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

Disillusioned1

Tryout / Joueur à l'essai
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Disillusioned1

  1. 2 hours ago, Habberwacky said:

    I would suggest Domi will be more like the Mustang while Galchebyuk the has potential to be the W202 which was a Mercedes noted for its shady electronics ie poor decision making.

    When Domi scores 30 goals, you can come back and tell me all about how he's a Mustang.

  2. 5 hours ago, maas_art said:

    The analogy is ok (and funny) but Domi isnt a ford.  There's still a chance he ends up being a terrific player. The problem is that this would be him exceeding expectations - and no matter how you cut it, we sold way too low. 

    Well, a Ford is a lot better these days than before...

    Also, we can argue all we want about the relative value of Galchenyuk vs. Domi, but there's another reason why I used the Mercedes vs. Ford analogy.  With a Mercedes you konw you're getting a car that goes pretty fast (scores goals), handles pretty well (good hands), is pretty luxurious and comfortable (skilled) but perhaps isn't as safe as a Volvo (average defence) or as reliable as a Honda (consistency).  But at the end of the day you're getting a pretty darn good car.

    On the other hand, a Ford is not necessarily a bad car, but it is first of all, very utilitarian.  Secondly, it's not necessarily weak in any area but also excels at none.  Lastly but certainly not the least, it is far more replaceable.  That's what we did here.  It's not just that we replaced a Mercedes (better car, however much better we can talk about) with a worse one, it's also the fact we got something that to me personally, doesn't stand out.  It's better than a Dodge or a Chrystler but it doesn't excel.

  3. 20 hours ago, Habberwacky said:

    I know some are curious why Chucky didn't get a shot at centre for the last 20 games at the end of the year but if he would have struggled again that would have been an even bigger problem and after 6 years I don't think we owed him any favours other than the nice contract he got. I think Gally may struggle in the west especially if he is going head to head with some of the big centres in LA, SJ, WPG and Col. 

    I am looking forward to having a team with Weber and Price in the line-up for a full season and only time will  tell how this works. At first I  thought we took too much risk and should have got at least a 2nd-4th round pick, but the more time goes by I think the Yotes are also assuming some risk, and this may turn out costly for them as they are in need of offense (they were worse than us in GF last year and Gally's defensive zone coverage may cost them some GA's where the y were only slightly bettter than us)  and I think Galchenyuk was surrounded by better forwards than they currently have in Arizona. Keller may find his second year in the league is a little tougher as teams key on him a little more. 

    That's like saying we have a 6 year old Mercedes which we traded for a 5 year old Ford because ours wasn't a new Bugatti.  And then saying well, the carplay feature on the Mercedes is confusing and the Ford one is much simpler.

  4. 14 hours ago, caperns61 said:

    Quite the shot from a Mod :) . I can tell you this we will be far better of without Galchenyk. We will not have to worry everytime he is on the ice 5 on 5 wondering what he is doing in the neutral or defensive zone. Scratching head in wonderment while he looks for a player to cover.. I hope Arizona is better next season, if not I could season Galchenyk setting new standards for plus minus in a season :)

    Player for player I like Domi, I am not just looking at what they have done, but what they will bring going forward.  And we can look at this after next season if you wish :)

     

    If we're particularly concerned about defence, why did we trade for Drouin and have him play 1C?  Why did we give up Sergachev?  Why did we put up with Desharnais for so long over Lars Eller who I'd much prefer over Domi.  And if we had to make that trade, why didn't we trade Drouin (who has fewer goals, points AND lower FO%) instead of Galchenyuk for Domi?

    On the offence side of things it's not just that Domi score only 5 non-empy netted goals.  It's also the fact that he never was able to reproduce his 50 point season.  Yet nobody is mentioning that, but they certainly do mention that Galchenyuk hasn't had another 30 goal reason.  Seriously, I'm scratching my head over how grit and character makes up for Domi's shortcomings.  Why did we get him?  Because he's another lightweight who's willing do drop gloves?  Don't we have Andrew Shaw (on a massive contract) for just that?

    Bottom is, at least right now it appears we got a worse player who addressed NONE of our needs and will be a playmaker to nobody.

