patience is a virtue
-
Posts
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by patience is a virtue
-
-
OK, I'll buck the trend here:
Murray is a waste of cap space by MB. Worse yet, he might play 15 mins per night.
That's the big difference between Parros and Murray? They can both add much needed toughness. But Parros can ride pine on the 4th line and play 5 mins and rack up a couple of 5 min penalties.
The 3rd d-pairing is far more important than the 4th line.
Murray is slow and getting slower, and his stats show that he is amongst the very worst veteran dmen in the NHL. I won't start citing the stats or cutting and pasting graphs, because the tone above seems to be hostile to such approaches. Yet the fact is those stats reveal that, increasingly over the past 3 seasons, when Murray is on the ice his team gets hemmed up in their own end, pounded with shots, and scored on more often then when he is not on. He happened to be on excellent +/- teams the past couple of years (Sharks, Pens) and was nonetheless a minus. His PK stats are also bad - he is not a good penalty killer. And his fenwick and corsi numbers are ugly.
But like I said, forget stats. Just look at his speed and imagine Markov towards the end of last season (getting burn right, left and centre) and imagine slower, and without ANY of the amazing offensive upside Markov still brings. That's Murray.
Sure, he can hit (if he can catch a guy) and he can fight. But you do not want a dman playing 15 or more minutes a night costing your team goals and games. That's what will happen if Murray plays for the Habs, and that is why Therrien will not play him very much, which is why Bergevin just wasted cap space.
-
Interesting point of view. This is one I see often. Here is my take- those are a bunch of BS statistics. For whatever reason, hockey fans/bloggers do not have the slightest understanding of statistical methodology. If we are going to get "statsy" let's take off the biggest three players/smallest three players, because this is how statistical analysis is done. Those sites you are reading are click bait for what I call "the smurf apologists." Here is why. Any quotable statistical analysis wouldn't just add up inches/lbs and divide by players, if it were to have any kind of analytic bearing, the amount of minutes each player played/their heights and weight would be at the forefront. The fact that the "Big Bad Bruins" have size has nothing to do with the height of their fourth liners, it has everything to do with Chara playing 30 minutes, and Uglic/Horton playing top offensive minutes. The issue we've had since the Gainey Rebuild is the amount of reliance on minutes we've had from undersized players. Desharnais, Gomez, Gionta, Cammalleri, etc. When we're talking about a few inches, big deal, but how many damned players can we have in the top nine who are under 5'10. Enough is enough, and given the picks/acquisitions/media chatter from Bergevin, I would bet he wants to get a bigger team as much as most fans do, he just won't mortgage the future to do it tomorrow. Many trades are evaluated by "well, they won the Cup, it was good trade." (Iginla for Nieuwendyk for example). How about this? Did the shrimps do well in the playoffs this year, or we're they thoroughly embarrassed by a number 7 seed?
I see. BS stats and Chara, Lucic and Horton are heros? Hmmmm. BS. Bergeron, Krejci and Marchand are more important to the Bruins offense than Lucic and the guy they let walk. Chara I will agree with - he is an extraordinary hockey player in every regard. But that, nor some smoke and mirrors about how stats on the size of teams is somehow cooked books + ZERO counter argument or evidence presented, besides smurfs suck and that must be why the Habs lost, even tho an even smaller Habs squad went to the semi final a couple of years ago, because this year's playoff loss to Ottawa explains everything. No, sorry. The Habs lost this one series due to a combination of being out-goaltended and out puck-lucked. Some blame it on injuries, and that may bear some weight, but the fact is that despite the injuries the Habs outshot and outchanced and carried the play against the Sens when the score was close in almost every game.
But one playoff series does not explain anything anyway. Year after year, season after season, series after series, puck possession trumps size and hitting. Skill and speed are simply more important than size and grit (no problem with those factors, just not the top priorities). See Blackhawks, Chicago.
Read this again and go read the guy's methodology (he did control for time on the ice):
"During those 12 playoff seasons [1999-2011], there have been 17 series where the average weight of the players on the ice for one team was 10 pounds or more than the average weight of the players on the ice for the other team. If anything, this is where we would really see the physical punishment of a larger team take its toll, right? If it does, the smaller teams don't seem to be bothered much by it. The bigger teams have gone just 4-13 in those 17 series."
All the evidence you look at will confirm this. Except the visual spectacle of a big hit. Which has so very little to do with scoring goals and winning hockey games. But hey, I welcome a strong reaction. That's what happens when you question long held erroneous assumptions with evidence.
