Trade Subban traded to Nashville

[DON]

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.

An ego was the issue, but wasn't behind the bench.

[Dalhabs]

Well I am going to look forward to next season. I also think this trade is a bad trade but not as apocalyptic as some fans thinks here.

As it is now I wouldve wanted at least a 2nd rounder includes or maybe for nashville to take DD from us to save us some more cap.

But if Webers leadership maybe can speed up prospects development and other things I can live with the trade.

Go habs go! I hope for success for the habs even if I dont like MT and I still dont hold last season against MB. Panic trades to save last season could have been alot more catastrophic than the PK trade and I am ok with him staying pat with the team not making big changes. No Price = No cup. Trading the future for a mediocre first goalie wouldnt have changed that.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

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.

The problem with this argument while well stated is that you clearly already have your mind made up in the example. Looking at it from Montreal's perspective, trading Subban would clearly have to be a blow me away offer as well. Also, I think Pavelski is an awesome playoff performer and there are very few players I'd rather have. But that's for another day.

Bergevin stated that he found a diamond in the rough. People laughed at the comment when he was literally stating a fact. I went over the top 15 defensemen in scoring last season and not a single one of the other defenseman fit Weber's mould. There are more Subbans in the league. If you (not you you) think that the Letangs, Karlssons, Doughtys, Ekman Larssons and even Klingbergs of the league are far worse than Subban, then you are quite likely biased. They all have off years from time to time and Subban's was last year, but Subban is in no way far superior to any of those players. There is not a single other defensemen like Weber near the top.

The reason those on one side of the trade keep returning to intangibles and leadership is because the vast majority of the opponents to the trade have made up their mind about how far superior Subban is to Weber already. Saying anything to the contrary is a dead argument that would get overlooked and discarded.

Despite what I said, Subban is also a fairly unique player and the analytics that people use tend to favor those who have speed. Speedy players can carry the puck and therefore maintain possession for their team. A team doesn't have to play much defense in that situation because they have the puck.... Or in this case, the rest of the team doesn't have to play at all because Subban will either carry the puck out of our zone and dump it in or turn it over himself and make up for the mistake himself (generalization).

I think overall, Weber and Subban are fairly even in skill. I also think Weber brings a more consistent level of play day in and day out. Sub ban brings high highs mixed in with a few low lows. Weber is more of a decently high on a consistent basis along with some high highs. Opponents of the trade constantly bring up different viewpoints to he trade that often make it look like they are reaching for reasons. Some say Weber is alright now but in the future he will decline. Some say Subban is far superior to Weber right now. I tend to say that the first one is not a fact because no one can know how quickly either player may decline in the next few years, we can just make an educated guess. The second one can be a fact because we've seen both players play last season but it really isn't a fact since they were equal in points last season. Subban may be better defensively but how many more goals will we actually let in next season as a result of this trade? It could go either way. I hate to say it folks, but if things do go bad, there will be other reasons leading to it. Not this trade. The effect is too minor since their skill level is not as far apart as people make it out to be. Analytics or not.

All this is to say that we are without a doubt arguing about a trade where we do not know all the details. Marc Bergevin touched on this. If there indeed was "more to it" then all these fancy stats and numbers don't mean as much. I guess Bergevin did the best he could knowing he had to get rid of the player.

If MB did indeed kind of make that story up in order to defend the trade, then he truly is the issue in the organization.

[illWill]

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.

They may have also won zero cups if they didn't make the trade or could have been a dynasty, impossible to know.

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.

Hypothetical overload there. My aunt would also be my uncle if she had nuts.

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.

It's both. Guys obviously get along better if they are winning and they also win more if they get along.

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.

I've played on a million sports teams. I've played on talented teams that didn't gel and sucked. I've played on less talented teams that got along and won. I've played on teams that didn't get along but won. I've played on teams that got along and sucked. But the common denominator about winning is that the team gets along on the playing field. Everyone needs to be pulling in the same direction. I'm not talking about locker room issues necessarily, I'm talking about on the ice. P.K Subban is one of the most talented players in the world. However, he beats the drum to his own beat out there. He tries too much to be the difference maker. I love that as a hockey fan, I really do. As a hockey player though, I hate it. Does anyone here play or have played hockey? The coach draws up a game plan and you are following that game plan, only to have an audible called by the defenseman. It messes everything up. Yes he can create plays from nothing and he could stick handle through everyone if he wants, but what are his teammates supposed to do in the meantime? They are breaking out of the zone waiting for a pass or dump in but it never happened. That's why so many times he is leading the rush but it doesn't result in anything effective. If this was shinny hockey he might be my first overall pick. It used to irk me that P.K would make the "safe" play when it was so obvious that he could do more. I love P.K and am sad to see him go, but the fact that this entire organization is built on a certain way to play, I am looking forward to seeing how Weber fits in.

