Permanent Rumour Thread

[GHT120]

21 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I do not want Bergevin to come back, that ship has sailed.

 

I am just saying that the criticism I have of Hugh-Gort is the lack of elite prospects. They have taken a few swing-for-the-fences chances, and I hope they work out: but that strategy only goes so far.

 

Guhle was a safe, sure-fire, pick; and he is living up to expectations.

 

I-M-O, there are no players who would qualify as "elite" prospects that they have passed on.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Are you saying they should have taken the consensus #1 pick and generational talent Shane Wright. That's why teams have scouting departments. Reinbacher was a fast mover up the rankings and way way too early to make any judgements about him.

 

I started out my post by saying "it's too early to be definitive."🙄

 

Both Reinbacher and Slaf were fast-risers. Quite possibly, this was partly because the Habs had them so highly rated; as a top-drafting team, hints coming out of our camp would have spread very quickly. So either our group is prone to picking fast risers, or else we are outliers whose unusual decisions have a causal effect upon the pre-draft chatter. 

 

Part of the appeal of the fast-riser is the surprise effect. "Hmmm, people haven't paid enough attention to this guy...I'm going to do so and show what a brainy hockey mind I have." I'm NOT saying this was the overt motivation. I'm just saying that there is some risk of them being too clever for their own good.

 

38 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

HuGo swing for the fences and focus the search on elite talent. 

 

Bergevin played it safer, hoping to draft character guys that would make it to the NHL. 
 

HuGo’s method will result in busts along the way but with the hope of finding that elite player - perhaps Dach, Slafkovsky, Reinbacker 

 

Bergevin’s method resulted in a glut of bottom 6 players. Caufield was a gift because folks were afraid of his size and Guhle was BPA. 
 

Habs need some elite players with skill  and I’m thankful that we aren’t drafting character players that can’t frigging score anymore 

 

I actually don't agree with this. Both Slaf and Reinbacher look to me like players who, once fully developed, will have a complete game. So far there is little sign of elite potential in Slaf apart from his #1 overall pedigree. (I'll bet that most of us would be delighted to be told that, in five years, he will be a hard-grinding, widely hated 55-point power forward - but if Cooley is a 90-point C we will still be kidding ourselves about having won the draft, probably still making excuses for Slaf in exactly the way we are now). Reinbacher, who knows, but he clearly seems to be in the mould of an all-around defender rather than a Cale Makar. And remember the video of the braintrust plotting their draft day moves? Gorton declared that "he was hearing" that the consensus was we didn't want to swing for the fences on a risky pick but rather wanted the sure thing.

 

I don't know what the hell Bergevin's strategy was.   

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

39 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

I do not want Bergevin to come back, that ship has sailed.

 

I am just saying that the criticism I have of Hugh-Gort is the lack of elite prospects. They have taken a few swing-for-the-fences chances, and I hope they work out: but that strategy only goes so far.

 

Guhle was a safe, sure-fire, pick; and he is living up to expectations.

It's way too early to write off Slaf and Reinbacher as not elite or at least high end prospects. Guhle was not a sure fire pick. There are no sure fire picks in the middle of the first round where he was drafted. 

[alfredoh2009]

24 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

AND ... has cap space ... 9 teams have less than $3.85M in cap space ... as do 9 of the 16 teams using LTIR ... and 4 of the other LTIR teams have their major LTIR-player returning this season (i.e., FULL cap hit returns with them) or are not "win-now" ... so 22 of the other 31 teams won't work without their making other moves, even if they wanted Allen ... point being, it is MUCH easier said than done.

 

why so little faith on Hugh-Gort ? They moved Weber and Dadonov, moved Petry twice and have managed the cap very well.

 

I agree with the post about preferring to move the older goalie, Allen, before any other. I trust Hugh-Gort can make it happen.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

7 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I started out my post by saying "it's too early to be definitive."🙄

 

Both Reinbacher and Slaf were fast-risers. Quite possibly, this was partly because the Habs had them so highly rated; as a top-drafting team, hints coming out of our camp would have spread very quickly. So either our group is prone to picking fast risers, or else we are outliers whose unusual decisions have a causal effect upon the pre-draft chatter. 