-
1
-
-
And lastly, for today's anti-MOAR BIG crusade. Here are links to two articles which make it as clear as day that not only is size NOT the key to success in the NHL, but that on average, smaller teams might do better (because they are faster and more skilled), especially in the playoffs:
1) From "Does size matter in the NHL?", http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7986703/fast-small-vs-slow-big-ice, written at the beginning of the Kings-Devils SC final series in 2012:
"During those 12 playoff seasons [1999-2011], there have been 17 series where the average weight of the players on the ice for one team was 10 pounds or more than the average weight of the players on the ice for the other team. If anything, this is where we would really see the physical punishment of a larger team take its toll, right? If it does, the smaller teams don't seem to be bothered much by it. The bigger teams have gone just 4-13 in those 17 series. Maybe the guy who always chose four of the small, fast players in Ice Hockey was right after all.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the Kings are cursed for being too big and about to lose to the Devils. What recent history suggests, instead, is that the Kings didn't make it to the Stanley Cup finals because they were any particular size at all; they've made it because they were a great hockey team. In the NHL playoffs, bigger has had absolutely nothing to do with better."
MY NOTE: the Kings were the top puck possession team in the NHL in 2011-2012
2) James Mirtle's blog post with 2013 average team heights and weights, http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2013/01/2013-nhl-teams-by-weight-height-and-age.html
You'll note that Chicago, Boston, and Detroit are amongst the smallest teams in the NHL. And Chicago was the, yep, the top puck possession team in the NHL last season.
-
Let's address your theory of speed, skill, shooting and goaltending. Last playoff run we speed, lots of it. We had skill. We had shooting. We didn't have goaltending. We had the puck possession and shots in spades last playoffs. Funny how the size, the thing we lacked most, in front of the net made that much of an impact on our offense. I guarantee if we had a Lucic/Bickell to stand in front of Anderson the series would of looked alot different.
This team was build with everything except size. Look at our record for the past 5 years to see how well that has worked for us. Look at the 5 previous cup winners, every single one had at least 1 big guy to stand in front of the net, Bickell(Chicago), Penner(Los Angeles), Lucic(Boston), Byfuglien(Chicago), Malkin(Pittsburgh). Every single one of them 6'3-6'5. Last Playoffs we had the wrong people in front of the net, a point I made clearly the first post but somehow you misinterpreted it.
The rest of your post is really about having tall guys who can stand in front of the net and screen the goalie. I'll give you the fact that Bickell had a productive playoff. I would like to know how many Chicago goals he was standing in front of the goalie screening him. My guess is not many. Penner has pretty much sucked since 2010. Malkin and Byfuglien do not spend a lot of time screening goalies. Maybe Lucic does.
So, I will watch all the Boston and Chicago goals from last season and playoffs on video and report back on how many times (as a %) these two guys where screening the goalie. My guess is maybe a small handful. Like five or so each all year.
If I am going to do that research anyway, are there any other things about MOAR BIGGER and goal scoring you'd like me to take note of? Seriously - might as well.
My hypothesis is that your argument about this key role of screening the goalie that 6-3+ players play is next to inconsequential and not something to take into strong account when building a winning team.
-
We need to get bigger up front. There I said it. We have moved Armstrong and Ryder and got Parros and Briere back. Have we got bigger? Not if you figure time on the ice. Parros, and I don't mind the signing, is there to give a little more ice to the smaller guys, but more than that, to keep Prust from being maimed by a heavy weight. Prust is really the guy who gives the ice to the little guys.
And you might be wrong.
Parros and Prust are fourth liners. Prust is a top end fourth liner who provides leadership and can play on the third or even second line if more skilled players are injured, like last season. Parros? I hope he plays less than 5 mins per game, and less than 40 games.
-
The reason for the contrast between home and away hits that you found for Chicago and Boston has less to do with goals scored and what happened during the games in question and more to do with who was counting the hits - the home or the visiting team's hit counter. This chart, from this article, http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=5617 summarizes home and road hits for and against (HF, HA and RF, RA) by NHL teams from the 2011-2012:
EVERY home team out hit EVERY road team. Ummm, nope
As the author understates:"It strikes me as a bit suspicious that no NHL team was credited with hitting more on the road than they were home. It seems awfully likely to me that there’s an issue with scorer bias here – home teams are probably more likely to be credited with a hit than road teams."
Furthermore, some rinks are more bias than others - check out the full article. It's very interesting.
