Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Zowpeb

  1. I think they clearly struggle with development - players we draft later, who spend more time in the minors, tend to do okay because they come in more ready for their role, the length of season, have physically matured, etc - they are also not often expected to play top 6 roles. One of Montreal's problems is the same that a lot of large market teams have - they don't have a plan for the high end talent when they are in the NHL. Those are typically younger skill guys and we never seem to have a coaching staff that will give them some leeway to learn at the NHL level. You also can't stick those kids in the AHL for 3-4 years and hope they develop skills against mediocre competition. The organization can't abide having a bad season so we get mired with barely make the playoff level rosters - filled with 2nd and 3rd liners who can grind out just enough wins. The Leafs over the past 30 years are a good example (until recently with their youth movement). I'd rather a team suck for 2 years, miss the playoffs and retool into a contender rather then be the 11th to 16th team into the playoffs for a decade...Habs ownership wants the playoff revenue and fans are blinded into thinking "anything can happen with "Price (or insert current Habs goalie name here - because legends)". Let's turn young talented player A into a checking line forward seems to have been the Hab's mantra since the 1980's... Who was the last Habs coach that actually did a good job with young talent and developed them? I'm going to say Pat Burns but that's a long way back and I may be foggy about it.
  2. PM me the details…if I can commit the time I will. If I can’t, I won’t sign up to be a ghost team…that just hurts the pool. Been, what, over a decade? Glad to see it’s still rolling…
  3. It would be funny if it wasn’t sad how many fans defend this guy. He’s been awful since before coming here…and done nothing but play politics to protect himself since.
  4. I agree with this. This is 100% on Bergevin’s head…I could care less if he wants to use an offer sheet but if you want to play in the deep end then you better know how to swim. Bergevin is, and has been, amongst the worst GM’s in the league going back to before we hired him. He lucked into last seasons playoff run and it probably saved his job. The offer sheet to Aho was too easy to match. So they gained nothing but fostering the ire of Hurricanes ownership and GM. Then Bergevin left himself open by not extending KK. They need to resign KK and figure out the cap…and sign the young guys to extensions to prevent this (if you were them, would you decide to wait for your own offer sheets now - particularly since they may be in this situation cap wise again). I fully expect Bergevin will do the opposite and let him walk and also try another offer sheet on the Hurricanes next year. I doubt he even gets our young guys extended before doing it. He’s that special kind of fool. This after the Chicago news and his lack of owning those issues and then the cluelessness with this years draft. And after the loads of evidence that he has no clue how to manage player assets. He is not a GM or a leader. He should be a scout…that’s his only skill and he’s no better then most. Just get rid of Bergevin already.
  5. There is zero chance that they would trade Gourde for the 30th pick, some fringe players let alone retain salary...LOL It seems clear that the Kraken are going after the UFA market...I expect they will push hard for Landeskog and Danault. That solidifies a top line (Landeskog, Danault, Eberle). Assuming Hall and Grubauer resign with their teams as expected...I think they'll also look to sign Coleman, Palmieri and a goalie. That "and a goalie" would be something like one of Andersen, Bernier, Mrazek. I think they'll want a veteran platoon-mate for the goalies they selected...I don't think they risk an entire season with 3 "youngish" backups who haven't really played platoon level minutes in the NHL beyond maybe Vanacek. That effectively rounds out lines 2/3 and their goaltending and still likely leaves them nearly $4M under the cap...and means that if they take Beniers/Guenther in the draft they don't need him to be a top 6 player out of the gate. I expect they'll flip a d-man they selected for a draft pick too...probably Soucy but I could even see Giordano getting flipped (just a hunch because even though Giordano was at the draft, I didn't get the sense from his moment on stage that he was happy or impressed). If Giordano they'd likely want to sign another top 4 dman...if Soucy it'll be for cap room and whatever pick they can get (I think Soucy is solid and could be a 2nd pairing guy for some teams, but he's a LD who likely gets asked to play RD, likely gets them more value in picks and clears out nearly $3M they can use elsewhere). I think the entire draft and lack of "deals" to take on salary and flip guys was to keep room for the UFA's. Not doing deals and not going after UFA's and doing a slow build will seriously tick off Giordano, Larsson, Oleksiak and Gourde...and signal to the league that they're a crap management group and not a place you want to end up.
