The Tank poll Options

[KoZed]

Tanking is for rebuilding.

Rebuilding is for long-term success.

Long-term success requires a GM with a vision and a farm system good at developing players.

We have neither. So tanking would be a waste of time. We had tons of prospects in 2003 when Gainey came in and look what good that did to us.

If we were to tank and aim at a rebuild, first I'd want to see the current staff -- Gainey, Gauthier, Brisebois, Martin -- gone and replaced with a staff that have a real vision for the Habs. No point telling a GM who already squandered and failed a rebuild have a 2nd 5-years go at it.

[Habsy]

Tanking is for rebuilding.

Rebuilding is for long-term success.

Long-term success requires a GM with a vision and a farm system good at developing players.

We have neither. So tanking would be a waste of time. We had tons of prospects in 2003 when Gainey came in and look what good that did to us.

If we were to tank and aim at a rebuild, first I'd want to see the current staff -- Gainey, Gauthier, Brisebois, Martin -- gone and replaced with a staff that have a real vision for the Habs. No point telling a GM who already squandered and failed a rebuild have a 2nd 5-years go at it.

It pains me to say this, but I think you're right. IF it's a full on rebuild, it's time for a fresh start, a new approach. Oh ya, the pain is not that I agree with Mr. Kozed, it's that people would lose there jobs, stuff like that.

[The Chicoutimi C...]

Tanking is for rebuilding.

Rebuilding is for long-term success.

Long-term success requires a GM with a vision and a farm system good at developing players.

We have neither. So tanking would be a waste of time. We had tons of prospects in 2003 when Gainey came in and look what good that did to us.

If we were to tank and aim at a rebuild, first I'd want to see the current staff -- Gainey, Gauthier, Brisebois, Martin -- gone and replaced with a staff that have a real vision for the Habs. No point telling a GM who already squandered and failed a rebuild have a 2nd 5-years go at it.

This is a lucid point. However, there are two possible weaknesses to the case.

1. Gainey has fired both coaching staffs resposible for the first rebuild. In effect, he has concluded that player development, not drafting, was the problem and that coaching was the cause of poor development. This doesn't mean he should keep his job, necessarily, but it does mean that a big chunk of the 'current staff' was NOT implicated in the failure of the rebuild. In short: Gainey has already followed your advice, but been more surgical about it.

2. We don't need a TOTAL rebuild. What we need is for current youngsters like A. Kostitysn, Lapierre and Pouliot to progress, 3-4 new young players to develop as significant contributors over the next 2-3 years, and at least one of our goalies to emerge as elite. If that can be added to the current, perfectly adequate nucleus, we will contend IMHO.

[bar]

Having important pieces not be injured would also give us a better gauge of the team as a whole.... I know I know not allowed to use excuses as a reason.

[KoZed]

It pains me to say this, but I think you're right. IF it's a full on rebuild, it's time for a fresh start, a new approach. Oh ya, the pain is not that I agree with Mr. Kozed, it's that people would lose there jobs, stuff like that.

This is a lucid point. However, there are two possible weaknesses to the case.

1. Gainey has fired both coaching staffs resposible for the first rebuild. In effect, he has concluded that player development, not drafting, was the problem and that coaching was the cause of poor development. This doesn't mean he should keep his job, necessarily, but it does mean that a big chunk of the 'current staff' was NOT implicated in the failure of the rebuild. In short: Gainey has already followed your advice, but been more surgical about it.

2. We don't need a TOTAL rebuild. What we need is for current youngsters like A. Kostitysn, Lapierre and Pouliot to progress, 3-4 new young players to develop as significant contributors over the next 2-3 years, and at least one of our goalies to emerge as elite. If that can be added to the current, perfectly adequate nucleus, we will contend IMHO.

All that being said, I didnt even answer the poll because I dont even think tanking is an option. Tanking is for shitty expansion and small markets organizations with no ambition, no talent in the pipeline and nobody with any clue at the helm. Tanking is a despicable well-fare loser tactics. "I suck, reward me for being a shitty team and give me a franchise player!" I shit on those teams and that kind of mentality.

A healthy team is a team that can be a contender and keep a steady flow of youth coming in the team because they scout, draft and develop well. That is the ultimate goal. We could have been that team when, but too many bad calls got us in the present situation. Gainey wants to win now and planned all his moves with short-term success in mind, including the new staff. You dont trade your biggest prospect (McDonagh) for Gomez's contract because you're thinking long term. You dont fill your roster with UFAs because you think long-term.

As it's been said, we dont need a total rebuild. My plan would be simple and reasonable. Pick an age limit and get rid of everybody above that age limit. The critical age is 30. That's Markov, Gomez and Gionta's age.

