When does Therrien get fired?

[KoRP]

Thanks Don, seriously... haha Habs rule, your up....

[habs rule]

34 minutes ago, KoRP said:

Thanks Don, seriously... haha Habs rule, your up....

Nah Don and I just choose to agree to disagree.

 

[Jeff Price (no relation)]

On 7/27/2016 at 6:48 PM, illWill said:

I think it's great that the Subban/Weber trade can be debated, like most comparable trades. I would say I have a neutral opinion on it as of now. And I think the only problem I have with the debate is that those against it do not budge on their opinion whatsoever. They are 100% convinced it is a bad trade with 0% chance it is a good trade. Whereas those who like the trade or are neutral want to see how it works out.

 

 

I'm against the trade.

 

I'm not violently against the trade. I think it makes us better now. I think it may come back to haunt us and I think MB should have gotten a good forward thrown in as well.

 

However, there are reasons that Shea Weber has consistently been used on Team Canada, and PK Subban has suited up for one Olympic game and wasn't on the roster in the recent world cup of hockey. Those reasons have nothing to do with "People are stupid" and everything to do with Weber making the team better than Subban would have.

[Guest Stogey24]

Your posts are like 2 months late. 

[Machine of Loving Grace]

1 hour ago, Jeff Price (no relation) said:

However, there are reasons that Shea Weber has consistently been used on Team Canada, and PK Subban has suited up for one Olympic game and wasn't on the roster in the recent world cup of hockey. Those reasons have nothing to do with "People are stupid" and everything to do with Weber making the team better than Subban would have.

 

But Team Canada is more complicated than that. It's not just about Weber making the team over Subban, but guys like Jay Bouwmeester and Jake Muzzin making the team over Subban... and Kris Letang.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

 

[habs rule]

7 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I wouldn't bet on that. What he forgets is the team needed a gm to make some moves. His comment does not reflect well on the GM last year. If the team was so bad they couldn't coach it, what was the GM doing?

[JGC21]

In response to the thread's title: March 3rd, 2017

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

12 hours ago, habs rule said:

I wouldn't bet on that. What he forgets is the team needed a gm to make some moves. His comment does not reflect well on the GM last year. If the team was so bad they couldn't coach it, what was the GM doing?

 

Bergevin is right. No team can win without a goalie. The fault isn't on Therrien. It's not on the players, either. It's on the GM for not securing legitimate NHL netminding for his team.

[JoeLassister]

56 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Bergevin is right. No team can win without a goalie. The fault isn't on Therrien. It's not on the players, either. It's on the GM for not securing legitimate NHL netminding for his team.

This is why I often bring up the topic of "do we keep Price for the long term?"

I totally agree that a stellar goaltender like Price totally increase your chances of succes.

 

But if you do secure a top goalie like that for close to 10M$ per year, then you're forced to cut the spending on something else.

And this something else could very well be your #2 goalie.

The best is to avoid to give away big contracts like Emelin's or Deharnais'  (bottom 6 and 3rd pair) so you can afford better backup goaltender, but if you're commited like Bergevin was last season, then the help you can bring is  a) cheap as fawk  or b) coming along with a trade that you don't really want to make...

 

It's a choice you have to make as a GM.

[habs rule]

4 minutes ago, JoeLassister said:

This is why I often bring up the topic of "do we keep Price for the long term?"

I totally agree that a stellar goaltender like Price totally increase your chances of succes.

 

But if you do secure a top goalie like that for close to 10M$ per year, then you're forced to cut the spending on something else.

And this something else could very well be your #2 goalie.

The best is to avoid to give away big contracts like Emelin's or Deharnais'  (bottom 6 and 3rd pair) so you can afford better backup goaltender, but if you're commited like Bergevin was last season, then the help you can bring is  a) cheap as fawk  or b) coming along with a trade that you don't really want to make...

 

It's a choice you have to make as a GM.

Without Price this is not a great team, but I agree they cheaped out on the backup last year. That was MB decision. He either had bad info on Price or he is stupid.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

47 minutes ago, habs rule said:

Without Price this is not a great team, but I agree they cheaped out on the backup last year. That was MB decision. He either had bad info on Price or he is stupid.

 

Joe asks a very interesting question. I think the assumption with Price is that he's not just an elite goalie - that's he's a franchise player with the capacity to be the primary driver leading you to a Cup. Nonetheless, it's worth considering Joe's point.

