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

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, claremont said:

I watch his highlight reel and this guy looks like an upgrade over Kulak - closer to a 3-4 pairing while Romanov develops. Kulak is likely to get exposed in the Kraken ED with Joel or Chiarot, assuming Petry is resigned. Not a swing for extra bases but not necessarily total junk. 

I don't see him as an upgrade on Kulak. That said, I know a lot of people like Chiarot and I don't see him as being better than Kulak either. Kulak has strong possession numbers, he's a great skater, and he re-launches the attack. I'm not sure Edmundson does all those things as well. He's been an average possession player on great possession teams and has had poor numbers relative to his teammates for the past 4 years. Last year, he was statistically the worst defenceman on the Canes. Like Chiarot and Mete and Kulak, he's a decent 3rd pairing D man but he's not a solution to the top 4. How much is MB going to try and pay him? Because if you're already allocating money to Alzner and Chiarot and Kulak and Mete and now Edmundson, that's a lot of cash to be spending on a multitude of LHD who don't address an actual hole in the line-up.

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

I don't see him as an upgrade on Kulak. That said, I know a lot of people like Chiarot and I don't see him as being better than Kulak either. Kulak has strong possession numbers, he's a great skater, and he re-launches the attack. I'm not sure Edmundson does all those things as well. He's been an average possession player on great possession teams and has had poor numbers relative to his teammates for the past 4 years. Last year, he was statistically the worst defenceman on the Canes. Like Chiarot and Mete and Kulak, he's a decent 3rd pairing D man but he's not a solution to the top 4. How much is MB going to try and pay him? Because if you're already allocating money to Alzner and Chiarot and Kulak and Mete and now Edmundson, that's a lot of cash to be spending on a multitude of LHD who don't address an actual hole in the line-up.

He does have size and blocks shots and is a positive +/- player. For a defenseman I'm more concerned what the player does defensively. So I'm not sold on corsi or possession numbers. We haven't signed him yet but I think he could be a good addition as Romanov develops.

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

I don't see him as an upgrade on Kulak. That said, I know a lot of people like Chiarot and I don't see him as being better than Kulak either. Kulak has strong possession numbers, he's a great skater, and he re-launches the attack. I'm not sure Edmundson does all those things as well. He's been an average possession player on great possession teams and has had poor numbers relative to his teammates for the past 4 years. Last year, he was statistically the worst defenceman on the Canes. Like Chiarot and Mete and Kulak, he's a decent 3rd pairing D man but he's not a solution to the top 4. How much is MB going to try and pay him? Because if you're already allocating money to Alzner and Chiarot and Kulak and Mete and now Edmundson, that's a lot of cash to be spending on a multitude of LHD who don't address an actual hole in the line-up.

Interesting - worst player on the canes that finished 10 points ahead of the Habs in 3 fewer games. 7g, 13a +7, 118 hits 91 blocked shots 23.41 avg mins a game, 2011  46th overall pick, vs 7a, -1 , 59 hits 50 blocked shots 18.33 mins in 10 less games  2012 105th overall pick 

I am not an expert In possession and Corsi but that looks like a minor improvement but it’s not earth shattering and he could provide depth - we all know it’s a tough game for tough guys so you will get hurt it’s just a matter of when so I like the depth vs our history of Folin, Scandela etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think this is the kind of D man we need, yes he is a third pairing guy but he HITS!!  Something our D seems reluctant to do.  Also plays on the PK taking some of the work load off of Weber.  I personally think he is an upgrade over Mete and kulak, while both young and mobile they have no ability to rub a player out and can not clear the front of the net if their lives depended on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 26NCounting said:

Personally I think this is the kind of D man we need, yes he is a third pairing guy but he HITS!!  Something our D seems reluctant to do.  Also plays on the PK taking some of the work load off of Weber.  I personally think he is an upgrade over Mete and kulak, while both young and mobile they have no ability to rub a player out and can not clear the front of the net if their lives depended on it.

He also fights, which is something we didn't have. The playins & especially the games against Philly, showed how much we were getting pushed around, including the cheap shots! He will definitely stand up for his teammates!.....which is what we really could have used against the Flyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/13/2020 at 6:51 AM, jennifer_rocket said:

Sorry, I don't mean that Edmundson is junk. I mean that any move Bergevin makes which doesn't bring us closer to being competitive is junk. And this is another one of those moves.

