Jump to content

Wamsley01

Member
  • Posts

    5530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wamsley01

  1. http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2011/7/19/2284054/2010-11-season-advance-stat-recap-part-2-defensemen-at-even-strength

    I know not everybody buys into the "advanced stats" but this is a strong statement for the defense that Gauthier brought back.

    Gill-Subban looks to be a quality 2nd pairing next year, either as a shut-down unit against the toughs to free Markov for a more offensive role or as a second matchup pairing to share the defensive responsibilities. They would make for an excellent defensive zone start pairing to give the rest of the defense an easier time.
    The third rock for the defense after Hamrlik and Gill was Spacek with lesser minutes but still against strong opponents. Montreal player very low-event hockey with him on the ice but came out ahead both on possession and goals, with a low shooting% cancelling out a high save percentage. He is slated for the third pairing next season, he should be able to anchor that unit and play spot duty in the top-4 without much difficulty unless he falls off a cliff in ability.

    Just another reason why I am not worried about the D.

  2. Interesting summer-doldrums debate.

    At the end of the day I concur with Wamsley on this one, but I do agree with Trizzak to a certain extent - having Hamrlik on board cheap for one year would have provided shot-term depth and medium-term flexibility. But PG CHOSE to let him walk to leave room for Emelin or Weber to step up. And he felt the possibility was strong enough that one of them might do so this year that he was willing to let Hammer go rather than sign him to the very reasonable contract that Wash did. I will be surprised if PG adds a UFA D before the season starts, unless training camp/exhibition games change the outlook.

    Also, I am not concerned about the prospect of Spac or Gill starting the season on the top 4 D. Spac in particular has proven he can eat those minutes, at least for a few months. And who knows, he may regain some offensive glitter if paired on the left side of Subban.

    PG has been bold and risky. If Markov and Gorges return to form and Subban continues a pace, I won't be worried about who fills the number 4 spot. The Habs top 4 will be very solid indeed - it is hard to overestimate how rare the combined O and D prowess of Markov and Subban is, not to mention the physical aspect PK brings to the game and the elite level vision Markov brings. That combo will leave JM the latitude to test Emelin and Weber or to play it safe with the veterans. If injuries mount, PG has left cap space to wheel and deal.

    I think he has taken calculated risks. Hammer would have been nice, but my guess is the second year was a no go.

    For me, all the Habs need to do if Emelin, Weber AND Diaz all falter is piece together 35-40 games from Gill and 35-40 games from Spacek. They both can excel for short term stretches in the top 4. The whole thing blows up in their face if Markov/Subban get hurt, but that is always the risk of a physical game like hockey. I would love a Big 3, but probably not realistic anymore.

  3. I am complaining how unreliable our #4 defenseman will be. There are many intriguing options down the depth chart, but none that I am comfortable with playing 20 minutes a night.

    Markov

    Subban

    Gorges

    -------

    Gill

    Yemelin

    Spacek

    Weber

    Diaz

    Nash

    Denis

    Mitera

    The injury relief situation could be awful, but the current situation isn't really all that great. Yemelin could be that guy. Weber could be that guy. Gill could be that guy. But nobody currently is that guy. I'd rather replace a question mark with a guarantee, whether that be in the #4 or the #8 spot.

    I'd also say Komisarek was much more capable in eating up minutes than Gill or Spacek currently is. You can put Spacek and Gill beside Markov if you want(ignoring the side-preferences obviously) but they will still get gassed.

    Komisarek is a disaster in Toronto and he is in his PRIME now.

    The point is almost to a man this board expected Subban to apprentice with easy minutes as the 6th defenseman last summer and now everybody has him penciled in as a perennial all-star. 80% of people thought Price would implode last season and the Canadiens were screwed without Halak. Two seasons ago coming off a 39 point year everybody had written of Plekanec as a 2nd line center at best and was the primary reason why the Habs acquired Gomez.

    Everybody is a genius in hindsight. Gauthier has made some bold moves that the majority on this board would NOT have made because he is paid to anticipate the future not analyze what is in front of our face today, but to make decisions for what will be in our face tomorrow. So outside of those who thought Subban would be the number one defenseman come the playoffs and Carey Price would win 25 games more than the season before, raise your hand.