  6. Managed to be at the game. Stuff that jumped out to me: Chiarot and Petry looked very shaky in their own end through the first two periods. The Habs D is really questionable overall. The Habs spent a lot of time fumbling around loose pucks and just struggled to make crisp passes out of their own end and into the neutral zone. The D also kept getting trapped by forechecks and they ended up cycling the puck poorly. Domi can be a real force and this team needs to get him another quality, scoring, line mate to feed. It was an exciting game but, frankly, they didn’t win it...the Leafs lost it because they played a back-up, have questionable D of their own, they came off a back to back and Kapanen is a moron. Glad they were able to capitalize and super glad to see them beat the Leafs. But lots of work ahead for the team.
  7. First off, define "near future" - to me, based on the current club, that means 3 years from now. 1) Recognize that there is nothing wrong with a couple years of losing to rebuild - there is nothing wrong with a full reset if the plan and culture is there to build off it. 2) Create a first class player development system 3) Improve on the scouting and drafting 4) Hire the management and coaching staff that have the tools to accomplish the above - the current team is not who we should trust to accomplish this - anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring the results - be rational not emotional. 5) Trade current assets to facilitate the youth movement - trade high-cap stars for picks/prospects, then trade for guys who have 2-3 year cap "weights" in return for more picks/prospects, then use cap room to acquire assets that could become trade deadline candidates to contenders within 1-2 years - to this to get more picks/prospects. Build the pipeline as rapidly as possible and align prospect arrivals with a lot of available cap room. Use all the picks to trade up to improve on the ceiling of the picks/prospects being acquired - stop trading down to acquire more noodles to throw at the wall hoping they pan out - this isn't baseball. With luck the team gets a couple top 5 picks of their own as they rebuild AND they can use excess picks to trade up and get, ideally, a couple more top 5 picks within 2-3 years... 6) At the end of those 2-3 years, as prospects start to make the club and perform, go harder back into the FA market to acquire the 2-3 stars needed to put you over the top. Don't play for mediocrity and "making the playoffs". Winning consistently in sports is about managing diminishing returns - both managing the diminishing returns of aging stars (don't be caught sentimentally attached to high payroll players) and understanding that winning consistently means spending time/money on all facets of the organization and being rigorous on measuring/improving always and that, to be at the top of the game, it costs a lot more dollars to get only incremental improvements. 7) In 5-6 years you start "re-tooling" by trading aging stars for more picks/prospects and continue to keep the prospect pipeline full. Use that cap room to re-sign in-house "stars" and/or FA's to compliment them depending on the cap at the time. 8) You gotta be lucky along the way. But your luck improves if you do the right things, at the right times and for the right reasons.
  8. The comment on not buying UFA years is irrelevant. Signing an RFA to an offer sheet is effectively offering a younger player a UFA level of contract...you just also have to pay out some picks as a “penalty”. Frankly, if you expect to be drafting in the 20-30 range I don’t see why folks get their panties in a twist...how many 1st round picks of the Habs (or most teams) in that 20-30 range ever turn into the equivalent of an 80-90 point forward. I think it’s shocking that more teams don’t use offer sheets more often. Given the Habs inability to develop players effectively, and that they can afford it, they could use this quite well.
  9. Some may recall, but Carbonneau was considered a great defensive prospect but was also a high scoring junior prospect when he was drafted - 182 points in 72 games for the Sagueneens in 1980 and had 94 points in 77 games his last year in the AHL. Sure, the QMJHL had some pretty absurd offense numbers those days but that's still good for 23rd best all time there (Lemieux holds the record at 282 points in a single QMJHL season - lol). The Habs developed him mainly as a checking line C and never really gave him a chance to develop his offense. He's the best of his era in that role. He was also a leader on the team and, despite the role, did contribute on offense despite rarely having line-mates that could score much. He also set the club record for short handed goals in a season twice. 3 cup rings (captain for one of them), 3 Selke trophies (and he unquestionably deserved more - 83, 84, 85, 86 and 90 are the years he should've won the Selke, or at least 2-3 of those years, beyond the 3 he did win in 88, 89 and 92). Worth noting for those that don't remember, he also won the Jack Adams in 2008 as coach of the year for the Habs...wasn't right that he was fired the following season. I don't see this as marginal at all...the Habs of the late 80's through early 90's were generally strong well rounded teams that really had no "superstar" offensive players - they were well balanced teams. We're talking about an era that pumped out 100 point a year players all over the league and I think the only one they had in the 80's was Naslund in '86. Carbonneau was the lynch pin of the defensive style they played...well, beyond Roy in net...lol.
