Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Metallica

July 1st NHL free agency

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

When on earth did I say I hated Drouin? 

 

The point of my post was that the Habs would be a much better team today if they had had the patience and the wherwithal to develop their talent and keep the talent they developed. The wider point in fact supports your distaste for tanking (which is why your indignation here is misplaced). The Habs are not contenders for many reasons, but 'failing' to tank is not one of those reasons. Trading prospects and young players in search of quick fixes and shobboleths like 'leadership' *is.*

 

Bergevin. You hate Bergevin. Bergevin. This is all about Bergevin for you. Bergevin. He traded Subban. You hate him for that. It is clear as day. You used to be a reasonable and open minded poster until that day. One of my favorites. No longer. It all comes back to that trade for you. Using words like leadership and character to trash Bergevin doesn't change the fact that this team would be any better off. Subban on this team doesn't make it more of a contender no matter what you say. RAH RAH

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

 

I looked back at the thread when the trade happened. I was cautious because I really liked Drouin from what I watched with him in Tampa, defended him when he was fighting with Cooper, but was afraid we would try him as a centre instead of a winger. I also hated when finding out it wasn't 1 for 1 and we offered an "insurance" policy pick to Yzerman if Sergachev didn't play the full season. I would still be defending the trade player for player if Drouin stayed on the wing, especially if Bergein found his wallet and paid Radulov $7M per season. We would have walked into next season with Radulov, Pacioretty, Drouin, and Gallagher at wing. That's top tier at wing. Just weak down the middle. The eternal problem.

 

Also found this lovely tweet.

 

 

"It wouldn't be fair to him."

 

That's a fair point. If he didn't acquire him to play center then maybe something else he had planned fell through or some players didn't step up. I just hate the narrative that Bergevin is a frigging drooling moron that can't tie his own shoes. Nominated for GM of the year, team Canada executive, multiple division wins. Give me a break 

Share this post


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

 

Key word there is IF. I don't know about you but this was the worst year I can remember as a Hab fan and I don't want to go through it again. IF the team sucks and gets us elite players then we are good? No, it doesn't work that way all of the time. 

But, 2 examples it does;

Malkin-Crosby

Kane-Toews

 

Share this post


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

 

Bergevin. You hate Bergevin. Bergevin. This is all about Bergevin for you. Bergevin. He traded Subban. You hate him for that. It is clear as day. You used to be a reasonable and open minded poster until that day. One of my favorites. No longer. It all comes back to that trade for you. Using words like leadership and character to trash Bergevin doesn't change the fact that this team would be any better off. Subban on this team doesn't make it more of a contender no matter what you say. RAH RAH

 

 

 

 

 

You do me an injustice in one specific sense , which is thinking that I hated the Subban deal just because I loved Subban, period. In fact, had we moved Subban to address an actual (as opposed to make-believe) problem - i.e., trading him in order to improve the team - I'd have regretted seeing him go, but no way would I have been hurling anathemas at Bergevin. Instead of that kind of intelligent, purposeful trade, however, what we got was at best a pointless lateral move.

 

The issue is what the trade revealed. I'd thought Bergevin was a new-school guy who understood how the game was going. Nope. That trade revealed him to be a GM who was locked into ossified, old-school, old-boy bullshit; of not liking Subban because he was brash instead of being a Good Old Boy; of thinking that because Weber is Big and Strong and because he is a LEADER he must axiomatically be a better player than a guy who can actually run the offence and plays a three zone game; of ignoring Weber's advancing age; of paying zero attention to advanced stats; and above all of caring more about his own ego and that of a coach he would soon fire anyway, than making the team better. I was appalled, because I know the team will never win anything with that kind of Don Cherry mindset at the helm.

 

So it's not about that trade per se; it's about what that trade showed us about Marc Bergevin.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled cheerleading ;)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

But, 2 examples it does;

Malkin-Crosby

Kane-Toews

 

You could throw in Tampa with

vinny-Richard

 

If done right that's the blue print for today's NHL. 

 

Share this post


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

 

When on earth did I say I hated Drouin? 

