GDT Game 17 - Golden Knights vs Canadiens - November 16, 2023 - 7 pm

[Plutarch]

Anyone know if the shoulder Xhejak was holding after that hit was the same one he injured? (His left)

[DON]

14 minutes ago, Plutarch said:

Anyone know if the shoulder Xhejak was holding after that hit was the same one he injured? (His left)

Was his right that he had surgery on.

[DON]

How bad is Xhekaj's injury... will Trudeau be called up?

 

10 Thoughts: A Close Loss to Vegas – HabsWorld.net

 

OH well, was fun and entertaining game, keep scoring!

[IN THE HEARTS OF MEN]

16 minutes ago, DON said:

Was his right that he had surgery on.

Yes. It was a right shoulder injury that ended his season LY.

[GHT120]

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

... they will likely feel that way 16 out of 20 years ...

 

Overall, an excellent post ... but this is I-M-O a ridiculous suggestion.

[DON]

Bit outmatched.

 

Primeau stopped all 18 shots he faced in the first period.

Canadiens’ slipping standard costs them in loss to Golden Knights - The Athletic

 

The PK took a beating.

2a for Suzuki (15pts in 17gms) 

Just 1 shot for Caufield

Barron 1g 22:12 +2

Lindstrom, not a big fan but maybe as good as Wideman i suppose.

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

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

Such a weird perspective but to each their own. Drafting high has really worked out well for us in the recent past. 

The modern fan to their aspiring athletic children after a loss: “Don’t worry, it’s better if our team loses. It’s all part of the plan.” 

 

Last year Canucks fans were calling for a tank job, despite having a superstar young C, a superstar young D, and en elite, relatively-young G. Even many media commentators were demanding the same. Sell off assets, blow it all up. 

 

I bring this up because I thought that mindset was total folly. You don’t tank when you already have the assets that a tank job is meant to afford. But the idea of tanking has become this magnetic thing that dominates fan discourse whenever a team isn’t doing great (and sometimes even when it is). The reason for this bizarre logic is, I think, that we love the “two birds in the bush” - the fantasy of potential - more than the flawed reality of anything other than a contending team. It’s like a guy who keeps being drawn to other women because he craves the “hit” of the early romance and seduction (but not so much the less glamourous ups and downs of a serious relationship). You then get the surreal scenario of “fans” cheering year after year after year for their team to lose every game they play.

 

Even when the Habs were a league power in 2014/15, some fans were still calling for a tank because we weren’t “real contenders.” 🙄

 

People complain that we didn’t tank “properly” last year - even though we iced an AHL lineup for the entire second half. The perceived problem is that we finished 5th last. But what last season showed is that you can ice a horrifically bad team and still not guarantee that you finish last overall (Chicago didn’t, despite trying hard), not can it guarantee lottery success, nor can it guarantee that if you win the lottery, you get a Bedard rather than a Slaf. 

 

Let’s say we tank this season, finish 4th, and don’t get one of the super-sexy prospects. Do we then keep tanking until the next time a “generational” player comes up in the draft? Come on.

 

2 hours ago, brindavis said:

We are a classic developing young team. Lots of talent, stay in games, but ultimately don't have the experience to see games or difficult periods of games out. 

 

I agree.

 

12 hours ago, IN THE HEARTS OF MEN said:

We are too good to tank. even without Dach...

 

There’s something to this. But also, a tank job sets us further back and also means 2-3 (?) more years of losing rather than, say, 1-2. At some point, you have to say “OK, we’re done trying to lose, we want to start learning how to play properly and having a chance to win some games.” That’s how you develop.

 

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

I won’t be able to ever agree. It may be realistic to accept that we are not a contender but it’s getting to the point where any season we aren’t people are actually happy with losses. We are fans and are supposed to support our team. How many people actually attend a Habs game hoping we will lose simply because we have no shot at the cup? 
 

The draft is not the only way to acquire top end talent. Trades exist as well. 
 

Unfortunately with a cap and a growing number of teams in the league winning the cup is going to become even more difficult. If someone feels we should be tanking this year, they will likely feel that way 16 out of 20 years. Honestly, may as well find a different sport to watch with that perspective.
 

This doesn’t even delve into the reality that some fans who will be wishing for losses are simply wrong about the potential of our team because they are just that, fans with their own opinion. Or maybe the fact that it would be good for the development of our young players to experience regular season success or even playoff failures. Happy with a 6-5 loss? Doesn’t matter that the 6 goals were against our developing goaltender, at least it was entertaining!
 

