Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Metallica

What's management doing with how they're building this team????

Recommended Posts

On 10/7/2019 at 5:14 PM, John B said:

I was just thinking about this while I was at work today.  It's funny that I come onto this site and see that somebody started a thread about it.

 

I want to start by giving some kudos to Bergevin for sticking to his plan.  I'm not completely clear on what his plan is, but it seems like he's not willing to mortgage the future at this point.  I think it's a smart move, because I don't see any way this team is going to win a Cup this year short of acquiring Connor McDavid and adding a top pair LD without giving up anything of real consequence the other way.  As far as giving a name to what Bergevin is doing goes...I'm going to call it a re-tool, which I'm not a big fan of.  IMO a re-tool is a direction a GM chooses when he doesn't know what direction to choose (rebuild or all in are the directions IMO).  Sometimes this plan of action works though.  It's what the Habs and a lot of other teams have been doing for a long time now.

 

Since Bergevin seems to be placing a higher value on the future than the present, it might be a good ideal for him to start moving on from some veterans that may not serve a purpose or play as big of a role when this team enters their Cup window (which might be a few years from now).  I would be looking at moving Petry and Tatar in the next couple years.  Petry's contract expires after next season and he becomes a UFA at 33 years old.  If he continues to produce like he has the last couple of seasons, you can bet that he'll want well over $6 million/season with term.  That might be fine for a year or two, but after that I don't think he'll be worth that cap hit.  So unless Habs can convince him to take a 2 year extension it's not going to a pretty contract.  Tatar will only be 30 when his contract expires, but again he'll likely be looking for a raise and term (likely 5 to 6 years) if he decides to return at all. The trade value of both of these players will never be higher than it is now and both players will have a limited window of effectiveness during Montreal's prime contention years.  If Bergevin gets a good offer for Weber or Price, he has to strongly consider it.  Their cap hits could hurt this team during their Cup window.  I think Price will age gracefully like Brodeur or Luongo did and still be a good/solid starting goaltender for the duration of his contract, but good/solid starters aren't worth a $10.5 million cap hit.  More like ~$6 million.   As for Weber, we are already starting to see signs of the decline.  Honestly I don't think the Habs could get fair value (or at least worthwhile value) for Price or Weber due to their cap hits and term and Price's NMC.  Price isn't going anywhere unless he asks to.

 

Overall it's all about cap and asset management right now.  If the Habs are smart with the way they handle contracts and don't sign anymore Alzners while handing out any ridiculous contracts, the cap should be good.  It will just be a matter of getting younger at some key roster positions to try and have a lengthy Cup window.

I would add Lehkonen and Byron to Petry and Tatar.

I would be happy with Weber being the big brother on the bottom 4 D once Alzner contract clears. If the defence prospects develop; cap hit would be ok.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously miss Radulov.... with a pinch of Markov

 

But we have  Kotkamania now plus

-Tatar

-suzuki

-struble

 

As an "almost direct"  result of leaving us

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank Bergevin's stubbornness/arrogance, for that one. A top line winger, who absolutely brings it every shift. He was literally the only player to show up for the Habs, in the playoffs. 

 

You cant say anything bad about Bergevin on this forum, so I'm sure this will be down voted multiple times, but the Markov and Radulov situation was ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Habber31 said:

Thank Bergevin's stubbornness/arrogance, for that one. A top line winger, who absolutely brings it every shift. He was literally the only player to show up for the Habs, in the playoffs. 

 

You cant say anything bad about Bergevin on this forum, so I'm sure this will be down voted multiple times, but the Markov and Radulov situation was ridiculous. 

 

Apparently we read different forums, where nearly every topic devolves into a Bergevin hatefest. If there are any defenders, it's mainly because it's such a rehashed topic that it's really tiring to read.

 

The only defense I generally see is that he didn't screw up by trading away picks/prospects lately. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Apparently we read different forums, where nearly every topic devolves into a Bergevin hatefest. If there are any defenders, it's mainly because it's such a rehashed topic that it's really tiring to read.

 

The only defense I generally see is that he didn't screw up by trading away picks/prospects lately. 

