Jump to content
HabsWEST

Markov is a Champion. Is Subban next?

Recommended Posts

Weber is "man-mountain" in a Jean Beliveau kind of reserved way vs ex-hab who is quite a bit more egocentric. 

Share this post


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

Are you directing that at me? I dont agree with it. I'm just saying that posters on this board have guessed that the donation led to his trade. I think it'  a foolish comment and baseless. I don't give a single shit about the subject. In fact I respect him as a very giving and overall good human being. I certainly hope you aren't going off on me with that racism garbage. 

Not directing the racial shot at you - just responding to the point you made about an authorized donation.

 

i do think that a lot of flak that Subban gets is racially motivated, the same way people comment about wanting a good old Canadian boy over a Russian or Swede.  Even on TSN pang  said Subban needed to play the “white” way rather than the “right” way.  You don’t just randomly make a slip like that unless somewhere in the back of your mind race isn’t influencing your perception.  And for those who say that it’s not an issue in this day and age, I say I hats bullshit.  Tell that to the black junior player who is getting a police and security escort at games.

Share this post


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

Weber is "man-mountain" in a Jean Beliveau kind of reserved way vs ex-hab who is quite a bit more egocentric. 

Comparing cupless stoic Weber to a champion as dignified and charismatic as Believeau is like comparing a Ford Mustang GT to a Ferrari 288 GTO.

Share this post


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

Not directing the racial shot at you - just responding to the point you made about an authorized donation.

 

i do think that a lot of flak that Subban gets is racially motivated, the same way people comment about wanting a good old Canadian boy over a Russian or Swede.  Even TSN had pang day Subban needed to play the “white” way rather than the “right” way.  You don’t just randomly make a slip like that unless somewhere in the back of your mind race isn’t influencing your perception.  And for those who say that it’s not an issue in this day and age, I say I hats bullshit.  Tell that to the black junior player who is getting a police and security escort at games.

Is a very touchy subject to say the least...good effort to broach the race bit though. 

Share this post


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

Comparing cupless stoic Weber to a champion as dignified and charismatic as Believeau is like comparing a Ford Mustang GT to a Ferrari 288 GTO.

6 team league vs a 31team league...odds of winning cups any different?

I compared #6 and #4 as being quiet reserved leaders vs the basic...opposite.

Share this post


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

6 team league vs a 31team league...odds of winning cups any different?

I compared #6 and #4 as being quiet reserved leaders vs the basic...opposite.

 Richard vs Believeau were different?  Were either less effective in their role?

 

Believeau may have been reserved, but he was charismatic and much more thoughtful, insightful and reflective when answering questions.   Weber seems to act at times like someone is scratching their nails in a chalkboard when he’s being asked questions and basically gives monosyllabic answers.  I don’t see Weber as being anything like #4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DON said:

Is a very touchy subject to say the least...good effort to broach the race bit though. 

 

Subliminal racism has been a huge factor in shaping the reaction to Subban from day one. The whole idea that he was too uppity, didn't know his place, should just be quiet and deferential like a good boy - I'm sorry, but all that reaction can't just pretend to have existed outside the paradigms of racialist assumptions.

 

It's not that I'm accusing anyone, Pang or otherwise, of being white supremacist; just that their intuitive gut responses were racially-inflected.  Stuff like the low fiving Price, his on-ice yappiness and chirping, or the 'controversy' when he clutched the CH on his jersey after scoring a big goal against the Leafs - something that is now common practice - would never have drawn the attention they did if they had been performed by a Good (i.e., white) Canadian Boy. For that matter, I would not at all be surprised if Therrien's view of Subban as a 'problem' came at least as much from a place of subliminal racism as anything else. That's usually how racism works, not as an overt, explicit belief system, but as a set of underlying gut responses that then shape behaviour.

Share this post


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

 

Fact is, if anyone says "personality issues" is a reason for the trade, it was in Nashville's favour. They have been 100% positive about him. Say he's a major part of the locker. Laviolette loves him. To remove Weber and add Subban to Nashville, it seems like a team with a lot more unity. Not saying that's because Weber was a problem, but he certainly didn't seem like a solution.

 

Lol, "fact" 

 

10 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 The trade served no good purpose and still doesn't.

 

Okay, can you at least admit it served no bad purpose? Then perhaps we can all just realize that this trade isn't the issue with the team. 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Then perhaps we can all just realize that this trade isn't the issue with the team. 

 

 

Did anyone ever say this?

 

The trade is a symbol. A symbol of ossified, old-school management that doesn't seem to grasp the direction in which the game is going and which prioritizes its own ego over results on the ice. And which is chronically incapable of addressing ACTUAL rather than make-believe problems.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Did anyone ever say this?

