Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Habsfan89 said:

Last year look at our point total and then the point total of the American teams that would of been in our conference if it was the same. We would of never made the playoffs. We made the playoffs because it was an all Canadian division.  Am I glad we made it to the finals yes, but if under the regular divisions it's another year missing the playoffs. 

 

You cant just look at point totals.  We didnt get to play the same schedules.  The canadian divisions worst team (ottawa) was better than buffalo, jersey, and other bad teams.  When the schedule had teams playing 8-12 games against those bad teams, you cant just look at points in such a schedule.

 

Its an apples to oranges comparison.

 

You also had a whole division with 3 california teams and arizona, all 4 of those teams were terrible.

 

What happened on the ice in a seven game series between the Habs and the team tied for the most points in the NHL? They won that series, proving they belonged 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 21.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • dlbalr

    1421

  • The Chicoutimi Cucumber

    1386

  • DON

    919

  • Commandant

    1235

12 hours ago, Habsfan89 said:

If we're going through a full rebuild we don't need him.  His contract ends in 4 years which means right after the rebuild his probably would leave. 

 Our goal should be finish within a top 5 1-5  pick for the next 5 years. Stock pile top end prospects build up or farm system and NHL team with top level prospects. 

 

12 hours ago, Commandant said:

5 years?  No thanks

 

Agreed ... I am a rebuild supporter but 5 years is far too long ... this season was imposed on the Habs ... I support a conscious rebuild decision for next season, with a few vets moved out ... and then hopefully move forward year by year thereafter as the new blood settles in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Agreed ... I am a rebuild supporter but 5 years is far too long ... this season was imposed on the Habs ... I support a conscious rebuild decision for next season, with a few vets moved out ... and then hopefully move forward year by year thereafter as the new blood settles in.

 

Agreed, this was the year from hell where everything that could go wrong went wrong so you try and make well thought out decisions to benefit you going forward because this year is a write off.  When we look back hopefully we will see this year as a good thing because it helped us acquire some great long term assets.

 

A rebuild doesn't mean tearing the whole thing down and starting from scratch as there are some good pieces to build around. But I think it should mean that they have to determine who from the current group will be around to be a contributing factor in 3-5 years when hopefully they can be a serious contender. Some contracts will be hard to move and you will need some veteran leadership to mentor the young guys.  I think Gorton is the right guy as he did it in New York and they seem to be doing better than OK now.  They are a contender. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of a 5 year rebuild, but this recipe of retooling hasn’t worked the last 20 years, so why try it again.

 

The reality is we are in a position right now to do it right.  We have some decent players signed to decent contracts that could fetch good returns.  We have a couple of good prospects that should blossom to good leaders in 5 years.  We are in good position to potentially land a franchise changing player in the draft.

 

The time for a well thought out rebuild is now more than ever.  I don’t want to endure another rebuild, but I will if it’s done right.  Retooling isn’t working, time to do something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A proper rebuild will take 5 years - I can totally believe that. My view has been that we should look to contend when Suzuki enters his prime, i.e., 4-5 years from now.

 

But Commandant was reacting to a post which said that we should be accumulating top-5 picks for the next 5 years. And I’m with him in saying “non merci” to that. The way a rebuild works is not that you completely stink for five years and then bang! Suddenly you win the Stanley Cup. Rather, you suck for a while, gradually become good, and then evolve into a heavy-duty contender. Say, 2 years of outright badness, followed by a gradual upward arc, with contention in year 5.

 

Also, note that “contending” doesn’t mean winning, necessarily; if just means that you have a realistic chance of doing it. If, after emerging as a contender, we have (say) 5-6 years more near the top of the league, then the odds of winning the Cup are vastly increased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

I am not a fan of a 5 year rebuild, but this recipe of retooling hasn’t worked the last 20 years, so why try it again.

 

The reality is we are in a position right now to do it right.  We have some decent players signed to decent contracts that could fetch good returns.  We have a couple of good prospects that should blossom to good leaders in 5 years.  We are in good position to potentially land a franchise changing player in the draft.

 

The time for a well thought out rebuild is now more than ever.  I don’t want to endure another rebuild, but I will if it’s done right.  Retooling isn’t working, time to do something else.

