Habs30/31 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I know deals like Leclair burn in people's minds but this isn't like Leclair at all. The closest trade resembling this is Latendresse for Pouliot but we got the Latendresse instead of the Pouliot. Not like the leclair trade? No kidding. Mark Reichi was a star and stanley cup champ. Leclair had won a cup. Desjardins had won a cup. Dionna had won a cup. JL was not yet a fifty goal man but had been arguably habs best forward winning 93 cup. These guys (sekac and GSP) are 22 year old third liners. Sekac healthy scratched a dozen times. No not even remotely like leclair recchi deal at all. Nobody worry of any one ever comparing the two deals. Latendresse Pouliot much better comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Not like the leclair trade? No kidding. Mark Reichi was a star and stanley cup champ. Leclair had won a cup. Desjardins had won a cup. Dionna had won a cup. JL was not yet a fifty goal man but had been arguably habs best forward winning 93 cup. These guys (sekac and GSP) are 22 year old third liners. Sekac healthy scratched a dozen times. No not even remotely like leclair recchi deal at all. Nobody worry of any one ever comparing the two deals. Latendresse Pouliot much better comparison. That's all fair. I brought up Leclair for one reason only, which is that he was a guy who landed in an absolutely perfect situation, playing on the wing of Eric Lindros in his prime. As a result he went from "struggling to put it all together" to being a 50-goal scorer literally overnight (and I for one have never been convinced that Leclair would have done anything comparable with us). Sekac is no Leclair, but he is going to be put in exactly the same kind of perfect situation, playing with two of the league's best players. So what I'm saying is that Sekac is in an analogous position to have magnified success because of the specific place where he landed, just like Leclair. (Of course, I'm not saying this is destined to happen; just that it wouldn't surprise me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 That's all fair. I brought up Leclair for one reason only, which is that he was a guy who landed in an absolutely perfect situation, playing on the wing of Eric Lindros in his prime. As a result he went from "struggling to put it all together" to being a 50-goal scorer literally overnight (and I for one have never been convinced that Leclair would have done anything comparable with us). Sekac is no Leclair, but he is going to be put in exactly the same kind of perfect situation, playing with two of the league's best players. So what I'm saying is that Sekac is in an analogous position to have magnified success because of the specific place where he landed, just like Leclair. (Of course, I'm not saying this is destined to happen; just that it wouldn't surprise me). While LeClair went into a perfect situation, it was just a matter of time before he produced and just needed the right line mates in Montreal. Can you imagine him on the wing with Koivu when he first came up? When that deal went down, a flyers friend of mine was whining about losing Recchi for a bunch of spare parts and on the day the trade was made, i told him LeClair was going to outproduce Recchi. He was a Cam Neely clone that was mis-used in Montreal. The way he dominated and controlled the boards and the shot he displayed in the 93 playoffs should have made him an untouchable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Leclair wasn't a Cam Neely clone. Yikes. Leclair was a 30 goal guy who could have been solid in Montreal but like Cucumber said, got put in a great situation in Philly. Leclair was more James Neal than anything. Neal had 40 goals in Pittsburgh with the best players. Otherwise he's a late 20 goal guy who might get some 30 goal seasons before he retires. That's basically what Leclair was The problem was that Montreal was banking on Recchi to be better than his young career instead of leveling out. Recchi came to Montreal at 26 and already had three 100 point seasons (Leclair never had one), one 50 goal season, two 40 goal seasons and two 30 goal seasons. Montreal never expected his offensive numbers to drop but either rise or stay where they were. They thought they were giving up Desjardins (a top pairing D-man) and Leclair (a possible power forward) for at that point one of the hottest Canadian right wingers in the game. They were very wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Savard desperately tried to get Bobby Clobbers to take Brisebois instead of Desjardins. Had that happened, we still would have lost the trade, but it would have been a reasonable one given Recchi's excellence. I agree with Machine's assessment of Leclair, but will concede that the thought of him playing with Koivu is very, very interesting... Anyway, my point wasn't really about Leclair. It was about Sekac being in an *analogous situation* to