xXx..CK..xXx

I've said it before and I'll say it again, he's our modern day Kovalev. With that being said, I'm not sure why trading Pacioretty is thinking outside of the box and trading Galchenyuk isn't. The best argument I can see is that Galchenyuk is younger and was also a higher draft pick. I'm not saying I wouldn't trade Pacioretty, but I wouldn't be out there shopping him around either. I'm happy we have him.

I know I'm setting myself to get ripped by those who hate our team in every way but I don't feel as though Price has ever really played as well as he is capable of during the playoffs as he did during the regular season 2-3 years ago as well as during both his Olympic journeys. The reason I say I'm setting myself up is because the obvious reaction is that the Habs aren't as good on paper as team Canada. With that being said, I feel as though there's more to it than that. It's a great argument to state that other goalies can counteract the Price effect in a 7 game series but on the other hand, I feel as though if you truly are the greatest, you should be able to rise above the enemy and play better than them at all costs. That's certainly the mental part of the game rather than the skillful part of the game and while I don't doubt him in any way, I will say as a coach (of a different sport) myself, hopefully Price has that innate mental edge. His skills are there but if other goalies are matching him, it's because of their mental compete level. That's food for thought in and of itself but on topic, I don't think there's a set formula. If anything we could perhaps argue that goaltending in general is getting better and so there's quite a bit of parity in the position. If I were building a team, I'd have very little issue with my goalie being my best player. I'm personally comfortable with that. Is it only an old school way of thought? I don't see why it would be. The only negative I can think of is that your contract is likely to be high when they are a sure thing and so another team can luck out with a decent contract and more offensive power.

I'm not one to throw many of our players on to the let's trade him bus but I do think Galchenyuk is tradeable and I would agree that it's only because of the handling of him from within the organization. I've long stated over and over that I think Galchenyuk being able to play wing as well as center should be used in a versatile way. Why does it have to be a big problem that he can play both? With that being said, this seesawing has become a bit of a distraction that has had a negative impact on our team. This is because whether I personally believe it or not, clearly the organization has felt that actually, he can't play both. He hasn't been trusted as a center. That's where it becomes a distraction. I like him and am a fan and always will be a fan but the only reason he's tradeable in my opinion is because the organization is not using him or has not used him as a center during a period where we desperately need one. If he can be traded for a player who will definitely play center in a top 6 role for us without question, then I think about making the trade. There are top 6 centers I wouldn't trade him for though so I guess that's where it all comes down to personal preference. I say no to a player like Stepan but would think about a player like Giroux or Duchene as pieces coming back in a trade as long as their roles were clearly identified (Duchene plays center and not wing) prior to the moves.

I wanted to say how about Beaulieu for Brian Campbell? But he's an UFA

As mentioned, Patrick Eaves and when I posted it was right after a game that their starting goalie left due to injury. I'm guessing he's good to go based on your post though.

Both teams are pretty injured so it's a toss up. Pretty much anyone's playoff now, especially if Gibson is out. I think he said he'll be alright but what else would he say and it's usually a bad sign when the goalie comes out of the game.

I had Anaheim-Washington prior to the playoffs with Anaheim winning the cup but oddly enough I picked Pittsburgh over Washington once the matchup became a reality. I still think Pittsburgh will beat Ottawa and I'm not saying the Anaheim series is over, although what I've read in these past few posts doesn't bode well for them.

I liked Subban and was just as frustrated when the trade was made as I was ecstatic when we acquired Vanek years ago. With that being said it's comments like those that have me debating. Subban isn't even playing as a #1 on his team right now whereas Weber is and yet Subban is a #1 in the league now and Weber is a #1 of 10 years ago. I get it, the puck moving defenseman is the way of the modern NHL whereas the Byfuglien's and Weber's are becoming obsolete. I also get that Nashville has 3 #1 defensemen and the Habs have 0 according to this train of thought but I have to ask how in the world is having the second most goals in the league amongst defenseman not a #1 in today's NHL when Burns will get the Norris for scoring the most?Not to mention Byfuglien was top 5 in scoring as well. Nashville isn't compete on their back end either. They would love to have a Weber, Byfuglien or Burns as well. There's no mistaking that. As for Galchenyuk, I wouldn't trade him to the Rags at all. I didn't think highly of them when we faced them in terms of their offensive capacity. I do like Zibenajad and Nash played well but I would not trade Galchenyuk for either, even in a package. Stepan as well, he's had some good stints but even if MB is trying to get bigger and stronger, Stepan is too slow for my liking. I would honestly be surprised if we traded him. Really surprised. But I would have been one of the few that may have traded him for Duchene. I'm if trading him, it's out west and I personally don't care about either Galchenyuk's nor Duchene's apparent defensive liabilities. It's been brought up that Duchene had defensive issues in Colorado and was played on the third line but everything I read mentioned that Duchene playing wing was initially as a result of Duchene being a versatile player who could play wing as well and that having him and Mackinnon (two centermem) on the same line was an extremely effective weapon. They each would take faceoffs depending on the situation. By the end of the season, he was playing third line wing but many teams do that to spread the scoring out and Andrighetto was also playing on the first line. In sum, if we had actually traded for Duchene, we don't have a Mackinnon and I'm sure it would have been in order to slot him in at center.