  5. 4 hours ago, caperns61 said:

    Do you know William Karlsson, his first three seaons in the league he scored 3 goals, 9 goals and 6 goals. That would mean Alex would have scored 17, 21, and 11 more goals then him. If Vegas offered Karlsson for Galchenyk  straight up would you take that deal? 

    Look its no secret i was not a Galchenyk fan. And i thought if you traded him or packaged him in a trade it should be for a center or top pairing LHD dee. 

    Dont base your perception of Domi based on 3 seasons. Also unlike Galchenyk he knows there is a Neutral Zone and Defensive Zone in a hockey game :)

    William Karlsson shot 23.4% last season.  Are you expecting him to shoot 23.4% again?

    Also, that means our team building plan involves hail marys and wishful thinking?  That would be funny if I didn't think that's exactly Bergevin's plan on Tavares.

  6. On 6/8/2018 at 10:01 AM, jennifer_rocket said:

    Why angry? Both players worked damn hard this post-season to earn a Cup!

    Happy for Lars and Devante, but annoyed with how they were handled here, especially Lars.  Apparently somebody good enough to help win the cup has no role on this team.  You'd think we're loaded up the middle or something.

  7. 17 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

    I can't "Lol" enough at DSP getting the GTG and Lars getting the GWG to clinch the Cup. Congratulations to both of them! Well deserved Cup victory!

    Though it would feel good rubbing in Bergevin's face, I'm mostly pissed.

  8. 3 minutes ago, maas_art said:

    So on the surface this most likely means Lindgren to the minors to play big minutes... but what if this means we have a deal in the works (or are at least considering) trading Carey Price... 

    That was my thought.  They better trade Price now (for good return), or Lindgren will never get to play.  But given past history, I'm not keeping my hopes up.  All in all, I don't understand this contract, cheap or not.

  9. I know it may sounds like whining but I still have to ask.  Assuming we take at face value (which I really don't) that Subban's caused chemistry problems that the team can't play together, at what point does un-quantifiable chemistry problems trump quantifiable production?

  10. 16 hours ago, Manatee-X said:

    Bringing this over from the rumours thread...

    I feel like we're inching closer to a middle ground here :).  

    I don't deny that chemistry is a real thing, and I'd also agree that PK's "exuberant" personality most likely ruffled more feathers than it smoothed.  But I'd still contend that the best medicine for bad team chemistry is winning, which Subban pretty clearly helped with.  I'd also say that whatever negatives the bad chemistry may have brought to the on-ice product were more than compensated for by Subban's skill, effort and all-around play.  So I guess that while I'm willing to concede that he may not have been good for "the room" on a losing team, I don't think that that's a good enough reason to trade him (particularly for the return we got).

    Subban wasn't going to single-handedly win us a cup, just like trading him isn't the only thing pulling us down.  Perhaps more than any other, hockey is a sport where a single player, especially a skater, isn't going to be able to carry a team all on his own.  And if Subban had to be traded, I'm sure that there were deals that could have been made without setting our team back to square one.  Our real problem is that we weren't in a particularly good place before the trade (hampered by coaching, carried by our goalie), the Subban trade we chose to make was for a player who was worse and didn't fill a need on our team, and generally speaking Bergevin has been moving away from skill and puck movement and towards more "old school" characteristics. 

    All of this to say, I don't know that we can really look at the trade and say that it's why the team started losing.  But I do think that we can pretty safely look at the trade and say that it hasn't helped.  Subban played better for us than Weber has, and that was a predictable result when the trade was made.  Even amongst the people who think that Subban was such a problem in the room that he absolutely had to be traded, we're not hearing a whole lot of comments saying that the trade we made was a good one.

    And for those of us who think that the problem in the room was overstated, well... yeah, personally I really do think that this is in contention for being one of the worst trades in team history.

    Absolutely, which is why even my original reply to windoe, I mentioned we lost 2015-2016 because we were decimated by injury and we needed secondary scoring.  But that doesn't change the fact that Subban is a key part of any potential cup runs.  Young right-handed Norris winning defenceman who's got decent size, can skate and shoot, eat up minutes and shut down the other teams' best players.  Not to mention he actually wanted to play in Montreal.  Every team is looking for one of those so how could we possibly get equal value in return?