 

I think we should do a full rebuild too, but a full rebuild doesn't involve 5 years of finishing in the bottom 5 of the league. 

 

This year would be 1, next year we are probably bad again and its 2.

 

By year three we should be a bubble team getting ready to fight for a playoff spot (maybe in, maybe not)

 

Year 4 a sure playoff team

and Year 5 a long term window of contending opens, 

 

 

There is a big difference between that, and what HF89 suggested which was 5 years of sucking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Commandant said:

 

I think we should do a full rebuild too, but a full rebuild doesn't involve 5 years of finishing in the bottom 5 of the league. 

 

This year would be 1, next year we are probably bad again and its 2.

 

By year three we should be a bubble team getting ready to fight for a playoff spot (maybe in, maybe not)

 

Year 4 a sure playoff team

and Year 5 a long term window of contending opens, 

 

 

There is a big difference between that, and what HF89 suggested which was 5 years of sucking. 

 

Exactly, if you look at teams that have been serious contenders for a number of years, that has been the formula. 

 

For example, Pittsburgh drafted  Crosby/Malkin 2004/5  contenders for a number of years

                       Chicago drafted  Toews/Kane  2006/7  contenders for a number of years

 

Of course you have to nail it at the draft and have high picks in a strong draft year (not a year like 2012). 

 

Or look at Anaheim (drafted Getzlaff at 19 and Perry at 28 in 2003), that was astute drafting.  Anaheim was a serious contender for a number of years and those guys were cornerstones of that team. 

 

The Habs need 2 years of high picks but they need to nail it at the draft (a Captain Obvious statement I know). This is a big draft coming up for them. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Or look at Anaheim (drafted Getzlaff at 19 and Perry at 28 in 2003), that was astute drafting.  Anaheim was a serious contender for a number of years and those guys were cornerstones of that team.

Astute, or lucky. Arguably both should have been top-five picks -- in retrospect! -- but actually 26 teams passed them over. Anaheim took a chance on both, and it worked out well.

 

I can't remember the 2003 draft any more but clearly other teams were not convinced that they would be home runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dalhabs said:

Better do a Detroit. Draft Zetterberg and Datsyuk in the late rounds and add them to Lidström and Hasek and others. 😁

 

That worked out too. Is it luck or skill to find guys late in the draft that turn out that well?  Likely a bit of both. It's rare to hit a couple home runs like that late in the draft. It sure worked out well for Detroit. Those guys were tremendous hockey players and a huge part of Detroit's success. 

 

I remember in an interview they were congratulating Holland for being so smart taking those guys late in the draft.  He said if they knew they were going to turn out that well then they would have taken them a whole lot earlier. It's obviously a crap shoot with later picks, trying to figure out the development curve of an 18 year old is not easy. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot just depend on top-5 picks overall. That is insane, it's Oilers territory, i.e., a team that can't find any impact players unless it has a crazy high pick.

 

It's absolutely necessary in order to contend that you find some high-calibre gems later in the first and in other rounds. MaxPac, Subban, and Gally are examples. Brad Marchand, Pasternak...Kucherov...the list goes on. That's how it's done, and that's why you need to make sure your drafting and development operation is absolutely elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

Astute, or lucky. Arguably both should have been top-five picks -- in retrospect! -- but actually 26 teams passed them over. Anaheim took a chance on both, and it worked out well.

 

I can't remember the 2003 draft any more but clearly other teams were not convinced that they would be home runs.

 

The 2003 draft was an excellent draft. Nashville pretty much built their defense core in one draft taking Ryan Suter at 7 and Shea Weber at 49.  Patrice Bergeron went at 45, Montreal took Cory Urquhart at 40 (ouch) and Kostitsyn at 10 (ouch again).  Taking Urquhart at 40 when Bergeron was available, surely the Habs scouts must have scouting the Q?  WTF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

You cannot just depend on top-5 picks overall. That is insane, it's Oilers territory, i.e., a team that can't find any impact players unless it has a crazy high pick.