Leclair's, in being traded away to a team where he will play with super-elite players. Let's face it; a few weeks ago everyone was raving about Sekac's ability to protect the puck and the seeming maturity of his game. Now everyone is acting like he's a third-liner at best. But even a third-liner, if he clicks with Perry and Getzlaf, could start putting up significant numbers. Even worse is if he truly blossoms as a hockey player, in a way he might not otherwise have done, as a result of being put in an utterly ideal situation. It's a real risk in this trade IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 That's all fair. I brought up Leclair for one reason only, which is that he was a guy who landed in an absolutely perfect situation, playing on the wing of Eric Lindros in his prime. As a result he went from "struggling to put it all together" to being a 50-goal scorer literally overnight (and I for one have never been convinced that Leclair would have done anything comparable with us). Sekac is no Leclair, but he is going to be put in exactly the same kind of perfect situation, playing with two of the league's best players. So what I'm saying is that Sekac is in an analogous position to have magnified success because of the specific place where he landed, just like Leclair. (Of course, I'm not saying this is destined to happen; just that it wouldn't surprise me). Hear ya there, but when lindros was out for extended periods of time Leclair went right on scoring at 50 goal pace. While LeClair went into a perfect situation, it was just a matter of time before he produced and just needed the right line mates in Montreal. Can you imagine him on the wing with Koivu when he first came up? When that deal went down, a flyers friend of mine was whining about losing Recchi for a bunch of spare parts and on the day the trade was made, i told him LeClair was going to outproduce Recchi. He was a Cam Neely clone that was mis-used in Montreal. The way he dominated and controlled the boards and the shot he displayed in the 93 playoffs should have made him an untouchable. Yep. Not as tough as Neely though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Savard desperately tried to get Bobby Clobbers to take Brisebois instead of Desjardins. Had that happened, we still would have lost the trade, but it would have been a reasonable one given Recchi's excellence. I agree with Machine's assessment of Leclair, but will concede that the thought of him playing with Koivu is very, very interesting... Anyway, my point wasn't really about Leclair. It was about Sekac being in an *analogous situation* to Leclair's, in being traded away to a team where he will play with super-elite players. Let's face it; a few weeks ago everyone was raving about Sekac's ability to protect the puck and the seeming maturity of his game. Now everyone is acting like he's a third-liner at best. But even a third-liner, if he clicks with Perry and Getzlaf, could start putting up significant numbers. Even worse is if he truly blossoms as a hockey player, in a way he might not otherwise have done, as a result of being put in an utterly ideal situation. It's a real risk in this trade IMHO. You mean the coach of the Ducks is not going to bounce him around from left wing to right wing on the bottom six? Not going to have him watch games from the press box?................He is going to put sekac into a good situation on a top line is he? So the coach is thinking about developing the kid and giving him the best possible chance to succeed? Wow, be interesting to see how that turns out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEWATER77 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ..or he's only going to let out as much slack as he can. I don't think Sekac will have an impact this year, regardless of Perry/Getzlaf. But will we look back in 2-3 years and say "dammit, why didn't we wait?!" Yep. In the meantime, let's hope DSP fits in..he seems out of shape if you ask me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Savard desperately tried to get Bobby Clobbers to take Brisebois instead of Desjardins. Had that happened, we still would have lost the trade, but it would have been a reasonable one given Recchi's excellence. I agree with Machine's assessment of Leclair, but will concede that the thought of him playing with Koivu is very, very interesting... Anyway, my point wasn't really about Leclair. It was about Sekac being in an *analogous situation* to Leclair's, in being traded away to a team where he will play with super-elite players. Let's face it; a few weeks ago everyone was raving about Sekac's ability to protect the puck and the seeming maturity of his game. Now everyone is acting like he's a third-liner at best. But even a third-liner, if he clicks with Perry and Getzlaf, could start putting up significant numbers. Even worse is if he truly blossoms as a hockey player, in a way he might not otherwise