REV-G

So if we were offering Beaulieu and our 1st, what could we add to get Duchene without giving up Sergachev?

I think if we want Duchene, trading Galchenyuk for him doesn't make sense to me. If we want to improve significantly would we not be better off trading Beaulieu, a 1st and two prospects, while refusing to include our 1st round pick from last year. I think I would bite the bullet and give away Scherback and McCarron instead of giving up Galchenyuk. I know that seems like a high price but I think it would instantly move us up with Washington and Pittsburgh ins terms of strength down the middle.

What was the Galchenyuk piece. I missed that??

I love watching PK on and off the ice. I am so disappointed. So to try to understand MB's hockey strategy, putting aside the ego's etc., I wonder if something like this is his plan. They ended up drafting Sergachev with the 9th pick. Were they surprised to get him then? Were they maybe expecting to get a forward?? So I wonder if shortly after they drafted him they see him as their future #1 D and wanted a Weber type and Markov to be his role models? If Weber has 3-4 good years left that gives Sergachev the time to develop into a #1 D. If they had drafted Nylander maybe this trade never happens?? For me, this is how I think MB is hoping and planning for the future on defence. I still hate the trade! But if we pick up a very good UFA scoring forward, that will ease the pain a bit with the other positive changes we've made....Muller, Shaw, Eller, add a very good forward and that will be something to look forward to.

This has been a great discussion, while we're waiting! I think where I was going with this is that is there a legitimate, doable deal say with Edmonton that would make sense for us to trade PK. Subban is one of my top three Canadiens, Price, Gally and PK and I absolutely see his value to us. No question. I guess our speculation here is whether Edmonton would grossly overpay to finally get that caliber defenceman to go along with McDavid and that is more where I was heading. That would give them something special for years to come and maybe bump them out of the rut and the culture that they're in. I'm thinking that if we get their 4th, say Dubois, and draft the best defenceman available with our 9th pick, and get Hall and a top pairing defenceman, plus something else, and then pick up a top defenceman in free agency, would that not be a game changer and maybe the kind of blockbuster deal we need? Just saying, I think that kind of deal, if Edmonton was desperate enough, could be something very special for us. And something where all the pieces don't come together very often. So it's certainly worth kicking some tires to see if there's anything that makes sense. I'm certain there have been huge deals struck just with this kind of back an forth between GM's and someone [MB] suddenly gets interested!

By your responses I think I have way over valued Nurse. I thought he was a star stud defenceman in the making. Thanks for the input!

Interesting that you have Brown that low. I've read some negative comments about Brown being lazy but many of the mock drafts have us taking him at #9. He would not be my first pick at 9. I like most of your choices at 9 over Brown.

For the record, I love PK and every time I hear a rumor of a trade involving him I roll my eyes. But hearing the talk in the media about maybe a trade occurring brought me to the place where I asked myself, is there a trade that I would make with Edmonton where what they were offering would tempt me to trade PK for what they would give us in return. So let's play GM for a minute and say that Edmonton has made us an offer for PK. The offer is Darnell Nurse, their 4th pick and Yak. Would that be a fair exchange that would benefit both teams. What do you think?

Just curious, I don't follow the prospects as closely as most of you do, but assuming we keep our #9 pick, if we had a choice between a Clayton Keller, Logan Brown or Tyson Jost who do you think we should take?

Sometimes a situation looks good when you're on the outside looking in. But if you're on the inside you know and see things other people don't. For both assistants to refuse a contract offer and leave, to me that says there's something that they're not willing to live with and they both said no to what seems to be a pretty good situation long term. If for some reason you know you may not enjoy going in to work every day then most people would look elsewhere. Obviously this is just speculation but when both assistants say no to a one year deal it does look a little suspicious, to me anyway.

I think the feeling about Roy is pretty unanimous. Has his stock ever fallen since he left the Q. Probably should have stayed there. That's likely where he'll end up again. On another potential candidate, I heard on Toronto Talk radio this morning that the feeling in Boston is that both Cam Neely and Claude Julien may be out at the end of the season. I think Claude would be a fabulous choice for us, if he was willing to return! What do you think about Claude as our coach?

Let me throw something out during these dull wind-down days. Is there any chance Patrick Roy is removed as coach in Colorado?? Do the A's need a coaching change since they've underachieved and not done very well outside of PR's first year there? Can they remove him?? He does have some sort of say. Is he just waiting for Quebec to get a team and then he'll jump there? Would he be a good coach for us now that he's had a few years of experience in the NHL coaching fraternity? What do you think?

