Trade Subban traded to Nashville

[xXx..CK..xXx]

I agree. It's one thing to debate the trade itself through analytics, word of mouth and the eye test but it's a completely different argument to state what the team will be in the future as a result of the trade.

Regardless of what happens, stating that the team will be better or worse next season with player X vs player Y is nothing more than opinion. I agree when you trade Carey Price for Jonas Gustavsson, you can safely assume the team will not be as good but this trade is definitely not as black and white. People are mixing up speed and puck handling skills with effectiveness all the while dismissing other intangibles that another elite defenseman will bring to the team.

You can argue all you want that we lost the trade if there were an "I" in team. I wouldn't have made the trade myself in the first place.

What I cannot agree with is that we would automatically have been better with Subban next season. That's where the argument becomes false.

[DON]

The team won't suck. Price will be back. And also Radulov will probably help, Galy will probably hit full stride, and Shaw is an improvement. We'll probably be top-10.

But that way of framing the debate slants the discussion in favour of The Trade. It won't change the fact that the trade sucks and that the team would have been better in keeping Subban. We did great, even won the Cup, after trading Chelios, but that doesn't mean that that was a good trade either. We went to the semi-finals with Gomez, but that doesn't justify the McDonagh trade. The key question is: who is a better hockey player, today? Who will be a better hockey player in 3-4 years? Who will be a better hockey player in 6-7 years? Barring some unforeseeable circumstance (e.g., massive injury) the answer to all these questions is PK Subban.

I don't believe that a team with a management group stupid enough to make this trade will ever win a Cup. We are the Toronto Maple Leafs, or the post-Cup Bruins. But if by the grace of Carey Price we do win, which given Weber's likely deterioration will have to be within the next 2-3 years, then Bergevin will win the argument. Other than that, all the actual information we have (except vague innuendo) suggests this is a dumb trade, period.

You seemed to be on the verge but slid back to "Oh Gomez. Mcdonagh Chelios" Even Sam Pollack made trades that looked like they went south on paper statistically, but he kept winning cups with ex Leaf Frank Mohavalich.

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2009/3/3/778743/frank-mahovlich-the-canadi

[hab29RETIRED]

Trading chelios had nothing to do with winning the 93 cup. That is just a dumb argument. Savard was not a key contributor to that run and was scratched some games. Did you even watch that series? The chelios deal was a dumb deal hen it was made. The only ones who didn't think it was dumb were the French media. At the end of savard's first year it was clear to everyone Montreal got fleeced.

Edmonton won the cup after trading Gretzky, I guess that was a great trade as well. They would never have won another cup if Gretzky was still there right? They didn't need Gretzky as long as they had messier right?

Saying the trade sucks is just an opinion. There are plenty of opinions that suggest it is a great trade for Montreal. It's likely a debate that will last forever like the Chelios trade you mentioned. They won a cup after that trade. Do you mean to tell me you wouldn't trade a Cup for Subban? I know I would trade for it even if it meant being a basement team for years after. If Shea Weber lifts a Cup for the Habs, Habs win the trade IMO

[DON]

Trading chelios had nothing to do with winning the 93 cup. That is just a dumb argument. Savard was not a key contributor to that run and was scratched some games. Did you even watch that series? The chelios deal was a dumb deal hen it was made. The only ones who didn't think it was dumb were the French media. At the end of savard's first year it was clear to everyone Montreal got fleeced.

Edmonton won the cup after trading Gretzky, I guess that was a great trade as well. They would never have won another cup if Gretzky was still there right? They didn't need Gretzky as long as they had messier right?

But Messier was still an Oiler and of course did not have offense of a Gretzky but like Weber had that leadership thing going for him as well as being a solid team player. And I think Weber just won the "Messier" leadership award didn't he and the award winners seem to be a pretty nice group of players?

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=62987

[illWill]

What I cannot agree with is that we would automatically have been better with Subban next season. That's where the argument becomes false.

That is exactly my point of view on this whole thing. I wouldn't have made the trade either, but that doesn't mean the team will or won't be better for doing so.

Trading chelios had nothing to do with winning the 93 cup. That is just a dumb argument. Savard was not a key contributor to that run and was scratched some games. Did you even watch that series? The chelios deal was a dumb deal hen it was made. The only ones who didn't think it was dumb were the French media. At the end of savard's first year it was clear to everyone Montreal got fleeced.

Edmonton won the cup after trading Gretzky, I guess that was a great trade as well. They would never have won another cup if Gretzky was still there right? They didn't need Gretzky as long as they had messier right?

