Boston vs. Montreal | December 5th, 2013 | 1930 EST

[DON]

I think the only way this happens is if Montreal have a great season until about 2-3 weeks before the deadline, where they really falter. Size as seen as a problem again, so Gio is shipped out for size. As Brobin said, Jagr would be a great fit. I'm 100% with you that if the team has momentum why mess it up?

Perhaps the team is a small in the top 6 but the team as a whole is tougher, with Emelin, Murray, Prust, Parros all healthy, we can deal with it when the going gets tough.

No thanks to Jagr, don't need him or anyone else at the moment. And zero chance Gionta is going anywhere, which is fine by me.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Did anyone watch Jagr in the playoffs last year? Kovalev would be more useful. He was out of gas and it was a half season. I understand we love Jagr here but we didn't sign him when he was free multiple times. AK-46 would be more useful. Jeff Halpern was more useful. Injured Drewiske was more useful in the playoffs last year. Zero goals!

[habs rule]

No thanks to Jagr, don't need him or anyone else at the moment. And zero chance Gionta is going anywhere, which is fine by me.

as I have said many times before, Gio has to go, I don't see us signing him next year, so lets get something for him. I am not giving Gio for Jagr though that would be silly. I give you 5th round pick for Jagr as a pure rental player, career probably over after this year.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

as I have said many times before, Gio has to go, I don't see us signing him next year, so lets get something for him. I am not giving Gio for Jagr though that would be silly. I give you 5th round pick for Jagr as a pure rental player, career probably over after this year.

Jagr will fetch far more than a fifth, he's on fire this year.

I'd rather keep Gionta if we're going to be top three in the division. What sense does it make to trade him to another team contending? With the possibility of Gaborik, Vanek, Cammalleri, Michalek and Moulson available from actual SELLERS for contending teams, we wouldn't even get great value back for Gionta. He's more important on the ice. Especially since he has been solid for us in the post-season.

[sim.on]

I cannot believe that Brendan Gallagher was never on a Team Canada U20 junior team. I mean, come on, Brad Marchand made the team and Gallagher had better stats.

He was on the team in 2012

[brobin]

Jagr played pretty well last year in the playoffs. He wasn't really in great shape for the half season and it showed, but he also tired out the other teams D with his strength along the boards, something we are definitely missing.g

[Commandant]

Did anyone watch Jagr in the playoffs last year? Kovalev would be more useful. He was out of gas and it was a half season. I understand we love Jagr here but we didn't sign him when he was free multiple times. AK-46 would be more useful. Jeff Halpern was more useful. Injured Drewiske was more useful in the playoffs last year. Zero goals!

But Jagre has size... and briere and gionta don't.

Lets just forget that both of those small guys have been great playoff players in their careers, and repeat after me... MOAR BIGGER, MOAR SIZE.

Lets just forget that the second smallest team in the NHL last season won the Stanley Cup.

[Commandant]

Jagr will fetch far more than a fifth, he's on fire this year.

I'd rather keep Gionta if we're going to be top three in the division. What sense does it make to trade him to another team contending? With the possibility of Gaborik, Vanek, Cammalleri, Michalek and Moulson available from actual SELLERS for contending teams, we wouldn't even get great value back for Gionta. He's more important on the ice. Especially since he has been solid for us in the post-season.

Gionta is a leader. Keep him around so that kids like Pacioretty, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Bournival, etc... will see the example he sets on what you need to do to be a playoff player. That learning experience is FAR, FAR more valuable than any late 2nd round pick or 3rd rounder you get in a trade. Remember that these picks will be late because you are trading him to a contender, and this draft, it looks like a good top 10-15 but not deep.

[DON]

as I have said many times before, Gio has to go, I don't see us signing him next year, so lets get something for him. I am not giving Gio for Jagr though that would be silly. I give you 5th round pick for Jagr as a pure rental player, career probably over after this year.

