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

2017-18 The Rumors Thread


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

Ya know, IMO, this coming summer will define MB. He can either make or break this team. He will have cap space to do it, but will he have the guts to make this team a whole lot better, and do everything possible to make this team better?

I don't trust MB to do the right thing.

MB keeps putting bandaids on things which require a plaster cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

Ya know, IMO, this coming summer will define MB. He can either make or break this team. He will have cap space to do it, but will he have the guts to make this team a whole lot better, and do everything possible to make this team better?

I don't trust MB to do the right thing.

Totally. Thats what makes it so frustrating. He's had the chance for 6 years to make the team better. Instead, he's made it worse.   Is it possible he's had an epiphany and will suddenly build a winner?  Maybe, but really really doubtful. 

 

32 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

He's already broken it

He now has to make it .

Totally. 

 

19 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

MB keeps putting bandaids on things which require a plaster cast.

This has been the major issue since he started.  Only a couple of his trades are really "bad bad" and he's had lots of little 'wins' but its his inability to fill those ongoing holes that defines him.  We continue to have way too much depth in some positions and virtually none in others.   Can he fix it?  Probably not but i guess we have to suffer through another season of him trying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

ROR would be an excellent #2 center here and on most teams in the league. Would I trade Galchenyuk for him? Nope. It comes down to 2 things... age and contract. ROR is three years older and he's signed for 5 more years at 7.5M. Galchenyuk is 24 and on a cheaper deal, at least for the next two seasons. We've seen what happens when you deal for a guy who's just a few years older, like Subban for Weber. Sergachev for Drouin is not as much of a travesty IMO because both guys were still young. I can live with trading an 18/19 year old for a 21/22 year old. But 27 is already past prime technically, even if the player can still be productive for upcoming years, so we're talking about acquiring a player for his 27-33 age range as opposed to 24-30 over an equivalent timeframe. For me, the player really has to be a significant upgrade to make that move, and while ROR certainly fills a hole in our line-up, I don't think we're in a situation where we can afford to deal younger guys and goal-creators for older ones. We're just not that close to a Cup, unless there are other concurrent moves (e.g. we win Dahlin, we sign Tavares, etc.). So yes, if you can sign JT, then maybe trading AG for ROR makes more sense. But as it stands, I'd rather try to get younger. I'd prefer to ship out Pacioretty, Price, Weber, etc. than trying to deal away players who can still be helpful for another 5 years.

I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't know, man... I'm not sure we can set the bar for a players expiration date at 27. Honestly, if a players production falls off at 27, they're doing it wrong. 25-35, that's more like what I would consider a players prime years, if they're doing it right. Even if we set O'Reilly aside for the moment, there is another 27 year old that I think a lot of us would like to see MB throw a contract offer at, goes by the name Tavares. To pull that one off, we're looking at 10+ x full term, and I don't think most of us would be all that concerned about the extra $, term and age. Because in the end Tavares is just better.

I know O'Reilly is no Tavares, but similarly to him, when compared to Galchenyuk, O'Reilly is just better... at everything. No disrespect to Galchenyuk, I just can't think of any area of his game that he does better  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't know, man... I'm not sure we can set the bar for a players expiration date at 27. Honestly, if a players production falls off at 27, they're doing it wrong. 25-35, that's more like what I would consider a players prime years, if they're doing it right. Even if we set O'Reilly aside for the moment, there is another 27 year old that I think a lot of us would like to see MB throw a contract offer at, goes by the name Tavares. To pull that one off, we're looking at 10+ x full term, and I don't think most of us would be all that concerned about the extra $, term and age. Because in the end Tavares is just better.

I know O'Reilly is no Tavares, but similarly to him, when compared to Galchenyuk, O'Reilly is just better... at everything. No disrespect to Galchenyuk, I just can't think of any area of his game that he does better  

Year for year at the same age, I'm with you: ROR has been more valuable than AG. But we're not talking about the two guys being the same age. Every extra year of age you add on, you have to balance that in the equation. The question is not whether 25 year-old ROR is better than 25 year-old AG, it's whether 28 year-old ROR is better than 25 year-old AG and whether 30 year-old ROR is better than 27 year-old AG. I don't think that's as obvious.

