Trade Subban traded to Nashville

[illWill]

If you really wanted me to, I could wrap my head around Bergevin making our team weaker as a result of the trade. It's not something I agree with to such an obvious, written in stone extent but I do understand the perspective. Where we differ is that if we win the cup, it will be in spite of him. That's like saying you should be GM yourself because you are right regardless of the outcome and he is wrong.

I hated the Subban trade when I heard about it but the GM, in my opinion, has made the team better this off season regardless of Price coming back. I'm not trying to grasp for straws but if we don't trade Subban, do we get Radulov? If we don't trade Subban, do we draft Sergechev for the future?

Perhaps the answer is yes to both of those things but the point is that there are too many variables to argue that the team would be better with Subban in both the short term as well as the long term. Maybe his cap space hinders the team from evening our four lines out or maybe we acquire other players who don't work out because we already have Subban. Maybe the team itself was too reliant on Subban as a player and we will be more cohesive as a team.

I personally felt as though the first big move MB made was acquiring Vanek for peanuts. It was the most excited any of our GMs has made me in the millennium with a close second to Gainey and Kovalev. Ironically, I felt the exact opposite when I heard about this trade.

There are hockey reasons for the trade as well, I can assure you of that. I could really think about it and come up with a great list of things but if you don't think Weber helping our power play score goals is not a hockey reason that was a direct problem for our team last season, then sure it's not a hockey reason. If you don't think he will be a stronger mentor to some of the younger kids like Beaulieu on and off the ice, then still, there are no hockey reasons. If you don't think the relationship and comfort level Price and Weber have shown on the ice together while Weber clears the crease and they win championships together then I agree, we are still drawing blanks.

Great, sensible post. I like mentioning how the effects of the trade trickle down through everything else, resulting in the overall picture, not just a 1 for 1 deal. A person might assume that having his former teammate Weber on the Habs may have been the clincher in signing Radulov, along with having the extra cap space. Who would we have signed if not Radulov? I seen a Lucic interview after he signed with the Oilers and he was talking about the choices he had. He mentioned Montreal and the first thing he said was about the trade, and getting to play with a guy like Weber. Perhaps we might see some more high profile talent signing or accepting trades here in the future.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

You're right. Saying that "if we win the Cup it will be despite Bergevin" is too strong. The appropriate observation is that Bergevin will have inherited most of the core that won him the Cup; his major 'adds' would have been Galchenyuk, a no brainer pick of the Oilers variety, and Gallagher, a brilliant pick for which he deserves credit. Shaw and Radulov could be useful pieces - I think Shaw will be for sure. In terms of core pieces, though, he was handed three spectacular pieces - Price, Subban, and Patches - and managed to f**k one of them up. He will not deserve credit for "building a winner." He will deserve credit for adding some useful elements, but not for managing to watch the remaining bits overcome the goggling stupidity of the Subban deal.

[Scott462]

You're right. Saying that "if we win the Cup it will be despite Bergevin" is too strong. The appropriate observation is that Bergevin will have inherited most of the core that won him the Cup; his major 'adds' would have been Galchenyuk, a no brainer pick of the Oilers variety, and Gallagher, a brilliant pick for which he deserves credit. Shaw and Radulov could be useful pieces - I think Shaw will be for sure. In terms of core pieces, though, he was handed three spectacular pieces - Price, Subban, and Patches - and managed to f**k one of them up. He will not deserve credit for "building a winner." He will deserve credit for adding some useful elements, but not for managing to watch the remaining bits overcome the goggling stupidity of the Subban deal.

That isn't fair at all man.

We get it you don't like the subban trade but c'mon

[hab29RETIRED]

I'm pretty sure he inherited Gallagher. He came into t league during MB's first year, but he was already drafted.

You're right. Saying that "if we win the Cup it will be despite Bergevin" is too strong. The appropriate observation is that Bergevin will have inherited most of the core that won him the Cup; his major 'adds' would have been Galchenyuk, a no brainer pick of the Oilers variety, and Gallagher, a brilliant pick for which he deserves credit. Shaw and Radulov could be useful pieces - I think Shaw will be for sure. In terms of core pieces, though, he was handed three spectacular pieces - Price, Subban, and Patches - and managed to f**k one of them up. He will not deserve credit for "building a winner." He will deserve credit for adding some useful elements, but not for managing to watch the remaining bits overcome the goggling stupidity of the Subban deal.

[Commandant]

You're right. Saying that "if we win the Cup it will be despite Bergevin" is too strong. The appropriate observation is that Bergevin will have inherited most of the core that won him the Cup; his major 'adds' would have been Galchenyuk, a no brainer pick of the Oilers variety, and Gallagher, a brilliant pick for which he deserves credit. Shaw and Radulov could be useful pieces - I think Shaw will be for sure. In terms of core pieces, though, he was handed three spectacular pieces - Price, Subban, and Patches - and managed to f**k one of them up. He will not deserve credit for "building a winner." He will deserve credit for adding some useful elements, but not for managing to watch the remaining bits overcome the goggling stupidity of the Subban deal.