Going even further, this was the same perspective of some the very year we made the cup final. Those same fans of our very own team then continue to point out that it’s not a valid comparison because it was the “bubble season”. We had a great playoff team that year and players fighting for Weber and Price’s final attempt. There’s no winning that debate or changing a tanker’s perspective so as I said, to each their own.

 

We do need more talent at FW, but yes, there are other ways to acquire it. And we are still going to get a tolerably high pick this year. Yet another failing of the tankistes is that they fixate on the top three or four picks. But look at Boston or TB - drafting elite talent outside of those rarified regions. Or, look at Caufield, #15 overall. So just because we aren’t tanking, it does not follow we cannot possibly add impact talent to our system in one way or another.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

2 hours ago, brindavis said:

We are a classic developing young team. Lots of talent, stay in games, but ultimately don't have the experience to see games or difficult periods of games out. 

 

I also agree with this. Sometimes progress can't always be measured in wins and losses.  The Habs are able to stay competitive with high level teams but can't quite finish the job.  Hughes just needs to stick with the program. It will come. 

[Neech]

There's lots of strawmanning going on in here - 'tankers want this and that' - there are absolutely tanking fans who go too far. But this is the perfect year to suck again with Dach out - only 2 top 6 forwards, inexperienced D, 3 goalie carousel. We're still a bottom 10 team so it would be best to capitalize on it and be bottom 5. Now, Gorton hasn't shown any skill drafting in the top 5, but it still gives us the best chance at elite talent. 

 

I reject the notion that finishing at the bottom of the standings sets us back beyond this season. Look no further than New Jersey, who drafted 2nd then vaulted over 100 points. Tampa being held up as team that won without tanking? They made the most of their bad seasons by getting Stamkos, Hedman and Drouin (who got flipped for Sergachev) in the top 3 when they weren't competing for the playoffs.

 

What I want is good process and bad luck on the ice. To put up a good fight and lose in regulation, and come away with our first superstar forward in 30 years.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

34 minutes ago, Neech said:

There's lots of strawmanning going on in here - 'tankers want this and that' - there are absolutely tanking fans who go too far. But this is the perfect year to suck again with Dach out - only 2 top 6 forwards, inexperienced D, 3 goalie carousel. We're still a bottom 10 team so it would be best to capitalize on it and be bottom 5. Now, Gorton hasn't shown any skill drafting in the top 5, but it still gives us the best chance at elite talent. 

 

I reject the notion that finishing at the bottom of the standings sets us back beyond this season. Look no further than New Jersey, who drafted 2nd then vaulted over 100 points. Tampa being held up as team that won without tanking? They made the most of their bad seasons by getting Stamkos, Hedman and Drouin (who got flipped for Sergachev) in the top 3 when they weren't competing for the playoffs.

 

What I want is good process and bad luck on the ice. To put up a good fight and lose in regulation, and come away with our first superstar forward in 30 years.

 

They got Kucherov at 50something and Point at 79. Also they flipped the POS Drouin, a high pick, for Sergachev, who was 9th overall. That Sergy was a ridiculous upgrade on Drouin affords more proof that (a) tanking does not ensure you draft a stud and (b) you can get high-impact players outside the top 3.

 

To some degree this is arguing about nothing, since the Habs are not going to do that great this season and will surely draft in the top 10. Since there is no way we are getting the #1 overall pick, however, we are no more assured of getting this "superstar forward" than we were last year or, for that matter, the year before.

[dMk]

15 hours ago, sbhatt said:

Gallagher back to looking like a total bum tonight: -2, and cost us a point with the idiotic double minor late in the game.  He should watch the Boston game from the pressbox.

Anyone else notice the ref initially called a hook there? No indication of a high-stick from that official.

[huzer]

Well the "good" news for those worried about such things, the Habs now have a worse record than at this point least season. (7-8-2 vs 8-8-1) so they should easily still be top 10. They will probably really nose dive if/when Pearson/Monahan get traded and the inevitable season ending injury to another player or two.

 

On to Boston!

[Commandant]

20 minutes ago, dMk said:

Anyone else notice the ref initially called a hook there? No indication of a high-stick from that official.

 

It doesn't matter, once the ref saw blood from the Knights player, he was able to review the call to see if it was a double minor.  

[alfredoh2009]

28 minutes ago, huzer said:

Well the "good" news for those worried about such things, the Habs now have a worse record than at this point least season. (7-8-2 vs 8-8-1) so they should easily still be top 10. They will probably really nose dive if/when Pearson/Monahan get traded and the inevitable season ending injury to another player or two.

 

On to Boston!

 

I sincerely believe they will do much better than last year, around to the 16th-24th place. There were a lot of positives in the loss yesterday, a lot to be hopeful about.