 

Part of the appeal of the fast-riser is the surprise effect. "Hmmm, people haven't paid enough attention to this guy...I'm going to do so and show what a brainy hockey mind I have." I'm NOT saying this was the overt motivation. I'm just saying that there is some risk of them being too clever for their own good.

 

 

I actually don't agree with this. Both Slaf and Reinbacher look to me like players who, once fully developed, will have a complete game. So far there is little sign of elite potential in Slaf apart from his #1 overall pedigree. (I'll bet that most of us would be delighted to be told that, in five years, he will be a hard-grinding, widely hated 55-point power forward - but if Cooley is a 90-point C we will still be kidding ourselves about having won the draft, probably still making excuses for Slaf in exactly the way we are now). Reinbacher, who knows, but he clearly seems to be in the mould of an all-around defender rather than a Cale Makar. And remember the video of the braintrust plotting their draft day moves? Gorton declared that "he was hearing" that the consensus was we didn't want to swing for the fences on a risky pick but rather wanted the sure thing.

 

I don't know what the hell Bergevin's strategy was.   

Slafkovsky was a swing for the fences pick due to his size, his speed and his skill. He is 19 years old and it’s way too premature to label him as anything. 
 

Kotkaniemi was labeled a bust too and I’m certainly not claiming that Kotkaniemi is elite but he doesn’t look like a bust now 13 points in 15 games. 
 

Im not saying Slafkovsky is elite but it’s way to early to write him off. That gamble, much like the Dach trade, was made to try and find elite talent. 

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Are you saying they should have taken the consensus #1 pick and generational talent Shane Wright. That's why teams have scouting departments. Reinbacher was a fast mover up the rankings and way way too early to make any judgements about him.

I thought the choice was between wright and Cooley three months prior to the draft. Slafkovsky came out of nowhere, gaining steam after the Olympics and world championships.

 

Reinbacher also rose drastically in the draft rankings during the year.

 

I do wonder if we would have taken Michkov this year if we hadn’t already taken the gamble on the Slafkovsky pick. The Reinbacher pick seemed to be an attempt to take the safe pick of someone who should at least be a top 4, rather than trying to go for the best player available. They probably didn’t want to take a risk that they blow both high picks in consecutive years.

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

I-M-O, there are no players who would qualify as "elite" prospects that they have passed on.

Michkov, Leonard, Cooley.

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I started out my post by saying "it's too early to be definitive."🙄

 

Both Reinbacher and Slaf were fast-risers. Quite possibly, this was partly because the Habs had them so highly rated; as a top-drafting team, hints coming out of our camp would have spread very quickly. So either our group is prone to picking fast risers, or else we are outliers whose unusual decisions have a causal effect upon the pre-draft chatter. 

 

Part of the appeal of the fast-riser is the surprise effect. "Hmmm, people haven't paid enough attention to this guy...I'm going to do so and show what a brainy hockey mind I have." I'm NOT saying this was the overt motivation. I'm just saying that there is some risk of them being too clever for their own good.

 

 

I actually don't agree with this. Both Slaf and Reinbacher look to me like players who, once fully developed, will have a complete game. So far there is little sign of elite potential in Slaf apart from his #1 overall pedigree. (I'll bet that most of us would be delighted to be told that, in five years, he will be a hard-grinding, widely hated 55-point power forward - but if Cooley is a 90-point C we will still be kidding ourselves about having won the draft, probably still making excuses for Slaf in exactly the way we are now). Reinbacher, who knows, but he clearly seems to be in the mould of an all-around defender rather than a Cale Makar. And remember the video of the braintrust plotting their draft day moves? Gorton declared that "he was hearing" that the consensus was we didn't want to swing for the fences on a risky pick but rather wanted the sure thing.

 

I don't know what the hell Bergevin's strategy was.   

top 5 strategies for Bergevin:
1) Anything can happen, as long as you are a bubble team that can squeak into the playoffs.

2) Character is the only thing that matters. Unless you are big. If your big and have character like Kassian, than character doesn’t matter.

3) Big is good. It’s more important then  then skill.  skill is over-rated, I wasn’t skilled and played 19 years. A team full of mediocre assholes like me had to be good. They just have to have big biceps like me, we don’t need any of those small Patrick Kane types. 

