Jump to content

Who will/should be captain?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I would not be surprised if Gallagher is traded this offseason. His injury history is scary and I’m not sure that he is a hugort type of player. 
 

Suzuki seems obvious and I’m not against it but I think Edmundson might be a better choice. Keep some heat off of Suzuki for couple of years (is it 3 years on Edmundson’s contract?

 

Suzuki would be a fine choice but he is already carrying a big load. Does he need the media and political crap that goes with captainhood in Montreal? A few more years of experience might be wise. 

I don’t think it’s an issue of Gallagher being a HuGo type player - I think he is the type of player any managemt would want. The issue is that he is no longer the player he was and certainly does not look like a guy you want for the duration of his contract. That’s why I wouldn’t want him as captain now. I also think that while he is always talking to the refs, hey usually let other teams get away with close to murder against him. Not sure that’s who you want to be speaking to he refs for the team.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, DON said:

Edmundson 2 more years on contract.

Unless we have a dramatic improvement next year, I can see them moving Edmondson at the next deadline - only because Savard is probably immovable. So I don’t see him as a viable option. I guess we will find out if that’s the case next fall when they do name a captain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Unless we have a dramatic improvement next year, I can see them moving Edmondson at the next deadline - only because Savard is probably immovable. So I don’t see him as a viable option. I guess we will find out if that’s the case next fall when they do name a captain.

 

Might as well keep him for another year and sell him when his contract's expiring, unless we get a huge offer this year.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO it should be Gallagher. 
 

He might not be the goal scorer he once was but rest assured, he is the leader of this team. 
 

The last thing I would do is put the onus on Suzuki

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DON said:

But Guhle is a kid amateur hockey player, so why is he even in the discussion?

 

Also, how long ago did Suzuki hurt his back and then refused to take time off to heal?

And he didnt look like a floater, a la Hoffman.

Guhle has been identified as one of the potential rookies to make the NHL next season out of camp 


out of the under mid-20 core, he has been identified as captain material by many


he seems to me the logical choice to be groomed into the captaincy instead  of making the mistake that was made with a Patches 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have they indicated if the C is going to be appointed or by a vote this time?

 

I’m curious if the player voted captain would be the same choice as a management appointed one. 
 

Im not against Gallagher as captain. The guy is certainly a blood and guts type leader. I’m not convinced that he will be a Hab next season though. 
 

Anderson is an interesting suggestion. 
 

This offseason is going to be fun 🤩 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Helmethead said:

IMO it should be Gallagher. 
 

He might not be the goal scorer he once was but rest assured, he is the leader of this team. 
 

The last thing I would do is put the onus on Suzuki

 

I have that concern as well. Right now, there is a lot of optimism, and confidence in, Suzuki. I share it. But adding the C puts a whole other level of expectation, scrutiny, and pressure on the kid. It’ll work in the short term, but when the team shifts from zero expectations to desiring to win, a young captain will come under massive critical scrutiny for any failures. ‘He’s not a real leader.’ ‘This team needs more from its C.’ ‘Can Suzuki lead them to glory? Was he the right choice for captain?’ In other words, all the same crap that Koivu and MaxPac had to put up with. Koivu - who had to hear this garbage despite being exemplary in every way - survived; MaxPac did not, and when he left town many fans were happy to see the back of him, and he seemed happy to get the hell out. The C contributed to a narrative that this guy was a problem, somehow. 

 

An older veteran can take it. He is a known commodity, so there won’t be as many questions about his character and whether we put the C on the wrong guy. Plus, you’re a 30-year-old, you’re probably more inured to the criticism.

 

Anderson is a bad choice. He is not consistent enough to be C. I come back to Edmundson. The fact that he has two more years is actually a good thing: it means he’ll be a transitional C giving the young guys more insulation as they grow and mature. Gallagher seems like the obvious choice, but for some reason, something about that just feels ‘off’…it’s as though he is too associated with the old guard (Price/Weber) that this team needs to psychologically pivot away from. This might not be a good rationale not to give him the C, though.

 

Finally: player votes for C have a bit of a dark history in Montreal. Think Carbo vs Chelios, or Subban vs MaxPac. Might be best to avoid that kind of thing. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I have that concern as well. Right now, there is a lot of optimism, and confidence in, Suzuki. I share it. But adding the C puts a whole other level of expectation, scrutiny, and pressure on the kid. It’ll work in the short term, but when the team shifts from zero expectations to desiring to win, a young captain will come under massive critical scrutiny for any failures. ‘He’s not a real leader.’ ‘This team needs more from its C.’ ‘Can Suzuki lead them to glory? Was he the right choice for captain?’ In other words, all the same crap that Koivu and MaxPac had to put up with. Koivu - who had to hear this garbage despite being exemplary in every way - survived; MaxPac did not, and when he left town many fans were happy to see the back of him, and he seemed happy to get the hell out. The C contributed to a narrative that this guy was a problem, somehow. 