 

The point of my post was that the Habs would be a much better team today if they had had the patience and the wherwithal to develop their talent and keep the talent they developed. The wider point in fact supports your distaste for tanking (which is why your indignation here is misplaced). The Habs are not contenders for many reasons, but 'failing' to tank is not one of those reasons. Trading prospects and young players in search of quick fixes and shibboleths like 'leadership' *is.*

I agree with you there. My big issues with this team is the quick fixes and the bad development of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Metallica said:

I agree with you there. My big issues with this team is the quick fixes and the bad development of players.

 

Yeah. Put it another way. What this team needs is not tanking. What it needs is first-class, top-of-the-league drafting and development. Let's get that in place first.

Share this post


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

 

Yeah. Put it another way. What this team needs is not tanking. What it needs is first-class, top-of-the-league drafting and development. Let's get that in place first.

You could also say that if we tank and get high end draft picks we would then be able to draft and develop higher end type of players.

 

You could also say that our bad development could be a result of bad judgement by our scouting team. We are drafting and trading for players that our scouting team says they can fill a need but then turns out they can't.

Share this post


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

 

You do me an injustice in one specific sense , which is thinking that I hated the Subban deal just because I loved Subban, period. In fact, had we moved Subban to address an actual (as opposed to make-believe) problem - i.e., trading him in order to improve the team - I'd have regretted seeing him go, but no way would I have been hurling anathemas at Bergevin. Instead of that kind of intelligent, purposeful trade, however, what we got was at best a pointless lateral move.

 

The issue is what the trade revealed. I'd thought Bergevin was a new-school guy who understood how the game was going. Nope. That trade revealed him to be a GM who was locked into ossified, old-school, old-boy bullshit; of not liking Subban because he was brash instead of being a Good Old Boy; of thinking that because Weber is Big and Strong and because he is a LEADER he must axiomatically be a better player than a guy who can actually run the offence and plays a three zone game; of ignoring Weber's advancing age; of paying zero attention to advanced stats; and above all of caring more about his own ego and that of a coach he would soon fire anyway, than making the team better. I was appalled, because I know the team will never win anything with that kind of Don Cherry mindset at the helm.

 

So it's not about that trade per se; it's about what that trade showed us about Marc Bergevin.

 

Man...  I wish I could write in English like this.  It sums up exactly how I feel.

 

Bergevin seems to be the only GM who didn't get that the actual NHL relies on skilled puck moving defensemen  and shipped out of town pretty much all of them but Petry within a 2 years window.  Subban, Sergachev, Beaulieu and Markov.  Replaced them with big guys, stay-at-home dmen who "can make a good 1st pass".  Like this is enough the way the game is played nowadays.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Man...  I wish I could write in English like this.  It sums up exactly how I feel.

 

Bergevin seems to be the only GM who didn't get that the actual NHL relies on skilled puck moving defensemen  and shipped out of town pretty much all of them but Petry within a 2 years window.  Subban, Sergachev, Beaulieu and Markov.  Replaced them with big guys, stay-at-home dmen who "can make a good 1st pass".  Like this is enough the way the game is played nowadays.

 

Thanks, Joe. That's a pretty good paragraph you wrote right there, incidentally ;)

Share this post


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

 

You do me an injustice in one specific sense , which is thinking that I hated the Subban deal just because I loved Subban, period. In fact, had we moved Subban to address an actual (as opposed to make-believe) problem - i.e., trading him in order to improve the team - I'd have regretted seeing him go, but no way would I have been hurling anathemas at Bergevin. Instead of that kind of intelligent, purposeful trade, however, what we got was at best a pointless lateral move.

 

The issue is what the trade revealed. I'd thought Bergevin was a new-school guy who understood how the game was going. Nope. That trade revealed him to be a GM who was locked into ossified, old-school, old-boy bullshit; of not liking Subban because he was brash instead of being a Good Old Boy; of thinking that because Weber is Big and Strong and because he is a LEADER he must axiomatically be a better player than a guy who can actually run the offence and plays a three zone game; of ignoring Weber's advancing age; of paying zero attention to advanced stats; and above all of caring more about his own ego and that of a coach he would soon fire anyway, than making the team better. I was appalled, because I know the team will never win anything with that kind of Don Cherry mindset at the helm.

