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

2017-18 The Rumors Thread


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, maas_art said:

Ugg. I hope not.  Bjugstad is fine but he's not really that young and at 25 I dont see him really getting a whole lot better.  He's a 2nd line centre and while thats not bad, one would hope that Pacioretty, one of the top goal scorers in the NHL for the past 6 years, could get you more than that. 

Maybe Id consider Bjugstad + plues their #1 pick this year (15th overall) but id really rather trade for a  couple of top quality prospects instead. 

I'd rather get Ryan O'Reilly and a pick or prospect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=92850&blogger_id=1

so ek says we are trying to land a legit 1c from a central team and are willing to give up a lot

trying to get a 1c and be willing to pay, including an "untouchable" (weber) sounds good to me. who could it be though?

central....not the jets preds or avalanche. then who is a 1c on st louis or minny?

is this supposed to be a reference for thomas? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas might be looking to move Spezza, Hanzel or both. I would like to get Zibanejad and Namestniikov; or Z and Spooner  from the Rangers and their first this year for Patches and would offer a 2nd or two 2nds to sweeten the deal or throw in  a Schlemko or similar players including a McCarron. This is a fantastic deal considering what the Rangers just got for Nash.

If I deal with the Central I would want to get Dallas or Chicago to give up their 1st and a top 6 forward for Patches and a 2nd but think Chicago would  be less likely to make this move. The way Turris has played for Nashville he may be available but I am not sure why we would make that deal.

Moving one or two of our 2nd's in a trade with Patches to pick up a top centre, like a Keller/ Patrick/Beosser or other would be nice. if we can get one of them then using some of our picks in this draft makes the most sense to me. Otherwise I think we need to take advantage of these picks. Depending on the player I wouldn't have a problem giving up a 4th as well. I Iike how our D is shaping up with a couple of exceptions and like the depth we have on the wing. If we are landing Tavares using Patches to get another first along with a prospect makes the most sense  to me. Draft day will be the most entertaining day of 2018 for this franchise, nut hopefully the start of the season will keep it going inn the right direction.  Please Mr. Bergevin make some moves that take advantage of the strong position we have with this draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

3 young guys and a 1st should be worth max alone

Well, then to answer your question no I don't think Arizona would do it . I personally don't think max is worth 3 young prospects , maybe 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

3 young guys and a 1st should be worth max alone

see this is my worry, that our GM shares your opinion and hes gonna try to play hardball and pass on a trade that would have actually made sense.we cant miss on trading max this off season, his worth is gonna be nothing at the deadline as a ufa. kane got a conditional 1st.  thats what your looking at.

we need to make a trade and forget this pie in the sky return. hes a one dimensional player and he really got exposed this year as the kind of guy who does not help right the ship, rather he mopes and plays even more like a pansy than usual when the going gets tough. 

seriously, bergy's job is to listen to everyones offer who is interested , and just take the best one.if the best we can get is bjugstad, then you say dang I sure wish I was better at my job and did this way earlier. coulda got a duchene return. oh well, ill never get fired anyway! lolz!  deal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

You guys must all realize MB is going to resign him at 10 mill a year for 8 years right?? :ph34r:

if we dont get a deal done at the draft....which we very well might not, because we all know trades are hard, and the early indications are that this is gonna be even harder because bergy is gonna ask for way too much ...

and then his ego will get in the way of accepting less, which means he definitely wont settle for a conditional 1st after having a certainly better deal on the table at the  draft..

and then rather than really eat it and have to let max walk, we give him the contract. 

Im not even joking what I just described is totally possible 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

Well since AG and JD cant play Centre , they do need Centres ...lol

If MB fails to get us #1 & #2 centers, I'm sure the status quo will remain, continually wasting AG's and JD's careers by playing them ineffectually in the wrong positions.

The reason for this is not CJ's fault IMO, but MB's responsibility for micro-managing his coaching staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Habs=stanleycup said:

If MB fails to get us #1 & #2 centers, I'm sure the status quo will remain, continually wasting AG's and JD's careers by playing them ineffectually in the wrong positions.

The reason for this is not CJ's fault IMO, but MB's responsibility for micro-managing his coaching staff.

I suspect MB's dream is to sign Tavares long-term and have Drouin continue in the number 2 role for the time-being. Perhaps he sees Danault as a legitimate number 2... not sure. Either way, that plan will go down the toilet when Tavares signs somewhere else on July 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jennifer_rocket said:

I suspect MB's dream is to sign Tavares long-term and have Drouin continue in the number 2 role for the time-being. Perhaps he sees Danault as a legitimate number 2... not sure. Either way, that plan will go down the toilet when Tavares signs somewhere else on July 1st.

Agreed with your assessment on Tavares. If he signs anywhere with any Canadian team, it will be with the Laffs IMO.

MB has already made himself the laughingstock of the NHL and the players are all too aware of this. His micro-managing, arrogance and passing the buck will damage us beyond repair if he he remains with us as GM.

All the fans see it, the media sees it. The only person who seems to be blissfully unaware is Molson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I suspect MB's dream is to sign Tavares long-term and have Drouin continue in the number 2 role for the time-being. Perhaps he sees Danault as a legitimate number 2... not sure. Either way, that plan will go down the toilet when Tavares signs somewhere else on July 1st.

Totally.  

And Tavares - Drouin//Galchenyuk - Danault  is a good solid group of centres.  All we can hope for is that its not just a "dream" and that MB and Brisson have already worked out a deal in principle (despite it being illegal) because as you said, if the deal falls through, we're toast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be finding out sooner rather than later now if Joël Bouchard will, indeed, be joining the Canadiens in some capacity.