 

It's absolutely necessary in order to contend that you find some high-calibre gems later in the first and in other rounds. MaxPac, Subban, and Gally are examples. Brad Marchand, Pasternak...Kucherov...the list goes on. That's how it's done, and that's why you need to make sure your drafting and development operation is absolutely elite.

 

No question. From 2010 - 2016 the Oilers had the #1 overall pick 4 times, #3, #4 and #7 overall.  That is incompetence.  That is embarrassing.  I live in Edmonton so the Oilers are my 2nd favourite team but part of me doesn't mind seeing them falter because incompetence shouldn't be rewarded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

You cannot just depend on top-5 picks overall. That is insane, it's Oilers territory, i.e., a team that can't find any impact players unless it has a crazy high pick.

 

It's absolutely necessary in order to contend that you find some high-calibre gems later in the first and in other rounds. MaxPac, Subban, and Gally are examples. Brad Marchand, Pasternak...Kucherov...the list goes on. That's how it's done, and that's why you need to make sure your drafting and development operation is absolutely elite.

Oilers are the best example of bad management pissing away a great opportunity.  They mismanaged everything at that point, including draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

... I remember in an interview they were congratulating Holland for being so smart taking those guys late in the draft.  He said if they knew they were going to turn out that well then they would have taken them a whole lot earlier. It's obviously a crap shoot with later picks, trying to figure out the development curve of an 18 year old is not easy. 

 

Exactly ... the later the round the higher the luck quotient in a pick become an impact player ... in the Zetterburg/Datsyuk picks I've read there was also the factor that Detroit was a team that invested more in "European" scouting than others at that time ... that attention edge ended soon thereafter (i.e., more and more teams each year took "European" scouting more seriously) ... but even if you are scouting the player it is the quality of the scout that will determine whether or not they can see raw potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, even then ... it may be a low cost (a late pick) and the pick may turn out fantastic -- or never make the NHL at all. Late picks are almost always risky. But good scouting can improve the odds, as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dalhabs said:

Same draft the Wings got Datsyuk we also had success with late pick. Mike Ryder, Markov, Beauchemin and Ribeiro. All after round one.

 

Great point…that is stellar. I guess Houle did something right. Naturally, we had to go and throw away both Beauchemin and Ribeiro - a nice illustration of the distinction between drafting (evaluating prospects) and development/asset management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Great point…that is stellar. I guess Houle did something right. Naturally, we had to go and throw away both Beauchemin and Ribeiro - a nice illustration of the distinction between drafting (evaluating prospects) and development/asset management.

McDounagh and Sergachev is some of our later brainfarts (although the Drouin-trade looked decent at the time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Great point…that is stellar. I guess Houle did something right. Naturally, we had to go and throw away both Beauchemin and Ribeiro - a nice illustration of the distinction between drafting (evaluating prospects) and development/asset management.

 

That is a great point. Getting Markov at 162 and Ryder at 216 was outstanding drafting.  I never know how much credit to give the GM for these selections, a lot, a little, none??  I am guessing Houle didn't spend a lot of time in Russia scouting Markov but at least he listened to the scouts. 

 

That was an excellent draft year for the Habs (1998), 4 guys drafted had long and pretty productive NHL careers, all drafted 45 or later. That's tremendous.  Funny that their 1st round pick, #16 was a bust, Eric Chouinard.  Like you said, they failed in development for Beauchemin and Ribeiro although Ribeiro was a bit of a head case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

That is a great point. Getting Markov at 162 and Ryder at 216 was outstanding drafting.  I never know how much credit to give the GM for these selections, a lot, a little, none??  I am guessing Houle didn't spend a lot of time in Russia scouting Markov but at least he listened to the scouts. 

 

That was an excellent draft year for the Habs (1998), 4 guys drafted had long and pretty productive NHL careers, all drafted 45 or later. That's tremendous.  Funny that their 1st round pick, #16 was a bust, Eric Chouinard.  Like you said, they failed in development for Beauchemin and Ribeiro although Ribeiro was a bit of a head case. 

 

Ribs was a legit #1A C, and an organization with a dearth of C should have found a way to make him work, as Dallas did.