 

The opportunity to tank last year, is done and I do not believe the team should consider dipping in the standings again unless there a re some catastrophic injuries by Christmas (or half-way of the season). I do not believe they will nosedive if Monahan is traded, as long as the forwards fine their scoring and that the defensemen improve their zone coverage.

 

I can't wait to the 20 game mark to see how they have fared by that point.

[dMk]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

It doesn't matter, once the ref saw blood from the Knights player, he was able to review the call to see if it was a double minor.  

Is that true? I know it is for other calls, but never heard of 4-minute hooking

[Commandant]

24 minutes ago, dMk said:

Is that true? I know it is for other calls, but never heard of 4-minute hooking

 

There is no 4-minute hooking, but there is a 5 minute major available for hooking,   This allows them to review the call and have it as a 4 minute high-sticking after review.

 

Rule 55 – Hooking

55.1 Hooking - Hooking is the act of using the stick in a manner that enables a player to restrain an opponent. When a player is checking another in such a way that there is only stick-to-stick contact, such action is not to be penalized as hooking.

55.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who impedes the progress of an opponent by “hooking” with his stick. A minor penalty for hooking shall be assessed to any player who uses the shaft of the stick above the upper hand to hold or hook an opponent.

55.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by “hooking” (see 55.4).

55.4 Game Misconduct – When a major penalty has been assessed for hooking as a result of an injury to an opponent, a game misconduct penalty must also be assessed. 55.5 Penalty Shot – refer to Rule 57.3 – Tripping.

55.6 Awarded Goal – refer to Rule 57.4 – Tripping.

55.7 Fines and Suspensions - If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

[dlbalr]

34 minutes ago, Commandant said:

There is no 4-minute hooking, but there is a 5 minute major available for hooking,   This allows them to review the call and have it as a 4 minute high-sticking after review.

 

Rule 55 – Hooking

55.1 Hooking - Hooking is the act of using the stick in a manner that enables a player to restrain an opponent. When a player is checking another in such a way that there is only stick-to-stick contact, such action is not to be penalized as hooking.

55.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who impedes the progress of an opponent by “hooking” with his stick. A minor penalty for hooking shall be assessed to any player who uses the shaft of the stick above the upper hand to hold or hook an opponent.

55.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by “hooking” (see 55.4).

55.4 Game Misconduct – When a major penalty has been assessed for hooking as a result of an injury to an opponent, a game misconduct penalty must also be assessed. 55.5 Penalty Shot – refer to Rule 57.3 – Tripping.

55.6 Awarded Goal – refer to Rule 57.4 – Tripping.

55.7 Fines and Suspensions - If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

 

On top of what you noted, a linesman can advise on a missed high-stick with the penalty call then being changed from the original signal.  I believe they said the call on the ice was confirmed which suggests to me that by the time the review happened, it had already been changed to a high stick.

[GHT120]

3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

... proof that (a) tanking does not ensure you draft a stud and (b) you can get high-impact players outside the top 3. ...

 

 

NOBODY "with a brain" has ever said that tanking ensures you draft a stud, or that high-impact players cannot be found outside the top-3 ... just that it greatly increases your odds, and does so in each and every round of that year's draft. ... and reduces the need to hope that other teams make mistake after mistake so an impact player drops to you.

[GHT120]

4 hours ago, Neech said:

There's lots of strawmanning going on in here - 'tankers want this and that' - there are absolutely tanking fans who go too far. But this is the perfect year to suck again with Dach out - only 2 top 6 forwards, inexperienced D, 3 goalie carousel. We're still a bottom 10 team so it would be best to capitalize on it and be bottom 5. Now, Gorton hasn't shown any skill drafting in the top 5, but it still gives us the best chance at elite talent. 

 

I reject the notion that finishing at the bottom of the standings sets us back beyond this season. Look no further than New Jersey, who drafted 2nd then vaulted over 100 points. Tampa being held up as team that won without tanking? They made the most of their bad seasons by getting Stamkos, Hedman and Drouin (who got flipped for Sergachev) in the top 3 when they weren't competing for the playoffs.

 

What I want is good process and bad luck on the ice. To put up a good fight and lose in regulation, and come away with our first superstar forward in 30 years.

 

Well said!

[dMk]

4 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

On top of what you noted, a linesman can advise on a missed high-stick with the penalty call then being changed from the original signal.  I believe they said the call on the ice was confirmed which suggests to me that by the time the review happened, it had already been changed to a high stick.

