xXx..CK..xXx

I agree and I think as it stands, the answer is to play Galchenyuk as a top 6 center and to acquire another top 6 center. I feel as though Julien didn't really think he had a weak top 6 with Danault and Plekanec because of the past success he had with Plekanec as well as all the things he probably heard from his Bruins' players when they faced him. The fact is that while there can be an argument made that neither Plekanec nor Danault should have been in the top 6, I think there's no doubt that both of them should not have been in the top 6 simultaneously. I guess from the coach's perspective Galchenyuk-Danault or Galchenyuk-Plekanec was no better than Danault-Plekanec but I think it is. Galchenyuk scored the game winning goal in overtime in our last regular season game and had 3 points in his last 5 playoff games. He was still producing to an extent. Your statement is the only reason I would ever consider trading him even though I think he'll have a good year. Although I used to think he could be used in a versatile way, he seems to need some consistency.

If Plekanec could have been good for anything last year I'd assume it could have been this. At least the defensive mentor part. I think the whole Galchenyuk thing is overblown. He's scored some big game winning goals for us and had an injury riddled season. I am a little troubled by how Julien handled Galchenyuk since being with us but I'm willing to see how a full season plays out. I expect good things from Galchenyuk next season.

I agree. I mentioned in another thread that he hasn't played as well in the playoffs as he has in the regular season in general although his numbers have improved since Waite. This year he played well, but faced another top goalie in my opinion. I still don't question having Carey Price as our starting goalie. I understand the thought that we need our team to improve overall but I still stand by the fact he does give us a chance to win every year. In addition, having Price on another team and another decent goalie like Rinne or Halak on the Habs doesn't ensure that our offense magically becomes top tier. Right now, our goaltending is top tier. The only thing I question is how Price seems to control when he plays, when he gets pulled and all that. In addition, I like the Pittsburgh model of having two top goalies better than our model. I've always really liked Montoya but he's like a Bernier and we saw how that worked out for Anaheim. Having a goalie like Price leaves us little reason to have as solid a backup because it's not as necessary. Given that reality, we have a pretty good backup but we're still no Pittsburgh. Come to think of it, that was us in 2010 with Halak and Price and it was also Vancouver with Schneider and Luongo in Vancouver and neither of those teams were able to make it work in the long run. On the other hand, Pittsburgh decided to keep Fleury and he carried the load when Murray was injured. As I wrote that sentence, Schultz put the Pens up 2-1 with 8 minutes left so they are a few minutes away from cup final. Edit: Dzingel just tied it up 2-2 with 5 mins left.

Yeah, I think there are small divides that can never be resolved because there are so many uncertainties surrounding the actual reasoning behind the trade. I'm not a blind follower of management but I would like to believe they know more than any of us in terms of what goes on behind the scenes. I will say that I do not believe that Therrien would have requested the player be gone. In addition, I would like to think that if there were indeed unrelated hockey reasons, we got a pretty good player in return. Nothing comparable to Bourque or Thibault (liked Rucinsky but not for Roy). All in all, I'm not even personally convinced that there even was a personal reason for the trade because it was Poile who approached Bergevin at the very last minute. It's tough to separate emotion from reality because we had a relatively good season where most people predicted the Habs to beat an alright Rangers team. Those same people want the manager fired because those results didn't materialize. The stars don't align because we're all hockey minds here and I'm not sure how Bergevin was supposed to be the only one to know that we were in trouble prior to that series. We are not Leafs fans. We have experienced some seasons with a comparatively weak offensive unit and we've still had a chance to make some noise. The Leafs never had Carey Price, who gives us a shot to win in any given year. The more we take that for granted, the more we're going to figure out how much we miss him once he retires and goaltending is no longer a strength of ours.

That's fine but would you also spend your entire time with fellow Habs fans in the real world chirping our own team in front of those other teams' fans? Even without those other fans there? At least have some pride (not you personally). Not sure what to make of all of it. All I know is that I wouldn't enjoy watching Habs games with a friend or fan like that. That being said, sometimes people are also really hard on their team because they are passionate, but quite often that passion can lead to a tinted non-rose colored lense as well.