[Meller93]

The problem with this argument while well stated is that you clearly already have your mind made up in the example. Looking at it from Montreal's perspective, trading Subban would clearly have to be a blow me away offer as well. Also, I think Pavelski is an awesome playoff performer and there are very few players I'd rather have. But that's for another day.

Bergevin stated that he found a diamond in the rough. People laughed at the comment when he was literally stating a fact. I went over the top 15 defensemen in scoring last season and not a single one of the other defenseman fit Weber's mould. There are more Subbans in the league. If you (not you you) think that the Letangs, Karlssons, Doughtys, Ekman Larssons and even Klingbergs of the league are far worse than Subban, then you are quite likely biased. They all have off years from time to time and Subban's was last year, but Subban is in no way far superior to any of those players. There is not a single other defensemen like Weber near the top.

The reason those on one side of the trade keep returning to intangibles and leadership is because the vast majority of the opponents to the trade have made up their mind about how far superior Subban is to Weber already. Saying anything to the contrary is a dead argument that would get overlooked and discarded.

Despite what I said, Subban is also a fairly unique player and the analytics that people use tend to favor those who have speed. Speedy players can carry the puck and therefore maintain possession for their team. A team doesn't have to play much defense in that situation because they have the puck.... Or in this case, the rest of the team doesn't have to play at all because Subban will either carry the puck out of our zone and dump it in or turn it over himself and make up for the mistake himself (generalization).

I think overall, Weber and Subban are fairly even in skill. I also think Weber brings a more consistent level of play day in and day out. Sub ban brings high highs mixed in with a few low lows. Weber is more of a decently high on a consistent basis along with some high highs. Opponents of the trade constantly bring up different viewpoints to he trade that often make it look like they are reaching for reasons. Some say Weber is alright now but in the future he will decline. Some say Subban is far superior to Weber right now. I tend to say that the first one is not a fact because no one can know how quickly either player may decline in the next few years, we can just make an educated guess. The second one can be a fact because we've seen both players play last season but it really isn't a fact since they were equal in points last season. Subban may be better defensively but how many more goals will we actually let in next season as a result of this trade? It could go either way. I hate to say it folks, but if things do go bad, there will be other reasons leading to it. Not this trade. The effect is too minor since their skill level is not as far apart as people make it out to be. Analytics or not.

All this is to say that we are without a doubt arguing about a trade where we do not know all the details. Marc Bergevin touched on this. If there indeed was "more to it" then all these fancy stats and numbers don't mean as much. I guess Bergevin did the best he could knowing he had to get rid of the player.

If MB did indeed kind of make that story up in order to defend the trade, then he truly is the issue in the organization.

Also very well stated, and I see your point. Yes, to trade PK Bergevin also had to get a "blow me away offer" he stated just as much. But in my (biased?) opinion, Weber alone should not have been enough to blow him away. The reason I bring Nashville's perspective up is because Weber was not the one on the trade block for weeks (or months/years). The Weber trade came out of the blue, while many expected Subban to be gone. As I stated before, you don't just trade your captain who has this impeccable reputation for a player you think is just equal. To shock the team like that you have to think the impact of the player you're getting clearly outweighs the impact of your captain. Hence, I think MTL lost out on quite a more valuable player.

I think Weber will certainly bring leadership to this team, physicality, two years of top pair playing, and 3-4 of top 4. I think he'll make a lot of people around him feel comfortable on the ice, and I think he'll bring confidence. In other words I think He'll be pretty great.

Buuuuuuuut. I think if Subban is allowed to be Subban, he will bring top 2 quality play for 7-8 more years, I think he'll bring a strong physical dimension to the game, He'll bring contagious passion, energy, and effort to the rink every single game.

