tyberius67
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tyberius67
-
-
25 minutes ago, Meller93 said:
It's the one thing that makes me nearly question being a habs fan. Is it even possible to win in such a market? It's already tough enough. I hate the thought of watering down our system just to fill a Québécois need.
The same people whining would trash trash the team for not being competitive like the old days. Sorry we need a French coach, French gm, french players, and french water boys.
My thoughts exactly, the handcuffs put on us from the Francophone side of this on GM/Coaching is binding enough.
-
2 hours ago, dlbalr said:
It will be interesting to see if there's any give-and-take with regards to a no-trade clause if they do wind up giving him two years.
By the way, welcome to the forum.
Thanks but i've actually been here a long time as Link67, just can't remember any of my log in stuff for that account or the email attached to it, so I started a new one lol
-
58 minutes ago, dlbalr said:
There's no cap benefit when you're buying out a 35+ contract. While the money is paid over 2x the remaining life of the contract, the cap hit remains 100% - see Francois Beauchemin in Colorado for 2017-18.
Ah yes forgot about that detail, well still makes it easier to trade in the second year though.
-
Markov camp rumoured to be asking for 2 years
Don't really see an issue with it for the right structure, we can't get a better d-man on a 1 year than him anyway. So if this gets done as a 2 year 4.5mill AAV, 6 mill for year 1 and 3 mill for year 2, it makes it an easy to trade and easy to buy out contract if things go bad for some reason, also an affordable top 4 dman if things go well.
-
What off ice trouble did Galchenyuk get in last season? I only recall some partying issues and the Girlfriend incident the year before
-
Just now, xXx..CK..xXx said:
De la Rose used to be compared to Jordan Staal as well, albeit potentially wrongly so.
De la Rose was always pegged as a potential good 3rd line center with Size, his offensive game was never in the same spectrum. with this kid, like I said, no one is talking about a depth forward. its all 2nd line center, who plays a gritty north south game, uses his speed to create scoring chances and has a very good shot. I personally like it, and I like that it puts a Center in the pipeline with some nice upside that has a chance to be in our top 6 a few years down the road, something we no longer had.
-
9 minutes ago, Meller93 said:
Anyone think we could move up to select Hague tomorrow? We'd address LD and center needs
I'm still not convinced one those 2nd rounders doesn't get flipped as trade bait to acquire a current NHL d-man from a team who could use the cap relief
-
1 hour ago, Neech said:
Did we just get another McCarron/De La Rose?
Not at all, so far I've heard his comparisons from multiple experts as Jordan Staal, Patrik Berglund, and Ryan O'Rielly.
Pegged as a top 6 forward who will likely slot into a 2nd line center position, no talk of him being a bottom 6 forward at all. If he ends up being a bigger version of Plekanec while in his prime I would be one happy camper, anything more is a bonus.
-
I wonder if one of our 3 picks in the 1st and 2nd round doesn't turn into an NHL d-man before this evening is over now.
-
On 6/4/2017 at 4:01 PM, Machine of Loving Grace said:
I don't know if we can call it old-school anymore. Or rather, I don't think this is an old school problem. It's a hockey philosophy problem.
Julien has always had a defensive minded centre in his top six. In Boston he's had Bergeron always there, with Krejci, Savard, Seguin, Soderberg, et al in tow. In his one season in New Jersey he had Gomez and Zajac. Before that in Montreal he had Koivu with Ribeiro, maybe the last time his centres were less defensive and more offensive.
Julien comes to Montreal, doesn't have much time, and wants to go with what he knows. He's got Plekanec and Danault as defensive minded centres and he's got Alex Galchenyuk as a more offensive minded centre who is still learning the position and just got off an injury that derailed his near point per game season at that point. Instead of going with Galchenyuk with his up and downs, he went with Danault and Plekanec, since he could rely on them in the backend.
I think he was encouraged by Bergevin to be aggressive in coaching Galchenyuk, hence the fourth line demotion in the playoffs. But when things started getting hairy in the series and Montreal needed offence, we suddenly saw Galchenyuk playing in the top lines. At centre. That tells me that Julien thinks Galchenyuk can play centre and get points for the team, he just doesn't like his overall game.
The problem is that Chuck isn't 20 on his ELC. He's 23 needing a new contract and is now publicly saying he wants a one year deal. This isn't the time for tough coaching. This is the time to get the kid comfortable in the position he likes to play in and get him signed long term. Bergevin poisoned the well before Julien showed up, but Claude didn't help things. He should have saw Chuck's previous production, recognized he's just having post-injury slow down, healthy scratched him a few games to get him healthy (and tell people that's the reason so there isn't a big media storm) and then stuck him back in the top six at C.