I was 10 years old during that series. I didn't care who was or wasn't scratched, all I cared about was that they won. Every single person on that team contributed to achieving the ultimate goal of every hockey player. Would they have won if they didn't make the trade? We will never know. What we do know is that they did win. Denis Savard has his name etched on the Cup in 93 and Chelios doesn't. I could give a crap whether he was their leading scorer or if he filled up the water bottles, he was a champion. The Gretzky example is the same; we will never know what would have happened if that trade didn't happen. Maybe the Oilers wouldn't have won ever again, maybe they would have been the most dominant team ever. But they won a Cup without Gretzky. I deal with reality and facts, not some imaginary reality I think would have happened.

[Commandant]

Saying the trade sucks is just an opinion. There are plenty of opinions that suggest it is a great trade for Montreal. It's likely a debate that will last forever like the Chelios trade you mentioned. They won a cup after that trade. Do you mean to tell me you wouldn't trade a Cup for Subban? I know I would trade for it even if it meant being a basement team for years after. If Shea Weber lifts a Cup for the Habs, Habs win the trade IMO

The cup they won with Denis Savard not even playing a single game in the finals? That cup.

Chelios was still a shitty trade. The fact that they won a cup afterwards is irrelevant. Savard contributed very little to that cup, and they likely win one (and maybe even more than that) if they keep chelios.

winning the cup as the justification for a trade doesn't make sense to me... not when the key component acquired did very little to help win that cup.

[illWill]

The cup they won with Denis Savard not even playing a single game in the finals? That cup.

Chelios was still a shitty trade. The fact that they won a cup afterwards is irrelevant. Savard contributed very little to that cup, and they likely win one (and maybe even more than that) if they keep chelios.

winning the cup as the justification for a trade doesn't make sense to me... not when the key component acquired did very little to help win that cup.

I'll try to explain my thoughts without getting too deep. Every trade, goal, assist, save, injury, opportunity, decision, etc, leads to winning a Stanley Cup. You can't do better than winning a Cup. That's the ultimate goal of every one of the professionals that are involved with the game. Everything has to go right in order to win it all. The fact that they won a Cup is actually relevant. Maybe Savard was a better mentor than a player. Maybe when the guys were down he cheered them up and they played better. Maybe his replacement in the lineup played the best hockey of his life and wouldn't have had the opportunity otherwise. Maybe Chelios was immature at the time and they needed more leadership. The most tangible data we have is that the Habs won in 93 after the trade. There are infinity amounts of variables to speculate on a hypothetical situation, like if the trade never happened.

And comparing it to the Subban trade, I am holding my breath until I see the results. What makes the trade good for the Habs? Weber wins a Norris? Habs make the playoffs ten years in a row but get eliminated? Or do you hope that they put it all together in one year and win it all? Because I don't understand how an individual's analytics and perception equate to team success. You can have a team full of all stars and it doesn't mean they are the best team. I used to have full confidence in the management group but it has since wavered. However I do still believe they have the team's best interest at heart and want to win just as much as we want them to. Looking forward to seeing the actual games being played to get a better understanding of the trade.

[hab29RETIRED]

Yeah the chelios trade was the reason the won the cup - it couldn't have to do with trading for Muller, Damphouse and Bellows could it - who were all key cogs in the win, along with the emergence of a a power forward in leclair (who was a blunder give away just like subban will turn out to be).

Give me a friggin break. Chelios was a huge loss and savard contributed nothing in his entire time as a Hab - let alone contribute in any way in the cup run. We one in spite of a horrible trade, not because of it.

In the 70's one of the few glaring mistakes Sam pollack made was passing over Mike bossy, in favour of mark mapier in the draft (bossy was hoping and pressing to be drafted by the Habs, just as Denis savard would a few years later). I suppose by your logic that was the right decision, because we wouldn't have won this last few cups in the 70's had we drafted bossy instead of Napier. By your logic the drafting of bossy wouldn't have given us an opportunity to extend the dynasty.

I'll try to explain my thoughts without getting too deep. Every trade, goal, assist, save, injury, opportunity, decision, etc, leads to winning a Stanley Cup. You can't do better than winning a Cup. That's the ultimate goal of every one of the professionals that are involved with the game. Everything has to go right in order to win it all. The fact that they won a Cup is actually relevant. Maybe Savard was a better mentor than a player. Maybe when the guys were down he cheered them up and they played better. Maybe his replacement in the lineup played the best hockey of his life and wouldn't have had the opportunity otherwise. Maybe Chelios was immature at the time and they needed more leadership. The most tangible data we have is that the Habs won in 93 after the trade. There are infinity amounts of variables to speculate on a hypothetical situation, like if the trade never happened.