    So I don't think it is rationale to complain about investing in young players when it has been so successful for this team over the last 2-3 seasons. This is not a Maple Leaf situation where everything needs to fall in place for a run at the playoffs. That was the 2002-2007 Habs. The Habs now have Cup winning veterans to help these young players ease into the NHL and provide a strong learning environment. Diaz and Emelin are sight unseen and Weber has barely played.

    Many are choosing the "I haven't seen him, what if he sucks" mentality, I choose the "I haven't seen him, I trust Gauthier and Timmins and the system mentality".

    There are failsafes should all of them falter (ie. Wiz, Mara somebody else). So why worry about it?

  4. I'm personally rather scared of Gill or Spacek in the top 4 for an extended period of time. Are either of them really minute munchers like Hamrlik was? And despite everyone seemingly having Gill slotted beside Subban or Gorges all year, I'd rather he be beside Yemelin on the 3rd pairing. If he helped Gorges and Subban improve, his next assignment should be Yemelin...

    But that puts Spacek in the top 4, and I'm just not cool with that. He looks like the least fit player on the Habs, and veteran savvy only gets you so far when you can't keep up with the play...

    But that puts Weber in the top 4, and being that he could only crack the lineup as a winger in the playoffs, can he really be trusted to make that kind of jump? I should point out I don't actually mind Spacek on the team with soft minutes, but if he's getting the soft minutes than someone else undeserving is getting the tough minutes, and that downright worries me.

    And being that Hamrlik was in fact offered a contract by PG, I can certainly see another defenseman being added to replace one of Weber or Spacek.

    Was Komisarek a top 4? He sure as hell looked like one when paired with Markov every night. Komisarek made a career of giving Markov harder minutes by cycling it into his corner and having him deal with pressure and transition. Gorges said as much last season when asked what it is like playing with Markov. He joked that he tosses it into his corner and he does the rest.

    I know people believe that Wiz replaced Markov, but in reality it was a combo of Wiz/Hamrlik that patched the wound.

    Place a competent defenseman beside Markov or Subban and they can handle the workload. Hamrlik is a LEGIT top 4 with any partner, unfortunately he is getting older and breaks down if placed under that workload now.

    Would Hammer have been a better player to retain? Depends, do you value Gill's PK ability more than the possibility that Hammer has to play top 4 minutes. Do you value the player who will take the one year deal in contrast to the player who takes the 2 year deal.

    This is not black and white. I don't know if it was the extra year, I don't know if they valued Gill's ability to mentor and PK ability. All I know is that there is a lot of complaining about the defensive depth based on assumptions of the skill level of players 99% of us have not seen play.

    Emelin, Diaz and Weber offer three intriguing options. I will wait to see how they progress and if they are poor, I trust Gauthier to bridge the gap like a competent GM should.

    The fact that the biggest complaint on this board seems to be how crappy and unreliable our 8th defenseman may be is a testament to how this team has improved.

  5. The Hammer decision may come down to an unspoken view about expectations for next season. As I've said for a while, I think the Habs were quietly in a position to contend next season. But management appears to be more interested in leaving room for young players (Emelin and Weber in particular) to develop on the blueline. To my mind, if you think you can contend, you don't casually let both Hammer *and* Wisniewski walk for contractual reasons. You try to keep at least one of them around even if it means a two-year deal for Hammer. Management either believes you can win Cups with raw rookies and Spacek playing significant minutes; or doesn't really see us contending this season; OR doesn't put as much emphasis as I do upon the blueline as the key to winning. -_- (It's worth remembering, in this context, my old theory that the current team is a rebuild in disguise: intended all along as a placeholder that would keep us competitive while the Next Generation emerges. If that remains management's overall view, then the decision makes perfect sense).

    Of course, I will now be accused of arguing that Hamrlik is the difference between contending and not contending. No, it's more that having a Hammer in the mix gives us a defence corps that is much closer to a trustworthy Cup-winning defence, with depth built for the long haul. Otherwise put, we're better with him than without him, and the margin of error in terms of winning Cups is not wide enough to forego players that make us better unless we absolutely must.

    Once again these are all assumptions based on limited information.

    Maybe in retrospect you will be correct, but maybe Timmins, Gauthier, Gainey etc. have assessed Emelin at a different level than you perceive he can play. Maybe they are right, maybe you are right. I don't understand the negativity.

