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

jedimaas

Members
  • Posts

    4,993
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jedimaas

  1. Im really totally confused about what Id do if i was coach. This roster is really a mess because we have a bunch of young guys who may or may not be better than the older established guys in their positions. I *think* id go with this: Price / Montoya Condon would be fine too but i think Montoya gives us a better chance to rest Price a little. Goal is (obviously) the one place we really have no concerns. Beaulieu - Weber Markov - Petry Barberio - Pateryn Emelin But what if Juulsen or Sergachev are ready? Do we move Emeiln now? Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Radulov Andrighetto-Plekanec-Gallagher Lehkonen - Desharnais - McCarron Carr - Mitchell - Shaw Danault To me those top 2 lines are perfect. A great, true #1 line, a very capable #2 line (you could swap McCarron with Andrighetto but I think Ghetto is better suited to the left side). Our bottom six is a mess though. Are we going to have a checking line? Can we keep Lehkonen with the habs? (he goes back to europe if not, AHL is not an option). I would rather not have shaw on the roster at all tbh, but on the 4th he might be ok, if we werent paying him so much. MB seems to think he's Gallagher/Marchant 2.0 but he is severely below either of those 2 players' talent level. And, of course, MT wont do this. Shaw will most likely be on the 2nd like and Danault will probably be on the 3rd. Markov may well be on the first pairing. These are all big mistakes imho. We have good players. If I had as much faith in our professional development / talent analysis as I do in our junior scouts I think we'd probably be ok, but you know that we are going to bury some good young kids for the sake of the Shaws, Byrons and Flynns on the roster. I wonder if we'll see another trade or 2 from MB before the season starts. Emelin is looking like he may have lost his spot & apparently there's still interest out west for him...
  2. With his skating i think he can. He and Weber should, on paper anyway, really compliment each other well. It may not only be a great match for Beau but it may signal a bit of a reprieve on some of Weber's flaws. Of course the big obstacle is MT.... i see he was trying Petry on his offside now too. Gah.
  3. This. The other thing is that 29 teams lose every year. People look at the 90s devils & say "yeah it was boring but they won" but forget how bad the years they didnt win were. Id rather watch a skilled and entertaining team than a vicious and dirty team, especially if my team doesnt win at the end of the season.
  4. Its not an overstatement to say that when he's motivated, he's potentially one of the top 15-20 forwards in the game. He has incredible vision and hand-eye coordination and he can play a finesse or power game. he's very much like Kovalev 2.0 If you listen to what he's said in interviews, he's "changed" - lets hope he has because if thats true, he's going to have a monster season for us. Even Therrien will have little to fault him on as long as he produces.
  5. Mitchell also has way better vision than most 4th liners. He's not a bad roster player at all & I dont mind him in our top 12. To be honest, most of our 3rd and 4th liners are pretty good - they serve a purpose - the problem is that we should really only keep 1 or 2 of them in the bottom 6 but instead we keep 6 role players & let our developing youth sit.
  6. I honestly think they looked at the that cup-winning habs bunch from the early 90s & thought 'we'll just do that" - because Demers (and Burns before him) basically built a team around Patrick Roy. There are, of course, huge differences in the game nowadays - but much more important than that is that back then we actually had a system. Sure, Roy faced a lot of shots, but they were calculated low-percentage shots. Every now and again he'd have a bad night & let in 6 or 7 but for the most part, if he could see it, he could stop it. The defense would collapse clog up areas where shots were likely to become goals and clear rebounds. Roy would do the rest. If we built some system like this (it would be boring) we'd probably do fine too but we dont have a "system." Instead, we let the opposition outshoot us and offer little to no 'calculated support' for price. We play bad offensive hockey and even worse defensive hockey, relying on Price to play all-world hockey. Unless something changes drastically, I think we're going to have a hard time contenting, which is a shame really because even with PK gone, this is a good solid roster. We will most likely squander another year of it.
  7. I know most people are saying this stuff in Jest but lets be fair: Shea Weber is still an elite defensman. He's a first pairing guy on any team in the league. In the last little bit Ive seen him compared to Murrary, Boullion, Gil etc - but he's so much better than all of them its a bit silly. Shea Weber on your team is a very very good thing. Shea Weber on your team for the price of Subban sucks, thats all.