4) you have to build through the draft. Building through the draft means you trade the best pick you ever make (Sergechev). Development is not important - that’s why i had my bum buddy from my teenage years as the coach for the minor league team. Besides you don’t need a coach to develop young players because you should rush 18 year olds into the NHL - even if they aren’t ready. After all, that’s what building though the draft means. You have to build though the draft because teams just don’t trade young centres like Dach and Newhook. 

5) if you have Price, you don’t really need to score goals. Just need to win 1-0, or 2-1. So if price gets hurt in November, you call it a year.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

58 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I thought the choice was between wright and Cooley three months prior to the draft. Slafkovsky came out of nowhere, gaining steam after the Olympics and world championships.

 

Reinbacher also rose drastically in the draft rankings during the year.

 

I do wonder if we would have taken Michkov this year if we hadn’t already taken the gamble on the Slafkovsky pick. The Reinbacher pick seemed to be an attempt to take the safe pick of someone who should at least be a top 4, rather than trying to go for the best player available. They probably didn’t want to take a risk that they blow both high picks in consecutive years.

If you want to look at the "consensus" picks Slaf and Wright were neck and neck in McKenzie's final rankings so I don't see how you could call it a gamble. The only reason Michkov fell is because of political risk.

[tomh009]

10 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Personally while I generally back all of our players, I would prefer sticking with Allen and Primeau as a tandem if I had to choose. I’m not a big fan of Montembeault, even though I understand I’m in the minority. I haven’t been a big Primeau fan over the years either but he’s somewhat impressed me this year. It seems as though he is playing every game as though “it’s his chance” this year.

That’s an awfully small sample size for Primeau. Allen is unlikely to be with the Habs two years from now, and younger prospects are unlikely to be ready by then. So, I can see why they are considering extending Montembeault.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

top 5 strategies for Bergevin:
1) Anything can happen, as long as you are a bubble team that can squeak into the playoffs.

2) Character is the only thing that matters. Unless you are big. If your big and have character like Kassian, than character doesn’t matter.

3) Big is good. It’s more important then  then skill.  skill is over-rated, I wasn’t skilled and played 19 years. A team full of mediocre assholes like me had to be good. They just have to have big biceps like me, we don’t need any of those small Patrick Kane types. 

4) you have to build through the draft. Building through the draft means you trade the best pick you ever make (Sergechev). Development is not important - that’s why i had my bum buddy from my teenage years as the coach for the minor league team. Besides you don’t need a coach to develop young players because you should rush 18 year olds into the NHL - even if they aren’t ready. After all, that’s what building though the draft means. You have to build though the draft because teams just don’t trade young centres like Dach and Newhook. 

5) if you have Price, you don’t really need to score goals. Just need to win 1-0, or 2-1. So if price gets hurt in November, you call it a year.

I am willing to turn the page on Bergevin. Time to move forward.

[DON]

9 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I am willing to turn the page on Bergevin. Time to move forward.

Is new GM/Gorton much different?

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

4 minutes ago, DON said:

Is new GM/Gorton much different?

Are you serious with that question?

[hab29RETIRED]

36 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

If you want to look at the "consensus" picks Slaf and Wright were neck and neck in McKenzie's final rankings so I don't see how you could call it a gamble. The only reason Michkov fell is because of political risk.

Point is that Slafkovsky came on really from the Olympics forward and was really a more legit #1 ranking after the WC. Before that it was Wright and then Cooley. It’s always a risk when someone jumps so much on the basis of two tournaments, and in Slafkovsky’s case - size fetish.

 

Id prefer a higher skilled guy for a #1 pick. Right now we are kind of hoping he’s a Leclair (who was really a project), but that’s typically not the guy you draft at #1 overall.

 

At times the kid has shown a lot of potential. My preference would have been to play in the CHL last year to get used to the North American game. Let him dominate. Even after they decided to keep him, it was just plain stupid not to let him play in the WJC - let him be a leader and play some more meaningful games. 
 

the handling Slafkovsky is really the only major complaint I have of HuGo. I don’t have issue with picking him, but I do think rolling the dice on him probably was a factor in passing on Michkov.
 

Hopefully it will work out well, but I have a hard time seeing him develop into a better player than Cooley. Right now we didn’t even know if he will Be better than Wright. We have needed a big power forward who can score for a LONG time. Just not sure if that’s Slafkovsky’s game??

[GHT120]

3 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Michkov, Leonard, Cooley.