In Tavares' case, there are two clear differences. One, as you stated, is that JT is simply better than ROR. He's a true 1C, whereas ROR is a fringe 1C and more realistically a 2C. The other is that we're not talking about giving up assets to sign JT.

But let's come back to prime. I think a lot of people have the same notion you do, that players play in the league and do well in their late 20's and early 30's. I used to think prime was 25-29, and it used to be to a certain extent. But the game has gotten faster, players have gotten bigger, injuries have become more limiting, and you simply have to be able to keep up with the speed of the game. Speed is a much more vital component to every player's skillset than it was 15, 20, or 30 years ago. If you can't keep up, the rest is moot. The salary cap has also forced teams to find younger, cheaper talent, so I think you're seeing a lot of higher-profile players getting opportunity when they're 18-24 and they're dominating the game at that age. Top-end guys still dominate into their late 20's  but it's rare that players are dominant into their 30's, and the drop-off can be fast.

Look at some of the top forwards in the game. McDavid has probably been the best player in the game the past two years, and he's 21. Eichel's also 21. Matthews and Laine are 20. Mackinnon is 22. Filip Forsberg is 23. Kucherov is 24. Malkin had a great year this season, but look at his three most productive seasons... posted at age 21, 22, and 25. Four of five Crosby's 100-point seasons were posted at age 18, 19, 21, and 22. Ovechkin's four 100-point years all came in his first five years, at ages 20, 22, 23, and 24. Stamkos' three most productive years were at 19, 20, and 21.

I'm not saying it's like that for everyone. There will always be the exception of a player who's a late bloomer or sees a rejuvenation of his career, more often because of a change in opportunity... Chris Kunitz playing next to Crosby is yes, going to do better than the one that plays with expansion-level players. And rarely, you'll find a guy who has a year that's a bit of an anomaly, like Claude Giroux coming up with a monster year this season. But that's more the exception than the rule. It's not common that you see a player post an average of 50 points his entire career and then suddenly become a 70-point player as he approaches age 30. Most players fall off around that age and simply sustaining their past level of success is probably a win. Look at other players we've had recently who had been decent offensive players in their day but then hit that 30-year range where their production fell off somewhat... Cammalleri, Gionta, Gomez, Plekanec, PAP, Briere, Hemsky, even Pacioretty questionably now. All once-strong offensive players who simply weren't as good after age 30. It's not to say they were bad, but most players now simply peak a bit earlier in their careers. So while ROR over the next 5 years is clearly going to be past prime, Galchenyuk's next 5 years are going to be at peak or just past, but at least on the right side of 30. That makes a difference to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Year for year at the same age, I'm with you: ROR has been more valuable than AG. But we're not talking about the two guys being the same age. Every extra year of age you add on, you have to balance that in the equation. The question is not whether 25 year-old ROR is better than 25 year-old AG, it's whether 28 year-old ROR is better than 25 year-old AG and whether 30 year-old ROR is better than 27 year-old AG. I don't think that's as obvious.

In Tavares' case, there are two clear differences. One, as you stated, is that JT is simply better than ROR. He's a true 1C, whereas ROR is a fringe 1C and more realistically a 2C. The other is that we're not talking about giving up assets to sign JT.

But let's come back to prime. I think a lot of people have the same notion you do, that players play in the league and do well in their late 20's and early 30's. I used to think prime was 25-29, and it used to be to a certain extent. But the game has gotten faster, players have gotten bigger, injuries have become more limiting, and you simply have to be able to keep up with the speed of the game. Speed is a much more vital component to every player's skillset than it was 15, 20, or 30 years ago. If you can't keep up, the rest is moot. The salary cap has also forced teams to find younger, cheaper talent, so I think you're seeing a lot of higher-profile players getting opportunity when they're 18-24 and they're dominating the game at that age. Top-end guys still dominate into their late 20's  but it's rare that players are dominant into their 30's, and the drop-off can be fast.