  8. Absolutely Agree. The concern is that A) MT may not give Beau that chance, MB may trade him or C) Beau cant handle the minutes. Thing is, if beaulieu-weber works as well as i think it might, we may actually have a pretty solid 1st pairing. Then we get Petry - Markov which should also be a very good 2nd pairing and theres no shortage of 3rd pairing guys. If Petry plays with Weber (i suspect he could) then our whole grouping is messed up & I think it will end very badly.
  9. My only hope is that Beaulieu is given a fair chance with Weber & makes the most of it. I think he may be the most important part of our d-corps next year because finding the right partner for Weber could be the key to the season to be honest.
  10. 29 points in 65 games = 37 over a full year, pretty close the 40 I said. And he didnt play that many 1st line minutes last year. Previous 4 years: 48, 52, 48 (prorated), 60. I stand by my statement that $3.5m is not a bad value for a 40 - 50 point player. He's just not a good fit with us. Wait, im defending DD?
  11. i think McCarron will have a spot. MT seems to like him and he's got the size MB and MT love. I dont understand the fascination with turning him into a centre although with the loss of Eller we probably need him there now. FWIW Danault is 23 so Id probably still call him a "youngster" and i think there's still an outside chance he hasnt quite shown all he has (although I dont see him ever reaching more than a 3rd line role). With Eller gone he may have to start taking on that role now... not sure who else is suited to it... DLR maybe but for whatever reason he seems to have fallen out of favour. Byron is what he is. We know what that is (he aint getting 'better' at 27 imho) and should definitely not be a 'given' over younger players with more potential.
  12. Dont misread what people are saying: the USA team had some terrific players. In fact, Id probably argue they would be a stanley cup contender (if not favourite) if they were playing in the NHl (they wouldnt fit under the cap mind you) The reality is that even if Team USA picked the absolute best roster they could, they probably couldnt have beaten Canada or Sweden or maybe even Russia. They just arent that good right now (especially with their young guys on team NA). The problem is that they, arguably, didnt do that. They didnt ice the best team possible. If they did, guys like Kessel, Faulk, Ryan, Statstny would have been there (instead of Dubinsky, Callahan, Abdelkader etc) and therefore people are left speculating that they went for grit over skill. Either way I dont think they would have been a top 3 finisher but i would have expected them to at least qualify.
  13. It doesnt make sense for him to say it but it even makes less sense for a reporter to report it, if it didnt happen. I mean this is the sort of thing, if every other witness there said "no, he never said that" which could end a journalists' career. you dont make claims like that unless you really did hear it. Now, context could be everything - maybe it was in jest, maybe it was said sarcastically - but no matter what, it was a pretty stupid thing to do if in fact Therrien did it.
  14. Thing is though, we're building a big, tough, gritty team that can beat the opposition with brute force. To see a better example in action look at the USA team at the world cup. In many cases they picked gritty players over skilled ones because this way they could dominate other more skilled teams, physically. Oh wait...
  15. Yeah, I actually think Radulov and MT will become fast friends. He's labeled as a "typical skilled russian' but truth is, he plays more of a NA style. Besides, if he does produce the way I think he will, MT will for sure love him. Not a fan of this. I mean Im happy with most of the top 6 but i think Radulov is way better suited to #1 RW (in turn, gallagher would be one of the best 2nd line RW in the league) and Pleks / Shaw should be part of our third line. 2nd line centre is a concern, but I think it should be McCarron's to lose at this point. Pleks is winding down his career & will be an excellent 3rd line centre for a few more years, McCarron is just coming into his own & should be allowed to try that 2nd pivot spot - especially with Chucky and Pleks getting the tougher matchups. That said, the fact that DD is not listed in this group of 6 is at least a huge positive.
  16. Speculation is that he was left off because the Russian brass werent pleased with him leaving the KHL. "Politically motivated" is not always easy to prove but it certainly seems plausible in this case.
  17. Yeah, I didnt watch every minute but what i saw, Weber looked fine. 100% agree Ted, that PK and Weber, despite playing very different styles also have a lot of pros and cons together. For the most part Weber will probably make more "safe plays" than PK but if PK is generating more offense than he is a defensively liability (which he very seldom is anyway) then whats the issue?
