Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
HabsAlways

Should the Habs just blow it up - La Tank for Lafreneire

Should the Habs just blow it up - La Tank for Lafreneire   22 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Habs just blow it up - La Tank for Lafreneire..

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      12

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

131 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, campabee82 said:

I dis agree with this statement Weber, Price and Gallagher are all top players at their position in fact I remember seeing an article about how underrated Gallagher is as he has finished in the top 20 for RW each of the last 3 years. Domi KK and Suzuki are all good centers and KK and Suzuki both have the potential to be top 20 in their position in the next 1-3 years depending on development. As for the sniper you are right, right now we don't have a sniper on the team but Caufield looks to be the real deal and should be with us at the end of this year or next year.

weber hasnt been atop d since 2008 and gallagher is a severely undersized 50 pt player. neither of them match up when playing head to head with any serious contending team. to use st louis as the example

gallagher - tarasenko, weber- pieterangelo

gallagher and weber compare to schwartz and parayko. its worlds apart

price is the one guy on the team who can claim true A level status talent wise , and the truth is he got paid like he is the mcdavid of goalies and he isnt coming through. do i think thats fair? no. i dont think a goalie can affect the game like that, however thats also why i was so against giving him that money. if that was his deal he should have been traded the year before he was up

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

Hmmmm, "Fail for Nail", "Lose for Hughes", and now it's "La Tank for Lafreneire". :rolleyes: :lol:

derriere for lafrieniere ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jeff33 said:

derriere for lafrieniere ;)

Much better. :)

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, campabee82 said:

With Brook, Norlander, Primeau, Ikonen and others. We already have the replacements in place.

There is no guarantee that those players will be as good as  Weber, Petry, Price, Gallagher, Tatar among others. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jeff33 said:

derriere for lafrieniere ;)

Doesn't translate well in English. (buttocks for Lafrieniere)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jeff33 said:

weber hasnt been atop d since 2008 and gallagher is a severely undersized 50 pt player. neither of them match up when playing head to head with any serious contending team. to use st louis as the example

gallagher - tarasenko, weber- pieterangelo

gallagher and weber compare to schwartz and parayko. its worlds apart

price is the one guy on the team who can claim true A level status talent wise , and the truth is he got paid like he is the mcdavid of goalies and he isnt coming through. do i think thats fair? no. i dont think a goalie can affect the game like that, however thats also why i was so against giving him that money. if that was his deal he should have been traded the year before he was up

Really Gallagher is equal to Schwartz this is exactly the type of understating I am talking about! How many other RW's over the last 3 years have had 30+ goals? Weber is already top 20 for Dmen scoring this year. Please a goalie has the most affect on the team he is the only player that can truly steal a game you never should have won. It is just as easy to say McDavid is the Price of forwards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, habs1952 said:

Doesn't translate well in English. (buttocks for Lafrieniere)

lol i thought it meant bottom ....or the end.... HOWEVER if thats what it literally means....im doubling down thats perfect :4224:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

There is no guarantee that those players will be as good as  Weber, Petry, Price, Gallagher, Tatar among others. 

 

There is no guarantee the picks and prospects your blowing up the team for will be either but that's still your irrational logic

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, campabee82 said:

Really Gallagher is equal to Schwartz this is exactly the type of understating I am talking about! How many other RW's over the last 3 years have had 30+ goals? Weber is already top 20 for Dmen scoring this year. Please a goalie has the most affect on the team he is the only player that can truly steal a game you never should have won. It is just as easy to say McDavid is the Price of forwards.

in 17-18 schwartz had 59 points which is better than any year gallagher ever had

they are both 50 point forwards and gallagher is a midget

weber, yes hes had a big year stats wise this year. you suggesting hes gonna maintain that pace or has he just had some really good luck to start the year? which top d of any team in the league do you think he goes 1 for 1 for?  we have played exactly 2 playoff games since hes been on the team in 3 years, what kind of difference is he making?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say "Freine for Lafreniere" (literally translated to hit the brakes for Lafreniere)... I answered yes, but my answer is somewhere between the two options. I think the two guys you need to look at trading are Weber and Price. Why? Because they're both in their 30's and as I've said several times already, I don't see us being Cup contenders in the next two years... if we're not, then I don't see the purpose in keeping those two players. In 2021-22, Weber and Price will be 36 and 34. We'll be starting a season where we won't likely be able to retain all of Petry, Gallagher, Danault, and Tatar, and we'll lose someone to the expansion draft. In short, there's going to be some amount of a reset by 2021 anyways. Guys who are young enough to be key elements on the other side of that (JK, Suzuki, Poehling, Drouin, Domi, Mete, Juulsen, Fleury, Primeau, Brook, Romanov, Ylonen, etc.) aren't guys we need to force making a decision on, but Price and Weber aren't going to be key cogs by then in all likelihood.