-
Let's look at your interesting hits stat. Chicago had 449 Home hits and 41 home goals. Chicago had 212 away hit and 23 away goals. Boston had 443 home hits and 35 home goals. Boston had 402 away hit and 30 away goals. Look at the stats of home hit and goals vs away hit and goals withe the sole anomaly of Toronto and Ottawa the other 14 teams were near their ranking in goals and hits. So there seems to be some sort of correlation.
Thank you also for reading my post. Any my apologies if I sounded a bit rabid in it - I was a little riled up after reading a couple of threads full of MOAR BIG.
You make some calm and reasoned replies, which I will address. First off, about hits, as that is the easiest, and I promised to provide the references to the proof that teams that hit less win more and teams that hit more, win less:
The study in question, by Brian MacDonald, who is a pro sports researcher, looked in detail at hits vs. goal scoring. The pdf of the academic article (which some may find alienating) is linked to in this more digestible artcle at CBS Sports:
Study: teams that get outhit by opponents score more goals
The title really says it all. Here is a quote which summarizes the findings:
"When a team is in a position to pile up a large number of hits in a game, or over the course of a season, that probably means they're on the defense and not controlling the puck, which isn't an ideal way to go about winning a hockey game, a point that MacDonald made in his study. There is also the possibility that a player can take himself out of position, even for a split second, going for a big hit, which can then lead to a scoring chance (or goal) for their opponent."
And the author says:
"We remark that these results do not necessarily indicate that hits are bad, or that players should stop finishing their checks. But it does provide some evidence that hits, hits against, and puck possession are related, and that poorly timed hits can impact goal scoring."
Here is a quote from another article http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/21833145/physical-play-and-hits-why-hits-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey which says it better:
"It's not that hitting your opponent and physical play is bad. Hitting somebody in hockey can be an effective means of separating your opponent from the puck and forcing a turnover (how often that actually happens is up for debate). It can lead to winning a puck battle along the walls and gaining possession. I suppose it could even help set some sort of tone if it's a big enough play at the exact right moment. The point here isn't that any of that is bad. It's all a neccessity.
What is bad is if you're constantly in a positition where you have to keep piling up a lot of those hits. (And the same thing is true with blocked shots.) Teams that score high on the hit chart (and blocked shot chart) are usually the teams that get referred to as tough, and gritty, and even (incorrectly, as it turns out) strong defensive teams. The reality is they're probably bad teams that are a losing a lot because they're never playing with the puck."
-
And who will give you that player? I believe MB should be patient and continue his plan. He probably sees the answer in Hamilton with our young defensemen.
you are probably right about this. i am just afraid of wasting Markov's last years of elite offensive excellence. he is so underestimated it's crazy. good thing is, Subban is also an offensive force and hopefully Beaulieu will be as well.
-
Ready for a cup run? From the team who scored 9 goals in 5 games? 1.8 G/G. The finalist scored 2.78 and 2.96 G/G respectively. I doubt very much Briere alone is going to boost our G/G a full 1. We are far from ready for a cup run.
We can point at size being the problem all we want but the fact is the only 2 that would stand in front of the net to screen the goalie, were the smallest 2 players on our roster. There's a fundamental team concept problem there. We either need to get more people with size who is willing to stand inf front of the net or get our players with size to stand there. Simple, but I don't see this group doing that. I like Patches, but he needs to get in front of the net more. Remember how Bourque played the first month of the season until his injury? That is how Bourque needs to play game in and game out. If our core won't do it, bring in someone who will.
Sorry, but quoting the goal results from one playoff series where the Habs outshot and outplayed Ottawa in almost every game (Anderson vs. Price + injuries being the big difference in that series) and then making the leap to say that the REAL problem is that the Habs need to get MOAR BIGGER, just doesn't cut it. First off, they placed fourth in the league last year and were one of the top 6 goal scoring, shots on goal, and puck possession teams. Those are the factors that predict playoff success, year after year, not SIZE, which has very little to do with it.
Being one of the biggest teams in the league is in no way related to playoff success. See Blackhawks, Chicago - one of the smallest teams and two SCs in four years. Boston is also one the smaller teams (look at the stats for team height and weight), and no Chara and Lucic to not make up for it with their overwhelming physical presence. What both those teams have, and what the Habs have as well, is talented players who can score goals and stop goals, plus good coaching. That wins cups. Not size, or grit, or toughness. Prust is a great fourth liner who can play a small part, but Prusts do not win cups.
Lastly, and I will get the references for this together and post them, hitting has been shown to be inversely related to winning in the NHL - regular season and playoffs. That's right, the teams who hit more, lose more. There is a simple explanation for this, which is that when you are behind, you start hitting more.
