Jump to content
HabsWEST

Markov is a Champion. Is Subban next?

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Dalhabs said:

I didnt mean to be rude about the language issue.

Sorry for any missunderstanding.

 

No, all good. I just saw another site had the English translation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think the most recent attitude thing is stupid but you don’t have to be in the room to see how the Habs handled things once they got scored on. They broke down. That in and of itself is an attitude thing, or at the very least a mental thing. I also acknowledge that the team wasn’t great on paper and that it was Bergevin’s fault but I sometimes think that words that come out of Bergevin’s mouth, while they are stupid, also get lost in the way the he says them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I also think the most recent attitude thing is stupid but you don’t have to be in the room to see how the Habs handled things once they got scored on. They broke down. That in and of itself is an attitude thing, or at the very least a mental thing. I also acknowledge that the team wasn’t great on paper and that it was Bergevin’s fault but I sometimes think that words that come out of Bergevin’s mouth, while they are stupid, also get lost in the way the he says them.

 

I mean, I get that, "Diamond in the rough" about Weber was supposed to mean, "You don't know what kind of diamond we picked up here" and not, "Weber is an undiscovered gem."

 

But he was very clear about what he meant about this, and even said that the team was defeated before they even stepped foot on the ice. Which Julien had a problem with and said he disagreed with. Bergevin has his buzz words and he uses them because while he might have some issues with language, he knows those are common words with very flexible interpretations. That's why he said character constantly for six years, and once this season ended badly, he didn't say it a single time in the press conference and switched to attitude. Because the summer of 2016 was the summer of character, and all his acquisitions were supposed to fix the character issues. They can mean whatever you want. They can be positive or negative depending on the context. He knows what he's doing or else he'd be specific. When Bergevin is specific, that's when he talks himself into a corner.

 

I don't believe Bergevin is stupid. I think he's very smart in his business relationships and public relations. I also feel he talked himself into a job he can handle day to day but he isn't skilled enough to be great at,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I also think the most recent attitude thing is stupid but you don’t have to be in the room to see how the Habs handled things once they got scored on. They broke down. That in and of itself is an attitude thing, or at the very least a mental thing. I also acknowledge that the team wasn’t great on paper and that it was Bergevin’s fault but I sometimes think that words that come out of Bergevin’s mouth, while they are stupid, also get lost in the way the he says them.

 

Some might say the fact that they always got scored on in bunches is a character flaw. Not being able to recover from adversity. 

 

If that is the case.... then the GM who preached character from day 1, and whose team in year 6 has a serious character flaw... should be fired. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've said, Molson is allowing this circus to continue. 

 

Maybe this team should focus on talent. Get your top 6 and top 4 in place, then sprinkle in your "character" and "glue" players. Talent needs to trump all.

 

I rememer Bobby Clarke talking about the era of the broad street bullies and how tough and scary they were to play against, but he also said those characteristics were basically just the cherry on the cake. The talent won games. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Habopotamus said:

Like I've said, Molson is allowing this circus to continue. 

 

Maybe this team should focus on talent. Get your top 6 and top 4 in place, then sprinkle in your "character" and "glue" players. Talent needs to trump all.

 

I rememer Bobby Clarke talking about the era of the broad street bullies and how tough and scary they were to play against, but he also said those characteristics were basically just the cherry on the cake. The talent won games. 

This is the key. I don't subscribe to league trends as a rule. The copycat teams pass and fail just as much as the ground breakers.  Preds successful with stacked defense. Pens successful with stacked offense. Early bruins successul with depth and heavy. LA successful heavy. Now Washington successful with heavy. (Hopefully). The key to all these successful teams is talent. To me, following a formula or vision on how to build a team is less important than overall talent. That is MB biggest failure IMO. He didn't work with the talent he had, but instead tried to reshape it. Now there is no identity and not enough talent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habopotamus said:

Like I've said, Molson is allowing this circus to continue. 

 

Maybe this team should focus on talent. Get your top 6 and top 4 in place, then sprinkle in your "character" and "glue" players. Talent needs to trump all.

 

I rememer Bobby Clarke talking about the era of the broad street bullies and how tough and scary they were to play against, but he also said those characteristics were basically just the cherry on the cake. The talent won games. 

I call BS on goof ball Clark, rest of NHL was simply scared to play them, till the Big Bird and crew put the knuckles to them and that was it for them, no longer were they feared and faded away....and 40+ years later Philly is still a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BCHabnut said:

This is the key. I don't subscribe to league trends as a rule. The copycat teams pass and fail just as much as the ground breakers.  Preds successful with stacked defense. Pens successful with stacked offense. Early bruins successul with depth and heavy. LA successful heavy. Now Washington successful with heavy. (Hopefully). The key to all these successful teams is talent. To me, following a formula or vision on how to build a team is less important than overall talent. That is MB biggest failure IMO. He didn't work with the talent he had, but instead tried to reshape it. Now there is no identity and not enough talent. 