 

So it's not about that trade per se; it's about what that trade showed us about Marc Bergevin.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled cheerleading ;)

The only thing is that while there may be an injustice towards you in terms of having a view that you disliked the Subban deal simply because you loved Subban, there's also an injustice coming from your side in terms of saying that the Habs have never had a sniff of a chance under Bergevin. I'm not a fan of his, period. With that being said, it's extremely easy to look at the team we have right now and say "you know what? We've had a crap team Bergevin's entire tenure." 

 

There are contending teams who crap out in the first round. Losing in the first round in and of itself is not enough of a justification to state "the team never had a chance". If you were well aware that the team had zero chance both seasons that we lost to the Rangers, one of them being in the conference final, then all the more power to you. What it's not fair to assume is that those fans who believed we had a shot are "Ballard Leaf fans". The Habs are not the Leafs and they had to go through a lot more torment over the years than our fan base. It will take another decade of futility to reach the level that the Leafs stooped down to and reached. If some Leaf fans were happy throughout it all, well that's not similar to anyone here.  

 

It's also unfair to state that there was a particular move that showed who Bergevin truly is, revealing himself to the world. Prior to the Subban deal, Bergevin signed Kassian and Semin. A few weeks into the season, neither of those players were on the team. This was the first strike for me against Bergevin because it showed that he either a) did not have a plan or b) did not trust his own plan. My point here is that while I didn't like what transpired, most people did. Most people thought Semin was washed up and that Kassian broke his only leash. Others had a different perspective. The same can be said for other moves of his. Subban vs Weber has supporters and haters, as does Sergachev vs Drouin. If those people were so perceptive after the Subban trade about what it "revealed" about Bergevin, why were they not so perceptive when we let go Semin and Kassian, or even signed them in the first place? Why is it that it's the Subban deal that made people notice? Because I remember many of the same people who disliked the Subban deal supporting Bergevin when he let Semin walk. You've chosen the Subban deal to prove any point about Bergevin when in reality that trade has not been his worst decision. 

 

When it comes to the Subban deal, we got a great player in return. It's easy as a fan to sit around here and rant about how there was no reason to do so but perhaps there was. Those who feel so strongly about the deal never accept the fact that there is a chance that moving Subban was something that needed to be done. Brent Burns and Dustin Byfuflien are certainly not new style hockey players and yet they can be core pieces on cup winning teams. It's also stated that you would have accepted a deal that involved something that helped the team yet the truth is that prior to the trade, even thinking about moving Subban was something you said no team should ever do basically beyond any circumstance, so I think it is not too far off to state that you did hate the move in great part because of how adamant you were that Subban should never be moved, prior to the trade. In Weber, we received someone who could play the same position as Subban. It seems to me that it would have been difficult to improve the team while maintaining a void on the RD after moving Subban. It pretty much was a lateral move (made because of a few off ice reasons, as well as goal scoring and PP help) but then again so are many other moves that are made every day in the NHL.

Share this post


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

 

Like I previously said, everyone is a genius after the fact. 

 

Drafted Galchenyuk at #3 and it's management's fault of course that he never succeeded. 

 

We traded McDonaugh, who from a position of strength, for what was at the time a pretty good center in Gomez. Tried to fill the need but it failed. Wish Gainey was psychic and seen that coming. Traded Subban for Weber, great player for player, no need to get into that sore spot for some. Traded unknown Sergachev for established Drouin and tried him at center. Maybe wrong to thrust him into that position but still not a bad trade regardless of how much you hate him.

 

 

 

Holy balls.  You have some serious selective memory if you thought Gomez was pretty good at the time that trade was made for him.  I don't recall too many people thinking that was a good deal from the moment it was announced.  There were A LOT of people scratching their heads about the Sergachev deal too.  I agree, we'll leave the Subban deal alone because it's been beaten to death (because again, so many disagreed with it).  Let's just say your optimism is impressive given the perspectives at the time and the actual hindsight of those deals.  I have some Blackberry stock if you want to buy it at $16 a share...it's a good deal, they're turning it around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zowpeb said:

 

Holy balls.  You have some serious selective memory if you thought Gomez was pretty good at the time that trade was made for him.  I don't recall too many people thinking that was a good deal from the moment it was announced.  There were A LOT of people scratching their heads about the Sergachev deal too.  I agree, we'll leave the Subban deal alone because it's been beaten to death (because again, so many disagreed with it).  Let's just say your optimism is impressive given the perspectives at the time and the actual hindsight of those deals.  I have some Blackberry stock if you want to buy it at $16 a share...it's a good deal, they're turning it around.

