Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

weepingminotaur

Banned Users
  • Content Count

    5,804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About weepingminotaur

  • Rank
    Hockey Guru / Grand manitou

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What is the likelihood of hiring a decent coach? What's more, the current coach is actively responsible for impeding the development of pretty much all our young players -- Tinordi, Beaulieu, arguably Pateryn, Eller, Galchenyuk, and Subban. So not only he is not a good coach, but he's having a negative impact on development, some of which could be irreversible damage unless he's fired soon. Which brings us back to the question: what makes anyone think that Bergevin will fire Therrien? Additionally, nobody has addressed our issue at center. Where is the depth down the middle? Nowhere, because
  2. I really don't understand why all of a sudden people think we're one piece away from being a contender. The D situation is terrible and we're locked into a number of bad contracts (Emelin, Bourque, Desharnais, Briere, Gorges). Our center situation is a state of crisis: we're feeding big minutes to a soft non-possession forward (Desharnais), while our other scoring center gets older (Plekanec) and the coach has buried Eller on the fourth line and refuses to use our supposed future franchise center at his natural position. We are one of the lowest-scoring playoff teams in the conference, in part
  3. Still don't want him here for more than five years. I'm not going to be swayed by a nice stretch of production right now, when he's in his early '30s. The years we'd be buying up would be his late '30s on a long-term contract.
  4. Agreed with both of you. That line will get annihilated in the playoffs unless we control the OZone starts or switch personnel.
  5. FWIW, I heard the same arguments about our need for scoring when Gainey signed the little three back in 2009. And look how that turned out. We traded the best contract of the bunch (Cammalleri, who's still producing in Calgary). Gomez was a disaster. Gionta had two good seasons, became injury-prone in season 3, and has been in steady decline relative to his cap hit for the past two years. And while Gionta is still serviceable in a third-line role, it's a lot easier to swallow because it's only a five-year contract and the cap hit is lower (and occurred in an era when teams had the option to bu
  6. The risk isn't worth it. We have a number of important contracts coming up (Subban, Galchenyuk) and we're still tied to Bourque and Briere in the short term. We might also have to find a way to fit Markov under the cap for at least a year. This is in addition to the contracts of Price, Plekanec, Gorges, and Pacioretty that we're already carrying. I'd take a flyer on Vanek at five years. I would not go higher than a five-year term. I don't know why everyone is so confident he'd be good or even decent value through a seven or eight-year deal that takes him well into his late '30s. These are exac
  7. Have to disagree with you here, Manatee. First of all, making a good move shouldn't mean being perfect all the time. We're not nitpicking a decision to waive an AHL callup making minimum wage. We're talking about whether to go all-in on a guy whose production seems to be in decline, to the tune of seven or eight years, paying him top dollar well into his '30s. That is a decision that good teams think long and hard about and land on the right side of more often than not. Second, the Gorges example is inapt, because it's actually an example of a poor contract we gave out to an overrated fringe-
  8. One thing I want to emphasize that roy_133 already said: if we sign Vanek to a long-term contract, we're essentially buying up his '30s based on production from 2006 through 2009. That's not a good hockey move to me. If the opportunity comes to add a guy like Vanek with acceptable term, I think you do it, because you're not overpaying and if he can regain his form, you're getting great cap value. But to pay him assuming he'll be that guy through most of a seven-year contract? The odds are not in our favour and as others have said, Vanek is just not a good enough player to warrant that kind of
  9. Ted, it's hard to overlook the fact that Vanek's numbers are definitely on the downside post-2009. As for making the one-dimensional comparison to Jagr, Iginla, and Robitaille, it doesn't work, because all three were simply flat-out better players offensively than Vanek. So they brought more to the table, even after they were past their prime.
  10. Ted, I wouldn't put Vanek in the same category as any of the players you mentioned in your first paragraph. Not saying I don't want to get rid of Bourque and not re-sign Gionta, but let's not jump from the frying pan into the fire.
  11. Vanek's at a weird age to be UFA. And it's risky. I wouldn't go more than four or five years on any contract. If he wants term, he should get it elsewhere. He's a sniper, but pretty one-dimensional, and not good enough to risk buying up years when he'll likely be in decline and overpaying for those years.
  12. I like what I've seen of him so far, but I'm sure we can find a way to ruin his productivity if we try hard enough.
  13. For all that everyone talks about the big bad Bruins and their formula for playoff success, they were within a hair of losing in the first round to us in 2010-11 and within a hair of losing to the Leafs in the first round in 2012-13, not to mention the infamous meltdown against Philly when they blew a 3-0 series lead and lost in seven. It's funny how narratives turn on a dime. If we win that 2010-11 playoff series, Julien is probably fired and there is no big bad Boston playoff model. Chara was exposed in this series big-time. Looked out of gas and was on the ice for many Chicago goals agains
  14. Waiting to see how long it takes everyone to push the reset button on memory and start trotting out the "grit and size are EVERYTHING in the playoffs" talking point.
×
×
  • Create New...