I think Gionta is worth more, along with Briere, to the team in the playoffs than their return on the market. But even if let Gionta walk or resign at a much lower salary, im OK with that, but simply wont trade a Captain very often on a team doing well.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

But Jagre has size... and briere and gionta don't.

Lets just forget that both of those small guys have been great playoff players in their careers, and repeat after me... MOAR BIGGER, MOAR SIZE.

Lets just forget that the second smallest team in the NHL last season won the Stanley Cup.

I don't really get the deadline deal for Gionta theory either. We're not as far out there as a caller in Boston suggesting to sit Shawn Thornton and put Shane Hnidy on the wing during 2011 SCF, but it's left field. Gionta is what he is, but he shouldn't be traded in disgrace.

[KoRP]

Scoring a bunch is not what Gionta brings, yet he can score that goal you need in a tight game because he is such a responsible player. He has been a steady player this season, and for his size, he wins a lot of battles, and is a true leader for the young players, and should not be traded, as per Don's post about trading the captain of a team that's doing well.....

I think the Bourque+ for Foligno/ Bourque+ for Parenteau rumors are more what we need to see happen, although Bourque has a good game, he strays off sometimes too and is often injured. These two are young, top 6/9 players, tough to play against, and show up every night while staying off the IR list, so yeah, I'd sign off on one of those deals.... Colorado apparently has interest in Beaulieu and Andrighetto, so I dunno about giving up that much yet, but they are just prospects at this point. Otherwise, we need to stay the course, and use our veteran depth on the blue line, and not trade them off either, for picks that may be valuable, but may not be..... Murray has been increasingly better each game played, needed for playoff season, not worth losing his size for a draft pick, same for Cube, keep them for this years needs and let them walk if we can replace them with our young guys in Tinordi and Beaulieu if he is not dealt.

Season and playoffs are a marathon, we all learned that the hard way last year..... I really think that the veteran depth we have had has been our strong suit in this winning streak.....

The contract for Markov interests me the most, how can we not give him a 3 yr deal at 6m per?

[JMMR]

I cannot believe that Brendan Gallagher was never on a Team Canada U20 junior team. I mean, come on, Brad Marchand made the team and Gallagher had better stats.

You mis remember.

He was there!

http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/feature/?id=13609

[JMMR]

I think the only way this happens is if Montreal have a great season until about 2-3 weeks before the deadline, where they really falter. Size as seen as a problem again, so Gio is shipped out for size. As Brobin said, Jagr would be a great fit. I'm 100% with you that if the team has momentum why mess it up?

Perhaps the team is a small in the top 6 but the team as a whole is tougher, with Emelin, Murray, Prust, Parros all healthy, we can deal with it when the going gets tough.

Parros won't help in the playoffs because he won't play.

[DON]

Interesting result of HabsWorld poll.

Pateryn chosen by 1/2 of respondents to be 1st d injury call up, over Tinordi & Beaulieu. I agree, but it just shows quite a change in opinion from September.

But; Tinordi is throwing some big hits lately and currently on a 3 game "fight streak" in Hamilton, so I am sure Bergevin/Dudley notice his recent "aggressive" play and approve.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Scoring a bunch is not what Gionta brings, yet he can score that goal you need in a tight game because he is such a responsible player. He has been a steady player this season, and for his size, he wins a lot of battles, and is a true leader for the young players, and should not be traded, as per Don's post about trading the captain of a team that's doing well.....

I think the Bourque+ for Foligno/ Bourque+ for Parenteau rumors are more what we need to see happen, although Bourque has a good game, he strays off sometimes too and is often injured. These two are young, top 6/9 players, tough to play against, and show up every night while staying off the IR list, so yeah, I'd sign off on one of those deals.... Colorado apparently has interest in Beaulieu and Andrighetto, so I dunno about giving up that much yet, but they are just prospects at this point. Otherwise, we need to stay the course, and use our veteran depth on the blue line, and not trade them off either, for picks that may be valuable, but may not be..... Murray has been increasingly better each game played, needed for playoff season, not worth losing his size for a draft pick, same for Cube, keep them for this years needs and let them walk if we can replace them with our young guys in Tinordi and Beaulieu if he is not dealt.

