Jump to content

Habs hire Martin St-Louis as their 28th Head Coach


 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Neech said:

Give us shane wright O lord.

Not certain that Wright is that much better than other top prospects this season that we should spend any credits in our God/Hockey-Gods/Deity-of-your-choice accounts to get him ... there seem to be some differences of opinion amongst the supposed experts.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

Not certain that Wright is that much better than other top prospects this season that we should spend any credits in our God/Hockey-Gods/Deity-of-your-choice accounts to get him ... there seem to be some differences of opinion amongst the supposed experts.

You're right, we just need to be compensated with a superstar for this abomination of a season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Neech said:

You're right, we just need to be compensated with a superstar for this abomination of a season.

Don't know that there is one in this draft ... drafts are not like the WWE, where every jabroni is a superstar

 

Of course my personal standard for "superstars" is fairly restrictive ... lots of teams do not have any, including the Habs (unless Carey returns at 14/15 - 15/16 levels)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tankologists always assume that you put in one terrible season and automatically get rewarded with Auston Matthews or Connor McDavid. It’s not necessarily so, not by a long shot. And you’d think that Habs’ fans experience with two #3 overall picks in recent years would have taught us this, but apparently not…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Tankologists always assume that you put in one terrible season and automatically get rewarded with Auston Matthews or Connor McDavid. It’s not necessarily so, not by a long shot. And you’d think that Habs’ fans experience with two #3 overall picks in recent years would have taught us this, but no…

 

Of course there are no guarantees no matter where you pick, but I would much rather take my chances with the #1 or #2 pick than the 13th or 14th pick.  Of course this year they wouldn't keep the 13 or 14 pick anyway as it would go to Arizona if the Habs went on too much of a run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to play Devil's Advocate, did Lemaire have any coaching experience before entering Nhl? Nope. Not all Nhl players who move into that role are failures. He could be a good coach, probably will be successful, somewhere else. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Tankologists always assume that you put in one terrible season and automatically get rewarded with Auston Matthews or Connor McDavid ...

Hardly ... just as "always try for the playoffs and see what happens" supporters don't assume there are frequent Cup victories with such a strategy.

 

Some get blinded by hope, but please don't tar "everyone" with the same brush.

 

Next season is the year to "tank" with a hope of getting legit generational talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, johnnyhasbeen said:

Just to play Devil's Advocate, did Lemaire have any coaching experience before entering Nhl? Nope. Not all Nhl players who move into that role are failures. He could be a good coach, probably will be successful, somewhere else. 

When he retired Jacques Lemaire signed a three-year contract as player, coach and general manager of HC Sierre in Switzerland, then in 1981 took on a role as an assistant coach at SUNY Plattsburgh, before joining the Habs as an assistant coach, then HC for the 83/84 season ... a little more experience than Pee-Wee (or whatever kids level MSL coached) ... I am happy to let MSL to show what he can do, but JL did more to prepare himself to be an NHL coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Hardly ... just as "always try for the playoffs and see what happens" supporters don't assume there are frequent Cup victories with such a strategy.

 

Some get blinded by hope, but please don't tar "everyone" with the same brush.

 

Next season is the year to "tank" with a hope of getting legit generational talent.

 

Fair enough. I should have said "many tankologists assume..."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Commandant said:

why do we ignore that MSL was an assistant with Columbus?

 

 

 

See, I am confused on that point. Wasn't he something like a "Special Consultant?" What exactly did he do under Torts? If he was assistant coach, doing all of the duties involved, then why the weird title? If he was down there in the trenches involved in the day-to-day strategy, motivational, and bench management decisions, then yes, that would certainly constitute legitimate coaching experience. If, on the other hand, he was just sort of hanging around, chipping in his two cents, working with player X or Y on this or that, then I'm not as confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

See, I am confused on that point. Wasn't he something like a "Special Consultant?" What exactly did he do under Torts? If he was assistant coach, doing all of the duties involved, then why the weird title? If he was down there in the trenches involved in the day-to-day strategy, motivational, and bench management decisions, then yes, that would certainly constitute legitimate coaching experience. If, on the other hand, he was just sort of hanging around, chipping in his two cents, working with player X or Y on this or that, then I'm not as confident.