In Weber's case, his value is high right now. If you're a betting person, then pretty hard to believe his value will be higher in two years than it is now, so why not trade him? In Price's case, he could still have value in 2-3 years, but he may be verging into territory where he is no longer elite and where people will view him as a Dipietro or Luongo or so on with a massive, untradeable contract. As it stands right now, I think you can find teams desperate enough for goalies that they would trade for him and give you a return, knowing he can still give them 3-4 more productive years in a good system (like Patrick Roy did with the Avs).

There are other guys that I think you can snoop around to figure out their value... Tatar and Petry would be next on my list. I don't see either guy being here after they hit UFA status in two years. You don't need to trade them now, but I see them likely being dealt next year as impending UFA's. I don't see a great need to trade Gallagher and Danault right now and the odds are high that one of those two will be the next captain of the Canadiens after Weber leaves. I'd also look at trading Byron and Chiarot at some point.

Trading Price, Weber, Chiarot and Byron and maybe Tatar and Petry doesn't mean you need to call it a tank IMO. You might tank. Your odds of a lower finish are much higher. But I'd just say it's more about giving the kids experience. Some will sink and some will swim but we have a lot of young guys and we need to see which ones have what it takes. I also don't think yo have to accept draft picks as your return in these trades. There's nothing to say you can't acquire younger NHLers who are almost ready to be stars. But give Primeau and Lindgren some time in goal. Give Brook and Leskinen and Fleury a good look on D. Give Suzuki and JK top 6 minutes. I wouldn't mind seeing a line-up like this for the rest of the year:

Drouin-Kotkaniemi-Gallagher

Tatar-Domi-Suzuki

Lehkonen-Danault-Armia

Evans-Poehling-McCarron

 

Mete-Brook

Kulak-Petry

Leskinen-Fleury

 

Primeau

Lindgren

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, campabee82 said:

There is no guarantee the picks and prospects your blowing up the team for will be either but that's still your irrational logic

Not mine . You can blow this team up all you want , trade Price, Weber etc and get all these draft  pics , it doesn't mean things are going to get better .

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, maas_art said:

At this point, i think its premature to tank.  There's no guarantees you end up with 1st overall so its always a gamble to purposely tank and with a team made up with so many young players that can have a long term bad effect.    

I think if we can pull out of this funk we're ok. But it needs to happen now.  A few more loses and I agree, its an option.  

What you've said is mainly true. But that said, a few counter-points:

1. You're not guaranteed #1 overall, but if you finish last your odds are considerably better than if you finish a fringe 14th or 16th last as we did in 2018-19. And if you finish at the bottom, you're still getting a top 4 pick even if you have the worst luck at the lottery.

2. As I posted above, I think dumping a few vets (like Weber, Price, Byron, Chiarot) doesn't mean you don't have veteran leadership left. Gallagher, Petry, Danault, Domi, Tatar, etc. could still be part of a leadership group and moving forward, yeah you would need new leaders like Lehkonen or Mete or so on to step up. But also not good for guys like Kotkaniemi to stay in a 3C role on a losing team the way Galchenyuk did. No sense in Brook or Leskinen or Fleury or Juulsen being unable to get playing time because Chiarot and Reilly and Kulak are ahead of them, the way we stuffed Beaulieu, Pateryn, and Tinordi behind Murray and Bouillon. Play the younger guys, find out what you have...

3. Also not a guarantee Lafreniere goes #1. Quinton Byfield is rumored to be pushing for the #1 spot, and Lafreniere might well do what Sean Couturier did and tumble down a bit (Couturier was the consensus #1 for a long time until draft year). So if the target is Lafreniere, he might still be available at #2 or even #5 or #8, depending on how players move up or down during the world juniors and the rest of their seasons.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

With Brook, Norlander, Primeau, Ikonen and others. We already have the replacements in place.

Primeau - yes, he has the potential to replace Price ... in another 4-5 years.

Brook is a question mark yet as he's not looking outstanding in Laval.