Apparently. Any time I post something about Bergevin, immediate down vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habber31 said:

Apparently. Any time I post something about Bergevin, immediate down vote. 

 

Meh, I don't pay attention to upvotes/downvotes/likes. It's only a pissing contest once those start flying. But just hearing "Bergevin sucks" as a punctuation to a lot of posts is annoying. Stating your premise is fine, and then just stop before adding the obligatory Bergevin dig. For instance if your post above was simply:

 

The Markov and Radulov situation was ridiculous. A top line winger, who absolutely brings it every shift. He was literally the only player to show up for the Habs, in the playoffs. 

 

without the added Bergevin comments, it wouldn't be as inflammatory.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Meh, I don't pay attention to upvotes/downvotes/likes. It's only a pissing contest once those start flying. But just hearing "Bergevin sucks" as a punctuation to a lot of posts is annoying. Stating your premise is fine, and then just stop before adding the obligatory Bergevin dig. For instance if your post above was simply:

 

The Markov and Radulov situation was ridiculous. A top line winger, who absolutely brings it every shift. He was literally the only player to show up for the Habs, in the playoffs. 

 

without the added Bergevin comments, it wouldn't be as inflammatory.

I guess so. Ah, well. I've  said it once and I'll say it again, we're all here for the same reason:habslogo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Habber31 said:

A top line winger, who absolutely brings it every shift. He was literally the only player to show up for the Habs, in the playoffs. 

Who asked for a 8year deal and likely just another UFA who didn't want to play in Quebec.

 

The only thing that pissed me off was giving Markov an ultimatum and Bergevin had no plan B. :bonk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Habber31 said:

Apparently. Any time I post something about Bergevin, immediate down vote. 

I know exactly how you feel about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 2:35 PM, Commandant said:

 

Zdeno Chara has aged out of being the Bruins the #1 defenceman but is still a quality top 4 guy. 

 

They have a number 1 guy who they drafted 14th overall.  Their number 2 was acquired as an undrafted free agent. 

Shea Weber himself was a 2nd round pick.  The guy we traded for him, our previous #1, was a second round pick. The guy before that, Markov, was a 7th rounder. 

Lets look at the other final four teams last year...


The Blues top defenceman is debateable.  Some will say Pietrangelo (a 3rd overall pick)... others will say its Parayko, who was picked at the bottom of the third round. In any event I maintain that Parayko could be a #1 D on many teams in the NHL. 
The Canes have Jaccob Slavin, drafted in the 4th round as their top guy. 
The Sharks have Karlsson (who they traded for) and was a 15th pick, and Brent Burns (who they also traded for) and was a 20th overall pick. 

You can go further through the league and find many top defencemen taken outside of the top 10 of the draft.  

 

The fact is that defencemen develop later, and there is no way of knowing that none of our D can be #1s.... I'd argue that its too early to really tell with any of them, but Romanov, Brook, Fleury, and Struble all have some of the skills teams look for in number 1 ds.  Its not a guarantee that they will develop into that role, but its possible and by having a bunch of them, you can have a number 1 D. 

 

 

 

Getting the number 1 C is much harder than getting the number 1 D.  The key to this rebuild remains in the hands of Kotkaniemi. 

 

 

 

I appreciate the optimism, and who knows, maybe we can develop some configuration on D whereby we have three #2 D-men or something. Win with depth rather than top-end killer talent. I tend to disagree that a #1C is harder to find than a #1 D-man, though. Our GM has not even been able to find a legit #2 LD, let alone a legit #1.

 

As for the recent posts here about Markov, it makes no difference now, because Markov would be washed up in any case. The Radulov issue remains resonant. I think Bergevin - uh-oh, now I'll get downvoted!! - has a pattern of being overly cautious with gifted players whose "character" does not fit the orthodox mode of old-school NHL robot. Hence, the dumb-ass bridge deal for Subban, and hence the reluctance to lock down Radulov. Stupid, but what can you do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bergy said his best deal so far, was the one for Weber.

Share this post


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

Bergy said his best deal so far, was the one for Weber.