 

He was brought in to work with the power play and penalty kill every practice. 

 

If he was on the bench or in the booth, I'm not sure, but he was working with the team daily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

See, I am confused on that point. Wasn't he something like a "Special Consultant?" What exactly did he do under Torts? If he was assistant coach, doing all of the duties involved, then why the weird title? If he was down there in the trenches involved in the day-to-day strategy, motivational, and bench management decisions, then yes, that would certainly constitute legitimate coaching experience. If, on the other hand, he was just sort of hanging around, chipping in his two cents, working with player X or Y on this or that, then I'm not as confident.

 

The Habs didn't hire St Louis for his coaching experience so what he did exactly with Columbus is not that important.  I believe they hired him because they thought he had the tools and smarts to develop into a very good coach and would work with younger players well because they will be doing a rebuild. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

He was brought in to work with the power play and penalty kill every practice. 

 

If he was on the bench or in the booth, I'm not sure, but he was working with the team daily. 

 

OK, thanks. Hard to gauge what to make of this, but it's certainly better than zero coaching experience at all.

 

48 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

The Habs didn't hire St Louis for his coaching experience so what he did exactly with Columbus is not that important.  I believe they hired him because they thought he had the tools and smarts to develop into a very good coach and would work with younger players well because they will be doing a rebuild. 

 

It should be important, because otherwise the premise is that we can entrust our rebuild to any former player who is likeable and smart. Unless we accept that coaching is a job for rank amateurs, this doesn't make sense. It's like entrusting a blockbuster movie shoot to an actor with no former experience in directing, or letting a smart and well-liked stewardess fly the plane. Sure, it might work out great. But it's hardly a choice designed to maximize the odds of a successful outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

. And you’d think that Habs’ fans experience with two #3 overall picks in recent years would have taught us this, but apparently not…

If we have a top 3 pick again, i will be very anxious to see who picked, dont see why hurts to get excited about it, even knowing is bit of crapshoot and most do not reach expectations or their projected ceilings...but, some will.:pray:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

OK, thanks. Hard to gauge what to make of this, but it's certainly better than zero coaching experience at all.

 

 

It should be important, because otherwise the premise is that we can entrust our rebuild to any former player who is likeable and smart. Unless we accept that coaching is a job for rank amateurs, this doesn't make sense. It's like entrusting a blockbuster movie shoot to an actor with no former experience in directing, or letting a smart and well-liked stewardess fly the plane. Sure, it might work out great. But it's hardly a choice designed to maximize the odds of a successful outcome.

 

I probably could have phrased my answer better. I think experience can be really important as you say but in this case they are hiring St Louis not because of his coaching experience because he has little, they are rolling the dice a bit and betting that his qualities, smarts, communication skills etc will work well with a team going through a rebuild and that team will likely include a lot of young developing players.  It is a gamble but it is a gamble I don't mind.  He has 1/2 season to prove himself.  I just hope he doesn't prove himself too much and they go on a tear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Of course there are no guarantees no matter where you pick, but I would much rather take my chances with the #1 or #2 pick than the 13th or 14th pick.  

The response conveniently overlooks the #3 pick that had been mentioned in the quoted post and only referred to the #1 and #2 pick…. but although he hasn’t proven much at the NHL level as of yet, Caufield > Galchenyuk & Kotkaniemi. 
 

No one is trying to change anyone’s opinion but of course any of us would be cheering on and would be excited about having a 1st overall pick come draft day. The mere point is that there has never been a single season in our history where the tankist pipe   dream has come to fruition for the Habs organization.
 

i.e —> 1) Play a terrible season and end near the bottom of the standings

           2) Achieve a high pick during the     lottery

           3) Draft an elite organizational changing player

 

As a result perhaps this is something best left to draft time to discuss.

 

The thought is that it has never worked in such a perfect way for us and yet the topic is something that has been discussed on a yearly basis. As a result, it seems as though it is something not worth actively rooting for since it is something that is so rare in occurrence. 
 

