Jump to content

Habs name four alternate captains


JoeLassister

Recommended Posts

Guest Stogey24

I'd say that Galchenyuk will not determine Plek's future with the team. Lars Eller will.

Galchenyuk is taking over top line C in the future along with top line offensive wingers. Not Plekanec's spot.

If galchenyuk steps up into a point producing centre, then Eller can be the number 3 shut down guy is what I'm trying to saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Captaincy, I don't believe that it is THAT important to name one right now.

I was sure that there would be a transition Captain, and like Stogey, I do believe that management wanted Markov for 2-3 more years before handing it out to the youngster with the most leadership or the one voted by teammates.

My vote will always go to the guy that drops the gloves after a dirty hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24

As for Captaincy, I don't believe that it is THAT important to name one right now.

I was sure that there would be a transition Captain, and like Stogey, I do believe that management wanted Markov for 2-3 more years before handing it out to the youngster with the most leadership or the one voted by teammates.

My vote will always go to the guy that drops the gloves after a dirty hit.

+1. I'd love to see Prust rockin' the C.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM, I think one has to take into account the situation that is hockey crazy Montreal, it's not an A typical climate surrounding the team, and the media is ever evolving toward monstrous.

Some people actually think spreading the leadership out will put less pressure on the player named captain, and the leadership is already there in that committee in reality. Also maybe it is just grooming the eventual Captain PK or Max. Those people are not necessarily delusional, just of a differing opinion than yours, also derived from thinking for themselves, positive thinking at that!.

Saves you the pressure of thinking for us, and making all the posts here by yourself.... :nuts:

Really liked what Stogey had to say about maybe Plek isn't in the long term plans too, it just seems that way to me as well....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily like it, but it's becoming more and more common, so you might as well get used to it. It's better to have four alternates than one captain whose heart isn't really in it. As Machine Of Loving Grace pointed out, the Blue Jackets are finally heading in the right direction without a captain the last two years. Prior to that, they had back-to-back captains who demanded trades (Foote and Nash). If you give the C to a guy who doesn't want it or isn't ready for it, you could very well end up with a similar situation, or even a Joe Thornton situation. Those do nobody any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shrewd move. There was no right move.

Agreed. A sign that we are still a team transitioning to competitor status but still a little bit shy.

Most articles that I've read from the traditional sources (toronto-based) want to skewer the Habs for not having a go-to-guy and insist this is a reflection on our weaknesses. I'd be shocked if there's not an element of jealousy in those opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with it. In fact, I said a while ago in the 'captain' thread that going with three 'As' would be the best bet - but also worried that this would involve excluding one of the four obvious contenders. Lo and behold, they surprised me by adding one more player to what is traditionally a triptych (C + 2 As).

I also don't believe that you MUST have one clear-cut dominant leader in the room in order to win. Not for a second. The dynasty team had Cournoyer and later Serge Savard wearing the C while Bob Gainey, one of the all-time great leaders in the game, was also in the room. They seemed to do OK. And if they had put the 'A' on Roadrunner, Gainey and Savard without anointing one of them as captain, those teams would have been every bit as great. Winning teams are winning teams regardless of a letter on a jersey.

As Eric Engels pointed out, the one really interesting thing here is the signal it sends to Pleks that he may not be in the long-term plan. That's the true story here. Otherwise, why not just give Pleks the C?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one think the Captain's role is still relevant, both in real terms and symbolically. This was a great way of spreading the burden of the Captaincy in MTL without snubbing one or more the young core players who obviously feel that they are ready to lead the team. As far as a signal to PLex about long term plans? Meh. How do we know that he--like Markov past-- was not ambivalent about taking the role?

I think it was a shrewd move by a GM with his fingers firmly on the pulse of the team and the city. Note that any pressure/media controversy is firmly on MB and diverted from the players which is the way it should be. Also. as Markov said, glad that this is done now so we can concentrate on hockey.

Excellent leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. To me, this says "we don't have one person who can be the sole leader" more than their nonsense rhetoric about distributed leadership.

I think the best teams are teams and that leadership comes from every corner - each in his own way. These four are going to be the media darlings. (Plus, you can say it's tryouts for Subban and Patches.) I much prefer to see this than a 'C' who may or may not be ready. Markov isn't vocal enough - particularly with the media - to really handle the PR of the 'C', and Plexiglass isn't much more vocal either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree is just a letter, but still 4 rotating 'A's is lame.

well the fact is that they are not assistants. They are alternate captains. Therefore we have 4 captains. Nothing lame about a captain. Each is as much a captain as the other. 2 get to learn and respect is paid to the old guys, not such a bad thing. They have identified the leaders and said ok LEAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Globe and Mail made a good point that the only reason a captain isn't named is because they can't name Carey Price. Also pointed out 71-72 was the last time a team won the Cup without a captain.

That was an interesting piece - and also one that expressed skepticism about both this move and the prospects of the team for 2014-15. I'm not sure where that negativity comes from.

It's worth asking whether the NHL's rule against goalie captains is wholly justifiable. Surely the 'delay of game' issue can be managed by the refs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was an interesting piece - and also one that expressed skepticism about both this move and the prospects of the team for 2014-15. I'm not sure where that negativity comes from.