His best Deal would be Domi. His ego tells him its Weber.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was probably Byron 

 

The Pacs trade, if the habs arent in the playoffs should be able to get a first rounder for tatar as well as suzuki 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I appreciate the optimism, and who knows, maybe we can develop some configuration on D whereby we have three #2 D-men or something. Win with depth rather than top-end killer talent. I tend to disagree that a #1C is harder to find than a #1 D-man, though. Our GM has not even been able to find a legit #2 LD, let alone a legit #1.

 

As for the recent posts here about Markov, it makes no difference now, because Markov would be washed up in any case. The Radulov issue remains resonant. 

 

I honestly see petry as a number 2. One more is needed badly though.  If mete becomes that, thank God, but right now he is a 5.

Share this post


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

It was probably Byron 

 

The Pacs trade, if the habs arent in the playoffs should be able to get a first rounder for tatar as well as suzuki 

 

 

Byron was waivers

Trade Suzuki? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, trade tatar at the deadline, you wind up with 1st and suzuki 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Habber31 said:

Byron was waivers

Trade Suzuki? 

 

It depends on how Suzuki turns out.

 

It's Domi, hands-down. Although the Petry trade is kind of forgotten, isn't it? Speaking of which -

 

34 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

I honestly see petry as a number 2. One more is needed badly though.  If mete becomes that, thank God, but right now he is a 5.

 

It's true, Petry is a legit #2. But the fact that our GM can't even go out and get an impact top-4 LD - say, a guy with a #3 profile - reinforces my suggestion that acquiring a #1 defenceman may not be discernably easier than acquiring a #1C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Petry's play over the last two years, including a full calendar year of Weber on the sidelines is that of a number 1.

 

As for it being easier to get a a #1d than a #1c... the equation here is simple.

 

Montreal for 40 years now, since free agency became a thing in the NHL has had an incredibly tough time getting free agents.  Doesnt seem to matter if its serge savard, houle, andre savard, bob gainey, gauthier or bergevin.  So your #1 d or #1 c isnt coming that route.

 

In trades... both cost a pretty penny.  So lets call that even.

 

In the draft.  Quick look at every #1c in the league and where they were drafted.  The Bergerons and Ahos who come from the second round or later are few and far between.  Most true #1cs are top 10, even top 5 picks.

 

Look at the D.  Way more come from later in the draft.  Way more werent hyped to be #1 d and developed that after being drafted.  Late bloomers on d are more common.  So thats why i say it will be easier to find a #1d even without a top 10 pick... where at centre we swung our swing on kk

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I think Bergevin - uh-oh, now I'll get downvoted!! - has a pattern of being overly cautious with gifted players whose "character" does not fit the orthodox mode of old-school NHL robot.

 

I tend to agree with the bolded part; I personally don't think it's quite a robot he's looking for, but it definitely is character, at least in recent years.

 

And I think this is why he views Weber as his best trade, not because of any Weber/Subban on-ice skill differential, but because of Weber's character and the intangible benefits from that. Whether any of us agree with that thinking is a whole different question, but I do think that if we compare today's team to the one two or three years ago, the team's character is very different than what it was. Weber was only the first step on that path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 5:35 PM, Commandant said:

The fact is that defencemen develop later, and there is no way of knowing that none of our D can be #1s.... I'd argue that its too early to really tell with any of them, but Romanov, Brook, Fleury, and Struble all have some of the skills teams look for in number 1 ds.  Its not a guarantee that they will develop into that role, but its possible and by having a bunch of them, you can have a number 1 D.

 

Getting the number 1 C is much harder than getting the number 1 D.  The key to this rebuild remains in the hands of Kotkaniemi.

 

I'm not sure it's harder ... it's different kind of hard. To get a #1C, you need to do good drafting and have a high draft position, that's not easy, either. To get that #1D, draft position is less critical, but you need to again do excellent scouting, and then pile up the prospects because the probability of hitting the jackpot on any given individual prospect is quite low, and it usually takes a number of years before they mature. Kind of like goalie prospects.