Look at some of the top forwards in the game. McDavid has probably been the best player in the game the past two years, and he's 21. Eichel's also 21. Matthews and Laine are 20. Mackinnon is 22. Filip Forsberg is 23. Kucherov is 24. Malkin had a great year this season, but look at his three most productive seasons... posted at age 21, 22, and 25. Four of five Crosby's 100-point seasons were posted at age 18, 19, 21, and 22. Ovechkin's four 100-point years all came in his first five years, at ages 20, 22, 23, and 24. Stamkos' three most productive years were at 19, 20, and 21.

I'm not saying it's like that for everyone. There will always be the exception of a player who's a late bloomer or sees a rejuvenation of his career, more often because of a change in opportunity... Chris Kunitz playing next to Crosby is yes, going to do better than the one that plays with expansion-level players. And rarely, you'll find a guy who has a year that's a bit of an anomaly, like Claude Giroux coming up with a monster year this season. But that's more the exception than the rule. It's not common that you see a player post an average of 50 points his entire career and then suddenly become a 70-point player as he approaches age 30. Most players fall off around that age and simply sustaining their past level of success is probably a win. Look at other players we've had recently who had been decent offensive players in their day but then hit that 30-year range where their production fell off somewhat... Cammalleri, Gionta, Gomez, Plekanec, PAP, Briere, Hemsky, even Pacioretty questionably now. All once-strong offensive players who simply weren't as good after age 30. It's not to say they were bad, but most players now simply peak a bit earlier in their careers. So while ROR over the next 5 years is clearly going to be past prime, Galchenyuk's next 5 years are going to be at peak or just past, but at least on the right side of 30. That makes a difference to me.

 

I 100000000% agree with you analysis on age. For the most part the best players in the NHL are going to be 25 or younger, so you absolutely have to draft them. But I still think ROR is vastly better player then Chucky. ROR is what we need and its also the most important position in the game. Galchenyuk is what he is, he's not getting any better. You could say the same for ROR but his peak has been much higher the Chuckys. Also, we're going to have to move a winger or 2, its inevitable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I 100000000% agree with you analysis on age. For the most part the best players in the NHL are going to be 25 or younger, so you absolutely have to draft them. But I still think ROR is vastly better player then Chucky. ROR is what we need and its also the most important position in the game. Galchenyuk is what he is, he's not getting any better. You could say the same for ROR but his peak has been much higher the Chuckys. Also, we're going to have to move a winger or 2, its inevitable

Fully agreed we need to move wingers out to get a center or two and a 1 LHD, unless we get lucky at the draft or in free agency. But I also believe that unless we're landing Tavares and maybe Dahlin or Carlson too, that we're not going to be a top-tier contender next season. So being realistic, I think we need to be looking at how we're going to build a team that can challenge for a Cup in 2, 3, and 5 years. Every move I make is with that goal in mind if I'm the GM. I don't want to see bandaid solutions, and I simply don't see purpose in making our roster older. I can be more on board with a deal that focuses around Pacioretty for ROR rather than giving up the younger AG. Again, it's not about who's best for us for next season, it's about the overall vision of the trade and what the long-term plan is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eklund saying that Doughty is available (but costly) and counts us as one of the teams who would love to get him.

I am, of course, all for acquiring him but im not sure how that would make sense, unless LA wants Weber.    I would (obviously) do that in a heartbeat.  I am assuming we'd have to sweeten the pot somehow but who knows, we did give them Mitchell and we did take King off their hands so, maybe they owe us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Eklund saying that Doughty is available (but costly) and counts us as one of the teams who would love to get him.

I am, of course, all for acquiring him but im not sure how that would make sense, unless LA wants Weber.    I would (obviously) do that in a heartbeat.  I am assuming we'd have to sweeten the pot somehow but who knows, we did give them Mitchell and we did take King off their hands so, maybe they owe us!

His dental bills would ruin us. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW,  O'Reilly is a 27 year old center, signed long term who can play 5 on 5, on the power play and penalty kill. Over the last three years O'Reilly has found himself in the Top 10 for faceoff % including leading the league for the 2017-18 season. 

He's also hit the 60 point plateau in two out of the last three seasons and scored 15 power play goals this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman wondered if the Ducks front office might re-evaluate veterans such as Ryan Getzlaf, Corey Perry and Ryan Kesler. He felt Getzlaf remains a good player but noted Perry's production has declined while Kesler's physical style could be catching up with him after an injury-ravaged season.

