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

State of the Habs


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Thats pretty pitiful for 6 years.  Especially when you consider how many bad moves there have been.   

Am I crazy, or would we be better off if he had done literally nothing over the last six years?  By that I mean we keep drafting players based on our finishes, we sign our own UFAs, but that's it.  I'm honestly not sure we wouldn't be.

 

Edit: I started this comment off joking.  Then I started thinking that maybe I wasn't :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Manatee-X said:

Am I crazy, or would we be better off if he had done literally nothing over the last six years?  By that I mean we keep drafting players based on our finishes, we sign our own UFAs, but that's it.  I'm honestly not sure we wouldn't be.

 

Edit: I started this comment off joking.  Then I started thinking that maybe I wasn't :P

 

Quite possibly.  Especially if you had let Timmins take the guys he wanted instead of going for grit, size and character. 


We still wouldnt have won  a cup but at least we'd be trending in the right direction, our defense would be good & our minor league cupboards wouldnt be bare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read it and weep:4224:

 

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/what-the-puck-gm-marc-bergevin-is-destroying-the-habs-one-trade-at-a-time?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1529360794

 

 just bumped into a pal and he said: “As soon as I heard the Habs news Friday, I started to worry for your mental health.”

He was joking. Sort of. But don’t worry, Marc-André, I’m OK. Sort of. I do actually have other things going on in my life and many of them are pretty positive.

That said, I wasn’t happy to have my Friday night post-dinner stroll in N.D.G. interrupted by the news flash that the Montreal Canadiens had traded troubled forward Alex Galchenyuk to the Arizona Coyotes in a one-for-one exchange for Max Domi. The same thing was happening all across Quebec in a collective WTF moment — that’s now a What the Puck moment! — as Canadiens fans everywhere wondered yet again, and, sadly, not for the last time, I’m sure, what incriminating photos of Geoff Molson are in Marc Bergevin’s safety-deposit box.

Of course the photos thing is a joke, but it’s a gag that’s repeated all too often on social media, in bars and on street corners — basically, wherever Habs supporters congregate. So many simply cannot comprehend why Canadiens owner Molson has not yet fired his general manager, and you can’t blame us for wondering.

As recently as 2014, Bergevin had in his hands a team that was good enough to compete in the Eastern Conference Final and he had a nucleus of elite players that included Carey Price, P.K. Subban, Max Pacioretty and, yes, Galchenyuk. Now two of the four are gone, rumour is Patches might well be the next to be shipped out, and Price is a tattered shadow of his former self.

The brutal reality is that Bergevin is destroying this team, one valuable piece at a time. He traded Subban — a Norris-winning defenceman who is nominated once again this year for that trophy — for a slower, less-skilled D-man who is four years older. That was a bad idea. He then shipped out a promising young puck-moving defenceman in Mikhail Sergachev to obtain a winger, Jonathan Drouin, that Tampa Bay GM Steve Yzerman was only too happy to dump. That, too, was a bad idea and it got even worse when Bergevin and coach Claude Julien decided to make Drouin their No. 1 centre. Did I mention he’s a winger?

But in some ways, the Galchenyuk trade is the worst of the bunch. Galchenyuk was Bergevin’s first pick as GM, the No. 3 overall selection in 2012, and Bergevin himself said Chucky would be the big, strong power centre we had all been dreaming about for 20 years. He scored 30 goals in the 2015-2016 season mostly playing centre, but management soon lost faith in him as a centre and basically never let him take another serious shot at holding down that job.

This on a team that does not have a bona fide No. 1 or No. 2 centre. I believe this weekend’s deal, like the Subban trade, is not a hockey trade. It’s personal. Bergevin soured on Galchenyuk early. Sure, there were on-ice issues, notably the fact he was never strong in his own zone. But plenty of centres faced similar issues early in their careers. No, what it seems the GM didn’t like is what Galchenyuk brought to the off-ice scene — a father who was too present at the rink, a player who often appeared troubled and got into trouble, most notably one night when his girlfriend was arrested for assaulting him.

Bergevin and Co. could have tried to help Galchenyuk, could have made the effort to sort out the things that were causing trouble away from the rink. After all, this guy was supposed to be one of the key players on the team. But there’s no evidence they did. Instead, Bergevin continually talked openly about why he didn’t think Galchenyuk was good enough to be a centre. Who does that to their star players? It’s not too smart and, more important, it’s super uncool. Bosses should never put down their employees publicly.