All this to say, that although size is one factor that cannot be totally ignored when building a successful team, see McCarron, Michael and Tinordi, Jared, it is far less important than speed, skill, shooting, goaltending, and other key variables that Stanley Cup winners have in spades.
Thanks to the excellence of PK Subban, Markov, Pleks, Patches, Gio, Bourque, and now Eller, the Gallys and Briere, these are now assets the Habs do have in spades. Now, if only Carey Price can be the franchise goalie we all hope he is, the deep runs are on the way.
PS. Rewatch all the video of all the goals scored by any NHL team last year and observe how few are scored by big guys standing in front of the goalie screening him. Very few. Tips ins are more important, and that is a separate skill unrelated to size or toughness or grit. In fact, soft Michael Ryder is very good at it.
-
Patches-Pleks-Gally (enough is enough, get Patches on the top line with the most minutes possible, he's an elite goal scorer and a possession beast entering his prime)
Galch-Eller-Gio
Bourque-DD-Briere
Prust-Halpern(ok, ok, White)-Moen/Parros
That's some great offensive depth in the top nine. Not a guy there who can't score 20 this season (not that they all will), and Patches and maybe one of the Gallys will be shooting for 30. The third line is pure offensive exploitation with a high percentage of offensive zone starts and soft minutes against other team's bottom six. Good thing about Briere is that he can play those soft exploitation minutes all year and be fresh for the playoffs, but he can also replace a C or RW in the top six, if needs be (and if he is healthy himself
. Bourque is also an able top six winger, but he will compliment DD and Briere well by crashing the net.My point is, I think MB is done at forward, and I like. Forget Clifford. Is he a potential 20 goal scorer? http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=7370 No, he is slow with little offensive upside. Give Leblanc, Thomas and Bournival their opportunities when injuries hit. Dumont is your 4th line call up.
Defense is another story, for the reasons CC and Trizzak outlined above, I don't think it's good enough to wait around for Emelin to heal and Tinordi and Beaulieu to mature into top four dmen. I have said before that my main reason is that I think the Habs are ready for Cup runs now. And a healthy Andrei Markov is a big part of that - people talk about him being over the hill, but he was #4 in dman points last year after 2 years out of commission. There's a couple or few years of gas in that offensive tank yet folks.
It would be worth losing a top defensive prospect like Beaulieu, plus some salary (e.g. Moen or Bouillon), and a 1st round pick to bring in an established, young (25-ish), big, tough dman for keeps.
-
1
-
-
Agreed, this is a playoff move as per the quote from Bergevin.
More importantly, for me, Ryder scored at a 17% shooting percentage last season for the Habs. This is simply not sustainable. His career average is comparatively high at 12.79% (about 10% is normal for NHL scorers) but his average has been pulled up by his last two seasons (17% 2012-13, 16.59% in Dallas in 2011-12).
Maybe Ryder has found the secret to beating NHL goalies in his 30s, but I think it more likely that he has had some puck luck the past couple years and the safe money is on his productivity declining/regressing to the norm this coming season.
Briere is the exact opposite story – 6.9 SH% last season was well below his career average shooting percentage of 14.39%. Unlikely he returns to that level in MTL, but we do have some great set up men (Pleks, DD, Eller, Markov, Galchenyuk) to work with and I expect Briere to score at least 20 this year (if healthy), and hopefully more in the playoffs.
-
I used to like four habs fans, but four hockey fans isn't as good.
Oh my. Four Habs Fans use to make me laugh so hard. Their break up was tragic.
Just looked at four hockey fans and it seems to have degenerated into almost pure smut minus most of the non-stop cutting wit.
-
"Gomez may get 7.5 million, and not had a goal in a calender year but...corsi...fenwick...i'm right."
rotfl. I love this.
Yep, Berkshire can be a bit reactionary and come across as arrogant, but he's grown on me over time. He works hard on EotP and keeps on expanding the site and recruiting quality writers. That website is way more than him, and way more than advanced stats. That being said, some folks there can get a little high and mighty about puck possession (i.e. corsi... fenwick... i'm right). And that being said, possession stats do seem to work (better than any other stat) as a tool for analyzing and predicting success.
Another good site is Lions in Winter http://www.lionsinwinter.blogspot.ca/. Simple format, excellent writing by Topham.
-
Ugh, the day Habs fans steer clear of Eyes on the Prize the better we'll all be as fans.
That's pure silly. Best website by far for stats based analysis of the Habs; offers informative and valuable perspectives.