 

Couldn't agree more. Talent is the key variable. Yes, once the talent in place, you may need to tweak for chemistry or even for 'character' or 'leadership' - I won't go so far as to say these terms mean zero. (Look at Kovalev, a sublime talent who was just too mercurial to be relied upon as a team leader or key offensive driver). But they mean vastly less than talent does. And I would add that they ONLY matter insofar as they apply on the ice. The problem with Kovalev was not that he was eccentric but that he simply could not be relied on to deliver strong performances except when he felt like it, which wasn't often enough. He would disappear for entire seasons FFS. I loved the guy, but *that* is a legitimate character issue. But too often old-schools dinosaurs get down on players for reasons having nothing to do with on-ice performance. E.g., they aren't workout demons (Kessel). They're on the party or are arrogant punks (Seguin). They have the audacity to be brash and to make huge donations to hospitals without getting the prior OK by the organization (Subban). That is all absolute bullsh*t. Those players excelled on the ice. Period.

 

Our GM put the cart (character) way before the horse (talent) and that is one reason the team sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

 

Our GM put the cart (character) way before the horse (talent) and that is one reason the team sucks.

 

Can you provide some examples where he traded away talent for character? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Can you provide some examples where he traded away talent for character? 

Pk Subban for Shea Weber...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dalhabs said:

Pk Subban for Shea Weber...

That trade was character and talent for character and talent. 

 

:)

Share this post


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

That trade was character and talent for character and talent. 

 

:)

 

A pointless lateral move at best, justified by complete balderdash about "character." Indeed, a big part of the reason that that trade was so enervating was precisely that it had absolutely zero to do with hockey and everything to do with an ossified management's ego.

 

Other than that, it's been less about trading away talent for character and more about high-profile plodders like Alzner, Benn, and even Shaw, not to mention McCarron, bums like Ott and King, etc., without bringing in a critical mass of talented players to make us overlook his asinine self-justifications about "character" and "attitude."

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High profile $1.1m d-man, really?

And he also is a pretty good 3rd pairing d-man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DON said:

High profile $1.1m d-man, really?

And he also is a pretty good 3rd pairing d-man.

What about the $4.5m/yr for 5 years for a 6th/7th dman.

Share this post


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

That trade was character and talent for character and talent. 

 

:)

I’d say a downgrade on skill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

What about the $4.5m/yr for 5 years for a 6th/7th dman.

Got no issue with that goof-up...but why pile on several players who cost so little is irrelevant, but I do agree with trend of pretty bad pro-scouting (starting with Briere, Moan...) , which Bergevin was supposedly good at....but really isn't?

Share this post


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

 

A pointless lateral move at best, justified by complete balderdash about "character." Indeed, a big part of the reason that that trade was so enervating was precisely that it had absolutely zero to do with hockey and everything to do with an ossified management's ego.

 

Other than that, it's been less about trading away talent for character and more about high-profile plodders like Alzner, Benn, and even Shaw, not to mention McCarron, bums like Ott and King, etc., without bringing in a critical mass of talented players to make us overlook his asinine self-justifications about "character" and "attitude."

 

You were implying that one of the reasons Montreal sucks is because of Subban for Weber. That's where we disagree. Having one elite #1 right defenseman instead of another isn't why they were so bad. One of the reasons is the #1 elite defenseman we have was injured in the 1st game of the season, played well for a couple dozen games and then was shut down with said injury. Name me a team that doesn't suffer because of a loss like that. Everything is amplified here because of certain circumstances and it is being twisted into false evidence. Along with Weber, losing Radulov and Markov for nothing, Carey Price playing worse than the waiver wire backup goalie and a coach who doesn't seem to have  pulse on this team are the reasons the team failed this year,  not Subban for Weber.

 

If you want to talk about other problem character players on the team, I'll give you Karl Alzner. Dumb signing, way overpaid and for too long. Andrew Shaw is a good hockey player. Maybe a bit overpaid but a meaningful player who can produce. What's wrong with Jordie Benn for a million per season? And why bother mentioning the other bums? 

 

Let's talk about who was brought in. How about the supposedly bad character Jonathan Drouin, he is fairly talented. Jeff Petry would be considered a skilled defenseman. Thomas Vanek can stickhandle in a phone booth. Drafting Galchenyuk, Lehkonen, Mete, Hudon, Andrighetto, Reway, and Scherbak indicates hope for talent. Signed Radulov and offered him an equal extension that was turned down. I don't think he signed Ales Hemsky to put up points with his character. Long  before he was captain, the talented Max Pacioretty was signed to one of the best deals in hockey. 

