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

State of the Habs


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Ravadak said:

We can always randomly point to other players who are playing as bad or who are playing better.

Randomly? You brought up even strength goals, I merely listed players with comparable ES goal totals. Feel free to move the goal posts though. Also, good job on completely ignoring the rest of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone through the Galchenyuk debate before, so I'm not going to get back into his upside vs. downside. But as a matter of fairness, I find it really difficult to accept that he's shunted off to wing and was previously taking a regular turn on the 4th line at the end of last season and the start of this one while lesser or similar players don't get held to the same standard. Again, we can argue all day about how good or bad Galchenyuk is, but regardless of who you want to compare him to on other teams, let's do the job of comparing him to guys on our own squad.

The point was made that Galchenyuk only has 9 ES goals. Well Pacioretty only has 10, with 31 extra minutes of ES ice time. Drouin has just 6 with 2 minutes of additional ES ice time this year. Plekanec had 6 before he left. Shaw 5, Lehkonen 3, Hudon 5, and Danault 7, albeit all with less ice time than AG because of time missed. Deslauriers has 7, but he's shooting at 12% at ES this year, and his shooting % at ES the past 4 years has been 3.7%, 6.7%, 8.4%, and 0.0%. So frankly, he's not going to sustain it. Good for him, good for the stretch he had where he played well, but he's already regressing to the mean (he was shooting over 20% at one point and that's coming down) and if anyone legitimately thinks Deslauriers is a more valuable player than Galchenyuk, I'd love to hear why.

In any case, the point is that if we're going to get held up on how many ES goals AG has this year, it still doesn't account for why he's not allowed to play center or why he had a decent stretch of games where his line had the least ice time of all the lines. As was pointed out, players like Desharnais and Drouin have been allowed to play the 1C role for extended periods of time despite less scoring ability, poor PP performance, and defensive ability that is just as putrid as Galchenyuk's. And if we're going to talk about attitude, Desharnais had a good one, but i frankly feel like AG has been more consistent and less mopey than Drouin has been, not to mention Drouin's previous holdout with Tampa and reports of his being a bit of a diva before he got here. At the end of the day, I judge guys by what they've done on the ice, but I find it difficult to accept that we haven't placed AG back with BG until recently (and even then this appears to have been short-lived) and I find it hard to see why we can play others at center but not AG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

But your articles even say the Habs had the right to take French-canadians first up until 1969... so it was a thing, and then it got taken away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

But your articles even say the Habs had the right to take French-canadians first up until 1969... so it was a thing, and then it got taken away.

But they never benefited from that right which is what people like to imply. It was a non issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

In any case, the point is that if we're going to get held up on how many ES goals AG has this year, it still doesn't account for why he's not allowed to play center or why he had a decent stretch of games where his line had the least ice time of all the lines. 

Last night we had a natural LW at #1C.  A natural RW and #2C and two fringe fourth liners at #3 and 4 centre.     I dont particularly mind because I want us in full tank mode but there's something seriously wrong when the #3 overall pick from a few years back, who is a natural centre and is one of the top 2 players from his draft class still gets put at LW night in, night out.   I dont for one second think its Julien.  Not when he's using Carr as his #2.   I think the mandate is entirely from Bergevin & its getting ridiculous. 

 

16 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

But your articles even say the Habs had the right to take French-canadians first up until 1969... so it was a thing, and then it got taken away.

IIRC we invoked the rule only once and it wasnt of much benefit. So i think the point is that its been blown out of proportion; rumours that we used to get the best french born players for years and years when in fact it didnt really happen - or at least didnt happen because of any unfair advantage.

What did happen was that scouting was very localized. Most teams had scouts that travelled but the vast majority of their efforts were within their general area.  So we did often have many more Quebecois players but only because we scouted them more heavily than most teams and drafted them (or signed them) appropriately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

Last night we had a natural LW at #1C.  A natural RW and #2C and two fringe fourth liners at #3 and 4 centre.     I dont particularly mind because I want us in full tank mode but there's something seriously wrong when the #3 overall pick from a few years back, who is a natural centre and is one of the top 2 players from his draft class still gets put at LW night in, night out.   I dont for one second think its Julien.  Not when he's using Carr as his #2.   I think the mandate is entirely from Bergevin & its getting ridiculous. 

 

IIRC we invoked the rule only once and it wasnt of much benefit. So i think the point is that its been blown out of proportion; rumours that we used to get the best french born players for years and years when in fact it didnt really happen - or at least didnt happen because of any unfair advantage.

What did happen was that scouting was very localized. Most teams had scouts that travelled but the vast majority of their efforts were within their general area.  So we did often have many more Quebecois players but only because we scouted them more heavily than most teams and drafted them (or signed them) appropriately. 

I'm also assuming there was a language barrier. Back then I'm not sure how many Quebecois players spoke English which may have turned a few teams off. Not because they were bigoted but because of the communication issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2008/12/2/678036/debunking-the-canadiens-fr

 

The rule it itself only allowed Montreal to protect players who weren't already signed to a C form.

"From 1936-43 Montreal protected 14 players (two per season) through this special draft. Unfortunately, none of them ever played a minute in the NHL. Reason being, anybody who could tie their skates and chew gum at the same time were already long signed by other NHL teams including the Canadiens who certainly weren't going to survive solely with this rule."

