Wamsley01

From what I have read and seen, Emelin can pass the puck. Either way, how many Boston Bruins offer up a nice transition pass? Their forwards collapse down low and they to create offense off turnovers. Nobody thought Streit was going to have an impact in September 2007. Nobody thought that Subban would be our best player in the playoffs in September 2010. The Habs can be a better version of the one that took the Bruins to the seventh game in OT if Markov replicates Wisniewski's play and one of Emelin or Weber are better than any of us have penciled them in for. July 1st is not the end of team building. The Bruins added Kaberle, Kelly and Peverley in February and the Habs added Wiz in December. I am 100% comfortable in moving forward with a solid 4 of Markov, Subban, Gorges and Gill and watching how the three wildcards develop in Emelin, Weber and Diaz. You may look back in 12 months and wonder how anybody considered trading Weber or talking about how Emelin replaced Hamrlik. 99% of the league would die for horses like Gomez and Subban who can carry the puck ala Chelios in 1988. I am not concerned about the transition game in the least. Markov and Subban are going to be on the ice for 70% of the game and with Gomez overlap they will be fine even if they don't have another puck mover. Add in a possible wildcard and this team will be fine in transition.

How much of that is tied to the emotional and historical attachment to the name Jagr? If you remove the name and analyze the players current skill set, couldn't you say the Habs did get this player in Robert Lang in 2008? They also went for Tanguay and it didn't turn out so well. I am not concerned about winning the free agent PR battle on July 1st.

No it won't, but some times it is justified. It is justified for fans to cry and whine about the Patrick Roy trade, it isn't justified to whine and cry about a middling player like Latendresse when we received a middling player in return. If a GM makes a franchise altering mistake, then crying won't change anything, but I have no problem with it.

YEP. You know you will lose a lot of hands, but you know that if you use your information correctly and read the players well, the more you play the more likely you will be to profit. Sometimes you win going all in pre-flop with 2,7, but you make that call 100 times and you will lose money.

Agreed. GMs have a responsibility whether it is a good deal or not. This is not a guessing game, if it was then every team's success would be based on luck and the Cup would be passed around equally as every team eventually lucked out. The Wings would not have been able to compete for the Cup on a yearly basis when they pick late in every draft if that was the case. Some decisions are 99% fool proof (1% being injury, think Crosby). Some decisions have a 10% success rate from the beginning (think of the stab in the dark Houle took with Thibault) and some are 50/50 coin tosses (Latendresse/Pouliot). The teams that do the work and get closer to 99% are the ones who come out ahead more often than not. They ARE accountable if at the end of the day their balance sheet is 50% or below. Every single one of these decisions can come up roses, but the more Thibault type deals you make the more you will lose. Thibault could have evolved into the best goaltender in the league and Houle would have received a pass even though it was a stupid decision. That is why analyzing the though process is more beneficial than analyzing the individual result. If the rumour that Gainey offered Price/Plekanec for Lecavalier is true then it is one of those decisions where his thought process was poor but he ended up getting lucky. Nobody can predict the future, but you can offer up a solid view of it that can replicate 90% of reality. History is a great reference point to predict future outcomes and although flawed because of individual circumstance, injury etc, it provides a solid blueprint of how players will advance. Sometimes you do the research, make all the proper reads and you get a curveball. We should be all willing to accept that, but it doesn't remove accountability. I am all for criticism of GMs if it is done with the proper perspective. The perspective of the factors leading to the trade, not the 100% crystal clear view that 3 extra years of observation provide. If the deal made sense to me at the time and it failed, I can't kill the GM. If the deal looked like it was the result of panic or flawed logic, then it is openly assailable.

GMs are going to take grief, but it is their responsibility to project forward. It is their responsibility to assess the talent they have and make decisions based on the future. Carey Price wasn't an eeny meenie miney moe gamble. It was likely a decision based on analysis of his ability (technical, physical, mental etc) by Giroux and every other goaltending scout in the organization made by a team that knows him better than anybody else in the league. It was based on historical context and what other 23 year old goaltenders had accomplished at that point, not the knee jerk analysis of the media and fans. It was based on them having an intimate understanding of his attitude, work ethic, maturity etc. All of that was likely contrasted against Halak's and the decision was made with a projection in mind. It was a logical decision to make, it could have turned out wrong if they misjudged/analyzed any of those factors incorrectly, but the thought process was likely much more deliberate than the knee jerker who took the last 20 games to make up his mind. We all know that GMs, coaches and players take heat from people with zero knowledge or insight of the relevant factors. One can make an intelligent dissection of a situation, but if that dissection is based on incorrect information, all it becomes is a brilliantly crafted incorrect answer. If a GM does his due diligence but makes a poor decision based on flawed information than he is responsible for that wrong decision. We see it happen all the time. If they misjudged Latendresse's work ethic, potential, ceiling etc. than damn right they are responsible. Are they at fault? Not necessarily, because you never know when the lightbulb will come on with players. Some people look like lost causes and then something triggers their understanding. Maturity maybe, the shock of being traded, who knows. To me there is a difference between trading Patrick Roy for a bag of pucks and dealing a 22 year old who shows up to camp fat and complains about playing time. One offense is indefensible, the other is understandable.