  10. I don't agree for a couple reasons: The Habs had plenty of cap room, he represents a strong upgrade even if RD isn't a significant need, there are no FA's worth signing and no trade targets that provide equivalent return without giving up a lot. The question is whether this would have represented the best use of current resources and assets to improve the club. Frankly, they could have done this and looked to move Weber out in the not too distant future (as he continues to age and his contract becomes an albatross)...and probably looked to move Subban in a couple years as he enters the final year or two of his contract. We just gained a bunch of value dealing Shaw - that was a good trade...this kind of deal would have been a very similar thing. We didn't do it so the offer sheets are intriguing tactic. I give Bergevin props on the Shaw deal, I give him credit for making a run at Aho (even if he wasn't aggressive enough - though they probably match either way). I think he should make a big offer to Marner - $12.7M a year range...using up cap room on band aids is becoming tiresome.
  11. Haven't posted in a long time...saw this trade and had to ask...I'm curious what the team looks like if Subban comes back. Only 3 years left on the contract and it doesn't look like the Habs would have much difficultly in managing it under the cap (which is sadly a testament to the lack of high end talent on the club, as well as a lack of high end young talent driving up their contracts, IMHO). Santini and Davies would've been the Habs giving up a fringe d-man and a fringe prospect...and with their additional picks next year they could probably have matched the Devils on picks. Sure, I know lots of folks love or hate Subban but my main question is, over the next 3 seasons, would having Subban make the Habs a better club without taking much away from their ability to mange the cap? I'm actually surprised that scenario really hasn't been discussed already...
  12. Given the Karlsson trade I'd say the deal looks alright. So hey, we have a better GM then Ottawa...even if it is a pretty low benchmark. For the record, as a fan, I'm appalled that Bergevin wasn't fired at the end of last season. Why they want this guy, who has turned in a terrible performance as GM (the Pacioretty deal aside), to lead a rebuild is just beyond me. They had a clear opportunity for a fresh start. It makes it clear that Molson should be turning the reigns over to someone else.
  13. I'd trade Price. His value is still high, it won't be in 4 years after the Habs allow him to be peppered night in/out. He might get hurt along the way. He might, and I'd say likely will, become vocally disenfranchised if the rebuild takes as long as I'd expect...if he demands a deal, he hurts their ability to trade him for anything of value. Get the value now to speed up the rebuild. Draft some goalies next year, and/or trade for one if needed when they're getting competitive. You don't need a superstar goalie to win the cup. Keeping him to compete years down the road is crazy... Weber won't be traded till he shows he's healthy and productive. When he is then I'd trade him too. These two mean the Habs are likely not picking top 4 in the next 1-2 drafts. They want to rebuild then get more picks and ensure 1-2 top picks to grab a true future star. They'll also then have cap room to fill spots around the young talent...and extend them. Of course it also means they need to get to get their player development systems into full gear.
  14. I was very afraid of the return when I read the headline given most of Bergevins deals...maybe it was my low expectation but this is a solid deal. Look how much Vegas traded for Tatar not too long ago...It'd also be really nice to flip him for that now. lol
  15. I think there is a chance he could be a solid 3rd line Center on a good team. I also think some of you are equating the numbers he puts up playing on the top line as equal to what he'd put up on the 3rd line. That obviously wouldn't happen. If you moved him to the 3rd line (meaning possibly a few less minutes and more checking roles), combined with our current wingers, he probably stuggles to put up 30 points in my opinion. Not the stuff of a 3rd line C on a contender...but I'll admit, he still has a little more upside to his game even if the ceiling isn't high. He takes face-offs well which I think the club needs badly and is critical for a 3rd line C. Frankly, I think having him play this year on the top line MIGHT help him develop his offense a little more which might help turn him into a much better 3rd line C (maybe that development, down the road, allows him to become a guy who can put up 40 points and still be a strong defensive 3rd line C???)...his defensive ability/awareness is already solid and he takes face-offs well. If, when that time comes, he's only a 30 point 3rd line C who is strong defensively and takes face-offs well then it'll be a sign the Habs still aren't where they should be...