    You keep saying things like "Spacek playing significant minutes". If the top 4 is Markov, Subban, Gill and Gorges, why would Spacek have to play significant minutes? You're continuous argument seems to flow around the "inevitable" injury problems that will arise and the assumption that Emelin and Weber are going to be stiffs.

    Like I said in the other thread, what would you have assessed the Bruins chances at a Cup last September? Chara and junk? No scoring, etc. Let's give these guys a chance to see what they can accomplish before condemning them as injury prone and useless rookies.

  6. I am with you on that one for sure. Player vs player, Hamrlik is better overall than Gill and didn't cost too much more. I've never been a real big fan of Gill unless he is laying down in front of the net on the PK. Meanwhile, Hamrlik was named "the unsung hero" for the Habs last season. He ranked 4th in the league in blocked shots, can play alot of minutes despite age, his transition game is way better, can play on the PP and had more takeaways than Gill and less giveaways. I think that people's perception of Hamrlik was always related to his salary and not the player itself. But now for his new salary of $3.5m, he adds excellent value to any team he plays for. The loss of Roman is a bigger deal than most think.

    I also think that opinion was skewed because he was consistently forced into a role he was not suited for.

    With Markov missing so many games, he was playing above his role. That lead to breakdowns. He did a pretty good job considering.

    I wanted him back, but understand why they didn't give him 2 seasons.

  7. Despite Wamsley's chastising, I do not fully trust our current defensive alignment. The loss of Hamrlik is significant. Too much depends on injured guys coming back 100% as well as either Yemelin or Weber suddenly stepping in and taking a regular, effective shift in the NHL. However, it *is* a valid observation that, with the surplus of bottom-end defencemen floating around unemployed, you can afford to wait and see before adding a solid bottom-pairing guy (e.g., that clown Shane O'Brien). So I think PMKoivu is correct. Expect someone to be added around December, after either the inevitable injury occurs, or Weber/Emelin start to struggle...or, most likely, both.

    Be happy CC :)

    Trust has to be earned, so that is understandable. They will be fine barring a Markov/Subban injury.

    A good system can survive injuries. Also, guys like Mara can be acquired for nothing during the season from teams who realize they are not playoff bound.

    Why does it have to be extremes? There is more than two options here.

    1. Subban is for real and Markov bounces back. Emelin establishes himself as a solid 4-6 and the Habs are an elite team.

    2. Markov and Gorges get hurt again. Emelin is overrated and in Russia by February and Martin overuses Subban and we suck.

    The likely scenario lies in the middle. Emelin is for real and Markov misses 15 games OR Markov is back healthy and Subban regresses a little and Emelin is solid etc et.

  8. Good call. Neely came to my mind, mostly because of a series-winning slapshot from the blueline that eluded Roy and is permanently burned in my brain. But Moog is indeed the ultimate Habs killer - probably the greatest in history. Damn, I hated those early-90s series against the Bruins. :angry:

    I'd also like to nominate the entire Hartford Whalers organization. We generally managed to beat them in the end, but despite being inferior, they always gave us a nightmarish time back in the 1980s. Nothing more nauseating than having a contending team that struggles horribly against one particular middle-of-the-pack franchise. :wall:

    The Habs owned the Whalers. I understand what C.C is saying though. I f@#king hated "Brass Bonanza" that they played every time they scored a home goal and the Habs had home ice EVERY series and only once did they smoke them. Even in 1988 they were up 3-0 and they had to go into Hartford to win Game 6.

    While in Hartford the Habs never lost (although there were two 7 game OT's against the Mighty Whale).

    1986 Habs won 4-3 (OT)

    1988 Habs won 4-2

    1989 Habs won 4-0

    1992 Habs won 4-3 (2 OT)

    Since they have moved to Carolina they flipped the script.

  9. Andy "F@$king" Moog!!

    He knocked the Habs out of the playoffs in

    1981

    1990

    1991

    1992

    The only time the Habs knocked out a Moog team was in 1989 and Lemelin was the starter for the majority of that series.

    He also crapped the bed FOR the Habs against the Sabres.

  10. The difference, and I don't want to get repetitive here, is Carbo and Gainey! Talbot, Madden, Paulsson... These shutdown guys are critical. I suppose Plek could be that guy. Bergeron was this year and is a Selke candidate as well as a second liner. I thought Pyatt was on his way to that. A pure shutdown forward. It's hard for your first line centre to be a goal scorer when he's also your shutdown guy. The only thing close to that in the bottom two lines is Moen. Eller showed glimpes of defensive prowess in the playoffs.

