ehjay Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 An offer sheet by it's use is a tool to jack the salaries up. No offer sheet is going to be for the 8 to 8.5 that Pk will get anyways. It would have to be for 10 mill or 45 million up front or some such nonsense. An 8 to 8.5 offer sheet is going to be matched in a heart beat. The ink wouldn't be dry on the paper.I had mentioned this a few years ago when Price was up for a bridge deal.... a unsigned offer sheet will remain just sheet P.K. will get Huge $$$. I just hope Habs know this better then me and give it to him before another team make the offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I had mentioned this a few years ago when Price was up for a bridge deal.... a unsigned offer sheet will remain just sheet P.K. will get Huge $$$. I just hope Habs know this better then me and give it to him before another team make the offer. I have zero worry about Subban being resigned. Habs know he is a super talent to build around, a very media savvy/friendly kid and a huge fan favourite, so all know it will get done, just what is term/annual $ rate is to be debated (but Molson can afford it, so I really don't care alot about contract details, other than cap room he will eat up). Am more curious to see how Markov is dealt with by Bergevin? I assume he will get a 3 year deal, but if dealt on March 5th wouldn't be a huge shocker and maybe best move long term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 They must not overpay for Markov, is my thought. I fear they'll have to, because his points production will translate into big dollars on the open market irrespective of whether that makes any sense. A lot of talk around here about re-signing vets like Markov and Gionta. My question is - how exactly is this team supposed to get better? Other than Galchenyuk, is there huge ground for "internal improvement?" I doubt that Gally is going to improve by leaps and bounds, he strikes me as a guy who arrives in the NHL more or less fully-formed; Subban has room to improve in his own end but is already a superstar, so unless we see him becoming Bobby Orr II, there cannot be enormous room for growth there. By the time Beaulieu is fully-realized, Markov will probably be on the way out. Eller's agonizing offensive uselessness has destroyed all the optimism we had about him going into the season. One possibility I see is that Bournival has the potential to replace Gio. Letting Gio go should thus free up roster space for a meaningful addition, preferably via the UFA market. I guess my wider point is that I remain less than fully convinced that the "stay the course" option will make us contenders. And for this reason I am unenthusiastic about the whole "let's hurry and re-sign our declining veterans" attitude. We need to be adding better players, dammit, not just treading water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 They must not overpay for Markov, is my thought. I fear they'll have to, because his points production will translate into big dollars on the open market irrespective of whether that makes any sense. A lot of talk around here about re-signing vets like Markov and Gionta. My question is - how exactly is this team supposed to get better? Other than Galchenyuk, is there huge ground for "internal improvement?" I doubt that Gally is going to improve by leaps and bounds, he strikes me as a guy who arrives in the NHL more or less fully-formed; Subban has room to improve in his own end but is already a superstar, so unless we see him becoming Bobby Orr II, there cannot be enormous room for growth there. By the time Beaulieu is fully-realized, Markov will probably be on the way out. Eller's agonizing offensive uselessness has destroyed all the optimism we had about him going into the season. One possibility I see is that Bournival has the potential to replace Gio. Letting Gio go should thus free up roster space for a meaningful addition, preferably via the UFA market. I guess my wider point is that I remain less than fully convinced that the "stay the course" option will make us contenders. And for this reason I am unenthusiastic about the whole "let's hurry and re-sign our declining veterans" attitude. We need to be adding better players, dammit, not just treading water. You are really undervaluing Eller, who actually is doing very well in a checking role (with zero PP time). And Andrighetto-Thomas-Hudon are more apt to be Gionta fill ins than Bournival, I think (but they will lack Gionta's super defensive play for a while). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So, DON...it really is a five-year plan to contention, then? We just re-sign decaying veterans as placeholders and wait for the mythic Next Wave of prospects to carry us to glory? I sure hope this isn't the vision, because it sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So, DON...it really is a five-year plan to contention, then? We just re-sign decaying veterans as placeholders and wait for the mythic Next Wave of prospects to carry us to glory? I sure hope this isn't the vision, because it sucks. What he just said! Get your popcorn ready for the draft! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I'm all for re-signing Markov. Beaulieu can still gain valuable minutes with Markov and Subban in the lineup and it's better for Beaulieu to take his spot instead of just be given his spot. Gionta, not so much. I'm one of the biggest Gionta defenders here but that's because I think people focus far too much on a limited amount of bad plays and ignore how smart he is as a player. I also think tossing him aside just because he's a UFA is the wrong way to think. We should be looking at him like a rental. Once we get to the spring (hopefully with Gio winning a Cup as a Hab), that's when it's time to move in a different direction. Not because of his size but because we need to make room in the lineup. If at the deadline we traded Briere and Bourque, then sure I'd be fine with re-signing Gionta. There'd still be room for flexibility in the linup and on limited minutes he'd be good for a bottom six role. Kind of how Anaheim handles Koivu. But we need to be moving forward. We also need to establish our next locker room leader and decide whether it's going to be one of our franchise players (Price/Subban/Galchenyuk) or if it's going to be someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So, DON...it really is a five-year plan to contention, then? We just re-sign decaying veterans as placeholders and wait for the mythic Next Wave of prospects to carry us to glory? I sure hope this isn't the vision, because it sucks. No sure what u mean? I am more for jettisoning Markov, but he likely will be resigned, which also isnt the worst thing to happen, in my opinion. Why cant they contend this year, there is no black or white with a championship team? More often than not, the Vegas odds on favourite fails. Flip Eller for Kesler and bump DD to 3rd line centre and who knows how offense reacts? But as far as being impatient, managing like a fan and having knee jerk reactions; which you seem to be looking to see done, has been tried many times and fails more often than not in pro sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 There you go again with your 3 year Cup plan. We all must be missing something that you know a: I don't think everyone agrees with you. I think mostly they ignore you, which I can guarantee you I will be doing from now on. b: How long a plan would you like, it has been over 20 years and counting. That seems plenty long enough to me but I know nothing. However I do read previous posts to see who has said what and try to add to the conversation, rather than just assume I am right, as you do. Of course you are much too busy for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 No sure what u mean? I am more for jettisoning Markov, but he likely will be resigned, which also isnt the worst thing to happen, in my opinion. Why cant they contend this year, there is no black or white with a championship team? More often than not, the Vegas odds on favourite fails. Flip Eller for Kesler and bump DD to 3rd line centre and who knows how offense reacts? But as far as being impatient, managing like a fan and having knee jerk reactions; which you seem to be looking to see done, has been tried many times and fails more often than not in pro sports. I think Don that what CC means and I mostly agrre with him, is hasn't it been long enough? Do we really need another 5 year rebuilding plan? I believe that this team is a lot closer than that, and it why I say to trade the guys whose best before date is gone by and get the pieces that we need to win the cup. Is it going to be easy, nope, but I for one would sure like to see us moving in that direction. Building throught the draft is a fantasy. It really can't be done and still be competitive and make the playoffs every year. We are living proof of that. Pittsburgh built a lot throught the draft, not completely and how many 1st over all picks did they have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Yeah, my basic point was pretty simple. I want to see this team take a step forward and get significantly better, to become a bona-fide contender. Not just one of a dozen teams with an "outside chance" if it catches lightning in a bottle, but rather a Chicago, a St Louis, a Boston. And I don't believe that will happen just by sticking with our current roster, re-signing declining veterans, tinkering with the fringes of the roster and crossing our fingers that our younger players suddenly explode. I also agree with habs rule that the whole "5-year-plan" thing is bungus. What particular, compelling reason is there to think that this franchise will become a contender when Markov is gone, Price is entering the back nine and Pleks is on his last legs? Absolutely none. The team five years from now could be better; just as likely, it could be worse, or the same calibre. It's all just sheer guess-work. The goal, then, should be to emerge as heavy-duty contenders within about two years. That will take actual hockey moves, some bold decisions, not just Zoot Suit sitting on his ass. We've got too many good strong pieces not to make a determined effort to hit that next level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehab Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Yeah, my basic point was pretty simple. I want to see this team take a step forward and get significantly better, to become a bona-fide contender. Not just one of a dozen teams with an "outside chance" if it catches lightning in a bottle, but rather a Chicago, a St Louis, a Boston. And I don't believe that will happen just by sticking with our current roster, re-signing declining veterans, tinkering with the fringes of the roster and crossing our fingers that our younger players suddenly explode. I also agree with habs rule that the whole "5-year-plan" thing is bungus. What