In essence, they gave up on Galchenyuk and, yet again, got rid of the problem via a crap trade. How bad a dealer is Bergevin? He has traded Subban, Sergachev and Galchenyuk, and still hasn’t got a centre in return. This time, he got another winger, the one position of strength chez the Habs.

Oh, but Domi brings sandpaper to the equation! What a joke. On Saturday, Bergevin actually said about Domi — who scored only nine goals last season, including four empty-netters — that he brings other “intangibles” that he likes. I swear I thought I was watching a Saturday Night Live spoof of a GM’s news conference. But then again, this is the GM who brought in Steve Ott last year and then scolded journalists for not realizing what intangibles Ott brings to the table.

It all reminds me of a line someone used on Twitter about a year ago: If Marc Bergevin was actually working to destroy the Canadiens, what would he do differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

This on a team that does not have a bona fide No. 1 or No. 2 centre. I believe this weekend’s deal, like the Subban trade, is not a hockey trade. It’s personal. Bergevin soured on Galchenyuk early. Sure, there were on-ice issues, notably the fact he was never strong in his own zone. But plenty of centres faced similar issues early in their careers. No, what it seems the GM didn’t like is what Galchenyuk brought to the off-ice scene — a father who was too present at the rink, a player who often appeared troubled and got into trouble, most notably one night when his girlfriend was arrested for assaulting him.

This x10000000000000000000

 

Its always been personal.  

He hires is friends and when its obvious to everyone but him (or maybe him & he just wont admit it) that they suck, he sticks by them.   

He sours on players, then devalues them and then trades them.   Houle made bad trades because he wasnt a very smart GM.  Bergevin makes bad trades out of spite. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian Thomas and Nate B out to a bar one night . Thomas gets traded relatively quickly , Nate thye keep around for a bit longer then dump him for nothing

AG and DSP come home late one night . AG 's GF wallops him . DSP let go and they just wait for the right time to trade AG. I guess they been trying for a while now and decided to just cut ties with him

Lars not sure what he did . Maybe he was friends with PK

PK - was being PK > They didn't like his lifestyle . Now  gone.

This team cannot develop  young players. They want everyone to be old school . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manatee-X said:

Am I crazy, or would we be better off if he had done literally nothing over the last six years?  By that I mean we keep drafting players based on our finishes, we sign our own UFAs, but that's it.  I'm honestly not sure we wouldn't be.

 

Edit: I started this comment off joking.  Then I started thinking that maybe I wasn't :P

 

We would absolutely be better if Bergevin did nothing (i.e. if our team were being run by an old shoe).

And yes, as noted, Bergevin has held grudges, he's been prejudiced against certain players, and he's acted on those opinions. He's never tried to make things work, it's always been my way or the high way and it's cost us big time. As I've said, he might honestly be the worst GM in our history and that's not a joke either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 7:48 PM, Regis22 said:

Christian Thomas and Nate B out to a bar one night . Thomas gets traded relatively quickly , Nate thye keep around for a bit longer then dump him for nothing

AG and DSP come home late one night . AG 's GF wallops him . DSP let go and they just wait for the right time to trade AG. I guess they been trying for a while now and decided to just cut ties with him

Lars not sure what he did . Maybe he was friends with PK

PK - was being PK > They didn't like his lifestyle . Now  gone.

This team cannot develop  young players. They want everyone to be old school . 

 

Young men or not we do have to remember these individuals are pro athletes being paid millions of dollars. If they can't act accordingly like professionals which they are, then that's on them. All the young guys know about social media and everything is exposed or out there. Even winning at a young age you didn't hear these stories about Toews. Kane did have some issues and the Hawks owner did step in and talk to him and there was talk of possibly trading him. We as fans may say no big deal and excuse things but the players are representing their respective teams. I'm sure all teams have different rules "codes". Ottawa just made a trade with Hoffman that actually isn't a great 'hockey" trade player for player but it may be in that they felt it needed to be done for the betterment of the team. We as fans may disagree but we only hear partials. Anyway with social media ect. especially in Hockey mad markets they have the responsibility to behave properly. (May not be as much fun but they're getting paid millions to play a game and be stars.) The same reason some players don't like to play in Hockey mad markets. Some players are very private others aren't. Chucky won't have any real pressure on him out in Phoenix which should be good for him.  Montreal the market may actually work against us acquiring players like JT whom don't like being under a microscope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