have done, as a result of being put in an utterly ideal situation. It's a real risk in this trade IMHO. I'm still of the opinion that Sekac is gonna be a good one in this league. I don't think he's suddenly going to be bad just because he went to Anaheim. I think he's Lars Eller as a winger with a brain. When he was traded, I simply wanted to express that yeah, none of us were really paying attention to his defensive ability but Therrien was. Therrien wanted him to be a better defender if he wanted to play on a Stanley Cup contender. I think he's top nine now and in a year or two might be a top six main stay for Anaheim. Then again I thought that about another Duck player Silfverberg so who knows? I just think the "Don't know what ya got til its gone" viewpoint is extremely short sighted when we haven't really given Pelly much of a chance to develop in Therrien's system yet. It'd be nice for him to look great immediately but that doesn't always mean he's gonna be great. I'll take a guy who slowly transitions when he has the type of intangibles and unique package like Pelly has than a Lee Stempniak who goes on an early tear then disappears into the ether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I'm still of the opinion that Sekac is gonna be a good one in this league. I don't think he's suddenly going to be bad just because he went to Anaheim. I think he's Lars Eller as a winger with a brain. When he was traded, I simply wanted to express that yeah, none of us were really paying attention to his defensive ability but Therrien was. Therrien wanted him to be a better defender if he wanted to play on a Stanley Cup contender. I think he's top nine now and in a year or two might be a top six main stay for Anaheim. Then again I thought that about another Duck player Silfverberg so who knows? I just think the "Don't know what ya got til its gone" viewpoint is extremely short sighted when we haven't really given Pelly much of a chance to develop in Therrien's system yet. It'd be nice for him to look great immediately but that doesn't always mean he's gonna be great. I'll take a guy who slowly transitions when he has the type of intangibles and unique package like Pelly has than a Lee Stempniak who goes on an early tear then disappears into the ether. Silfverberg is a funny one for sure. I thought he was going to break out too. I've said it too many times on here, but there was more to that trade than Sekac not being defensively reliable. You don't just trade a young guy after his first 50 games in the show because he's not playing great defensively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Silfverberg is a funny one for sure. I thought he was going to break out too. I've said it too many times on here, but there was more to that trade than Sekac not being defensively reliable. You don't just trade a young guy after his first 50 games in the show because he's not playing great defensively. No, but you do trade him if you want Pelly more than you want Sekac. That's all there is to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Neely had Bourque, Janney and Oates as his setup men. Leclair had lindris but no dman the calibare of Bourque to set him up. Neely was pretty much done in the time of the dead puck era, when Leclairs numbers declined a bit. I'd take Leclair in his prime over shanahan. Leclair was also a key contributor to a cup win, something Neely was ever able to accomplish. Not saying he was as good as Neely in his prime, but IMO, he was the closest player to Neely. Dr. Recchi racked up his points in the fire wagon hockey years with a stacked Pens team. There was a reason he was moved twice in his prime years, despite his numbers. Leclair joined a much weaker pens team in the dead puck years. Leclair wasn't a Cam Neely clone. Yikes. Leclair was a 30 goal guy who could have been solid in Montreal but like Cucumber said, got put in a great situation in Philly. Leclair was more James Neal than anything. Neal had 40 goals in Pittsburgh with the best players. Otherwise he's a late 20 goal guy who might get some 30 goal seasons before he retires. That's basically what Leclair was The problem was that Montreal was banking on Recchi to be better than his young career instead of leveling out. Recchi came to Montreal at 26 and already had three 100 point seasons (Leclair never had one), one 50 goal season, two 40 goal seasons and two 30 goal seasons. Montreal never expected his offensive numbers to drop but either rise or stay where they were. They thought they were giving up Desjardins (a top pairing D-man) and Leclair (a possible power forward) for at that point one of the hottest Canadian right wingers in the game. They were very wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Recchi went back to being a 90 point player when leaving the Habs and going back to Philly. Firewagon or not, he was still a multi 100 point player. Vincent Damphousse was overall a better player but never had a 100 point season. As much as I dislike Cam Neely, he was one of the best playoff performers of his era and one of the best goal scorers. 