Jump to content

Is our plan flawed?


REV-G

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Getting lucky is a bullshit argument just to take credit away from good work and good pro scouting.

 

If he loses the deal... fire bergevin

If he wins the deal... he got lucky.

 

Its just bullshit to not give the guy credit.  Come on now.

Ok so he knew what he was doing by getting the Golden Knights to throw in Tatar 👌 In which he said he never really wanted.

 

Oh yeah great job on the development of galchenyuk 👍 which is why he traded him.

 

the credit i will give him is for the Armia trade and Danault trade. Those are the type of trades I want to see more of and less of the 4th liners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

He’s built a consistently competitive team and that’s all you can ask in today’s NHL.  It’s moronic to judge a GM solely on cup wins.  Their knob is field a team that has a realistic chance and Wilson has done that for a long long time.   He regularly brings in elite star players, has done a great knob of drafting and developing.  I’ll take him as a GM over a guy like Lombardi who did win the cup.

 

the TBL are a perfect example of  how there is. No guarantee even with a well constructed team.  The key is good GM’s are able to get and develop ELITE players,  fill their holes and improve their teams and have teams that are consistently playoff teams. The Bergevins rotate parts without really improving their team and will the dice. 

 

I agree that Doug Wilson has done a really good job over his tenure in San Jose and they have been consistently competitive. Sometimes winning the cup is a little bit luck (hot goalie, no injuries, etc). I also think Don Sweeney has done a great job in Boston. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Habsfan89 said:

Ok so he knew what he was doing by getting the Golden Knights to throw in Tatar 👌 In which he said he never really wanted.

 

Oh yeah great job on the development of galchenyuk 👍 which is why he traded him.

 

the credit i will give him is for the Armia trade and Danault trade. Those are the type of trades I want to see more of and less of the 4th liners.

 

Player development is also part the player's responsibility. Galchenyuk didn't develop in Arizona and he is wearing out his welcome in Pittsburgh. You have to give MB credit for the Domi trade if you are going to knock him in other areas. Only fair.  We are having some good discussion tonight. Love it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Player development is also part the player's responsibility. Galchenyuk didn't develop in Arizona and he is wearing out his welcome in Pittsburgh. You have to give MB credit for the Domi trade if you are going to knock him in other areas. Only fair.  We are having some good discussion tonight. Love it!!

Yeah its a good trade but it's also a lucky one. Arizona was run bad at the time no other team would do that trade. I like the trade and give him credit for it. But he got lucky on it.

 

A lot of his trades had to do with the fact he had to make them. It wasn't to add to the team and improve the team. He had to make the Pacioretty trade and he had to make the galchenyuk trade.

 

The way Arizona was being run we probably could of got Domi for a 3rd round pick and a prospect and still had galchenyuk to trade.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Player development is also part the player's responsibility. Galchenyuk didn't develop in Arizona and he is wearing out his welcome in Pittsburgh. You have to give MB credit for the Domi trade if you are going to knock him in other areas. Only fair.  We are having some good discussion tonight. Love it!!

Thing with development is that for most players once you’ve blown it, there are a lot fewer players that turn it around with a move unless it’s earlier in their career. 
montreal has a horrible job of rushing players in at 18-19, you see a quick flash and than a flame out.  I’d rather have them get top line minutes in Laval than limited minutes and punished for each mistake in the NHL.  I remember when Pacioretty told the habs he’d rather be in the minors than play grunt minutes and going to the minors was the best thing for him.

 

Galchenyuk is in his what 6th, 7th year now?  Change of scenery may have helped if he was traded earlier.  It was stupid wanting him to be a centre and playing the wing.first year, sure. 3 or 4 years was stupid.  It would have been better having him on the first or second line in the minors IF bergevin hadn’t hired his useless idiotic childhood friend Lefebve.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Thing with development is that for most players once you’ve blown it, there are a lot fewer players that turn it around with a move unless it’s earlier in their career. 
montreal has a horrible job of rushing players in at 18-19, you see a quick flash and than a flame out.  I’d rather have them get top line minutes in Laval than limited minutes and punished for each mistake in the NHL.  I remember when Pacioretty told the habs he’d rather be in the minors than play grunt minutes and going to the minors was the best thing for him.