Young men or not we do have to remember these individuals are pro athletes being paid millions of dollars. If they can't act accordingly like professionals which they are, then that's on them. All the young guys know about social media and everything is exposed or out there. Even winning at a young age you didn't hear these stories about Toews. Kane did have some issues and the Hawks owner did step in and talk to him and there was talk of possibly trading him. We as fans may say no big deal and excuse things but the players are representing their respective teams. I'm sure all teams have different rules "codes". Ottawa just made a trade with Hoffman that actually isn't a great 'hockey" trade player for player but it may be in that they felt it needed to be done for the betterment of the team. We as fans may disagree but we only hear partials. Anyway with social media ect. especially in Hockey mad markets they have the responsibility to behave properly. (May not be as much fun but they're getting paid millions to play a game and be stars.) The same reason some players don't like to play in Hockey mad markets. Some players are very private others aren't. Chucky won't have any real pressure on him out in Phoenix which should be good for him.  Montreal the market may actually work against us acquiring players like JT whom don't like being under a microscope.

No one will bemoan a young player, or any player, from living and having fun but they had better make sure they don't embarrass the team and they come prepared to do the job they are well paid to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, CANADIENS27 said:

Bob Gainey has named volunteer senior to the board of directors at Peterbough of the OHL.  I wasn't sure where else to post this.  

 

 

Bergevin will never get to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's an argument to be made for young hockey players acting professional. Yes. Absolutely. However, there's also an argument to be made that the Montreal Canadiens organization cannot bury its head in the sand when it comes to young adults acting like young adults. If we've learned anything from the past 10-15 years, it's that our young players sometimes behave like immature, rich, athletes (surprise, surprise). There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but if our management is going to act like that's a major problem then they should do something about it rather than just trade away assets for less return value. The organization needs to be better at managing its players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I think there's an argument to be made for young hockey players acting professional. Yes. Absolutely. However, there's also an argument to be made that the Montreal Canadiens organization cannot bury its head in the sand when it comes to young adults acting like young adults. If we've learned anything from the past 10-15 years, it's that our young players sometimes behave like immature, rich, athletes (surprise, surprise). There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but if our management is going to act like that's a major problem then they should do something about it rather than just trade away assets for less return value. The organization needs to be better at managing its players. 

Do something about it? What hire babysitters? Managing the players? Do they have to assign people to live with them , just to teach them to be adults....really? There are corporations all over the world that don't tolerate different behaviors. Most of these aren't jobs paying millions of dollars. Even from teachers to officers to fireman which are public to most all corporations. You can definitely enjoy (Party) without getting into trouble or be in the public especially when you have money.  It can make it easier to be private. It's hard to feel sorry for a young multi-millionaire whom is an adult not to act accordingly if that's one of the things they're asked to do buy the people that are paying them. Many of us have jobs with restrictions and oversight and aren't paid that kind of money. Yes they're stars but they still are employees. I will say it's easier to hide something in different markets, that said the players all know where they are playing and where they decide to live. Some players leave the team city during the off season for that reason sometimes. Remember no one forces anyone into different situations these players live with their decisions. I will give Subban who may be flamboyant , that maybe there's not a camera he won't jump in front of but he doesn't do stupid things. He's just flamboyant and he does do good things in the communities he's involved with. Even if someone may associate what he does with growing a brand , they are still good things he does. Flamboyant yes some over the top yes , but still good things. You can have fun and be responsible. (It's kind of the adult thing to do) Teams in all sports and all leagues have traded or terminated players that the corporations deemed didn't fit their image. Last year there were several NFL teams at different times of the season that could of used a quarterback. Kapernick didn't receive one offer. Was it that he wasn't qualified no. What he was doing (no matter how you feel about it) was trying to help a situation and didn't actually hurt anyone. The perception from and controversy though was enough to effect his future and career. So all athletes make THIER OWN choices. Most of the kids that are high draft choices are continually talked to about this throughout their early careers also to help prepare them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