 

Last year is 100% on Bergevin. What irritates me is his digs at the players for their 'lack of leadership,' as if 'leadership' could have compensated for not getting the saves. I really don't believe there was a 'leadership' issue that wouldn't have been solved by the return of Price. (And if leadership was indeed a problem, then how come neither the coach nor the team captain faced any accountability at all?). It's diversionary rhetoric IMHO, typical of the fog of war all too often emitted by Montreal GMs.

[DON]

      3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Bergevin is right. No team can win without a goalie. The fault isn't on Therrien. It's not on the players, either. It's on the GM for not securing legitimate NHL netminding for his team.

 

 

And exactly who would that of been? And what would that of cost?

So by your thinking, the Kings should not have any worries at all that Quick is out as their GM will simply get another goalie to ride to the cup will they?

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

4 minutes ago, DON said:

      3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Bergevin is right. No team can win without a goalie. The fault isn't on Therrien. It's not on the players, either. It's on the GM for not securing legitimate NHL netminding for his team.

 

 

And exactly who would that of been? And what would that of cost?

So by your thinking, the Kings should not have any worries at all that Quick is out as their GM will simply get another goalie to ride to the cup will they?

 

 

Actually, I agree that we should not have been moving significant assets to get a goalie after Price went down. Our talent pool was too thin to justify doing that. Nevertheless, the fact is that Bergevin left the team without an NHL-quality backup (e.g., had he signed a UFA who could actually play, as he did this summer, that would have helped). Since the collapse last season was primarily due to grossly inadequate goaltending, then IF we're going to blame someone, it should be the GM.

 

What irks me a bit is Bergevin's numerous comments about 'leadership,' as if somehow 'leadership' would have enabled last season's to win despite not having NHL-calibre goaltending. I come back to the analogy of 1993. How does that team - chock-a-block with great leaders - fare with Andre Racicot in nets? The answer is, horribly. This talk about 'leadership' is mumbo-jumbo IMHO.

[DON]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Actually, I agree that we should not have been moving significant assets to get a goalie after Price went down. Our talent pool was too thin to justify doing that. Nevertheless, the fact is that Bergevin left the team without an NHL-quality backup (e.g., had he signed a UFA who could actually play, as he did this summer, that would have helped). Since the collapse last season was primarily due to grossly inadequate goaltending, then IF we're going to blame someone, it should be the GM.

 

What irks me a bit is Bergevin's numerous comments about 'leadership,' as if somehow 'leadership' would have enabled last season's to win despite not having NHL-calibre goaltending. I come back to the analogy of 1993. How does that team - chock-a-block with great leaders - fare with Andre Racicot in nets? The answer is, horribly. This talk about 'leadership' is mumbo-jumbo IMHO.

-Price, -Gallagher, -Petry, so let see #1 goalie, #1 RWer, Top 4 d-man with significant injuries, yah if only we had Montoya, we might of made the playoffs and of course beat out Pitt and SanJose.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

44 minutes ago, DON said:

-Price, -Gallagher, -Petry, so let see #1 goalie, #1 RWer, Top 4 d-man with significant injuries, yah if only we had Montoya, we might of made the playoffs and of course beat out Pitt and SanJose.

 

The biggest issue was clearly goaltending.

 

In any case, the whole 'leadership' trope was/is bunk.

[DON]

5 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

The biggest issue was clearly goaltending.

 

In any case, the whole 'leadership' trope was/is bunk.

Trope eh, never heard that one before.

"a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression:"

[ehjay]

I like what CC asked in the second part: 

16 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

(And if leadership was indeed a problem, then how come neither the coach nor the team captain faced any accountability at all?)

 

IMHO this question needs answer from Habs brass(erie) please.

[DON]

1 hour ago, ehjay said:

I like what CC asked in the second part: 

 

IMHO this question needs answer from Habs brass(erie) please.

It was, they got rid of a huge distraction who was supposed to be part of leadership group, but was the opposite and upgraded with an actual respected leader.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

39 minutes ago, DON said:

It was, they got rid of a huge distraction who was supposed to be part of leadership group, but was the opposite and upgraded with an actual respected leader.

 

In other words, they scapegoated Subban, who they never liked or trusted, and to whom MB stupidly maneouvered himself into giving a $9 million contract because they never trusted or liked him. (Had Subban been a Good Boy who eschewed all creativity and did not have the temerity to build his own brand, MB no doubt would have been more comfortable offering him a long-term deal at a lower rate rather than forcing the bridge). The stupidity just compounded itself.