Love this site for the links especially, and the, usually, quality discussion. The above comment notwithstanding
-
Morrow seems like he'd be a good fit in terms of his attributes - except he's listed as a LW. I believe he plays RW too, but if he's mainly on the left side, then that's a bit odd given how stacked we are at LW.
Meanwhile, is Bergevin seriously considering going into the season with our current D-corps? Every rumour seems to centre on a forward.
IMO the fix is in Hamilton and our prospects. I feel that enough will pan out so all we need is a short term solution. How good and fast Emelin recovers is maybe the biggest concern.
Bruce Peter suggested at EotP that we trade Moen for whatever and sign Morrow as his replacement++ for a couple of seasons. If he'd take 2 years at 2.5-3M, I would love that. But that's probably pie in the sky.
I am starting to wonder if jcc is right about the D CC. I have definitely shared your perspective on this, but:
Markov-Subban
Gorges-Diaz
Tinordi-Bouillon
Bouillon, Beaulieu, Drewiski, Pateryn
is not the end of the world. After Emelin comes back, we're looking at:
Gorges-Subban
Markov-Emelin
Tinordi-Diaz
Bouillon, Beaulieu, Drewiski, Pateryn
That's a pretty darn good d-corps. Sure I'd rather have a big tough top four shutdown dman now instead of Gorges, but a) maybe Gorges bounces back this year, and b) it looks like Tinordi is going to become that guy. Of course, the danger is an injury to two top four dmen, or one more before Emelin comes back. But no team can afford to carry 6 top four dmen "just in case", and no quality top four dman wants to sign with a team where they are likely to be bumped down to the bottom pairing in the very near future.
What makes sense of the wait and see approach MB seems to be taking is that we have two future top four dmen developing in Tinordi and Beaulieu. Next season I hope to see:
Tinordi-Subban
Markov-Emelin
Beaulieu-Gorges
Diaz, Pateryn, Drewiski, Ellis
With Markov and Beaulieu switching roles the followiing year (2015-16). The only thing that would make sense in terms of big changes now is to trade Beaulieu or Gorges + picks (or whatever) for a quality top-four dman with a big body. But it'd be hard to give away Beaulieu right now, as he will hopefully replace Markov in years to come (well, no one will be able to replace Markov's elite offensive skill and all around excellence, except Subban, of course)
-
We'll know an awful lot more after this Sunday. Of the players you listed, I think there is a Gionta replacement in the system (Collberg or Kristo, one should be a 2nd line winger at least) and I think a Bourque-type player will be taken somewhere on Sunday. There is no Markov-type in the system though. Beaulieu has the offensive upside but his all-around game won't be on par with what Markov brought in his prime. There isn't a replacement available where the Habs are picking either.
Last years' draft is looking like a gem. If Timmins and Bergevin can have another strong draft this year, the Habs should be in pretty good shape depth wise moving forward.
I generally agree with this view and think that TT, BG, PG and MB have set up a well-timed transition from these vets to the prospects in question.
Pre-bicep-injuries Gionta may not be as easy to replace as folks seem to believe however. Consistent 25+ goal scorers are few and far between (like 2 per NHL team/50-60 players per season reach this level, and less than that do so as consistently as Gio). Hopefully one of Kristo, Collberg, Hudon, or Bozon can be that guy, but it's uncertain, maybe unlikely.
Markov is another matter all together. The only replacement in sight for his elite (i.e. top 10 offensive dmen in the league) level of talent is PK Subban.
As I have said on these boards before, this is why I think the next few seasons are Montreal's best shot at the SC. Having Markov and Subban on the same team is an extraordinary gift. I am totally baffled by those who think we should trade or give up on the General, despite the fact that he has lost a step speed and mobility-wise. He just played almost 80 games of pro hockey after two knee rebuilds and what must have been a very frustrating and painstaking two+ years of his life. And he proceeded to place 4th in dmen points ahead of the likes of Weber, Doughty and a long list of Norris winners and candidates almost entirely on the strength of his first 25 games before he started to burn out. I doubt very much that the burn out was a long-term issue, but rather a product of his 2 years of injury purgatory and MT's insistence on playing him 24+ mins a night, including PK time which he does not merit any longer.
All that to say that I hope MB uses his cap space and assets wisely to balance the long-term building process with the real opportunity the next few seasons with Subban and Markov playing on the same team together represent.
I remain torn as to whether the best use of Kaberle's buy out space is on a top four dman or a top six winger...
-
See the way the Blackhawks are getting crushed by the Bruins? That's us, but without Toews Kane and Hossa in two years. Losing - it's easy, and we're gonna love it!
