years and years to come, rather than three or maybe four years, as per Patches.

 

As I say, the issue is simply asset management, in light of probabilities regarding,first, a player's likely window of top-level performance, and second, the team's likely positioning during that window

 

This isn't novel thinking. The Habs used to do this sort of thing all the time. We flipped Ralph Backstrom, who was in his early 30s but still producing very well, to the Kings for the pick that became Guy Lafleur. We traded Peter Mahovlich in his prime for a young Pierre Larouche (a deal that would have succeeded admirably if the sublimely talented Larouche had not turned out to be a head case).

 

Under Bergevin, of course, we trade a PK Subban just as he is entering his prime, for a Weber, just as he is exiting it - the exact reverse of the above pattern.  :rolleyes:

 

Also being forgotten is that Pacioretty will be due for a huge raise when he turns 31. In other words, we will be asked to make what, a $6-7 million investment, with term, in a guy who probably only has a couple of years of top production left. Dubious, especially on a team that is not a legitimate contender.

 

Sure, we can do with Patches just as we did with Pleks - i.e., keep him around (on a big ticket) until he declines into a shadow of his former self, then trade him at some deadline for a fraction of what we could have gotten had we been slightly more forward-thinking. (And note that I was sounding the alarm about a decline in Pleks's game a couple of years before his numbers cratered). Given that this squad has been a borderline joke for three consecutive seasons now, there is even less excuse for not practicing sound asset management with Patches than there was with Pleks.

 

The guys I would keep from the current veteran core are Weber and Price. Price, because superstar goalies seem to continue to perform until their late 30s. Weber, because the D-corps is a complete tire-fire without him - I don't believe in tanking - and he can serve as a valuable mentor to whatever young D-men we do manage to add to our system, much as Chara has with his colleagues in Boston (although I doubt Weber will play as well, for as long, as Chara has). Pacioretty? He's the key cog you move in order to retool the franchise, building the pieces we get back plus our existing crop of young forwards.

 

I agree with this train of thought as well, I have forwarded similar thoughts in other threads myself, however the only part I disagree with is Weber. I believe what we are seeing with Chara's longevity is exactly what we will see with Weber. Weber can and should be a part of this team going forward both for how he can anchor a Defense, obviously, and for the safety blanket he will provide for young up and coming Defense this team will have to offer for years to come. Chara and Weber's game are nearly identical, they never rely on speed and skating to be effective, they rely on strength and efficiency, fortunately those are tools that do not fall off the deep end for a hockey player at age 34. They are the type of Dmen who will become more and more defensive minded as age kicks in much like Chelios did, but they will always prove useful and will still be able to contribute on the PP because the weapon they hold will never truly wither away like foot speed and agility always seems to.

 

Chara has not been a Norris candidate for some years now, but he has certainly maintained himself into his later years as a solid top 4 Dman capable of bringing youngsters under his wing while providing quality minutes for the team, A trend I see more than possible for Weber to follow due to the insane similarities to their game. Mobility has never been a huge part of either player's arsenal during their whole careers yet they stand among the very best of their time during their Prime years. And as they get older, Mobility not being one of the main weapons in their arsenal actually becomes their advantage and the key to their longevity. Its the guys like Letang, Karlsson, and even Subban to some degree, who fall off the cliff once their mobility is lost, that is inevitable. Much like many of us know it is all over for a guy like Byron when he losses a step, there are examples everywhere through the years of how much a Defenseman's game will fall off when he losses the step he has relied on so much for his success at some point.

 

Chara is a perfect example of what can be expected of Weber has he ages, and Mike Green, is an example of what happens to Defensemen who have tremendous success due to their mobility that allows them to play as a 4th forward most nights, and eventually lose a step.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Link67 said:

 

I agree with this train of thought as well, I have forwarded similar thoughts in other threads myself, however the only part I disagree with is Weber. I believe what we are seeing with Chara's longevity is exactly what we will see with Weber. Weber can and should be a part of this team going forward both for how he can anchor a Defense, obviously, and for the safety blanket he will provide for young up and coming Defense this team will have to offer for years to come. Chara and Weber's game are nearly identical, they never rely on speed and skating to be effective, they rely on strength and efficiency, fortunately those are tools that do not fall off the deep end for a hockey player at age 34. They are the type of Dmen who will become more and more defensive minded as age kicks in much like Chelios did, but they will always prove useful and will still be able to contribute on the PP because the weapon they hold will never truly wither away like foot speed and agility always seems to.