 

The character and attitude narrative is blown out of proportion. One trade and a few soundbites don't corroborate with the entire body of work. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We Ok lets look at the Entire body of work:

 

2012 off-season.

His first big free agent move was overpaying and wasting cap space on Brandon Prust. 

At the same time he made this move, he was overpaying Travis Moen, a contract he'd later have to dump, taking back the decrepit body of Sergei Gonchar just to get rid of him.

 

2013 off-season
The next year, he took Michael McCarron in the first round, and Connor Crisp in the third round.  Both for their character.  More talented players like Anthony Duclair, and Pavel Buchnevich were available in the third round but had character concerns. 

 

He then signed Douglas Murray and George Parros in the off-season.  He allowed Michael Ryder to walk, instead signing Daniel Briere.

 

Later Briere was shipped out and Parenteau brought in.

At the 2015 deadline 

Defense was improved with Petry. 

We needed more scoring.. what did we add for forwards... character in Torrey Mitchell, Bryan Flynn, and Devante Smith-Pelley

 

2015 off-season after we failed to score enough goals. 

We brought in Fleischmann and Semin instead of you know... talent. 

 

2016 we flamed out. 

 

Subban was traded for Weber

We overpaid for Andrew Shaw

We signed Radulov, but only one year cause character was a question

 

At the deadline when we needed scoring, we instead got Martinsen, Ott, Nolan, Benn.

 

2017

 

we let markov and radulov walk

we grabbed character in Alzner.

 

 

There are a shit ton of moves that can be traced back to ####ing character.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about 3rd and 4th players from 5 years ago as if that's why this team currently sucks. What "character instead of skill" guys are currently in our top 6 that are hindering the performance of the team? 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

You're talking about 3rd and 4th players from 5 years ago as if that's why this team currently sucks. What "character instead of skill" guys are currently in our top 6 that are hindering the performance of the team? 

 

 

 

I think the point may be that the message from management has been that their is a character or atitude  problem. Not that there's a talent problem. That would put it squarely on MB shoulders. He deflects by saying there is a character problem and then proceeds to sign character players.  I agree that the first pairing right d is not the reason that the team sucks. But it wasn't before either,  so why make the trade in the first place? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post by Commandant. Thanks for that. I tend to lack the intestinal fortitude (and detailed memory) to sift through Bergevin's detritus. 

 

I think the bottom line is that our GM has repeatedly iced a roster transparently lacking the required talent, then regularly blamed the players' 'character' and 'attitude' for inadequate results. When he goes out and adds useless plugs, it reinforces that narrative. 

 

As for (sigh) the Subban deal, look, Subban is a better overall player than Weber, but yes, Weber is a very good defenceman. That trade was totally unnecessary and had nothing to do with on-ice performance or results. Its only justification was 'character' (i.e., bullshit). That further reinforces the narrative.

 

But the real problem is that Bergevin is a POS general manager. I never claimed that his quest for 'character' was a total explanation for his suckage. It seems to be just one more thing he's screwed up, that's all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, illWill said:

You're talking about 3rd and 4th players from 5 years ago as if that's why this team currently sucks. What "character instead of skill" guys are currently in our top 6 that are hindering the performance of the team? 

 

 

 

 

Drafting, trading for, and signing players with skill instead of getting Brandon Prusts, or Travis Moen, or Andrew Shaw, or Jordan Nolan, or Torrey Mitchell, or Michael McCarron or whoever it is would make this team better. 

 

Question... if this team drafted Shea Theodore instead of Michael McCarron, would that have solved the hole at LH Puck-moving defence? Would theodore have made a good partner for Weber?

 

if this team had drafted Jake Guentzel or Pavel Buchnevich instead of Connor Crisp, would that have helped. 

 

If we gave Radulov a long term deal from day 1, instead of a one-year prove your character deal, woudl that have helped the top 6?

 

If we traded for a goal scorer at the 2017 deadline and re-signed him, would that have helped?

 

Would any of the players we could have gotten 3 or 4 years ago, been able to be traded for better talent than Zach Kassian, or the rotting corpse of Sergei Gonchar?

 

It all has an effect when you use your resources (cap space and draft picks), on taking character over talent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

 But it wasn't before either,  so why make the trade in the first place? 

Because some guys are on their own program, a headache to the team and just gotta go.

You didn't hear one complaint from any of players, just fans who can only speculate and make up reasons based on very little.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Commandant said:

if this team had drafted Jake Guentzel or Pavel Buchnevich instead of Connor Crisp, would that have helped. 

 

The guy most thought we would take was Duclair, who has recently struggled, but still is an NHL player. Crisp was a guy with a character story and nothing else.

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

×