Season and playoffs are a marathon, we all learned that the hard way last year..... I really think that the veteran depth we have had has been our strong suit in this winning streak.....

The contract for Markov interests me the most, how can we not give him a 3 yr deal at 6m per?

The Foligno family only plays for crappy franchises. I hate that whole family and their stupid leap.

[BlueKross]

I like the Foligno brothers. I really have no sense what MB might do at the deadline. I would like some here caution about changing the dynamics when we appear to be having some success. On the other hand, I think we are close enough to take a shot at it. I would contest Commandant's continous diatribe that size doesn't matter. I listen to a Jim Nill interview on PTS. He was asked about his new charges. He referenced his good Size and Skill in the organization, going forward; therefore he was happy

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Size matters, especially in the playoffs when the whistles are shelved even more dramatically than they have been so far this season.

I believe in the "fight in the dog" argument to a point. But the 2010 run arguably showed that there's a ceiling to what a team of smurfs can ultimately do.

All the same, you really do have to be impressed with what this team is accomplishing when healthy. It might just be that one more top-9 FW with size, plus some luck in terms of not losing key players to injury, would make bona-fide contenders out of us. Shockingly.

[Guest Stogey24]

Montreal had a chance two years ago to sign Parenteau as a free agent.... I doubt things have changed.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Size is only good if you use it and even then, skill trumps size every time.

GMs go after size because a big strong player can do things a smaller player cannot. But a skilled player never puts himself in situations where a lesser player will outskill him.

For most this is obvious. Well of course I'll take Lidstrom, he's elite! But that's the thing. Size doesn't trump skill.

What Montreal needs less of is marginal skill. Guys who only have enough skill to sometimes make things happen. Desharnais and Bourque are the same in this regard despite size difference. It ain't about being inconsistent but guys who are expected to give their peak instead of their average, otherwise they don't provide. We need less of that.

Plekanec, Markov, Subban, Gallagher, Galchenyuk and a few more, they give their average. On their average day, they have the skill to be great. The same can't be said for Desharnais, a small center and Bourque, a big winger.

When you look at Chicago, that's a team with skill and depth before size and strength. That's why size doesn't matter. Because when you have the skill to have four scorers on the back without sacrificing defence and run three scoring lines without handicapping a star with a weaker player, you don't think about how big your opponent is.

[DON]

Size is overrated and no correlation to success.

[Neech]

But the 2010 run arguably showed that there's a ceiling to what a team of smurfs can ultimately do.

The 2010 run showed there's a ceiling to what an 88-point 8th-seed can do when it gets stellar goaltending with opportunistic scoring.

The 2013 Chicago Blackhawks showed what a small team can do, just like the 2012 LA Kings showed what a big team can do.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Size is only good if you use it and even then, skill trumps size every time.

GMs go after size because a big strong player can do things a smaller player cannot. But a skilled player never puts himself in situations where a lesser player will outskill him.

For most this is obvious. Well of course I'll take Lidstrom, he's elite! But that's the thing. Size doesn't trump skill.

What Montreal needs less of is marginal skill. Guys who only have enough skill to sometimes make things happen. Desharnais and Bourque are the same in this regard despite size difference. It ain't about being inconsistent but guys who are expected to give their peak instead of their average, otherwise they don't provide. We need less of that.

Plekanec, Markov, Subban, Gallagher, Galchenyuk and a few more, they give their average. On their average day, they have the skill to be great. The same can't be said for Desharnais, a small center and Bourque, a big winger.

When you look at Chicago, that's a team with skill and depth before size and strength. That's why size doesn't matter. Because when you have the skill to have four scorers on the back without sacrificing defence and run three scoring lines without handicapping a star with a weaker player, you don't think about how big your opponent is.

Good analysis.