Meanwhile, TSN's Darren Dreger suggested the Ducks might not return with the same core of talent next season. He thinks teams that come up short pursuing Islanders center John Tavares this summer via trade or free agency could have interest in Getzlaf or Perry.

If Getzlaf hits the trade block, retooling clubs such as the Canadiens, Rangers and Blues could come calling. So could the Islanders if Tavares departs in July via free agency.

Ducks general manager Bob Murray has yet to reveal where those core players fit into his offseason plans. Getzlaf and Perry, both 32, are signed through 2020-21, carrying identical $8.625 million salary cap hits. Kesler, 33, earns $6.875 million annually on a deal that expires at the end of 2021-22.

The Kings already have over $32 million tied up in Anze Kopitar, Jonathan Quick, Jeff Carter, Dustin Brown and Dion Phaneuf on long-term contracts. Re-signing Doughty will bite even more deeply into their long-term payroll and could hamper future efforts to bolster their offensive depth, a main reason for their ouster against Vegas.

If Doughty's contract discussions stall this summer, the Kings could be willing to entertain trade offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2018 at 9:48 PM, BigTed3 said:

Year for year at the same age, I'm with you: ROR has been more valuable than AG. But we're not talking about the two guys being the same age. Every extra year of age you add on, you have to balance that in the equation. The question is not whether 25 year-old ROR is better than 25 year-old AG, it's whether 28 year-old ROR is better than 25 year-old AG and whether 30 year-old ROR is better than 27 year-old AG. I don't think that's as obvious.

In Tavares' case, there are two clear differences. One, as you stated, is that JT is simply better than ROR. He's a true 1C, whereas ROR is a fringe 1C and more realistically a 2C. The other is that we're not talking about giving up assets to sign JT.

But let's come back to prime. I think a lot of people have the same notion you do, that players play in the league and do well in their late 20's and early 30's. I used to think prime was 25-29, and it used to be to a certain extent. But the game has gotten faster, players have gotten bigger, injuries have become more limiting, and you simply have to be able to keep up with the speed of the game. Speed is a much more vital component to every player's skillset than it was 15, 20, or 30 years ago. If you can't keep up, the rest is moot. The salary cap has also forced teams to find younger, cheaper talent, so I think you're seeing a lot of higher-profile players getting opportunity when they're 18-24 and they're dominating the game at that age. Top-end guys still dominate into their late 20's  but it's rare that players are dominant into their 30's, and the drop-off can be fast.

Look at some of the top forwards in the game. McDavid has probably been the best player in the game the past two years, and he's 21. Eichel's also 21. Matthews and Laine are 20. Mackinnon is 22. Filip Forsberg is 23. Kucherov is 24. Malkin had a great year this season, but look at his three most productive seasons... posted at age 21, 22, and 25. Four of five Crosby's 100-point seasons were posted at age 18, 19, 21, and 22. Ovechkin's four 100-point years all came in his first five years, at ages 20, 22, 23, and 24. Stamkos' three most productive years were at 19, 20, and 21.

I'm not saying it's like that for everyone. There will always be the exception of a player who's a late bloomer or sees a rejuvenation of his career, more often because of a change in opportunity... Chris Kunitz playing next to Crosby is yes, going to do better than the one that plays with expansion-level players. And rarely, you'll find a guy who has a year that's a bit of an anomaly, like Claude Giroux coming up with a monster year this season. But that's more the exception than the rule. It's not common that you see a player post an average of 50 points his entire career and then suddenly become a 70-point player as he approaches age 30. Most players fall off around that age and simply sustaining their past level of success is probably a win. Look at other players we've had recently who had been decent offensive players in their day but then hit that 30-year range where their production fell off somewhat... Cammalleri, Gionta, Gomez, Plekanec, PAP, Briere, Hemsky, even Pacioretty questionably now. All once-strong offensive players who simply weren't as good after age 30. It's not to say they were bad, but most players now simply peak a bit earlier in their careers. So while ROR over the next 5 years is clearly going to be past prime, Galchenyuk's next 5 years are going to be at peak or just past, but at least on the right side of 30. That makes a difference to me.