OK, so I haven't read back over all the pages on this thread, so I don't know if this has been discussed yet. At this point it seems almost certain we're looking at a coaching change, so who are the top of the list candidates. Here are my picks and I've listed my top picks understanding that some of them are not available right now. 1. Claude Julien - obviously only if Boston decides to make a change. 2. Larry Robinson - has he retired?? 3. I'm not familiar with the top QMJHL coaches-but a young up and coming top coach would be my next choice. 4. Alain Vigneault - I'm sure many of you would have him at the top of the list-but for me he's kind of more of MT. I may be wrong?? 5. Guy Boucher - When he was our coach in the AHL I really liked him but has he had any success in the NHL?? 6. Marc Crawford - Is he still an NHL caliber coach. No one else has seemed to have any interest in him with all the coaching changes. Assistant coaches: could we lure Jacques Lemaire if Robinson was interested or are his coaching day done? Coaches I wouldn't want: 1. Sylvain Lefebvre What are your thoughts??

I would never give up an almost sure top 4 defence man for a struggling former first round pick. I would't trade Beaulieu for Yak. They'd have to give us much more.

I think the article is pretty close to what should happen. I also agree that we are not nearly as bad as how we look right now. I would keep Weise. I am mixed on TP but because he is so versatile I think I would keep him. If we are able to upgrade our top 6 I think he will score a bit more, playing with quality players. My biggest question is the coaching. I was quite happy when we hired MT, but I believe it's time. I never listened to HIO but I've listened to their video twice over the past week and Chris Nilan, who has watched their practices, says there is little teaching and no emphasis on the fundamentals and he sees those mistakes in the games. It's not being corrected in practice and he says they are making those same mistakes in games and it's costing us. So I agree we need a new coach. But that's where my concern is. I'd love for us to get Lemaire, Robinson, it's probably impossible to get Lemaire, but I wonder if there's a chance we could convince Robinson to come back. Probably unlikely. From what I've heard Nilan say, we need a coach who is going to teach, work on fundamentals and teach special teams. Is Guy Boucher really the answer for us? That's my biggest concern...finding the right coach.

Great comments and analysis. I wonder if we will move away a bit this year and next from the "draft the best player available" Sam Pollock approach to "draft the best scorer available" due to our past strong emphasis on drafting d-men and our seeming huge need to get some blue chip scorers?

Since we're in a freefall and everyone and everything is being looked at, I couldn't help but notice that when we had injuries in December, we had help from the farm but nothing that made a real impact. So my question is, compared to other teams how have we done in the draft over the past 5-7 years, compared to other teams. Trevor Timmons is always talked about in a very positive way. Is that still the case? What do we have on the farm and in our system, drafted players, compared to other teams. My guess is we're in the middle of the pack. Not the best or the worst in terms of drafting players and having them make an impact on our team. The last time I counted we have somewhere around half of our team that we drafted and developed and are playing for us today. Is that high?...normal.....or low, compared to other teams. Then I think of David Fisher, Ryan Obyrne, the Kostitsyns, Danny Kristo [traded but now Christian Thomas is gone], Colberg, Louis Leblanc, and all the other draftees who either never made it, were disappointments, or are in our system and don't look like they'll every make it. I know this happens to all teams but I wonder if there's a way to compare, measure how we're doing? Is our drafting a strength, are we better than others, or are we behind the better teams in how we draft? Should we have more blue chip prospects, have we passed over blue chippers for not so great ones? What do you think? How are we doing at the draft table?

In the Montreal Gazette, Wednesday January 27, on the Hockey Inside Out site there is a video of Chris Nilan, Stu Cowan, Jack Todd and a lady I didn't know, they were discussing Michel Therrien and it wasn't pretty. It's a video and for the first 7 or 8 minutes the discussion is all centered on MT. Nilan says there is no teaching, he watched a practice and said the players seemed to be just going through the motions and together they were all unanimous that a coaching change has to be made. They said they had defended MT in the past but they feel he's lost control, is doing nothing to correct what happening and that there is no way they can turn things around the way things are going right now. It kind of surprised me a bit as to how strong they felt. I have always been a MT supporter but I'm beginning to lean towards maybe a coaching change is now the answer. Has MB painted himself into a corner by saying he will not fire MT??