I-M-O, Bedard is an elite prospect ... Carlsson and Fantilli are near-elite ... I would not put Michkov, Leonard or Colley ... but only time will tell.

[hab29RETIRED]

30 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I-M-O, Bedard is an elite prospect ... Carlsson and Fantilli are near-elite ... I would not put Michkov, Leonard or Colley ... but only time will tell.

Michkov as supposedly close to Bedard leading up to this draft year. he fell because of his contract, the Russian factor and whisper campaigns about his “character” (the favorite method of character assassination any the Bergevin/Therrien types).
 

Cooley absolutely looks elite. He seems to be the same TYPE of player as Jack Hughes, while Leonard was compared to Tkachuk.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

44 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Point is that Slafkovsky came on really from the Olympics forward and was really a more legit #1 ranking after the WC. Before that it was Wright and then Cooley. It’s always a risk when someone jumps so much on the basis of two tournaments, and in Slafkovsky’s case - size fetish.

 

Id prefer a higher skilled guy for a #1 pick. Right now we are kind of hoping he’s a Leclair (who was really a project), but that’s typically not the guy you draft at #1 overall.

 

At times the kid has shown a lot of potential. My preference would have been to play in the CHL last year to get used to the North American game. Let him dominate. Even after they decided to keep him, it was just plain stupid not to let him play in the WJC - let him be a leader and play some more meaningful games. 
 

the handling Slafkovsky is really the only major complaint I have of HuGo. I don’t have issue with picking him, but I do think rolling the dice on him probably was a factor in passing on Michkov

I agree that his ratings certainly jumped after the Olympics and World Championships as they should have. He was pretty impressive in both especially at the Olympics playing against men. Just because he is big doesn't mean he isn't very skilled. I agree the Habs could have handled his development better last year. I just don't see his pick as rolling the dice.

 

[DON]

50 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 I agree the Habs could have handled his development better last year. I just don't see his pick as rolling the dice.

No, just eerily similar to their #3 pick now playing in Carolina, pick & development-wise.

[alfredoh2009]

41 minutes ago, DON said:

No, just eerily similar to their #3 pick now playing in Carolina, pick & development-wise.

Yup, fairly similar to my uneducated eyes

[xXx..CK..xXx]

5 hours ago, tomh009 said:

That’s an awfully small sample size for Primeau. Allen is unlikely to be with the Habs two years from now, and younger prospects are unlikely to be ready by then. So, I can see why they are considering extending Montembeault.

I mean the Habs brass are hopefully smarter and more informed than you and I so if they see something I don’t that’s fine, but you can see why they would want to extend Monty with his career .896 save percentage? 
 

I’d rather have Primeau as a backup goalie than be “stuck” with Montrmbeault as a 1a or 1b goalie for the next few years.

 

That’s where I see the difference. With Montembault, I worry that we’re going to have a tandem in net rather than a legitimate starter. With Primeau, I see him as a backup. Allen is not the answer either but short term he’s more of a starter than the other two.

 

There’s been mention in the thread about the “new age” NHL having more teams going with multiple goalies so call me old school. With that being said, I’d rather have a Shesterkin or Vasilevskiy in net than a Michael Leighton circa 2010 Philadelphia Flyers.

 

Finally, even with a tandem, one of the goalies is usually superior to both Allen and Montembeault. 
 

I understand that it is unrealistic to acquire a Shesterkin or Vasilevskiy but my preference would be to look outward for our new starter or “1a goalie”. 
 

The Habs are obviously on a different page than I am though because even DeSmith is a higher quality goalie than what we have behind Allen.
 

In sum, if Montembault is a backup goalie for the Habs I have no problem with it. If he’s one of our starters, then we’re going to have to build a Colorado or Vegas strong team in front of him or the next few years will be very long.

 

That’s also where I differ… many people are willing to rebuild for the next three years (when in reality that timeframe just keeps extending and extending.) I’d like to contend, thank you very much.

 

 

[tomh009]

I really don't think all that many contracts are based on "career" performance but, rather, on either recent and/or projected performance. Montembeault's 0.303 GSAx last season (13th in the league) will count for much more than his .890 seasons in 2019-2020 and 2021-2022.

 

The trouble with looking for a starter elsewhere is that either you are paying a lot in trade, or else signing an older UFA goalie with a large cap hit. And that's even assuming that the Habs would be successful in securing someone.