Shea Weber may very well make this team marginally better in the short team, but that in no way makes this a good trade for Montreal. The impact of a trade like this extends years into the franchises future, and the prophet in me says we will regret that before much time has passed. That is when we truly see this as the bad trade it is. As Cucumber said, if the Habs win the cup with Weber I will forgive MB and MT for all their sins, but I will still maintain that this was not a good trade in itself. That isn't to say I wouldn't do the trade if I actually knew it would lead to a cup, what I mean is that we should have got a better return for Pernell Karl

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Also very well stated, and I see your point. Yes, to trade PK Bergevin also had to get a "blow me away offer" he stated just as much. But in my (biased?) opinion, Weber alone should not have been enough to blow him away. The reason I bring Nashville's perspective up is because Weber was not the one on the trade block for weeks (or months/years). The Weber trade came out of the blue, while many expected Subban to be gone. As I stated before, you don't just trade your captain who has this impeccable reputation for a player you think is just equal. To shock the team like that you have to think the impact of the player you're getting clearly outweighs the impact of your captain. Hence, I think MTL lost out on quite a more valuable player.

I think Weber will certainly bring leadership to this team, physicality, two years of top pair playing, and 3-4 of top 4. I think he'll make a lot of people around him feel comfortable on the ice, and I think he'll bring confidence. In other words I think He'll be pretty great.

Buuuuuuuut. I think if Subban is allowed to be Subban, he will bring top 2 quality play for 7-8 more years, I think he'll bring a strong physical dimension to the game, He'll bring contagious passion, energy, and effort to the rink every single game.

Shea Weber may very well make this team marginally better in the short team, but that in no way makes this a good trade for Montreal. The impact of a trade like this extends years into the franchises future, and the prophet in me says we will regret that before much time has passed. That is when we truly see this as the bad trade it is. As Cucumber said, if the Habs win the cup with Weber I will forgive MB and MT for all their sins, but I will still maintain that this was not a good trade in itself. That isn't to say I wouldn't do the trade if I actually knew it would lead to a cup, what I mean is that we should have got a better return for Pernell Karl

Yep. Even if we swallow the whole argument that Subban was some sort of 'problem' that absolutely had to be fixed (which I don't), the fact remains that we sold the best non-goalie Hab in 30 years at a discount. Bad trade, period.

[Commandant]

They may have also won zero cups if they didn't make the trade or could have been a dynasty, impossible to know.

It is impossible to know, which is why a single cup can't be justification for a bad deal.

Better is better.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Yep. Even if we swallow the whole argument that Subban was some sort of 'problem' that absolutely had to be fixed (which I don't), the fact remains that we sold the best non-goalie Hab in 30 years at a discount. Bad trade, period.

I remember as a kid being told that Roy was too big for the team, point of no return, bridge was burned, problem that must be fixed, etc. only to find out years later he went to apologize to Houle and Corey and was told he was going to be traded and there's nothing that will stop it.

This all feels pretty similar even if Subban isn't Roy in career success.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I remember as a kid being told that Roy was too big for the team, point of no return, bridge was burned, problem that must be fixed, etc. only to find out years later he went to apologize to Houle and Corey and was told he was going to be traded and there's nothing that will stop it.

This all feels pretty similar even if Subban isn't Roy in career success.

This is a terrific observation - a great reminder that Roy, too, was defined as a 'problem' that had to be fixed at all costs. Management is invariably going to cover its behind with this kind of innuendo and B.S.. On a more bathetic note, I also remember Houle defending the Turgeon trade in terms of 'leadership' and - laughably - 'syncronicity' while again claiming he 'had no choice' but to make the move. We also see the Boston Bruins following the same path with guys like Seguin and Armstrong: they're 'problems,' they absolutely have to be 'fixed' by being shipped out at a discount. These are the sorts of mistakes you make when you allow the ego of the coach and GM to drive hockey decisions.

My bottom line is much simpler. Have you got a great player? Excellent. Work with him. Get the most out of him. That's how you win.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

On a more bathetic note, I also remember Houle defending the Turgeon trade in terms of 'leadership' and - laughably - 'syncronicity' while again claiming he 'had no choice' but to make the move..

We technically won the trade. Muller and Schneider demanded to be traded from the Islanders and have been accused of playing like crap to do so. Turgeon was really good for us to the end when he was traded for not being a winger (Tremblay moved him to the wing and he played great). Malakhov was too much too soon. Sergachev almost feels like the habs second chance with Malakhov. Muller was regressing in 94. Schneider was the better D we lost which coupled with Desjardins and Chelios gone helped crush our defence depth.