And comparing it to the Subban trade, I am holding my breath until I see the results. What makes the trade good for the Habs? Weber wins a Norris? Habs make the playoffs ten years in a row but get eliminated? Or do you hope that they put it all together in one year and win it all? Because I don't understand how an individual's analytics and perception equate to team success. You can have a team full of all stars and it doesn't mean they are the best team. I used to have full confidence in the management group but it has since wavered. However I do still believe they have the team's best interest at heart and want to win just as much as we want them to. Looking forward to seeing the actual games being played to get a better understanding of the trade.

[Meller93]

To be honest these arguments can't really go anywhere about the what ifs; there's only one reality and not some other dimension where we see what would have happened if Chelios was traded, or what would have happened if we kept Subban. All we can do is make a case for right now, the facts, and the fact support in nearly every on ice category that Subban is a better hockey player these days than Weber. You have to think Nashville realized this to trade their All-star Captain for him. We can make inferences based on next years performances, but even then there are so many variables that go into a Stanley cup win.

Looking at this from Nashville's perspective, I imagine to trade Weber it would have had to be a "Blow me away" offer, and Subban was that. It would be almost like the sharks trading Pavelski for Stamkos. A situation where the GM says "Well I don't want to trade my awesome captain but damn.. if you're gonna do that I guess I have to make the trade." You don't trade a great captain unless it's pretty damn clear you won the trade.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Montreal had built the best young defence in the league through drafting. Trading Chelios away didn't change the fact they still had Schneider and Desjardins on the upswing of their development. Keeping guys like Chelios and Desjardins would have meant they could have been an NHL powerhouse with a healthy Roy. Also, had they still had Chelios on defence, the Recchi trade wouldn't have stung so hard since they still had a top defenceman. There would have been no relying on Brisebois and Malakhov to develop.

People need to get this stupid idea out of their heads that winning a Stanley Cup means you're perfect. You can still make mistakes on the way to the Cup, and you can certainly still make mistakes post-winning the Cup. Winning the Cup means you beat out 29 other teams, not that you assembled the perfect NHL club.

[Meller93]

Montreal had built the best young defence in the league through drafting. Trading Chelios away didn't change the fact they still had Schneider and Desjardins on the upswing of their development. Keeping guys like Chelios and Desjardins would have meant they could have been an NHL powerhouse with a healthy Roy. Also, had they still had Chelios on defence, the Recchi trade wouldn't have stung so hard since they still had a top defenceman. There would have been no relying on Brisebois and Malakhov to develop.

People need to get this stupid idea out of their heads that winning a Stanley Cup means you're perfect. You can still make mistakes on the way to the Cup, and you can certainly still make mistakes post-winning the Cup. Winning the Cup means you beat out 29 other teams, not that you assembled the perfect NHL club.

What's the biggest mistake you can think of and the team winning despite it? Say for example a fairly small one is the Blackhawks signing Bickell to that 4 mill contract. They still won the cup but the contract was terrible.

[illWill]

People need to get this stupid idea out of their heads that winning a Stanley Cup means you're perfect. You can still make mistakes on the way to the Cup, and you can certainly still make mistakes post-winning the Cup. Winning the Cup means you beat out 29 other teams, not that you assembled the perfect NHL club.

Nobody here said anything about a Cup winning team being perfect. People need to understand that better individual players don't automatically equate to a better team. We can't assume things would have happened a certain way in the past just like we can't in the future. I think Subban is a better all around player than Weber. That doesn't mean that Montreal would do better with him. If they win a Cup with Weber, that is the benchmark of a successful trade. There is no other way to measure it. I believe that Subban should have played in Sochi, but they won the gold with him on the bench, so I can't argue the decision management made because they couldn't have done better than winning it all.

[Meller93]

Nobody here said anything about building a perfect team. People need to understand that better individual players don't automatically equate to a better team. We can't assume things would have happened a certain way in the past just like we can't in the future. I think Subban is a better all around player than Weber. That doesn't mean that Montreal would do better with him. If they win a Cup with Weber, that is the benchmark of a successful trade. There is no other way to measure it.

I couldn't agree more about the better player not necessarily meaning a better team part. However I disagree with the cup being the benchmark for a successful trade.

A hyperbolic example, Galchenyuk for Ryan white, and we win the cup. Still didn't win the trade. It goes back to your statement "We can't assume things would have happened a certain way in the past just like we can't in the future." The trade might not even have influenced the cup win positively.

But this is all getting too hypothetical for me. It's kind of hard to argue for or against hypotheticals.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

What's the biggest mistake you can think of and the team winning despite it? Say for example a fairly small one is the Blackhawks signing Bickell to that 4 mill contract. They still won the cup but the contract was terrible.