Ikonen -   Injuries are killing his career and he's not a highly touted prospect (low 2nd round) ... furthermore I think a lot of people missed this and I don't think we actually own Ikonen's rights anymore.

Ikonen -- who signed a one-year extension with KalPa (Finland) in March -- was placed on unconditional waivers by Montreal on Friday, TSN reports.

By agreeing to another year with KalPa, Ikonen sent a message to the Canadiens that he wasn't planning on coming over to North America to play for the club. Rather than continue to hold onto the 20-year-old's rights, the organization opted to release its 2017 second-round pick. Considering the center saw action in just 13 games last season, he would likely need to put together an outstanding campaign in 2019-20 to persuade another NHL team to give him a look.

Norrinder ... not Norlander ... a 3rd round choice.    Might pan out to have a NHL career but I would say is a long shot at this point.

The "replacements" we have in place are still question marks.    Stockpiling a lot of potential replacements by dumping all these has-been vets would go a long way to ensuring we had enough prospects that panned out and enough to use as trade bait to fill any holes.    I'm really surprised how many people think this team is acceptable, that this roster as it stands outside of the hope the young guys bring is anything but mediocre.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

What you've said is mainly true. But that said, a few counter-points:

1. You're not guaranteed #1 overall, but if you finish last your odds are considerably better than if you finish a fringe 14th or 16th last as we did in 2018-19. And if you finish at the bottom, you're still getting a top 4 pick even if you have the worst luck at the lottery.

2. As I posted above, I think dumping a few vets (like Weber, Price, Byron, Chiarot) doesn't mean you don't have veteran leadership left. Gallagher, Petry, Danault, Domi, Tatar, etc. could still be part of a leadership group and moving forward, yeah you would need new leaders like Lehkonen or Mete or so on to step up. But also not good for guys like Kotkaniemi to stay in a 3C role on a losing team the way Galchenyuk did. No sense in Brook or Leskinen or Fleury or Juulsen being unable to get playing time because Chiarot and Reilly and Kulak are ahead of them, the way we stuffed Beaulieu, Pateryn, and Tinordi behind Murray and Bouillon. Play the younger guys, find out what you have...

3. Also not a guarantee Lafreniere goes #1. Quinton Byfield is rumored to be pushing for the #1 spot, and Lafreniere might well do what Sean Couturier did and tumble down a bit (Couturier was the consensus #1 for a long time until draft year). So if the target is Lafreniere, he might still be available at #2 or even #5 or #8, depending on how players move up or down during the world juniors and the rest of their seasons.

 

#2 is a great point.    You continue to push your young studs down the lineup in favour of aging vets who I think will never get us a cup.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HabsAlways said:

#2 is a great point.    You continue to push your young studs down the lineup in favour of aging vets who I think will never get us a cup.

I never said that you shouldn't push the vets down the line up I said trading everyone at once for picks and prospects is not the way to go as just like the guys in our system you never really know how a prospect or pick will turn out. Just like most things in life you have to be methodical and smart unfortunately MB lacks in both. However fans saying blow it up and get as many PICKS and PROSPECTS you can are too over zealous. Like I have said before if you want to build a contender that will last 4 or 5 seasons. Go right ahead and trade everyone of value so you can suck for 3 years and get three good picks maybe 1 turns out to be a superstar. Your other choice is to continue with what we have and build on it and help train  the replacements play Primeau behind Price for a year then have them share the net then move Price out or to backup or have him retire whatever suits him same with Weber we are not going to get a fair price for them with the contracts they are on anyway may as well use them to our advantage. That's how you build a dynasty which is better than building a contender in my books.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, HabsAlways said:

Norrinder ... not Norlander ... a 3rd round choice.    Might pan out to have a NHL career but I would say is a long shot at this point.

 

By the way IF your going to TRY and correct others spelling errors perhaps you should make sure you have the correct spelling yourself. You know like the old saying those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones! The correct spelling is Norlinder, forgive me for putting an 'a' instead of an 'i'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

By the way IF your going to TRY and correct others spelling errors perhaps you should make sure you have the correct spelling yourself. You know like the old saying those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones! The correct spelling is Norlinder, forgive me for putting an 'a' instead of an 'i'.

It's 'shouldn't' not 'shouldnt'. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

It's 'shouldn't' not 'shouldnt'. :)

The spelling police are at it again. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

What you've said is mainly true. But that said, a few counter-points:

1. You're not guaranteed #1 overall, but if you finish last your odds are considerably better than if you finish a fringe 14th or 16th last as we did in 2018-19. And if you finish at the bottom, you're still getting a top 4 pick even if you have the worst luck at the lottery.