I think the damage is done and both Galchenyuk and Beaulieu are going to be cut losses soon. That's not an old school problem. Julien was fine playing Danault on his top line and playing Lehkonen in the top six. It's a hockey philosophy problem. The idea that you can't compete without two-way players down the middle.
I agreed until that last paragraph, Beaulieu is further along in his evolution as an NHLer at this point, the team saw that here with us, what we saw from him was what we were likely going to get going forward with MAYBE a bit more upside. Galchenyuk is not there yet, and likely won't be there until at least another 2 years, until then everything is possible. He is walking the tight rope right now between underachieving top 3 pick and ready to bust out into a 5 time 30 goal scorer, both players in different parts of their journey towards their potential.
As for the philosophy about 2 way centers, lets not forget that Pittsburgh has a great one in Crosby, Chicago has a great one in Toews, L.A has a great on in Kopitar, all recent cup winners. I'd say the philosophy isn't that far off its rocker at all, Julien became a champion on the back of a great 2 way center himself in Bergeron. If anything based on that list of champions, the philosophy has merit.
-
18 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:
A gm's job is to build a team. MB inherited Price, markov, Subban, maxpac, pleks, Gallagher and was gifted he Galchenyuk pick. That's a pretty good core to build around.
Name me a player they drafted and developed into a regular? Galchenyuk. A player who didn't play in the minors. Was drafted to be a centre, but was never allowed to play centre until DD finally got hurt. After wasting over 2 years of his development by not letting learn to be an NHL centre by actually letting him play the friggin position, once he finally learns the position and gets injured and struggles upon his return, he gets thrown back to the wing and Mgmt says he hasn't shown he can play the position. Is some of this on the player? Sure, but was he put in a position to learn the position? I don't think so!
The only other player drafted by MB in 6"5 years that has shown any sign of being a regular is Lekhonan - and he was developed playing on the Swedish league.
that is on MB and his Mgmt team. Someone should have been fired - it's inexcusable for lefebve to be retained two years ago, let alone this year.
After the year MT had - complete collapse - no other GM would have retained his coach in that positon. No other GM would have traded for Ben friggin Scrivens with his team in a free fall when Price went down.
When MB came, the habs lacked scoring and a true 1st line centre - if anything they are worse now that Pleks is washed up. They lacked depth on the top 4 on D. Today, they lack depth on the top 4, only older.
Since he he came on board his positives:
- turning Cole into Ryder
- extension to maxpac
- trade for vanak
- trade for petry - Petry extension, which was more money than I think Petry is woth -I think he is a soft player-but he was a UFA, and most defence hot home runs as ufa's -
-daneult, Byron, radulov and possibly Drouin move (if we hadn't moved Subban, I think it would have been a great move, but we have no blue chip d and are old)
- negative MT hiring and than sticking with him too long
-lousy Mgmt team that has not developed any players as mentioned at the outset
- revolving door of failed stop gaps, like semin, kassian
-Briere, Murray and most other signings in his first year
-Subban bridge and subsequent trade
-handling and development of galchenyuk in particular -hanging on to DD and Beaulieu until they were worthless
The success we had is from having the best goalie in the world. Without the goalie, MB had the 3rd worst team in the league. NYR list lundquist for almost as long and were a solid team, but than their GM picked up decent backups and had a coach that did more than tell his goalie to stop the puck
I Agree with some of your points for sure, but again I also see a whole lot of batting aside the positive and amplifying the negatives,
Let me elaborate.
On the aspect of player development, Bergevin should have made a change there with Lefebvre. However other than that we can't throw the fact that guys didn't come up and turn into 25 goal scorers annually on him, he isn't the day to day guy with these kids. His part of the blame lies in his philosophy for long term stability within his staff in all major parts of the team, whether its coaches, player development or scouting, and that has lead a couple times now to situations where someone should have been fired sooner than they did.
on another note, development of a player evolves continually long after junior, and the AHL, up until the age of 26 or 27, and in that Aspect, Bergevin in your argument, is not being credited for positive situations he was a part of while at the helm. The development of Lehkonen is an easy one to see this season, McCaron looks able to handle a full time bottom 6 position with this team. Gallagher may not have been drafted by Bergevin but he is responsible for bringing him up to the NHL, and his development into the NHL player he is happened under Bergevin's eye. Danault was a depth player with potential when Bergevin acquired him, we could even go as far as saying Bergevin drafted Danault since it was his guy while he was in Chicago, and he believed in him when he traded for him. Now he has developed into a serviceable top 6 forward for us with still more time to reach his potential and it cost us a couple throw-aways to get him to boot. Lastly, Price, yup Carey Price is a player who reached his potential under the hand of Bergevin. Simply put Carey Price did not become the dominant league leader in goal until Stephane Waite came here and turned him into the guy we see today, and Marc Bergevin is the guy who saw the necessity in going after Waite to help Price refine his game.