 

An older veteran can take it. He is a known commodity, so there won’t be as many questions about his character and whether we put the C on the wrong guy. Plus, you’re a 30-year-old, you’re probably more inured to the criticism.

 

Anderson is a bad choice. He is not consistent enough to be C. I come back to Edmundson. The fact that he has two more years is actually a good thing: it means he’ll be a transitional C giving the young guys more insulation as they grow and mature. Gallagher seems like the obvious choice, but for some reason, something about that just feels ‘off’…it’s as though he is too associated with the old guard (Price/Weber) that this team needs to psychologically pivot away from. This might not be a good rationale not to give him the C, though.

 

Finally: player votes for C have a bit of a dark history in Montreal. Think Carbo vs Chelios, or Subban vs MaxPac. Might be best to avoid that kind of thing. 

 

 

 

 

Was Subban-Macpac a vote, I thought Maxpac was selected by Mb-Mt.

 

I remember the Chelios-Carbonneau, and Koivu-Corsen (feeling that Koivu won by one vote, because he Boyd fit himself, while Corson absolutely abstained from voting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Was Subban-Macpac a vote, I thought Maxpac was selected by Mb-Mt.

 

I remember the Chelios-Carbonneau, and Koivu-Corsen (feeling that Koivu won by one vote, because he Boyd fit himself, while Corson absolutely abstained from voting)

 

Forgot about Koivu-Corson! As for MaxPac, I don’t think there was a vote…but PK and Patches were both actively campaigning to be captain in the lead-up to the decision, and it seems to have created a rift that never healed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Forgot about Koivu-Corson! As for MaxPac, I don’t think there was a vote…but PK and Patches were both actively campaigning to be captain in the lead-up to the decision, and it seems to have created a rift that never healed.

Yeah, I remember that.  It would have made thing so much simpler if Markov could was willing to be the actual General off the ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

... Im not against Gallagher as captain. The guy is certainly a blood and guts type leader. I’m not convinced that he will be a Hab next season though ...

 

I would prefer to move Gallagher as quickly as possible ... but not certain it is doable this summer ... at least without incentivizing the deal ... my hope is that he can get back to being a 20 goal scorer (don't see/expect 30 again, but obviously could be wrong), and be a viable trade candidate once he shows that ... and no, I don't want to keep him if he does ... I don't expect any performance rebound to last through the remaining 5 years on his contract ... and to be a cap=anchor by the time the Habs are a legit playoff contender (i.e., top 3 in the Division)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GHT120 said:

 

I would prefer to move Gallagher as quickly as possible ... while I expect his effort to continue I fear that his performance may never again be a legit (i.e., good team) Top 6 quality


I feel the same way and I believe that hugort does as well. 
 

My gut tells me that he won’t be a Hab for long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never think the captain should be someone who gets a lot of penalties - I want them to be self-disciplined, lady byng type. Anderson gets too many penalties for me. And that’s where Gally fits too imo. They might be great with the A, but not the C. 
 

Id love to toss in a new name, like a Dvorak, but who knows how he fits in future plans. Or a Petry who, who knows if really he took the hit for many Habs players and was their voice. Many want him gone for seemingly quitting on the team, but maybe he was holding things together and was a voice and THAT is what hurt his play. 
 

really, I like Edmundson. Gives Suzuki more time (or someone else). Eddy is a vet. Won a cup. Seems steady. Seems respected. Bleeds bleu blanc rouge since childhood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are finding too many reasons to remove Gallagher as an option rather than seeing that he actually is the leader on this team.

 

Believe me, I wasn’t thrilled with his season but it does not change the fact that he’s had a long tenure with the team, poured his heart and soul into the team at every given opportunity, and actually speaks like a leader, whether it be to the media, or his teammates.

 

I like Edmundson but he doesn’t have an “it” factor in my opinion and I would not see him as a captain on any other team in the league. For me, it really would be between Gallagher and Suzuki.

 

As for Gallagher and the refs… I personally don’t think that we should ever expect that a captain could actually get a call changed via talking to the refs… so I am not sure what the expectations are amongst fans when it comes to that duty. The point is that Gallagher’s personality has him as being comfortable in such a role.

 

Again, this is the first time I’ve suggested him but I do believe it is his time.

 

Edit: Just an add on to those “picking” on Gallagher. In the last post we have a claim that Gallagher gets too many penalties to be captain but reality states:

 

Edmundson: 380 PIM - 416 GP

Anderson: 315 PIM - 388 GP

Gallagher: 397 PIM - 638 GP

 

Clearly, there is some (possibly unintentional) bias against the guy. Many of his penalties are also a result of his effort level and tenacity, as opposed to being dead between the ears.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gallagher has fewer PIMs than many other team captains out there.

 

Given the comments from other players about leadership, it really seems like it's going to be Suzuki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

 

Clearly, there is some (possibly unintentional) bias against the guy. Many of his penalties are also a result of his effort level and tenacity, as opposed to being dead between the ears.

 

Gallagher isnt an innocent victim and deserves lots of his penalties, but has zero to do with not being or being named captain.