I apologize, I am afraid I might have been misusing the term "prime". The word does suggest a players most productive years. For some reason I would tend to define a players prime years as the years between when they find their plateau, and when they can no longer sustain it. Some players come out hot, some players heat up over time. By about 23-25 you usually have a pretty good idea what to expect from a player. Also, it might have been a bit overzealous of me to initially bracket it between 25-35, as 35 might be a it of a stretch. Regardless, you are correct that the players that you mentioned did appear to have had their most productive seasons before they turned 25, which might be the more accurate use of the term "prime".

And yes, I see how the age difference is something to consider, but in the case of AG vs ROR, I think maybe it might not be so big of a factor. O'Reilly looks to have plateaued pretty early in his career, and I see no indication that his play should decline any time soon. When does his contract end, when he is around 32 I believe? that's actually a beauty timeframe. Even if he started to slip in those last two years, I doubt it would be so drastic that it would actually hurt us. Worst case he goes from being a top notch 2nd line center, to an average one. And by then Poehling should be geared up and ready to take his place. Galchenyuk on the other hand, if he hasn't already, can't be to far off from his plateau as well. Maybe he has a little more to show. I have to admit, after looking a bit closer, the one thing I can say for AG is that his PPG looks to be a bit higher than ROR's. But if I got to choose between ROR's next 3 years and AG's next 3 years, I'm taking ROR's. Especially our current circumstances.

And as for trading Pacioretty, I just don't think the draft is the right time for that trade. I think it's almost a guarantee that Max has a solid rebound season. For one, I don't think he has forgotten how to shoot the puck, more so he just had a bad year. Second, it's a contract year. Players more often than not, play a little harder when they have a new contract on the line. And third, if we can actually manage to address our need for a center (JT and ROR would be preferable, but even ROR on his own would help with this) it should make everyone's job a little easier, including the captain. All of this, to me, says that Pacioretty would be more valuable as a 30-35 goal scorer at the deadline than a 17 goal scorer in the off season. 

Bottom line, I think we should probably be thinking long and hard about trading both. Galchenyuk first, because he seems more suited for a draft day trade. Also, because I don't thing either he, or the team needs another season of the "what to do with Galchenyuk?" gong show we've been watching for the past 5 or so years. I honestly think it would be good for him, maybe something about Montreal is holding him back?

And Pacioretty later on. there is others that we should be looking at trading (Shaw, Alzner, Schlemko etc.), but AG and Max are the two with any sort of marketable value, the rest are simply finance related trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MB was on a French talk show called Tout Le Monde En Parle... a few of the highlights of what he said tonight:

- Trevor Timmins will lead the team at the draft. However, there may be changes coming to the scouting staff after the draft

- There may be changes to the roster at the draft. He also refused to answer as to whether Max Pacioretty would be back next year.

- He said Carey told him he sometimes simply forgot to salute the crowd sometimes. Said he thinks Carey will rebound next year.

- Says Subban did not have an attitude problem and that the change was to acquire Weber, who is a great leader and player for us. Says that Geoff Molson didn't tell the truth when he said the team had been trying to trade Subban for months, and that all player evaluations were done at the end of the season and not before. This is probably the biggest and most intriguing statement, because it means GM was calling MB a liar and now MB is calling GM a liar... at least one of them is lying to the fans/media.

- When asked about Tavares, MB said he has the flexibility to sign a few players or maybe just one player (with a big smile) if the contract demand isn't exorbitant... which is bordering on tampering, but definitely sounds like he's hoping JT gets to market and that he's going to be looking at an offer to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

- Says Subban did not have an attitude problem and that the change was to acquire Weber, who is a great leader and player for us. Says that Geoff Molson didn't tell the truth when he said the team had been trying to trade Subban for months, and that all player evaluations were done at the end of the season and not before. This is probably the biggest and most intriguing statement, because it means GM was calling MB a liar and now MB is calling GM a liar... at least one of them is lying to the fans/media.

This is very interesting. 

So is there a rfit?  I almost feel like Molson would be more likely to lie in this case although even if we believe MB, his story has changed - originally he said Poile called us asking about Subban and we said it would take Weber to get him, not that we were enquiring about Weber.