As far as good and bad moves are concerned, I agree with certain aspects of your assessment, The Subban trade is either love it or hate it and an endless debate we won't get into. The revolving door of stop gaps were all no risk type situations that didn't handcuff us or hurt us at all. As for good moves you can likely add the Drouin trade to that list already, as you mentioned. Lets not forget bringing in Radulov to help our top 6 last summer, the trade for Benn, and now Schlemko, both NHL d-men acquired for peanuts really. He did take too long to Fire MT as you mentioned, but again there MT wasn't all bad either, he had some good seasons, and some players did thrive under his coaching, some players also did anything but thrive under his coaching. That said there is no way he should have survived last summer, but as I mentioned earlier it is a philosophy that is being used there that may not always be optimal. Sometimes the need for swift change is necessary, and in that aspect I hope Bergevin does get more proactive in the future with his staff, as he has proven to be several times with his roster.
-
1
-
-
this Galchenyuk stuff scares the crap out of me, smells like Tyler Seguin after the trade from Boston. And I don't want to be scratching my head when this kid explodes with 70 point seasons in his mid twenties.
-
One of, Brendan Smith, Karl Alzner or Simon Despres would be a quick fix UFA Lefty acquisition for our top 4 worth taking a look at if the trade market proves to be difficult.
Kulikov at the right price might also be worth a look, although his time in Buffalo was quite unreliable, a calculated risk that a more insulated D-Core in Montreal would help him look more like the guy he was in Florida. He definitely has the most upside but with the greatest risk of flopping out of the bunch.
-
Despite what some may think here in our own fanbase, the fact is no matter who is GM here, once a few years start to go by, everything is highly scrutinized on a grand scale. The good moves get tossed aside in conversations and we dwell on the not so good moves vehemently, its the nature of the beast.
First lets look around the league and find ONE active GM who has not made a blunder or 2 in the past 5 years in regards to Trades, Contracts, and Drafting. Once that task is complete and we realize there is no such GM lets move on to the next point. Just earlier today I saw Frank Seravalli talking on TSN about how Bergevin is widely regarded by his Peers as one of the most active, and capable GMs in the league. His ability to identify and make moves to fix issues within his roster over the course of the Summer is near the top in the league according to the GM who just won the cup 2 years in a row he said.
They underlined the Drouin trade, the manipulation to nearly force Vegas to take Emelin, the very low cost acquisition of a top 6 dman earlier today. Bob Mckenzie is certain Bergevin is all over the phone searching for a top 4 Defenceman and a Center at the right price. Even if he doesn't pull it off, we can still see he has his sights set in the right direction, a direction not many of us would dispute are needs at this point. So lets stop acting like he hasn't made some good moves over the years, lets stop acting like all he does is incompetent ones, lets stop acting like we have missed the playoffs for 5 years straight instead of only the 1 year that we actually did. I look at his body of work, and I know it isn't perfect, but no one's will be, I know he has done a better job than the previous 4 Gms so far. It would seem he is highly regarded by those in his position around the league, all of that means something, It means it could be a lot worse, with very little guaranteeing it could be better.
He hasn't screwed this team up to the point of not being competitive, and until he basically makes the wheels fall off we should just give him his chance to build a championship team. There are very good GMs who have been trying to Build Champions for much longer than he has, Bob Murray, Chuck Flethcher, Doug Wilson, Doug Armstrong to name a few. Why should Bergevin not get the same chance as long as he keeps icing a competitive team? Because we are a much more radioactive hockey environment than all the other places those quality GMs work for? Come on now..
-
2
-
-
He will be a very serviceable 3rd pairing guy, who can move up the line up incase of injury, He is every bit as useful as guys like Emelin and Beaulieu who were both better suited on our 3rd pair, and he will come at a cheaper price.
Whats not to like? its not like they just traded a 5th round pick for a guy they are claiming is the next Brent Burns here. Guy makes 2 mill a year and is slotted for our 5th or 6th spot, and based on what I saw of him in SJ i'm more than comfortable with that.
Defence woes
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
I've got no issue with it, but to have the cap space to get him means something falls apart on the Radulov side of it, otherwise if you resign Radulov and Markov and Galchenyuk where is the money for a guy like Alzner? Certainly going to cost around 4 million to bring him in.
I like him with Weber, though, just not sure how the money works