 

Chara has not been a Norris candidate for some years now, but he has certainly maintained himself into his later years as a solid top 4 Dman capable of bringing youngsters under his wing while providing quality minutes for the team, A trend I see more than possible for Weber to follow due to the insane similarities to their game. Mobility has never been a huge part of either player's arsenal during their whole careers yet they stand among the very best of their time during their Prime years. And as they get older, Mobility not being one of the main weapons in their arsenal actually becomes their advantage and the key to their longevity. Its the guys like Letang, Karlsson, and even Subban to some degree, who fall off the cliff once their mobility is lost, that is inevitable. Much like many of us know it is all over for a guy like Byron when he losses a step, there are examples everywhere through the years of how much a Defenseman's game will fall off when he losses the step he has relied on so much for his success at some point.

 

Chara is a perfect example of what can be exof Weber has he ages, and Mike Green, is an example of what happens to Defensemen who have tremendous success due to their mobility that allows them to play as a 4th forward most nights, and eventually lose a step.

 

 

 

Fair enough, but let's not get into PK vs Weber again. I said above that I'd keep Weber around rather than trade him, for some of the reasons you cite, so you and I actually agree on the big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link67    131
2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Fair enough, but let's not get into PK vs Weber again. I said above that I'd keep Weber around rather than trade him, for some of the reasons you cite, so you and I actually agree on the big picture.

 

Very true, I certainly don't even mean to bring that debate up again, but for the record i'd still be happy if PK was here and we never made the trade too, there are positives to take from both scenario's, i've come to grips with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BCHabnut    198
4 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Of course Pacioretty can be a key player on a Cup winner. He is an excellent hockey player. It's precisely his excellence that means he can command a very fine ransom on the trade market, bringing back players who can be part of our core for years and years to come, rather than three or maybe four years, as per Patches.

 

As I say, the issue is simply asset management, in light of probabilities regarding,first, a player's likely window of top-level performance, and second, the team's likely positioning during that window

 

This isn't novel thinking. The Habs used to do this sort of thing all the time. We flipped Ralph Backstrom, who was in his early 30s but still producing very well, to the Kings for the pick that became Guy Lafleur. We traded Peter Mahovlich in his prime for a young Pierre Larouche (a deal that would have succeeded admirably if the sublimely talented Larouche had not turned out to be a head case)

Actually the Lafleur  pick was with the golden seals. Backstrom was traded to the kings with the hope that he would elevate the kings and make the seals drop to last place. Backstrom was not traded for the Lafleur pick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BCHabnut said:

Actually the Lafleur  pick was with the golden seals. Backstrom was traded to the kings with the hope that he would elevate the kings and make the seals drop to last place. Backstrom was not traded for the Lafleur pick. 

 

Fair enough, but that's an even more extravagant example of the kind of forward-thinking I'm advocating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Metallica    2
21 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

So it’s clear as day that those I’ve seen who want to see Pacioretty traded are also doomsday prepers when it comes to the future of the Habs. The common reason I’ve seen for trading Pacioretty is the theory that the Habs won’t be very good while he’s in his prime. While I didn’t have much hope for this season based on our off season, there’s no way to fully assess our team of next year or the year after that and so the reasoning isn’t completely accurate. You can place us somewhere in the standings next year and the year after that but the truth is, no one is ever right. 

My stand on Pacioretty is this, if we can't find a way to lock up tavares on July 1st, then I would look at trading Pacioretty for a true center for this team.   He will be our only player that you would get a good return on. I don't trade him now or at the deadline or at the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toronthab    354
On 1/21/2018 at 6:20 PM, Machine of Loving Grace said:

I'm sorry what

Just voicing a perhaps overly romantic sense of team. Distinctly possible I'm nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sbhatt    37
2 hours ago, Toronthab said:

Just voicing a perhaps overly romantic sense of team. Distinctly possible I'm nuts.

 

 

If you're nuts, it is likely that MB's idiotic destruction of the team drove you there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×