I simply think he wont be in NHL much longer (compared to #14 anyways), maybe couple years at most, I assume most think similar, watching him struggle so badly for last year and 1/2...2g 6pts in 22 playoff games last year:(.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any forward who becomes captain and is not consistently producing will be under a lot of scrutiny and media attention, I would not wish that upon Suzuki at this point in his career.  
IMO this also takes Gallagher off of the table as he already places himself in the media attention and also already places a lot of pressure on himself. I believe he leads by example, not by nurturing relationships and believe both he and the team is best served with him being an alternate captain.

So with all of that in mind I think the captain needs to have experience, consistency and play a role with limited expectations offensively.  Eddy is the perfect choice in these regards. His absence this year highlighted his steadying effect, importance to the team, he is well-liked, highly respected around the league and follows the Weber mold and therefore offers a great transitional captain until Suzuki is older and then Nick takes over.   He will be able to handle it in stride at some point sooner than later, but no need until the team is a cup competitor.  
 

I actually think they should go another year without a C (spin it as ongoing tribute to Weber who is technically still on the team) and revisit naming Suzuki captain after this coming season.  He may be even more ready to handle the added duties and stresses without affecting on ice performance and the team could be exiting the loser mentality by then if all goes as planned.  Hard to have a new C on a team that is going to be a losing team, and expect that new C to do well and succeed in that new role.   Best to let a youngish guy handle that when the team is more competitive.


If injuries were not ruining his career I could see Byron being a dark horse candidate if we are thinking outside the box.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hockeyrealist said:

I actually think they should go another year without a C
 

I thought Gorton said YES will be a new captain this year? Memory could be wrong on that. I would think will be one named this summer anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I mention PIMs in relation to the captancy, I’m not meaning the total number. I’m meaning the quality of the penalty. 
 

im happy for my captain to get a 5 and 10 for defending a teammate. I’m not fine with my captain getting an undisciplined penalty. 
 

Gally just looses his cool too often and yaps too much for me to be the captain. I love Gally on my team (well - the 20+ goals per season Gally), just not as captain. 
 

Maybe I didn’t watch enough games - but guys like Weber or Eddy don’t/didn’t take brainfart or emotional out of control penalties. Neither does Suzuki. Id just give Suzuki more time and make Eddy the captain given last years performance and who is under contract for next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

out of the players with term and that seem to fit Hugh-Gort's template: Suzuki, Anderson, Gallagher, Evans, Dvorak, Armia, Edmundson, Hoffman, Romanov, Savard,  Petry

 

here are my choices:

Edmundson (C), Savard (A), Gallagher (A),

 

Out of the young core: Romanov (C), Suzuki (A), Evans (A)

 

I believe that Gallagher will prepare differently this summer and will come back in great shape for next season. I also believe that Savard will take a leadership role similar to how Ouellet has done it in Laval.

 

I would give the C to Romanov before I give it to Suzuki. More steady, better work ethic, not a dirty player but tough to play against. Seems like a passionate and dedicated professional that loves playing in Montreal

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Was Subban-Macpac a vote, I thought Maxpac was selected by Mb-Mt.

 

Yes, that was a vote.  Bergevin/Therrien then went to Pacioretty's house to tell him the news...and wound up knocking on someone else's door instead on their first attempt.

 

3 hours ago, hockeyrealist said:

I actually think they should go another year without a C

 

I'd be fine with that too but it doesn't sound like that's an option for this management team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Out of the young core: Romanov (C), Suzuki (A), Evans (A)

 

I believe that Gallagher will prepare differently this summer and will come back in great shape for next season. I also believe that Savard will take a leadership role similar to how Ouellet has done it in Laval.

 

I would give the C to Romanov before I give it to Suzuki. More steady, better work ethic, not a dirty player but tough to play against. Seems like a passionate and dedicated professional that loves playing in Montreal

An interesting proposal!

 

How is Romanov's English these days? I recall it was pretty limited when he first arrived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

out of the players with term and that seem to fit Hugh-Gort's template: Suzuki, Anderson, Gallagher, Evans, Dvorak, Armia, Edmundson, Hoffman, Romanov, Savard,  Petry

 

here are my choices:

Edmundson (C), Savard (A), Gallagher (A),

 

Out of the young core: Romanov (C), Suzuki (A), Evans (A)

 

I believe that Gallagher will prepare differently this summer and will come back in great shape for next season. I also believe that Savard will take a leadership role similar to how Ouellet has done it in Laval.

 

I would give the C to Romanov before I give it to Suzuki. More steady, better work ethic, not a dirty player but tough to play against. Seems like a passionate and dedicated professional that loves playing in Montreal

 


Romanov is indeed an interesting idea. 
 

I don’t think he is ready right now but he might be perfect in a few years. 
 

I would be good with Edmundson now and then revisit the Romanov idea after Edmundson is gone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

  Bergevin/Therrien then went to Pacioretty's house to tell him the news...and wound up knocking on someone else's door instead on their first attempt.

 

That was funny or bit sad.

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...