Throughout the 2014-15 season we stayed at or near the top of our conference for most of the year. We were one of the better teams. We started out this season as the best team in the entire league. But in the past 6-7 weeks I believe we have the worst record in the entire league. Last night we lost to the worst team in the league. Four days ago we barely beat a Leafs team also near the bottom of the league and we're falling like a rock in the standings. Who knows where the bottom will be. What's going on?? So I've listed some possible reasons as to why we're in this position. 1. Injuries: last year maybe we really did dodge a bullet with having so few injuries. This year we've lost our best player for much of the season, plus Gallagher, plus Gilbert, plus others players for a few games here and there. Some have said that once Carey Price is back, his goaltending, key saves, his ability with the puck, the confidence he'll restore to the team, will all add up to us getting back to where we were. 2. The Coach: we've heard it all. MT's system is wrong, lines are wrong, he's using players incorrectly, Alex Galchenyuk should be our first line center, using Markov on 3 on 3's and giving him too much ice time, too much mixing of lines. But the players have not seemed to have quit on him. From what I've heard, they still speak respectfully [highly??] of him. 3. Some players have hit their "expiry" dates at the same time. There have been players such as Plekanec, Desharnais, Markov, Eller, among others, who have either lost a step, stopped scoring or just not played very well. Has MB held on to them too long or expected more than what they can give and now we are in need of half of our top 6 to be upgraded before we can get back to where we were? 4. Marc Bergevin has not supplied the players we need: we struggled to score last year and other than 2 months this year, the same problem has reoccurred. MB should have traded or moved some players and now we are in this dilemma with no easy solutions on the horizon. He's worked on upgrading the D [Petry, Beaulieu] and the 3d and fourth lines [Weise, Byron....], but our most glaring need, scoring, he's not done much to improve. Those are the things I've hard and read. Personally, my biggest concern is if #3 and #4 are the real reason for our sudden decline. If #1 is the problem things will start to get better once Price returns and we'll make the playoffs and maybe even return to last year's form. I think we were overachieving at the beginning of this season and maybe it's not realistic to expect to be back again at that level this year. If it's #2 then MB will fix that this off season. But if it is #1 we now know that our team is not good enough to do well if we don't have a lights out goaltender. I'm interested to know what you think is the real reason for our rapid and unexpected decline these past 8 weeks or so.

I don't know if this has been addressed in another thread, and it is still a bit early in the season but the few times the Habs have been involved in overtime this year I actually feel for the players because it seems like they are being forced to play what seems to be pond or shinny hockey. I didn't notice it so much with the 4 on 4 overtime format because teams practice that and often during the season they play 4 on 4 during games. So they still looked organized and were playing within a system. But the 3 on 3 looks gimmicky, unprofessional and I think it is hurting hockey more than helping it. If Bettman and others in leadership want to attract US viewers I don't think the 3 on 3 is going to help. I think it's affecting hockey's image in a negative way and I can't imagine the NFL, NBA or baseball even considering doing something so amateurish looking. When I watched our players chasing opponents after getting caught with 3 on 1's and everything so wide open with seemingly no structure it appears the games are being decided on who gets a lucky break. After watching two teams battle for 60 minutes with skill and structure and then to have the games decided on that format....to me it's a very poor reflection on the entire history and legacy of the NHL and personally I thought our players looked bad having to chase people and trying to catch up when they were caught deep and the other team was breaking out. I hope they end it quickly and either go back to 4 on 4 or let the games end in a tie when two teams have battled so hard for 60 minutes. What do you think?

Interesting, I was in contact with one of the top english Montreal Newsprint writers and I asked him what he thought about Montreal's interest in Phil Kessel and this was his response, "No chance at all. He's not their type of player". I remember last year I asked him if he thought Montreal had any interest in Nail Yakupov and he told me then they had no interest whatsoever. So with that response from an "insider" so to speak, someone very well connected, in my mind there will be no chance Montreal goes knocking on Toronto's door to inquire about Phil. But it was interesting to think about the "what if"!

Just a straightforward question......can they and will they resign Petry? I really like him and hope they do? What do you think?

I'm not sure who coined this phrase, "Sometimes the best trade is the one you don't make" but I think it's a pretty accurate statement. I'm thinking of players we've traded and ones we haven't. We could spend a lot of time talking about some bad trades. Every time I hear an announcer comment that Ryan McDonnough is the Rangers best d-man I shudder. Imagine him and Subban.... But I'm thinking back to posts that we've read or written and traded this player or that and at the time we thought we had nailed down the obvious thing to do. Specifically I remember a few years ago we were debating what to do with Markov and I wrote that we should trade Markov because with his knee surgeries and value still high he might be one hit away from retirement and why waste value when we could get something back for him. And I remember debating who should be traded.....Carey Price or Halak. Some said Price should be the one traded. Halak has had a very good career but I don't think anyone would today take him over Price. And where would we be today if they had traded both Markov and Price. Not where we are today that's for sure. So what's the point? Trading roster players carries with it a highly risky and often unpredictable result. I've noticed that many of MB's trades have been for late picks for players that ended up having real value for us. Smart scouting. Or he's traded more marginal roster players like Diaz and Weber for pretty good returns. So when we're talking about potentially trading for an Eberle or a player of that stature I wonder if what you have to give up will really be worth it in the long run. More and more I'm thinking that getting your top players through the draft and developing them that way is the safer and better path to travel. I heard that Gallagher was one of the pieces Edmonton required if Eberle was coming this way. Disrupting a room as good as what we have right now wouldn't be worth the price IMHO. So we have Price and Markov and we don't have McDonnough. Trades that weren't made and trades that were made. Draft and develop well. Trade for late picks, but trades for roster players could come back to bite hard!