Fans are funny. We can look at Chicago and say, "wow, they're small too," but often times, we can't look at our team OBJECTIVELY. Toews, Kane, Sharp, and Hossa outclass any forwards we have by a m-i-l-e. Bolland is clearly better than Lars Eller. (As much as everyone around here thinks he is Guy Carbonneau) I don't usually sound this negative, but like Jack Todd, it's hard to watch the Cup and realize we're ten miles away from being in the same stadium as Chicago.
Fans are indeed funny. Especially when describing the Hawks getting "crushed" by the big bad Bruins minutes before they become Stanley Cup Champions by demonstrating how talent for scoring (and stopping) goals trumps size and toughness as the key to success in the NHL.
Don't get me wrong, Boston is a good team and physicality is crucial to their brand of hockey. But their brand is not the only one that sells, as we have just witnessed (perhaps to your chagrin?). Smaller, more skilled Chicago dominated puck possession and scoring chances in almost every game of the series (except for #3).
The problem is that many fans value the visual impact of big hits over the more subtle and important things that lead to scoring and preventing goals. That's why a guy like Duncan Keith can be undervalued compared to Chara.
Montreal is not as far off as you and the illustrious Jack Todd suppose. Pacioretty is already in league with Hossa and Sharp, if not Kane and Toews. Galchenyuk will surpass him in a season or two (he would have been tied for fourth in scoring on Chicago in this, his rookie season), and perhaps one of Eller or Gallagher will reach that level as well. Also, Pleks may not be quite so elite offensively, but he is like Bergeron - one of the best all round centres in the game.
Equally important, Subban is better than any dman on Chicago. And Markov is a better PP QB than any of them. Hopefully Beaulieu matures into a Keith-type talent. And Tinordi into a Chara-like one. The Habs future at D is brighter than Chicago's.
Admittedly, the Habs need one or two more top six wingers to replace the ailing Gionta and itinerant Ryder's talent, if they with want to match Chicago. With the Habs competitive for the foreseeable future, that player will probably not come via the draft. So that leaves trade or UFA.
Maybe that is what MB will do with the cap space freed up by Kaberle's buy out.
Nathan Horton anyone? Perhaps he can produce like he did in Florida playing with the likes of the Gallys?
-
1
-
-
The link to the Hickey article isn't working for me. But Hickey has never been a particularly astute analyst. He's more the type to parrot conventional wisdom than think deeply and interestingly about the game....
Meanwhile, people sure love to trade away top performers. Gallagher and Markov - let's move 'em!! Nobody in principle is untouchable, but I wouldn't be in a raving hurry to trade away keys to the team's success. Indeed, I can't think of too many examples of teams dealing away players like that. If a guy's "value is high" that might just be because he's a terrific player, see.
Here's the Hickey article and the final paragraph from it:
"With six picks in the first three rounds of next month’s draft, it might be a good idea for the Canadiens to shelve the philosophy of picking the best player available in favour of picking the best big player available."
http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Canadiens+have+bigger/8401880/story.html#ixzz2U8m64LHu
What a moroon! We should adopt the failed Laff's draft strat now? Bugs Bunny is a better strategist than Hickey. Timmins is the best part of the Habs management structure. Trading up for Tinordi; getting Subban, Gallagher, and Hudon all after the first round; going after Diaz in Europe; etc, etc. The guy is a genius who follows no fixed formula, except maximizing the Habs opportunities.
I agree with the CC that almost no player is untouchable (Subban and Galchenyuk being perhaps the only exceptions right now). Nor am I suggesting throwing away Gallagher in my posts in this thread:
http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=24143&page=6
I am suggesting using his high present value as part of a deal including Gorges and picks to try to get a proven top-end, big (yes, I do value size), tough, two-way dman in his prime, e.g.s Hedman, Franson, Alex Edler, John Carlson, Jack Johnson. This would turn Gallagher, at best our 5th best forward, into a new #2 dman. Why now? Why not wait and let him and others like Tinordi and Beaulieu have developed? Because Markov, the best PP quarterback in hockey, in particular, and others like Pleks, Bourque, and Gio are still producing like top line players, but that window will be closed in a few years.