Edmonton trading Gretzky is probably tops. They also didn't have Coffey in 1990. He won a Cup with Pittsburgh in 91. Edmonton was such a powehouse then they could win without both. It helped that the Penguins powerhouse wasn't ready yet. After the 90 Cup everyone left.

Habs won in 86 only two years after Rod Langway won his second straight Norris trophy.

The Kings signed Dustin Brown to a really dumb contract after their first Cup. It didn't hinder them on the second Cup.

It comes down to the "a millionaire who should be a billionaire" if you have a team that could be dominant for years and you tear them apart so they only win once, should you still be above criticism?

[Scott462]

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/digging-into-shea-webers-poor-relative-corsi/

I thought this article was pretty interesting regarding Webers corsi stats

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

To be honest these arguments can't really go anywhere about the what ifs; there's only one reality and not some other dimension where we see what would have happened if Chelios was traded, or what would have happened if we kept Subban. All we can do is make a case for right now, the facts, and the fact support in nearly every on ice category that Subban is a better hockey player these days than Weber. You have to think Nashville realized this to trade their All-star Captain for him. We can make inferences based on next years performances, but even then there are so many variables that go into a Stanley cup win.

Looking at this from Nashville's perspective, I imagine to trade Weber it would have had to be a "Blow me away" offer, and Subban was that. It would be almost like the sharks trading Pavelski for Stamkos. A situation where the GM says "Well I don't want to trade my awesome captain but damn.. if you're gonna do that I guess I have to make the trade." You don't trade a great captain unless it's pretty damn clear you won the trade.

Indeed.

And yes, Habs29 is completely correct: teams can win the Cup despite glaring mistakes, such as this trade. illWill's argument seems like mysticism to me. If the Habs win the Cup, I as a fan will forgive Bergevin (and Therrien) all their sins. But it won't make this a good trade.

The trade's defenders keep coming back to 'intangibles.' PK is bad in the locker room, Weber is a leader. The classic argument of people defending an inferior player over a superior one (and please, by calling Weber 'inferior,' I mean inferior to PK, not to deny that he is a major NHL defenceman). Two thoughts on this locker room thing. One is what I keep saying: the team supposedly had a great locker room for most of PK's tenure with us, EXCEPT the one year when Price was hurt and we lost a million games. The variable was NOT Subban; it was losing Price and therefore losing hockey games. The smartest thing to do would, therefore, have been to wait for Price to return, which would have meant winning, and thus probably restoring the locker room dynamics. All Bergevin had to do to 'fix' the supposed problem was let the team's natural dynamics re-assert themselves.

My other thought is this. Bergevin mentioned the loss of Gionta in discussing the supposed leadership vacuum. Well - IF leadership was an issue, rather than just Price's injury, WHO was it who declared that he was going to trust the 'young core' to bring leadership? Marc Bergevin. In other words, he made a mistake in allowing the C to walk without adding other sources of veteran leadership to the young core. Indeed, by importing Kassian and Semin he went in exactly the opposite direction (a point I made at the time). Now, a normal human being, looking at a team with a new captain and a supposed leadership 'problem,' would think about whether the CAPTAIN - whose frigging JOB is 'leadership' - bears any responsibility. But anyhow, let that pass.

The point here is that MB created the supposed problem (whose actual existence I'm skeptical about) and did nothing to fix it for two years. Then his response is to trade the team's best player at a discount. The point should have been to add veteran leadership TO the 'young' core; not to SUBTRACT from the core in order to add veteran leadership. I guess that was too complex a chain of reasoning for this buffoon.

Remember Hal Gill? 'Don't fix PK Subban.' Those were the wisest things ever said about this stud of a hockey player. Too bad no one in the organization was listening.

[Commandant]

Nobody here said anything about a Cup winning team being perfect. People need to understand that better individual players don't automatically equate to a better team. We can't assume things would have happened a certain way in the past just like we can't in the future. I think Subban is a better all around player than Weber. That doesn't mean that Montreal would do better with him. If they win a Cup with Weber, that is the benchmark of a successful trade. There is no other way to measure it. I believe that Subban should have played in Sochi, but they won the gold with him on the bench, so I can't argue the decision management made because they couldn't have done better than winning it all.

Sochi is one tournament.

The post chelios era was twenty years long. During which time the Habs won a single cup. They may have won multiple cups if they kept the norris caliber defenceman. So you can't point to one win as the be all and end all of a decision.