 

You'd be quite correct on that: 

 

Share this post


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

The only thing is that while there may be an injustice towards you in terms of having a view that you disliked the Subban deal simply because you loved Subban, there's also an injustice coming from your side in terms of saying that the Habs have never had a sniff of a chance under Bergevin. I'm not a fan of his, period. With that being said, it's extremely easy to look at the team we have right now and say "you know what? We've had a crap team Bergevin's entire tenure." 

 

There are contending teams who crap out in the first round. Losing in the first round in and of itself is not enough of a justification to state "the team never had a chance". If you were well aware that the team had zero chance both seasons that we lost to the Rangers, one of them being in the conference final, then all the more power to you. What it's not fair to assume is that those fans who believed we had a shot are "Ballard Leaf fans". The Habs are not the Leafs and they had to go through a lot more torment over the years than our fan base. It will take another decade of futility to reach the level that the Leafs stooped down to and reached. If some Leaf fans were happy throughout it all, well that's not similar to anyone here.  

 

It's also unfair to state that there was a particular move that showed who Bergevin truly is, revealing himself to the world. Prior to the Subban deal, Bergevin signed Kassian and Semin. A few weeks into the season, neither of those players were on the team. This was the first strike for me against Bergevin because it showed that he either a) did not have a plan or b) did not trust his own plan. My point here is that while I didn't like what transpired, most people did. Most people thought Semin was washed up and that Kassian broke his only leash. Others had a different perspective.

 

I agree that we had a chance. To believe we didn't is ultimately to agree with Bergevin, who thought this was a long term rebuilding club who was surprised by how fast the team started competing because he thought he had one veteran defenceman in Markov and nothing else, and didn't think much to the offence of the club either. Always thought they weren't tough enough.

 

13-14 proved the club had the ability to make noise in the league. They got the ECF and with a better coach and a faster healing Price they should have beat the Rangers. Lost in the final, but got there. The summer of 2014, after making a great trade for Vanek, Bergevin should have started stacking the firepower on the club and either traded for a centre or surrounded Galchenyuk with elite winger. He did neither. He signed Tom Gilbert, Manny Malhotra, and Jiri Sekac while bringing in PA Parenteau for Danny Briere. That's it. And Montreal, despite having only the fifth most goals scored in their own division, won it due to having the best goalie performance in the past 10 years. He didn't make a significant top six forward trade all year. He only added a top deadline defenceman (Petry was a good trade) to the right side when the left side was the bigger emergency (Markov was getting older and Beaulieu hadn't broken out).

 

But the Habs still made it to the second round and lost to the better team in Tampa. It happens. Happened to Nashville and Pittsburgh this year. But there was a lesson in the Tampa loss and that was Montreal did not have enough scoring. They needed more offence. They needed someone to score dirty goals in the crease, they needed another sniper, they needed something down the middle. 15-16 they had to show the league they could score goals and get better than the past two seasons.

 

What does Bergevin do? You said it: Semin and Kassian. That's it. That's all.

 

That is when I lost faith in Bergevin. It wasn't the Subban trade. Had this club gone all out for offence in 15-16 I would have been really sad to see Subban traded and would have grumbled a lot about it, but I would have still had faith that the management of the Canadiens could win a Stanley Cup. Two years of bringing in absolutely nothing for the offence when the team was in a prime period with good cap management and the best goalie in the world and they threw it away. Because unlike me, Bergevin didn't believe they were a Cup contender. He just wanted to make the playoffs and see what happens.