Yup.  MB makes a lot of moves that are fine in a vacuum.  Most 5th rounders arent ever NHLers.  Joel Edmondson is a proven NHLer - but we have a handful of guys  just like him.  Even if he's an upgrader over all but 2 of our LD its not particularly useful because we're still missing the guy to play on the toppair.

MB is the ship's captain whose boat is sinking & he's deciding what colour to paint the galley instead of trying to stop the water leaking in. 

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

 

Yup.  MB makes a lot of moves that are fine in a vacuum.  Most 5th rounders arent ever NHLers.  Joel Edmondson is a proven NHLer - but we have a handful of guys  just like him.  Even if he's an upgrader over all but 2 of our LD its not particularly useful because we're still missing the guy to play on the toppair.

MB is the ship's captain whose boat is sinking & he's deciding what colour to paint the galley instead of trying to stop the water leaking in. 

         I'm not so sure giving a 5th rounder in a crap shoot for possibly signing  guy that has size , over 300 games in the NHL, hits and blocks shots , will fight , does PK time and will clear the front of the net is that bad an idea ...the 3rd pairing was exposed in the play-offs just on size alone ...I think this move also buys Bergevin time to hopefully make a trade of significance by giving him another option ..

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

         I'm not so sure giving a 5th rounder in a crap shoot for possibly signing  guy that has size , over 300 games in the NHL, hits and blocks shots , will fight , does PK time and will clear the front of the net is that bad an idea ...the 3rd pairing was exposed in the play-offs just on size alone ...I think this move also buys Bergevin time to hopefully make a trade of significance by giving him another option ..

I have to agree here, as long as we get a better first pairing option this move will be ok not great but ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2020 at 8:54 PM, claremont said:

Interesting - worst player on the canes that finished 10 points ahead of the Habs in 3 fewer games. 7g, 13a +7, 118 hits 91 blocked shots 23.41 avg mins a game, 2011  46th overall pick, vs 7a, -1 , 59 hits 50 blocked shots 18.33 mins in 10 less games  2012 105th overall pick 

I am not an expert In possession and Corsi but that looks like a minor improvement but it’s not earth shattering and he could provide depth - we all know it’s a tough game for tough guys so you will get hurt it’s just a matter of when so I like the depth vs our history of Folin, Scandela etc. 

The idea behind Corsi relative is correcting for the system and roster... in other words, if John Scott went to play for the Penguins on a line with Crosby, he'd probably put up some points and get some +'s for being on the ice for some goals for and get some positive possession metrics if Crosby dominates play by himself. But if Crosby is playing with Ovechkin or Benn or so on, he'd almost certainly put up even better numbers. So while Scott might finish with positive possession metrics (i.e. more shot attempts for the Pens than against the Pens when he's on), he's not as good as other guys if they were put in that same spot.

In Edmundson's case, he's benefited from playing on two good possession teams in St. Louis and Carolina. Every single D man on the Canes was a positive possession player last year, meaning that no matter who was on the ice, the Canes dominated play. But when Edmundson was on, the metrics were less favorable than with everyone else. This might suggest that Edmundson benefited from his team's system and other guys he played with driving the play as opposed to his doing this himself. Likewise, he was a negative relative Corsi player the few years before this in St. Louis too. So in short, he's a player who is carried by his team.

A lot of the analysts who know more about advanced stats than I do are very down on Edmundson as a player. They suggest he's not only not very good as a puck mover and attack re-launcher but that he's also not very good defensively. Yes, he's a big guy and hits, but there are concerns he'd be a bit like a Douglass Murray. Micah McCurdy flat out states that he's a player old-school hockey minds get over-sold on because of his size and shot but that he's bad at everything else.