Gallagher was a 2010 pick, pre-Bergevin.

Its also a pick where i give more credit to Timmins than either Gauthier or Bergevin. Lets face it, no GM has the time to GM at the NHL levle and watch 5th round picks....

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Brian Burke still deserves credit for making major moves with an already near complete Anaheim Ducks roster and getting them to the Stanley Cup.

But Brian Burke and Randy Carlyle's entire team strategy wasn't that Giguere will stop the puck. The back-up, Ilya Bryzgalov, was a young goalie about to become a starter. He played five games in that playoff. They were prepared throughout their roster. And when they weren't, they made moves. Burke was constantly tooling the roster all season long, and made several trades when the team went 2-8 before the all-star break.

Marc Bergevin has for years now:

- Given Carey Price inferior backup goalies

- Constantly dealt with a hole in the top six RW filled with rentals and reclamation projects

- Held his finger on the trigger and didn't make obvious moves to help the club out

- Allowed the centre position and bottom six to be a complete pile-up

So yes, if the Habs win the Cup, Bergevin deserves credit. But what has he done to make the Canadiens look or feel like Stanley Cup contenders?

[BCHabnut]

He filled the gaping hole at #3 defense which has been there for 20 years. When he took the team over, half of the team was playing out of their natural position. The team is more balanced now with most of the players in their natural position. Dealing Eller and adding Shaw improved that balance more. There are some weaknesses in top 6 depth for sure and I'm not saying he has been a great GM. Mediocre at best, especially with the horrific Subban trade, but I think what he should get credit for is balancing the roster. He has also shown a willingness to reward performance financially and an equal ruthlessness to remove the same guy if does not perform.

[Scott462]

I have been thinking of how it must feel to be Shea right now.

He just got traded from a team he has played with his whole NHL career, a team now openly saying they traded for a better player in PK subban. He was with them during the bad times and now they are on the cusp of becoming a solid contending team he gets traded.

Then to hear all the talk about how Shea has fallen off and is an "average" and even was never any good and got carried by his partners, that would leave a bad taste in my mouth. Now I know Weber is a professional and is probably not paying too much attention but I bet in the back of his mind he's like " this shit I am about to prove everyone wrong".

It will be interesting seeing how he will respond to all the people throwing him under the bus and blaming him for the game 7 against SJ. I can see him coming out and giving his absolute best.

[Commandant]

I'm sure Shea Weber is on habsworld forum every day reading what we are saying about him.

[Scott462]

I'm sure Shea Weber is on habsworld forum every day reading what we are saying about him.

That would be pretty funny but no

I am talking about all the things the media has been saying, like during his interview after the trade happened and the analytics guy that said he was "average"

Like I said he probably couldn't give a shit but I think he will be aiming to prove a lot of people wrong just like PK will be doing

[Meller93]

That would be pretty funny but no

I am talking about all the things the media has been saying, like during his interview after the trade happened and the analytics guy that said he was "average"

Like I said he probably couldn't give a shit but I think he will be aiming to prove a lot of people wrong just like PK will be doing

No doubt he has heard the rhetoric, and no doubt he is professional enough that it will do nothing but inspire him to do better!

[Scott462]

I can tell you one thing, our oppositions forwards are not going to enjoy going into the corners with Weber.

Especially with a fire under his ass

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I don't recall any of us arguing that Weber sucks. Just that he's not as good as Subban, overall.

[hab29RETIRED]

I don't recall any of us arguing that Weber sucks. Just that he's not as good as Subban, overall.

Exactly. We aren't getting 2009 Shea Weber. He isn't as good as he used to be and the game has changed as well. Weber is not as good as a defenceman as subban is today and he isn't the type of dman that most competent management teams would value over Subban - including his old team.

A Darien hatcher type of dman was considered a great dman in 1997. Not so much after the 2005 lockout. The game has evolved again and will continue to do so.

[DON]

I don't recall any of us arguing that Weber sucks. Just that he's not as good as Subban, overall.

Based on?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Based on?

Pretty much everything except his shot and his crease clearing.

[nihilz]

Pretty much everything except his shot and his crease clearing.

Penalties taken(PPGs against) Turnovers & PP percentage. As much as I love PK, I feel like those differences are going to keep them in more games.

Frankly, I think more heat and pressure are on Beaulieu's shoulders replacing PK as 1st unit puck mover. Weber is going to solidify that stalwart role that Markov is relinquishing.

All in all. After all has been said and done. I wish Bergevin had traded PK to Columbus for Ryan Johansen.

[DON]

Pretty much everything except his shot and his crease clearing.

Hmmm, u sure bout that?

[Meller93]

I'm not going to quote anyone in the few comments above cause I just want to make a broad statement.

I feel as though It's been hashed rehashed and beaten to death with empirical irrefutable evidence what makes PK a better player than Weber at LEAST on paper. I won't argue that there may be some intangibles than make Weber a better fit for the team, but it's actually difficult to argue that Weber is the better hockey player at this point in his career.