 

Galchenyuk is in his what 6th, 7th year now?  Change of scenery may have helped if he was traded earlier.  It was stupid wanting him to be a centre and playing the wing.first year, sure. 3 or 4 years was stupid.  It would have been better having him on the first or second line in the minors IF bergevin hadn’t hired his useless idiotic childhood friend Lefebve.  

 

Agree that rushing players is not a good thing. The Oilers were absolutely horrible at this but now they have a GM who won't make that mistake.  I wasn't convinced that keeping KK for the year was the right move. Time will tell.  Suzuki looks ready but he played a lot of minutes in his last year of junior.  He is a mature guy.  A year in the AHL never hurt anybody. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Agree that rushing players is not a good thing. The Oilers were absolutely horrible at this but now they have a GM who won't make that mistake.  I wasn't convinced that keeping KK for the year was the right move. Time will tell.  Suzuki looks ready but he played a lot of minutes in his last year of junior.  He is a mature guy.  A year in the AHL never hurt anybody. 

Suzuki looks more ready than Kk, but ask yourself this, if we were a better team, would he have started in Montreal?  Yes he dominated in CHL last year, but I’m not convinced that putting up bigger numbers as a CENTRE in the AHL would be better for him in the long run, than flip flopping in the NHL.  Ditto with Poehling.  I’d rather have them competing for something in the AHL - which would also improve our lottery position, than having a “promising” to “decent” rookie year in the NHL.  Although at this point Suzuki has earned to stay up, unless he starts stagnating. I think Fleury, Poehling and KK should be in Laval.  We are supposed to have hired a guy that is good at developing, so let’s see what he can do, with high end prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Suzuki looks more ready than Kk, but ask yourself this, if we were a better team, would he have started in Montreal?  Yes he dominated in CHL last year, but I’m not convinced that putting up bigger numbers as a CENTRE in the AHL would be better for him in the long run, than flip flopping in the NHL.  Ditto with Poehling.  I’d rather have them competing for something in the AHL - which would also improve our lottery position, than having a “promising” to “decent” rookie year in the NHL.  Although at this point Suzuki has earned to stay up, unless he starts stagnating. I think Fleury, Poehling and KK should be in Laval.  We are supposed to have hired a guy that is good at developing, so let’s see what he can do, with high end prospects.

 

If we were a better team he would not have started in Montreal.  I agree that a year in the AHL is a good thing. Fleury spent a year there and it obviously helped him a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

If we were a better team he would not have started in Montreal.  I agree that a year in the AHL is a good thing. Fleury spent a year there and it obviously helped him a lot. 

I think Fleury Vulcan use more time there.  We aren’t making the playoffs anyways, so don’t see the point of having these guys play limited minutes in a losing environment.  Leafs kept their young players in the minors strategically and it netted them Matthews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Habsfan89 said:

Ok so he knew what he was doing by getting the Golden Knights to throw in Tatar 👌 In which he said he never really wanted.

 

Oh yeah great job on the development of galchenyuk 👍 which is why he traded him.

 

the credit i will give him is for the Armia trade and Danault trade. Those are the type of trades I want to see more of and less of the 4th liners.

 

When did he say he never wanted tatar?  You got a source on that?  Prove it with an actual quote from Bergevin because i dont believe any gm would say that he didnt really want a player that he just traded for.  Im calling BS on this... but ill give credit if you can find an actual quote.

 

As for galchenyuk, he was traded for a 70 point centre.  Where is the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Habsfan89 said:

Yeah its a good trade but it's also a lucky one. Arizona was run bad at the time no other team would do that trade. I like the trade and give him credit for it. But he got lucky on it.

 

A lot of his trades had to do with the fact he had to make them. It wasn't to add to the team and improve the team. He had to make the Pacioretty trade and he had to make the galchenyuk trade.

 

The way Arizona was being run we probably could of got Domi for a 3rd round pick and a prospect and still had galchenyuk to trade.

 

 

Again i call bullshit.

 

There is no evidence domi could have been had for a third and a prospect.

 

Again, its just bias to say when a gm makes good trades its luck and when he he makes a bad one hes an idiot

 

Its also b.s. to say my GM doesnt make enough trades like Armia and Danault where he gets players for nothing.  Other teams just dont trade good players for nothing very often.  Thats not how this works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like MB at all but he deserves credit for the Galchenyuk and Pacioretti trades. He turned them into Domi, Tatar, Suzuki and that worked out really well for us.

