Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 2 hours ago, Commandant said: And left us in such a mess that its taken three bottom 5 finishes to even start to rebuild it. I can't believe I am getting into the MB discussion again. MB left Hughes with some good pieces and some bad contracts. My biggest problem with MB is that he didn't embrace a full scale rebuild when it was required. He tinkered with it, called it a reset, retool or whatever. Bottom line is that I prefer to look forward and am very glad Hughes is in charge. I think the future looks bright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 Bergevin didn’t use analytics in anyway, shape or form. I still can’t believe that fact because analytics have been part of NHL development and scouting for many years. Arrogance or incompetence I know Bergevin did some good things but I am very glad he isn’t our GM anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 I don't think MB was a bad GM. When he came in, he did a lot of good things. At some point every GM faces the fact they need to do something to take the next step. Sometimes it pays off (Subban for Weber, Galchenyuk for Domi), sometimes it doesn't (Sergachev for Drouin). When things go castrophically bad (Sergachev for Drouin) it's hard to dig yourself out of that hole, which causes desperation and more high risk moves (Signing Alzner) that either make you look great or stupid. It's the natural progression of most GMs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: I can't believe I am getting into the MB discussion again. MB left Hughes with some good pieces and some bad contracts. My biggest problem with MB is that he didn't embrace a full scale rebuild when it was required. He tinkered with it, called it a reset, retool or whatever. Bottom line is that I prefer to look forward and am very glad Hughes is in charge. I think the future looks bright. it was reported that Molson didn’t allow him; back when he was trying to get a new contract, MB had asked Molson to sign him and let him do a real rebuild. Molson had wanted to renew MB earlier in the season but when this came up it was reported that Molson said he was thinking about just to not bring back MB. Through out MB’s tenure he was asked to “make the playoffs and see what can happen” and he did this with his retools. It was not just MB, but Molson’s and the board’s directive too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 Can we move on from another “MB is 💩” discussion. It is tiring to do this all over again 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 Oh look the guy who always defends MB, and takes shots at the current admin wants to stop the discussion of his favourite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted July 26 Author Share Posted July 26 1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said: Can we move on from another “MB is 💩” discussion. It is tiring to do this all over again The initial MB reference (mine) related specifically to a ranking of NHL teams according to "cap efficiency" that placed the Habs 16th ... I noted that the three prime drags on that ranking were contracts given out/acquired by MB ... then the "BUT he did this and he did that" defences initiated the broader discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 58 minutes ago, GHT120 said: The initial MB reference (mine) related specifically to a ranking of NHL teams according to "cap efficiency" that placed the Habs 16th ... I noted that the three prime drags on that ranking were contracts given out/acquired by MB ... then the "BUT he did this and he did that" defences initiated the broader discussion. And who did they come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 2 hours ago, GHT120 said: The initial MB reference (mine) related specifically to a ranking of NHL teams according to "cap efficiency" that placed the Habs 16th ... I noted that the three prime drags on that ranking were contracts given out/acquired by MB ... then the "BUT he did this and he did that" defences initiated the broader discussion. That was me responding. I just pointed out that, in addition to the bad contracts, he did leave the Habs with some very cap-efficient assets, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the Travis Konencny contract is awfully generous both in term and dollar amount. Somehow I don't think it will age well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 34 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the Travis Konencny contract is awfully generous both in term and dollar amount. Somehow I don't think it will age well. 68 points and a rising cap. doesn't seem too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 4 minutes ago, Commandant said: 68 points and a rising cap. doesn't seem too bad. 68 points was a career high, he will be 28 when his 8 year contract kicks in, he plays a physical game to be successful, just don't think in 4 or 5 years that this contract looks good. We will see about a rising cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 I think it's reasonable enough for his current performance (also 61 points in 60 games the previous season) but it's hard to envision him aging much better than Gallagher. Similar size, similarly physical playing style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the Travis Konencny contract is awfully generous both in term and dollar amount. Somehow I don't think it will age well. I looked at a few recent contract comparables in a recent PHR piece and honestly, the actual deal came in cheaper than I was expected when you factor in the expected jump