In the end, the question I have is really how this helps us? We still have a giant hole at LHD on the top pairing. So either we're not addressing that in any way and going in to the season using 3 of Chiarot, Kulak, Edmundson, Mete, and Romanov OR we're adding a true top-pairing guy, in which case we're now using 2 of those 5 guys on our bottom two pairs. And in that scenario, the next question I'll ask is "who are those two guys?"... Bergevin has almost assured us that Romanov will be one of them. He's pretty much flat out said that Romanov would be with the NHL club and that he wasn't brought over here to sit in the pres box or on the bench. So that's one. Now who's taking that 3rd spot? Kulak would be my choice, easily. And after that, it's not clear to me Edmundson is better than any of the guys we already had. So I'm a bit confused by what this means. We all think this is setting up another trade, but by my count, we'd now have to trade two guys to make Edmundson an upgrade on whatever else we have. If we go into the season with some combo of Chiarot-Edmundson-Romanov-Mete as the left side of our D, we're screwed. So this trade isn't an upgrade in any way and I don't know what it represents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Edmundson signs for 4 years, 3.5M AAV. Better than it could have been but still largely a waste of a roster spot unless you're unloading both Chiarot and Mete.

A question: rank these defencemen in order of who you would want on your team at age 27 on a 4-year deal for 3.5M AAV:

- Edmundson

- Chiarot

- Emelin

- Benn

- Kulak

 

I'm curious as to how people view him relative to other LHD we've had in recent years.

 

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

A question: rank these defencemen in order of who you would want on your team at age 27 on a 4-year deal for 3.5M AAV:

- Edmundson

- Chiarot

- Emelin

- Benn

- Kulak

I'm curious as to how people view him relative to other LHD we've had in recent years.

Thats a really tough one. Im not sure where i slot Edmunson in there because he's played with a number of different partners and in various roles over the years.  Its entirely possible he ends up the best of the lot or the worst of the lot, although to be honest, there's not a huge range of difference between that group.  They are all #4-6dmen imho. 

Emelin at times played like a #3 and at times like a #6. Likewise Kulak and Benn.   Chiarot has probably been the most consistent of them but it wasnt a consistently high rank (and he usually had Weber as his D partner). 

If i absolutely had to rank them (and considered their averages) id say:

 


Kulak > Chiarot > Edmundson > Emelin  > Benn 


Edmundson goes right in the middle because im not certain.  Its probably a little unfair to Emelin because at times (when he was with Subban for example) he was decent. But when he was bad, he was really bad.   Benn was only good when be played 3rd pairing. Its not his fault he was played higher up the lineup.   Kulak, i fear, is on his way out very soon. 

 

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

So Edmundson signs for 4 years, 3.5M AAV. Better than it could have been but still largely a waste of a roster spot unless you're unloading both Chiarot and Mete.

A question: rank these defencemen in order of who you would want on your team at age 27 on a 4-year deal for 3.5M AAV:

- Edmundson

- Chiarot

- Emelin

- Benn

- Kulak

 

I'm curious as to how people view him relative to other LHD we've had in recent years.

 

Kulak
Benn
Chiarot
Edmundson
Emelin

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

So Edmundson signs for 4 years, 3.5M AAV. Better than it could have been but still largely a waste of a roster spot unless you're unloading both Chiarot and Mete.

A question: rank these defencemen in order of who you would want on your team at age 27 on a 4-year deal for 3.5M AAV:

- Edmundson

- Chiarot

- Emelin

- Benn

- Kulak

 

I'm curious as to how people view him relative to other LHD we've had in recent years.

 

Not sure i'd pay that for any 3rd pairing D. I suppose Kulak might be worth the risk based on his playoff play. Chiarot was badly exposed on the top pairing and probably single handedly cost us a shot to advance another round,, and as noted earlier,,,, i don't know enough about JE to form an opinion. The only good part of Emelin's game was his ability to crush an opponent. Benn only looked decent on the 3rd pairing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

Not sure i'd pay that for any 3rd pairing D. I suppose Kulak might be worth the risk based on his playoff play. Chiarot was badly exposed on the top pairing and probably single handedly cost us a shot to advance another round,, and as noted earlier,,,, i don't know enough about JE to form an opinion. The only good part of Emelin's game was his ability to crush an opponent. Benn only looked decent on the 3rd pairing.

To me this is not going to help or hurt us we are getting some more size but we will most likely lose Kulak's compartive speed. Chiarot did not lose us the shot to advance we were not blown out in the games we played. our problem was we did not score enough Carey was great and until the last two games our D held it's own we were shut out a couple of times and only had one strong offensive game in either series. that said i can't see how this new guy is going to help us score! imagine how much less pressure there is on the goalie and the D when you have a couple of goals to take the heat off!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems simple to me, Carolina had the 4th best pk in the league and we just signed one of their biggest pk personnel. 
 