    Yes, but pre-1993 nobody saw Brunet evolving into that type of player.

    He had 231 points in 175 AHL games with Sherbrooke. He was viewed as a scorer, yet he pulled a Carbo and evolved into a solid shutdown player over his career. What all of us are projecting out is inconsistent with how we will view things in April, guaranteed because with young players it happens every season.

    That wasn't Bergeron's expected trajectory at the beginning of his career either. Eller could easily become that guy, Plekanec is already a solid defensive center who can play tough minutes and still contribute offensively.

    The types of players that people are stressing over are available at the deadline every season for an affordable price.

  11. Maybe that is why some do not feel comfortable with the line up, we are not in 1986/93.

    I am ok with the lineup to _start_ the season, but once we hit the 20 and 40 games mark I expect PG to tune up the line for the playoffs.

    I am disapointed Talbot was not signed, and I hope we get a player like Talbot or Marchand to contribute from our bottom 6. Hopefully that player will come from within the organization. I do not htink that type of player is available in the remaining FAs.

    Me thinks you missed the point.

  12. Yes but the team is not lacking youngsters either, eller, deharnais, white, subban, yemelin, gorges, pleky, pacioretty, Weber, kostitsyn.

    You are right about missing scoring, but thats why gauthier when out and got eric cole, and add the fact that pacioretty is coming back from injury, along with markov, and cammy who (played an average 66 games a season in his two years, so hopefully we can get a full year out of him) and add the fact that eller and deharnais will only get better and you have a somewhat very potent offence. (note to also include pleks, kosty and gio to put up there usual numbers and hope that maybe gomez can put up a decent year).

    And as for your theory of these 3rd and 4th marginal players putting the habs over the top. These are the guys who step up in the playoffs when your best players are attracting all the attention, look at the bruins who just won the cup,

    (god help me if i ever say that again) they had rich peverly a fourth liner with (playoff numbers- 4 goals 8 assists for 12 points in 25GP), and chris kelly a third liner with (playoff numbers-5 goals and 8 assisits for 13 points in 25GP) not too bad for some 3rd and 4th line marginal players. If you want another example look at the 2010 blackhawks which had third liner at the time dave bolland the guy posted (playoff numbers- 8 goals 8 assists in 22GP) and john madden shut down forward specialist and great leader. Then you have the penguins with talbot, and rupp and the list goes on and on. so that is why it is very important for montreal to pick up a big third liner with some scoring ability, and maybe some one who can get under the skin of opposing players (but this one is a stretch). So in other words those marginal guys are the guys that can kill you when it counts most.

    The Canadiens are proof that rookies can make an impact on the 3rd and 4th lines and score big Cup/Playoff goals.

    Claude Lemieux, Stephane Richer, John Leclair, Paul Dipietro, Gilbert Dionne and even Brisebois all had big moments during their rookie seasons. I seem to recall a rookie named Skrudland scoring 9 seconds into OT in a Cup Final game. Even guys like Dave Maley and Steve Rooney provided big moments for the Habs in 1986. Eric Desjardins was a solid contributor to the 1989 Cup run, as was Mike Keane and Brent Gilchrist. Solid young compliments to the veteran core. (That doesn't even bring up the sophomore's or young players like Odelein, Schneider, Ronan, Lebeau or Belanger who made contributions).

    You are viewing things through the benefit of hindsight. Before the Hawks Cup run, Bolland was not viewed like he is now, nor were Peverley or Kelly 3 months ago. Who the hell could have predicted Paul Dipietro's 13 points in 17 games in 1993?

    I don't understand the rejection of letting cheap young players make a difference and apprentice on the lower lines. Especially from CC who has witnessed the Canadiens use this type of process during their 15 year run from the early 80's to mid 90's to great success.

    I can imagine the pre-1993 training camp having the same conversation.