What I didn't realize is how many people became Avalanche and Flames fans after those trades. There's something childish going on here with your mentality and in this case Bergevin is your father.

Saw about 20 seconds of Sergachev today before I had to run out for an appointment. Looking forward to him making the big club.

I've actually never enjoyed debating anything on here more than the Weber-Subban trade and I'm on the other side of the fence. I could talk about it all day. I just realized for he first time that this thread feels like a Nashville Predators forum though, not a Habs forum. The more vocal people are those trying to debate how the Habs lost the deal. Call it a difference in personality, but even if it were true, that's something I'd try to keep on the down low. It's not something I would be constantly bragging about amongst Habs fans. Those are the types of fans that other fan bases take pleasure in chirping.

Last year we didn't make the playoffs. This season we did. Forget the argument that we are any better. How does the evidence show we're worse? That being said, three facts about last year are that Carey Price got injured, Brendan Gallagher got injured, and Subban had a terrible year by his standards. Despite how it seems, Subban and Eberle were probably my favorite Canadian Junior players of all time. I don't know how Subban wasn't picked up in he first round. It's crazy. This doesn't change the fact that while I pride myself on trying to have an open mind in life, I was harder on Subban than any other player last year because he actually deserved it. A close second would be Eller in the type of bonehead plays I am talking about. His fanboys are forgetting how he played last season, truly. As long as those hockey reasons for the trade remain mystical in your mind, then those reasons that the trade hurt our team should remain mystical as well. You've created the thought that the move was lateral, and that seems like a silly reason to complain about a trade unless one is irrationally attached to P.K. Subban in an emotional way. At least I register that other people have mentioned how the move potentially hurt our transition game but the main thing we actually lost is entertainment value. Rivers are being cried over that. We can continue to ignore that our team played more as a unit and improved on the power play, or we can criticize our coaches because their system doesn't revolve around P.K. Subban's style of play. Because that's all we continue to hear. And sure, let's keep thinking that this was as bad a trade as losing Patrick Roy even before Nashville lifts he cup. Trading Price and seeing him lift a cup (which I believe would happen) would be the equivalent. Not trading PK Subban for an equal but different and more renown player.

While I didn't mind Therrien as much as others, I completely agree that It seems as though Laviolette has pushed the right buttons with Subban. I give him huge kuddos for that. Like you, I'm not sure that would have happened in Montreal. The Radulov argument has been counteracted with the fact that Weber helped his decision in coming here. I think Weber deserves credit for helping our power play. I knew people would bring up Muller, but that's too easy to say. It doesn't change the fact that Weber seems to get more shots through. It's similar to comparing Burns to Weber. Burns gets more shots through than anyone else and Weber gets more through than others. I think it's obvious that most of the issues that were brought up about Subban would not show themselves in his first year after being traded. If being traded isn't enough for someone to introspect and make adjustments, then I don't know what is. He truly would have to be a legitimate narcissist to cause problems in the locker room of a new team right away after apparently having trouble with his previous team. I don't know if Subban actually was a problem in the room. At the very least though, it seems safe to conclude that he would have felt a lot more comfortable and "at home" in Montreal after years of being there. I can see how Nashville benefitted, thus the win for them as well, but it doesn't mean he would have been this way in Montreal without having dealt with being traded. It doesn't mean he wouldn't have been either, but the shock of being traded will have a blow to the ego and maybe he wants to prove everyone wrong more than ever. He was motivated and that's fine and to be respected. Im sure Edmonton isn't complaining about the problems we had with Kassian either. So what? Subban has no problem being a shut down defenseman. He can be physical and skates well and can shadow anyone as a result. I for one never thought he was as bad defensively as say, a Karlsson, although I think Karlsson is better offensively. The issue was his individualistic play and turnovers. Because of reasons which have been touched on, he seems to be playing more of a complete game now. With that being said, in game 5 against Nashville, he did a spin-o-rama behind the back pass as the last man back in his defensive zone which led to a breakaway for Anaheim. Those are the types of plays that I don't personally miss even though yes you'll see someone like Emelin do a similar play and turn it over as the last man back from time to time so it's not only him who does it.