Do something about it? What hire babysitters? Managing the players? Do they have to assign people to live with them , just to teach them to be adults....really? There are corporations all over the world that don't tolerate different behaviors. Most of these aren't jobs paying millions of dollars. Even from teachers to officers to fireman which are public to most all corporations. You can definitely enjoy (Party) without getting into trouble or be in the public especially when you have money.  It can make it easier to be private. It's hard to feel sorry for a young multi-millionaire whom is an adult not to act accordingly if that's one of the things they're asked to do buy the people that are paying them. Many of us have jobs with restrictions and oversight and aren't paid that kind of money. Yes they're stars but they still are employees. I will say it's easier to hide something in different markets, that said the players all know where they are playing and where they decide to live. Some players leave the team city during the off season for that reason sometimes. Remember no one forces anyone into different situations these players live with their decisions. I will give Subban who may be flamboyant , that maybe there's not a camera he won't jump in front of but he doesn't do stupid things. He's just flamboyant and he does do good things in the communities he's involved with. Even if someone may associate what he does with growing a brand , they are still good things he does. Flamboyant yes some over the top yes , but still good things. You can have fun and be responsible. (It's kind of the adult thing to do) Teams in all sports and all leagues have traded or terminated players that the corporations deemed didn't fit their image. Last year there were several NFL teams at different times of the season that could of used a quarterback. Kapernick didn't receive one offer. Was it that he wasn't qualified no. What he was doing (no matter how you feel about it) was trying to help a situation and didn't actually hurt anyone. The perception from and controversy though was enough to effect his future and career. So all athletes make THIER OWN choices. Most of the kids that are high draft choices are continually talked to about this throughout their early careers also to help prepare them.

Not a single corporation on this planet is going to hire 17-18 year olds and bank on them to become cornerstones and lead the way into a better tomorrow, that's lunacy.

In a city like Montreal, it's impossible to go out and party in public without people to notice when you're playing for the Habs. Additionally, at that age, privacy is probably the last thing that's on your mind.

I don't think you can compare any regular job to being a professional athlete in the NHL or any other pro sports league. It's an extraordinary situation that calls for extraordinary measures, so yes, I do think young players need guidance, coaching, or 'babysitting' if you will. The Habs aren't the only franchise that has to deal with that kind of issues, yet somehow we always seem to find a way to mess it up and end up trading away valuable assets because of behavioral issues. There are lots of stories about Kane, Seguin, Carter, Toews, Malkin, Ovechkin, Marchand, Byfuglien etc. out there, including pretty obvious pictures on the internet. Guess what though, I'd love to have every single one of those guys on my team (okay, scratch that, I don't want Marchand on my team :P). And even if some of those guys were traded in the past, it wasn't for some ridiculously low return way below market value.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

I don't think you can compare any regular job to being a professional athlete in the NHL or any other pro sports league. It's an extraordinary situation that calls for extraordinary measures, so yes, I do think young players need guidance, coaching, or 'babysitting' if you will. The Habs aren't the only franchise that has to deal with that kind of issues, yet somehow we always seem to find a way to mess it up and end up trading away valuable assets because of behavioral issues. There are lots of stories about Kane, Seguin, Carter, Toews, Malkin, Ovechkin, Marchand, Byfuglien etc. out there, including pretty obvious pictures on the internet. Guess what though, I'd love to have every single one of those guys on my team (okay, scratch that, I don't want Marchand on my team :P). And even if some of those guys were traded in the past, it wasn't for some ridiculously low return way below market value.

This.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ChiLla said:

I don't think you can compare any regular job to being a professional athlete in the NHL or any other pro sports league. It's an extraordinary situation that calls for extraordinary measures, so yes, I do think young players need guidance, coaching, or 'babysitting' if you will. The Habs aren't the only franchise that has to deal with that kind of issues, yet somehow we always seem to find a way to mess it up and end up trading away valuable assets because of behavioral issues. There are lots of stories about Kane, Seguin, Carter, Toews, Malkin, Ovechkin, Marchand, Byfuglien etc. out there, including pretty obvious pictures on the internet. Guess what though, I'd love to have every single one of those guys on my team (okay, scratch that, I don't want Marchand on my team :P). And even if some of those guys were traded in the past, it wasn't for some ridiculously low return way below market value.

