Why are the Habs such a stodgy organization?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Jagr made sense last year and MB's refusal to pursue it was just stupid. Not so sure about this year, both for the cap reasons and for declining returns associated with the aging legend.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

We have to get the playoffs before anything can be said about Briere's "playoff scoring".

We have to get to the playoffs? It ain't like we struggled last season with the team we had. None of those players are going to get any team by themselves into the playoffs either. It ain't the summer of 2012. We won our division.

[Commandant]

He chased quebec's cousin vinny for two years and nearly made a trade almost as bad as the Gomez trade by trading the future for vinny.

If we are gonna use "almosts" as our bench mark... the 2010 team "almost" made the cup final... the 2011 team "almost" beat the Stanley Cup Champs.

Hence why if we are gonna use hindsight we should look at what did happen, not what almost happened.

[hankhab]

I'm not so sure this still applies. The last gm, yes, stodgy. Bergevin, no. I like the idea of being patient and building with young players, in fact, if giving Galchenyuk, Eller and Gallager more ice time hurts us in the standings, I am willing to live with that for a year or 2. I'm not a huge fan of the Briere signing, but I believe he's a better player at this stage of his career than either Jagr or Morrow.

[Commandant]

Those two combined don't make what Jagr's getting, not to mention the fact you'd have to add a second salary for the replacement for Bouillon. If you replace Bouillon with a $1M d-man, you're adding nearly $2 million in payroll and they don't have that (unless you're playing to go over the cap before the season begins which, for this team, doesn't make sense right now).

This team also has 10 forwards capable of playing in the top 9 (in no particular order..... Pacioretty, Desharnais, Gallagher, Bourque, Gionta, Plekanec, Eller, Galchenyuk, Briere, Prust).

Who is playing on the fourth line if you sign Jagr? You already have Prust playing 4th line minutes if everyone is healthy.

It never made sense to add another forward. It makes sense to add on D if you are going to add at all.

[Guest Stogey24]

We have to get to the playoffs? It ain't like we struggled last season with the team we had. None of those players are going to get any team by themselves into the playoffs either. It ain't the summer of 2012. We won our division.

Yes, we have to get to the playoffs. We had some major struggles at the end of the year which led into the playoffs. If Boston didn't shit the bed as hard as we did in the last 10 games, we wouldn't have won the division. In an 82 game season who knows the outcome of that slump. I know that's easy to say, but never expect the playoffs to be a lock.

[JoeLassister]

Yes, we have to get to the playoffs. We had some major struggles at the end of the year which led into the playoffs. If Boston didn't shit the bed as hard as we did in the last 10 games, we wouldn't have won the division. In an 82 game season who knows the outcome of that slump. I know that's easy to say, but never expect the playoffs to be a lock.

That (+ Pittsburgh's collapse in the playoffs) basically says that any team, including SC finalists, can shit the bed at any time in this league.

[Guest Stogey24]

I'm saying we're lucky Boston had a slump at the same time as us. Cant take the playoffs as a given.

[JoeLassister]

I'm saying we're lucky Boston had a slump at the same time as us.

In other terms, Boston are lucky that we had a slump so they didn't get humiliated.

[Commandant]

Yes, we have to get to the playoffs. We had some major struggles at the end of the year which led into the playoffs. If Boston didn't shit the bed as hard as we did in the last 10 games, we wouldn't have won the division. In an 82 game season who knows the outcome of that slump. I know that's easy to say, but never expect the playoffs to be a lock.

We were 7-7 down the stretch.

Yes we had a bad couple of weeks. But why do we assume it would have lasted the rest of the season in an 82 game year, and it wasn't just a short slump.

But why does everyone assume that a bad couple weeks would have turned into a 40 game tailspin (basically things would have had to be really bad for us to miss the playoffs entirely). Really how many NHL teams have been good for 40 games and then go into that long of a tailspin? The 2011-2012 Leafs seem a massive outlier, and you could argue that the possession stats of their first 40 games when they were massively outshot but somehow winning are way different than the 2013 Habs when we were the team who had the big puck possession edge.

There are very few teams that have a good 40 games and go into a 40 game tailspin.

Meanwhile the evidence that a good team can have a short slump? We see that out of nearly every team, nearly every season.

So why do we assume Montreal's late season slump wasn't just a blip on the radar, and figure we wouldn't have made the playoffs at all in an 82 game season?

[Guest Stogey24]

We were 7-7 down the stretch.

Yes we had a bad couple of weeks. But why do we assume it would have lasted the rest of the season in an 82 game year, and it wasn't just a short slump.