 

The trade is a symbol. A symbol of ossified, old-school management that doesn't seem to grasp the direction in which the game is going and which prioritizes its own ego over results on the ice. And which is chronically incapable of addressing ACTUAL rather than make-believe problems.

 

The way that the trade is brought up doesn't come across as simple symbolism. The way it is usually presented is that the team would be much better if it didn't happen, as if the marginal difference between the two players would propel this team up the standings. Who cares if Bergevin throws around words like character and attitude? We should be focusing on the deficiencies down the middle, on left defense and also the lackluster performance of Carey Price. 

 

You're ostracizing Bergevin for having an ego, but yet when he trades away Subban, who arguably has the biggest ego in the league, it's a problem. So is having an ego an issue or not?  

 

Anyone here from what I've read over the last couple years who have either defended the trade or simply are neutral on it, are definitely less biased towards Bergevin. I would consider myself in the neutral category, but I find that I have to come across as an opposing view because some of the statements I read are ridiculous and unfounded. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Did anyone ever say this?

 

The trade is a symbol. A symbol of ossified, old-school management that doesn't seem to grasp the direction in which the game is going and which prioritizes its own ego over results on the ice. And which is chronically incapable of addressing ACTUAL rather than make-believe problems.

A symbol, what are you talking about, to you I guess?

It is simply entertainment industry and was simply a trade of two top notch performers.

Share this post


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

 

The way that the trade is brought up doesn't come across as simple symbolism. The way it is usually presented is that the team would be much better if it didn't happen, as if the marginal difference between the two players would propel this team up the standings. Who cares if Bergevin throws around words like character and attitude? We should be focusing on the deficiencies down the middle, on left defense and also the lackluster performance of Carey Price. 

 

You're ostracizing Bergevin for having an ego, but yet when he trades away Subban, who arguably has the biggest ego in the league, it's a problem. So is having an ego an issue or not?  

 

Anyone here from what I've read over the last couple years who have either defended the trade or simply are neutral on it, are definitely less biased towards Bergevin. I would consider myself in the neutral category, but I find that I have to come across as an opposing view because some of the statements I read are ridiculous and unfounded. 

 

The trade will be Bergevin's legacy. He traded a very popular player for a player with a better reputation in a trade that had nothing to do with what the club needed to get better. By even the supporters of the trade it is looked at best like a lateral move. You don't win with an at best lateral move.

 

The player isn't the problem. The mindset behind ever making the trade is. There was absolutely zero reason for it. And every move Bergevin has made since has been from this mindset, and it's why the club is so fundamentally flawed. It still would have been if Subban was here, but it would have been easier for some folks to continue holding onto the hope that maybe this team just has dealt with 2 1/2 seasons of bad luck in 3 years.

 

So yes, if the team still has Subban, the team is still bad. But with Subban, there isn't as much of a desperate need for a puck moving defenceman, because we at least have one that can carry an offensive drive. We still need two top four LD, but we could get away with a 20-25 point top four D in one of the slots. These constant lateral moves put the team without something and a little less as a team. 

 

This is the trade Bergevin tried to make to be his statement: we're going for the Cup. We just acquired Shea Weber. So far that's been a legitimate failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

The trade will be Bergevin's legacy. He traded a very popular player for a player with a better reputation in a trade that had nothing to do with what the club needed to get better. By even the supporters of the trade it is looked at best like a lateral move. You don't win with an at best lateral move.

 

The player isn't the problem. The mindset behind ever making the trade is. There was absolutely zero reason for it. And every move Bergevin has made since has been from this mindset, and it's why the club is so fundamentally flawed. It still would have been if Subban was here, but it would have been easier for some folks to continue holding onto the hope that maybe this team just has dealt with 2 1/2 seasons of bad luck in 3 years.

 

So yes, if the team still has Subban, the team is still bad. But with Subban, there isn't as much of a desperate need for a puck moving defenceman, because we at least have one that can carry an offensive drive. We still need two top four LD, but we could get away with a 20-25 point top four D in one of the slots. These constant lateral moves put the team without something and a little less as a team. 

 

This is the trade Bergevin tried to make to be his statement: we're going for the Cup. We just acquired Shea Weber. So far that's been a legitimate failure.

 

You also don't lose with a lateral move. Every trade doesn't have to be a win or loss, they felt that they needed to ship Subban out, and they were able to get back an elite player in his position. They didn't trade him for a bunch of bums or low round draft picks. In terms of moving the puck up the ice, they need to fill those voids on the left side. Saying it falls solely on Weber is like saying he is not a capable NHLer. This team is not "fundamentally flawed" because of Bergevin's character mindset, it's flawed because he decimated the left defense, didn't fill the holes at center and the team has an abundance of left handed wingers.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Did anyone ever say this?

 

The trade is a symbol. A symbol of ossified, old-school management that doesn't seem to grasp the direction in which the game is going and which prioritizes its own ego over results on the ice. And which is chronically incapable of addressing ACTUAL rather than make-believe problems.