 

It’s quite interesting to look at the draft history. Houle had that one great year and basically nothing else. Serge Savard had two years where he absolutely crushed it out of the park like Mickey Mantle: 1984 (Svboda, Richer, Corson, AND Roy) and then again in 1987 (Cassels, LeClair, Desjardins, Schneider). Other than that, his drafting record was so-so, but those two years were absolutely epic. The best since then has been Gainey’s 2007 (McDonagh, Patches, Subban) - as with ‘87, that single year basically provided a significant part of the nucleus of a future contender. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00006929.html

 

Based on what we know right now, we can say that Bergevin was the only Habs GM of the past half-century who never managed to knock it out of the park in at least one draft year. Had he been able to do so, he might still have a job today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it highly unlikely that a GM would be overriding the scouting team's choices in fifth or sixth rounds with any frequency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Ribs was a legit #1A C, and an organization with a dearth of C should have found a way to make him work, as Dallas did.

 

It’s quite interesting to look at the draft history. Houle had that one great year and basically nothing else. Serge Savard had two years where he absolutely crushed it out of the park like Mickey Mantle: 1984 (Svboda, Richer, Corson, AND Roy) and then again in 1987 (Cassels, LeClair, Desjardins, Schneider). Other than that, his drafting record was so-so, but those two years were absolutely epic. The best since then has been Gainey’s 2007 (McDonagh, Patches, Subban) - as with ‘87, that single year basically provided a significant part of the nucleus of a future contender. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00006929.html

 

Based on what we know right now, we can say that Bergevin was the only Habs GM of the past half-century who never managed to knock it out of the park in at least one draft year. Had he been able to do so, he might still have a job today.

 

Ribs had 1 really good year with the Habs 20G 45A (2003-04), if I remember correctly they got a little tired of his attitude/immaturity/lack of 2 way play?  It was a while ago.  Maybe others can recall better. 

 

I never really know how much credit to give to the GM for a really good drafting year.  No doubt 84,87 and 2007 were outstanding. We need another one of those. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I find it highly unlikely that a GM would be overriding the scouting team's choices in fifth or sixth rounds with any frequency.

But they do make the call on the 1st rounders, and I’m sure McCarron was MB’s pick, and Tinordi was probably Gainey’s call.  A bigger than the issue of missing out on the late round picks, has been the 1st round flubs. 
gainey at least had more legit NHL players picked in the first round that had long careers - some of whom were all-stars in Price, McDonough, Pactioretty, and Hainsey. 
so far, Bergevin has had squat. He gave away his best pick in Sergechev (as bad as the McDonough trade). There is still some hope that Caufield and Guhle will all-star calibre, and Poehling will be a good depth player. Also think KK should at least turn into a solid 3rd line centre. But under the MB era there has been no one so far that is the caliber of Price, McDonough and Pactioretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would have to say that a 5 year rebuild is a completely ridiculous idea.

 

On 1/6/2022 at 3:38 PM, TurdBurglar said:

I am not a fan of a 5 year rebuild, but this recipe of retooling hasn’t worked the last 20 years, so why try it again.

 

The reality is we are in a position right now to do it right.  We have some decent players signed to decent contracts that could fetch good returns.  We have a couple of good prospects that should blossom to good leaders in 5 years.  We are in good position to potentially land a franchise changing player in the draft.

 

The time for a well thought out rebuild is now more than ever.  I don’t want to endure another rebuild, but I will if it’s done right.  Retooling isn’t working, time to do something else.

 

You are correct that retooling hasnt worked, but there is a reason for that.  i.e. during that time when the Habs had a draft pick in the Top 5, they were fairly weak draft years.  Best example is Chucky's draft year.  kk's draft year wasn't as bad, but he likely would have been drafted outside of the top 10 picks. 

 

There is a big difference in talent in this years draft and next.  

 

I agree with @The Chicoutimi Cucumber that a team cant count only on Top 5 picks, but a team must pick somebody of substance with those picks.  ex:  the Oilers - they've botched numerous drafts.  I'd even add the Blues to that list too, although they did eventually win the Cup they took way too long to do so from all the picks that they had.  The Sabres have basically been doing the same lately too. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...