GDT Nov. 27, Habs vs Sabres, 7 PM

[Neech]

Yes, Emelin makes a gigantic difference. But are we clear-cut contenders? Are we up there with Boston, Chicago, LA, St Louis, San Jose, maybe Pittsburgh? The answer is no. Maybe adding one more top-6 forward is all we need. I don't think so. Another top-4 defenceman would move Gorges to his appropriate #5 slot and then we begin to look damned intimidating.

That's the goal, remember: not to become a 'good team' with an 'outside chance,' but to enter that inner sanctum of the league's most feared and respected teams. What I keep trying to do is peer ahead 2-3 years and see whether we will become this. I'm by no means certain, but I see grounds for doubting it, mostly due to Markov's closing window.

Of course there's a lot of doubt - there will be for any team a year and change removed from a last place finish. You're right that we need another front-line forward, and that's something we lack in our prospect pool unless Collberg pans out. But with our current D corps and D prospects, along with solid to excellent goaltending, we're at least in good shape. Every key player besides Pleks and Markov is young and has room to improve (and these two look like they have a good few years or more of effectiveness left).

It's true that Bergevin's next two years will define this team. But our current core looks pretty solid, so standing pat with our young guys isn't a bad move.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

About the "big move." Am I alone in thinking that player is Gaborik? I'd bet the deal would be Pacioretty and Beaulieu and a throwaway pick or prospect.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

About the "big move." Am I alone in thinking that player is Gaborik? I'd bet the deal would be Pacioretty and Beaulieu and a throwaway pick or prospect.

Wow, a move that would handicap the rebuild, maybe fatally! No thanks.

Neech, I agree that things look 'pretty good.' Of course, one injury to the top 4 and suddenly they don't. But the bigger picture is that we're not trying to be 'pretty good,' we're trying to become analogous to the Chicago Black Hawks. Nonetheless, I'm open to the possibility that lateral moves on the blueline will be enough to make us contenders in 2-3 years if we can add to the top-6 up front and see progression from key young players like Eller and Galchenyuk.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

About the "big move." Am I alone in thinking that player is Gaborik? I'd bet the deal would be Pacioretty and Beaulieu and a throwaway pick or prospect.

No, I see Gaborik as well. But you're crazy on the cost. Gaborik didn't cost that for Columbus when they thought he'd stay. He'll be a rental. Less than what Kovalchuk cost.

[Meller93]

No, I see Gaborik as well. But you're crazy on the cost. Gaborik didn't cost that for Columbus when they thought he'd stay. He'll be a rental. Less than what Kovalchuk cost.

Call me crazy but I wouldn't do gaborik for Pacioretty straight up. He's a great player yes, multiple 40 goal scorer, but he's almost 32, soon to decline I not already in decline, when we had Pacioretty who is a 30-35 goal scorer who is only 25 is it? Patches has 7 + great years gaborik has 2 maybe. Now, I'm no trade evaluating expert, but Bourque, a 2nd and and good prospect (weary to throw beaulieu away) is that possible? Or what more would be needed for a rental of his calibre?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Patches for Gaborik is clinically insane. So is Beaulieu for Gaborik. It's all a bad, bad, bad idea.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

It's also not what Gaborik would cost. Have you folks paid attention to trade deadlines, like, ever? I'm sorry but Gaborik cost the Blue Jackets Derick Brassard, Derek Dorsett, John Moore and a sixth rounder. I wouldn't give Pacioretty up for that. Why do you think Pacioretty is going to cost that to get Gaborik on a *rental*?

Could Gaborik cost a first round pick? Sure. Kovalchuk cost a first, Oduya, Cormier and Bergfors. Gaborik won't cost that much. He'll probably resemble the deals for Bouwmeester and Kaberle if anything.

Nutty. Absolutely nutty.

[Neech]

Why do we want to give up ANYTHING of value for a rental this year? We have a deep team, and it's not the stage of the rebuild to go for the Cup. The only moves I want to see made would have an eye on the future.

[Meller93]

Why do we want to give up ANYTHING of value for a rental this year? We have a deep team, and it's not the stage of the rebuild to go for the Cup. The only moves I want to see made would have an eye on the future.

I'm with you on that

[Commandant]

About the "big move." Am I alone in thinking that player is Gaborik? I'd bet the deal would be Pacioretty and Beaulieu and a throwaway pick or prospect.

