Commandant Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 The key here is this.... Even if you believe intangibles exist.... Do you believe it is smart to give up a player with far superior tangibles for those intangibles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Guys guys guys... We have been overlooking one crucial aspect here. Shea Webers rating in NHL 16 is higher than Subbans Congrats, you just won the thread 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 The key here is this.... Even if you believe intangibles exist.... Do you believe it is smart to give up a player with far superior tangibles for those intangibles? I was actually trying to think of who would be the NHL leader for intangibles. The guy with the most grit/heart along with fighting/hitting/blocking. Shea Weber might be it. He doesn't fight much but he's certainly a guy people think of when it comes to strength and leadership. Another guy is probably Andrew Shaw. What he lacks in size he instead provides in gritty play and being a pest. So basically, if you like guys who play gritty/strong/truculent, Montreal hit the jackpot with Weber and Shaw. It's pretty hard to see it any other way. If Mike McCarron pans out as a top six forward, Montreal might end up trending to being one of the toughest, grittiest teams in the Atlantic division. This is what all the fans who used to wipe tears from their eyes when Boston won the "moral victory" have wanted for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 I didn't say anything about you saying Weber being better? I was referring exclusively to, "there is a general assertion that the TEAM will be better" Alright, just clarifying where I stood ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 The key here is this.... Even if you believe intangibles exist.... Do you believe it is smart to give up a player with far superior tangibles for those intangibles? Semantics! And most can spin em in either's favour. What you call intangible, others might actually put stock in and see Corsi as a mom's basement computer stats geek's creation and as important (and exciting) as knowing the difference between mean and median...for example. Hockey success is more an art wouldn't you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 The key here is this.... Even if you believe intangibles exist.... Do you believe it is smart to give up a player with far superior tangibles for those intangibles? How bout this intangible: From a young Hab's point of view “Fighting … it’s leaving the game slowly,” the 23-year-old defenceman said. “But I’m not afraid to stick up for my teammates. I talked about it with Shea last night. We’re the type of guys that we believe teammates are family to us and we protect them. We were brought up the same way. If someone’s getting picked on, we do something about it. Especially if we get to play together, it’s something that we talked about. Fighting’s not a big part of the game anymore, but it’s good to know that we have a couple of guys that if something happens throughout the game, guys will take care of it.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Semantics! And most can spin em in either's favour. What you call intangible, others might actually put stock in and see Corsi as a mom's basement computer stats geek's creation and as important (and exciting) as knowing the difference between mean and median...for example. Hockey success is more an art wouldn't you say? Being created in a mom's basement of a computer geek doesn't make the creation any less valid! What matters is the product not the factory. These stats are meaningful and a great tool. When in the world will they be accepted as such? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Being created in a mom's basement of a computer geek doesn't make the creation any less valid! What matters is the product not the factory. These stats are meaningful and a great tool. When in the world will they be accepted as such? They are by many, but how meaningful and a great tool for what is bit questionable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 How bout this intangible: From a young Hab's point of view “Fighting … it’s leaving the game slowly,” the 23-year-old defenceman said. “But I’m not afraid to stick up for my teammates. I talked about it with Shea last night. We’re the type of guys that we believe teammates are family to us and we protect them. We were brought up the same way. If someone’s getting picked on, we do something about it. Especially if we get to play together, it’s something that we talked about. Fighting’s not a big part of the game anymore, but it’s good to know that we have a couple of guys that if something happens throughout the game, guys will take care of it.” So, since Weber had a grand total of one fight last season, I guess Nashville only had "something happen" once all season. Weber's overall physicality will be a valuable thing, no question. But like I said earlier in this thread, fighting in today's NHL does not act as much of a deterrent (if it ever did - and I suspect that there was indeed a time when it did). I think the subtext of Beaulieu's remark here is that as a teammate, you feel good when you see a guy go to bat against an opponent - or even hear a guy bragging about how he's willing to do it. The value of fighting is really its team-bonding function, not deterrence. And that's why two guys who seldom drop the gloves can make themselves feel good by talking about their supposed willingness to "do something." Basically, it's glorified a form of male bonding. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But if we wanted a guy who can talk a lot about dropping the gloves and maybe do it once or twice a year, we didn't need to trade Subban. The case for Weber rests on his physical presence in the defensive zone and on his shot from the point. Fighting is a side-show. "Intangibles" are a flimsy argument since they are based on pure guesswork IMHO. (And everyone keeps forgetting that the Habs' "intangibles" were sky-high before Price went down). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 So, since Weber had a grand total of one fight last season, I guess Nashville only had "something happen" once all season. Weber's overall physicality will be a valuable thing, no question. But like I said earlier in this thread, fighting in today's NHL does not act as much of a deterrent (if it ever did - and I suspect that there was indeed a time when it did). I think the subtext of Beaulieu's remark here is that as a teammate, you feel good when you see a guy go to bat against an opponent - or even hear a guy bragging about how he's willing to do it. The value of fighting is really its team-bonding function, not deterrence. And that's why two guys who seldom drop the gloves can make themselves feel good by talking about their supposed willingness to "do something." Basically, it's glorified a form of male bonding. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But if we wanted a guy who can talk a lot about dropping the gloves and maybe do it once or twice a year, we didn't need to trade Subban. The case for Weber rests on his physical presence in the defensive zone and on his shot from the point. Fighting is a side-show. "Intangibles" are a flimsy argument since they are based on pure guesswork IMHO. (And everyone keeps forgetting that the Habs' "intangibles" were sky-high before Price went down). Pure guesswork is your speciality! The intangible is that Weber will make Beaulieu (obviously) and likely other young habs as well, feel a bit more confident out there. I think is fair to say that Weber's physical presence will be felt at both ends of rink and neutral zone as well. Pretty hard to hide a 235lber anywhere out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 This love affair has to be over... And welcome Shea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 I've watched that PK video like 20 times, my wife says I'm sick... Ya love sick lol His raw emotion and youthful exuberance is infectious... Makes you wanna dream! He entertains that's for sure... But long before PK subban I loved Larry Robinson and Stephane richer Mats naslund and bobby smith Carbonneau and PATRICK ROY Skrudland and keane Schneider and desjardins Koivu and Kovalev Etc.. I was Heart broke when chelios was flipped Completely devastated when Patrick was ousted And now shaken with PK... However my love for the CH is far greater..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xXx..CK..xXx Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 "Intangibles" are a flimsy argument since they are based on pure guesswork IMHO. (And everyone keeps forgetting that the Habs' "intangibles" were sky-high before Price went down).It seems obvious that you won't ever be big on the intangible argument but I came across this article yesterday:https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/04/nhl-identifying-and-improving-intangibles-critical-ice-success/O8q5H6LujecKLo2cDBTGBO/story.html It seems teams are taking intangibles into consideration just as much (or to a comparable extent) as they would analytics. When teams are deciding who their depth guys will be don't they often take intangibles into consideration? Since when has the term veteran leadership gone out the window? The only difference I see here is that Weber is a skillful top pairing guy who also has a great reputation around the league for things he brings outside of his skill set and the points he puts up. What's so wrong with that argument? Considering he's played a good 10 years in the league, give or take, I don't quite see it as guess work with him. One could argue Subban brought some intangibles as well but in my honest opinion, he brought both positive as well as negative intangibles to the table. I'll repeat that I liked Subban a lot but when it comes to this specific area, I give Weber the nod. The importance and the true effect it will have on the team is certainly up for debate. I'd like to and do believe it will have a great one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 It seems obvious that you won't ever be big on the intangible argument but I came across this article yesterday: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/04/nhl-identifying-and-improving-intangibles-critical-ice-success/O8q5H6LujecKLo2cDBTGBO/story.html It seems teams are taking intangibles into consideration just as much (or to a comparable extent) as they would analytics. When teams are deciding who their depth guys will be don't they often take intangibles into consideration? Since when has the term veteran leadership gone out the window? The only difference I see here is that Weber is a skillful top pairing guy who also has a great reputation around the league for things he brings outside of his skill set and the points he puts up. What's so wrong with that argument? Considering he's played a good 10 years in the league, give or take, I don't quite see it as guess work with him. One could argue Subban brought some intangibles as well but in my honest opinion, he brought both positive as well as negative intangibles to the table. I'll repeat that I liked Subban a lot but when it comes to this specific area, I give Weber the nod. The importance and the true effect it will have on the team is certainly up for debate. I'd like to and do believe