Agreed. I also think we maybe need to change our views on what should and shouldn't be scrutinized. I, personally, have no problem with a player partying if the team has a few days off or something. Everyone else in the world gets to party on the weekend. And yes, that includes drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. In Canada that will soon include smoking marijuana. Yes, these athletes are privileged, but they also want to have the same experiences that every other 18-25 year old has nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Larry-Launstein-Jr said:

I'm getting the feeling that Tavares will probably stay with the Islanders now after they just hired Barry Trotz as their head coach.

I do, too. Although... maybe it would be weird to have come this far and not check what's out there? The Islanders have certainly made some moves to improve the team. Hiring Lou and Trotz certainly makes me consider the team more seriously. Perhaps Tavares will as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... I've got a confession to make.  There's something I don't understand, and I'm hoping maybe some of you can help me out.

Here goes: why is it such a foregone conclusion that Max Pacioretty will/should be traded?

I do get that he plays left wing, which is a position where we have a backlog.  I also get that he's one of the most valuable players we have, so there's a decent chance that we'll actually get something worthwhile back for him.  If we were looking towards a full rebuild (which, incidentally, I think that we should be) I can 100% see the logic in shipping him out.  But I can see exactly the same logic in trading away Price or Webber or Gallagher, and none of those names are ever seriously mentioned in any articles I've read.

Yes, Patches' contact is expiring soon, but when most teams' star players come up for renewal there's usually a default expectation that the team will try to re-sign the player before looking to make a trade.  Almost nobody is even talking about that as a possibility, despite the fact that Max took a hometown discount last time and for all we know may be willing to do something like that again.  Not to mention the bajillion dollars we have in unused cap space - it's not like we couldn't afford a raise.

 

I hated the Galchenyuk trade for a lot of reasons (we didn't get good value in return, we didn't get a centre, I enjoyed watching him... really I guess you could just go read the thread :P) but one of the reasons was that we're a team who can't score goals that traded away one of our best scorers.  Why are we so quick to want to do the same thing with Pacioretty?  Why would one of the lowest scoring teams ditch their most reliable scorer over the past half-decade?  Again, I'm working under the assumption here that we are not rebuilding.  Who that we could reasonably trade Patches for could help us win now as much as Patches?  Why, then, is everybody so sure that he's going to be moved?  Why does it seem to be taken as a given that he should be moved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Manatee-X said:

So... I've got a confession to make.  There's something I don't understand, and I'm hoping maybe some of you can help me out.

Here goes: why is it such a foregone conclusion that Max Pacioretty will/should be traded?

I do get that he plays left wing, which is a position where we have a backlog.  I also get that he's one of the most valuable players we have, so there's a decent chance that we'll actually get something worthwhile back for him.  If we were looking towards a full rebuild (which, incidentally, I think that we should be) I can 100% see the logic in shipping him out.  But I can see exactly the same logic in trading away Price or Webber or Gallagher, and none of those names are ever seriously mentioned in any articles I've read.

Yes, Patches' contact is expiring soon, but when most teams' star players come up for renewal there's usually a default expectation that the team will try to re-sign the player before looking to make a trade.  Almost nobody is even talking about that as a possibility, despite the fact that Max took a hometown discount last time and for all we know may be willing to do something like that again.  Not to mention the bajillion dollars we have in unused cap space - it's not like we couldn't afford a raise.

 

I hated the Galchenyuk trade for a lot of reasons (we didn't get good value in return, we didn't get a centre, I enjoyed watching him... really I guess you could just go read the thread :P) but one of the reasons was that we're a team who can't score goals that traded away one of our best scorers.  Why are we so quick to want to do the same thing with Pacioretty?  Why would one of the lowest scoring teams ditch their most reliable scorer over the past half-decade?  Again, I'm working under the assumption here that we are not rebuilding.  Who that we could reasonably trade Patches for could help us win now as much as Patches?  Why, then, is everybody so sure that he's going to be moved?  Why does it seem to be taken as a given that he should be moved?