 

And because of that, even bringing in Radulov, a guy I had talked up years prior to wanting on the Habs, and was pretty excited to watch him for one year, it didn't turn my view around. Signing him for one year and being unable to keep him just confirmed my feelings. And now the in prime young talent are now disappointing veterans, the top three pick has been traded for a Domi, the defence is an embarrassment, and the only thing anyone has good to say anymore is wait and see.

 

Sorry if I don't have any hope for a club that has proven to me they don't know what to do with the hope they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree totally with Machine's post above.

 

As I tried to suggest above, the Subban deal was symbolic of fundamentally wrong thinking. The best non-goalie the Habs had developed in 30 years was traded for no good hockey reason, in a deal that at best was a lateral move. This is hardly to deny that Bergevin made other, even stupider moves. Indeed, he completely screwed the pooch over the summer of 2016, and then screwed the pooch even harder over the summer of 2017. Comically hapless general managing.

 

It's also not about who had prophetic insight. It's about whether MB has done a good job. And the results are in on that question.

 

When I argued that we'd have been better off keeping Subban, Sergy, and McDonagh, the point was not to retroactively wag my finger at present and past GMs. The point, which many posters ignored in their hysterical impulse to defend Bergevin at all costs, was simply that it's better to draft and develop than to look for short-cuts, if we want to build a contender.

 

I'm not going to waste time arguing over whether a team that missed the playoffs in 2016, lost in the first round to a non-contender in 2017, and then missed the playoffs again in 2018 was somehow a contender in disguise. No one had the Habs pegged as high-end contenders in 2017. At most we had an "outside chance" where absolutely everything had to go right. But that is just to say the team made the playoffs. Again, for some of us, that's enough, that's all we can ask. I don't accept this. And this is the nub of the disagreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the stern criticism of Bergecin's last two years.

He struck out on Radulov and Sergachev; but I think he did the right thing in letting go Markov and Emelin.

I also think he did well in the Plekanec trade.

 

what I give him credit for in the last two years is in notbtrading away picks but actually reversing the trend and stockpiling picks.

 

I think he is redeeming himself of recent mistakes in my view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posts. 

 

1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I agree that we had a chance. To believe we didn't is ultimately to agree with Bergevin, who thought this was a long term rebuilding club who was surprised by how fast the team started competing because he thought he had one veteran defenceman in Markov and nothing else, and didn't think much to the offence of the club either. Always thought they weren't tough enough.

 

13-14 proved the club had the ability to make noise in the league. They got the ECF and with a better coach and a faster healing Price they should have beat the Rangers. Lost in the final, but got there. The summer of 2014, after making a great trade for Vanek, Bergevin should have started stacking the firepower on the club and either traded for a centre or surrounded Galchenyuk with elite winger. He did neither. He signed Tom Gilbert, Manny Malhotra, and Jiri Sekac while bringing in PA Parenteau for Danny Briere. That's it. And Montreal, despite having only the fifth most goals scored in their own division, won it due to having the best goalie performance in the past 10 years. He didn't make a significant top six forward trade all year. He only added a top deadline defenceman (Petry was a good trade) to the right side when the left side was the bigger emergency (Markov was getting older and Beaulieu hadn't broken out).

 

But the Habs still made it to the second round and lost to the better team in Tampa. It happens. Happened to Nashville and Pittsburgh this year. But there was a lesson in the Tampa loss and that was Montreal did not have enough scoring. They needed more offence. They needed someone to score dirty goals in the crease, they needed another sniper, they needed something down the middle. 15-16 they had to show the league they could score goals and get better than the past two seasons.

 

What does Bergevin do? You said it: Semin and Kassian. That's it. That's all.

 

That is when I lost faith in Bergevin. It wasn't the Subban trade. Had this club gone all out for offence in 15-16 I would have been really sad to see Subban traded and would have grumbled a lot about it, but I would have still had faith that the management of the Canadiens could win a Stanley Cup. Two years of bringing in absolutely nothing for the offence when the team was in a prime period with good cap management and the best goalie in the world and they threw it away. Because unlike me, Bergevin didn't believe they were a Cup contender. He just wanted to make the playoffs and see what happens.