  18. Holtby and Crawford better not be taking notes (and yeah, i know CC already worked with him in Chicago, but still, he's OURS ) As for Subban, its an absolute joke. Ted already pointed to it but look at it this way: You can maybe - MAYBE - make an argument for Doughty and Weber over PK. But the rest? Burns? Vlasic? Pietrangelo? Muzzin??? Bouwmeester???? Even Weber and Doughty you could argue against (we've seen all the PK vs Weber comparisons ad nauseam lately) Doughty is pretty much on par with PK from everything ive seen of him out here. Vlasic & Muzzin are Lefties, ok but PK on his off side is still better than either of those and waaaaay better than Bouwmeester. Pietrangelo went from being a 'potential elite' defensman a couple of years ago to a pretty good #1. He's not even close to as good as PK or Doughty or Weber. Muzzin is overrated & probably only brought in so he can play with Doughty (Maybe?) Assuming thats why Bouwmeester is there (to play with Pietrangelo). Vlasic... again... top 30 in the nhl? probably. top 6-8 in Canada? No. Burns is the one who really annoys me though. Yes, he had a monster year last year. But every single criticism of PK Subban on the ice should be (and usually is) thrown in Burns' direction too. He's way more prone to defensive lapses than PK, so why is he there & PK sits at home? The only conclusion I can draw is that the hockey braintrust thinks PK is "too big" for the team which I find nearly ludicrous. Even if we believe he's too big a personality does anyone for one second think a guy like Crosy or Weber or Thornton or Stamkos or Toews etc etc would let one guy showboat? Its just plain ridiculous that we're even having this argument. Canada always leaves good players off the roster. Thats just a given with the wealth of talent we have, but this one is probably one of the worst omissions ive ever seen.
  19. At the time I compiled a list (i think there were only 3 real legitimate teams, all from the west) of who might be interested in him. I dont actually remember who they were (Arizona was one i think?) but the criteria would be: set 1st line. set 3rd line, lacking 2nd line scoring but having 2 big wingers. If you can insulate DD with big wingers and play him behind a good 1st line, he would be fine. $3.5, is not a lot for the 40-50 points he should be able to get you.
  20. I think there were too many sources at the deadline suggesting DD was being shopped for it not to be real - BUT- and this is a big one: We had Eller then. Now we dont. They are, of course, two very different players but I wouldnt put it past MB to thinking he has 'solved' his logjam at centre and will now be fine keeping DD. I hope not because i still see basically no place for him on this roster that doesnt make us weaker. He could still be a useful player on a different roster but not ours.
  21. Not trying to be litigious here but: Stanley cup winners: 2016 Pens (first expansion team in 1967) 2015 Chicago (original 6) 2014 LA (first expansion team in 1967) 2013 Chicago (original 6) 2012 LA(first expansion team in 1967) 2011 Boston (original 6) 2010 Chicago (original 6) 2009 Pittsburg (first expansion team in 1967) 2008 Detroit (original 6) So thats 9 of the last 9 cup winners - all are either original 6 or first tier expansion (1967).. the "new market" teams have yet to win anything. I do put some faith in the new analytics but probably not quite as much as some NHL Bloggers out there. Time will tell.
  22. I totally agree with everything you said here, Im simply (still) trying to make any sense out of this trade. I cant. It really sucks because I would otherwise have been absolutely thrilled to have Weber on this team (ive been wanting to trade for him for like 6+ years) but only if it mean not trading one of our 3 or 4 top players. Now he comes to our team & instead of being happy, im still upset.
  23. Yeah and as Ive said many times now, I dont buy it: I dont see how PK could possibly been that problematic to offset his skill but its the only possible scenario where this makes sense. Because on paper, you can possibly (especially if Radulov works out) say we're a better team right now than we were last year but even right here right now (Ie the last 6 years of Weber's contract be damned) I dont see how anyone can say Weber is a better player than PK. They are both elite but we gave up the better player so there'd better be a darned good reason for it that we're just not aware of.
  24. Your logic is, as always, sound Ted. I am going to play Devil's advocate for a minute & just say what if Therrien and Bergevin know something we dont. (THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART, JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE FLIP SIDE!!) Lets suggest for one minute that PK is a problem in the room. The rest of the team in typical "hockey player form" blow it over/off and say he was fine but what if his attitude and personality rubbed everyone the wrong way. He's not bad like Pronger or Comrie bad but he's still a distraction & upsets team chemistry. Is that cause for concern for a team? There have been VERY few examples of a player with an ego so big, or a personality so brazen that he was actually detrimental to a team despite his skill but there have been a few (Yashin is a good example Tkachuk, Ribiero & Sanderson too). Again, I am NOT saying this is the case but I am willing to give just a teenie, tiny bit of rope to MT & MB and see how this all plays out. I dont think we're going to be surprised (Weber will be great for us but PK will be better - and for longer) but I am willing to wait & see.
×
×
  • Create New...