I agree with this line of questioning 100%. I think it's a given you can't have Weber and Price on long-term deals like they have and then add on a 6-8 year deal for Pacioretty at 7M+. That's too much money to tie up in 3 past-their-prime veterans. But should it be a given that Pacioretty is the one to go? No, I don't think it should be. I think the main things are that

1. Price has a full NMC, which makes it harder to deal him, and he's sitting on a really big contract for a goalie, which also limits the number of teams willing to acquire him. I also think there's reluctance on Bergevin's part to trade Price because he still thinks we can be competitive right away, and we don't have a guaranteed replacement in goal. There's some risk you end up like the Flyers, searching for a goalie for decades, albeit you could also end up like the Pens and find a diamond in the rough within your organization, and we have candidates for that like Lindgren, McNiven, and Primeau.

2. MB's reputation has a lot riding on the Weber acquisition. If he trades him, he'd have to win that trade outright to avoid further embarrassment on losing Subban. He's probably reluctant to deal Weber for futures who don't help him right away, or in his head, it might feel like he ended up with nothing to show actively for Subban. And I think he has such a personal grudge against Subban that he wants to limit the talk about who won that trade. As with Price, I think MB really likes Weber and can't envision who would replace him in the line-up (even though cough cough Petry might have outplayed Weber the past two years). There's also the risk of a cap recapture penalty if we deal Weber this year instead of waiting a year or two to lower that.

3. Pacioretty is the UFA. He's the guy who it takes work to re-up, and it's also possible Pacioretty simply doesn't want to commit to playing here. We're assuming MP wants to be here long-term, which is what he's said publicly, but plenty of guys have toed that line until they're actually out. No one wants to say they want out and then play out the last year of a contract with the fans hating him. Some people think Max is fed up with the media here. Some people think he wants to be closer to family in the US, even though he just bought a house here. I think last season really changed a lot for how Max feels about staying and how maybe management doesn't appreciate him as much as they used to.

So I absolutely agree with you that we should be thinking about resetting a lot of our line-up and going with a younger core, and it makes more sense to trade Weber and Price than Pacioretty. I think MP will rebound this year, and we definitely need scoring more than anything, especially after the AG trade. I think for MB, it just comes down to moving Pacman as being the easiest of the three possibilities.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manatee-X said:

So... I've got a confession to make.  There's something I don't understand, and I'm hoping maybe some of you can help me out.

Here goes: why is it such a foregone conclusion that Max Pacioretty will/should be traded?

I do get that he plays left wing, which is a position where we have a backlog.  I also get that he's one of the most valuable players we have, so there's a decent chance that we'll actually get something worthwhile back for him.  If we were looking towards a full rebuild (which, incidentally, I think that we should be) I can 100% see the logic in shipping him out.  But I can see exactly the same logic in trading away Price or Webber or Gallagher, and none of those names are ever seriously mentioned in any articles I've read.

Yes, Patches' contact is expiring soon, but when most teams' star players come up for renewal there's usually a default expectation that the team will try to re-sign the player before looking to make a trade.  Almost nobody is even talking about that as a possibility, despite the fact that Max took a hometown discount last time and for all we know may be willing to do something like that again.  Not to mention the bajillion dollars we have in unused cap space - it's not like we couldn't afford a raise.

 

I hated the Galchenyuk trade for a lot of reasons (we didn't get good value in return, we didn't get a centre, I enjoyed watching him... really I guess you could just go read the thread :P) but one of the reasons was that we're a team who can't score goals that traded away one of our best scorers.  Why are we so quick to want to do the same thing with Pacioretty?  Why would one of the lowest scoring teams ditch their most reliable scorer over the past half-decade?  Again, I'm working under the assumption here that we are not rebuilding.  Who that we could reasonably trade Patches for could help us win now as much as Patches?  Why, then, is everybody so sure that he's going to be moved?  Why does it seem to be taken as a given that he should be moved?

Because he is a floater, not a leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Larry-Launstein-Jr said:

I'm getting the feeling that Tavares will probably stay with the Islanders now after they just hired Barry Trotz as their head coach.

Yeah definitely. Not only Trotz but there's a feeling Carlson may sign in NY.    

Credit to the ownership group there. After the mess they've had they've certainly made a big push to right the ship. 

3 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I do, too. Although... maybe it would be weird to have come this far and not check what's out there? The Islanders have certainly made some moves to improve the team. Hiring Lou and Trotz certainly makes me consider the team more seriously. Perhaps Tavares will as well.