 

And because of that, even bringing in Radulov, a guy I had talked up years prior to wanting on the Habs, and was pretty excited to watch him for one year, it didn't turn my view around. Signing him for one year and being unable to keep him just confirmed my feelings. And now the in prime young talent are now disappointing veterans, the top three pick has been traded for a Domi, the defence is an embarrassment, and the only thing anyone has good to say anymore is wait and see.

 

Sorry if I don't have any hope for a club that has proven to me they don't know what to do with the hope they get.

 

Heading into last year, I made it loud and clear that it was the first year in my life where I believed we legitimately did not have a chance at competing for a Stanley Cup just based on an off season. Letting Radulov go for nothing is probably what I disliked the most out of anything that’s transpired in the recent past. I didn’t even enter into the discussions prior to July 1st on whether or not we should resign him because I knew we would. Considering we had available cap space, it seemed common sense that a team who lost in the first round would be only worse the following season without resigning someone who was as impactful as he was in his short stint with us. [I get that Radulov “chose” to walk]

 

With that being said, there’s a difference between having no hope come September versus predicting that we’ll never be alright. we Need one or two more additions to be back in the playoff picture. Since the playoff picture isn’t enough, we then have a trade deadline to further address needs. If we’re saying we don’t trust management, that’s fine. If we’re saying we want someone fired, that’s fine. If we’re wishing ill on the Habs just because someone is still there and we have no power over it, that’s where I differ. I don’t necessarily expect that Bergevin will hit a homerun with any move he intends to make. The free agent group is really thin as well, if we consider that Stastny and Tavares are going to resign with teams they are already familiar with. With that being said, a team that does sign a Bozak or Nash or Enstrom or JVR or James Neal or de Haan or Grabner or Filpulla (only in addition to another center as well and cheap) or Stastny or Tavares or a few others, suddenly looks a little more competitive than last year. O’Reilly would change the shape of the team as well, the difference is it would also cost us current assets. 

 

I wouldnt argue that I have eternal hope, but after our most recent draft, the next stage of my judgement will come starting in a few days, on July 1st. It’s not hope, but there’s always the possibility that we sign a few names that fit in nicely as well as the possibility that someone unexpected plays a role that no one envisioned next year, all the while predicting gloom towards a “position of need” and a lack of addressing it.

 

 

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I agree totally with Machine's post above.

 

As I tried to suggest above, the Subban deal was symbolic of fundamentally wrong thinking. The best non-goalie the Habs had developed in 30 years was traded for no good hockey reason, in a deal that at best was a lateral move. This is hardly to deny that Bergevin made other, even stupider moves. Indeed, he completely screwed the pooch over the summer of 2016, and then screwed the pooch even harder over the summer of 2017. Comically hapless general managing.

 

It's also not about who had prophetic insight. It's about whether MB has done a good job. And the results are in on that question.

 

When I argued that we'd have been better off keeping Subban, Sergy, and McDonagh, the point was not to retroactively wag my finger at present and past GMs. The point, which many posters ignored in their hysterical impulse to defend Bergevin at all costs, was simply that it's better to draft and develop than to look for short-cuts, if we want to build a contender.

 

I'm not going to waste time arguing over whether a team that missed the playoffs in 2016, lost in the first round to a non-contender in 2017, and then missed the playoffs again in 2018 was somehow a contender in disguise. No one had the Habs pegged as high-end contenders in 2017. At most we had an "outside chance" where absolutely everything had to go right. But that is just to say the team made the playoffs. Again, for some of us, that's enough, that's all we can ask. I don't accept this. And this is the nub of the disagreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The expectations of producing an annual contender are something that has to be questioned, as to whether or not it’s completely realistic. I’m ready to throw myself under the crow bus come next June and I do understand that they have players like Marchessault and Karlsson and MAF but there are people who are calling Vegas contenders in the sense that they will be there again, and I personally don’t buy into it. My point here is that things change very quickly in the modern NHL. We see that in the sense that both Tampa and Boston were not in the playoffs last year. 

 

There are perennial contenders such as Pittsburgh and the Hawks of the past (look at them last year) but one of those teams has Crosby. If Crosby were a goalie named Price, or if Price weren’t a goalie, but a player, we would already have a Stanley Cup this millennium. 