 

So, signing Montembeault to a reasonable contract would at least give the Habs a credible backup, and maybe something more than that should they not secure a clear 1G in some way. And should they somehow become aflush with top goalies, a Montembeault with a good contract would be very much tradeable.

[hab29RETIRED]

28 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I mean the Habs brass are hopefully smarter and more informed than you and I so if they see something I don’t that’s fine, but you can see why they would want to extend Monty with his career .896 save percentage? 
 

I’d rather have Primeau as a backup goalie than be “stuck” with Montrmbeault as a 1a or 1b goalie for the next few years.

 

That’s where I see the difference. With Montembault, I worry that we’re going to have a tandem in net rather than a legitimate starter. With Primeau, I see him as a backup. Allen is not the answer either but short term he’s more of a starter than the other two.

 

There’s been mention in the thread about the “new age” NHL having more teams going with multiple goalies so call me old school. With that being said, I’d rather have a Shesterkin or Vasilevskiy in net than a Michael Leighton circa 2010 Philadelphia Flyers.

 

Finally, even with a tandem, one of the goalies is usually superior to both Allen and Montembeault. 
 

I understand that it is unrealistic to acquire a Shesterkin or Vasilevskiy but my preference would be to look outward for our new starter or “1a goalie”. 
 

The Habs are obviously on a different page than I am though because even DeSmith is a higher quality goalie than what we have behind Allen.
 

In sum, if Montembault is a backup goalie for the Habs I have no problem with it. If he’s one of our starters, then we’re going to have to build a Colorado or Vegas strong team in front of him or the next few years will be very long.

 

That’s also where I differ… many people are willing to rebuild for the next three years (when in reality that timeframe just keeps extending and extending.) I’d like to contend, thank you very much.

 

 

I’m not in favour of signing Montembault to a long term contract yet, or sign him for too much of a hit. But I wouldn’t want to choose Premieu over him at this point. 

 

i also don’t think Montembault’s career save percentage matters or factors into how much he is worth,

or if he is the right choice. He’s only been a starter for a year. I also don’t have a problem with going with a 1a/1b approach if we have the right guys. Hell, during the one goalie 80’s era, in regular season, the Oilers went with a tandem until Fuhr pulled ahead of Moog.
 

My concern with signing Montembeault is we still don’t know if he he’s become a legit starting goalie, or is a flash in the pan. And anything over $3m is probably is too much. I thought we paid Allen too much, while quite a few folks  thought it was a good contract. I doubt if we could move him now without either retaining salary or taking another bad contract back.

[hab29RETIRED]

19 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I really don't think all that many contracts are based on "career" performance but, rather, on either recent and/or projected performance. Montembeault's 0.303 GSAx last season (13th in the league) will count for much more than his .890 seasons in 2019-2020 and 2021-2022.

 

The trouble with looking for a starter elsewhere is that either you are paying a lot in trade, or else signing an older UFA goalie with a large cap hit. And that's even assuming that the Habs would be successful in securing someone.

 

So, signing Montembeault to a reasonable contract would at least give the Habs a credible backup, and maybe something more than that should they not secure a clear 1G in some way. And should they somehow become aflush with top goalies, a Montembeault with a good contract would be very much tradeable.

Agreed. Depending on what reasonable is. Anything over $3m, or over 3 years (prefer two), IMO is too much. 

[xXx..CK..xXx]

I just don’t get how so many people are so high on or even accepting of Montembault. In my opinion there’s not even a consideration of him being a flash in the pan because he’s never been good. This is coming from someone who usually defends our players so I am not, in general, a hater. 
 

I understand that there are many factors at play and considering he is currently on the team now we have to work with what we have but I can clearly see that he’s not it and I watch every game.
 

Some people here were also anti-Price because as a result of having him we had to rely too much on our goaltending, but I saw that as a good problem to have. I don’t expect our next goalie to be Price and don’t hold Montembault to that standard but I believe our current tandem to be one of the worst in the league and would like to upgrade. Otherwise, we will have to expect very little over the next few years.

[GHT120]

4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Cooley absolutely looks elite. He seems to be the same TYPE of player as Jack Hughes, while Leonard was compared to Tkachuk.

 

ALL prospects are "compared" to existing, high-end NHLers ... because the media needs the hype to generate interest.

 

You MAY be right, but only time will tell.