Gaborik is a UFA who hscores less goals in recent years than Pacioretty.

I wouldn't trade Pacioretty one for one for the guy... Never mind throwing in our best prospect (and I wouldn't give him 1 for 1 even if Gaborik had an extension).

Pacioretty is a a 30-35 goal guy with a contract that is absolute gold right now.... absolute gold.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Hey! Just an idea...Bergevin's said to be looking for an elite player and Gaborik is available. I'm a big Gaborik fan, but he's not coming here for nickels. Columbus likes getting and trading bulk, so maybe a blockbuster is in store.

What other top flight wingers are out there?

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Again I believe Gaborik is a target but it depends on his health.

Other guys to target:

- Mike Cammalleri (having a great year in Calgary despite them sucking, left here on bad terms but Molson patched it up, smallish and some people here get angry that he's one way, would be a definite playoff scorer for us)

- Thomas Vanek (if the Islanders fall any more, they'll probably just ship him out. Seven points in nine games for the Isles so far.)

- Jaromir Jagr (Has had an absolutely atrocious playoff record in the past several years but I'm sure some here don't care )

- Dany Heatley (I mean not really but I'll list him before someone else does. Why? Just to see if anyone is paying attention. He's absolutely terrible, on his last legs bad but I'm sure someone is going to claim we should trade for him.)

- Matt Moulson (Buffalo will likely want a first for him)

- Damien Brunner (Not working as well as once thought in NJ but still a solid pickup)

[Meller93]

Hey! Just an idea...Bergevin's said to be looking for an elite player and Gaborik is available. I'm a big Gaborik fan, but he's not coming here for nickels. Columbus likes getting and trading bulk, so maybe a blockbuster is in store.

What other top flight wingers are out there?

I don't really see Marleau going anywhere barring a monumental collapse from San Jose this year. But honestly seein as the islanders are still doing nothing, they may trade vanek despite just picking him up. Same goes for Moulson if buffalo doesn't think he'll resign. And of course the ever present Jagr if NJ isn't in a playoff spot

[Commandant]

See this is why I want to see one of the rookies in the lineup now.

We could roll

Markov - Subban

Emelin - Diaz

Tinordi/Beaulieu - Gorges

as early as next year, with Pateryun as the 7th, and the loser of Tinordi vs Beaulieu as your first callup and rookie in 2015. But its hard to break in all these rookies at once. If you break in one of Tinordi/Beaulieu now, you can break in the second one next year, and then the defence is damn good even faster.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

See this is why I want to see one of the rookies in the lineup now.

We could roll

Markov - Subban

Emelin - Diaz

Tinordi/Beaulieu - Gorges

as early as next year, with Pateryun as the 7th, and the loser of Tinordi vs Beaulieu as your first callup and rookie in 2015. But its hard to break in all these rookies at once. If you break in one of Tinordi/Beaulieu now, you can break in the second one next year, and then the defence is damn good even faster.

I agree, I don't see how Murray or Bouillon are an upgrade over Tinordi or Beaulieu. Maybe they make a few less mistakes because they're veterans, that's it. There doesn't seem to be much of a game plan in regards to getting them in the lineup. They must be banking that they'll flick a switch and be bonafide NHLers like Gally 1 and 2, Bournival and Subban, but b level defense prospects don't work that way. If Boston can roll three prospects on D that might be worse, we can get these guys in.

[DON]

I agree, I don't see how Murray or Bouillon are an upgrade over Tinordi or Beaulieu. Maybe they make a few less mistakes because they're veterans, that's it. There doesn't seem to be much of a game plan in regards to getting them in the lineup. They must be banking that they'll flick a switch and be bonafide NHLers like Gally 1 and 2, Bournival and Subban, but b level defense prospects don't work that way. If Boston can roll three prospects on D that might be worse, we can get these guys in.

No big hurry.

Will be injuries on defense and will be call-ups.

Wont hurt these guys to play another 15 games in AHL and see how they look in Jan.

[Guest Stogey24]

I agree, I don't see how Murray or Bouillon are an upgrade over Tinordi or Beaulieu. Maybe they make a few less mistakes because they're veterans, that's it. There doesn't seem to be much of a game plan in regards to getting them in the lineup. They must be banking that they'll flick a switch and be bonafide NHLers like Gally 1 and 2, Bournival and Subban, but b level defense prospects don't work that way. If Boston can roll three prospects on D that might be worse, we can get these guys in.