Better is better. And the habs would have been a better team for a longer time with chelios instead of savard.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

94 and 95 had New York and New Jersey win the Cup. Chelios was just coming off a Norris on those years and won another in 96. Add that to the Habs in those years. There's no need to make the Recchi deal. We might still make the Turgeon deal but now Malakhov doesn't have the weight of the whole D corps on his back. Likely don't miss the playoffs in 95 and there will be money to keep Corey from dismantling the club. Even if we still move Chelios down the road it'll be a better return. We almost convinced Detroit on 95 to move Yzerman for Schneider and picks. If we got Chelli? Now we got a fair deal for him.

[Commandant]

I also think that the media narrative on team chemistry is all wrong.

The idea is that chemistry leads to wins.

I say it's the exact opposite. Wins lead to chemistry.

Wins bring a feeling of accomplishment, happiness. Wins make players feel good about the team. Wins make players acknowledge teammates and accomplishments. The great goal he scored, the great pass, he covered up my defensive miscue, etc... a feeling of we are all in this together. It creates good vibes and thus friendships and good memories.

Losses do the opposite. Instead of credit, its finger pointing. Instead of bringing players together it drives them apart.

No more is this evident than the habs. The 2015 team was great in the room, the 2016 team with essentially the same cast... horrible. Same when comparing 07, 08, and 09. Horrible, great, horrible.

[DON]

Sochi is one tournament.

The post chelios era was twenty years long. During which time the Habs won a single cup. They may have won multiple cups if they kept the norris caliber defenceman. So you can't point to one win as the be all and end all of a decision.

Better is better. And the habs would have been a better team for a longer time with chelios instead of savard.

But Chelios supposedly wasn't a happy camper, so it not as easy as saying if didn't trade him, he would of been a Hab for another decade. What ifs', hind sight...

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I say it's the exact opposite. Wins lead to chemistry.

This 100%. The Habs team going into 15-16 was said to be the closest Habs locker in a long time. Why? They just got off a 50 win season. Look at how San Jose went from the club with top leaders to a fractured locker back to great chemistry and the biggest change was not captaincy change but wins and a new coach.

[hab29RETIRED]

This 100%. The Habs team going into 15-16 was said to be the closest Habs locker in a long time. Why? They just got off a 50 win season. Look at how San Jose went from the club with top leaders to a fractured locker back to great chemistry and the biggest change was not captaincy change but wins and a new coach.

Yep - agree 100%. Same goes with what fix the habs needed - All they needed was a new coach. But than MB couldn't get rid of his bum buddy... i mean "foxhole" buddy.

[dlbalr]

Speaking of Stanley Cups, one site/blog predicts the Habs will get one soon with Weber being an important piece: http://www.thesportster.com/hockey/projecting-the-next-5-stanley-cup-finals-and-champions/5/

(Yes, this is just straight up guessing but considering some are bringing up Cup aspirations here, why not mention it?)

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

This 100%. The Habs team going into 15-16 was said to be the closest Habs locker in a long time. Why? They just got off a 50 win season. Look at how San Jose went from the club with top leaders to a fractured locker back to great chemistry and the biggest change was not captaincy change but wins and a new coach.

Yes, this is what I've been saying whenever the 'leadership' red herring comes up. Unless Subban had a personality transplant over the summer of 2015, he cannot be the key variable that explains whatever supposed 'bad chemistry' afflicts the team. Losing Price and therefore losing games was vastly more important, and would have been fixed simply by leaving things alone. Sadly, the geniuses running the club never liked Subban and took the first opportunity to unload him, even if it was at a discount, because their egos are more important than winning.

[dlbalr]

Yes, this is what I've been saying whenever the 'leadership' red herring comes up. Unless Subban had a personality transplant over the summer of 2015, he cannot be the key variable that explains whatever supposed 'bad chemistry' afflicts the team. Losing Price and therefore losing games was vastly more important, and would have been fixed simply by leaving things alone. Sadly, the geniuses running the club never liked Subban and took the first opportunity to unload him, even if it was at a discount, because their egos are more important than winning.

Just speaking hypothetically here, could a lot of players have had a hard time with Subban prior to last season but they lived with it because they were winning? In a year where nothing went well and the team bottomed out, tolerating a highly talented nuisance/annoyance (again, hypothetical here) would have become a much greater challenge. So while Subban could have changed nothing personality wise from one summer to the next, in this scenario he could have been a big difference in the chemistry from one year to the next. As Commandant noted, wins can build chemistry and when you're not winning, you learn more about your players and the conflicts that stay below the surface tend to bubble over. Had Price stayed healthy and the team won, it wouldn't have arisen but now that it has, it can't really be ignored either. If this scenario actually resembled what happened, Bergevin addressed it, just not the way that many would have wanted.