I'm not a cheerleader but I'm not sure what your point is either. Some teams are also worse than they were 5 years ago. Do you really think every team's path is / over a 5 year period? That's not how it works and the only difference between three years ago and today is that Price wasn't the best player in the league. Unfortunately, even if we do acquire a top 6 center, Price is still going to have to play better than Condon did last season and also better than he did this season in February. The aura around the team was never about Pacioretty or even Subban. 3 years ago, teams came into our barn knowing they would be hard pressed to get a puck by Price even if they skated circles around our team. That aura is the main difference between 3 years ago and today. Not the players in front of him. I definitely think Bergevin has made mistakes but I also think most GMs have as well. It's part of the business and extremely difficult to not have happen. He's not the best GM in the league but he's also not the first one in the league who should be fired as much as my passionate side actually did have a little bit of a negative outlook heading into next season after we lost to the Rangers. I will be joining the negative side of the fence if no moves are made this summer to address our top 6 center issue and will also be joining those with the pitchforks by the end of next year if there's a similar outcome. I do think it's too early in this most recent wave of change to criticize him fully. We could have doubled down on speed but instead he traded Andrighetto (who I liked more than anyone on here) and Desharnais (who is certainly an NHLer but had to go) and picked up players with size. We have a clear picture of what he's trying to do. If that method doesn't work and you were right about how we should have doubled down on speed, then you will have been right. The writing isn't on the wall yet though.

And what about his defenders who defended things like signing a washed up Semin to a very reasonable deal and then letting him go for nothing when the team had no internal replacement for him, even though he admittedly may have not been the solution himself. There seemed to be a rational for that one from everyone even though I didn't like it. He's still that same GM. Most fans here are explaining how they had a final straw with Bergevin but the truth is most fans who don't like Bergevin only had one straw to pick from and quite frankly, they'll always hate him because of that one straw. Thats where they lose me, because it's obvious. We can keep saying it wasn't this years trade deadline but his "body of work as a whole" but what that really means is I hate him because of the Weber trade. That's fine, but stop grasping at the other invisible straws. When it comes drafting, I think Bergevin has to trust Timmins and his scouting staff just a little bit, no? It's funny that it's brought up as a criticism because one would think that actually falls more on the scouting staff as well as the coaches who develop the players more than Bergevin. I know, but Bergevin won't fire his AHL coach. Finally, a legitimate criticism that has some basis.

The trade was definitely a win-win. Subban's game changed when he went to Nashville but it doesn't mean it would have changed on the Habs. On the Habs, you have to decide if you want Subban or Weber to be your quarterback. On Nashville, neither of them have to be. I was fine with Therrien and actually liked him better than Julien if you want to know the truth but I think it is an argument to be made that Laviolette has coached Subban well and even in a manner he wouldn't have been coached by either MT or CJ in Montreal. He's playing him in a different role. With that being said, they have the luxury to do that. While on the Habs, Subban was in a shutdown role at times in that he faced the opposition's top line but he also had to focus equally on the offensive side of things and he often tried to do too much. Everyone seems to watch Subban and see what he could have been but it's 100% fact that the trade would have knocked some sense into him, for lack of a better way of putting it. Once again his game has evolved, and it would have anyway, but there's no reason to believe that being traded wouldn't have some type of impact on the player, whether positive or negative. It seems like an obvious conclusion. Going end to end a la Bobby Orr was something he could do in Junior, and very well I might add, but people expected him to do that on the Habs as well and it wasn't a strength of his in the NHL. More often than not, Subban doesn't like to carry the puck much further than the neutral zone. Trying to do too much did lead to an enormous amount of turnovers. I liked Subban. So did illWill. What I didn't miss was his individual play that left 3 other players out of rhythm. For better or worse, the team played more together this season. It was an obvious site. So yes, if you enjoy seeing less individualistic play and like to see cohesive play from a team, the trade was a win. It's hard to pin such a change on one trade, but I thought it was fairly evident. Subban had his positives as well, there's no arguing that. But to those who think the trade itself had mostly a negative impact, you're writing your own script.