“Apart from the first month where Weber went on a crazy and unsustainable scoring tear, this team's record has been absolutely execrable since trading Subban.  And that's WITH Price in the lineup. Results speak for themselves.”

 

“Second, the core is stale; frankly, it has looked unconvincing ever since Subban left (or, if I wanted to be generous, ever since Weber stopped scoring at a crazy pace in his first six weeks with us). The team has a piss-poor record over an entire year, and even when it made the playoffs looked insipid. At some point, you go, 'well...let's try something else.'”

 

 

“Y'know, my math is terrible. But I believe the latter half, extrapolated across a full season, put us on pace for 93 points - i.e., out of the playoffs. So, OK, yes, better than .500. But a bubble team at best. It therefore seems to remain accurate, then, to say that since combining Carey Price and Weber the Habs have indeed stunk, except for that initial spectacular six-week explosion by #6. Of course you can't just discount that initial explosion, but when a core player is scoring way off the chart of his career patterns, you'd also be crazy to take that as the default setting. Once Weber reverted to norms in December, the Habs basically became a bubble team or worse. Where they have remained.”

 

“It's also true that the team has basically sucked since it traded Subban, apart from Weber's aberrant six-week explosion when he first artived. The fact is that the longer Bergevin has been in charge, the worse the team has gotten.”

 

Do any of those comments sound familiar? Seems to me some people think the issue with the current team stems in large part from the deal we speak of.

 

I think Machine of Loving Grace said it best....

 

2013-2017, only two Habs defencemen have more than five points in the playoffs: Subban and Markov. They "replaced" Subban with Weber. There isn't even a backup to Markov like Petry could be to Subban. The left defence is pretty much offensively inept without Markov, and there's absolutely nothing to replace him in the present or future. Except cap space! Can't wait to see what cap space can do in the playoffs.”

 

We have Shea Weber and a puck mover in Jeff Petry on the right side in the top 4. What we need is a puck moving left handed defenseman. We would still need that even if P.K. Subban were on the team. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

they felt that they needed to ship Subban out,

 

Yeah. They "needed" this because they are a bunch of hide-bound dinosaurs who prioritize bland company men and who don't understand the value of puck-moving/possession in today's game. In other words, they didn't need to do this at all for reasons except ego and ignorance. Their premise was false.

 

Anyway, we shouldn't be making trades that are at best lateral moves. Rather we should be making trades that are lateral moves at worst. After the disaster of 2016, their priority was not improving the team. It was protecting a coach who got fired six months later and also getting rid of PK Subban. 'nuff said.

 

The inability to fill all those pieces - the actual, as opposed to fairy-tale, team needs - is of a piece with these incompetent priorities. It's all part of the same problem, i.e., a management group that does not know what it is doing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

 

You're ostracizing Bergevin for having an ego, but yet when he trades away Subban, who arguably has the biggest ego in the league, it's a problem. So is having an ego an issue or not?  

 

 

 

Don't be ridiculous. I don't care if someone has an ego. What I care about is whether they are helping the team win. Subban helps teams win. Bergevin doesn't. That's why I'm pro-Subban and anti-Bergevin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lateral move to acquire someone 4 years older makes sense how?

Share this post


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

A lateral move to acquire someone 4 years older makes sense how?

 

If it is a lateral move. I always say it's a "lateral move at best." The trade's defenders have jumped on this lately, but in fact I believe that Subban is a better overall defenceman than Weber - as the advanced and old-fashioned stats and Norris voters all tend to support (to say nothing of team results). That's not to deny that Weber is a very good defenceman, of course (which is what I'll be accused of doing :rolleyes:)

Share this post


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

 

Don't be ridiculous. I don't care if someone has an ego. What I care about is whether they are helping the team win. Subban helps teams win. Bergevin doesn't. That's why I'm pro-Subban and anti-Bergevin.

 

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

 

57 minutes ago, Commandant said:

A lateral move to acquire someone 4 years older makes sense how?

 

There are plenty of examples of players who are on their way out being traded for much less. Management made the decision to trade him much prior to it happening. We don't know the exact reason, all I read around here is pure speculation about egos and racism. They decided he had to go and the fact that they were able to get Shea Weber out of it was a good deal. Again, his former Habs teammates didn't seem to mind one bit, so that's more telling than anything. I'll also add that Weber is cheaper than Subban in salary cap and also in actual salary paid. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Again, his former Habs teammates didn't seem to mind one bit, so that's more telling than anything. 