Either way this team is messed up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

MB was on a French talk show called Tout Le Monde En Parle... a few of the highlights of what he said tonight:

- Says Subban did not have an attitude problem and that the change was to acquire Weber, who is a great leader and player for us. Says that Geoff Molson didn't tell the truth when he said the team had been trying to trade Subban for months, and that all player evaluations were done at the end of the season and not before. This is probably the biggest and most intriguing statement, because it means GM was calling MB a liar and now MB is calling GM a liar... at least one of them is lying to the fans/media.

Did he actually call him a liar or that's analysis based on contradicting accounts?

Either way, the two totally different public accounts from the current president and GM is just bizarre. These aren't slightly different interpretations or misunderstandings either, they completely contradict each other. Although it gives me some hope MB's relationship with Molson isn't as strong as it previously seemed.

 

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

- When asked about Tavares, MB said he has the flexibility to sign a few players or maybe just one player (with a big smile) if the contract demand isn't exorbitant... which is bordering on tampering, but definitely sounds like he's hoping JT gets to market and that he's going to be looking at an offer to him.

Oh great, just what we need - invite the league to take away draft picks. Another genius MB move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

Did he actually call him a liar or that's analysis based on contradicting accounts?

Either way, the two totally different public accounts from the current president and GM is just bizarre. These aren't slightly different interpretations or misunderstandings either, they completely contradict each other. Although it gives me some hope MB's relationship with Molson isn't as strong as it previously seemed.

 

Oh great, just what we need - invite the league to take away draft picks. Another genius MB move.

- I didn't watch it live, but I've seen several accounts of the same interview. Basically, MB was asked about Molson's statements and he stated that "what Geoff said wasn't exactly the truth. There was no plan to trade Subban for months. All player evaluations are done at the end of the season, not before." Clearly, MB is sticking by his guns in claiming there wasn't a plan to trade Subban, which is the opposite of what Molson told us. Either way, the stories don't match up. Which is the same thing that happened between Bergevin and Radulov on their accounts of their contract discussions. And Bergevin and Markov. And Bergevin and Subban with respect to their past contract negotiations. And so on. There's a pattern of MB's truth-telling being called into question, and we already know he's lied to us about injuries and about trading Subban in general. So I'm inclined to believe Molson here.

- Don't think MB did anything that the league would call out for tampering. He didn't mention he was going to go after Tavares by name, it was just that he had a giant grin on his face when the Tavares question was asked and he alluded to having the money to sign one big name player with that money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Is Bergevin going to be grinning on July 1st when Tavares signs elsewhere?

The reason he might be grinning is because not only can he throw the players under the bus, but he can get away with throwing Molson under it as well and get away with it.

It makes Molson look as though he`s a pussy cat who does MB`s bidding and who has bought into his nonsense hook, line and sinker. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

- I didn't watch it live, but I've seen several accounts of the same interview. Basically, MB was asked about Molson's statements and he stated that "what Geoff said wasn't exactly the truth. There was no plan to trade Subban for months. All player evaluations are done at the end of the season, not before." Clearly, MB is sticking by his guns in claiming there wasn't a plan to trade Subban, which is the opposite of what Molson told us. Either way, the stories don't match up. Which is the same thing that happened between Bergevin and Radulov on their accounts of their contract discussions. And Bergevin and Markov. And Bergevin and Subban with respect to their past contract negotiations. And so on. There's a pattern of MB's truth-telling being called into question, and we already know he's lied to us about injuries and about trading Subban in general. So I'm inclined to believe Molson here.

I agree, and I'm even more inclined to believe Molson since his account makes himself look worse: if you believe MB's explanation, it was just a bad hockey decision - which is generally calls GMs need to be allowed to make (other than hiring MB in the first place, not really Molson's fault). On the other hand, If it was a decision that Subban had to go, that's something that feels much more like something that the president is going to be involved in.

But what's strange is MB's explanation doesn't exactly make him look any better (so he's a horrible evaulator of talent instead of petty?). Although one possibility is Molson's account is the true one, but MB also truly does think he won that trade. In which case, he thinks he can look like a hockey genius and not look at all petty with his account (win-win)?