89 points in 93 games? 57 points in 50 playoff games between 1989 and 1991? 50 goals in 44 games (spread across 92-93 and 93-94), Only a few games shy of being a 400 goal player in less than 800 games. As for Shanahan vs. Leclair, Leclair had five great seasons. That's it. Shanahan had a whole career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Recchi went back to being a 90 point player when leaving the Habs and going back to Philly. Firewagon or not, he was still a multi 100 point player. Vincent Damphousse was overall a better player but never had a 100 point season. As much as I dislike Cam Neely, he was one of the best playoff performers of his era and one of the best goal scorers. 89 points in 93 games? 57 points in 50 playoff games between 1989 and 1991? 50 goals in 44 games (spread across 92-93 and 93-94), Only a few games shy of being a 400 goal player in less than 800 games. As for Shanahan vs. Leclair, Leclair had five great seasons. That's it. Shanahan had a whole career. I'm not comparing their entire careers. Shannahan also scored around 300 goals more than Neely, but i'd still take neely in his prime over Shanahan in his prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I'm still of the opinion that Sekac is gonna be a good one in this league. I don't think he's suddenly going to be bad just because he went to Anaheim. I think he's Lars Eller as a winger with a brain. When he was traded, I simply wanted to express that yeah, none of us were really paying attention to his defensive ability but Therrien was. Therrien wanted him to be a better defender if he wanted to play on a Stanley Cup contender. I think he's top nine now and in a year or two might be a top six main stay for Anaheim. Then again I thought that about another Duck player Silfverberg so who knows? I just think the "Don't know what ya got til its gone" viewpoint is extremely short sighted when we haven't really given Pelly much of a chance to develop in Therrien's system yet. It'd be nice for him to look great immediately but that doesn't always mean he's gonna be great. I'll take a guy who slowly transitions when he has the type of intangibles and unique package like Pelly has than a Lee Stempniak who goes on an early tear then disappears into the ether. Think i get your point however "none of US were really paying attention to his defensive ability" speak for yourself I must say. "WE haven't really given pelly much of a chance" whats with the "we" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?? I will give Pelly a huge "chance". Matter of fact i am thinking his value will be shown more in play off hockey than now. Defensive game for some flashy forwards take time. Mike Modano says his defensive game did not come around untill his sixth or seventh season and was thankful to Bob Gainey for teaching him. Yzerman re invented his defensive game after 10 years in the nhl. Carbs was taught defensive hockey ON the Montreal Canadiens, not before. I like the trade so far for one reason. MB thought it was a good move. I have patience for Pelly, as I had for Sekac. Cant speak for anybody else. I do think Sekac will be given greater opportunity by Boudreau than he was by MT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Think i get your point however "none of US were really paying attention to his defensive ability" speak for yourself I must say. "WE haven't really given pelly much of a chance" whats with the "we" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?? I will give Pelly a huge "chance". Matter of fact i am thinking his value will be shown more in play off hockey than now. Defensive game for some flashy forwards take time. Mike Modano says his defensive game did not come around untill his sixth or seventh season and was thankful to Bob Gainey for teaching him. Yzerman re invented his defensive game after 10 years in the nhl. Carbs was taught defensive hockey ON the Montreal Canadiens, not before. I like the trade so far for one reason. MB thought it was a good move. I have patience for Pelly, as I had for Sekac. Cant speak for anybody else. I do think Sekac will be given greater opportunity by Boudreau than he was by MT. Yes same as Yakupov was given greater opportunity by Oil coaches than Habs would of given him... worked out real well hasnt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Pelley was one of two guys on Habs roster last night that was laying out Sharks, Weise the other. DD and Gallagher, to a lesser extent, spent the whole night a step late to cover their man, 'cause they were too busy getting up off their ass... DSP will be a good addition in the long run, especially when the going gets tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Yes same as Yakupov was given greater opportunity by Oil