This is all without repeating the long list of teams who have recently drafted extremely high and have done absolutely nothing come playoff time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitt

2003 #1 pick Fleury

2004 #2 pick Malkin

2005 #1 pick Crosby

2005#62 pick Letang

2006 #2 pick Staal

Hawks back to back top 3 picks for 2 crappy seasons in 06-07 in Toews-Kane were huge to get that franchise back on track.

So it can take a bit of luck in the draft and alot of horrible play (and 4 top 2 picks in quick succession) to help build a cup winner.


 

2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

The mere point is that there has never been a single season in our history where the tankist pipe   dream has come to fruition for the Habs organization.
 

i.e —> 1) Play a terrible season and end near the bottom of the standings

           2) Achieve a high pick during the     lottery

           3) Draft an elite organizational changing player

 

 

 

Long ago...1971 Pick#1 Lafleur, 72 #4 Shutt, 73 Gainey...might of helped the franchise a bit also...but yes ancient history.

And then I suppose,

there is the Oilers...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

... The mere point is that there has never been a single season in our history where the tankist pipe   dream has come to fruition for the Habs organization.

 

i.e —> 1) Play a terrible season and end near the bottom of the standings

           2) Achieve a high pick during the     lottery

           3) Draft an elite organizational changing player ...

 

Not certain the Habs have ever "tanked" ... they are not "tanking" this season (although now that the slide is under way G&H may not be trying hard yo arrest it) ... Habs had the Galchenyuk and KK picks because seasons went horribly wrong, not because management decided to tank and made the requisite moves before the season to reduce the talent level on the team and build up draft picks and/or prospects ... teams, at least smart teams, don't tank for the sake of any first overall pick ... they tank strategically in a season where the presumptive top pick(s) are an elite talents ... THAT is why I would be on board with an actual "tank" next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

... And then I suppose,

there is the Oilers...

 

Question is, with their plethora of top 10 picks since 2007 (eleven, including 4 first overall) how often was it a "tank" and how often were the Oilers just horribly mismanaged?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest we came the “tankist” scenario was, ironically, **a season in which we made the playoffs as a bubble team,** but climbed up the draft rankings due to the lottery: the 2005 draft when we got Carey Price.

 

Our highest-impact draft picks since then have been a mid-first-rounder (Pacioretty), a 2nd round Norris Trophy winner (Subban), and a 5th rounder (Gallagher).

 

It is quite correct to say that in years when we did the equivalent of tanking, we got nothing back for it - and that this lesson has been lost on the tankologists. Indeed, we’ve had three #3 overall picks come through our organization in the past decade: Galy (disaster), Drouin (mediocre), and KK (remains to be seen, but Lars Eller remains his likeliest comparable). Every one of them has disappointed. 

 

Even the historic 2005 draft, rightly considered a motherlode, offers interesting lessons for Tanquistas. Of the first 10 picks, in this extraordinary year, there were indeed two franchise players: Crosby at #1 and Price at #5. (Worth noting is that when the latter was picked, there were howls of derision from many “experts” and fan commentators, many of whom thought it was obvious we should have picked Gilbert Brule). The #2, Bobby Ryan, was a star forward for four or five years before downshifting into merely being a decent player. Jack Johnson, OK, good player, no great all-star. And the rest of the top 10 are marginal or forgettable players, guys like Brule, Skille, Pouliot, Steoguchi, and Brian Lee.

 

So even tanking in one of the greatest draft years of all time offered as much chance of bagging a Jack Skille as a franchise-changing player.  

 

And for every Pittsburgh Penguins - a Cup-winning team built via tanking - there are Oilers and Sabres, i.e., teams whose tank job has failed wretchedly and led to years and years of misery. Then you have teams like Boston, or even Tampa; the latter yes, did draft Hedman and Stamkos after disastrous seasons, but also drafted Vaislevsky (#19), Brayden Point (#79), and franchise player Kucherov (#58!) not to mention trading dud Drouin for a guy who would currently be the best defenceman in our organization. 