This whole thing is very strange, at least in those other examples there were reasons for the two opposing sides to get their versions out there.  In this situation, both people are in theory on the same side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graeme-1 said:

I agree, and I'm even more inclined to believe Molson since his account makes himself look worse: if you believe MB's explanation, it was just a bad hockey decision - which is generally calls GMs need to be allowed to make (other than hiring MB in the first place, not really Molson's fault). On the other hand, If it was a decision that Subban had to go, that's something that feels much more like something that the president is going to be involved in.

Especially since there are pretty reliable sources that seem to think both edmonton and vancouver had great multi-piece offers in place for PK but we went with a 1 for 1 for Weber. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

Especially since there are pretty reliable sources that seem to think both edmonton and vancouver had great multi-piece offers in place for PK but we went with a 1 for 1 for Weber. 

That might fit my dual-intent theory - Habs felt they had to trade Subban but MB also thought he won that trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

MB was on a French talk show called Tout Le Monde En Parle... a few of the highlights of what he said tonight:

- Trevor Timmins will lead the team at the draft. However, there may be changes coming to the scouting staff after the draft

- There may be changes to the roster at the draft. He also refused to answer as to whether Max Pacioretty would be back next year.

- He said Carey told him he sometimes simply forgot to salute the crowd sometimes. Said he thinks Carey will rebound next year.

- Says Subban did not have an attitude problem and that the change was to acquire Weber, who is a great leader and player for us. Says that Geoff Molson didn't tell the truth when he said the team had been trying to trade Subban for months, and that all player evaluations were done at the end of the season and not before. This is probably the biggest and most intriguing statement, because it means GM was calling MB a liar and now MB is calling GM a liar... at least one of them is lying to the fans/media.

- When asked about Tavares, MB said he has the flexibility to sign a few players or maybe just one player (with a big smile) if the contract demand isn't exorbitant... which is bordering on tampering, but definitely sounds like he's hoping JT gets to market and that he's going to be looking at an offer to him.

So his plan is

To think CP will  rebound and sign JT ( with a big smile ) - and if those don't work out sign a bunch of fourth liners and hope the attitude is better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Don't think MB did anything that the league would call out for tampering. He didn't mention he was going to go after Tavares by name, it was just that he had a giant grin on his face when the Tavares question was asked and he alluded to having the money to sign one big name player with that money.

Was thinking about this - if it's as you described it reminds me almost of that Kovalchuk contract - technically it was within the rules (it didn't actually say anything about Koalchuk retiring before he was 45 or whatever age it was), but everyone knew what was going on and the Devils got slammed anyways.

Although when the Canucks did something similar - and actually named names - they only got a small (for an NHL team) fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

I agree, and I'm even more inclined to believe Molson since his account makes himself look worse: if you believe MB's explanation, it was just a bad hockey decision - which is generally calls GMs need to be allowed to make (other than hiring MB in the first place, not really Molson's fault). On the other hand, If it was a decision that Subban had to go, that's something that feels much more like something that the president is going to be involved in.

But what's strange is MB's explanation doesn't exactly make him look any better (so he's a horrible evaulator of talent instead of petty?). Although one possibility is Molson's account is the true one, but MB also truly does think he won that trade. In which case, he thinks he can look like a hockey genius and not look at all petty with his account (win-win)?

This whole thing is very strange, at least in those other examples there were reasons for the two opposing sides to get their versions out there.  In this situation, both people are in theory on the same side.

I tend to believe GM's version of the story, simply because it fits with what we know about the Subban/Therrien/Bergevin relationship, the contract negotiation issues, and the timeline of what happened. It also fits with Bergevin's pattern of lying to us. If you believe Bergevin, then it makes it sound like there really was no issue with Subban's personality and that the team only traded him as a hockey trade (which as you said, means Bergevin is just a really bad hockey GM).

The only way I can rationalize the whole thing is by saying that they traded Subban for a conflict with his personality; Bergevin doesn't want to admit it because he thinks it makes him look petty; but Molson is on this whole transparency kick and decided that he's more worried about fans deserting the team and not buying tickets that he's taking a calculated gamble that admitting to what they did is going to earn him bonus points with the fanbase.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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