You do have to wonder.   I think there's an outside chance he 'sees whats out there' but still signs in NY.  I think at this point a lot will come down to whether he (and his family) like living there.  If they do, he probably stays. If they done, he probably goes. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manatee-X said:

So... I've got a confession to make.  There's something I don't understand, and I'm hoping maybe some of you can help me out.

Here goes: why is it such a foregone conclusion that Max Pacioretty will/should be traded?

To me there's a couple of reasons:

1) we have 3 gaping holes on our roster:  #1C  #2C and #1LD    Its possible we can fill one via UFA (#2C) and maybe one via draft (Is Hughes ready to step in?) but I dont think there's any way we draft a #1C and have him play that position next year.  So we need to trade for one.   We have a glut of LW.  Even when we traded Galchenyuk, we got a LW back.  Drouin is better suited to LW (and he's not going anywhere). Pacioretty is without a doubt our best trade piece at that position.  Drouin, Hudon, Lehkonen, Byron, Carr, Reichel, Deslauriers - i think we're pretty set - but none of them are bringing back a top piece.  

2) Patches is 29 and needs a new contract next year.   Can we resign him? Sure.   But is that the right move moving forward? Tough to say.

3) I think that secretly the team regrets Max as Captain.  I think they want to move to either Weber or Gallagher.  They wont pull a SJS move and strip Patches but keep him on the roster so trading him is the only option.   I dont think this is enough of a reason for them to trade him but based on this and the other 2 points, i think they will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

Because he is a floater, not a leader.

This. It's time to move on. Personally its like christmas for me today waiting to hear what the trade is. I dont wanna see him in a habs jersey ever again, last year was a disgrace. 

And yes Manatee we should be trading Weber too 100% and Price as well if we could swing it. 

Who is gonna score? Who cares! This is a bad team that needs to bottom out. Understand guys....Max on this team, scoring 30, still does not make us a cup contender oreven a playoff team asfar as I'm concerned. 

Zadina will score the goals, later. The guy we give the money we didnt give to patch will score the goals. the kid we draft or the prospect we get in return for him will score goals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, maas_art said:

To me there's a couple of reasons:

1) we have 3 gaping holes on our roster:  #1C  #2C and #1LD    Its possible we can fill one via UFA (#2C) and maybe one via draft (Is Hughes ready to step in?) but I dont think there's any way we draft a #1C and have him play that position next year.  So we need to trade for one.   We have a glut of LW.  Even when we traded Galchenyuk, we got a LW back.  Drouin is better suited to LW (and he's not going anywhere). Pacioretty is without a doubt our best trade piece at that position.  Drouin, Hudon, Lehkonen, Byron, Carr, Reichel, Deslauriers - i think we're pretty set - but none of them are bringing back a top piece.  

2) Patches is 29 and needs a new contract next year.   Can we resign him? Sure.   But is that the right move moving forward? Tough to say.

3) I think that secretly the team regrets Max as Captain.  I think they want to move to either Weber or Gallagher.  They wont pull a SJS move and strip Patches but keep him on the roster so trading him is the only option.   I dont think this is enough of a reason for them to trade him but based on this and the other 2 points, i think they will. 

I agree, I think there's some regret about Max as captain, and he's struggled to handle the pressure of that role (hence why PK was much better suited to deal with it)... I'm not sold on either Weber or Gallagher as captain either to be honest though. Weber isn't really that vocal and he falls into the same grouping as Pacioretty of being a somewhat boring, toe-the-line player who isn't really going to get his teammates or fans motivated. This team needs a serious energy boost and kick in the butt. Gallagher certainly provides that element, but on the other hand, I find him to be quite immature personality-wise. The game where he went soldiering on after PK seemed childish and not very captain-like. So I agree with you that the team might want one of those two guys, but I don't think either one is going to right the ship all that much. I'd personally like to see them go with a guy like Danault... a little bit younger but he's a guy who could be in your organization for another 5-7 years, he gives a consistent and honest effort every night, he's shown maturity, and while he can give you some offence and a lift every now and then, he's not a guy who's going to take heat if he goes two games without scoring a goal because that's not his primary role. I also think it would behoove us to find a captain who isn't going to be traded in two years and force some stability in the leadership group.

 

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...