We're wining games. Why change anything?

[Lovett's Magnatones]

We're wining games. Why change anything?

According to MB, you're "always looking to make your team better, always." This goes against his actions in free agency and the off season, but it's a nice line anyways.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

According to MB, you're "always looking to make your team better, always." This goes against his actions in free agency and the off season, but it's a nice line anyways.

While I didn't care for him re-signing Bouillon either, the signing of Daniel Briere was completely due to our ineffective playoff scoring. It seems over the summer a lot of us understood that but come fall we've forgotten. If Briere only puts up 30 points this year but in the playoffs scores at his usual playoff production pace, he'll be worth it as far as I'm concerned. He's our Dustin Penner.

Sometimes I wonder if people still think this is the 2006 Canadiens or something.

[Colin]

Whoa. We we from a lottery pick team to bonified contenders. If Washington wins are we lottery fodder again?

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Whoa. We we from a lottery pick team to bonified contenders. If Washington wins are we lottery fodder again?

I don't think people understand how the NHL playoff system works now. 25 games into the season we sit with the top Wildcard spot only four points behind leader Boston and one point behind Detroit in third. Toronto is tied with us for the Wildcard spots. After that? Carolina is five points behind us. A five point gap from the wildcard to missing the playoffs is big and it's only going to get bigger. Toronto is also trending down hard in a big way. 11 goals allowed in two games. Ouch. They are hoping and begging the game against the Habs is their turnaround because otherwise they are already crashing, and the Leafs always crash in the regular season.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I find that teams in today's NHL tend to be highly streaky, much moreso than I remember being the case in the past. The result is an intensification of the "bipolar" quality of fanbases. Right now, we're on a hot streak and the Leafs are on a cold streak. At some point, the reverse will be true. Detroit had a long losing spell. Etc., etc. I don't think a 5-point spread is that big in these circumstances.

In any case, even if we make the playoffs that doesn't make us contenders. We're one of many "good teams" bubbling well below the level of the Chicagos, Bostons, St Louises and San Joses. The idea that we will win four playoff rounds is dubious.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

In any case, even if we make the playoffs that doesn't make us contenders. We're one of many "good teams" bubbling well below the level of the Chicagos, Bostons, St Louises and San Joses. The idea that we will win four playoff rounds is dubious.

We're in the middle of a rebuild/transition while making the playoffs. I consider that a good thing. Win a round or two, let the kids get used to the playoffs. Lord knows Pacioretty needs more practice so he doesn't turn into Erik Cole. I agree we're below those teams but I think we disagree on how far.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

We're in the middle of a rebuild/transition while making the playoffs. I consider that a good thing. Win a round or two, let the kids get used to the playoffs. Lord knows Pacioretty needs more practice so he doesn't turn into Erik Cole. I agree we're below those teams but I think we disagree on how far.

I agree with you in the sense that I basically like how things are going. My main concern, as I've said in other threads, is whether we have the organizational pieces to become bona-fide contenders within the next couple of seasons, and I'm still not sure about this. As for this year's team, we have a solid chance of making the playoffs, and I wouldn't rule out our beating a team like Boston or Pittsburgh if all the cards fall our way. What I would rule out is winning four rounds (barring a miracle). We are, clearly, some distance back from the small number of teams that can honestly say that they have a realistic chance of winning 16 playoff games.

[Neech]

I agree with you in the sense that I basically like how things are going. My main concern, as I've said in other threads, is whether we have the organizational pieces to become bona-fide contenders within the next couple of seasons, and I'm still not sure about this. As for this year's team, we have a solid chance of making the playoffs, and I wouldn't rule out our beating a team like Boston or Pittsburgh if all the cards fall our way. What I would rule out is winning four rounds (barring a miracle). We are, clearly, some distance back from the small number of teams that can honestly say that they have a realistic chance of winning 16 playoff games.

It's impossible to be sure. What you can do is look at the players and prospects in our organization and make a case that we're in a better position to be contenders in 2-3 years than plenty of teams currently in our boat - like Toronto, the Rangers, Vancouver, etc. Were the Bruins sure of their future prospects after their ignominious 2010 defeat? Were the Kings sure of their future prospects in 2011 after being a lower-seed first-round casualty for a few years?

We have young quality on the team and a few high end prospects (and some solid prospect depth). These stack up favourably against most teams in the fringe-contender bracket. We're clearly not there yet, but I'd say we're on the right track.