What I don't understand is how people don't realize that Subban and Weber will have different impacts on their respective teams. When the trade happened, I hated it. As I learned more about the situation (still before last season) I saw how it could have been a win-win for both teams. I still support that notion and believe in it very much. Those who worry about Weber and Subban's respective futures to make a point, suffer from anxiety. Those who say it's a win now are only partially right. Weber played better than Subban for much of the season. He was also our best player in the playoffs and Subban has been one of Nashville's better players as well, but I wouldn't say best. Make of that what you will. Nashville genuinely has a deeper team than the Habs both on offense as well as defense. People thought this was the case even before the trade. At least I did. I've been watching and Subban has just been a piece of the puzzle. On the Habs, I couldn't envision him being just a piece of the puzzle because we need him more than Nashville does (we also need Weber more than Nashville does). There's no doubt that he tried to do much on our team. That's not a slight on Subban because he had to, but it's still true. The same analysis can be used with Nashville. The best argument I can see is that perhaps it's true that Nashville relied too much on Weber similar to how the Habs relied too much on Subban. The trade changed the identity of our team for that reason. Seemingly, however, the Habs still rely heavily on Weber, but Nashville doesn't need to rely so heavily on Subban. Again, not a slight against him. It's easy to look at Nashville in the final and say that they've won the trade but I can guarantee you that I personally would not have made the opposite claim if the Habs went further than Nashville because there's no I in team. I still would have thought of it as a win-win. I'm assuming if we made the cup final, players like Lehkonen, Pacioretty and Price would have also had to have stepped up to the plate. Subban does have a personality that rubbed some people the wrong way and people seem to dismiss that as being because of the coach. Similar to how Habs29 has argued that Boucher may have learned something after his first stint as coach and then getting fired, it would surprise me very little if Subban learned from getting traded. Subban has also said that Nashville has worked with him and supported him with his off ice endeavors, since he does have many interests off ice. Montreal could have done a better job of this with him but on the other hand, he's only been in Nashville for one season and let's see how things play out in that regard the longer their relationship lasts. If they do win this year, I'm sure that will be much easier ? As for Montreal, our power play sucked for years. We went from 25th in the league to 13th and Weber had the second most goals by a defenseman In the league. Does that answer the question as to one of the ways the trade made our team better now? Or was our power play better because of all the power play assists Price had now that Condon was out? If this isn't a positive from the trade, then some other people are in denial. Finally, as for the comment that those who defend the trade, which is not even what I consider myself to be doing are only those who support management, this is not the case. Look who Bergevin acquired to help our power play two seasons ago: Semin and Kassian. Look how stupid those moves turned out to be and I called him out when he let his own two acquisitions(mistakes?) go before the new year. Either way you look at it, that turned out to be terrible GMing in my opinion. This trade has its positive elements, including the fact that it helped our power play. No, I'm not arguing that it was the only reason we made the trade. Subban can be dangerous on the power play as well but it you watch Nashville, he's getting all the assists. On Montreal, we had him blasting from the point and it became ineffective because he would fire wide or other teams would swarm him. For whatever reason, I had more confidence in Weber getting the shot through to the net on our power play, although I would have liked a little more shots from him on the PP in the playoffs. On Montreal, it would have been hard for Subban to be the assist man on the power play because we don't have a Ryan Ellis.