Carolina went from 8th in 18/19 to 4th (with Joel) in 19/20

StL dropped from 9th in 18/19 to 17th (without Joel) 

Could be just coincidental of couse but I’m expecting a decent improvement in our pk ranking next season with a healthy Edmundson. 3.5 x 4 years doesn’t seem too steep a price to me

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/09/2020 at 8:54 PM, claremont said:

Interesting - worst player on the canes that finished 10 points ahead of the Habs in 3 fewer games. 7g, 13a +7, 118 hits 91 blocked shots 23.41 avg mins a game, 2011  46th overall pick, vs 7a, -1 , 59 hits 50 blocked shots 18.33 mins in 10 less games  2012 105th overall pick 

I am not an expert In possession and Corsi but that looks like a minor improvement but it’s not earth shattering and he could provide depth - we all know it’s a tough game for tough guys so you will get hurt it’s just a matter of when so I like the depth vs our history of Folin, Scandela etc. 

   Agreed on the depth comment ....It would be fair to mention as well that Edmundson is quite a bit bigger and plays a tougher game than Kulak and will fight for his team mates if need be .. for all the talk of Kulak joining the rush etc it has translated into points and he's not a bruiser in front of the net .Is he a faster skater than Edmundson ...yes  ...does he lay people out and make them wary in front of the net or coming into the zone ...no....In terms of hits , blocked shots , points , pims  , +/- , career games , play-off experience , Stanley Cup ring , size and grit I would say that he is an upgrade . Edmundson is only about 7 months older   and that's not to say I don't like Brett or that he hasn't  progressed    ...but it's up-grade in more ways than one for $1.65 mill more in salary difference over Kulak if he is moved ...if not Kulak is still an acceptable D at an affordable price  .

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a positive note, word from around the league seems to be that the deal is fair & likely a fair bit less than he would have gotten as 27 year old UFA.   So there's always a chance, if we end up short on space, to trade him over the next 4 years, assuming he maintains his play at roughly the level he has up until this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, maas_art said:

On a positive note, word from around the league seems to be that the deal is fair & likely a fair bit less than he would have gotten as 27 year old UFA.   So there's always a chance, if we end up short on space, to trade him over the next 4 years, assuming he maintains his play at roughly the level he has up until this point. 

Don't see why he shouldn't  ...as well I thought he could bring a bit more on the open market ( but only about 3.8ish - 4 type money ) but I assume the term had something to do with that ......So all in all it's still good coin for him and he didn't get much of a raise but maybe he saw himself as a fit on Montreal ......certainly better than a 5 or 6 yr deal or more  people were stewing over when Bergevin first got him ....of course he not a #1 or 2 but he should be able to provide decent 2nd pairing and certainly 3rd pairing + pk work  to this team while prospects learn the ropes ....he might surprise some people ...Bergevin isn't done yet but the club is better today than when we didn't have a decent back-up and the softish 3 pairing got exposed .

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

Thats a really tough one. Im not sure where i slot Edmunson in there because he's played with a number of different partners and in various roles over the years.  Its entirely possible he ends up the best of the lot or the worst of the lot, although to be honest, there's not a huge range of difference between that group.  They are all #4-6dmen imho. 

Emelin at times played like a #3 and at times like a #6. Likewise Kulak and Benn.   Chiarot has probably been the most consistent of them but it wasnt a consistently high rank (and he usually had Weber as his D partner). 

If i absolutely had to rank them (and considered their averages) id say:

 


Kulak > Chiarot > Edmundson > Emelin  > Benn 


Edmundson goes right in the middle because im not certain.  Its probably a little unfair to Emelin because at times (when he was with Subban for example) he was decent. But when he was bad, he was really bad.   Benn was only good when be played 3rd pairing. Its not his fault he was played higher up the lineup.   Kulak, i fear, is on his way out very soon. 

 

 

18 hours ago, H_T_L said:

Not sure i'd pay that for any 3rd pairing D. I suppose Kulak might be worth the risk based on his playoff play. Chiarot was badly exposed on the top pairing and probably single handedly cost us a shot to advance another round,, and as noted earlier,,,, i don't know enough about JE to form an opinion. The only good part of Emelin's game was his ability to crush an opponent. Benn only looked decent on the 3rd pairing.