  16. This team isn't rebuilding until it does a whole bunch of things differently (some of this we are doing, some of it we aren't - which is why I think they're just re-tooling to continue be a playoff contender instead of a Cup contender...same old, same old): - Change leadership at the top; why does anyone expect the same group to provide different results? - Improve our development system significantly - that means not only skills development, trainers and personnel but relationships with minor league teams where we need them to help us support our prospects development goals. If this doesn't happen then everything else is wasted time/effort. - Use the salary cap room to effectively "buy" a few prospects, or preferably, draft picks for the next 1-2 years...make sure this doesn't spill into your window of contention years. - Trades higher value guys NOW for high picks or high ceiling prospects; if we aren't possibly contending for the next 3 years then sitting on guys like Pacioretty, Price, Weber, Gallagher is pointless - trade them to try and coincide our future value with our window to contend. - Take the next 1-2 years where they acquire/sign players on short deals and flip them for prospects/picks at deadline time. Guys like Radulov when we signed him (if they weren't going to re-sign him he should have been traded to get real value on his play); sign guys that can play up a line and drive up his value a little more (exactly what Danault and Desharnais have been for us - guys playing up a line or two - trade them and rinse and repeat that concept for a couple years). - stop trading elite young players, should be obvious but apparently wasn't MB. - Use the acquired picks to draft more guys with high ceilings - which can mean some more boom/bust types as opposed to the "character" types. - ONLY draft BPA in first 3 rounds every year. Fill/augment for need in rounds 4 and beyond. - Package picks to move UP in drafts instead of down. Put more value on higher ceiling players that can go higher in drafts instead of pick volume. - As your top propsects become legit top 6 forwards and top 4 defenders it should coincide with a lot of salary cap room. ONLY then should they use that cap room to grab a top tier free agent forward, goalie and D-man to compliment these young players...prefer this be FA's and not via trades of other prospects because then you can trade your excess for more picks to extend your window of contention when your youth becomes expensive. I can live with 3 years of being a crap club if it meant coming out of that with 5-6 stellar young prospects (and probably 2-3 more that are depth pieces) all hitting their NHL stride and $35M+ in cap room to play with. I think I just described the Maple Leafs over-haul. It was obvious to folks that Toronto needed to do that for a long, long, time...same as it's been obvious about the Habs since the late 90's. It's the culture of ownership and leadership that prevents them from making the hard choices.
  17. We'll see...any glimmer of hope about this is still 2 years away from even beginning to being realized. And it only happens if the NHL level also buys into developing our youth...even at the expense of a guys like Danault to use a recent example.
  18. To me, McCarron is more evidence of the Habs failure to develop players. McCarron's BEST AHL year, at least statistically (and by a decent margin), was his rookie season as a pro. How do they not get his skating addressed over the past 3 years? If his skating is that poor they should have him in skating clinics and speed skating (those are the obvious ones) but even telling him to get into figure skating and martial arts in the off-seasons to work on balance and footwork...yeah, it sounds funny but this stuff helps. He should be doing explosiveness drills to improve his first step. He should be watching video with trainers to break down his game and find the bottlenecks in his development. He also scored 68 points (28 goals 40 assists) in 56 games in his final year of junior. Followed that up with a solid rookie AHL year too. He's had very little PP time in the minors. While he may not be a big scorer I'm surprised they didn't use him in front of the net more in the AHL. I'm not sure the "he couldn't score in junior" comment is really the issue. As a prospect he was progressing well until the Habs "development program" kicked in... I don't think anyone expected him to be a first line C or high scoring power forward...2nd line was a maybe (if everything went right) and a strong 3rd line guy should've been probable given his size, strength, reach, face-offs, high-energy motor, etc. He can still put it together but his ceiling is obviously looking limited now. I expect will ultimately become an NHL regular but without a leap forward he's looking more like a fringe guy. He's not a bust yet but he needs to earn his way up, get his minutes in at Laval and hopefully get some things sorted out with a hopefully improved development plan. This development issue has played out with a number of our prospects over the years. Either Timmins can't identify talent and draft (I doubt that's the case given his picks were often well regarded at the draft times) or the Habs can't develop (this seems much more likely and this issue goes back a LONG time).
  19. Holy balls. You have some serious selective memory if you thought Gomez was pretty good at the time that trade was made for him. I don't recall too many people thinking that was a good deal from the moment it was announced. There were A LOT of people scratching their heads about the Sergachev deal too. I agree, we'll leave the Subban deal alone because it's been beaten to death (because again, so many disagreed with it). Let's just say your optimism is impressive given the perspectives at the time and the actual hindsight of those deals. I have some Blackberry stock if you want to buy it at $16 a share...it's a good deal, they're turning it around.