 

If we are in the middle of a retool then what is the plan? To just draft and develop young players to hopefully compete sometime in the future? That sounds like a really long version of a rebuild minus the selling of vets to acquire more picks/prospects.

 

We may as well trade Price if this is our plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I don't like MB at all but he deserves credit for the Galchenyuk and Pacioretty trades. He turned them into Domi, Tatar, Suzuki and that worked out really well for us.

 

If we are in the middle of a retool then what is the plan? To just draft and develop young players to hopefully compete sometime in the future? That sounds like a really long version of a rebuild minus the selling of vets to acquire more picks/prospects.

 

We may as well trade Price if this is our plan.

I am neutral on MB, but he's track record is above average over his tenure as GM: he deserves some credit for that.

 

I am ok with the retool. The prospects seem to be developing better now, progressing under  Bouchard; it also seems like they are not rushing the kids to the NHL like they did for Galchenyuk, DeLarose, McCarron, Bournival, 

 

The Scandella deal points to them being able to use cap space to get a veteran D to buy time for the kids to develop better. The Weber/Price window is closing and we will probably have to trade them to a cup contending team in the next little while if they wish to have a chance for a cup; but I would stay the path and continue to build through the draft for at least another year.

 

I agree with Chicoutimi Cucumber that relying on prospects to carry the team is foolish. So, I am buckling up for a bumpy ride until the deep prospect pool graduates with honours to the NHL. It sucks for Weber and Price and it is frustrating as hell most night, but that's what it takes to build a contender out of the 2010s CH.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I am neutral on MB, but he's track record is above average over his tenure as GM: he deserves some credit for that.

 

I am ok with the retool. The prospects seem to be developing better now, progressing under  Bouchard; it also seems like they are not rushing the kids to the NHL like they did for Galchenyuk, DeLarose, McCarron, Bournival, 

 

The Scandella deal points to them being able to use cap space to get a veteran D to buy time for the kids to develop better. The Weber/Price window is closing and we will probably have to trade them to a cup contending team in the next little while if they wish to have a chance for a cup; but I would stay the path and continue to build through the draft for at least another year.

 

I agree with Chicoutimi Cucumber that relying on prospects to carry the team is foolish. So, I am buckling up for a bumpy ride until the deep prospect pool graduates with honours to the NHL. It sucks for Weber and Price and it is frustrating as hell most night, but that's what it takes to build a contender out of the 2010s CH.. 

 

That is my entire point concerning Price. If he won't be part of the future glory then why keep him now?

 

I can understand keeping Weber as a mentor, trainer, leader but why bother wasting Price? Trade him and use the assets for our future.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

 

That is my entire point concerning Price. If he won't be part of the future glory then why keep him now?

 

I can understand keeping Weber as a mentor, trainer, leader but why bother wasting Price? Trade him and use the assets for our future.

Who would want an under-performing 10M/yr 32 year old goalie? We are stuck with him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Suzuki looks more ready than Kk, but ask yourself this, if we were a better team, would he have started in Montreal?  Yes he dominated in CHL last year, but I’m not convinced that putting up bigger numbers as a CENTRE in the AHL would be better for him in the long run, than flip flopping in the NHL.  Ditto with Poehling.  I’d rather have them competing for something in the AHL - which would also improve our lottery position, than having a “promising” to “decent” rookie year in the NHL.  Although at this point Suzuki has earned to stay up, unless he starts stagnating. I think Fleury, Poehling and KK should be in Laval.  We are supposed to have hired a guy that is good at developing, so let’s see what he can do, with high end prospects.

You can say the same with Mete and fleury.If Bergevin spent the cap money and upgrade the D then they would both be developing in the AHL, and we might be in a playoff spot right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habsfan89 said:

You can say the same with Mete and fleury.If Bergevin spent the cap money and upgrade the D then they would both be developing in the AHL, and we might be in a playoff spot right now.

 

What defenceman was signed this summer that we could have got to upgrade the d?  You cant just snap your fingers and spend money if guys like Gardiner are taking less money to avoid the montreal media and fan pressure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habsfan89 said:

He's on a team with a weak D. Trust me any playoff team that wants to win a cup will jump at trying to trade for Price.