It's worth asking whether the NHL's rule against goalie captains is wholly justifiable. Surely the 'delay of game' issue can be managed by the refs?

It's the NHL looking for the lazy way out. Say Price was captain with Markov and Pacioretty/Subban wearing the A's. The referee would still talk to Markov/Pacioretty/Subban for calls or whichever veteran Montreal has on the ice at the time (Moen/Weaver/Plekanec/Prust/etc.) if he's not near the Habs zone and if he is, Price can just goto the referees. No delays. Nothing changes. Lazy way out is just to ban it completely, similar to what they did with the spin-o-rama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Globe and Mail made a good point that the only reason a captain isn't named is because they can't name Carey Price. Also pointed out 71-72 was the last time a team won the Cup without a captain.

And that begs the question, how many times has a team gone to the finals without a captain. If every team had a captain since 71-72 that is a useless stat no? I mean how many opportunities have there been for a team to win witout a captain? Probably not that many, it is not very common so I don't think that stat has much value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that begs the question, how many times has a team gone to the finals without a captain. If every team had a captain since 71-72 that is a useless stat no? I mean how many opportunities have there been for a team to win witout a captain? Probably not that many, it is not very common so I don't think that stat has much value.

Just last year the Rangers went to the finals without a captain. Calgary hoisted the Cup against us with two captains in MacDonald and Peplinski. Boston got to the finals in 88 with two captains in Bourque and Middleton. Heck according to Wiki, Calgary ran with three captains in 1986. Chicago lost to us in 71 and 73 with no captain.

Two and three captains is weirder to me than no captain to be honest and I guess it was common in the late 80s if both Boston and Calgary were doing it. Heck we did it too with Carbonneau/Chelios.

Going into this season, unless things change, you have Buffalo, Columbus, Florida, Montreal, New York (McDonaugh to be named very soon), Ottawa and San Jose going without captains. Having no captain could become common in the future for the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, with the scale of the NHL now, dividing the captaincy may just make sense. Why add to the PR workload of one player when you could spread it out?

Machine, I love your post about the NHL and the "easy way out." They do this all the time - remember the "no toe in the crease" rule? Or the "automatic delay of game" penalty that afflicts every player who accidentally dishes the puck over the glass? Anything, no matter how moronic, to minimize the need for judgement. Of course, given how abysmal their track record is when using judgement, maybe there's a case to be made...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going into this season, unless things change, you have Buffalo, Columbus, Florida, Montreal, New York (McDonaugh to be named very soon), Ottawa and San Jose going without captains. Having no captain could become common in the future for the NHL.

I don't mean to get into a pissing match, but are we really looking to be in the same class as Buffalo, Columbus, Florida, Ottawa and San Jose? With anything? If those teams have their players put their right skate on first, we should do the opposite as soon as possible.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

really..i couldn't care less what Ottawa or florida or anybody else is doing! we should be fine with the 4 alt caps. it's a little awkward, but so is our situation. subban and patch are the only two that we can honestly say will be here next year. pleks always seems to be on his way out (by fans n media alike) and markovs health could become a factor. so, let's just play with the hand we're dealt and stop comparing our captainless team to anybody else. and seriously, isn't carey price the real leader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone doubts Price is the top dog in that room. Although Markov is also held in awe.

The fallacy in Lovett's argument is that there is only one way to win. Since there isn't, I'm with those who aren't, in principle, troubled by this move at all. Of course, things can still go awry - e.g., the four As could come to represent four different factions in the room. But I can't see Price, Markov, or Pleks letting that happen...to say nothing of Zoot Suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just last year the Rangers went to the finals without a captain. Calgary hoisted the Cup against us with two captains in MacDonald and Peplinski. Boston got to the finals in 88 with two captains in Bourque and Middleton. Heck according to Wiki, Calgary ran with three captains in 1986. Chicago lost to us in 71 and 73 with no captain.

Two and three captains is weirder to me than no captain to be honest and I guess it was common in the late 80s if both Boston and Calgary were doing it. Heck we did it too with Carbonneau/Chelios.

Going into this season, unless things change, you have Buffalo, Columbus, Florida, Montreal, New York (McDonaugh to be named very soon), Ottawa and San Jose going without captains. Having no captain could become common in the future for the NHL.

Come on now, having no captain is different than having 2 or 3. The statement was the last team towin the cup with no captain was St Louis. We have captains we have 4 of them. I have actually never heard of a team having absolutely no captain. Maybe I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on now, having no captain is different than having 2 or 3. The statement was the last team towin the cup with no captain was St Louis. We have captains we have 4 of them. I have actually never heard of a team having absolutely no captain. Maybe I am wrong.

St. Louis never won a Cup. Boston won the Cup in 72 with no captain. In history people assume Orr was captain but he didn't even have a letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Stanley_Cup_Finals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markov looked liked he wanted to strangle that f'in stupid press dude at golf tourney, asking whether he was asked to be captain and whether he wanted to be captain? Ma-roonic questions from these dim-wits is just too much for Markov to deal with every day.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...