[hab29RETIRED]

I'm pretty sure he was referring for the idiotic Turgeon for Corson deal.

The turgeon for muller deal was excellent - one of savard's last few good moves. The issue with turgeon was tremblay (just as it was with Roy). Tremblay was set on making Damphouse a centre and that pushed Turgeon to being a 3rd line centre and he wanted out of town. They also should never have made turgeon captain, but for publicity and optics, they wanted the good looking French player as captain. It seemed so wrong to have Turgeon taking the torch from all the past great captains at closing of the forum ceremony - mitigated in part by having Carboneau who was playing for the Stars participate.

We technically won the trade. Muller and Schneider demanded to be traded from the Islanders and have been accused of playing like crap to do so. Turgeon was really good for us to the end when he was traded for not being a winger (Tremblay moved him to the wing and he played great). Malakhov was too much too soon. Sergachev almost feels like the habs second chance with Malakhov. Muller was regressing in 94. Schneider was the better D we lost which coupled with Desjardins and Chelios gone helped crush our defence depth.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I'm pretty sure he was referring for the idiotic Turgeon for Corson deal.

The turgeon for muller deal was excellent - one of savard's last few good moves. The issue with turgeon was tremblay (just as it was with Roy). Tremblay was set on making Damphouse a centre and that pushed Turgeon to being a 3rd line centre and he wanted out of town. They also should never have made turgeon captain, but for publicity and optics, they wanted the good looking French player as captain. It seemed so wrong to have Turgeon taking the torch from all the past great captains at closing of the forum ceremony - mitigated in part by having Carboneau who was playing for the Stars participate.

That's right, I meant Turgeon for Corson. I agree that the *original* Turgeon deal was a good one, even if losing Schneider hurt. The team managed to offload a broken-down Muller and turn him into a legit #1 C. When you consider the struggles the Habs have had in finding a legit #1 C over the past 15 years, you really see how suave Savard could be: he turned a 2nd-line W (Richer) into a stud #1 C (Muller), then turned a burnt-out Muller into an elite offensive talent (Turgeon).

Anyhow. My point was just that we've heard these kinds of BS about losing trades before. And BS is BS, whether it's coming from Houle's mouth or Bergevin's, or innuendo discreetly leaked to the media by management.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Ah my mistake. Turgeon didn't like Tremblay but I don't recall him wanting out of town. He played well as a winger.

Damphousse did transition well to centre but Tremblay missed out on a fantastic top six:

Damphousse - Turgeon - Recchi

Rucinsky - Koivu - Bure

Tucker would have stuck around without Mario ruining things and he would have been annoying for everyone except us.

Hey look we're talking about the darkest era of Habs history after this trade.

[hab29RETIRED]

I agree with most of what you've said, but will add with TEN years remaining on Weber's deal makes this a horrible deal and with the extra FOUR to FIVE years of diminished Weber, we should have been able to get a lot more. I see 2-3 years of top pairing Weber, 3-4 years of second pairing Weber and than a guy who is done, or on the bottom pairing making $7.8m. Usually when you take on a bad contract like that, there is a sweetener. Mark down Mark got fleeced in the biggest deal he ever made.

I'll also add that a cup will not make it all forgiven for me. With Price, subban, galchenyuk, maxpac and Gallagher, we were pretty close. I think had we done nothing, other than get price back, adding radulov and muller, we were pretty close. I think if we had dumped MT and picked a coach with a style like laviolette (subban's new coach), we would have been a main contender.

Also very well stated, and I see your point. Yes, to trade PK Bergevin also had to get a "blow me away offer" he stated just as much. But in my (biased?) opinion, Weber alone should not have been enough to blow him away. The reason I bring Nashville's perspective up is because Weber was not the one on the trade block for weeks (or months/years). The Weber trade came out of the blue, while many expected Subban to be gone. As I stated before, you don't just trade your captain who has this impeccable reputation for a player you think is just equal. To shock the team like that you have to think the impact of the player you're getting clearly outweighs the impact of your captain. Hence, I think MTL lost out on quite a more valuable player.