particular, compelling reason is there to think that this franchise will become a contender when Markov is gone, Price is entering the back nine and Pleks is on his last legs? Absolutely none. The team five years from now could be better; just as likely, it could be worse, or the same calibre. It's all just sheer guess-work. The goal, then, should be to emerge as heavy-duty contenders within about two years. That will take actual hockey moves, some bold decisions, not just Zoot Suit sitting on his ass. We've got too many good strong pieces not to make a determined effort to hit that next level. I would also like to see significant moves in the near future.....but you cant make the team better without using/loosing assets. What are you willing to give up? Andrigettho/Bourque for Parenteau? it would be nice to get better by dealing our older vets but I don't see to many Mike Milburys or Jay Feasters around anymore. Personally i could see Markov + a pick moving for an talented forward and then Bourque + a prospect like Collberg for a Dman. And you can bet that one of those acquisitions will be french (not that it matters, just saying). But even with those moves will we be better? Thats why Bergevin is in charge, not guys like us. One thing you can count on is that we will not "Win" any deal without giving up top prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Dave, I toss ideas for trades around now and then, but generally don't waste a lot of energy on it; as you say, that's Bergevin's job, not ours. Any number of moves is possible and that's why it's a bit of a fool's game to pour too much soulful thought into it. All I can say is that, ideally, we'd be acquiring players with a number of years left in the tank (hence, names like Kane, Edler, Kesler). I agree that, if and when Zoot Suit does make a bold move, it will be controversial, because we'll have to give assets back. Hopefully these will not be irreplaceable prospects. But what kind of asset all depends on the player(s) being send to us. Of course, a "bold move" could conceivably include a UFA signing. The free agent market has thinned out in recent years, but who knows, Bergie could fill important holes through a shrewd signing or two. So all I'm really saying is that standing pat isn't gonna cut it. The rest is up to Bergevin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 a: I don't think everyone agrees with you. I think mostly they ignore you, which I can guarantee you I will be doing from now on. b: How long a plan would you like, it has been over 20 years and counting. That seems plenty long enough to me but I know nothing. However I do read previous posts to see who has said what and try to add to the conversation, rather than just assume I am right, as you do. Of course you are much too busy for that. a: Of course not everyone agrees with me, just like others don't agree with you. We have two different opinions on what to do with Markov. I think that we should keep him because he is still an effective player and I don't believe the return on a trade would be significant enough to do so. And thanks for speaking on behalf of all the other posters here in saying that they ignore me, again, you know all. b: How long a plan? How about right now? How about next year? Top seeds aren't guaranteed a Cup, that's why they play the games. We have arguably the best goaltender in the world that can steal a series and a Norris winner, right now. Just because a team trades away vets doesn't mean they will get better in the future. You honestly think that we can get a player better than Markov back in a trade? You should apply for GM. We trade Markov and then have to replace him, seems fairly redundant to me. But what do I know? And I'm sure I'm the only one that thinks that too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 When you say something like "we've been going on 20 years" that puts the kind of pressure on Bergevin that Toronto fans always put on their GMs. And that's why Toronto GMs are always pressured to turn things around quick. And always pressured to sacrifice youth for immediate results. And their teams implode quick. This was all compounded by the fact Bergevin said we were a young rebuilding team and we won our division in his first year. Probably no different to what will happen with Colorado. If they stumble next season their fans will be screaming because of this years results. When people hear "young rebuilding" they tend to think of bottom feeders but in a conference like the East right now, it isn't hard to contend. I feel the team, right now, could make it to the Eastern Conference finals just on the mediocrity of the East. Especially if we subtracted some dead weight and added some stronger tools. As for being a contender? A regular contender? There are only two in the East and we're closer than anyone else to becoming the third. It's more likely a coaching change is going to spur that result than dropping a veteran top two defenceman for a couple draft picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I think Don that what CC means and I mostly agrre with him, is hasn't it been long enough? Do we really need another 5 year rebuilding plan? I believe that this team is a lot closer than that, and it why I say to trade the guys whose best before date is gone by and get the pieces that we need to win the cup. Is it going to be easy, nope, but I for one would sure like to see us moving in that direction. Building throught