You have it backwards. I don't give a damn about Subban, win or lose, but we're on a Habs website and people take joy in seeing another team succeed all the while actually criticizing our player and boasting about our team's misfortunes. I don't hate Subban but I dislike Nashville. I also do not like Ottawa, Pittsburgh or Anaheim and I live right on the border of Orange County and Long Beach in California. I've said nothing about Subban and I don't see why I would. He's been a piece of the puzzle. On the other hand people have been literally mocking Weber's leadership or trying to diminish its importance when that has nothing to do with Nashville's success this year. Those are are the trolls, not me. By the way, I wasn't the one who gave you a down vote the other day when you responded to something I said. I actually agreed with you for the most part.

I'll say it out loud because I can't wait until they don't win the cup. You guys can then be happy about their final appearance and think about it for years because it will always be a fact that they got further with Subban than Weber. It's true that we'll never be able to take that away from you. That is, until the Habs win the cup with Weber. If Nashville does win the cup, however, they will have deserved all the credit in the world. Especially if they play Pittsburgh and manage to win. There were a couple of sequences in Round 1 against Chicago where they had incredible spurts of dominance and during those spurts, they looked better than any team I've seen these playoffs. I still am hard pressed to envision them beating Malkin and Crosby though and while I believe they would handle Ottawa in a final, I see Pittsburgh taking Nashville in 6 if that's the matchup that occurs.

I think the fact we're talking about it isn't really his fault. This whole thing has been played out to make it seem as though the center position is some sort of higher achievement than playing wing. I don't know if it's the organization, the media, or the fan base who have created this narrative but it sure as hell ain't him. Galchenyuk should have either been given an extended look at center or when he was moved to wing, it should have been stated that the plan moving forward is to have him play wing. Not only that, but they better mean it when they say that and they didn't need to make it out as bough it's because he's not capable of playing center. Galchenyuk has been a fine player in general and I personally don't give a damn where he plays. He's actually produced wherever he plays anyway. The problem is that the organization has a clear need at the center position and they still didn't put him there. I understand what you are saying and I guess the argument from your end would be that it's because he hasn't himself proven that he can play center effectively, but as far as I'm concerned, he better not be a center at the beginning of next year because if he is, my only conclusion will have to be that the coach made a mistake these last playoffs by sticking him on 4th line wing. Heck, even if he starts the year at wing and moves to center at some point during the season, I won't really be able to understand how he could "improve" so much at the position in a few months after having been see-sawing back for 4 years. Regardless of his play, there has definitely been a mishandling of the situation as well because there is a clear confusion as to where he belongs. Even playing well, which he has over these past 4-5 years it has happened and Galchenyuk has no control over that.

Where I differ from many is that I think Lundqvist is one of the other elite goalies in the league so New York is definitely another team who's team is built from the net out. Losing to the Rangers therefore doesn't really allow us to conclude that our team has the wrong model. We're not talking about Ben Bishop or Steve Mason. Lundqvist is the starting goalie for Sweden and while he had a rough start to the year, I think he deserves more credit than he gets. He had a rough series against the Senators as well but then again Price has never played particularly well against them either. Price's .933 this season during the playoffs was great. It doesn't change the fact that his career .914 playoff save percentage is lower than his career .920 during the regular season. I would argue that the best player in the world is supposed to raise his level in the crunch. It also doesn't compete with Price's .972 with team Canada. Canada's international team is a beast but Price is part of that beast. I think if Price plays up to his potential, we have a cup winner. Similar to Ovechkin, it hasn't happened yet. This year, in my opinion, he faced another team with a goalie who at the very least has the potential to be elite on any given night and came out on the losing end. Put him up against 25 other teams in the league and he is supposed to outgoaltend the opponent's net in a 7 game series. The only reason this model is obsolete is if he is unable to do that. Everyone agrees we need more offense but after all this my point is that I want Price on my team more than any other player in the league. There are plenty of other goalies who are capable of winning a cup but there are also plenty of offensive powerhouses who fail to win the cup as well. In sum, I think we have the perfect model but need more offense. With that being said, while goaltending is not the issue, Price himself has not played up to standard during a playoff run to the extent that other teams could even claim that the Habs are only winning because of their goaltender. It's happened in the regular season but not he playoffs. It last happened with Halak.

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.