I think Weber will certainly bring leadership to this team, physicality, two years of top pair playing, and 3-4 of top 4. I think he'll make a lot of people around him feel comfortable on the ice, and I think he'll bring confidence. In other words I think He'll be pretty great.

Buuuuuuuut. I think if Subban is allowed to be Subban, he will bring top 2 quality play for 7-8 more years, I think he'll bring a strong physical dimension to the game, He'll bring contagious passion, energy, and effort to the rink every single game.

Shea Weber may very well make this team marginally better in the short team, but that in no way makes this a good trade for Montreal. The impact of a trade like this extends years into the franchises future, and the prophet in me says we will regret that before much time has passed. That is when we truly see this as the bad trade it is. As Cucumber said, if the Habs win the cup with Weber I will forgive MB and MT for all their sins, but I will still maintain that this was not a good trade in itself. That isn't to say I wouldn't do the trade if I actually knew it would lead to a cup, what I mean is that we should have got a better return for Pernell Karl

[hab29RETIRED]

Tremblay was moving him from wing to 3rd line centre, with him being on the wing more on the PP. he also felt that turgeon played too soft and wanted more toughness. Kind of like all those who like the subban trade salivating about how much more toughness Weber will add and protect Price's knee.

Ah my mistake. Turgeon didn't like Tremblay but I don't recall him wanting out of town. He played well as a winger.

Damphousse did transition well to centre but Tremblay missed out on a fantastic top six:

Damphousse - Turgeon - Recchi

Rucinsky - Koivu - Bure

Tucker would have stuck around without Mario ruining things and he would have been annoying for everyone except us.

Hey look we're talking about the darkest era of Habs history after this trade.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Ah my mistake. Turgeon didn't like Tremblay but I don't recall him wanting out of town. He played well as a winger.

Damphousse did transition well to centre but Tremblay missed out on a fantastic top six:

Damphousse - Turgeon - Recchi

Rucinsky - Koivu - Bure

Tucker would have stuck around without Mario ruining things and he would have been annoying for everyone except us.

Hey look we're talking about the darkest era of Habs history after this trade.

The Turgeon-for-Corson trade was ridiculous because it was so unnecessary. Turgeon wanted to be a top-6 C, which he was. But Blueberry, that f***ing idiot, had moved Damphousse off his natural position at W and was so pleased with his 'genius' coaching move that he could not even consider moving Vinny back to his natural position. This then created the 'problem' of Turgeon being stuck on the third line. A 'problem' that 'had' to 'fixed' by dealing him away for a glorified plumber (not that I have anything against Corson, who was a blood and guts guy for us). All we had to do was put Damphousse back on the wing, and presto. Problem solved.

That's what happens when petty ego drives decision-making. Like it did with the Subban deal, IMHO.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The trade ended up breaking down into Corson for Turgeon AND Craig Conroy, who ended up a decent middle six centre through his career.

Which makes it the second worst trade in Habs history behind Le Trade, a deal so bad we often forget how Mike Keane was tossed in with Roy like it was nothing.

[habs rule]

Which makes it the second worst trade in Habs history behind Le Trade, a deal so bad we often forget how Mike Keane was tossed in with Roy like it was nothing.

more like they wanted Roy gone so bad the gave them the kitchen sink and somebody's left arm.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

The trade ended up breaking down into Corson for Turgeon AND Craig Conroy, who ended up a decent middle six centre through his career.

Which makes it the second worst trade in Habs history behind Le Trade, a deal so bad we often forget how Mike Keane was tossed in with Roy like it was nothing.

Y'know, I forgot about Conroy. Lord, Houle was incompetent.

It's telling that in reaching for analogies for the Subban trade, we keep reaching for these debacles. Anyway...

[xXx..CK..xXx]

I guess what I can say bothers me to a certain extent is that people have already made up their mind before a single game has been played. We forget that it is possible Subban has an off year once again or even that Weber may have a career year.

When we do win the cup, it will be in spite of Therrien, only because of Price, and we would have won had Subban been on the squad anyway. I cannot be this kind of fan myself and in addition I have seen some of these strong black and white opinions be wrong in the past, especially when attempting to prophesize the future.

I can get with the reality that Weber is older and that he is likely to decline prior to Subban as a result of their age difference. What I can't join in on is the exact year that may happen. What I do believe is that first of all we have a Nathan Beaulieu who I will not overrate but if others want to be a prophet, I do believe that barring injury, he will have an excellent year.