But why does everyone assume that a bad couple weeks would have turned into a 40 game tailspin (basically things would have had to be really bad for us to miss the playoffs entirely). Really how many NHL teams have been good for 40 games and then go into that long of a tailspin? The 2011-2012 Leafs seem a massive outlier, and you could argue that the possession stats of their first 40 games when they were massively outshot but somehow winning are way different than the 2013 Habs when we were the team who had the big puck possession edge.

There are very few teams that have a good 40 games and go into a 40 game tailspin.

Meanwhile the evidence that a good team can have a short slump? We see that out of nearly every team, nearly every season.

So why do we assume Montreal's late season slump wasn't just a blip on the radar, and figure we wouldn't have made the playoffs at all in an 82 game season?

The slump carried into the playoffs. I do think Montreal would have most likely made the playoffs in a full season too. The point I was trying to get across was that Montreal making the playoffs next year is not a given.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The slump carried into the playoffs. I absolutely think Montreal would have made the playoffs. The point I was trying to get across was that Montreal making the playoffs next year is not a given.

Nothing is a given. This is sports.

Also in an 82 game season, the slump still happens at the end of the season. It really doesn't change much.

Switching Cole for Ryder wasn't what made us a playoff team so I don't see how replacing Ryder with Briere suddenly means our playoff hopes are in jeopardy.

We'd probably get the same production regardless of who you choose between Briere, Morrow or Jagr in the regular season. Maybe a little more from Jagr. Once the playoffs come it's a different story. Morrow had four points in 14 games for Pittsburgh. Jagr couldn't score a single goal in the Bruins run to the Cup (and has only one goal in his last 33 playoff games). Briere's team didn't make the playoffs but the year prior, the Flyers did make the playoffs (Jagr was on this team and had one goal) and Briere had eight goals and more points than games played.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I like Commandant's point about slumps and the error of extrapolating from a late-season skid to a whole season. I made a similar complaint in another thread about how this logic has completely coloured retrospective judgements of the 1993. If not for a late-season slide, nobody is talking about them being "the worst team ever to win a Cup," etc. - because they would have finished in the top-3 overall.

Assuming no regression from Eller and the Gal(l)ys and no catastrophic injuries I don't know how anyone can fail to recognize that we have possibly THE best FW depth in the league. No superstars, but definitely three very effective scoring lines. All else being equal, that alone should get us into the playoffs - unless our wing-and-a-prayer defence collapses, which I rather fear that it will.

[Guest Stogey24]

I like Commandant's point about slumps and the error of extrapolating from a late-season skid to a whole season. I made a similar complaint in another thread about how this logic has completely coloured retrospective judgements of the 1993. If not for a late-season slide, nobody is talking about them being "the worst team ever to win a Cup," etc. - because they would have finished in the top-3 overall.

Assuming no regression from Eller and the Gal(l)ys and no catastrophic injuries I don't know how anyone can fail to recognize that we have possibly THE best FW depth in the league. No superstars, but definitely three very effective scoring lines. All else being equal, that alone should get us into the playoffs - unless our wing-and-a-prayer defence collapses, which I rather fear that it will.

The difference with this slump is our team fell apart from major injuries. The injuires felt all too much like the 2011-2012 season. The team started to fall apart around the same time. Our starting goalie that we lean on to win games, also goes down with an injury that was serious enough to keep him out of the most important game of the season. The team began to crumble again. With a last place finish in 2011-12 basically from injuries. I do question this team down the stretch.

[Neech]

Assuming no regression from Eller and the Gal(l)ys and no catastrophic injuries I don't know how anyone can fail to recognize that we have possibly THE best FW depth in the league. No superstars, but definitely three very effective scoring lines. All else being equal, that alone should get us into the playoffs - unless our wing-and-a-prayer defence collapses, which I rather fear that it will.

I don't know about best in the league, (I'd put obvious candidates Chicago, Pitt, Boston ahead of us along with some others), but it's definitely above average and our major strength. I'm worried about our defense of course, but if we get a GOOD Price rather than a merely serviceable one, we'll be a top 3 team in the division. If not, we'll be clawing for a wild card.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I don't know about best in the league, (I'd put obvious candidates Chicago, Pitt, Boston ahead of us along with some others), but it's definitely above average and our major strength. I'm worried about our defense of course, but if we get a GOOD Price rather than a merely serviceable one, we'll be a top 3 team in the division. If not, we'll be clawing for a wild card.

Yeah, "best" was hyperbole, but it's pretty damned good...and if the young guns manage to improve, it'll get even better. You're more optimistic about the D than I am, but we'll see how it goes.

[Neech]

Yeah, I guess I've landed on optimism after a few weeks of disappointment about the lack of improvement on what was clearly the team's biggest need going into the offseason.