in the salary cap. He was asking $10M plus and evidently came down quite a bit to get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 9 minutes ago, tomh009 said: I think it's reasonable enough for his current performance (also 61 points in 60 games the previous season) but it's hard to envision him aging much better than Gallagher. Similar size, similarly physical playing style. That's what I am thinking, Gallagher's contract was fair based on his current performance at the time but what would it look like in a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted July 27 Author Share Posted July 27 2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: That's what I am thinking, Gallagher's contract was fair based on his current performance at the time but what would it look like in a few years. And is an example of why contracts MUST account for what a player is expected to provide going forward and not just what they have done recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 In principle, yes. But, in practice, GMs will (much) more often than not offer good players contracts where the player has next to no hope of being able to perform to in its second half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 1 hour ago, GHT120 said: And is an example of why contracts MUST account for what a player is expected to provide going forward and not just what they have done recently. I agree and I think that's what I have been trying to say. Konencny is 27, generally by the time a forward is 27 you have a pretty good idea what their ceiling is. He plays an aggressive game, is not a big guy and is a winger so not sure that ages as well as the smooth skating center. I am not taking anything away from the player. He is a good player no question. Plus he is/was a UFA after this season so he had some leverage in negotiations. I just think the term and dollar amount is a little rich given that his ceiling may be 65-70 points. Maybe I am underestimating him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 I thought this was interesting. One decade isn’t like the others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said: I thought this was interesting. One decade isn’t like the others 2010's should have been Crosby if it weren't for that dirty Leaf Steckel. Then the whole list would be Canadians, as it rightfully should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 5 hours ago, tomh009 said: In principle, yes. But, in practice, GMs will (much) more often than not offer good players contracts where the player has next to no hope of being able to perform to in its second half. In practice, contracts would have much higher AAVs if they had shorter length. The teams and the agents both know that the first few years will be the best years, and the later years will be underpays. The idea that the last seasons on a long term deal is an overpa isn't something that we as fans on twitter, this board, other boards, reddit, etc can all figure out and GMs haven't. It's priced in as a cost of doing business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 14 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said: I thought this was interesting. One decade isn’t like the others Gretzky being the leading point scorer in two consecutive decades is a remarkable indicator of his transcendent greatness. Gretzky was the only player I’ve ever seen of whom I would say that he was a bone-fide genius: a genius at hockey. A guy like Mario Lemieux, on the other hand, was an absolutely scintillating, sublime talent - huge, strong, great reach, unstoppable skater, superb mechanics, great vision. Gretz had none of these Chosen One attributes, save the last. Yet he was an absolute grand master of controlling the play and pounding up the points. I’m grateful that I saw him play live and was able to watch his once-in-a-century career. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 15 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Gretzky being the leading point scorer in two consecutive decades is a remarkable indicator of his transcendent greatness. Gretzky was the only player I’ve ever seen of whom I would say that he was a bone-fide genius: a genius at hockey. A guy like Mario Lemieux, on the other hand, was an absolutely scintillating, sublime talent - huge, strong, great reach, unstoppable skater, superb mechanics, great vision. Gretz had none of these Chosen One attributes, save the last. Yet he was an absolute grand master of controlling the play and pounding up the points. I’m grateful that I saw him play live and was able to watch his once-in-a-century career. Perfect description of Gretzky and Lemieux - the top two players of all time. 1980’s hockey was clearly a different beast compared to other decades. I mean Gretzky had 1800 points which is DOUBLE any other player on this list. I will also say that McDavid has 6 more years to add to that 546 point total. At his current pace that’s around 1450 points which is remarkable for this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Howe and Mikita only played 70 games per season and no overtime, so adjusting for those would take them to 1000-ish points. But, on the other hand, back then the teams would only be able to dress 15 or 16 skaters, so the top line would play well over 20 minutes per game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 Necas signed for 2x $6.5M. I assume that takes him off the trade market. Carolina has only $6.44M left in cap space now, though, and that's probably not enough to sign Seth Jarvis ... 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.