  20. Hey, I'm not your typical pessimistic Habs fan...I may rarely post in recent years but I've been around the board longer then probably 99% of members...since the first days of the boards creation. Those who remember me will know I'm not the "complain about everything" fan. I'm also not a "praise everything" fan. If recent comments are more negative it's largely because there has been little positive out of Bergevins time here. It's a red herring to blame fan reaction. IMHO this team is being run by folks that struggle with asset evaluation and risk/reward. The draft was just more evidence of that.
  21. Again, my issue is that they didn't optimize the value of each pick. You want guys that you could have got lower...fine...trade down. Wasting pick value like that is the problem. The consensus, to define BPA at the time of each pick, is just an easy way to compare that value pick to pick.
  22. In Ylonen's case there were a number of players ranked higher still on the board. I've been consistent in saying that, at each pick, you need to evaluate who is still available to properly consider if they made a smart selection...perhaps they had Ylonen ranked ahead of the 6-8 other guys that were sliding but that would seem strange, particularly since they were doing this on sooo many picks. I find it unlikely that their "list" was so far off the consensus rankings from so many orgs that they continually ranked all these guys higher. I think it more likely that they had their mind set on taking a group of guys they liked, slotted them in where they thought they could get them all and put the blinders on with regards to who was still available at those times. I wonder if it's also because they fell into the trap of "falling in love with a prospect" in the same way that fans do... I'm not suggesting that they do this...wouldn't agree with that approach either. Having said that, the reality is that, as fans, we really don't get to see all these kids play (or have all the video to review). So looking at multiple rankings by orgs like the ISS, Hockey News, Sporting News, TSN, etc we get a view of how the broader hockey world views them. Sure, teams will deviate from those lists, have guys they like ahead of others, etc. None of us should take it on blind faith that the Habs scouting is so ahead of the curve they can identify 20-100 spots ahead of these organizations. The Habs past decade of drafting and development certainly doesn't support that idea. In this draft the Habs seemed to deviate (in some cases dramatically) on the majority of their picks - again, also considering who was still available at the time of each pick. They also didn't seem willing to adjust their approach as other guys slid (possibly indicating that they didn't have the level of insight they perhaps needed on some of those kids that were dropping - which would be damning of either the staff or Bergevin/Timmins if true - though I think it more likely they just fell in love with the idea of some of the picks). There are enough question marks that they should do a post mortem on their approach and a review of what they could have done better/differently. I don't think they will because it's too easy to say "we made 11 picks and got all this talent".
  23. This is doing what Commandant is saying...evaluating what they got instead of how well they used the picks available. Eg. in the real world we don't have clueless owners like Molson allowing Bergevin to run amok and use those picks on flyers as a mulligan. If I have a deadline and I'm scrambling to meet it and being forced to cut corners to get it done on time when suddenly I get an extension...how would my boss react if I just decided to take that extra time and go to Starbucks, chat on Habsworld (lol), etc? I'd lose my standing internally, possibly get fired or warned, for not refining the proposal with the extended time I was given. We also don't SOLELY evaluate companies or people based on the total volume they bring in...we evaluate them on their growth. You can be the biggest company in your industry and if you don't grow for 3 quarters in a row your share price gets destroyed and CEO is likely fired. If your the Habs and Bergevin/Timmins you get pass after pass...this year its because they had more picks even if each pick was only at 80% value on average. We had extra picks and decided to put on the blinders at draft time, ignore higher ranked guys and take sleeper picks ahead of higher ranked guys earlier then needed. Sure, rankings by 3rd parties aren't the clubs BUT when 5-6 serious hockey publications are ranking prospects and you're going between 12-100 slots ahead of them on 7 of your 11 picks then something is wrong. Did the Habs grab a bunch of talent...obviously they did, they had 11 damn picks. They ended up with more talent and prospects then most other clubs just on sheer volume. That doesn't mean they got exceptional value out of each pick based on what was available each time.
  24. That line of thinking ignores that each pick is in actual fact an organizational asset. The goal is to maximize those assets. I don't think there are two correct but different angles to evaluate from...it should only be measured against whether you maximized the value of your picks (each viewed in the context of your pick at that moment in time - otherwise everyone could just submit their "list" and they wouldn't actually hold a draft). And yes, Calgary should be evaluated on what they picked with what they had...and that includes the value of the players they traded picks to get (though, admittedly that opens up a whole series of added questions).
  • Create New...