the draft is a fantasy. It really can't be done and still be competitive and make the playoffs every year. We are living proof of that. Pittsburgh built a lot throught the draft, not completely and how many 1st over all picks did they have? Building through the draft is fantasy, that is a new one and never heard before. Pitt, Hawks, St Louis, LA, Bruins all built through the draft and shrewd move or two with those drafted assets. You and CC seem to want to follow the Leafs playbook, sorry for insult. I agree Habs are quite conservative and most fans also seem that way. Every time I tossed out a trade proposal in the fall involving Pacioretty or Subban, I got roasted. And now I say should, trade Markov & give up an Eller (or Gallagher/Beaulieu) to revamp top 6. And all I hear is Kesler is washed up (or I would rather stay with DD as a top 2 centre?) or I don't like E Kane attitude or Byfuglien is too fat. Everyone wants a big trade, but only want to give up Bourque-Moan-Gorges, ect which dosent put you much farther ahead for current roster. You cant trade fringe assets for really good impact players, have Habs ever traded away a top quality player in recent memory? Like Bruins did with Joe Thorton or Hawks did with Byfuglien or Ducks did with Bobby Ryan, etc. All that said, if Bergevin makes zero moves till end of season, that is totally fine by me, I think summer is better time to deal. But, to make impact on lineup will not be painless and blue chip assets will likely need to be smartly parted with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm not arguing to ship prospects and picks out en masse to "win now." I'm arguing that at some point, you have to try to make your team a true contender and that this may take nervy moves to ACTUALLY FRIGGING FIX obvious team weaknesses, such as size problem or our lack of quality wingers. Machine seems to think it's satisfactory just to be a playoff team and hope for a miracle, year after year after year; and to keep hoping for a crappy conference. I think the goal is to become Boston or Chicago - one of the feared franchises of the NHL that has a serious chance to win the Cup every season. In saying all this, I proceed from the assumption that we are not at the very beginning of a rebuild; that, in other words, we have good mix of quality veterans, an elite goalie and young-ish players that is a couple of players away from being real contenders. The "five year plan" model assumes otherwise - that we're basically an expansion team. Now, if we are a de facto expansion team and the idea is indeed to win in five years' time, then it is cataclysmically irresponsible NOT to ship out Markov at the deadline, because he will bring back serious value in terms of picks. You cannot argue BOTH that we should be thinking long-term AND that we should be re-signing declining veterans who have high value to buyers at the deadine. Hell, if the goal is to win in five years, we should probably be trading Pleks for picks and prospects, since he will likely be in serious decline five years from now. But of course MB won't do that because that would hurt us now. I'm accused of thinking like a Leafs' fan. I don't think this is correct. It's the people who want to "stay the course" that seem to me happy to have a team that is "good enough to make the playoffs" who are really off-base. In other words, they are satisfied with the results that characterized the Gainey/Gauthier era. I am not satisfied with such results, and what I'm insisting on is a cold-eyed, ruthless determination to get to the promised land. You don't get there by NOT maximizing declining assets, praying in the face of all evidence that Lars Eller will suddenly discover how to be more than a checker and waiting around for players currently in junior to come in and (probably) be good-not-great NHLers. So as I see it, we have three choices. One, stay the course, be happy with "good enough" and hope for a miracle every year. Two, be a deadline seller over the next couple of seasons and amass major young assets with an eye to contention in 2020. Three, think in terms of a 2-3 window to becoming mighty contenders, which may well require nervy moves involving players and assets you value. I advocate the third option. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I feel the team, right now, could make it to the Eastern Conference finals just on the mediocrity of the East. Especially if we subtracted some dead weight and added some stronger tools. As for being a contender? A regular contender? There are only two in the East and we're closer than anyone else to becoming the third. It's more likely a coaching change is going to spur that result than dropping a veteran top two defenceman for a couple draft picks. I don't know if we're closer than anyone in the East to being a third (teams like Tampa and Ottawa come to mind), but I agree that we're in a decent position. So as I see it, we have three choices. One, stay the course, be happy with "good enough" and hope for a miracle every year. Two, be a deadline seller over the next couple of seasons and amass major young assets with an eye to contention in 2020. Three, think in terms of a 2-3 window to becoming mighty contenders, which may well require nervy moves involving players and assets you value. I advocate the third option. Absolutist tripe - a combination of the three options is ideal. Of course 'nervy' moves are required (the problem is that we could easily lose those