coaches than Habs would of given him... worked out real well hasnt it. what does the oilers three coaches in three two and half years have to do with Sekac on the Ducks? woops, I slighted MT and offended Don again. my bad buddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Well, the idea that "giving an opportunity" to a rookie means playing him 25 minutes a night on the first line and on the PP is a bit of a stretch. Indeed, reading this board, it seems that many posters feel that the primary role of Pacioretty and the PP are to serve as some sort of affirmative action program for rookies. From my point of view, Sekac got a fair chunk of ice time, but also got scratched now and then - as is fairly normal for rookies, even promising ones. I don't think there's much of a case that MT was horribly unfair to Sekac UNLESS he was the primary driving force in getting him run out of town ("get rid of this kid, I can't stand him!"). Yet for all we know, Genius hated the trade, or had no strong opinion about it. Then again, I've never really understood the argument that MT is bad with young players or grossly and systematically persecutes them, so I'm obviously not coming at this from the necessary premise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 As soon as Paranteau got knocked out of game, Sekac played his 2+minutes on the PP. And yes, seems quite odd why rookie icetime seems more important to some, than actually winning. Tinordi 'must play NHL to get better', 'he is being held back by Therrien'...haven't heard that complaint for a while, Hmm? de la Rose playing centre when Galchenyuk isn't, also not brought up as another example of Therrien as a rookie-hater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Not important to me.I like the trade. Simply because the habs are on the soft side and this trade was made with that in mind. Period. I have heard the knock on MT that he is not great with the young players , like CC mentioned. I have not seen much lately to agree with that. He certainly does not ruin them by any means. I just think he is "tough" on them, but so was Bowman, Keanan, and Burns. I used to be of mind that this knock on MT had some validity, not so now. Maybe he got that rep in from his days in Pitt and Montreal prior. But in the following jobless seasons I'm sure he had time to pick out where he could improve....and did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Well, the idea that "giving an opportunity" to a rookie means playing him 25 minutes a night on the first line and on the PP is a bit of a stretch. Indeed, reading this board, it seems that many posters feel that the primary role of Pacioretty and the PP are to serve as some sort of affirmative action program for rookies. From my point of view, Sekac got a fair chunk of ice time, but also got scratched now and then - as is fairly normal for rookies, even promising ones. I don't think there's much of a case that MT was horribly unfair to Sekac UNLESS he was the primary driving force in getting him run out of town ("get rid of this kid, I can't stand him!"). Yet for all we know, Genius hated the trade, or had no strong opinion about it. Then again, I've never really understood the argument that MT is bad with young players or grossly and systematically persecutes them, so I'm obviously not coming at this from the necessary premise. After the trade, Therrien mentioned he should show a little more patience with younger players. That's about it. I hate to repeat myself but Bergevin laid out that the deal was more about getting DSP than getting rid of Sekac. I know a trade always feels like one is getting rid of what you don't want for something you do want, but I have a feeling if Anaheim had the money free to take Lars Eller and wanted him more, Sekac would still be a Hab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 After the trade, Therrien mentioned he should show a little more patience with younger players. That's about it. I hate to repeat myself but Bergevin laid out that the deal was more about getting DSP than getting rid of Sekac. I know a trade always feels like one is getting rid of what you don't want for something you do want, but I have a feeling if Anaheim had the money free to take Lars Eller and wanted him more, Sekac would still be a Hab. Yes, that's about the size of it, Bergevin said he wanted DSP, and you have to pay to get what you want. End of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 sekac is not playing with perry and getzlaf... or at least he wasn't yesterday! but he did look pretty good skating on their 3rd line. i took the over 5.5 last night so watched the 2nd and 3rd. the score came up short a goal... oh well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Sekac on why it didn't wrk w/MTL: "It’s just harder to play in Montreal because the team is very defensive. It’s just the way they play.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.