xXx..CK..xXx
-
Posts
3738 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
63
Posts posted by xXx..CK..xXx
-
-
Yeah it's a shame that Lundqvist exists because otherwise I think we could have argued for 8 million or so. The Rangers overpaid Lundqvist even though I've suggested he's a good goalie in the past, but it hasn't seemed to hurt them all that much.
I'm going to go on a limb and say Price takes 8.5 million but any of the above mentioned amounts make sense to me.
How about term? 6 years? 8 years?
-
5 hours ago, Commandant said:
Thinking Duchene is an 80 point guy after three years of not doing it, is the same kind of thinking that pegged Scott Gomez as an 80-90 point guy after 3 years of not doing it.
I'm not saying Duchene is going to turn into Gomez and suddenly forget how to score altogether.
But what we have seen in the NHL is that guys peak younger, 22, 23, 24..... and then settle in at a slightly lower pace. Duchene peaked at close to a PPG player and now is settling in as a 55-60 point guy. Could he get more, maybe in a perfect season... but the fact is that its unlikely he comes in and puts together a run of career best seasons in his late 20s.
I'm not saying it was directed at me but I said 60 points in my post although in a perfect world I do believe he could get more.
Why is this that much different to when you predicted Radulov would get 76 points this season? (Not an attack, I loved the optimism.) The thought process there is predicated on potential and I'm obviously higher on Duchene than most Habs fans. I don't expect him to get more than 60 points but in an ideal world, I do think it's possible for him to do so. Especially if he gains some chemistry with Pacioretty. Regardless, 55-60 points in a given year is not too shabby in today's NHL.
There is a decent argument to be made not to trade the two straight up for one another but as pieces of a bigger trade I look into it or if there's some possibility you lose Galchenyuk to free agency in a year or two and you get that feeling, you might want to think ahead.
Duchene accomplished a lot more in his first 5 seasons than Galchenyuk has so I'm still not fully sold that what I'm saying is entirely wrong. If Duchene is over the hill, why won't Galchenyuk be over the hill in 3 years? We'd arguably be trading Galchenyuk while his value isn't great for Duchene when his value is at the lowest it may ever be.
With all that in place I personally still don't go out of my way to push for that trade but when you factor in some of the more abstract reasoning, it's certainly debateable in my opinion.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:
He's a 55 point player. If he hadn't been a PPG guy four years ago, I doubt there'd be much buzz about him, even if he's a C and Galy is a LW. Unless someone can explain why he spent the past three seasons producing at a mediocre-to-middling clip and offer some convincing reason for thinking that a trade to Montreal will return his game to its long-gone elite level, the buzz is about a rep rooted in obsolete information.
2016: Pierre Luc Dubois
2015: Dylan Strome
2014: Leon Draisaitl
2013: Jonathan Drouin
2012: Alex Galchenyuk
2011: Jonathan Huberdeau
2009: Matt Duchene
These were the 3rd overall picks in their respective drafts. Which of those players don't come with some type of hype? Even 8 years later. I'm not sure why Duchene is the only one that's expected to falter. If he's considered old, then it's going to be hard to find that top 6 center.
I don't have a specific reason for the way Duchene has produced over the last few years but I do know that Colorado was not being run well and Duchene was being thrown all over th lineup. It really seems similar to the way things have gone with Galchenyuk here and that, along with them both being (along with Drouin) previous 3rd overall picks is probably the main reason the trade rumour has been brought up with these two in mind.
There definitely would be risk in the trade but sometimes one has to have some foresight and I don't personally agree that Duchene's potential is 55 points. I put him at 60 when he plays 82 games and he can also be more than that with Pacioretty and Radulov.
I dont think this is a trade that manifests itself but like I've said before, Duchene would be on my radar and I would think about it even if that's the only thing they'd take back.
It's fine to say let's trade Gallagher and not Galchenyuk but let's not forget that our perception of those two players are different than the manner in which the coach has used them. If we trade Gallagher, we've now lost our top 6 depth at right wing, unless the plan is to ironically spot Galchenyuk there. Galchenyuk wasn't as high on the depth chart as of the end of last season and so we'd actually be trading a more useful player to our lineup *as it stands* even though Galchenyuk has more skill.