it will have a great one. That all seems fair. Let's reiterate: nobody is saying Weber is anything other than an excellent defenceman, in the various ways that his defenders have been pointing out. As I see it, though, this is not a trade that in any way needed to be made, since Subban was not a 'problem' except to the egos of the management group; it's not a trade that self-evidently improves the team; the contract manages to be worse than Subban's, while garnering minimal cap savings; and it is a trade that probably will look worse and worse for the Habs as time progresses. For these reasons, it's a dumb trade. Despite the various efforts around here to make me sound like a fuming maniac on this question, I've consistently agreed that the team will return to its default position of being very good in 2016-17 (although I've raised concerns about its ability to compete specifically against ultra-fast opponents, due to the totally unnecessary removal of one of the league's best puck-movers). Since Subban is better than Weber in several key areas, this return to excellence would have happened with our without Weber. In that sense, people who say the trade is not that big a deal in the immediate term are probably right. It will become a bigger and bigger deal as time passes and Weber declines, OR possibly when the Habs face a playoff matchup against teams that - unlike the Canadiens - are not trying to replicate the Bruins circa 2011 and instead believe that speed and possession are keys to victory in the contemporary NHL, i.e., Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh. The Habs could have improved in the desired ways - i.e., getting tougher, scoring more on the PP - without trading their best position player since Guy Lafleur. That's why I disagree with the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xXx..CK..xXx Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 That all seems fair. Let's reiterate: nobody is saying Weber is anything other than an excellent defenceman, in the various ways that his defenders have been pointing out. As I see it, though, this is not a trade that in any way needed to be made, since Subban was not a 'problem' except to the egos of the management group; it's not a trade that self-evidently improves the team; the contract manages to be worse than Subban's, while garnering minimal cap savings; and it is a trade that probably will look worse and worse for the Habs as time progresses. For these reasons, it's a dumb trade. Despite the various efforts around here to make me sound like a fuming maniac on this question, I've consistently agreed that the team will return to its default position of being very good in 2016-17 (although I've raised concerns about its ability to compete specifically against ultra-fast opponents, due to the totally unnecessary removal of one of the league's best puck-movers). Since Subban is better than Weber in several key areas, this return to excellence would have happened with our without Weber. In that sense, people who say the trade is not that big a deal in the immediate term are probably right. It will become a bigger and bigger deal as time passes and Weber declines, OR possibly when the Habs face a playoff matchup against teams that - unlike the Canadiens - are not trying to replicate the Bruins circa 2011 and instead believe that speed and possession are keys to victory in the contemporary NHL, i.e., Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh. The Habs could have improved in the desired ways - i.e., getting tougher, scoring more on the PP - without trading their best position player since Guy Lafleur. That's why I disagree with the trade. If I am Marc Bergevin and David Poile approaches me and the name Weber comes up, my ears perk up. Once he mentions the name PK Subban, I simply reply "that's not happening" and our respective franchises continue their course. What I don't think is so easily achieved is acquiring the player you described without sending anything of significance back. Gallagher doesn't do it, even Galchenyuk doesn't necessarily do it and despite people's wishful thinking neither Plekanec or Desharnais do it as well. It was either PK Subban or Max Pacioretty. I'm in the minority here but I consider Trading Pacioretty as being the biggest lateral move we could possibly have made. He's polar opposites with Subban in terms of excitement and personality, but he's the only pure goal scorer we've had since Richer. Did we have to make the trade? From my couch seat, I don't believe so. Was Subban the only player Poile would take back for Weber? Absolutely. I see the trade as having some long term ramifications as well because Weber is bound to have an off season by his standards by the time his contract ends. I don't think his decline will be as severe as people mention because speed was certainly never his strength. He'll still have a booming shot, still be a physical presence for years and one would like to think those positive intangibles will only grow with more Canadian championships and Stanley Cup rings. Subban will be good for many years more but his decline will be the one that's more noticeable as he loses a step. Ovechkin doesn't score his goals in the same fashion he used to as well and matter of factly isn't even the best Russian on that team anymore. I agree with your post for the most part but I can see that it's probable that management has a specific vision and it's hard to argue that they won't have a decent team partly as a result of it. You make a valid point that we're still contenders with Subban on the team. The only counter argument is that we still are a very decent team with a shot this season. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Weber thinks this is the best chance he's ever had at winning a cup, now that Price is his backstop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 If I am Marc Bergevin and David Poile approaches me and the name Weber comes up, my ears perk up. Once he mentions the name PK Subban, I simply reply "that's not happening" and our respective franchises continue their course. What I don't think is so easily achieved is acquiring the player you described without sending anything of significance back. Gallagher doesn't do it, even Galchenyuk doesn't necessarily do it and despite people's wishful thinking neither Plekanec or Desharnais do it as well. It was either PK Subban or Max Pacioretty. I'm in the minority here but I consider Trading Pacioretty as being the biggest lateral move we could possibly have made. He's polar opposites with Subban in terms of excitement and personality, but he's the only pure goal scorer we've had since Richer. Did we have to make the trade? From my couch seat, I don't believe so. Was Subban the only player Poile would take back for Weber? Absolutely. I see the trade as having some long term ramifications as well because Weber is bound to have an off season by his standards by the time his contract ends. I don't think his decline will be as severe as people mention because speed was certainly never his strength. He'll still have a booming shot, still be a physical presence for years and one would like to think those positive intangibles will only grow with more Canadian championships and Stanley Cup rings. Subban will be good for many years more but his decline will be the one that's more noticeable as he loses a step. Ovechkin doesn't score his goals in the same fashion he used to as well and matter of factly isn't even the best Russian on that team anymore. I agree with your post for the most part but I can see that it's probable that management has a specific vision and it's hard to argue that they won't have a decent team partly as a result of it. You make a valid point that we're still contenders with Subban on the team. The only counter argument is that we still are a very decent team with a shot this season. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Weber thinks this is the best chance he's ever had at winning a cup, now that Price is his backstop. We already had a Norris trophy winning defenceman. Why did we need Weber? We didn't hence dumb trade. At the best it is a sideways move today and a loser in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 The real question is out of all the GM's, their assistants, head coaches and their assistants plus the very elite players.. How many choose Weber over PK Subban? Seems all point to Weber... Forget the stats forget the analytics. But if you poll Fans and now most recently media and journalists post trade and it points to Subban) cause before the trade seemed all PK did was wrong... Fickle Toronto media On another note I get that PK is much more agile then Weber but is he a faster skater straight away? Cause PK I don't even think was top 10 in speed on the habs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 As I see it, though, this is not a trade that in any way needed to be made, since Subban was not a 'problem' except to the egos of the management group Take off the PK coloured glasses and would see reality a bit clearer perhaps? Seems you like to portray Subban as a choir boy that could do no wrong and Mgmt as nothing but group of dim witted idiots, so again I toss out the heavily biased accusation card and simply cant take your opinion seriously, on this subject anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 We already had a Norris trophy winning defenceman. Why did we need Weber? We didn't hence dumb trade. At the best it is a sideways move today and a loser in the future. Sideways? Can you get any 2 different style players and personalities than these two? Needed Weber because team lacked a set of brass truck-nuts and was too soft, more goal scoring on the PP, less distractions off the ice, all players to buy into team play, mentor for young players, someone who didn't need a telegraphed John Daley-like wind up before shooting a puck, help for Pacioretty in leadership and one not do Savardian spinaramas as last man back, leaving the other 4 players to stand around trying to figure out what the superstar would do next...etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 The real question is out of all the GM's, their assistants, head coaches and their assistants plus the very elite players.. How many choose Weber over PK Subban? Seems all point to Weber... Forget the stats forget the analytics. But if you poll Fans and now most recently media and journalists post trade and it points to Subban) cause before the trade seemed all PK did was wrong... Fickle Toronto media On another note I get that PK is much more agile then Weber but is he a faster skater straight away? Cause PK I don't even think was top 10 in speed on the habs... I think you're right about his speed. PK was elite in every skating facet except straight away speed. He was average at that. It was most noticeable during his back checking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 The real question is out of all the GM's, their assistants, head coaches and their assistants plus the very elite players.. How many choose Weber over PK Subban? Seems all point to Weber... That's to suggest that every GM in the league understands where the game is going. Forgotten in the "Subban/Team Canada" discussion is that Kris Letang is also not on the team. Letang was a near point per game defenceman last year and was