    "I don't feel comfortable with the Habs relying on depth guys like Sean Hill and Patrick Brisebois. What happens if Desjardins or Schneider get hurt? Then our starting D is Schneider, Brisebois, Daigneault, Dufresne, Haller and Hill. Do you feel comfortable moving forward with that? Also, winning a Cup requires strong third and fourth liners. How are the Habs going to win with these unreliable guys like John Leclair, Paul Dipietro, Gilbert Dionne, Benoit Brunet. I mean, Brunet is injury prone and is a scorer, we can't place him on a checking line. Let's not even mention the crappy backup we have in Racicot and how screwed we are if Roy goes down.

    Do any of you guys feel comfortable with that lineup? We need to go out and sign some veterans to compete. We need proven guys on our bottom lines or we will lack the depth to do anything."

    I am fine with the way this team is setup. They have a strong veteran leadership core and some elite prospects mixed in with some high upside 3rd and 4th liners. Looks like a 1993/1986 blueprint to me.

  13. I Disagree i dont thing we have any really good 3rd 4th line type guys last year but ryan white, we had a bunch of young guys that are more like 2nd line type players..we got to get bigger and stronger on the bottom 6..We need guys that hit hard and can drop the gloves when need be..

    That is a stereotypical view of what a 3rd/4th line player is though.

    The defending Stanley Cup Champion Bruins were not full of low level fighters/grinders. Their 3rd line winger was Recchi or Ryder.

    Outside of Thornton their bottom lines were filled with guys like Rich Peverley, Danielle Paille and Chris Kelly.

    Do any of these guys hit hard or drop the gloves? Physical play is one factor, but so is puck possession, the ability to cause offensive zone pressure

    defensive responsibility etc. Guys like Eller, Kostitsyn, Desharnais, Darche can be valuable 3rd/4th line guys. They don't need bangers to be successful.

  14. People are always too optimistic about what rookies can bring. Look at Eller: considered an absolute blue-chip prospect, he was still on a steep learning curve and had little impact until the playoffs. Yes, there are exceptions - Ryder came in and made an impact immediately, for instance. But in general you cannot pencil in rookies for too many roster spots and expect to have success.

    If we rely on rookies in our bottom-6, we may be able to muddle along until around December when the intensity picks up. But sooner or later we will have to go out and get guys who know what they're doing. The bottom 6 is NOT a luxury item in today's NHL, and this is especially true down the stretch and into the playoffs. You have to have guys who can go out there and give you reliable minutes, fulfilling certain roles - e.g., physical robustness, energy, faceoffs - with consistent effectiveness.

    On D, we have four proven guys, two of whom are coming off serious injuries and one of whom is widely viewed as washed up (Spacek); along with a very impressive sophomore (Subban). We are, therefore, depending on the totally unproven Emelin and Weber not to struggle. Weber has at least been halfway around the block, but when you consider that even the mighty Subban struggled in the first half of last season, we should expect Emelin to struggle or at best blow hot and cold. Are you comfortable with, for instance, this alignment:

    Markov-Gorges

    Subban-Gill

    Spacek-Weber?

    If not, then you go out and get an experienced defenceman.

    Then there's the likelihood of injuries. Are you comfortable, then, with something like

    Subban-Gill

    Weber-Gorges

    Emelin-Spacek?

    If not, then you go out and get an experienced defencemen.

    Just my two cents. I have seen this movie of Rookie Disappointment over and over. Don't bank on perfect health, and don't bank on rookies playing great. Indeed, if Subban weren't so incredibly PK Subban, I'd also warn against the infamous sophomore-defenceman jinx. (Remember what happened to Phaneuf!)

    So I stand by my earlier post. Experienced D, experienced bottom-6er(s). We need 'em.

    What movie of "rookie disappointment" are you referring too? I have seen quite the opposite.

    It is about expectation level and perspective. What is a 4th liners expectation level to you?

    You use Eller as an example, but can we say Eller was a terrible 3rd or 4th liner in 2011?

    Can we say that Desharnais was a poor 3rd or 4th line performer? How much of this viewpoint is skewed by a terrible decade in which we put our hopes on prospects who were A. not elite or B. put in positions where they could not succeed.

    Was Plekanec a disappointment in 2006? Was Higgins poor before he was placed on the 1st line that season? What about Kostitsyn in 2008?

    Players like Subban are the exception. They generally come up and are handed offensive zone starts, easy competition and eased into the NHL. Exactly what we are looking for this season from a player like Emelin. We are likely going to see the season start with him getting 14 minutes a game and eased in. I don't understand what you think are reliable minutes?