-
Crosby's the best. Other than when he faces the
-
19 minutes ago, habs rule said:
I think Alex jr wants to succeed, he has been a very good player for his entire life. I am not sure why The Habs are so down on him. He has been a productive scorer, he has great puck control. His back checking is not so good? Guy Lafleur wasn't a great defensive player, nor was Wayne Gretzky. Their job was goals goals and more goals. I think Alex has been mishandled. Stick him at center and let him score goals. As to his father, I don't know if he is interfering but if he is, he needs to mind his own bidnes. And not be minding Alex's.
as Hank jr once said. I paraphrased.
It's really a hard topic to assess because there are so many vicious cycles spinning around.
1) The Habs need a top 6 center
2) Alex Galchenyuk was drafted to be a top 6 center
3) Alex Galchenyuk is still on the team
4) Many Habs fans think he can play center
----> This can be related to the fact that we need a center
5) Coaches haven't placed him at center consistently even though we need that center
I'm not personally arguing that Galchenyuk cannot be a center but the only reason this is a topic in my mind is because we need a top 6 center. If we didn't need one, I would be fine with Galchenyuk playing wing or center. Galchenyuk switched back and forth between wing and center and it was never a huge issue for me. I was happy we drafted a top 3 draft pick who could be used in a versatile way, whether it be at wing or center.
The topic only became an issue as recently as these playoffs. We traded away Desharnais who was a viable center and then we moved Galchenyuk to the wing. Habs fans have wanted a great top line center for some time now but with Plekanec, Desharnais, Galchenyuk and Eller, our center depth was never as huge of an issue as it is now. Danault replaced Eller, although it was played out as though he replaced Desharnais, Plekanec regressed, although I think he can be better, Desharnais was traded and Galchenyuk was moved to wing.
The question then becomes who is right here and what is the coaching staff's plan for Galchenyuk? We cannot afford to go into next season with the status quo at center. That's arguable even if it's promised that Galchenyuk will play center, let alone if he doesn't. If the plan isn't concrete to play Galchenyuk at center then I believe that Galchenyuk becomes more expendable than he should be if the return is a quality center like a Duchene.
The final point here is that regardless of who is "right", I believe there are certain Habs fans out there who are willing to slot Galchenyuk at center because we need a center. When thought of in that manner, I don't really think that's a solid enough argument. From my positive perspective, I haven't seen these extreme deficiencies in Galchenyuk's defensive play but the coaching staff's opinion matter more than me and I'd rather not have to discuss this topic of uncertainty when it comes to Galchenyuk if it's an issue for them moving forward. It can even become a distraction to the team.
-
I'm not sure what to say other than I think people are under appreciating Duchene's ability. He's made team Canada which is a tough roster to crack.
I made a post prior to the playoffs which stated that I was hoping Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Radulov would be our first line somewhere down the road in the playoffs. It never came to fruition even when the organization had a void at the position. On a personal level, I'm fine with Galchenyuk at center in the top 6 and in fact regardless of what team he is on, I think it's where he should play. That doesn't mean it's as easy to do as it is to say that he should magically be slotted into the position at the beginning of next season when he wasn't being played there in the final games of this season.
If someone were to tell me that there's no guarantee that Duchene would play center on our team if we made the trade, then I could see the argument of it being a dumb move. That being said, if we were to trade for him, I'm sure it WILL have been because the plan was not to play Galchenyuk at center and as a result, I feel as though that argument goes out the window. We can complain about the coaches and management and how "silly" they were not to play Galchenyuk at center in such a scenario but that wouldn't change the reality.
With that in place, as to the question that CC and I have brought up: IF this were the only move made to acquire a top 6 center in the off season AND there is doubt about where Galchenyuk should play within the organization, then I would make the trade. And yes, hopefully it does involve some other pieces and perhaps even the Avs retaining some salary.
If there were a way to acquire Duchene without having to move Galchenyuk, even better. I would first look at signing a free agent center, if there are any good ones out there but this move would be on my radar. I like Galchenyuk but I think Duchene would be a great Hab and even potentially top 5 best forwards in the past decade for us.