Bouchard’s Blainville-Boisbriand Armada saw their season come to an end Sunday afternoon with a 2-1 road loss to the Acadie-Bathurst Titan in Game 6 of the QMJHL’s President’s Cup final. The Titan now advance to the Memorial Cup, while the Armada will find out if Bouchard — their president, head coach and general manager — will be moving on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jeff33 said:

It seems MB's main shopping list is from Chicago. It must be an attitude thing.

We'll have lots of attitude and no Stanley Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jeff33 said:

Maybe MB has a time machine we dont know about?    He's going to acquire Toews and then we will take him and Weber back a few years?

Note to Marc Bergevin:  WRONG JT!!!

 

In all seriousness, this is exactly the type of move I expect MB to make and exactly the wrong type of move.  Watch him trade Mete + Galchenyuk for him.   Toews had a bad year last year but I am sure he'll bounce back with at least a couple of good seasons left in his career but we do NOT need a 30+ year old centre. We need young guys who can develop as this team moves forward. Our window with this roster has closed already MB.  Stop making us older. 

Now, if Chicago wanted to do something like  Toews + 1st round pick (8th overall) for Price.... id definitely listen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob McKenzie reporting on Tom Dundon and the Canes, saying the new owner wants to make significant change and is willing to trade any player except Sebastian Aho (which to me is a weird choice if you're going to have one untouchable). McKenzie suggests Jeff Skinner, with one year left on his deal, is likely to be dealt and that Justin Faulk is also fair game, with two years on his contract to go. Carolina's got some really interesting prospects, and I wonder whether they're included in the list of players Dundon is willing to let go of to acquire new players...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Bob McKenzie reporting on Tom Dundon and the Canes, saying the new owner wants to make significant change and is willing to trade any player except Sebastian Aho (which to me is a weird choice if you're going to have one untouchable). McKenzie suggests Jeff Skinner, with one year left on his deal, is likely to be dealt and that Justin Faulk is also fair game, with two years on his contract to go. Carolina's got some really interesting prospects, and I wonder whether they're included in the list of players Dundon is willing to let go of to acquire new players...

Who would you put over Aho in importance? Maybe Hannifin but their D is so strong that maybe he's not that untouchable. Faulk shoots right, no? 

I would trade Pacioretty and a second or two for Hannifin. 

Carolina is only a good trading partner for us if we rebuild. From what I see, they need a #1 C and goaltending. Price to them with Darling coming back is the movie to make but we're not rebuilding

5 hours ago, jeff33 said:

Depending who we traded I would be happy to do this if we didn't get Tavares. It depends on the cost. He's clearly overpaid (but not by much, Tavares is getting 12+ this year). I've resigned to not rebuilding, this is the right move if we're not rebuilding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, habsisme said:

Who would you put over Aho in importance? Maybe Hannifin but their D is so strong that maybe he's not that untouchable. Faulk shoots right, no? 

I would trade Pacioretty and a second or two for Hannifin. 

Carolina is only a good trading partner for us if we rebuild. From what I see, they need a #1 C and goaltending. Price to them with Darling coming back is the movie to make but we're not rebuilding

 

Aho's an asset, but he's had two good seasons and I wouldn't say he's any more valuable than Hanifin and maybe even Slavin and Teuraveinen. I just don't see him as being so valuable that he would be an untouchable while others wouldn't be. I mean, look at our roster... do we have any untouchables? Not really. But this would be like our saying Galchenyuk is untouchable but Drouin isn't or that Juulsen is untouchable but Mete isn't. I just don't see one guy as being miles ahead of another.

Agreed with you about the rebuilding part. Carolina clearly wants to bring in players who can win now and who might be bigger names to draw the crowds and make a playoff push. That means they'd have interest in guys like Price, Pacioretty, Weber, Gallagher, and maybe Petry or Shaw. We should have interest in players like Bean, Necar, Hanifin, Fleury, the 2nd overall pick, and so on. Does that mean we're "re-building"? Maybe. But those guys are all NHL-ready or right on the verge, so they can easily be players who can be not only useful but key parts of your team within the next season or two. This is exactly the type of trade we should be aiming for.

Quote

Depending who we traded I would be happy to do this if we didn't get Tavares. It depends on the cost. He's clearly overpaid (but not by much, Tavares is getting 12+ this year). I've resigned to not rebuilding, this is the right move if we're not rebuilding. 

Not rebuilding is the wrong move. The only exception would be if you get Tavares. Why? Because you're getting him without giving up assets. So you can make an argument to push to be competitive now. But the minute you start to throw prospects and picks to other teams to acquire players like Toews or other past-prime assets, it's a mistake. You're not getting close enough to being a Cup favorite and then you're giving up futures and ruining your chances going forward too. Big mistake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Disillusioned1 said:

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.

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Not rebuilding is the wrong move. The only exception would be if you get Tavares. Why? Because you're getting him without giving up assets. So you can make an argument to push to be competitive now. But the minute you start to throw prospects and picks to other teams to acquire players like Toews or other past-prime assets, it's a mistake. You're not getting close enough to being a Cup favorite and then you're giving up futures and ruining your chances going forward too. Big mistake.

 

I agree with that but I'm also not terribly opposed to Toews if its cheap enough (Chicago would have to see it as a salary dump), i'm certainly not willing to pay a premium. But if it costs Galchenyuk and next years first (lottery protected)... I'd do it! 

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...