 

We have a fairly solid number of picks for the next few years now. And we have been picking up undrafted prospects, too. Whether one of them turns out to be #1D is an unknown, but as Commandant says, the more you have, the more likely it is that one of them develops into a #1D -- or at least a #2D.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno...I haven't made a study of it, but most teams seem to have had a MUCH easier time of adding #1C than the Habs. And a few teams have two legitimate #1C. I'm not saying that they are easy to acquire, but the Habs are probably an extreme outlier in terms of our pathological inability to draft, develop, or trade for one. Most organizations haven't found it *that* hard. (The Habs are reminiscent in this of the Vancouver Canucks' chronic ability to add bona-fide #1D - a problem that Quinn Hughes has finally solved, presumably. Hopefully KK is similar).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took the Habs a long, long time to get the centre depth that we now have and I really hope that we don't wait another decade to address the really clear need for a puck moving, offensively minded LD. MB tried to address this need with Gardiner but he simply didn't want to play for us. Some fans and perhaps MB himself will say that he tried to address the need so they shrug and accept it.

 

Trying is not enough and it is the general manager's job to fix it. If free agency didn't work out then it needs to be fixed other ways - we can wait and hope on drafting the need (that may take a couple years or another decade) or we can go out and trade to fill the need.

 

I don't want to mortgage the future...This gets said a lot and my question is, how close to a contender are we? Would a strong puck moving LD be the difference between a bubble team or a playoff team? Would that LD have an immediate impact on our PP? I'm not suggesting making really hurtful trades to address the need but we do have assets available to work with.

 

The second thing that is clear to me is we need an impactful winger (sniper is ideal but I don't want to trade for one). Our wingers are moved up and down the lineup because in my opinion all of our wingers are roughly the same level (outside of gallagher). I propose an experiment where we move a very strong player in Domi (what a great trade) to the wing, centred by Kman and Peohling centring the third line. I can understand the strong argument that Domi is our best centre so why move him to the wing? My answer is simply that we need better wing depth and we have centre depth. I want to give up assets to address our LD needs so I don't want to give up more assets to address our need for a better winger because I believe that we have the players to fix this internally.

 

The risk in my plan is that Kman and Poehling are young rookies that are growing and learning. I would say that the risk is mitigated by both of them being insulated by responsible, reliable wingers.

 

I am excited about this team and enjoy watching them and I'm saying that we are close to being a playoff team instead of a bubble team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I don't want to mortgage the future...Yet a significant trade would surely involve prospects/picks.

This gets said a lot and my question is, how close to a contender are we? Not very.

Would a strong puck moving LD be the difference between a bubble team or a playoff team? Yes

Would that LD have an immediate impact on our PP? Yes

I'm not suggesting making really hurtful trades to address the need but we do have assets available to work with. Be patient, develop prospects and make the picks; or look more short term. I would love to preach patience; but if a young or youngish top pairing LH d-man was available, it likely would be worth dealing a Poehling or other young forward

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are a bubble team at best

 

They finally have good prospects, no reason to move them 

 

At the deadline when they are out of it, they need to acquire more picks and prospects, 

 

They have Byron Tatar can be moved at the deadline, 

 

the 2 big elephants in the room would be Price and Weber both of whom i believe said they wanted to win now, there window is closing. The habs aren't close, might be time to move them. 

 

If they miss the playoffs again, is that the end of MB, CJ and the coaching staff? 

Share this post


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

If they miss the playoffs again, is that the end of MB, CJ and the coaching staff? 

 

I don't think it's the end of MB. As I've suggested several times before, expectations have grown absurdly low in Montreal. It seems to be enough to have a team that has the following characteristics:

 

1. It's plucky and serviceably entertaining

2. It's competitive most nights

3. It has a good prospect pool, so people can tell themselves, "just wait, in three or four years, we'll be great" - even though we have heard this mantra several times since 1995, and the projected "greatness" has not once materialized.

 

Making the playoffs is a bonus. Contending is not even on the radar.

 

I believe that, deep down, a huge portion of the fanbase has internalized the idea that the Habs (for some reason) cannot reasonably be expected to contend for a Cup. That is perfect for MB. He has managed to lower expectations sufficiently that he can reliably meet them. And there is the suspicion that the Kegmeister is mostly interested in the huge profits flowing in.

 

More likely is some firings to the coaching staff. This would, IMHO, be a stupid move. CJ knows what he is doing, and coaching is the very least of our problems.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...