the number one defender on the Stanley Cup champions. That's not good enough for what Team Canada is trying to assemble. So before anyone says that Subban is a special exception, he isn't. He's sitting on the sidelines along with Kris Letang. And guys like Don Cherry are fine with that. It's funny how many GMs, coaches, players, are going out of their way to defend Shea Weber's track record against P.K. Subban. People who might play the game and be close to it but constantly miss the forest from the trees on where modern game advancements are going until it's too late. It's a copycat league, not a league full of the most intelligent people in the game. The response to analytics from a lot of those GMs has been, "Well, I guess we gotta do it" The most successful team in the past decade is the Chicago Blackhawks, and their GM Stan Bowman is a complete believer in analytics. He boosted Chicago back in 2009 and was the only GM to say his team was "all-in" on analytics. Montreal was considered "one foot in". There's a real fear from these folks that everything they thought was true about hockey will be proven wrong by someone with a spreadsheet. The truth is, analytics is just confirming the way people played hockey in the past: always have the puck, always shoot the puck, always retrieve the puck. That's all it really comes down to, and the people who played in the 80s and 90s (or idiots like Cherry who never knew how to coach and got lucky being gifted a talented Bruins squad) who went to dump and chase, clutch and grab, shutdown hockey are afraid of being wrong. But as I repeated before, this isn't about Shea Weber vs. PK Subban for me. Weber will probably be fine on the Habs. I don't think he will be as effective for Montreal as he was in Nashville, but he's still a top 20 defenceman. This is about feeling betrayed by Marc Bergevin, and never wanting to cheer for this organization again until he's gone. Holding Subban out twice was never about getting him for the right price. It was always about the fact he never wanted Subban and waited to the very last minute to trade him. I don't believe for a second that there was ever a future for Subban on the Habs anymore. Bergevin gave him that contract because he felt he had to, and with a year to move him, he was going to no matter what. Call me a conspiracy theorist but it also explains to me why Bergevin made zero moves for the team and watched it sink last year. It was a lot easier to move any player he wanted to after a bad season than it would have been after a good season. And the fact only Craig Ramsay lost his job after the season, and the fact Bergevin tried to allude to problems with Subban that everyone denied on Subban's behalf, it all points to that Marc never wanted him there, and he played a game for years because he was waiting for a trade he could defend. As Bergevin said himself, "Can we please talk about the player we acquired?" I'd rather cheer for someone else until he's gone than feel betrayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Sideways? Can you get any 2 different style players and personalities than these two? Needed Weber because team lacked a set of brass truck-nuts and was too soft, more goal scoring on the PP, less distractions off the ice, all players to buy into team play, mentor for young players, someone who didn't need a telegraphed John Daley-like wind up before shooting a puck, help for Pacioretty in leadership and one not do Savardian spinaramas as last man back, leaving the other 4 players to stand around trying to figure out what the superstar would do next...etc. The fact that they are 2 completely different players does not make it a good trade. Weber does bring some different aspects for today but what about 3 or 4 years from now? PK was already one of the best defenceman in the league. How do you improve on that? His leadership skills have actually been attested to by his team mates. One thing this trade does do is shock the team, it may wake some of them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 They are by many, but how meaningful and a great tool for what is bit questionable? Seeing as nearly every NHL team is using them, I think they do have significant meaning and use as a tool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 The real question is out of all the GM's, their assistants, head coaches and their assistants plus the very elite players.. How many choose Weber over PK Subban? Seems all point to Weber... Forget the stats forget the analytics. But if you poll Fans and now most recently media and journalists post trade and it points to Subban) cause before the trade seemed all PK did was wrong... Fickle Toronto media On another note I get that PK is much more agile then Weber but is he a faster skater straight away? Cause PK I don't even think was top 10 in speed on the habs... Based on what? where is this out of all the GMs and assistants and head coaches all point to weber? Show me ONE GM or ONE ASSISTANT who has gone on the record and said the better player is Weber, or has said the better player is subban (other than habs brass or nashville brass of course). You won't find one. You can't say... oh tsn said 10 anonymous GMs all said they prefer Weber in one breath and then start mocking the toronto media in the next breath. You either trust the media, or you don't trust their anonymous sources. It can't be right when they say what you like, and wrong when they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 And yet seems that Stat Geeks are being hired and fired in very short order. "Thanks kid..thats all ya got! OK, we will take it from here." 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.