    So as I've said before, this has nothing to do with Weber.  It's not his fault.  So yes, we did have problems before the trade, but those are solvable problems.  Now however we slammed our window shut and we slammed it shut good  And to boot didn't get us the pieces to properly rebuild.  That really sucks.

  11. On ‎2018‎-‎05‎-‎18 at 5:22 AM, Windoe said:

    Drouin is not disliked by his current teammates.

    We didn't need Steve Ott, or Andrew Shaw imo.

    We didn't win with Subban, nobody has.  

     

    And Subban is not disliked by his current teammates, what's your point?  

    I actually had meant to reply that last time you mentioned "we lost even with Subban" which is at best half-truth, but decided against it because it was quite a few posts back.  But since you brought it back up again I'll play.  This team never was as deep as the Washington, Pittsburgh, Boston or lately Tampa and the standings largely reflected that.  We were potential contenders but never the outright favorite even in the east.  It still needed a 1C and in basically every year since, secondary scoring.  However, at least the key pieces were there and one huge one was PK Subban.  In 2013-2014 we were third in division behind Boston and Tampa, "upset" both but lost in the eastern conference finals after Chris Kreider ran Carey Price and Subban played very well, almost a point a game in the playoffs.

    In 2014-2015 we were first in division but only 2 points ahead of Tampa and unfortunately matched up against Tampa (who went all the way to the finals) in round 2.  It was upsetting that we lost but not exactly an upset.  We (especially Subban) did very well limiting Stamkos, Palat and Johnson but Nikita Kucherov did a number on us and we didn't have the secondary scoring (gasp) to do that back to them.  Aside from game 4, in the other 5 games we scored a grand total of 8 goals.

    In 2015-2016,  that was the year we were dedimated by injuries.  Price was out for the season by November 25 and we were running Mike Condon and Ben Scrivens.  Gallagher missed 29 games.  Petry 31.  Beaulien 18.  Heck, Subban himself missed 14 games.  But apparently we can't win without Subban as if none of the other things happened.

    Now let's examine 2016-2017.  Despite Weber not missing many games and the signing of Radulov (who played fantastic), it took a hot start and Price's 3 trophies performance for us not to miss the playoffs.

    Fact of the matter is, since Subban become a key member of this team, we had a winning record every year except as noted, the injury prone 2015-2016 season.  More importantly we were contenders, long shot, but at least contenders.  Without Subban we're at best, a borderline playoff team.

     

  12. 9 hours ago, Windoe said:

    True.

    Fact: NHL players, AHL players, NHL management, AHL management love fishing on the west coast of Canada, and when they get out a few kilometers from shore, they tend to enjoy adult beverages, and they tend to chat while they're waiting to catch a halibut or salmon.  

    Fact: The majority of his teammates, in his last year, disliked PK.  I'm not sure how many people we include in "management", but many, at the very least, were also ready to move on from the PK show.  

    I'll say this.  Let's operate on the assumption that Subban isn't well liked, hurts locker room chemistry, that character is important and we had to get rid of him, then why did we trade for Drouin?

    We traded a top end prospect in a position we ended up desperately needing for a malcontent who doesn't even play the other position we need.  So we needed to get rid of our baggage to are perfectly fine with other teams' baggage (even in division)?  As trades go it was alright, but let's not pretend there aren't "additional considerations" there.

    Doesn't stop there does it?  Why did we need Steve Ott.  Why Andrew Shaw?  So that's what it comes down to.  Every trade this team makes, we clearly can't keep it performance only.  That's not fine even when it's an even trade.  That's definitely not fine when we're on the losing side of a lopsided trade.  And since they clearly can't win without Subban, that's not fine.

  13. 8 hours ago, habsisme said:

    I'm going to say this one last time in the nicest way possibly. If you can't admit that the team as a whole hated Subban, you are clearly not being fair. I'm sure 1 or 2 liked him and 3-4 didn't mind him, but in general he was not liked and while I can bring up examples of many things, there is only one thing that needed to convince me: After PK Subban gave 10 million dollars, the team did not nominate him for the Clancy. My god, if that's not enough of a message to you, I don't know what is.