Right, thanks. The fail was on the announcers, they could’ve informed us, but they were too busy reciting stats and talking to each other

[GHT120]

1 hour ago, dMk said:

Right, thanks. The fail was on the announcers, they could’ve informed us, but they were too busy reciting stats and talking to each other

OR ... they didn't know.

[tomh009]

On 11/16/2023 at 10:19 PM, Neech said:

Like it or not, drafting high is the best way to acquire top talent. Most contenders have a few swings at the top 5-10. We haven't had enough yet.

Most contenders may have some high draft picks, but high draft picks don't necessarily make you a contender.

 

Most top-10 picks, 2016-2021:

1. Buffalo (6)

2. Detroit (5)

3. Vancouver,  NY Rangers, New Jersey (4)

6. Anaheim, Arizona, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Ottawa (3)

 

That's the top ten swingers at the top ten draft picks. How many of those have actually turned into contenders? Rangers and Colorado are at 7% cup chance in Dom's model, Edmonton at 5%, all others 4% or less. And that's even with NJ and Buffalo having two first-overall picks in that period.

 

Top-ten draft picks are really not much of a guarantee of success.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Folks sometimes talk about tanking so we can get a superstar, then retreat to the argument that “well OF COURSE tanking does not mean you’ll get a superstar, it just improves the odds a bit.” The message is “no one ever denied this” even as people simultaneously act and talk as though tanking = superstar. 

 

Indeed, tanking does not guarantee a last-place finish, and a last-place finish does not guarantee drafting #1, and drafting #1 does not guarantee a superstar. The certitude and passion with which people advocate a tank is way out of whack with the probabilities involved.

 

Heck, we’ve already had the equivalent of a tank job for two straight seasons! The result was Slaf and Reinbacher. Nobody thinks they are superstars in the making. (Previous tank-equivalents got us Galy and KK, hardly compelling arguments for tanking). So I guess we should keep at it until we finally hit a “generational” player? If we draft #5 next year, well, let’s keep gunning for last place…over and over and over until Lafleur appears and our draft position lets us choose him.

 

Meanwhile, if we did a true tank and got rid of all our vets, we would have gaping holes in the lineup that would take another couple of years to fill. And our kids would be getting shellacked night after night and have no role models to guide them along other than the coaches.

 

All to attain a modest increase in the likelihood of drafting a superstar, and to avoid the supposedly franchise-shattering consequences of drafting, say, 9th or 10th overall. 🙄

 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

Most contenders may have some high draft picks, but high draft picks don't necessarily make you a contender.

 

Most top-10 picks, 2016-2021:

1. Buffalo (6)

2. Detroit (5)

3. Vancouver,  NY Rangers, New Jersey (4)

6. Anaheim, Arizona, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Ottawa (3)

 

That's the top ten swingers at the top ten draft picks. How many of those have actually turned into contenders? Rangers and Colorado are at 7% cup chance in Dom's model, Edmonton at 5%, all others 4% or less. And that's even with NJ and Buffalo having two first-overall picks in that period.

 

Top-ten draft picks are really not much of a guarantee of success.

Drafting high without good management is what causes failure. If you don’t have good management like the oilers - if doesn’t matter how many #1 overall picks you get, or the fact that you have generational players.

 

good management and high picks at least gets you a solid contending team. If you look at the teams that have won multiple times, and are always among the contenders - they had numerous top 5 picks and a number of #1 overall picks - Pittsburgh, Chicago, Colorado, Tampa. These team had a stable management group. On the other hand teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa,Phoenix, Toronto have had a constant soap opera and were riderless teams with bad managemt with constant change.

even with the ongoing soap opera, change in leadership, coaching and meddling ownership in Edmonton they had two deep playoff runs. That was on the strength of two key elite players, and they won in spite of their management teams not building a complete teams, leaving big holes in key positions. 

like any business, you have to have good management to succeed. Ruderless tanking (bad teams don’t always tank by design), without a plan to build a team, and have good stable coaching, is not going to create a winner. Hell, we got two 3rd overall picks when we were trying to win!!

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

even with the ongoing soap opera, change in leadership, coaching and meddling ownership in Edmonton they had two deep playoff runs. That was on the strength of two key elite players, and they won in spite of their management teams not building a complete teams, leaving big holes in key positions.

A deep playoff run doesn't necessarily mean that the team is a legitimate contender, though. As a counter-example, I remember a few years ago there was an NHL team from La Belle Provence that made it to the final, and yet I would have been hard-pressed to identify them as a contender as the playoffs got under way. And a long-term contender is, I believe, what the Habs' management team is driving for.

 

The Oilers should be a real contender, but I don't think they have been that at any time in the past few decades.