It's not just about rebuilding from the draft, it's about recognizing when you have the right mix of vets and young guns to really make it happen. For the Habs, that is likely now and for the next few years, imo. Which is why we need to sacrifice some of our unexpectedly awesome forward depth (i.e. no one would have predicted the Bourque would bounce-back so strongly and that the Gallies would both emerge so quickly this season) to round out the defense sooner rather than later, as Huzer argues:
I'm more concerned with team toughness on D. The inability to keep people from in front of the net when it matters. Gorges is good defensively, mostly as a shot blocker, not solid physically. Diaz, nothing physical about his game. Markov is not a crease clearing dman. Nor is Subban, really. That's not his role. That leaves Emelin to soldier on by himself as the physical presence on the blueline.
Of course, Timmins traded up for Tinordi just for this reason. But defensemen take longer to develop than forwards.
-
I think Diaz is close to being able to fill Markov's diminishing role...
Then again, Markov is the type of player that you don't realize how much you miss until he's gone. I just think we should try to sell while the price is high for a change (which, to his credit, Bergevin managed to do with Cole).
The first sentence here is totally nutso. (I could come to agree with the second two, but it would take a huge offer to force MB to trade his General). Diaz will never be half the player Markov was pre-injuries, or is today. They guy scored 4th most points amongst dmen after missing 2 bloody seasons! Most of the points came when he was fresh early in the season - did you watch those games? He was an absolute force. The guy is still one of the very best offensive dmen in the league.
Then MT overused Markov constantly over the course of a packed schedule, yet he did not miss a single game or shift. But he was gradually burnt out as his first season in three years wore on (remember he played 20 games in Russia before coming over - helped him off to a hot start, but meant he was worn out by the end of it).
Nonetheless, I agree that his defensive game is on the decline. I hope he has a few more top flight offensive years left in him. If so, he will be at the CORE of a couple or more SC runs.
The General remains the best PP quarterback in the NHL and impossible to replace. There is simply no other player on defence with his vision for the game. He has always been a Hab and I hope he will always be a Hab. You ride him as long as he wants to give 'er. If he helps lead the team to a cup or two these next few years, he will be the next jersey up in the rafters.
-
This article is garbage.
Try this for some reasoned analysis: http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/5/12/4323064/the-montreal-canadiens-post-mortem-it-wasnt-size
And this for why size has nothing to do with injury rates: http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/5/19/4343714/does-a-lack-of-size-create-injuries
The debates in the comments sections alone on those two articles is about 10X more informative than anything Pat Hickey has ever written.
-
I think you're overrating Patches - I haven't seen anything out of him to say that he's going to be an all-star, or our best forward (if we're to be a contender). Sure, he had a great year last year, but so did Desharnais and Cole, and we finished 15th. This season was a pattern of skating to the outside to take a sharp-angle wrister. His point totals on the year were deceptive (as with Desharnais); most of the time, he wasn't the spark on the line, and wasn't much of a factor on the ice. I think he could have a bounce-back year, but he's not our best forward, or we're screwed. Thankfully, he's paid properly as a top 6 winger - not a first line star - and he has time to improve.
Lots of people here seem to think we could get Franson for cheap; he's practically the de facto #1 for the Leafs with Phaneuf's inevitable struggles, and teams don't let those types of D men go for a song.
I do like your idea of trading major assets for a top level D man, and I agree that Gallagher's value is high right now. With his playing style and concussion history (had them in junior before suffering one this year), he may not be the type of player to be in the lineup consistently and to improve very much on his rookie year. But I love him too much to want him traded, and surround him with other physical players and he's a lightning rod.
Finally some rationality on this topic - thank you Neech.
I agree about Franson. Not quite as hard to get as Hedman perhaps, and therefore perhaps more realistic. And YES, I would give Gallagher to get him. This is exactly this kind of sentimentality that a good GM needs to see past and make moves while players values are at their highest: "But I love him too much to want him traded"
Agree to disagree on Patches - I'd say he was the 10th highest scoring left winger in the league this season (ahead of the likes of Parise, Marleau, Kane, Skinner, Van R, Neal, Lucic and Marchand, etc - he was ahead of almost all those guys last season too) IN SPITE of reduced minutes per game and being weighed down by playing with DD, who is not a future top six centre, imo. He is a possession driving force who is strong on the puck with a laser shot. One of the 10 best power forwards in the league right now and for many years to come.
For a balanced review of Patches as a Fenwick and shots per 60 monster, see this EotP article from earlier in the season: http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/3/25/4145212/2013-habs-half-season-review-max-pacioretty
The piece speaks to your point about looking less impressive this year, with the opening three paragraphs addressing the point directly. This summary comes near the end:
It's a difficult thing to evaluate Max Pacioretty, because he's hurt by his own previous dominance. We all expect great things from him, and he's playing in a role that he's probably too good to be playing. One of the results of this is that sometimes it looks like Pacioretty gets a little bit lazy. He's by far the best left winger the Canadiens have...
