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

#26 Josh Gorges 2012-2013


ColRouleBleu
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ideally, we'd be able to pair Gorges with a guy like Subban, and in that role, Gorges is clearly capable of playing in the top 4. The problem is that we only have one Subban, and I don't know that Gorges-Subban, while a great second pairing, is capable of being a team's first pairing over 82 games. To me, Subban needs to play with someone who's a bit more physical, so as to deal with matching up against the other team's first lines. Next season, I'd like to see that guy be Emelin (if he's ready) or Tinordi.

That leaves Gorges to play the second pairing, where I think he is perfectly capable of playing. We've seen him do that well even when paired with Hal Gill. What we can't do is have him paired with another guy who's easy to move off the puck, like Diaz. That pairing was exploited physically in the Ottawa series. To me, the problem wasn't that Gorges couldn't play in the top 4 though, it was that he wasn't paired with a top 4 guy and he wasn't paired with a guy whose skillset complemented his. If we can sign or trade for a right-handed guy with size capable of playing 20-22 minutes a night, I'd be fine with pairing that player with Gorges in the top 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're locked into a third-pairing d-man at nearly $4 million per season until the end of 2017-18. OY.

He's got great character. :rolleyes:

Im just playing. I still think that Gorges is better than a 3rd pairing guy, but I never liked the contract and like it less now. The problem is our other top dmen. Gorges cannot handle the sort of minutes and assignments, game in and game out, that PK can. He cant make up for the flaws that Markov has. He would be ineffective next to Emelin and we need Emelin next to one of the aforementioned offensive guys.

Honestly, the best thing for our team may be to trade Josh + something and get an upgrade in the top 4. I am absolutely sure that with his reputation around he league, you could find a team desperate for leadership that would offer up a young defensman with a good chance at being a legitimate top 4.

Part of me would hate to do this, because i really like Josh, but I think it may be in the best interest of the team, going forward. Pair him with a guy like Shea Weber (who is big, strong AND offensively gifted) and you may have a very good fit. There's probably a team out there looking for a guy like him, question is, whether they have a guy who would benefit us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I would consider compliance-buying out Gorges and using the cap space to go after a legit top-four guy. (I can live with Kaberle for one more year frankly) But yadda yadda yadda, character, yadda yadda leadership, yadda good white Canadian boy, yadda, so it'll never happen.

I would be in utter shock and disbelief if Bergevin used the compliance buyout on Gorges. :lol: You're right... Never going to happen!

I like Josh, but he doesn't do anything well besides blocking shots. He's not a strong skater, passer, or shooter. He's not overly physical. He tends to fall down on his own about once a game. At even strength he's a 5-6 pairing guy, for me, with the ability to play PK minutes and slot up into the top 4 when needed. Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he just doesn't have the ability to be a consistent top-four guy. He's a good fringe option in that he can jump into second-pairing responsibility for short stints, but generally speaking, he's not good enough to play the role we've asked him to play. And with him, Markov, Bouillon, Tinordi, and Kaberle under contract, we have too many third-pairing d-men heading into next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he just doesn't have the ability to be a consistent top-four guy. He's a good fringe option in that he can jump into second-pairing responsibility for short stints, but generally speaking, he's not good enough to play the role we've asked him to play. And with him, Markov, Bouillon, Tinordi, and Kaberle under contract, we have too many third-pairing d-men heading into next season.

Well, I am assuming Kaberle is gone by way of compliance buyout.

It's unfortunate that Markov's play really regressed as the season wore on. We simply have too many guys who fit best in the 5-6 spot and not enough who fit in the 3-4 spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he just doesn't have the ability to be a consistent top-four guy. He's a good fringe option in that he can jump into second-pairing responsibility for short stints, but generally speaking, he's not good enough to play the role we've asked him to play. And with him, Markov, Bouillon, Tinordi, and Kaberle under contract, we have too many third-pairing d-men heading into next season.

Well, we know for certain Kaberle is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still leaving us with four bottom-pairing d-men and only two actual spots available.

Don't worry, there's lots of vancies in the top 4 for them!

I think he's a decent second pairing guy, but he needs the right partner. He's not going to carry a pairing.

Subban = right kind of partner

Pre-injury Markov = right kind of partner

post-concussion Diaz = wrong kind of partner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, there's lots of vancies in the top 4 for them!

