Markov is a Champion. Is Subban next?

[Machine of Loving Grace]

8 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Look, its clear that SOME of his teammates didn't like him.  I don't think thats a big debate.  Others liked him a lot.  That's normal, not everyone is going to like everyone else. 

 

The thing is, that when the team was winning, there were no issues... and when the team didn't win, there was more talk of issues in 2016.  That's also normal.  Teams that win are happy and get along. Teams that lose, have more finger pointing and fights. 

 

The issue is whether it was necessary to trade him cause he had some issues with a few players.  Judging by the Blackhawks that won their third cup despite massive locker room issues, not it was not necessary. 

 

What's funny to me is that Patrick Roy had his own charity not associated with the team (Ronald McDonald House) and had teammates who hated him, and got traded after the worst game of his career, and everyone knows that trade was a terrible idea. The team had a good season without Roy and finished Top 10 in most categories before losing to the... Rangers. Oh my. But nobody gives Houle and Corey the excuse of oh he was bad for the locker and a change was needed. But make it Subban? Make it a not terrible return? Suddenly having a small issue with Gallagher and maybe Pacioretty is a good reason to trade him.

 

Or it's obvious this has everything to do with people that never really liked Subban and will defend it for any reason. They just wish Subban gave them one.

[illWill]

4 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

What's funny to me is that Patrick Roy had his own charity not associated with the team (Ronald McDonald House) and had teammates who hated him, and got traded after the worst game of his career, and everyone knows that trade was a terrible idea. The team had a good season without Roy and finished Top 10 in most categories before losing to the... Rangers. Oh my. But nobody gives Houle and Corey the excuse of oh he was bad for the locker and a change was needed. But make it Subban? Make it a not terrible return? Suddenly having a small issue with Gallagher and maybe Pacioretty is a good reason to trade him.

 

Or it's obvious this has everything to do with people that never really liked Subban and will defend it for any reason. They just wish Subban gave them one.

 

You mean the trade that sent arguably the best goalie of all time to a powerhouse Avalanche team and got back garbage in return? The one where the player demanded a trade? Not even comparable to this deal. That's the crux of this discussion. People acting like we got garbage back in the deal. We were able to acquire a "lateral at best" player for what was perceived to be a problem in the room. Who cares if there was or wasn't a problem? If looked at as a hockey trade it is one great player for another. That should be the end of it. 

 

And what people are you referring to that never liked Subban? I haven't come across one on here that didn't like him or want him as a Hab at the time. I just want the Habs to do well. They did not this season but it had ZERO to do with this trade. 

[Commandant]

The problem is that, in my opinion, management is on the wrong side of the chicken and egg debate. 

 

Winning brings a feeling of hapiness, of satisfaction, or accomplishment. Losing brings frustration, finger pointing, pressure, etc...

 

Winning teams are generally speaking (and the Hawks are the exception).. more cohesive. They have a better attitude. They get along better. There is less pressure and less issues. 

 

Losing creates the opposite. 

 

See this management thinks the attitude and the lack of character are leading to the losing, rather than seeing that if you have talent,, and win, most of those problems will solve themselves. 

 

That's what this trade is a sign of to me... that management is attacking things from the wrong end (and the press conference this season indicates that they are continuing to attack things from the character and attitude side of the equation), not recognizing that if they inject talent, and the team wins, the attitudes will take care of themselves... as there are more good feelings going on in the room.

[illWill]

5 minutes ago, Commandant said:

The problem is that, in my opinion, management is on the wrong side of the chicken and egg debate. 

 

Winning brings a feeling of hapiness, of satisfaction, or accomplishment. Losing brings frustration, finger pointing, pressure, etc...

 

Winning teams are generally speaking (and the Hawks are the exception).. more cohesive. They have a better attitude. They get along better. There is less pressure and less issues. 

 

Losing creates the opposite. 

 

See this management thinks the attitude and the lack of character are leading to the losing, rather than seeing that if you have talent,, and win, most of those problems will solve themselves. 

 

That's what this trade is a sign of to me... that management is attacking things from the wrong end (and the press conference this season indicates that they are continuing to attack things from the character and attitude side of the equation), not recognizing that if they inject talent, and the team wins, the attitudes will take care of themselves... as there are more good feelings going on in the room.