    You're other points are at least worth arguing. I would have trade Subban to rebuild but at the time no one was thinking that way, so he traded one elite D man for another who was older and had a lower cap hit (please don't say Weber's contract is bad, because that makes you factually wrong: not debatable). I think Weber will be on top of his game for another 2-3 years, he just had a bad season playing on an injured foot this year. Give him a chance! Though I admit, you need to find a complimentary piece for him. 

    You can't compare PK to Roy. Roy is a legend, possibly best goalie of all time, PK is possibly one of the best TODAY. Roy also played at a time when a good goalie could single handedly win you a championship and he was the best goalie in the world... Also, its always a different dynamic with the goalies and the rest of the team, it just is. 

    As for your last point, hey I'm not saying I don't miss the guys hockey ability (or character from a fans perspective) but I don't think PK will ever win a cup and I understand the need to trade him. I certainly don't understand people who think it was stupid to trade him. Trading for Gomez was stupid, PK was... maybe unfortunate, maybe the right move. 

     

    Except I didn't deny that PK Subban isn't well liked.  I'm denying that they can't suck it up and play hockey together.  We all know Subban's personality might not jive with others.  We know he shows off a little, we know he embellishes a little, but what else?  If it's just his personality then it's as much on his teammates as it is on Subban.

    Secondly, I didn't mention Webber in a negative manner.  I also didn't mention his contract.  I like Webber.  I think he's true professional.  But I also think his best days are behind him and it ISN'T his fault.  It's not his fault he's losing the battle with age and time.  That's a Bergevin.  Think about it this way.  Even if Webber (these days) are as good as Subban skill-wise, we're still asking him to play Subban's minutes.  Subban played 26 to 28 minutes a night and that was with Markov and Beaulieu here.  Now we're expecting a much older Webber to do that without Markove, Beaulieu, Sergachev, etc?  I don't think it's an accident he broke his foot.  It happened for a reason.  Likewise, I also think there's a reason why he didn't have his surgery during the season.  Once again, that's all on Bergevin.

    Thirdly, I don't want to get on the slippery slopes of performance/attitude ratios.  I just want to point out that clearly attitude doesn't mean all that much when we're winning.  I also want to say that this team has a history of trading players away for non-performance related problems.  Roy, Chelios, Subban.  That's 2 HOF and a Norris winner.  You'd think we're swimming in talent seeing what we've given up.

    Lastly, okay, so let's trade Subban.  Trade him for something that will help us.  Even Webber + picks I would have taken.  But we didn't.  We traded for a guy we needed to be number 1 but can't handle those minutes anymore (once again, not his fault).  We lost that trade.

  14. On 5/12/2018 at 4:36 AM, Windoe said:

    - There is no way to measure team chemistry, but you can take its pulse by listening to the players.  According to the players, Subban was all good for the majority of his time in Montreal, but it got out of hand toward the end.  The team's chemistry got better because Subban left, not because Weber came in (that didn't hurt as he's very well respected).  I'd say Subban is a solid Canadian style player, he innovates, he hits, he has a bomb of a shot, I don't see Weber as any more Canadian than Subban.

    - The team has a general "bad attitude" this year because they're tired of not being given the tools to win, namely centers.  I've too have never heard of PK sleeping with players' wives/girlfriends, and yes I agree he was our best performer on many nights.

    - Subban is a better player than Weber.  He has been for awhile, and he will be for the rest of both of their careers.  Also true, Subban was on the Habs team that made it to the ECF.  Also true that he was a big part of that run.  He was also a Hab for the next two years of decline.  Just as we can't attribute the ECF run to Subban, we also can't attribute the following two years' decline to Subban.  He's just one player.  Similarly to Nashville's finals run, and 2nd round exit.  He's on the team.  He's not the team. And because it is a team sport, chemistry is important.  You need a high level of both to win the Cup.  Talent is first, but chemistry is 2nd.  PK's huge chemistry problem overwhelmed his talent levels, and we had to trade him.  Unfortunately we only got Weber back and did not take either the rumoured Edmonton or Vancouver deals.  