In addition, if we do see a Weber decline in 2,3 or even 4 years, I can guarantee that our team will not be the exact same by then. Subban had a charismatic nature that may never be matched again by even another player of his skill level and I'll agree with that as well. 3-4 years down the line, however, perhaps our latest draft choice will be better than Subban or we will somehow have Hedman on our team.

Talking about replacing Subban in 4 years doesn't necessarily sound like a rational way of defending the trade however saying that we lost the trade because Subban will be tearing it up in 5 years, well that's just nearly as hypothetical as me saying that we will have a better player of the same mould as Subban in 4-5 years alongside Weber.

[Meller93]

I guess what I can say bothers me to a certain extent is that people have already made up their mind before a single game has been played. We forget that it is possible Subban has an off year once again or even that Weber may have a career year.

When we do win the cup, it will be in spite of Therrien, only because of Price, and we would have won had Subban been on the squad anyway. I cannot be this kind of fan myself and in addition I have seen some of these strong black and white opinions be wrong in the past, especially when attempting to prophesize the future.

I can get with the reality that Weber is older and that he is likely to decline prior to Subban as a result of their age difference. What I can't join in on is the exact year that may happen. What I do believe is that first of all we have a Nathan Beaulieu who I will not overrate but if others want to be a prophet, I do believe that barring injury, he will have an excellent year.

In addition, if we do see a Weber decline in 2,3 or even 4 years, I can guarantee that our team will not be the exact same by then. Subban had a charismatic nature that may never be matched again by even another player of his skill level and I'll agree with that as well. 3-4 years down the line, however, perhaps our latest draft choice will be better than Subban or we will somehow have Hedman on our team.

Talking about replacing Subban in 4 years doesn't necessarily sound like a rational way of defending the trade however saying that we lost the trade because Subban will be tearing it up in 5 years, well that's just nearly as hypothetical as me saying that we will have a better player of the same mould as Subban in 4-5 years alongside Weber.

You're right, some us myself included are basing some of our arguments based on hypothetical situations. However I think you're missing the point on why this is a bad trade. It's the value MB should have gotten right now, regardless of how the future plays out. But he didn't get that value. Simple as that, we lost out. Do you need to wait to see who won the Hall for Larson trade? No, New Jersey clearly gained a more valuable player. You don't need to wait to see who gave up the most.

Now beyond that, there is the waiting game. Asset value aside, who is now performing better? There are times when players surprise or disappoint. Perhaps Hall flounders and Larsson becomes the next Hedman. Any trade could turn out good regardless of how terrible it looks now. Maybe Shaw puts up 60 points every year for 6 years. Maybe he doesn't crack 20. We'll see. That doesn't mean you can't make snap judgements about asset value.

So then just to add insult to injury is what I'll admit is hypothetical. Hypothetical however does not equate to illogical. It is logical to think Subban will be better going forward because of his age, and the statistics that simply point in Subban's favor.

[BCHabnut]

I have been quite clear about how sick I am about this trade. I'm savage about it. Just watched the predators promo with subban hamming it up and I'm mad again. But...

I have thought of a few other things. Why didn't the team vote for him for the King Clancy award? I know it's a minor thing, but in a year that he made that donation, the team voted for max. We don't have a lot to go on regarding division in the room or whatnot, but I really think there was a statement made in that vote.

The other thing I've been considering, and I have no stats or info to base it on, but I would be curious to see the posession stats of Chara from 07 to 15. His 30th to 38th birthdays. I bet they were lower than Lidstrom or some of the other premier defenseman of that time. Yet if I were picking the guy I would want as my number one defenseman in that timeframe, 2008 to 2014 Chara would probably top my list. He was a dominant defenseman. He used his size, strength, and reach to control games. Chara didn't win the norris every year because of his points, but a few of the years that Lidstrom won it on reputation, I felt it should have gone to Chara. You don't hear Weber's name synonymous with Chara, but when you start rattling off big dominating defenseman, Pronger Chara Weber are all used in the same sentence. And it's not to say Chara and Pronger are awesome and Weber sucks.

I believe Montreal lost this trade. I believe Subban is the better player. But I am not convinced that Weber will not fill a niche on the team and have success with the Canadiens.