The evidence just very very strongly points in favour of Subban. I know I didn't reference anything in this post but this thread is absolutely littered with information that shows this point. If you simply like Weber better for personal preference, fine. But it's getting kinda long in the tooth with the whole "based on what evidence" type of response. It's eeeeevvvvverywhere.

I'm not trying to dissuade good discussion, I'm just trying to say if you want to argue you also need to have supporting information regarding Weber.

I'm a habs fan. I WISH that the information supported Weber, but I'm also realistic and it does not. I'm looking forward to seeing what Weber offers, but I just can't believe what we gave up for him.

[Commandant]

Penalties taken(PPGs against) Turnovers & PP percentage. As much as I love PK, I feel like those differences are going to keep them in more games.

Frankly, I think more heat and pressure are on Beaulieu's shoulders replacing PK as 1st unit puck mover. Weber is going to solidify that stalwart role that Markov is relinquishing.

All in all. After all has been said and done. I wish Bergevin had traded PK to Columbus for Ryan Johansen.

Re Turnovers...

PK touched the puck over 600 more times than Weber (and that is playing 14 less games, imagine if he played those games); ... on a turnover/touch basis, they are near identical. The fact that Subban has so many more turnovers but gives up less shots and less scoring chances should tell you something. That is that Subban actually is better defensively due to the fact that he gets the puck out of the zone and up the ice more often (by getting too and clearing more loose pucks). Do we care if Weber doesn't turn over the puck as often, but the reason is because he doesn't have the puck as often, leading to more possession for the opponent? I don't. Its substance over style, and I'll take the substance (actually getting the puck out of the zone) over the style (being less risky, but not having the puck to be risky with).

Re PP Percentage

PK scored less goals, but more powerplay points.

He was also part of an incredibly efficient powerplay when Gerard Gallant coached it.

I don't think PK's talent or game is the reason the PP couldn't score; I think an uncreative and inefficient coach for the PP was the reason. Luckily this was rectified by bringing in Kirk Muller. Why we wouldn't see if the PP could be better with Subban on it and Muller coaching, I don't know.

[Meller93]

The above evidence is exactly the type of thing I was reffering to in my broad statement, thank you sir.

[Robert Ethan]

Whoever said that "empirical evidence" favors Subban in this deal isn't aware of the meaning of the term, which is something along the lines of "knowledge gathered by the senses through observation over time". The guys who choose the Canadian national team rosters and coach them have probably a few hundred years worth of cumulative knowledge gathered by observing players at every level of competition and in every possible situation. They CHOSE Weber, year after year over Subban. The one year they did pick Subban under outside pressure, THEY DIDN'T LET HIM ON THE ICE except in garbage time situations.

There is your "empirical evidence".

[Commandant]

The guys who have acquired Rod Langway, Scott Stevens, Kevin Hatcher, Sergei Gonchar, Weber, Ryan Suter, Seth Jones, Mattias Ekholm, Roman Josi and have hundreds of years of experience in the game decided that Subban was the better player... there is your emprical evidence.

But we've already made this point, as well as the one that hockey canada is not an infallible organization. They also the ones who picked Kris Draper and Todd Bertuzzi over Sidney Crosby in 2006, Chris Kunitz over Claude Giroux and Martin St. Louis in 2014, left Stamkos off the 2010 team, took Rob Zamuner over Ron Francis in 98, etc... etc...

But now we are just talking in circles cause even when your point about Team Canada management is shown to be faulty, you keep repeating it.

You do remember this conversation... we had it once, and you came up with the fantastic point about the Langway-Brisebois pairing.

[nihilz]

Re Turnovers...

PK touched the puck 600 more times than Subban; ... on a turnover/touch basis, they are near identical. The fact that Subban has so many more turnovers but gives up less shots and less scoring chances should tell you something. That is that Subban actually is better defensively due to the fact that he gets the puck out of the zone and up the ice more often (by getting too and clearing more loose pucks). Do we care if Weber doesn't turn over the puck as often, but the reason is because he doesn't have the puck as often, leading to more possession for the opponent? I don't. Its substance over style, and I'll take the substance (actually getting the puck out of the zone) over the style (being less risky, but not having the puck to be risky with).

Re PP Percentage

PK scored less goals, but more powerplay points.

He was also part of an incredibly efficient powerplay when Gerard Gallant coached it.

I don't think PK's talent or game is the reason the PP couldn't score; I think an uncreative and inefficient coach for the PP was the reason. Luckily this was rectified by bringing in Kirk Muller. Why we wouldn't see if the PP could be better with Subban on it and Muller coaching, I don't know.

Im just really trying to be optimistic. Essentially all I have is to hope that Weber is that rotor in the machine that makes the engine run more efficiently. That. Shaw>Eller + Radulov = Subban's skill. Might just be better to have your risk taking offensive enigma as a forward.

Ultimately Im not overly confident this team makes it out of the first round. I pray MB has something up his sleeve. If you're trading Subban and the time is apparently now. Go all in. Hopefully I'll feel more at ease come training camp.

[Robert Ethan]

Yeah, David Poile is such a genius he's never won a Stanley Cup in 45 years in the league. After getting hired because of family influence to begin with.