    Last season had the Habs using all types of players to plug holes. Subban had to replace Markov. Eller was moved up and down the lineup. Desharnais played every possible line combo you can imagine. Pacioretty was carrying the Habs for a while. White came up and was solid in the second half of the season. Yet there these players were, playing great hockey down the stretch and into the playoffs, to the point where we were concerned what the Habs would do without DD, Pacioretty and Eller. All of these players were rookies.

    I understand your argument if you are talking about leaning on rookies to carry the load , but you have to apprentice rookies in the NHL, especially in a cap age when they make 800k per season. This team has been riddled with these guys since 2008 who have stepped up and delivered. Lapierre and S. Kostitsyn in 2008 were very helpful in the Eastern title run. They are unpredictable, but that is why you don't rely on them to carry offense on the lower lines. You simplify their game and look at their offense as a bonus, just like you would with a Halpern, Metropolit or Moore.

    You did this whole "injury scarefest" ALL SEASON last year. Every time you predicted doom somebody stepped in and filled the production. The fanbase did it all the way to the wee minutes of Game 7 before Subban tied it. The Habs never quit and their system allowed players to step in and fill gaps. The season hasn't even started and you are putting up "what happens if our defense looks like this without Markov?" "Are we comfortable with Emelin playing more minutes?"

    If any players are going to falter, it is going to be the sophomores who you have placed an increased expectation upon. Those are the seasons in which Lapierre, Higgins, both Kostitsyn's, Price, D'Agostini, Pouliot etc, disappointed. Hence it comes down to expectation again. You expect nothing from Emelin, so average play will make your glass half empty feel half full. You expect nothing out of Weber, same thing.

    Next season comes along and you are looking for not only average, but progression. If they are average/below average, they become a disappointment. What were your expectations of DD, Pacioretty, Subban and Eller last season and which of them failed to surpass those expectations? Now what are your expectations for those same 4?

    I think you are looking for negatives already.

  15. Maybe Gautier didnt let Moore walk, maybe Moore just wanted to sign with Tampa. :monkey:

    I can't believe we are talking about a 3rd liner 14 months after he played his last game. He played 14 minutes per game.

    The Habs replaced him and were a better team last season even though they didn't get the same miracles and bounces that lead them to a Semi-final berth.

    These guys are a dime a dozen in the NHL and can be replaced for 800k or from within.

  16. They made the move not for cap reasons but for money reasons. Because of Lombardi's injury history, his contract is uninsurable. Whether he plays or not, he gets paid by the Preds. With the uncertainty surrounding his health, they didn't want to pay $3 million per year to a player where legitimate concerns exist over whether he plays again or not. The Leafs, who have plenty of money, could afford to take on such an obligation, as long as they had incentive to. Franson was that incentive for them. The Leafs win the deal hockey wise, the Preds win money wise.

    As Trizz also notes, they have a key RFA to re-sign long-term (Weber), plus they're the team with the QO snafus that is heading to arbitration on July 8th (the other 4 RFA's he noted). If an arbitrator deems them as UFA's, they'll have to do like Chicago and overpay to keep them. Gomez isn't going to Nashville, Brian Wilde simply speculated as such. Who they have left to sign will get them close to the floor and if not, they'll find a $1-2 million guy to get them there.

    Welcome to the new NHL. The league where the teams with money can buy assets off the teams with no money. Sounds a little like pre-2005.

    Gauthier, Burke etc should be going over every teams roster and look who is leaking money, then offer an "incentive" for them to take this money off their hands. Burke has been trying to find these advantages all over the place.

    Phaneuf = about money. Lupul = about money. Parent = about money. In all of those deals he took back money and players who were injury prone/expensive/risky.

    That is his way of trying to jump start the Leafs winning ahead of schedule, it also requires plenty of risks on his roster. If Lupul, Lombardi and Connolly all get hurt like they have through their careers the Leafs are left with no offensive depth again, if they all stay healthy? Then it is a legit playoff team.

    For a team like Montreal, already possessing depth and a contender poaching a Parent could make a huge difference at little cost.

  17. It's hard to compare it to pre-lockout trades because the Gomez trade would never have happened in a pre-cap NHL. Montreal actually received the best player in the deal. How do you compare that to all the Houle trades where Montreal dealt the best player(s) in each deal? Unless McDonagh gones on to be a top 4 d-man, I don't even think this was a bad trade for Montreal. They traded spare parts for an overpaid core player, which helped them bring in Cammalleri and Gionta, two more core players.