[hab29RETIRED]

Montreal lost the trade NOW. It only gets worse 3 or 4 years from now. Subban had an off year. yet with 10 less games still had the same number of points as Weber. On an off year. Playing for a coach who doesn't like him and has never utilized him properly.

I guess what I can say bothers me to a certain extent is that people have already made up their mind before a single game has been played. We forget that it is possible Subban has an off year once again or even that Weber may have a career year.

When we do win the cup, it will be in spite of Therrien, only because of Price, and we would have won had Subban been on the squad anyway. I cannot be this kind of fan myself and in addition I have seen some of these strong black and white opinions be wrong in the past, especially when attempting to prophesize the future.

I can get with the reality that Weber is older and that he is likely to decline prior to Subban as a result of their age difference. What I can't join in on is the exact year that may happen. What I do believe is that first of all we have a Nathan Beaulieu who I will not overrate but if others want to be a prophet, I do believe that barring injury, he will have an excellent year.

In addition, if we do see a Weber decline in 2,3 or even 4 years, I can guarantee that our team will not be the exact same by then. Subban had a charismatic nature that may never be matched again by even another player of his skill level and I'll agree with that as well. 3-4 years down the line, however, perhaps our latest draft choice will be better than Subban or we will somehow have Hedman on our team.

Talking about replacing Subban in 4 years doesn't necessarily sound like a rational way of defending the trade however saying that we lost the trade because Subban will be tearing it up in 5 years, well that's just nearly as hypothetical as me saying that we will have a better player of the same mould as Subban in 4-5 years alongside Weber.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

Montreal lost the trade NOW. It only gets worse 3 or 4 years from now. Subban had an off year. yet with 10 less games still had the same number of points as Weber. On an off year. Playing for a coach who doesn't like him and has never utilized him properly.

There were 2 reasons Montreal didn't make the playoffs last season and it wasn't Carey Price & Carey Price. It was Carey Price and a terrible power play. Habs29, you would definitely be able to convince me that Montreal lost the trade player for player. It would be tougher to convince me that we lost the trade as a team in the short term. Any team and fan base would welcome with open arms a defenseman who has scored more than 20 goals 3 times, and 19 a couple of other times. including 15 on the power play in his most recent season. Some top 6 forwards don't crack 20 goals and didn't we need another one of them?

If Subban went head to head in a game of 1 on 1 with Weber, he'd come out on top. Good thing there's a lot more to it than that. Why we're overlooking that we improved our team in certain areas of weakness as a result of the trade, albeit at an astronomical cost, is a question mark to me.

For all the theories out there and hypotheticals, who's to say that Muller doesn't feel Weber and Markov are a much better PP tandem than Subban? I think both Subban's and Weber's go to plays are fairly similar but Weber's is more effective for whatever reason.

& For edit's sake I agree for the most part Meller93. I do hope you are wrong though

I've thought of the Chara thing as well BCHabnut.

[hab29RETIRED]

I think a big reason for the lousy PP - he has never had a good PP. With Muller coming it, we should see an improvement by adding him.

I'd say there were two reasons we didn't make the playoffs. Carey Price and lousy coaching. I think we have had lousy coaching since hiring MT. In previous years, Price hid those deficiencies. Without Price, we found out the emperor has no clothes.

There were 2 reasons Montreal didn't make the playoffs last season and it wasn't Carey Price & Carey Price. It was Carey Price and a terrible power play. Habs29, you would definitely be able to convince me that Montreal lost the trade player for player. It would be tougher to convince me that we lost the trade as a team in the short term. Any team and fan base would welcome with open arms a defenseman who has scored more than 20 goals 3 times, and 19 a couple of other times. including 15 on the power play in his most recent season. Some top 6 forwards don't crack 20 goals and didn't we need another one of them?

If Subban went head to head in a game of 1 on 1 with Weber, he'd come out on top. Good thing there's a lot more to it than that. Why we're overlooking that we improved our team in certain areas of weakness as a result of the trade, albeit at an astronomical cost, is a question mark to me.

For all the theories out there and hypotheticals, who's to say that Muller doesn't feel Weber and Markov are a much better PP tandem than Subban? I think both Subban's and Weber's go to plays are fairly similar but Weber's is more effective for whatever reason.

& For edit's sake I agree for the most part Meller93. I do hope you are wrong though

I've thought of the Chara thing as well BCHabnut.