Latendresse posted a ridiculous shooting percentage to register that mark. Just like Sergei this season. No chance he replicates that next season. The fact is that in 2011 there were 2 players who registered better than an 18.8% that Lats measured during his 25 goal season. Anything over 15% would have registered a top 25 finish this season. People don't want to look at these factors, but 3% is the difference between Latendresse registering between 20 or 25. If he had shot his career average of .14% he would have been at 18 goals. Lats scored 12 goals in 56 games shooting 12% playing on the third line in 2009. What happened in 2010 wasn't really a big jump in his performance. He is pretty much the same player he was in Montreal. Shooting percentage fluctuates wildly and it isn't a proven skill. Some years you get more luck than others and those usually result in career years. Gomez is a career 7% shooter, but in 2006 he put up 14%, it is no surprise that he has not been able to replicate that season. Latendresse is not going to get 50 goals. Latendresse has averaged about 145 shots per season, so in order for him to drop 50 he would need to double his regular shot output and match his career high 18%.

They retained Price even though it looked like Halak was better 12 months ago. That is what GMs are PAID to do. Paul Mara will not turn into a premier shutdown defenseman at the age of 32. If he was going to, it would have happened.

I thought it was Price/Plekanec. Either way, once again would prove that sometimes you need to be lucky.

I would hold on to him for one more season. The financial landscape is not going to change and with half the teams under the salary floor his contract will be easy to unload in 2011. http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2011/6/22/2238529/can-scott-gomez-be-traded-next-summer

I agree 100%. I had empathy for the Philly fans (I may never say this again) because I understood the emotional tear they felt, only there's was 10x worse. It would be the equivalent to Price/Subban driving the horse to the precipice of the Stanley Cup championship and the Habs turning around and trading them for Jack Campbell and Victor Hedman the next season. I would lose my mind after investing a decade in those players. The funny thing is, the Philly fans are already in rationalization mode.

I immediately thought of July 1st 2009 when it was all going down yesterday. The shock I felt as a Hab fan was likely the same jolts going through the Flyers faithful yesterday. I am not going to guess why they did it, but Holmgren looked like he didn't want to do it.

Holmgren was in tears during the press conference. Have you ever seen that? I don't know anything outside of perception and analyzing the moves from outside, but considering all the shrewd moves Holmgren has made in rebuilding this team and reading the Philly fans reaction, this seems like a move that was requested from up above. They proved that you can almost win a Cup with a tin can in goal two seasons ago, to sell the soul of the team for Bryzgalov seems like a knee jerk reaction. The peaks of the youth and the goaltender/All-Star defenseman don't match up. This is a bizarre move and if the trades were made by somebody like Milbury I would just think idiotic, but when a guy pulls all the right strings for 5 years and then melts down over 2 hours, I am calling shenanigans.

I like it. It almost assures a future Leaf/Hab playoff series should they make the playoffs for any sustained period together. I think they set it up that way to get the divisional playoff games that we don't always see (outside of Boston/Montreal which seem to have magnets attached to them regardless of the situation). It is like half old system/half new system. As for the Red Wings propping up the weak sisters, I would like to see the individual numbers to take that as gospel. The Wings play the Coyotes 4 times, leaving 2 Phoenix home dates. If the Wings bring in 80% capacity instead of 50% capacity, what are we talking? Considering a team like the Coyotes make about $450K per game in gate revenue, how much are we talking for two games in contrast to what their average attendance is? $100,000? Add in the factors like travel costs that will change with an alignment that is geographically based and isn't the difference negligible per team?

Then you sever the Rangers/Philly/Pitt rivalry that has been in existence since the Patrick days. The question becomes do you sever the Pens from those rivalries or the Rangers. The geographical argument favours the NY/NE alignment. The rivalry argument favours re-uniting the Wings with the Leafs and the Habs as well as adding in Crosby and the Pens. The East Division would begin to produce Cup contenders because of the competitiveness just to make the playoffs.

There are no words. Is that team a contender now? I don't know if I have ever been more shocked.

Philly traded Carter and Richards today!

Yikes. That would be scary!

That didn't take long for the negativity to arise. We are already 0-1?

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/22/nhl-maps-out-major-changes The top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs in this proposal, if that is the case who makes up the Eastern division? My guess is the East would be 7 TEAMS Montreal Boston Ottawa Toronto Buffalo Detroit Collumbus The South 8 TEAMS NY Rangers NY Islanders NJ Devils Pittsburgh Philadelphia Washington Tampa Florida This would keep most of the established rivalries intact, but making the playoffs would be a bitch!

He hadn't, but it WAS the same decision then (mind you he was much younger). The risk is equal on both sides, but we are commenting without any inside knowledge or injury reports. It comes down to what can I live with. Can I live with Markov returning and blowing out his knee in January more than I can live with him going to Detroit and putting up 65 points? I want him back.

If I asked you if Wiz was made of glass after 2008 your answer may have been different. It is a 50/50 risk. Markov leaving as a UFA and being healthy is just as great a risk.

On average, but he played 45 games in 2010. Wisniewski has had 3 major knee surgeries before the age of 27 and nobody is hesitant to offer him big money. This is not 1980, players recover from reconstructive surgery. If you allow Markov to hit the UFA market he likely gets $6M per and that could come back to bite them as well. Both sides of the coin are a gamble.

Those are the type of players that nobody notices when you sign and don't know there name until they are holding up the Cup. The Wings pickup and develop these cheap players all the time.

Yes. Watching the playoffs! We never want him watching the playoffs again!!