 

Tanking is in no way, shape, or form, a substitute for elite drafting and development. Indeed, if you have the latter, you don’t need to tank.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Tanking is in no way, shape, or form, a substitute for elite drafting and development. Indeed, if you have the latter, you don’t need to tank.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying that "tanking" is the perfect solution and it is certainly not a substitute for elite drafting and development, it is NOT.  But, this is the situation we find ourselves in this year. What is the alternative right now?  Trade some young prospects and draft picks to move up a little in the standings? 

 

For those taking shots at the "Tanquistas", what do you suggest the Habs management does for the rest of the year? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying that "tanking" is the perfect solution and it is certainly not a substitute for elite drafting and development, it is NOT.  But, this is the situation we find ourselves in this year. What is the alternative right now?  Trade some young prospects and draft picks to move up a little in the standings? 

 

For those taking shots at the "Tanquistas", what do you suggest the Habs management does for the rest of the year? 

 

No, no - obviously, I am all for tanking in a hopeless year like this one.

 

The folks that I’m critiquing are those who, unless the team is a powerhouse, call for tank-jobs as the default position. E.g., I doubt there has been a single season in the last 20 when some fans were not calling on us to tank. And my point is, not only is tanking no substitute for elite drafting and development, but the Habs have had the equivalent results to a “tank” twice in the past decade and the results were Galchenyuk and KK. 

 

Tanking is an evil necessity when your team is absolute garbage, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

No, no - obviously, I am all for tanking in a hopeless year like this one.

 

The folks that I’m critiquing are those who, unless the team is a powerhouse, call for tank-jobs as the default position. E.g., I doubt there has been a single season in the last 20 when some fans were not calling on us to tank. And my point is, not only is tanking no substitute for elite drafting and development, but the Habs have had the equivalent results to a “tank” twice in the past decade and the results were Galchenyuk and KK. 

 

Tanking is an evil necessity when your team is absolute garbage, nothing more.

 

Fair comment. I agree.  This year we just need to make the best of a season where everything that could go wrong did go wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

The closest we came the “tankist” scenario was, ironically, **a season in which we made the playoffs as a bubble team,** but climbed up the draft rankings due to the lottery: the 2005 draft when we got Carey Price.

 

Our highest-impact draft picks since then have been a mid-first-rounder (Pacioretty), a 2nd round Norris Trophy winner (Subban), and a 5th rounder (Gallagher).

 

It is quite correct to say that in years when we did the equivalent of tanking, we got nothing back for it - and that this lesson has been lost on the tankologists. Indeed, we’ve had three #3 overall picks come through our organization in the past decade: Galy (disaster), Drouin (mediocre), and KK (remains to be seen, but Lars Eller remains his likeliest comparable). Every one of them has disappointed. 

 

Even the historic 2005 draft, rightly considered a motherlode, offers interesting lessons for Tanquistas. Of the first 10 picks, in this extraordinary year, there were indeed two franchise players: Crosby at #1 and Price at #5. (Worth noting is that when the latter was picked, there were howls of derision from many “experts” and fan commentators, many of whom thought it was obvious we should have picked Gilbert Brule). The #2, Bobby Ryan, was a star forward for four or five years before downshifting into merely being a decent player. Jack Johnson, OK, good player, no great all-star. And the rest of the top 10 are marginal or forgettable players, guys like Brule, Skille, Pouliot, Steoguchi, and Brian Lee.

 

So even tanking in one of the greatest draft years of all time offered as much chance of bagging a Jack Skille as a franchise-changing player.  

 

And for every Pittsburgh Penguins - a Cup-winning team built via tanking - there are Oilers and Sabres, i.e., teams whose tank job has failed wretchedly and led to years and years of misery. Then you have teams like Boston, or even Tampa; the latter yes, did draft Hedman and Stamkos after disastrous seasons, but also drafted Vaislevsky (#19), Brayden Point (#79), and franchise player Kucherov (#58!) not to mention trading dud Drouin for a guy who would currently be the best defenceman in our organization. 

 

Tanking is in no way, shape, or form, a substitute for elite drafting and development. Indeed, if you have the latter, you don’t need to tank.

 

 

Kopitar was a great pick for the kings. Maybe even better than Price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...