trades). We should also jettison pieces that don't figure into future plans, but this doesn't require setting the contention clock back five years (see San Jose, last year). And 'staying the course' is generally a viable option - all that wheeling and dealing hasn't won much for Philly, for instance. There aren't three forks in this road; with a team in the playoffs but not a contender, the path is clear - try to improve for the medium term, like you said. And come on, do you seriously believe you stand alone in thinking the last 20 years have been unsatisfactory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm not hoping for a miracle. I'm just recognizing that: - In 2011-2012 we crashed to the bottom despite everyone saying we were not that bad. - In 2012-2013 we won our division despite having a horrendous second half. - In the 2013 playoffs we lost to Ottawa and people had a thousand reasons why when really we just couldn't score on Craig Anderson. - The biggest "question mark" for many last year was Price and he's Vezina calibre this year. - We have probably the strongest bottom six in the league when Travis Moen or Brandon Prust is playing on the fourth line - We have several tools needed to be a contender like a dominant winger (Pacioretty), shut down center (Plekanec) and a franchise defenceman (Subban) - Much of our problem comes from our depth not being as strong as we wish it to be. Bourque, Eller, Gionta, Briere, Emelin and Gorges have not been as good as they should be. - Galchenyuk will be, I feel, as good as having a Patrick Kane. - Our coach makes a lot of really stupid decisions. - Our GM over-estimated the problems of our prospects and packed the defence with third pairing D-men instead of letting the youth get better (Beaulieu, Tinordi) - Our GM over-estimated (and we all did) how good Michael Bournival was and how ready he was for the NHL and doesn't seem to want to go back on his promise and send him back to the AHL So for me, yeah there's work to be done but it isn't that much work. I think we're fine to make the playoffs and getting better means we're just going to get closer to being a contender. One of the biggest reasons we had such a quick turnaround last year was because Brendan Gallagher and Alex Galchenyuk was like adding two top six forwards. We unfortunately felt that this year Bourque, Eller and Briere were going to produce like top six forwards as well. They haven't. That's where our depth issue lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 - We have probably the strongest bottom six in the league when Travis Moen or Brandon Prust is playing on the fourth line This is madness, simply because Rene Bourque plays in our bottom six. Grinders are the type of thing you appreciate on your own team but tend not to notice as much on other teams. Top teams like St Louis, LA, Anaheim, and Boston surely have a better bottom six than we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm not arguing to ship prospects and picks out en masse to "win now." I'm arguing that at some point, you have to try to make your team a true contender and that this may take nervy moves to ACTUALLY FRIGGING FIX obvious team weaknesses, such as size problem or our lack of quality wingers. Machine seems to think it's satisfactory just to be a playoff team and hope for a miracle, year after year after year; and to keep hoping for a crappy conference. I think the goal is to become Boston or Chicago - one of the feared franchises of the NHL that has a serious chance to win the Cup every season. In saying all this, I proceed from the assumption that we are not at the very beginning of a rebuild; that, in other words, we have good mix of quality veterans, an elite goalie and young-ish players that is a couple of players away from being real contenders. The "five year plan" model assumes otherwise - that we're basically an expansion team. Now, if we are a de facto expansion team and the idea is indeed to win in five years' time, then it is cataclysmically irresponsible NOT to ship out Markov at the deadline, because he will bring back serious value in terms of picks. You cannot argue BOTH that we should be thinking long-term AND that we should be re-signing declining veterans who have high value to buyers at the deadine. Hell, if the goal is to win in five years, we should probably be trading Pleks for picks and prospects, since he will likely be in serious decline five years from now. But of course MB won't do that because that would hurt us now. I'm accused of thinking like a Leafs' fan. I don't think this is correct. It's the people who want to "stay the course" that seem to me happy to have a team that is "good enough to make the playoffs" who are really off-base. In other words, they are satisfied with the results that characterized the Gainey/Gauthier era. I am not satisfied with such results, and what I'm insisting on is a cold-eyed, ruthless determination to get to the promised land. You don't get there by NOT maximizing declining assets, praying in the face of all evidence that Lars Eller will suddenly discover how to be more than a checker and waiting around for players currently in junior to come in and (probably) be good-not-great NHLers. So as I see it, we have three choices. One, stay the course, be happy with "good enough" and hope for a miracle every year. Two, be a deadline seller over the next couple of seasons and amass major young assets with an eye to contention in 2020. Three, think in