I think he's a decent second pairing guy, but he needs the right partner. He's not going to carry a pairing.

Subban = right kind of partner

Pre-injury Markov = right kind of partner

post-concussion Diaz = wrong kind of partner

The problem with those first two pairings is that he can't handle the workload / matchups that playing with Subban or pre-injury Markov would entail, especially not over an 82-game season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I would consider compliance-buying out Gorges and using the cap space to go after a legit top-four guy. (I can live with Kaberle for one more year frankly) But yadda yadda yadda, character, yadda yadda leadership, yadda good white Canadian boy, yadda, so it'll never happen.

Interesting thought, Weep. I never even considered the compliance buyout on gorges - and why not? He's not much different than Kaberle (one dimensional and slipping in that role) but with a much longer term on a similar cap hit.

That said, i do actually think we could move Gorges, if he's not in our plans, which would make the most sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thought, Weep. I never even considered the compliance buyout on gorges - and why not? He's not much different than Kaberle (one dimensional and slipping in that role) but with a much longer term on a similar cap hit.

That said, i do actually think we could move Gorges, if he's not in our plans, which would make the most sense.

Even if you want to get rid of him (not the right time to do it IMHO) I really don't think a compliance buyout is necessary. He logs pretty good ice time and has the impressive shot blocking stats and raw raw leadership that GMs eat up with defensive defensemen. He's probably moveable (even if the return is mediocre).

Why buy him out though? I get that we're missing some top end talent on the back end, but I don't see how moving a guy who's currently 3rd or so on the depth chart (you could maybe argue even higher) helps improve an already spotty defense core, particularly if we're not getting anything back in return. It would be different if we needed to free up the money, but we really don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why buy him out though? I get that we're missing some top end talent on the back end, but I don't see how moving a guy who's currently 3rd or so on the depth chart (you could maybe argue even higher) helps improve an already spotty defense core, particularly if we're not getting anything back in return. It would be different if we needed to free up the money, but we really don't.

Well, the only reason to buy him out (or more likely, move him) would be if we could actually improve that position. Obviously im not moving him to play Bouillon more or something. You move Josh Gorges to make room for Keith Yandle or another true #2-3 guy. The thought may be "well lets add a Yandle or Justin Faulk and KEEP Gorges" but the reality is you cant keep him, at that price, on the 3rd pairing... I dont think, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh is a good workhorse, I think he makes this team better in so many ways and he is a character guy,I don't think he is going anywhere,I think he is too well thought of by management and I think we are better with him.

GO GORGES GO :wub::wub: :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

y most metrics Gorges just generally hasn't been that good. He's a useful piece but the only season he played like a LEGITIMATE top 4 defender consistently IMO, was 2011-12. I'm not going to get bogged down on an semantics back and forth though. Just like when people would say we need a number 1 center, technically Koivu was our number center and Plekanec is a number 1 center, just that they aren't suited to that role. That was what I meant on Gorges. If you think prior to last year he was playing like a 2nd pairing guy, we disagree. I suppose I just worded it poorly. Never meant to imply he wasn't used as a top 4.

I think the best way to think of "legitimate x" is to rank someone in the league. For example: the top 30 goalies in the NHL are the #1s, the next 30 are legitimate backups, and the next 30 are third-stringers. Ideally, these would be balanced perfectly although in practice that isn't always the case (you have some backups who should be starters, some starters who should be backups, etc.). Also, if you have the 30th best goalie, while he is a legitimate starter in the sense that he deserves to be a starter over all of the "legitimate backups" in a 30 team league, if he's your goalie your team probably isn't going to feel very good about it.

So the question becomes: do you think there are 120 dmen in the league you'd rather have *today* (not looking at potential) than Gorges? If so, then it's fair to say he's legitimately a 3rd pairing guy. If not, then he's a legitimate 2nd pairing guy, just maybe not a high-end one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to think of "legitimate x" is to rank someone in the league. For example: the top 30 goalies in the NHL are the #1s, the next 30 are legitimate backups, and the next 30 are third-stringers. Ideally, these would be balanced perfectly although in practice that isn't always the case (you have some backups who should be starters, some starters who should be backups, etc.). Also, if you have the 30th best goalie, while he is a legitimate starter in the sense that he deserves to be a starter over all of the "legitimate backups" in a 30 team league, if he's your goalie your team probably isn't going to feel very good about it.