-
If Duchene is a center and Galchenyuk is a winger on the Habs, it's not the worst deal in the world. The biggest concern is that it is a trade that stems from considering Galchenyuk a weak link and so his value isn't as high as it could be. It's not a trade I jump at but it is a trade I make if we have no other decent options at acquiring a center this off season and Gachenyuk isn't considered one by the internal trust. Because we need a center. Duchene is miles ahead of Danault and arguably better than Galchenyuk right now. If Galchenyuk plays center next year, it's probably not a trade you need to make. The "if" is the only reason you consider the trade. His salary is high but maybe Colorado can retain some and then again Galchenyuk will be making close to the same thing.
It's a change of scenery trade. The real question is whether or not the scenery needs to be changed.
-
I know the article wasn't saying it explicitly but I was one of the few who would have been okay with seeing Galchenyuk included in a trade for Duchene as long as, for whatever reason, the plan is more concrete to have him play at center than it has been for Galchenyuk.
I personally don't believe Galchenyuk will be moved though and I don't specifically want to see him get moved. I like Duchene more than most though. I think he can be a threat to any team in a playoff series.
-
Martinsen isn't like Staubitz, Brown or Drewiske. Staubitz and Brown are fighters who average(d) over 2 penalty minutes a game throughout their careers. Drewiske is a defenseman. Martinsen averages less than a minute a game.
The main thing similar between the players are their salaries, size as well as in some cases their point totals in the NHL. Their style of play is different though.
For those of you who don't remember him that well as has been claimed the thing he brings to the table that those players didn't, along with his physicality, is his speed. Everyone talks about how important speed is in today's NHL and for a big guy, he can skate pretty well for a 4th liner with size.
Not a big deal either way but I'm fine with it. Martinsen was on a terribly managed Colorado team so there's a little bit of hope (as far as hope goes for a 4th liner) if he really is a Julien type player. In 2014-15, he was also the 16th leading scorer in the DEL with 41 points in 50 games, tied with former Hab, Glen Metropolit.
-
5 hours ago, dlbalr said:
I figured they'd offer him another deal though I thought he may take a high two-way provision. I think they're viewing him as insurance more than anything and if everyone's healthy at the end of the preseason, he's likely going to be on waivers. I wouldn't be surprised if his role next year was what Matteau's was supposed to be this season - make a push for a end-of-roster spot in the preseason and be a serviceable fourth line call-up when injuries arise while being a decent checker in the minors. (Unfortunately for Matteau he only checked off 1/3 of those boxes.)
Not a big deal either way but Martinsen is better than Matteau in my opinion. I know you're not comparing the two in that way but I think Martinsen may check off more than one of those boxes. Then again, I kind of see him as the offensive version of where Barberio was in terms of their respective positions on the depth chart and he's gone. I prefer the Martinsen type over the Mitchells and Flynns on the 4th line but I guess that's like comparing 2014 sludge to 2017 sludge.
-
1 hour ago, mineral said:
You mean the Andrighetto that now plays for Colorado?
Yes, I meant that we traded Andrighetto for Martinsen and no one seemed to mind. Would people have preferred that Andrighetto play on the 4th line over Martinsen as well? Martinsen is what he is, a 4th liner. Andrighetto, Hudon and DLR are all 2nd or 3rd line suited players with the exception being maybe DLR who hasn't proven anything as of yet and (McCaron). I don't think Hudon or Andrighetto bring anything to the table given 4th line minutes. Martinsen, DLR, McCarron all have some size and I still don't mind Martinsen over (especially) De la Rose or McCarron as of now.
-
30 minutes ago, Commandant said:
675k
Why? He was useless. I'd rather see JDLR, McCarron, Hudon, etc... on that fourth line. He really brought nothing to the table.
And what about Andrighetto? McCarron I won't argue with but I'd rather see Martinsen on the 4th line than the other two.
-
39 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:
I'd hate to lose Byron, but I'm with you on Shaw. Nothing against the guy, but in retrospect that signing is an indirect indictment of the Habs' failure to develop talent. Third liners like him should be pumped out of the farm system cheaply, as a matter of course.