After reading Dave Stubbs article in the Gazette today about his dinner interview with Max Pacioretty it left me feeling like we have back what we had in the days when we had so much success. But it isn't just about success, we seem to have regained the glory, the honour, the character that we were all so proud of what seems like so long ago. As I read the article and began to see the character, the commitment and the integrity Max revealed, that is what I think we have been missing for so many years. Certainly we all want to win, but I think we have regained our respect and "likeability" toward our players. For example, living in Oshawa near Toronto, something that the Toronto media and talk radio people comment on all the time this year is how they feel the Toronto fans don't actually like many of the players on the Leafs. It's a real problem and if not all, the majority of the Toronto media feel that is also why they think many of the core players will be dealt. The fans really don't like them very much. Hence so many jerseys tossed on the ice. The ultimate insult?? Now in fairness, I think we have been there a bit ourselves over the past 10 years. I think fans were not just unhappy with our previous GM and many of the team decisions and ways of doing things, but both the fans and media couldn't wait for him to be fired. And with that we had all kinds of bad decisions regarding the coaches, which resulted in bad press and just general dissatisfaction with our whole organization. But now you hear Max describe his own thoughts and plans and desires to improve and help the team and what it means to him to be a Montreal Canadien. You hear what he says about his teammates and how much they help younger players now versus when he first came up. And what spoke volumes to me was what he said about his relationship with MT and how he had helped Max improve and how he can't wait to hear what his coach has to say at the end of the year about how and where he can improve. To be honest I thought the players didn't like MT very much. And Max could have just been polite and respectful in what he said and kept it simple. But I thought he painted a picture of genuine respect for and appreciation for MT. So personally my respect for Pacioretty both as a player and person just climber quite a few notches. And my appreciation for what Geoff Molson and MB and MT are building is so encouraging. I know I have written a few posts lately that have been very complimentary, but I honestly think we need to really appreciate what has returned. Who knows if we can win it all this year, but if we look around I think we are building something we should all be proud of once again. What do you think? http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/montreal-canadiens/dinner-with-max-an-enlightening-look-at-habs-sniper-pacioretty-on-the-ice-and-off

So this question I'm posing doesn't have any sources, but more of a "I wonder if this could happen" scenario waiting for the playoffs to begin. Part of why I'm even thinking this is because of Marc Bergevin's penchant for making moves that have been totally unpredictable and seemingly out of left field, but once made have been applauded by many. One of my questions has been addressed before and was a complete and total failure at the time but I'm wondering if things have changed or could change given the right situation. And I wonder if that could be now. My question has to do with our coach and his system. I want to say that I was in favour of hiring MT and I thought that with his track record, experience and evolution as a coach that he would do a good job for us. And I think that time has shown that MT's hiring was a good move. Personally I don't know of anyone who could have done better. We have all been generally pleased, even surprised, with the past 2-3 years. I'm also putting this in a thread by itself and not in the "When will Therrien get fired" thread because the focus and discussion point here is more on whether MB could make the largest head coaching philosophical change in the history of the Montreal Canadiens. So the facts are that the Canadiens allow 30.4 shots per game which is the most of any playoff team this year. Their shots against, and attempts against, are also in the bottom part of the league. Some of the other statistical numbers are not good. The most concerning one is their goals for. Way low. Power play....very low. I have heard that there is come concern the Alex Galchenyuk is not developing as quickly as he should. He's still so young I'm not sure how to even comment on that one. So if you're MB what do you do? Is it possible that our coach has taken us to the highest level he is able to go? And is it possible that his strong defensive system needs changing if we're going to be the dominant team many think we should be going forward? So if we do not do really well in the playoffs could MB make a coaching change and I wonder if a top level coach like Mike Babcock could be his target? I wonder if it's something that MB would try to pull off. Babcock still has not signed a contract with Detroit and for the talk of him going to Toronto many sports media people have speculated that with the mess there, it is unlikely Babcok would want to be part of a long rebuilding process. But we all remember well what happened when Randy Cunneyworth, english and unilingual, was made the interim head coach and all the difficulty that caused. But would a top level coach like Mike Babcock possibly break the mold and allow for an english speaking, unilingual coach for the first time in our history? That's the question. Is this possible or will we be forever limited with only being able to pick from whatever bilingual coach is available whenever we happen to be looking for a head coach. Would MB surprise us all with a move like bringing in a top level, most decorated and successful modern era coach, but who only speaks english?? What do you think? Is it possible??