I can agree that our pickups didn't pan out. I also wouldn't assume that the way the trade deadline went was Bergevin's plan A or even plan B. I think the goal was certainly to improve our back end depth as well as to try and find some scoring help. When this wasn't realistic, for whatever reason, he still felt as though the team still needed a shakeup, so he acquired, yes, 3 bottom 6 players rather than one in order to inject new blood into the locker room. The part of the debate that the other side has me lost on is assuming that there was any single player out there who really would have made a difference. We only needed one more goal against the Rangers? That shouldn't have been too much to ask from any one of our players and just demonstrates how close our team was, with its current roster, to being able to advance. (Yes I watched and saw how difficult it was for us to score - and I doubt any one pickup would have changed that) Personally, the only names that circulated around deadline time that I was interested in were Shattenkirk and Duchene. One is a right handed defenseman and didn't fill any of our biggest needs and the other would have required one of the biggest returns out of any teams that made a move. To those laughing at the idea that all teams don't have the same needs, don't you think the other GMs are just as aware of this? Our price is as steep as it would be for any team due to our desperation. It's a fine line. Getting a goal scorer was on all of our wish lists but on the other hand, the names out there this year were the worst in recent memory.

The truth is if we go by their career stats, those 3 should have combined for 15 points in 50 games. We keep hearing the fact that they combined for 2 points in 50 games but that's an underachievement. It's what actually happened but one would have to be a Debbie Downer to have actually predicted those totals in advance. I wouldn't even call it being a realist. It's all a moot point though because regardless of what side you're on, everyone knows he didn't acquire those players to be go to guys. That's what people are complaining about. That doesn't mean they should have been expected not to chip in and contribute at all though. At the time, I would have been fine if MB got a goal scorer at the deadline. Why wouldn't I be? There was no home run answer though. Vanek probably would have been the best option and that would have had reasons to be questioned as well.

What I've gathered from this thread is that the outcome of our season is the fault of both the players as well as management. Both parties are arguing the same thing. The first side says it's up to the players to perform. The issue with that is that management should provide the players with the actual ability to perform. If we had better players, the team would have performed better. That's on management and the way the team has been built. On the other hand, some players on the squad underperformed this year (Gal(l)y Squared) while two definitely exceeded expectations (Danault, Byron). The other side blames management. Acquiring people at the deadline can be a real boost to the team and we didn't do enough. Yet the truth is that Bergevin acquired more players than most teams. We can quote their stats but no anyone would have predicted that the 3 players acquired would have combined for the same amount of points that Bergevin had himself in his 98-99 season with the Blues. He's the most active GM we've had since Savard and many long before that. The pickings were slim at the deadline and anyone who thinks that any single one of the players who were acquired would have built us into an immediate contender is not arguing a fact. Who did we want who is still in the playoffs and were acquired at the deadline? Burrows? Eaves? Stalberg? Streit? Hainsey? We're still out with any one of those forward players. Then other teams are being quoted as having been "helped" by Hanzal and Vanek and Stafford and yet those teams are out. Did we really need just a little less help than every other team? As for previous seasons, Bergevin has acquired plenty of high end talented forwards who have been able to put the puck in the back of the net in general throughout their careers. Ryder, Vanek, Semin, Briere, Fleischmann, Sekac, Radulov, PA Parenreau (if you don't like that one, you Nashville fans picked him up at the deadline). One can use those names as ammunition against Bergevin but the point is that he has previously gone the route most people are complaining about and more often than not, he got burned. The only one on that list that an overwhelming majority of fans didn't like at the time was the Briere deal. I am am not a Bergevin defender. He has made mistakes. But what I see is a man going a different route as a result of learning from personal experience and people are ready to torch him 12 months into this transition. At least bring up some solid reasons. Even the people are arguing it have two different thesis statements going.

Similar to Bergevin's actual stats as a player. There might be something there...

It's not that crazy but in my opinion Draisaitl seems to be a very specific target from someone who lives in Alberta and probably sees and hears a lot about him. He seems to be an amazing player without a doubt but it's easy to look at his statistics right now and claim that he's worth 4 first round draft picks. In one sentence, he's compared to Kopitar and in the next he's compared to Tavares to prove a point. He did extremely well this year but for me next year will be his real measuring stick now that other teams are fully aware of him. He had a good World Cup prior to the season as well but his first two years don't have overly amazing statistics. All in all, I doubt Bergevin has his priority being to throw an offer sheet at Draisaitl, and it's not necessarily because of his incompetence.