    - Funny those are the five players you mention ;)

    Absolutely.  Skill trumps chemistry.  But chemistry is still important. 

    How about this...let's say Subban, in his last year on the Habs, had skill of 10/10 and chemistry of 2/10.  Now since skill is more important, let's assign it twice the weight.  So for skill Subban has 20/20 and for chemistry, still important but not as important, let's keep that at 2/10.  Add it up and Subban gets 22/30 points in his last year with the Habs.  Now let's say Weber has 7/10 for skill, which we'll double up to 14/20, but he's got an 8/10 for chemistry...that gives Weber also 22/30 points.

    Some players must be removed.  Sleeping with the wives is a classic line in the sand as an example (not Subban's path to 2/10 chemistry).  However they get down to 2/10 on the team chemistry level, they end up getting a change of scenery.  It can be 2/10 with their teammates, or their management, or both.  

     

     

    See, I have a huge problem with this line of reasoning.  We "had" to trade Subban because of bad chemstry and it was getting out of hand.  As such Webber was the best offer we could have had.  First of all, at least rumours are, that's not true.  Webber was (I know, hindsight is 20/20) not the best offer we had nor the only.  We were outright lied to about that.

    Secondly, you're whole line of reasoning, points 1, 2 3, 4 is predicated on assumption 1, Subban caused bad chemstry.  While I think it's safe to assume Gallgaher probably didn't like Subban, who else didn't like him enough that it affect team play?  You acknowlege that Subban is the better and younger player but then went "trust me, it's chemistry."  Sorry that's a lot to accept with the only evidence coming from people (Bergevin and Therrien) who we know to lie outright.

    It was pointed out already that even before Therrien was hired, he was routinely throwing Subban under the bus.  The decision was already made, let's not pretend otherwise.  Also let's talk about attitude problems.  Let's talk Patrick Roy.  He's a hero in Montreal and Colorado, but let's just say he isn't in Detroit, Quebec City, LA, Boston, Toronto, etc etc etc.  He certainly isn't well liked by Ron Hextall and Mike Gartner.  He and his kid (while coaching the Remparts) were both Class A $!@%#!@.  He allegedly (unproven, I know) was involved in domestic abuse.  Statue of Liberty saves anybody?  Who else was made himself bigger than the team than Patrick Roy?  So, who thinks the Roy trade wasn't a mistake?  Who would do that all over again?  If we kept Roy we wouldn't have locker room chemistry problems?  Why?  What's so different between Roy and Subban, who at best allegedly caused locker room chemstry problems?

    Lastly but certainly not the least, Subban wasn't simply a part of our playoff runs.  He was a key contributor.  Not to the degree of Roy but key nonetheless.  His last year here as I recall he was involved in 65% of our goals.  For a team that can't score on a Peewee team you think that doesn't matter?  Right now we have a defence that can't skate or pass the puck out of the zone, can't shut down the opposing team's best players, can't eat up heavy minutes (Webber tried and broke his foot), you don't think that matters?  Let's also not forget, while his shot is not as good as Webber, the 2 years he was here, Subban's shot basically was our powerplay.

  15. I thought I'd share the FO% of some of the young centres still left i the playoffs:

    Name          Season ------ Career ------ Current Playoffs ------

    Kutznetsov      44.2             45.1              39.15

    Scheifele        51.25            44.9              46.9

    Marchessault  43.49            44.3              36.84

    Point               47.44            46.6              49.5

    Eller                49.27            49.2              45.83 (okay so he's not really young anymore)

    Karlsson          48.03            46.3              44.33

    Gourde            43.41            41.4              58.33 (wow)

    Going back a round

    Marner            52.63             48.5              40

    MacKinnon      41.92             46.8              37.65

    Dubois             43.82             43.82            40.71

    Guentzel             50               49.7               44.44

    There are of course exceptions (Johansen, Nylander, Johnson, Stephenson, Jenner, Hertl) but it seems in general younger centres don't do well in the circle, but that doesn't seem to affect them playing the position.  Yet in Montreal we're explicitly told you can't centre unless you win the draw.