I'm not defending Shaw as a player necessarily but it's tough to develop a past cup champion through the farm. We've had players like Moen and Gill before for the same reason and I think during our run in 2010, we had plenty of cup experience whice I believe helped.
-
It's not just Sergachev but you're also giving up Galchenyuk and another 1st round pick. I rarely care about prospects but I have a good feeling about Sergachev. Why not just trade Galchenyuk, Beaulieu and a 1st. Throw in a 2nd or a 3rd. People can talk crap about Beaulieu but he's not that bad and I still feel like the Islanders are getting a lot.
-
17 hours ago, Commandant said:
Whats in it for management? He can take you to arbitration and force a one year deal.
He has the leverage here in terms of length, if his desire is one year.
In that case I guess management would argue that he needs to take less than he deserves since it's a one year deal. That may just be what ends up happening here unless MB offers more than Galchenyuk is worth. Not the easiest scenario.
I think it will end up being a one year deal at 5 mil... or 5.25mil
-
I don't make that trade. One of the background reasons I'm fine with the Weber trade overall is that we have Sergachev coming in soon. I don't include him in a trade at this point. Remember this in 2 years.
-
37 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:
The only tog simiar is his size, speed and gritty style of play. He's never really had a great shot. Guentzal shown he's got a snipers shot. Gallagher scores a lot from in and around the blue paint
Yeah I was going to put Guentzel up there with Marner and Gaudreau but it's tough to tell because I don't underestimate the effect Crosby can have on his linemates. Gallagher would tear it up with Crosby. If Guentzel does it again next year I'll start giving him a little more credit. I'm already starting to believe a little more in Murray than I did after last year. I still don't think he's the greatest out there. Kind of like a Bishop.
-
4 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:
An ominous thought. Gallagher seemed to get stronger towards the end of the season/playoffs...I'd be interested in people's insights into whether he may indeed be damaged goods. Given how he plays, that was always my fear, that he'd break down physically - but I didn't think it'd happen this soon...
I can see how it would have at the very least taken quite a toll on him this season. I'd be surprised if he was ever 100% this season. As for the long term, I can see the argument but I think he can return to form. The one thing I have noticed is that many teams seem to have a Gallagher player of their own nowadays. Guentzel on the Pens, Arvidsson on the Preds, Dzingel on the Sens. They're not all the same type of player but they're all undersized players who tend to hustle and have some skill. Then you have next leve guys like Gaudreau and Marner who are a hybrid of Gallagher and Galchenyuk.
When Gallagher came into the league, he was the new age Theo Fleury. A few years later and it seems as though these types of players are quite common and actually some teams have two or three Gallaghers. I love Gallagher and I don't want to trade him but I'm not sure I necessarily expect him to stand out for much of the rest of his career because of this reality. Nothing against him but we can't expect to rely mainly on him.
-
Alright, so my question is what's in it for management to sign Galchenyuk to a one year deal? Honestly, if they actually do sign him to a one year deal then they clearly have no faith in him and he likely should be traded. He's a 55-65 point player (although he has been a 50 point player so far) and should be paid accordingly.
-
23 minutes ago, Commandant said:
The team who wins the corsi battle wins 70% of games.
I'm not sure where you get your 50% stat from.
http://www.eightleaves.com/2014/11/measuring-performance-in-the-nhl
Does shot difference make a difference?
But is it necessary for teams to outshoot opponents in order to outscore them? Not in every game, of course, but is it true on average? In the shots for and against stats for the 2009/10 season, the correlation between the shot difference and winning percentage is fairly high (0.63). On average, it appears winning teams tend to outshoot their opponents. This seems to support the idea that the Corsi number can be used as a proxy for performance.
But, if you take a closer look, the support falters. Teams that outshot their opponents won 580 games in the season. How many games did the outshot teams win? 588! More teams had a higher winning percentage when they were behind on shots (19) than when they were ahead (11). And a team’s winning percentage didn’t change by much whether it outshot or it was outshot by opponents — about 8% on average. If outshooting opponents is pivotal to winning games, we’d expect this difference to be wider. Instead, we see that a team’s ability to win games was fairly independent of its ability to outshoot opponents. Why?