 

Teams like Nashville and Tampa Bay, who people view as perennial contenders, the Habs were right there where they are, just a few years ago. Tampa, I’ll admit is somewhere in between us and Pittsburgh, and that’s not to be hard on Nashville; Tampa has simply already won with Stamkos. But there are teams who have made the final once, like San Jose and Nashville, and there are teams who have made the conference final twice without making the final like Montreal. These teams haven’t been so far apart on potential and what you have deemed being a second tier contender is first of all good enough to challenge for a cup (re: Vegas) as well as debateable (who’s first tier and second tier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habs should sign Jordan Subban on July 1st, that would make for some entertainment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JGC21 said:

Habs should sign Jordan Subban on July 1st, that would make for some entertainment!

Im sure his big brother will give him some advise about signing with MB...

Share this post


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

Im sure his big brother will give him some advise about signing with MB...

 

Exactly.  Greatest fans in the world, awesome facilities to play in, a competitve AHL team, beautiful French women and the chance at a $9M/year bloated contract.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

With that being said, there’s a difference between having no hope come September versus predicting that we’ll never be alright. we Need one or two more additions to be back in the playoff picture. Since the playoff picture isn’t enough, we then have a trade deadline to further address needs. If we’re saying we don’t trust management, that’s fine. If we’re saying we want someone fired, that’s fine. If we’re wishing ill on the Habs just because someone is still there and we have no power over it, that’s where I differ.

 

I would rather see this club collapse completely and be forced to fire all of management and rebuild for the future than continue treading water. 

 

The brand will still be there. The Montreal Canadiens will exist for another 100 years. The Bell Centre could have 5,000 people in it every game and the team is going nowhere. You can replace every piece of this team and it's still the Montreal Canadiens. Ship of Theseus. I would rather do that than continue with this charade of a team.

 

The problem with the way this club is built is that Carey Price could return to form, and despite having weaker defence, put up 40 wins and get this team into the playoff picture. I believe that. What I don't believe is that one or two additions, even good additions, is enough, with that combined, to make this a Cup contending team.

 

I think the organization is rotten from the inside and doesn't have the overall talent, nor awareness in management, to do more than win 40-50 games in the regular season with 8-10 in the post season. And while some here are fine with that until the end of time, because that's all they want out of their entertainment, I can't support that. Either you are built to win the Stanley Cup, or you are building the team to win the Stanley Cup. Organizations happy with the middle are either struggling to survive or dead inside. This club is dead inside. 

 

So yeah, my hope is for the Habs to get as close as possible to losing 82 games. My hope is for all the best players here to leave and the worst players to stay and keep being bad. Because that will lead to a better chance at a player that can actually make a difference. And it will lead to management being replaced by new minds and new voices. And eventually it'll become a team I'm happy to wear the colours of again.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JGC21 said:

 

Exactly.  Greatest fans in the world, awesome facilities to play in, a competitve AHL team, beautiful French women and the chance at a $9M/year bloated contract.

And Jordan, learn from my mistakes and try not to be an uncoachable prima donna.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JGC21 said:

 

Exactly.  Greatest fans in the world, awesome facilities to play in, a competitve AHL team, beautiful French women and the chance at a $9M/year bloated contract.

 

9 minutes ago, DON said:

And Jordan, learn from my mistakes and try not to be an uncoachable prima donna.

 

Subban has both lived up to his contact and proven to be coachable, but I'm sure it's hard for you guys to watch him play when your respective heads are buried that far in the sand.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Subban has both lived up to his contact and proven to NOW be coachable, but I'm sure it's hard for you guys to watch him play when your respective heads are buried that far in the sand.

Come on Cucumber....whoops. Anyways fixed that for ya.:B)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Subban has both lived up to his contact and proven to be coachable, but I'm sure it's hard for you guys to watch him play when your respective heads are buried that far in the sand.

 

Subban was always coachable, from the OHL to the NHL. It's just tough to listen to a guy like Michel Therrien. Therrien actually tried to claim that before he got to Montreal, Subban was a healthy scratch player. He also said that he showed Subban vision, and while he could be challenging to coach, he had his best years coached by him. 

 

Subban said he missed Therrien's sense of humour.

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  

×