    It hasn't even hampered them. They are sitting with millions to spend on July 1st. This is essentially a rehash of an argument that was valid when he was signed and becomes less important with every year removed from his contract and every year that the cap increases.

    • 2008 he took up 15% of the Rangers cap and was paid $10M per.

    • 2009 it dropped to 13% and an $8M commitment

    • 2010 it remained 13%/$8M

    • 2011 it dropped to 12% and $7.5M

    • 2012 it dropped again to 11% and $7.5M

    Next season it will likely drop again and the salary commitment will be only $5.5M per season.

    It seems like a relatively lazy stance with the cap continuing to sky rocket from $39M to $64M since the lockout. It obviously has to stop at some point, but a $7.3M cap commitment on a $50M cap and one on a $64M one constitutes a huge difference. He is overpaid and if he drops another 30 point season than he will be dealt, he might get dealt if he puts up another 60 point season considering all the teams needing to reach a floor that is $8M more than the initial salary cap.

    I am not really that worried about him at this point, suggesting that 3/4ths of the guys dealt for him have done NOTHING has resulted in the 2nd worst trade of anything is silly to me.

  18. Well, my personal team-building philosophy (not that that's worth much) is that you win from the net out. Our current configuration relies on TWO defencemen who have never taken a regular shift in the NHL, or else one of those plus Spacek. While I don't view Spacek as the useless piece of garbage that some fans do, I find that a risky alignment, especially as he is injury-prone and likely to need his minutes managed carefully. A far preferable option would be to have Hammer in the mix, with Spacek to be relegated to 7th defenceman duties in the event that Emelin or Weber really do step up. (I haven't given up on Hamrlik yet...he may find the UFA market less congenial than he hopes, who knows).

    I don't believe that, even in a cap era, winning teams rely on everything working out just so. You've got to have quality depth, especially on defence. Right now we don't have it, unless you count Weber/Emelin/Diaz as 'quality depth' - a verdict I find premature.

    Somebody suggested that Wiz could command upwards of $6 mil. If that's the case, then I'll cease to gripe about losing him, as that would be an absurd contract. But it doesn't change the fact that right now, this is a risky defence corps...especially, but not exclusively, if you worry about Markov's injury record.

    I believe in building from the net out as well, but you don't really know anything about Diaz and Emelin outside of what you read on the internet and your pessimism in regard to things going wrong for this team. Maybe they are more ready than you suspect, maybe they are not, but we are all commenting with a certain lack of information. The problem is what you consider quality depth. The Canucks quality depth was Ballard and Rome. Ballarad makes a lot of $$, but did not play like it in the playoffs.

    Every team that contends has some sort of risk moving forward. The Wings and Hawks won Cups with shirts hanging from the net. The Bruins defense core after Chara would have been suspect in your mind in October.

    I would like for Hammer to return, but this could all be rendered moot if Emelin is a top 4. How bad does Emelin have to be to not be productive. How many people loved Komisarek when he played with Markov? How shit has he proven to be without 79? Gill and Subban are a proven pair. Markov made O'Byrne, Komisarek and Gorges look much better than they were and that leaves the Habs with Gorges, Weber, Spacek and Diaz to fill out the final 2. If Hammer was back that would be more than enough quality depth outside of a crippling injury to PK or Markov.

    Even though you don't believe in "everything working out so", the Bruins had no health issues outside of Savard, but they knew that moving forward in 2011 he was a major question mark. What problems did the 2010 Hawks encounter? 2009 Pens? No Malkin, Gonchar, Fleury, Crosby injuries. The league is too close now, you need luck and health. The stories are going to be written about how great the Bruins were, but they had 7 games where if they had lost their seasons was done. One bad bounce against the Habs and they were out. One bad bounce against the Lightning and they were done.

    If players start dropping like flies, your chance of winning the Cup is pretty much NIL.

  19. This is absolute nonsensical hyperbole.

    http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110628/mtl_habshug_engels_110628/20110628/?hub=MontrealSports

    Gomez the second worst trade in franchise history?