     

     

  16. 10 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

    I actually think caperns had the better comparison, just comparing total points in a career is never my favorite: I'll take 10 forty goal seasons over 40 ten goal seasons any day.  This is kind of similar to the HOF argument for guys like Bure and Lindros who didn't have great career totals but were dominant when the played (I'm in the pro-hall-of-fame camp)

    Galchenyk gave us a couple decent years as a teenager while Forsberg was in Europe and the AHL (mostly) - that's some amount of value I suppose, but I don't think the fact we brought him up earlier really makes him a better or worse pick - at most perhaps he was more NHL ready? In the four years both have been full-time NHLers, Forseberg has statistically been pretty clearly the better players (especially accounting for goals being more valuable than assists)

    Basically f you told gave me a time machine and told me Galcnhenyk spending two more years in junior meant he'd have put up Forseberg's points the last 4 years, I'd take that deal in a second.

    I think you're right in the sense that I would take 10 40 goal seasons over 40 10 goal seasons too.  But the rest I'd argue there are some disagreements.  Let's start with the fact that Galchenyuk was an almost 50 points scorer by his third season and almost 60 by his fourth.  And the only reason he hit those late was because his first season was shortened and he got injured in his second.  Last year he got injured again but still put up 44 points.  He did this playing 14 to 15 minutes on the third and fourth lines with no wingers worth mentioning.  I would argue that he succeeded to an extent despite the adversities he faced.  I'd actually say seeing how many road blocks we threw at him, he's a bit ahead of where I'd expected him to be (though not nearly the player he could be).

    Forsberg on the other hand, was put in a position to succeed as soon as he stepped into the NHL, like a well managed team does.  He was put on the top line, got plenty of minutes, PP minutes, good linemates, the whole nine yards.  If he was drafted by Montreal would he be in the same boat as he is now?  Or vice versa with Galchenyuk.

    The worst part of the whole Galchenyuk saga is, your question on leaving him in the juniors doesn't apply.  In his case it was either Montreal or Sarnia.  He has nothing to learn in Sarnia.  And the next year it would have been Hamilton.  I would say this.  Given our farm system, I'd prefer he played for Sarnia instead of Hamilton/St. John's/Laval.

  17. On 3/11/2018 at 3:31 PM, Ravadak said:

    What about MAx, he is paid 400000 dollars less then Galchenyk, has had 4 straight 30 plus goal seasons, and by far a better player on the defensive side of the puck. IS he having a bad season yep dam tootin he is...

    Would it make you happier if I said 20 or 25 or 30? How about 68 games, 9 even strength goals,  WOW....Certainly a good young player to build around, NOT,  oh and by the way Deslauriers who gets paid 750 thousand has 7 even strength goals in only 44 games. Same old with Galchenyk, needs tp play with better players, needs to be given more icetime how do you expect him to play with less skilled players like shaw and lekonen and drouin and hudon and plaks and o an on and on, when he does nothing changes, who cares if he is a minus gazillion RIGHT at least he can score :) Well 4 goals is 20 games is not scoiring and not what you pay someone 4.9 million for :).  9 even strength goals in 68 game is not scoring is not someone  you pay 4.9 million to.

    On 3/11/2018 at 3:31 PM, Ravadak said:

    What about MAx, he is paid 400000 dollars less then Galchenyk, has had 4 straight 30 plus goal seasons, and by far a better player on the defensive side of the puck. IS he having a bad season yep dam tootin he is...

    Would it make you happier if I said 20 or 25 or 30? How about 68 games, 9 even strength goals,  WOW....Certainly a good young player to build around, NOT,  oh and by the way Deslauriers who gets paid 750 thousand has 7 even strength goals in only 44 games. Same old with Galchenyk, needs tp play with better players, needs to be given more icetime how do you expect him to play with less skilled players like shaw and lekonen and drouin and hudon and plaks and o an on and on, when he does nothing changes, who cares if he is a minus gazillion RIGHT at least he can score :) Well 4 goals is 20 games is not scoiring and not what you pay someone 4.9 million for :).  9 even strength goals in 68 game is not scoring is not someone  you pay 4.9 million to.