 

Hey, I agree with that. It's wrong to assume that getting a bunch of character guys will produce wins. Winning produces character and happiness. I can totally get on board with criticizing them for that but it's just that we're acting like Shea Weber isn't talented, as if he is Lyle Odelein with a slap shot. Shea Weber can play on any team in the NHL and be a part of a championship. It's up to management to surround him with the pieces necessarily to compliment the attributes he doesn't have. 

 

 

[Commandant]

No one has said that Shea Weber is anything less than a very good defenceman.  Heck, most have acknowledged that he is a great defenceman. 

 

Its fine to acknowledge that and still believe that Subban is a better and/or younger player at the same position.

 

You can believe Subban is better, while still believing that Weber is one of the better defencemen in the NHL. 

[Commandant]

As for the downvote brigade... its pretty clear that we have one of two things happening. 

 

1) either people don't want to hear about Subban and have decided to downvote everything with his name in it good or bad. 

or

2) a group of people vote down everything bad said about subban and a group of others vote down everything good said about subban. 

 

I can't for the life of me, see any other reason why either of these two posts would be downvoted, and its bullshit. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

Look, its clear that SOME of his teammates didn't like him.  I don't think thats a big debate.  Others liked him a lot.  That's normal, not everyone is going to like everyone else. 

 

The thing is, that when the team was winning, there were no issues... and when the team didn't win, there was more talk of issues in 2016.  That's also normal.  Teams that win are happy and get along. Teams that lose, have more finger pointing and fights. 

 

The issue is whether it was necessary to trade him cause he had some issues with a few players.  Judging by the Blackhawks that won their third cup despite massive locker room issues, not it was not necessary. 

 

 

1 hour ago, illWill said:

 

I agree with everything here till the end. We don't know what the breakdown of who liked him or hated him or how many. Maybe it was most of the room, maybe it was only mostly management. And just because the Blackhawk dynasty was able to overcome issues that year, doesn't mean that most teams can. It's possible for me to come to work everyday and not like my coworker but still perform at my highest level. But I'll tell you that it would be much easier for me to do so without putting up with said coworker. 

[xXx..CK..xXx]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

Look, its clear that SOME of his teammates didn't like him.  I don't think thats a big debate.  Others liked him a lot.  That's normal, not everyone is going to like everyone else. 

 

The thing is, that when the team was winning, there were no issues... and when the team didn't win, there was more talk of issues in 2016.  That's also normal.  Teams that win are happy and get along. Teams that lose, have more finger pointing and fights. 

 

The issue is whether it was necessary to trade him cause he had some issues with a few players.  Judging by the Blackhawks that won their third cup despite massive locker room issues, not it was not necessary. 

The only issue I have is people constantly repeating that there was no reason for the move in the first place.

 

It’s simply possible that there were indeed actual valid reasons for the trade. Shea Weber has just as much pedigree as P.K. Subban. We had P.K., wanted a different look, and had the opportunity to get one of the 8-10 or so defenders one could even have a discussion about as a Norris candidate. 

 

In terms of leadership, again Shea Weber isn’t some mythical leader who would improve the chemistry on any single team in the NHL. There are already Sidney Crosbys, Jonathan Toews’, Sedin Twins, Bergerons, Blake Wheelers, Jamie Benns,  Zetterbergs etc. in this league.

 

When people discussed leadership with Weber, it was in comparison with Subban. Subban leads in his own way and actually says a lot of the right things, but if we’re going to say Subban had issues with even one or two people, Shea Weber will have more of a positive impact in the locker room, where not one person has anything but respect for him. 

 

That the Habs haven’t had relative success since the trade does not mean that it did not solve any issues. All of our issues have nothing to with this move. Not signing Radulov and Markov and trading Sergachev for Drouin had nothing to do with an old school mentality. Signing Streit after Markov bailed is also a stupid one, but one that demonstrates the knowledge of how the modern NHL supposedly works. We have Weber, we have Petry. Now let’s get some top 4 defensemen who can help offensively on the left side. 

[Meller93]

On 2018-05-11 at 1:09 PM, Commandant said:

 

Is it that weak, when a number of people are looking at one game, where Subban played well and his goalie was shit, to bash him?

 

I guess that went over people's heads though. 

I’m no moderator, but I couldn’t agree more. Just as a regular poster, I’d love to see people only downvote comments that cross the line in terms of vulgarity or insults, or comments that take away from the discussion.