Read the article ... the success was more due to 

Trades - Getting Blake and Lach and signing Richard (who they never had to protect)

Dick Irvin Sr built the pre-1947 teams ..then ...

"It happened in 1946 and 1947, respectively. With the French Canadian rule now rescinded and Montreal rolling with two Cup victories in a three-year span something else was going to be needed for the franchise to rise to the extreme greatness they would see in a few short years."

Toronto fires Selke and Habs hire immedietely,  Selke dreamt up the whole farm team idea and Montreal proceeded to sign start players on non-NHL teams ... then buy those leagues outright to force those players to play in Montreal. (Beliveau and Rousseau)

Selke also hired Sam Pollock as his assistance and passed the torch to him.    The only other time the "french player" rule came in effect due to Selke and Pollock 

 

"From 1963-67 none of the players Montreal selected played one minute in the NHL, ever. Finally in 1968, they drafted their first live one. A goalie named Michel Plasse.

"In 1969, it was determined that this would be the final year of the draft in this manner and the sponsorship of Junior A teams would cease to be. All players were to be 20 years of age or older and they would be eligible for a Universal Amateur Draft.

"Montreal was given one final kick at the French Canadian can and they made the most of it by selecting Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif. That was it for the French rule.

TLDR :  Nobody Montreal ever protected under the french rule up to 1946, nor when it came back into effect from 1963-1967 ever played a single minute in the NHL.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just going to copy and paste this. All those years of hearing fans of other teams complain we had an upper hand and just a few years ago I read this. Now I understand a team in Montreal has challenges because of cap issues and taxes but I firmly believe that if all those GM blunders since 1980 didn't exist there would be several times where we would have contended. Just my opinion.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, habby67 said:

I was just going to copy and paste this. All those years of hearing fans of other teams complain we had an upper hand and just a few years ago I read this. Now I understand a team in Montreal has challenges because of cap issues and taxes but I firmly believe that if all those GM blunders since 1980 didn't exist there would be several times where we would have contended. Just my opinion.....

It wasn't other TEAMS. It was 99% ignorant Leaf fans, who also failed to mention their similar agreement with players from Ontario. Blind in one eye and can't see from the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, habby67 said:

I was just going to copy and paste this. All those years of hearing fans of other teams complain we had an upper hand and just a few years ago I read this. Now I understand a team in Montreal has challenges because of cap issues and taxes but I firmly believe that if all those GM blunders since 1980 didn't exist there would be several times where we would have contended. Just my opinion.....

If we had say Sam Pollock still ... or Scotty Bowman, who they should have made GM over Grundman?  That really is the slow decline of this franchise, with the Roy trade a major nail in the coffin etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

It wasn't other TEAMS. It was 99% ignorant Leaf fans, who also failed to mention their similar agreement with players from Ontario. Blind in one eye and can't see from the other. 

Not quite ... all 6 original teams had open free market on any player anywhere.    First to sign them to a C form and you locked them up for good.  (Great story about how Laughs missed out on Orr).   Montreal however was allowed to "protect" any Quebec born players that hadn't been signed by other clubs (2 per year) ... as I posted above, none of those ever played in the NHL as anybody with talent had already been bought and signed.    They didn't find much gold when the rule was brought back either in 1963 to 1967. 

So technically Montreal did have a special rule no other team did ... but it was a meaningless and empty rule that provided zero benefit or returns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HabsAlways said:

Not quite ... all 6 original teams had open free market on any player anywhere.    First to sign them to a C form and you locked them up for good.  (Great story about how Laughs missed out on Orr).   Montreal however was allowed to "protect" any Quebec born players that hadn't been signed by other clubs (2 per year) ... as I posted above, none of those ever played in the NHL as anybody with talent had already been bought and signed.    They didn't find much gold when the rule was brought back either in 1963 to 1967. 

So technically Montreal did have a special rule no other team did ... but it was a meaningless and empty rule that provided zero benefit or returns.

 

Thanks for the correction but I will stand by my statement that it's 99% Leaf fans that keep throwing that rule in our faces. I still hear it on a regular basis. Even their stupid media refuses to research or clarify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HabsAlways said:

Good, the more we lose the better.    Lets hope Arizona, Buffalo, Ottawa and Vancouver all start winning more than we do.

But what good will it do us if we don't have a general manager who can draft and retain talent?  Especially when he doesn't know talent when he sees it?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habby67 said:

I think the team would be better off folding and the NHL awarding Montreal an expansion team and we re fill the roster. Tales of the absurd but yet conceivable...

Haha. 

Sell the team to Seattle and start over!

Or just sell MB and his staff (minus waite) to the Expansion group there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Habs played a great game last night. I've been impressed with Juulsen, I was getting a bit skeptical about his progression after his concussion issues but he's looked good and hopefully can make the team in the next couple seasons. Nice to see Scherbak and Lehkonen having some success as well.

I know we're all cheering for the tank but the lottery means it's not so important anymore, last place has like an 18% chance to get #1OA and only a 48% chance of a top 3 pick. It is what it is, Buffalo/Arizona/Vancouver are likely too far back for the Habs to finish bottom 3 so I'm not too worried if the Habs finish 26th instead of 27th or 28th. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs=stanleycup said:

I`d love to see it but with a 3rd instead of a 1st round. Anyway it`s all fantasy as long as MB remains in control of our team. Plus trades are too hard for him.

Apprently my sarcasm was lost on people.   The fact that we'd trade all of that after getting Weber for PK straight up ...

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...