    ChiLla has addressed it pretty well but I'll play.  How many games did Desharnais play at C without scoring a goal?  What about Plekanec?  McCarron?  Byron?  Ott?  Drouin?  Even when Galchenyuk was putting up points he wasn't put at C.  What about defensive side which you previously mentioned?  Other than Plekanec, which one of those who got to play at C was clear cut better?  Desharnais was so bad he got about zero defensive zone starts but was still first line centre.  What about face-offs?  It's actually kind of funny.  The guy we had who actually was pretty good a possessions, defensive play, face-off and was cheap to boot we traded away.  Remember Lars Eller?  We sure could use him right about now.

    And I can't believe you keep a straight face while complaining about Galchenyuk's line mates or time on the power play.  Almost right up until this time last year he was literally play 14 to 15 minutes a game with whichever plugger Bergevin managed to sign.

    Then you talk about his contract.  Oh so it was Galchenyuk's contract that bothered you?  I'll play again.  What did Jonathan Drouin do to deserve his six year 33 million dollar contract?  Is he out-producing Galchenyuk?  Why out?  Not only is he not out-producing, he's never even played centre before.  But we traded for him (gave up a top shelf prospect to boot) and plugged him as first line centre.  So we had everybody play centres except Galchenyuk and Hudon, who incidentally are centres.  Yeah that sure makes a lot of sense.  Like I said, it has nothing to do with Galchenyuk producing well, but everything to do with nobody on this team producing well, but you singling him out only.

    The question right now is not whether Galchenyuk is first line centre.  He isn't.  If we bothered to develop him maybe he could have been.  But he isn't.  My question is, given what we have, why does anybody else on this team deserve to be the first line centre over him.  Like it or not he's the second leading scorer on this miserable team and has been consistently there for the past two or three years.  So once again, why is Drouin playing ahead of him?  If he's bad defensively why wasn't sheltered like Desharnais was.  Why was DesLauriers signed at all?  Because who needs a top line centre or top paring D, we're all set as long as we have our fourth line plugger signed.  Can't risk him walking in the summer.

  18. 21 hours ago, Ravadak said:

    Delaurias is right nobody willing to pay the price. Our so called sniper who gets more power play time then almost anyone else on the team has 3 goals in his last 19 games

    All in one game and gets paid almost 5 million a year and we are worried about a fringe player making 775000 a year. He is not the problem but a player like Galchenyk is.

     

    Galchenyk is paid to score and isn't. Delaurier is paid to stir things up and be a physical presence and is doing his job. 

    You know, I was wondering why it was 19, not 15 or 20.  Then I looked at the game log and figured out why.  In any case, in the last 19 games Gallagher had 6 goals, Pacioretty had 5 goals, Drouin had 3 and Galchenyuk had 4.  Now of course, if we narrowed the range to 15 games then Pacioretty only has 1 goal.  By making it 19 games you added 4 more to his total.  Very convenient.

    But you're right about one thing.  Delauriers is not paid to score.  With this team he shouldn't be paid at all.  Good thing you're willing to throw Galchenyuk under the bus when all the snipers (other than maybe Gallagher is doing well though.

  19. Sergachev.  Subban seems like the obvious choice but even with him, with the lousy trades/drafting/non-development of players over the years I don't feel the Habs are contenders.  Subban would merely have papered over the mistakes for a few more seasons and probably a few better picks.

    What's worse, he might just paper it over enough that Therrien and Bergevin still end up having their jobs.

    Sergachev + rebuild.

  20. I see people (rightfully) blaming everything from Bergevin all the way down to the trainwreck that is Laval.  But why is Molson getting a pass?  This organization is a stinking pile and it starts all the way right from the top.  I don't remember the gold glory days, but let's simply talk since the 1980's.  During that time we've had the Langway/Jarvis trade, the Chelios trade, the Roy trade, the Gomez trade (should rightfully be called the McDonagh/Higgins trade) and the Desjardin/LeClair trade (on that note, I know LeClair is from VT, but doesn't sound French?  Apparently not French enough).  And those are just the blockbuster trades.  We can't seem to go five years without being on the receiving end of a blockbuster screwup.