 

IMO downvoting a comment simply because you disagree isn’t having a discussion. That’s why we have these boards. People have differing opinions and that’s the entire point. 

 

 

[Commandant]

18 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

I’m no moderator, but I couldn’t agree more. Just as a regular poster, I’d love to see people only downvote comments that cross the line in terms of vulgarity or insults, or comments that take away from the discussion.

 

IMO downvoting a comment simply because you disagree isn’t having a discussion. That’s why we have these boards. People have differing opinions and that’s the entire point. 

 

 

Great post

[xXx..CK..xXx]

40 minutes ago, Commandant said:

As for the downvote brigade... its pretty clear that we have one of two things happening. 

 

1) either people don't want to hear about Subban and have decided to downvote everything with his name in it good or bad. 

or

2) a group of people vote down everything bad said about subban and a group of others vote down everything good said about subban. 

 

I can't for the life of me, see any other reason why either of these two posts would be downvoted, and its bullshit. 

 

 

 

I’ve been on this board for more than 10 years and had never been downvoted prior to the Pacioretty and Subban discussions.

 

In both cases, I’m defending my own team. (And I don’t feel blindly)

 

What can ya do?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

4 hours ago, illWill said:

 

What did the Habs win with Subban? What have the Predators won with Subban? Does Subban get praise for the team accomplishments as a Hab but Bergevin doesn't? Please explain your obvious bias further

 

 

Subban helps his team win by contributing massively on the ice game-in and game-out. Bergevin hurts his team's chances of winning with his incompetent decision making. This is the reason for my "bias" whereby I see Subban as an asset and Bergevin as a liability - which is less a "bias" and more a set of conclusions derived from observation.

 

On this question of The Room, Commandant is bang-on. In 2014-15, all we heard about over and over was the incredible chemistry in the room. Come 2015-16, suddenly chemistry is a "problem." Well, what happened? Did Subban become MORE of a jerk overnight? Unlikely. What in fact happened, almost certainly, was the team cratered due to Price's injury, and amidst all the negativity, egos and squabbles took over.

 

An intelligent general manager would have diagnosed the REAL problem - losing due to Price's injury - and created a 'fresh start' by firing a coach who was at his best-by date anyway. This would have created the conditions for everyone turning the page more or less (after all, there is never a requirement that players love each other, just that they be professionals and not allow personal enmity to get in the way of the job). But no. Instead of doing what any other GM would have done in his position and fire the coach, MB had to stick with his bum-buddy and blame PK Subban, who we all know was too uppity anyhow. So I'm pretty sure the room would have resolved itself if he had left it alone and done the sensible thing.

 

Besides...according to our Idiot in Chief the trade did NOT resolve the 'attitude' issues on the team anyway. So how can the trade be defensible on those grounds? This is all more bafflegab justifying an arbitrary deal that didn't make any hockey sense and which succeeded only in making the Habs older, slower, less spirited, more boring and less fun to watch, and possibly even less effective on the ice.

[dlbalr]

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

As for the downvote brigade... its pretty clear that we have one of two things happening. 

 

1) either people don't want to hear about Subban and have decided to downvote everything with his name in it good or bad. 

or

2) a group of people vote down everything bad said about subban and a group of others vote down everything good said about subban. 

 

I can't for the life of me, see any other reason why either of these two posts would be downvoted, and its bullshit.

3

 

I can see which posters are up/downvoting and I can safely say it's number two with a side of some downvoting almost every post from a particular poster they dislike, seemingly regardless of content. 

 

3 hours ago, Meller93 said:

I’m no moderator, but I couldn’t agree more. Just as a regular poster, I’d love to see people only downvote comments that cross the line in terms of vulgarity or insults, or comments that take away from the discussion.

 

IMO downvoting a comment simply because you disagree isn’t having a discussion. That’s why we have these boards. People have differing opinions and that’s the entire point.

1

 

Same here - that's basically what the system is for.  Ideally, the hope is that there are more upvotes for quality posts and that we only see the odd downvote.

[BCHabnut]

Honestly I enjoy this debate.  I would say a lot of people do. They are the most interesting threads of the offseason. To me it's one of the better ones.  

[Davehab]

I couldn’t actually careless about upvotes or downvotes.  Most of the time I forget we even have that option here.