One reason I'm not overly fearful is that I think Emelin, while a valuable member of our D corps, isn't quite the indisposable part that some see him as. It was more correlation than causation which led to our slump right after his injury; we were headed for that dip in play anyways. It just made it look like he was the key physical piece on our blueline that was holding us together, which wasn't really the case.

His big hits aren't going to be replaced, but he wasn't always the most reliable positional guy (although I liked his heart). It is pretty worrying that we might start the season with a bottom pairing of Bouillon-Drewiske, so I guess we're banking on Tinordi riding in on a shining steed.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I like Commandant's point about slumps and the error of extrapolating from a late-season skid to a whole season. I made a similar complaint in another thread about how this logic has completely coloured retrospective judgements of the 1993. If not for a late-season slide, nobody is talking about them being "the worst team ever to win a Cup," etc. - because they would have finished in the top-3 overall.

Assuming no regression from Eller and the Gal(l)ys and no catastrophic injuries I don't know how anyone can fail to recognize that we have possibly THE best FW depth in the league. No superstars, but definitely three very effective scoring lines. All else being equal, that alone should get us into the playoffs - unless our wing-and-a-prayer defence collapses, which I rather fear that it will.

The defense isn't great but judging the deal Mark Streit got, MB is probably figuring that the prospects will be ready by next season to fill any holes. Another reason is PK. If he plays major minutes, and he should be out there for 25-30 minutes a game, that will minimize Diaz and Tinordi/Bealieu/Bouillon's ice time.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I'd say our top nine is now better than Chicago after all of the names they lost after winning the cup. But they will rebuild it quickly.

[BlueKross]

We will have injuries, you can take that to the bank especially in 82 game schedule. So any prognosticating, which we will all get a chance at, better take into consideration depth replacement.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I'd say our top nine is now better than Chicago after all of the names they lost after winning the cup. But they will rebuild it quickly.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Toews, Kane and Sharp are three players who totally outclass our best guys. Despite the lies we're supposed to swallow about this. team, third line depth isn't what counts. You need thoroughbreds to win in the NHL.

We have PK, but what we really need is 4 PKs. We need Carey Price to regain top-5 form if not three, Galchenyuk to be a MVP caliber number one center, and Pacioretty to score 40 goals. Then we can talk about being an elite team who is a favorite to win year after year.

What we can be happy about is that all of these things can happen.

[Commandant]

We need 4 PKs?

What team has a defence with four Norris contenders, never mind winners?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

We need 4 PKs?

What team has a defence with four Norris contenders, never mind winners?

I presume he meant four players of PK's calibre. He went on to cite Price, Galy, and Patches as plausible candidates to attain this level, at which point, in his opinion, we'll be in Chicago's class.

Unless I'm missing something.

While I can see the argument that we need (say) four players of this elite class to contend - it's certainly a plausible reading - I heard the same sort of song and dance back in '93, about how we had no one to rival the Lemieuxs, Jagrs, and Gretzkys of the world and therefore could never win. It seems to me that if your top players are good enough not to be utterly outclassed by your opponents' top players, while the rest of your roster has a significant edge on theirs, you certainly can win. Depth is not to be under-estimated.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Toews, Kane and Sharp are three players who totally outclass our best guys. Despite the lies we're supposed to swallow about this. team, third line depth isn't what counts. You need thoroughbreds to win in the NHL.

We have PK, but what we really need is 4 PKs. We need Carey Price to regain top-5 form if not three, Galchenyuk to be a MVP caliber number one center, and Pacioretty to score 40 goals. Then we can talk about being an elite team who is a favorite to win year after year.

What we can be happy about is that all of these things can happen.

That's funny. I seem to recall Chicago winning a Cup with third line depth, losing that depth, becoming average, regaining the depth and then winning a Cup.

Maybe I'm just crazy. Afterall, Tampa has done so well after losing their 2004 depth and only keeping their thoroughbreds... except only one remains on the team.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I presume he meant four players of PK's calibre. He went on to cite Price, Galy, and Patches as plausible candidates to attain this level, at which point, in his opinion, we'll be in Chicago's class.

Unless I'm missing something.

While I can see the argument that we need (say) four players of this elite class to contend - it's certainly a plausible reading - I heard the same sort of song and dance back in '93, about how we had no one to rival the Lemieuxs, Jagrs, and Gretzkys of the world and therefore could never win. It seems to me that if your top players are good enough not to be utterly outclassed by your opponents' top players, while the rest of your roster has a significant edge on theirs, you certainly can win. Depth is not to be under-estimated.

My point, (which is understandably lost in the rude tone of my reply-my apologies) is that once the big boys start going, then you talk about the depth. In Boston's run in 2011, Chara and Thomas especially stole the show, then you started hearing about Peverly and Kelly.