So the question becomes: do you think there are 120 dmen in the league you'd rather have *today* (not looking at potential) than Gorges? If so, then it's fair to say he's legitimately a 3rd pairing guy. If not, then he's a legitimate 2nd pairing guy, just maybe not a high-end one.

I'm likely not going to go through every DMan in the league but again, it's not so much meant to be that technical of a statement, it's more meant to be he's not good enough to be on the 2nd pairing on a the kind of team we want to be and need to be. It's the same thing with Koivu/Plekanec not being number 1 centers, there likely weren't 30 better centers, but is having the 28th best centre in the league really satisfactory? Or the 29th best "number 1 goalie".

If Gorges is the 110th best Dman in the league and thus technically a top 4 guy, I'd like to upgrade that position still. IMO in all but 1 of his seasons here he's played like a guy I'd want on a 3rd pairing and nothing more. He's small, gets worn down, limited offensively and is spotty around the net. If he plays like he did the year he got the extension, I have no issues with him on a 2nd pairing, I'm just not sure that will happen and if it doesn't, I don't leave him being a main shutdown guy on our top 2 pairings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the only reason to buy him out (or more likely, move him) would be if we could actually improve that position. Obviously im not moving him to play Bouillon more or something. You move Josh Gorges to make room for Keith Yandle or another true #2-3 guy. The thought may be "well lets add a Yandle or Justin Faulk and KEEP Gorges" but the reality is you cant keep him, at that price, on the 3rd pairing... I dont think, at least.

Indeed, but on the last point, the problem isn't just cap. It's roster. We have Gorges, Markov, Tinordi, and Bouillon all true third-pairing d-men at this point. You keep Gorges and you're then forced to play one of those four in a top-four role that he can't sustain in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm likely not going to go through every DMan in the league but again, it's not so much meant to be that technical of a statement, it's more meant to be he's not good enough to be on the 2nd pairing on a the kind of team we want to be and need to be. It's the same thing with Koivu/Plekanec not being number 1 centers, there likely weren't 30 better centers, but is having the 28th best centre in the league really satisfactory? Or the 29th best "number 1 goalie".

If Gorges is the 110th best Dman in the league and thus technically a top 4 guy, I'd like to upgrade that position still.

That's totally fair, and it may just be a technicality, but I think wanting to upgrade at a position is a different argument than saying someone doesn't belong there. For example, we truly do lack a #2 dman in my opinion. But, contending teams probably are going to have guys who "belong" on a 2nd pairing in the NHL on their 3rd pairing, so you have a piont.

In Koivu's case, at his peak sure we could have upgraded that position. But I think the bigger problem there was he was often playing with wingers who were legitimately second-line wingers (at best). In Plekanec's case, from an offensive perspective he probably hasn't actually been a #1 the last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "someone doesn't belong there" argument implies (and it's worth stating) that we aspire to be more than just a fringe playoff team. As in, if we're happy just making the playoffs and getting bounced in the first round, then sure, Gorges totally belongs in our top four. But if we want to do better than first-round playoff exits, he doesn't belong there. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, but on the last point, the problem isn't just cap. It's roster. We have Gorges, Markov, Tinordi, and Bouillon all true third-pairing d-men at this point. You keep Gorges and you're then forced to play one of those four in a top-four role that he can't sustain in the long term.

It's a good point, although if you're going to be playing someone in that top 4 role regardless, I'd say it may as well be Gorges who's probably best suited for it out of that group.

If you assess the defense as follows (I'm going to go ahead and borrow yours from State of the Habs):

1: Subban

2: No one

3: No one

4: Emelin (possibly)

5: Markov, Diaz, Gorges

6: Bouillon, Tinordi

The jury is still out on Emelin (even more so than Gorges IMHO) and we've just learned he won't be ready to start the season. But for the time being, let's assume the stars aline, that he comes back early in the season and is a bonafide #4 guy. Even if we manage to acquire a legitimate 2 or 3 guy, we still need to slot someone from that bottom group in the top 4 and that may as well be Gorges for the time being. And getting that guy this offseason is going to be a challenge. Getting two guys, virtually impossible.

To me, we roll with Gorges for probably at least 2 more years. It'll be the development of Tinordi and Beaulieu (and possibly some other guys) that pushes him out the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...