2. As I posted above, I think dumping a few vets (like Weber, Price, Byron, Chiarot) doesn't mean you don't have veteran leadership left. Gallagher, Petry, Danault, Domi, Tatar, etc. could still be part of a leadership group and moving forward, yeah you would need new leaders like Lehkonen or Mete or so on to step up. But also not good for guys like Kotkaniemi to stay in a 3C role on a losing team the way Galchenyuk did. No sense in Brook or Leskinen or Fleury or Juulsen being unable to get playing time because Chiarot and Reilly and Kulak are ahead of them, the way we stuffed Beaulieu, Pateryn, and Tinordi behind Murray and Bouillon. Play the younger guys, find out what you have...

3. Also not a guarantee Lafreniere goes #1. Quinton Byfield is rumored to be pushing for the #1 spot, and Lafreniere might well do what Sean Couturier did and tumble down a bit (Couturier was the consensus #1 for a long time until draft year). So if the target is Lafreniere, he might still be available at #2 or even #5 or #8, depending on how players move up or down during the world juniors and the rest of their seasons.

 

Totally valid points. The other thing is, lets say you finish dead last but lose the lottery & end up with 2nd or even 3rd overall. If Timmins is just so convinced Lafreneire is so good that we have to have him, maybe you make deal with the team that gets 1st ova - 1st ova + Tatar + whatever.  It would probably end up overpayment but once the chips fall where they need to, you have a clearer understanding of what you're after. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

The spelling police are at it again. :P

It's ok they just know their arguments do not have merit therefore have to find something else to focus on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, campabee82 said:

By the way IF your going to TRY and correct others spelling errors perhaps you should make sure you have the correct spelling yourself. You know like the old saying those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones! The correct spelling is Norlinder, forgive me for putting an 'a' instead of an 'i'.

Yes but at least I was in the ballpark as opposed to Norlander ... :P

Oh wait, I really should put my glasses on when going to HockeyDB

Mattias Norlinder

 

Edited by HabsAlways
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of Zoolander but hey, don't mind me guys, keep going :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, maas_art said:

Totally valid points. The other thing is, lets say you finish dead last but lose the lottery & end up with 2nd or even 3rd overall. If Timmins is just so convinced Lafreneire is so good that we have to have him, maybe you make deal with the team that gets 1st ova - 1st ova + Tatar + whatever.  It would probably end up overpayment but once the chips fall where they need to, you have a clearer understanding of what you're after. 

And also even if you do get the "guy" you think is going to be your savior , it doesn't mean even as a high or top draft pick he's going to be that generational player you're hoping for. He could end up just average and then you've bet your future and current team on nothing. There are no guarantees one star player even if they are is going to put you over the top. Unless you then put that player in the minors for a year or two and continue to get more number ones. A real tear down rebuild could do that. What do you think the fans would do then if you draft the number one then don't play them on the NHL team for a year or two to continue to rebuild. Wouldn't that actually be a stronger rebuild in the long run, would those willing to rebuild be willing to do that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a looming expansion draft do we even want to play these young too many games so that we have to protect them later?

Edited by Shutoutfan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shutoutfan said:

With a looming expansion draft do we even want to play these young too many games so that we have to protect them later?

At this point it doesnt matter. The guys who are eligible are already eligible, those who arent, arent.  

The rules are really simple: " All first- and second-year NHL players, and all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward protection limits."

So anyone who plays this year is exempt but guys who played last year (and this) are eligible. 

So for example, JK must be protected while Poehling, Suzuki and Primeau will not have to be, regardless of how many games they play this year. I believe that Fleury will be eligible (because he was a pro last year in Laval) and I know that Juulsen is for sure. 

 

Bringing up the expansion draft though is interesting because if we DO end up losing some more & ultimately tanking, a smart GM would consider moving some players so he doesnt risk losing one to expansion.   On defense we should be ok.  Guys like Brook and Romanov are safe.  I feel like they might expose Weber, especially if MB is gone by the summer.

But up front we will likely have to expose a quality forward.   Domi, Drouin, JK, Tatar, Lehks and Gallagher are no brainers. That leaves one spot and two players who need protecting:  Danault & Byron.   So maybe its worth looking at trading one of those 8 so you dont have to expose a guy who you wouldnt want to lose for nothing. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.