 

I call BS on this whole 'leadership' red herring. Two years ago, we heard all about the strength of our 'young leadership core.' Then the team loses a whack of games after being decimated with injury and being stuck with a 3rd-tier goalie all season. Suddenly it's all Subban's fault; he's the big 'problem' that needs fixing No. The problem that needed fixing was simply getting Price back - along with filling the glaring roster holes that MB had not been able to fill for the previous couple of years. It wasn't rocket science. And I reiterate, if 'leadership' was such a problem, then the captain and the coach are the first places to look at; they're the ones whose job description is defined by leadership.

 

Bergevin is just emitting more self-serving rhetorical bulldink.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The leadership stuff is only accurate if the only leader on the Habs is Price and with Price gone, there was no leadership. Which means they got Weber for leadership. But that means they probably assume Price could be gone again and needed a leader to be there when he's gone...

 

When's Price supposed to return?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 minute ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

The leadership stuff is only accurate if the only leader on the Habs is Price and with Price gone, there was no leadership. Which means they got Weber for leadership. But that means they probably assume Price could be gone again and needed a leader to be there when he's gone...

 

When's Price supposed to return?

 

So acquire a veteran 3rd-line with heavy leadership cred, instead of trading your best player (apart from Price) for a guy who is high end but older and slower guy with a worse contract.

 

In any case, as I say, a team can have all the leaders it wants, it's not gonna win with André Racicot in nets.

[Scott462]

12 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

In other words, they scapegoated Subban, who they never liked or trusted, and to whom MB stupidly maneouvered himself into giving a $9 million contract because they never trusted or liked him. (Had Subban been a Good Boy who eschewed all creativity and did not have the temerity to build his own brand, MB no doubt would have been more comfortable offering him a long-term deal at a lower rate rather than forcing the bridge). The stupidity just compounded itself.

 

I call BS on this whole 'leadership' red herring. Two years ago, we heard all about the strength of our 'young leadership core.' Then the team loses a whack of games after being decimated with injury and being stuck with a 3rd-tier goalie all season. Suddenly it's all Subban's fault; he's the big 'problem' that needs fixing No. The problem that needed fixing was simply getting Price back - along with filling the glaring roster holes that MB had not been able to fill for the previous couple of years. It wasn't rocket science. And I reiterate, if 'leadership' was such a problem, then the captain and the coach are the first places to look at; they're the ones whose job description is defined by leadership.

 

Bergevin is just emitting more self-serving rhetorical bulldink.

 

Honestly CC please don't take this the wrong way but I think you are reading way too much into this. You are creating this narrative and are now arguing against it.

 

A lot of you just said is completely heresay and none of it is proveable. 

 

Personally I think the team was looking for more leadership but not to the point of pinning it on Subban. He was unfortunately the one that had to go the other way when Webers name came up. Like I said had Shea not been offered Subban probably would still be a hab. Could it been some bad blood between management and Subban? Possibly but don't forget they played him as their number one star in every situation and gave him every opportunity to shine and get it done. I honestly don't believe the situation is as malicious as you are making it out to be.

 

My two cents

[DON]

21 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

In other words, they scapegoated Subban, who they never liked or trusted, and to whom MB stupidly maneouvered himself into giving a $9 million contract because they never trusted or liked him. (Had Subban been a Good Boy who eschewed all creativity and did not have the temerity to build his own brand, MB no doubt would have been more comfortable offering him a long-term deal at a lower rate rather than forcing the bridge). The stupidity just compounded itself.

 

I call BS on this whole 'leadership' red herring. Two years ago, we heard all about the strength of our 'young leadership core.' Then the team loses a whack of games after being decimated with injury and being stuck with a 3rd-tier goalie all season. Suddenly it's all Subban's fault; he's the big 'problem' that needs fixing No. The problem that needed fixing was simply getting Price back - along with filling the glaring roster holes that MB had not been able to fill for the previous couple of years. It wasn't rocket science. And I reiterate, if 'leadership' was such a problem, then the captain and the coach are the first places to look at; they're the ones whose job description is defined by leadership.

 

Bergevin is just emitting more self-serving rhetorical bulldink.

Funny stuff.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

 Actually, I don't think my post involved any "innuendo" at all. (Most of the innuendo has come from the other side of the argument, with various unsubstantiated suggestions about Subban being a bad teammate. The tacit blaming of Subban for the "leadership" issue, which I believe was really a non-issue, is another example of such innuendo).