terms of a 2-3 window to becoming mighty contenders, which may well require nervy moves involving players and assets you value. I advocate the third option. CC this is the best explantaion I have read of the difference in philosophy. Of course I agree with you. If we do not want to make the bold moves needed to make this a better team, because "we could lose these trades" then we need a GM we can trust. This is a cutthroat business, we need to be smarter than the other guy. Using Holmgren as an example of why not to trade is sheer lunacy, I say lets trade with him (if he has the assets we need) cause he is stupid. I would hope that MB is a little shaper than that slug. Staying the course is a ride to nowhere, where or where is Sammy now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm not hoping for a miracle. I'm just recognizing that: - In 2011-2012 we crashed to the bottom despite everyone saying we were not that bad. - In 2012-2013 we won our division despite having a horrendous second half. - In the 2013 playoffs we lost to Ottawa and people had a thousand reasons why when really we just couldn't score on Craig Anderson. - The biggest "question mark" for many last year was Price and he's Vezina calibre this year. - We have probably the strongest bottom six in the league when Travis Moen or Brandon Prust is playing on the fourth line - We have several tools needed to be a contender like a dominant winger (Pacioretty), shut down center (Plekanec) and a franchise defenceman (Subban) - Much of our problem comes from our depth not being as strong as we wish it to be. Bourque, Eller, Gionta, Briere, Emelin and Gorges have not been as good as they should be. - Galchenyuk will be, I feel, as good as having a Patrick Kane. - Our coach makes a lot of really stupid decisions. - Our GM over-estimated the problems of our prospects and packed the defence with third pairing D-men instead of letting the youth get better (Beaulieu, Tinordi) - Our GM over-estimated (and we all did) how good Michael Bournival was and how ready he was for the NHL and doesn't seem to want to go back on his promise and send him back to the AHL So for me, yeah there's work to be done but it isn't that much work. I think we're fine to make the playoffs and getting better means we're just going to get closer to being a contender. One of the biggest reasons we had such a quick turnaround last year was because Brendan Gallagher and Alex Galchenyuk was like adding two top six forwards. We unfortunately felt that this year Bourque, Eller and Briere were going to produce like top six forwards as well. They haven't. That's where our depth issue lies. You make our point. We are not that far away so trading aging assets for younger potential makes us better. With the right moves, the cup is at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 You make our point. We are not that far away so trading aging assets for younger potential makes us better. With the right moves, the cup is at hand. Seeing as I'm the guy open to trading Eller (just not for an injured bag of bones like Kesler) I don't see why the points were so far? My point has always been if you want to contend you need to make the playoffs, you need to craete a winning culture and you have to be willing to make critical moves. I just don't see trading Markov and Gionta for some draft picks is going to make us achieve any of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 CC this is the best explantaion I have read of the difference in philosophy. Of course I agree with you. If we do not want to make the bold moves needed to make this a better team, because "we could lose these trades" then we need a GM we can trust. This is a cutthroat business, we need to be smarter than the other guy. Using Holmgren as an example of why not to trade is sheer lunacy, I say lets trade with him (if he has the assets we need) cause he is stupid. I would hope that MB is a little shaper than that slug. Staying the course is a ride to nowhere, where or where is Sammy now? Just pointing out that bold moves can just as easily turn out poorly as well. From what Bergevin has shown us so far, I don't rate his judgment very favourably. Actually, the main positive that he's shown is patience. I'm not arguing against big trades, because they're important in building any contender. Same with big signings. But big moves are not inherently good. And I seriously doubt that he or any NHL GM is afraid to make bold moves - it's a silly line of thought. As for Bergevin being 'smarter than the other guy' - I'll believe it when I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Seeing as I'm the guy open to trading Eller (just not for an injured bag of bones like Kesler) I don't see why the points were so far? My point has always been if you want to contend you need to make the playoffs, you need to craete a winning culture and you have to be willing to make critical moves. I just don't see trading Markov and Gionta for some draft picks is going to make us achieve any of those. Trading Eller or DD is THE key. The trade has to be Eller/DD + 1st pick and/or a blue chip prospect for an UPGRADE on Eller or DD. This upgrade doesn't have to be a C, a W would do just fine since we can move Brière or Galchenyuk at C. Trades that involve Markov or Gionta will not notch significant upgrades, even if we add a 1st. Well, I don't believe they can notch anything than a pick + a warm body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.