1- Dump everyone above 30 for picks or prospects: Markov, Gomez, Gionta, Mara, Hamrlik, Spacek, Gill, Metropolit, Darche.
2- Use Carey Price + something else as a bargain chip for a young franchise player stud. Not a 31 yrd old Lecavalier/Marleau type. A younger guy, a Kane/Stamkos/Kopitar/Nash type, someone to build around. Can be a defenseman or a forward, doesnt matter. That's the guy everybody wants to tank to draft, but I'd just trade for one, or find a lesser one with potential to elevate his game to become one. Halak established himself, and Price is the big hyped guy. I'd want Price's potential at another position dressed every game, not on the bench. And if Halak falters later, get a goalie elsewhere. Phoenix got Bryzgalov off waivers, Detroit won the Cup with Osgood. Great goalies are vital, bad goalies can sink you, but good goalies are enough if the rest of the team is solid enough,
3- Use Markov the same way TB used Boyle (2 solid prospects, a 1st and 4th round pick)
4- Fill the rest of the roster with prospects in competition against each other.

Sounds simple, and it is; just not easy to do. However it would be a way to replenish while still remaining fairly competitive. When you think about it, it leaves us with the same 1st line (13-14-46), the same #1 goalie (Halak), the same checkers & secondary scoring (Pouliot, SK, (Moen, Lapierre). It's the blueline that would be overhauled because all the old legs are there.

I wouldnt hesitate a second to give regular NHL jobs to Weber, Carle & Subban. We'd have MAB, Gorges and O'Byrne left. Add any D got from trades and we have internal competition. I know, that's 4, 5 very small but very mobile defensemen. But I would build my system accordingly! Use a system built on speed and counter-attack and defensemen always acting like 4th forwards. Use your strength for now, aim at a better, more balanced blueline later.

There you have it. A rebuild while still being reasonable playoffs contenders. And once in the playoffs, anything can happen.

[MK1]

Over the past couple of years Bob has systematically removed every player/coach/scout associated with the "old culture" of the team, and yet continues to produce the same results. Sooner or later the constant will be hard to ignore.

[saskhab]

Over the past couple of years Bob has systematically removed every player/coach/scout associated with the "old culture" of the team, and yet continues to produce the same results. Sooner or later the constant will be hard to ignore.

To be fair, it was only over the past year that he started to do dismantle the culture he had helped create.

[The Chicoutimi C...]

To be fair, it was only over the past year that he started to do dismantle the culture he had helped create.

Further to this, I'm not sure the original comment really stands up. What we saw in 2008 was a team play catastrophically below what its talent level seemed to dictate and to wilt rather than rise to the occasion. The 2009 team, generally speaking, plays with a lot more gumption, stands up for itself, and shows some character. (Consider the difference between the Markov injury last season and this season. Last year, the team simply folded. This season, they hung in). And all things (including injuries) considered, I'm not sure we can really say this team is playing below its talent level. I don't see too many position players this season who we can point to as disappointments. Maybe Spacek and Lapierre. Last year practically everybody was a disappointment.

So character-wise this group is a huge advance. Coaching-wise, whatever we think of Martin's system, he has instituted a clear and logical expectations structure. If you don't listen, you sit. That's also a huge advance on Carbo's seeming refusal to instil any discipline.

The similarities are indeed eerie in other respects: dubious zone defence, crappy transition play. But I don't see this as a 'character' issue per se.

As for player development - way too soon to tell, but the early reports on Boucher in Hamilton seem very promising.

[Prime Minister K...]

Further to this, I'm not sure the original comment really stands up. What we saw in 2008 was a team play catastrophically below what its talent level seemed to dictate and to wilt rather than rise to the occasion. The 2009 team, generally speaking, plays with a lot more gumption, stands up for itself, and shows some character. (Consider the difference between the Markov injury last season and this season. Last year, the team simply folded. This season, they hung in). And all things (including injuries) considered, I'm not sure we can really say this team is playing below its talent level. I don't see too many position players this season who we can point to as disappointments. Maybe Spacek and Lapierre. Last year practically everybody was a disappointment.

So character-wise this group is a huge advance. Coaching-wise, whatever we think of Martin's system, he has instituted a clear and logical expectations structure. If you don't listen, you sit. That's also a huge advance on Carbo's seeming refusal to instil any discipline.

The similarities are indeed eerie in other respects: dubious zone defence, crappy transition play. But I don't see this as a 'character' issue per se.

As for player development - way too soon to tell, but the early reports on Boucher in Hamilton seem very promising.

Always great Mr. Cuke.

The bold is what baffles me. Why are we having the exact same issues as before. Everything you said is true...In the face of that we still fail where we always have failed.

I really wonder if we have the same problems because Bob made the same type of team (upgrades to talent/heart aside).

[kenadian]

It's like "groundhog day" all over again, new coach, core players yet same game plan.........year after year

[ForumGhost]

Anyone who wants to see their team lose = not a fan. Bottom line.

[Habsfan]

Having important pieces not be injured would also give us a better gauge of the team as a whole.... I know I know not allowed to use excuses as a reason.

That's what happens when your team's better players are mostly under 6' tall. Smaller players have a harder time coping with the rough play at this time of the year.

Think about it, who will fare better in the long run, a 5'9" player who weighs 190pds or a 6'3" player who weighs 220pds? Over a long 82 game season, battling in the corners, bodychecks, crosschecks etc.etc.etc.

[bar]

The problems is the habs injuries have been of the weird type...Markovs, Cammys, Giontas, A kosts..not really anything to do with physical play...maybe Cammys.