Where I hesitate is that trading him to a cup contending team will bring back a non-lottery first round pick: either a Poehling or a McCarron... :wacko: ... and some prospect that could be a Suzuki or a Galchenyuk ... :wacko:

 

I think Price will stay in Montreal with Weber and be a stabilising leader for the team through the bumpy ride

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Habsfan89 said:

He's on a team with a weak D. Trust me any playoff team that wants to win a cup will jump at trying to trade for Price.

Trust you....

No team in the NHL will trade for Price in his current going on 3 season form. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Price. He has been a great Montreal Canadien, perhaps the only Canadien of the past 25 years who can stand with the greats of the past. 

 

But you know what? If he went to Bergy tomorrow and said, 'I want out,' I'm not sure that would be such a terrible thing, assuming we could find a taker. It seems obvious that we are years away from doing anything, and making the playoffs does not seem to be an urgent priority for this GM. What is the point of saying Carey Price will have a quality team in front of him when he's 36? Why a 36-year-old Price rather than some other quality starter at that point? 

 

Anyway, I doubt Price will leave, and who knows, maybe he will get one more kick at the can before it's all over. If I were him, however, I'd want out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Galchenyuk is in his what 6th, 7th year now?  Change of scenery may have helped if he was traded earlier.  It was stupid wanting him to be a centre and playing the wing.first year, sure. 3 or 4 years was stupid.  It would have been better having him on the first or second line in the minors IF bergevin hadn’t hired his useless idiotic childhood friend Lefebve.  

 

You do know that Galchenyuk was ineligible to play in the minors for his first two seasons, right?  He was drafted out of the CHL which meant he needed to be 20 or have four years of major junior experience before he could go to the AHL.  By then, he already had over 100 NHL games under his belt and had more or less established himself as an NHL player.  His first season of actually having AHL eligibility was 2014-15 where he had his first 20-goal season.

 

I wasn't thrilled that they burned his first contract year in the lockout-shortened campaign but he was tearing up the OHL and didn't have much left to prove there.  Even if they had sent him back that season though (and I'd have been okay with that), he'd have been ready in 2013-14 where he still couldn't have gone to Hamilton.  I agree that they've rushed some players but I don't think Galchenyuk can really be in that class when you consider the assignment restrictions they had at the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

You do know that Galchenyuk was ineligible to play in the minors for his first two seasons, right?  He was drafted out of the CHL which meant he needed to be 20 or have four years of major junior experience before he could go to the AHL.  By then, he already had over 100 NHL games under his belt and had more or less established himself as an NHL player.  His first season of actually having AHL eligibility was 2014-15 where he had his first 20-goal season.

 

I wasn't thrilled that they burned his first contract year in the lockout-shortened campaign but he was tearing up the OHL and didn't have much left to prove there.  Even if they had sent him back that season though (and I'd have been okay with that), he'd have been ready in 2013-14 where he still couldn't have gone to Hamilton.  I agree that they've rushed some players but I don't think Galchenyuk can really be in that class when you consider the assignment restrictions they had at the beginning.

Yes, I do realize that, but I didn’t see the problem with leaving him in the CHL and have a full year of dominance after missing so much time with injuries and it would have been to his benefit going through the playoffs like Suzuki did last year. There was no read to rush him in the lockout shortened season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I didn’t see the problem with leaving him in the CHL and have a full year of dominance after missing so much time with injuries and it would have been to his benefit going through the playoffs like Suzuki did last year. There was no read to rush him in the lockout shortened season.

 

I can agree with that.  But he still would have been a full-time NHL'er at 19 in that scenario (stays CHL at 18, then goes NHL at 19) and generally full-time NHL players don't get assigned to the minors a year later.

 

Perhaps it's because I was never sold on Galchenyuk being an elite scorer (I remember saying he'd be a 55-60 point player - which, had he been able to play C, wouldn't have been half bad) but I think his situation is more on him than the development program.  At the time he was traded, there were reports saying his father was telling him to ignore what the team wanted him to do and gave Galchenyuk his own list of stuff to do.  That isn't to absolve the Habs entirely as he could have been handled better but his failure to develop into a core piece isn't just on them.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...