 

I guess you forgot about Price and Galchenyuk meeting him in the Nashville locker before a game, and the articles about Markov and Galchenyuk talking about missing him (Subban and Emelin were at Markov's wedding): http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/canadiens-notebook-alex-galchenyuk-still-good-friends-with-p-k-subban

Share this post


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

 

Yeah. They "needed" this because they are a bunch of hide-bound dinosaurs who prioritize bland company men and who don't understand the value of puck-moving/possession in today's game. In other words, they didn't need to do this at all for reasons except ego and ignorance. Their premise was false.

 

Anyway, we shouldn't be making trades that are at best lateral moves. Rather we should be making trades that are lateral moves at worst. After the disaster of 2016, their priority was not improving the team. It was protecting a coach who got fired six months later and also getting rid of PK Subban. 'nuff said.

 

The inability to fill all those pieces - the actual, as opposed to fairy-tale, team needs - is of a piece with these incompetent priorities. It's all part of the same problem, i.e., a management group that does not know what it is doing.

Did you not see the anger in Gallagher’s demeanor when discussing P.K. Subban? That’s not something that stems from one incident. From everything I’ve gathered it does seem that there were issues in the locker room and that the main way to solve those issues would have been to ship someone out. It is not only Therrien and Bergevin that may have had issue with Subban. It was actual players on the team.

 

A more fair argument in my eyes would be not to state that Subban was traded for no reason, but that whoever else was involved could have been the ones moved with Subban instead being kept.

 

What none of us know is how many people felt a certain type of way. Did only one person have issue with Subban? Did Subban have issue with anyone?

 

However you want to call it, Subban has an extremely extroverted personality. I’d imagine that it would be a very touchy subject but as much as I’ve seen the racism cards played out, I’ve also seen constant mentions of narcisstic traits in relation to Subban now and then, not only on this site.

 

Please do not misconstrue what I am saying as an attack on Subban because I am not defining Subban as a narcissist. I don’t know him at all. What I do know is that he rubbed at least one or two players on our team the wrong way and that Gallagher mentioned something about “P.K. making it all about P.K.” I’ve also seen fan reaction and mentions of how losing P.K. was like losing a girlfriend. In fact these people are reacting the same way someone would act after a relationship with a narcissist. They have you convinced they are your soulmate, only for them to eventually reveal their true colors to those who are closest to them, unless they still need something from you. I once dated a narcissist myself. You know what she would say whenever she got a parking ticket? “I consider it a donation.” Kind acts are often done for themselves and eventually, the mask wears off. 

 

Any comments about how Nashville has embraced Subban in the early going are of no surprise even if one were to agree with what I just said. What would be more surprising if that were true is whether it would last in the long term. If Subban remains a predator for the next 5-10 years, I’ll eat my words. If he doesn’t, this doesn’t back up my claims either but I will not be surprised.

 

Bergevin did not explicitly go out and look to trade a puck mover for a dinosaur who cannot move the puck. Nashville starts with the letter “N”. Montreal starts with the letter “M”. At GM meetings, teams sit arranged by alphabetical order. It is no surprise then, that Poile and Bergevin would interact at such occasions. At one of the general manager meetings, Poile was the one who approached Bergevin and mentioned the names P.K. Subban and Shea Weber.

 

While I can agree that perhaps the initial thought process behind trading P.K. Subban weren’t purely based on hockey, the player we got in return helped our team in many hockey related areas. The trade could have been much worse. The players are quite close in caliber and here’s to hoping Weber has a great year next year.

 

———

 

I understand that I may have opened a can of worms with some of my comments but I only speak based on observation. I’m sorry if I offended anyone by attributing narcissism with P.K. Subban, I just tend to notice narcissitic traits in people because of my past history. Having narcissistic traits is a good thing and is a far cry from actually being a narcissist. That could very well be P.K. Subban as well.

 

What I do know is that P.K. Subban did rub some people on our own team off the wrong way (whether narcisstic or not) and that it is therefore just as incorrect to state that the trade happened for no reason at all. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I guess you forgot about Price and Galchenyuk meeting him in the Nashville locker before a game, and the articles about Markov and Galchenyuk talking about missing him (Subban and Emelin were at Markov's wedding): http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/canadiens-notebook-alex-galchenyuk-still-good-friends-with-p-k-subban

“We talk here and there,” Galchenyuk said after practice Friday

 

“We always hung out a lot,” Galchenyuk said about his relationship with Subban in Montreal. “When I first came here, he was one of the younger guys on the team and young guys usually always hang out. He was younger, wasn’t married, didn’t have kids. So we hung out.”

 

Sounds like best friends for life

 

I think it's pretty common for former teammates meeting a player coming back to the arena, and usually it's more than two. How many of his teammates went to the hospital donation/PK Subban party? How many votes did he get for captain? How about the King Clancy? You've named a couple of examples from the dozens of teammates he had. Just because a few didn't mind him or even liked him, doesn't mean he's not a problem overall. Even Sean Avery had friends

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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. 

 

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. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

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

×