 

17 hours ago, ramcharger440 said:

To me this is not going to help or hurt us we are getting some more size but we will most likely lose Kulak's compartive speed. Chiarot did not lose us the shot to advance we were not blown out in the games we played. our problem was we did not score enough Carey was great and until the last two games our D held it's own we were shut out a couple of times and only had one strong offensive game in either series. that said i can't see how this new guy is going to help us score! imagine how much less pressure there is on the goalie and the D when you have a couple of goals to take the heat off!

 

Your answers speak mostly to the point I was looking to make... Edmundson really isn't an upgrade on what we already have or have recently had. He, like the rest of the list I posted, are ideally 3rd pairing LHD and they don't improve your top 4 to any degree. Personally, if I was going to rank the 5 guys I listed, I would put down

1. Kulak

2. Chiarot

3. Emelin

4. Edmundson

5. Benn

And with our current line-up of D-men, my own personal choice for how to line them up would be

 

Romanov-Weber

Kulak-Petry

Chiarot-Juulsen

Mete

 

Romanov hits my top pairing because even if he proves not to be ready, he's the only guy we have as a LHD who even remotely has the potential to end up being a tp pairing defenceman. Kulak has proven he plays well with Petry and his value there is higher than anywhere else. He's also the best skater and puck mover if you look at him, Edmundson and Chiarot. I'll keep a RHD on the right and I think Juulsen is more ready than Fleury, in addition to being at risk of being lost if sent down through waivers, whereas Fleury isn't. And I kept Mete as #7 over Edmundson since Mete has been able to play both sides and is more mobile, hence a better fill-in D man. At the end of the day, Edmundson doesn't even fit into my top 7. On top of that, he's now being paid more money than Kulak and likely Mete and over a longer-term than Chiarot. So it's not even like we could say we signed one guy, traded another, and saved money. It's a baffling acquisition that doesn't address our real need. We desperately need a player like a Werenski, McAvoy, Sergachev, Byram or so on and we instead ended up with more filler for the bottom of the line-up when we're overflowing with filler to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

It's a baffling acquisition that doesn't address our real need. We desperately need a player like a Werenski, McAvoy, Sergachev, Byram or so on and we instead ended up with more filler for the bottom of the line-up when we're overflowing with filler to begin with.

Its actually not baffling at all when you consider our GM.

He made a career (1100 NHL games) as exactly this type of defensman.  He spent a full season as Al MacInnis' partner & I think he honestly believes that as long as you have one good defensman per pairing, you've got a good pairing.

There is no doubt in my mind that he got Edmundson because, like Weber, Chairot and even Petry (who is huge but doesnt play particularly big) he wants our defense to be "hard to play against."

Never mind the fact that most teams are getting quicker and more agile - he still believes you can box out skill and as long as we can throw out 6'3" and bigger guys out there, we will win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Its actually not baffling at all when you consider our GM.

He made a career (1100 NHL games) as exactly this type of defensman.  He spent a full season as Al MacInnis' partner & I think he honestly believes that as long as you have one good defensman per pairing, you've got a good pairing.

There is no doubt in my mind that he got Edmundson because, like Weber, Chairot and even Petry (who is huge but doesnt play particularly big) he wants our defense to be "hard to play against."

Never mind the fact that most teams are getting quicker and more agile - he still believes you can box out skill and as long as we can throw out 6'3" and bigger guys out there, we will win.

I agree with you. It's not baffling for Bergevin, it's just baffling in terms of how you should be building a team in today's NHL. Locking in 3rd-pairing D men long-term is a bad move in a cap world and believing big guys who can't move the puck well are a solution for your top 4 is an antiquated notion.

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

I agree with you. It's not baffling for Bergevin, it's just baffling in terms of how you should be building a team in today's NHL. Locking in 3rd-pairing D men long-term is a bad move in a cap world and believing big guys who can't move the puck well are a solution for your top 4 is an antiquated notion.

Yup.  We make fun of the leafs for having $33m tied up in their top 3 forwards but at least all 3 are elite.  We have $26m tied up in our 2 goalies and bottom roster defensmen (although MB would tell you 2 of those guys are top 4).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...