Interesting you bring it up because just about a half hour ago while I was thinking about our center depth, I was wondering if it was at all possible that we could hope for some type of bounce back season from him after the way he played this year. On paper something like Thornton-Galchenyuk-Plekanec or Thornton-Danault-Plekanec really doesn't look that bad up the middle. It has potential to be a lot better than people feel, mainly because this past season was a perfect storm with Plekanec and Galchenyuk. Thornton might not be the right guy but place whoever we acquire there and as long as they are a top 6 center, it still doesn't look too bad on paper. The problem is Plekanec regressed quite nicely this season and Galchenyuk's life is confusing.

I just came across the article now and I think some of his comments are getting lost in translation. He wasn't saying that Backstrom and Kuznetsov aren't current or future number one line centers, he was saying that you can't build a team around a winger. I'm not sure that I agree with that either but I think the article is more a slight at Ovechkin rather than Backstrom or Kuznetsov. He agrees that they are respectable players. He was also saying that the Habs should go after Tavares, not Washington. Of course, Washington would be better with him as well.

I'm not saying he's bad but it's the same reason I wasn't convinced about Matt Murray after last year. It seems like a really complex issue because you're right, although I think Thomas had some good regular season stats as well, but there are exceptions. I think Quick is a very good goalie and he was a big part of the Kings' mini dynasty. On on the other hand you have goalies like Corey Crawford and Marc Andre Fleury becoming Hall of Famers in front of our eyes.

In terms of having already won a cup? That's the context I used it in. I'm trying to figure out who on their roster has already won a cup. Really, I am. Same with Ottawa. I can think of Laviolette.

Pretty sure Pittsburgh is going to win the cup but I picked Anaheim prior to the playoffs. Strongly doubt Nashville gets over the hump the first time around but they have Laviolette going for them. IF Pittsburgh do win the cup, MAF becomes an interesting story. I remember all the softies he's left in as well in the playoffs but one would have to concede he's had a better career than Price. Crosby and Malkin aside, he has to make the saves as well. What I do like about him is his combativeness. I understand that there's this modern technique where keeping your head still and focused on the puck is this big thing, but I want my goalie to have some type of instinctual aspect to his play as well. It's why I've always liked goalies like Hasek, Huet, Felix Potvin and many more...

I just read your summing up of the article but I don't think we can trade this guy based on what was written. I say that because he comes up in a lot of the blockbuster trades Habs fans bring up. Not only that but it's usually part of a package for a forward. Pretty much everyone should be available on our back end as trade bait other than Weber, for the next few years and Sergachev. Unless another top 1 defenseman is coming back the other way for either of them. He's a key component moving forward.

Darn I forgot to get my picks in for rounds 3 and 4. At least most of my players are still in but I actually have Anaheim and Pittsburgh winning and my goalies are Anderson and Rinne. I also hope McDavid and Skjei get me a few points in the final two rounds

I'm on the fence on this one. We need help in the top 6 at center but I don't think there should be any risk associated with solving the problem. If that move doesn't work, it surely would have to be the end of Bergevin because he still would have failed to address the issue. If you're Bergevin, do you risk your tenure on Shipachyov? I checked Shipachyov's stats in the KHL and they are decent but there will always be those question marks surrounding him, especially in his first season transitioning to the NHL. People thought Radulov coming back had some risk and he's consistently been the best or second best point getter in that league. Could we have signed Shipachyov? Sure. But if that would have been our only major move this off season, there still would have been a lot of uncertainty heading into next season. I would have wanted to know that we'd me making another top 6 center acquisition as well and who knows how easy it would have been to work that out after handing out 4.5 mil to Shipachyov. To sum up, I agree that our need for a center outweighs that of most other teams but I don't think there should be any (or little to none) risk involved in solving that issue. We need to actually solve it. By the way, just an in general comment, there is/was another team with center depth weaker than ours. It's the Vegas Golden Knights. They were more desperate than us and every other team it seems.

I actually think that if Washington should make a move it really should be Ovi or the coach. Backstrom and Kuznetsov played well for them and I can see them winning a cup. On the other hand, I would sincerely be surprised if I ever see Ovechkin lift the cup in a Capitals jersey. I had them going to the final prior to the playoffs but never in a million years did I expect them to win. It's not likely to happen but I would consider the thought of trading Ovechkin. Trotz has always been heralded as one of those better coaches in the league and he probably is but look at Nashville doing fine without him and Washington isn't getting it done. He's also handled Ovechkin in a very specific manner the whole time they've been together and he may be partly responsible for moulding Ovechkin into how I view him. All I know is that it's not only been in the NHL. Whether it's international or league, I rarely see him win. Truth be told, if I were them I wouldn't do anything major but they are the San Jose of the east and I think both of those teams will have different cores by the time they win a cup.