The incentive to shoot
Teams shoot to score goals. And, depending on who’s ahead, each team’s incentive to score another goal (and hence take shots) is different. It’s always more important for the team that’s ahead to prevent a goal than to score a goal. Similarly, it’s always more important for the team that’s trailing to score a goal than prevent a goal. To put it in economic terms, the marginal value of a goal is higher for the team that’s behind than it is for the team that’s ahead, and the marginal cost of a goal allowed is higher for the team that’s ahead than it is for the team that’s behind.
The biggest problem with the Corsi number is that it assumes that incentives stay the same throughout a game. It penalizes players when they’re protecting a lead and have little to gain by venturing aggressively into the offensive zone. And it rewards players who are taking the space their opponents give them and taking shots from all angles without affecting the outcome of a game"
Or
-
6 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:
Rarely has a team EVER won a playoff game when they've only got 14 or 15 shots on goal. I can't of any other game I've seen.
EVERY analyst has said they lost because Of Rinne and that was statistically the worst GAA ever in a playoff game.
And when the Bruins were outshot in 16 of their 25 games in 2011 they won the cup. Tim Thomas was praised but all people remember is that the Bruins won the cup.
The team who outshoots their opponents wins less than 50% of the games in the NHL and now because it's Nashville who is losing this way, everyone cares. The reason for that stat is because shots on goal doesn't take into account how dangerous a scoring chance it was. The Habs have outshot their oppponents many a time to no avail because most of their shots were from the outside and that goes to the point that Nashville's offense isn't that dangerous. They can shoot all they want but they don't have the skill Pittsburgh does, especially up the middle. EVERY analyst agrees with that. They have heart and will win a game or two but Pittsburgh will win the cup. Now I'm not sure what the argument with that is.
-
Goalies don't face 2 on 1s unless the team breaks down.
Rinne hasn't played great but he's a solid goalie. It's a weird argument because Rinne is praised for similar things that Price is, such as playing the puck and rebound control in general. If this was Price, and Price has looked like this in a playoff round before, what would the point be? I would get that Price is having a bad series from that argument. Not that Pittsburgh shouldn't have won and the reason really would be, because they are Pittsburgh. A team with this era's and the only ever other Gretzky.
Alright, Rinne is having a bad series so far but what happened in game 1 is nothing new. Teams get outshot and win ALL the time.
I argue that Pittsburgh is better on paper and whether it's looked that way in the first two games, I still believe it. We're talking about arguably a better dynasty than Chicago who everyone praises and all of a sudden Pittsburgh is the underdog against newcomer Nashville after they beat perennial contender San Jose just last year.
-
Sure and let's just ignore the fact that once again all three goals in the 3rd period were odd man rushes. One 3 on 2 and two 2 on 1s. Those types of situations don't increase the level of probability that a goal will be scored or anything.
Guetzel's goal was relatively weak and then Nashville as a team broke down trying to press too hard and Pittsburgh capitalized on two 2 on 1 rushes. That's not only on the goalie any way you slice it.
You can keep calling it a fluke that Pittsburgh has already won twice and frankly you can keep calling it a fluke based on only one factor (goaltending) once Pittsburgh wins their 4th. It doesn't really matter. In my opinion they have more skill and experience and will win the cup largely in part to that.
-
1
-
-
Who cares what the reason is? The Pens scored off 3 odd man rushes in the third period and no goalie in the world would have stopped Malkin's snipe. That's the point, the Penguins are more dangerous than Nashville because they have players like Crosby, Malkin, Kessel and even Guetzel who can score on any given shot. Nashville has physical leader Mike Fisher and Jarnkrok missing empty nets. They have to rely on players like Scissons, Arvidsson and Aberg to win a cup and eventually that will catch up with them.
On one hand we're hearing that goaltending is the reason and on the other hand we're hearing about Pittsburgh's lucky bounces. Well it's good to know that for whatever reason Murray would have stopped those lucky bounces if he were on Nashville.
Pittsburgh's the better team, has more experience, and will win the cup.
2016-17 NHL Season Thread
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
I was at home but I missed the game.
Makes me wonder about Ottawa and how they took the Pens to game 7 double OT.