    All this didn't even including the smaller ones like Pierre Turgeon/Corson trade, the Damphousse trade, the Tucker & Richer/Poulin trade the Recchi/Zubrus trade and the Lemieux for the WRONG Turgeon trade.

    Rebuild?  Retool?  What's the point?  You can blame Serge Savard on you want but who hired him?  What confidence does anyone have that Molson will not screw this up all over again?  Does he even care?  I'll go right ahead and say it.  I think Gillett is the best habs owner since at least 1980.

  21. On 1/17/2018 at 7:20 PM, Ravadak said:

    How many new linemates, offensive zone starts, power play time do we need to give him, everybody gets the blame for his results, Its because of his linemates, its because the coaches don't use him properly, its because he doesn't play enough at the end of the game, or not enough at the beginning of the game, his plus minus does not matter, his CF% does matter, they give him the wrong color t shirt, they pick on him when they should caudle him and on and on and on. 

    Did you watch the last game. He looked great out there, anyone that watched that game would probably feel that way. Yet for those that checked the stats at the end of the night. He had over 5 minutes of power play time and only registered one more shot then Pleks with 0 PP time, He had 2 assist, only one primary, ended up - 3 on the night worst on the team. I know one game, his linemates, he wasn't playing center, the coach put him on the wrong side of the ice  blah blah blah.

    Take off the blinders, take a deep breath go to www.corsica.hockey go to skater stats, Filter habs (montreal) forwards, choose this year last year, the last three yeas it doesn't matter he will be in the bottom group of the forwards in most categories. IT not bad luck, its not his linemates , its not his coaches, its not the cosmic rays, its galchenyk

    On 1/17/2018 at 7:20 PM, Ravadak said:

     

    I'm a little late but two things.

    First of all let's talk about his -3 that game.  On the Beauvillier goal the forwards on the ice which turned over the puck in the offensive zone were Hudon, Byron (who shot wide of the net) and Pacioretty.  Then Pacioretty went off for the change.  Galchenyuk just happens to be the first one off the bench and he got dinged with a -1 the second he stepped on the ice.  If it was Plekanec who just happens to be the one changing, he'd get the -1.  Not to mention, Jerabek made a terrible play which left Beauvillier wide open.

    Similarly the Pelech goal.  Once again the forwards were Pacioretty, Byron and Hudon, all of whom went to change.  Hudon is especially guilty here because he went for the big hit on Beauvillier and missed, leading to an odd man rush.  I actually feel bad for Mete too because he got dinged for a -1 too when he had to chase a 2 on 1 as soon as he got on the bench.  Once again, how is this Galchenyuk's fault?  He was nowhere near the play.  If it was anybody's fault it was Hudon and Drouin, first off the bench, and who was right beside Pelech.

    With 2 assists I don't even know how Galchenyuk got the -3.  He wasn't on the ice at all when Barzal score.

    Now those two goals when he was involved in the play.  On the OT goal, he was marking Hickey at the point when Tavares out-muscled/out-hustled Jerabek.  On the shorty it was his fault.  But even there he was trying to slide the puck back to Petry when it took a weird bounce of the boards.  It was not a defensive play.  So if you're going to say his defensive mistakes lead to goals against, this game did not demonstrate it.  And if the Schlemko goal stood his +/- might even look good.  But that's the point.  +/- is such a tricky stat that depends why on circumstance beyong your control.

    Secondly, nobody is saying Galchenyuk is a better defensive player than Plekanec.  Also, it doesn't matter one like whether fans undervalue Plekanec (they don't).  The organization clearly doesn't.  They not only give him playing time, they pay him 7 million a year to do his thing.  That's the thing too.  So Galchenyuk is bad defensively and is below average on face-offs.  Is he worse than, over the years, Desharnais (who got playing time).  Is he worse than Flynn?  Is he worse than McCarron who they're trying to turn into a centre?  If he's not why isn't he getting playing time?

    On a related note, why isn't Subban valued by the team?

×
×
  • Create New...