    We all know what number one is, but how soon Engels forgets the Chelios/Savard trade. The one where we gave up a player who played another 18 years in the league and won two Norris trophies after leaving Montreal for Savard who produced 179 points in 210 games and wasn't even a factor in the Stanley Cup Final.

    Leclair, Desjardins and Dionne for Recchi and Mark Lamb? What about Guy Carbonneau for Jim Montgomery? Claude Lemieux for Sylvain Turgeon? Shall I go on?

    Valentenko, Higgins, Janyk? The only way it even approaches the top 20 worst trades is if McDonagh becomes a number one defenseman. Yes, we get it. Gomez has a shitty contract.

    Move forward with the rising cap, don't dwell on the past. Gomez is extremely overpaid, but he is not the second worst trade in franchise history. That is just dumb.

  20. Well, I hope you're right, obviously. It is true that at some point you have to trust your young players (in this case, Weber) to step up. But if either Markov or Subban go down with an injury this team as currently configured is going to have a HELL of a time transitioning to offence and an equally nightmarish time on the powerplay, unless Weber turns out to be for real. I'm not saying the losses of Wiz + Hammer is a crippling blow, but that IS two of our top four from last season and the significance of such losses should not be understated.

    Presumably Gauthier has decided, in line with one school of thought on this board, that the main priority should be an upgrade at FW. That's a defensible view - but not my preference.

    EDIT: another way to look at it is as a rebuilding year on the blueline: giving Emelin and Weber a real shot. Because I see us as borderline contenders, this isn't, again, an approach I endorse.

    How many teams have the depth to survive the loss of a Markov/Subban?

    Does Boston win if Chara goes down? Would the Wings succeed without Lidstrom? The Flyers collapsed without Pronger last season.

    I don't know if you can build in a cap age with the idea that your best players are going to be eliminated. Can you think of a team that lost a major piece like that and was a legit contender? The only team I can think that won a Cup missing their best player would be the 2001 Avs. If you remove a Markov/Subban level player from any of the last 9 Cup winners would they have won the Cup? Think of the 2002/2008 Wings without Lidstrom, the 03' Devils/07' Ducks without Niedermayer, the 04' Lightning without St. Louis, the 06' Canes without Staal, the 09' Pens without Crobsy etc etc etc.

    If this was pre-cap and the Habs didn't have to plan on how to fit Price/Subban under the cap in the near future, then they would have re-signed Wiz and money could have provided this type of depth you crave, but I don't know if it is a realistic scenario in 2012.

    The Habs can survive a minor to mid-level injury to any of their elite players not named Price (10-25 games), but no team can really survive the devastating type injury that Markov suffered last season and still win a Stanley Cup.

  21. Oh yeah, I'm not saying we'd be acquiring the Jagr of 1991. If he's as good as Lang was for us, though, that'd represent a major acquisition.

    What I'm really getting at is that the Habs, unfortunately (or not), just don't seem to have the glamour or cachet that teams like Pittsburgh, Detroit, the Rangers, Colorado, and a couple of other teams seem to possess. If something cool like Jagr returning to the NHL is going to happen, I just think it'll wind up being with one of those 'glamour' teams, not us. Whether this gut feeling makes any sense is another question. ^_^ Of course I should clarify that I won't slit my wrists if Jagr goes elsewhere. But just as a fan, I think it'd be fun to have him in the :habslogo: ...much as it was great fun to have Kovalev.

    I thought he was pushing to go to Montreal?

  22. I really wish player's values would be determined more on their play instead of fantasy pool stats. Seems people are just thrilled that Gomez played like crap last season so they can latch onto that contract anchor talk again. Yet the Habs seemingly have cap room to play with and the well is dry on a UFA 2nd line C to snatch.

    So let's see, is a proven 2nd line center available as a UFA? Most would agree no. Is Gomez's contract preventing the Habs from making a high dollar offer to a top 6 forward. Nope, because there really aren't any out there to send an offer to. Will the Habs be able to at least equal Gomez's play if they simply dump him and fill the role internally? Not that I can see. No Halpern next year, no Eller until Nov, if you trade him, no Gomez. That leaves DD. Yikes.

    The salary cap has increased by nearly $8M since the acquisition of Gomez. That "free" $8M could sign a heckuva player, if one was available.

    :thumbs_up:

    As long as it isn't handcuffing the team, I have no problem with him. He will bounce back this season AND still will not be worth $7M.

×
×
  • Create New...