-
We all love what Gallagher did this year. But it is the homers in us that leads us to covet him as untouchable as the 4th ranking young offensive player on the team (after Patches, Eller and Galchenyuk).
You sometimes have to give up a high end player to get what you need to become a contender.
While we have gotten lucky with the rapid development of the Gallies, it is much rarer to see defencemen accelerate their development so dramatically. That means Tinordi and Beaulieu will probably require 2 or more seasons to step up to genuine top-four roles. Those happen to be the two seasons when Markov, Gio, Pleks and Bourque will be at their best.
So you do a deal for a top end dman in their prime, and maximize the probability for cup runs sooner, and later.
Two last arguments
1) Top defencemen are generally more important to team success than top forwards (with the exception of game changing stars like Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, etc). They play more shifts/minutes per game, and they play a bigger part in driving puck possession. If you can turn one young scorer + a solid defensive dman + picks into a top end dman in his prime, this team at this juncture has to consider it.
2) Gallagher is small. He plays big, but it really would not hurt to turn him and Gorges into a big dman with skills, leaving room for the likes of Gio, DD and Hudon on the roster.
ALL of this is probably moot. If you think we have a strong reaction to the idea of losing Gallagher, can you imagine what TB fans and management would say to the idea of trading away Hedman??? And I guess that is my point really. We would be lucky to get him for Gallagher +++. Yzerman would probably stand firm on getting one of Patches or Galchenyuk fpr Hedman, if he would even consider it at all...
-
No one is saying that there doesn't need to be changes. Obviously there does.
How many changes you can make in one offseason with the cap coming down is one issue.
The second issue is a question... are you trying to win right now, or build a team. I think we are still building, and if thats the case, you don't throw out the 20 year old Calder Candidate. You gotta find another way, and perhaps it involves moving Gionta at the trade deadline next year, and continuing to build with youth for now.
Sure, but the argument I make above is that armchair GMs have come to underestimate the importance of Markov's offensive leadership. The window on his crucial participation in cup runs is limited. It happens to coincide with the next couple of years when a number of excellent young players (Galch, Gally, Tinordi, Beaulieu, not to mention Eller and Subban next season) have affordable contracts.
I say make a move now for a top four dman who is in his prime who can help lead the runs these next few years. We have some of the best offensive depth in the league right now. It's a fine balance between Pleks, Gio and Bourque still producing like top 6 forwards and the young guns remaining affordable.
The next two seasons are prime time.
The missing piece is a Hedman-like dman. It will cost a high end forward to get it done, but that's the way it works. That's not "throwing out" Gallagher, it's quality for quality. And it will take Gorges plus picks as well to get the likes of Hedman.
We have the forward depth to augment a blueline that is not ready for elite contention. I say do it.
-
He is the type of player you build a franchise around - regardless where he was drafted or his size. Using your rationale, Detroit should have traded away datsyuk.
I am sorry, but I do not think Gallagher is "the type of player you build a franchise around." Are you actually comparing the kid to Datsyuk? A decade long point per game player? There are only three players with franchise player potential on the Habs current roster:
PK Subban - I think he just proved he is the real deal.
Carey Price - skills there, consistency yet to come, but it will.
Alex Galchenyuk - only time will tell...
Douglas Murray Signed
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
People play and watch hockey for different, and evolving, reasons. Sure, you can let your Neanderthal-side get riled up by the bloody stuff - I know I use to as a younger player. But it all just seems like so much unnecessary and gratuitous thuggery to me now. Especially in light of recent concussion research which has parents all over the country, like my wife and I, reconsidering organized hockey as a pastime for their kids. Just not worth long-term brain damage, sorry.
Personally, I have come to believe that the game is better without fighting and related-violence. But, I use to believe otherwise, so I can sympathize with those who still do.
Body contact is another story and can be done well with minimal violence and injury. Murray was once very good at that. The key issue here is that ALL the evidence (not just some) points to the fact that he has suffered a serious decline during the past few seasons in speed and effectiveness. He is no longer clearing the net or his own zone effectively enough to be a contributor at the NHL level. His team is getting hemmed in its own zone more and more when he is one the ice, which leads to shots and goals against, and losses.
I think we can all agree that we want the Habs to win. Murray is going to hurt that effort if he plays. Therrien is a good enough coach to recognize this, so I am not worried about him seeing very much ice this year. If he can turn his career around after three years of decline, good on him. But it is doubtful.