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

Josh Anderson


kinot-2
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, maas_art said:

This. 

What I dont get is the sudden drop.  He was playing top 6 minutes right up till the pandemic started & then when they came back for the play-in he was a 4th liner.  Maybe they reviewed tape all through the lockout & decided he wasnt as good a player as they wanted but again: why devalue him?   I will never, for the life of me, understand why we keep doing this.

Its absolutely 100% MB's call if we should move a player. I get that. But wouldnt you want him at high value before doing so?  I can almost guarantee if we had traded him at the deadline we would have gotten a lot more than we did waiting and then playing him down the lineup when it mattered most. 

I think the issue was his delay in joining the team for health concerns. KK comes in playing lights out and Susuki had already cemented his position creating that logjam at center. Even Dano was pushed down the lineup. The top 3 lines were playing some decent hockey and it was a case of Domi having to wait for a crack to develop in order to move up. As a fan i wasn't seeing much sustained effort on his part in the role he was given, for whatever reason. Maybe it was attitude or just an air of entitlement on his part or possibly he just wasn't in game shape.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

I think the issue was his delay in joining the team for health concerns. KK comes in playing lights out and Suzuki had already cemented his position creating that logjam at center. Even Dano was pushed down the lineup. The top 3 lines were playing some decent hockey and it was a case of Domi having to wait for a crack to develop in order to move up. As a fan i wasn't seeing much sustained effort on his part in the role he was given, for whatever reason. Maybe it was attitude or just an air of entitlement on his part or possibly he just wasn't in game shape.   

Suzuki had a good playoffs , JK was hardly lights out. We will have to hope JK can continue to move forward. I also hope he can stay healthy. I hope Danault stays with Tatar Gallagher. I would rather have JK start as 3rd line center and let him still develop. A short playoffs with a couple lucky bounces is far from making it through a whole season against top competition. We still do have depth as I think Poehling will still push his way into the lineup maybe as wing maybe as center. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, H_T_L said:

I think the issue was his delay in joining the team for health concerns. KK comes in playing lights out and Susuki had already cemented his position creating that logjam at center. Even Dano was pushed down the lineup. The top 3 lines were playing some decent hockey and it was a case of Domi having to wait for a crack to develop in order to move up. As a fan i wasn't seeing much sustained effort on his part in the role he was given, for whatever reason. Maybe it was attitude or just an air of entitlement on his part or possibly he just wasn't in game shape.   

I agree that this is probably the way things went but I still think they could have handled it better. This is not the firs time we've traded a player at a low point of his value. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

   Now that Nashville has put Turris on waivers to buy him out I'm wondering if Montreal thinks this guy at 31 would be a fit as a 4th line centre on a cheap contract 

Was wondering if we'd have interest too.

Id prefer we didnt - since both Evans and Poehling should be starting to be grroomed but I worry a little when Suzuki, JK, Poehling & Evans combined ages is less than Joe Thornton (ok slight exaggeration but...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, habsisme said:

yeah but you look at all the trades he's made and they were all successful. As for Tatar, we need goal scoring and he adds that. If we're having a competitive season I'd rather keep him and then lose him for nothing if we can't get a favourable deal done. I think MBs plan is to wait and see how the season turns out and if it's bad he will trade the expiring contracts, and the goes for Danault and Gallagher as well (unless they are ready to sign a team-friendly deal) 

I'm good with this plan

I'm not saying we didn't win some/most of these trades. But I'll go through a few of these examples again:

- Subban... the guy is coming off a recent Norris trophy win. He's clearly one of the top 5 defencemen in the league. Yet you have a coach who takes every opportunity to bash him in the media and talk about how selfish and overly flashy he is. You have a coach and GM who both refuse to back him for Team Canada. You have a GM who didn't want to pay the player on two occasions, the first when he forced a bridge contract and the second when he had to have the owner step in to give him a fair deal. The team publicly made it appear that they hated the player and wanted to get rid of him as fast as they could. My question is this: why go to all the trouble of bashing the player if you know you want to trade him? Why tell everyone in the league that you think he's a problem in the locker room? Almost every single parameter (most offensive and defensive stats, advanced stats, contract, age, etc.) favored Subban over Weber, so if you took out this whole "personality" question, MB should have easily been able to get a bigger return. People are in retrospect calling this trade a win for Bergevin, but I still disagree with that. Subban was the better player for the first couple of years after the trade and Nashville made it to the Cup finals. Weber with the Preds never had that success and Weber with the Habs never had the success the Habs had with Subban. Subban has slowed considerably after some injuries, but without injury, I think Subban would likely still be the better player. So even in retrospect, I don't think Bergevin made a good trade. If you wanted to get rid of Subban, fine. But the smart play would have been to build him up in the media, not put him down.

- Galchenyuk... similar to Domi, a guy with a great pedigree as a prospect and great skill. In his one short stint as a 1C, his line was great and he put up strong point totals. Sure, we can criticize his defensive game, but he nonetheless put up great offensive numbers in this stretch. Now fast forward and in a season where the team was going nowhere and the Habs had every chance to play their youngsters and see what they had and play a guy like Galchenyuk at center to build up his point totals and profile, they didn't. They played him on the 4th line, they played him on the wing. At one point, they played him behind Dwight King. So again, I get that you weren't thrilled with AG on a personal level and there were questions of drug use and partying and so on, but if you wanted to trade him, why not play him as your 1C in garbage games? Like him or not, if other teams had seen a 30-35G first-line center, I guarantee there are those that would have given up a good return to us in a trade. Instead, we got a comparable player in Domi with great promise but with position questions and confidence issues and so on.

- Beaulieu, Tinordi, and Pateryn... at one point, we had these three young defencemen coming up through our system, with thoughts that the first two could be top 4 players and the latter a solid third-pairing option. What happens? Instead of giving these guys experience in games when we were already out, we kept them in Hamilton under awful coaching there. We opted to keep them in the AHL behind the likes of Murray and Bouillon. And then we waited til their values dropped down before dumping each of them. Beaulieu was labeled a hooligan outside of the rink, Tinordi was traded in mysterious circumstances with rumors about drugs again, and Pateryn was sent packing because of his girlfriend. Three young guys with promise, all of whose values dropped to nothing and then let go.

- The list goes on and on... Michael McCarron? Dany Kristo? Christian Thomas? Even Max Pacioretty, where we clearly came out with great trade value was run through the mud before we traded him. MB publicly said he wasn't interested in negotiating a contract extension right away. Reports came out suggesting the Habs thought he was a mistake as a captain. It's a running theme of how the Habs liked to try to win a PR battle against their own players.

So at the end of the day, I'm not commenting on whether the Habs won or lost any of these trades or whether the guys they dumped became anything. But if you have something of value you would like to cash in, you don't spend all your time explaining to your potential buyers how worthless and awful the thing you want to sell is. It's just bad practice. Who knows if it's true but there were rumors that both Vancouver and Edmonton offered substantially more for Subban than what we got. One rumor suggested a package might have included league MVP Leon Draisaitl, a 1st, and a D man (Nurse or Klefbom). Maybe we could have gotten a player like Domi AND a 1st or another prospect for Galchenyuk. I'm a firm believer in buy low sell high and for all those who think this is all easy in hindsight, now's the time to see how MB handles the likes of Tomas Tatar and Shea Weber and even perhaps Brendan Gallagher and Philip Danault.

 

2 hours ago, habsisme said:

I think you have to play the best players possible to win. You can't start thinking about a players value in a trade when your making lineup decisions

To some degree yes. When you're winning and going for a Cup, I agree. But if you're out of the playoffs or clearly in a rebuilding mode, why play Desharnais over Eller and Galchenyuk? Why play Murray and Bouillon over Beaulieu and Tinordi? Why play Dwight King and Martinsen over anyone? You need to find ways to work your youngsters in and there's no better time to get them experience than in games where the stakes are low.

In Domi's case, I'm not even against him being behind Suzuki and JK on the depth chart. In fact, I think the Habs should have been using Suzuki and JK as their top 2 centers earlier in the season. If they had, they would have known sooner what they had and given those guys experience. And once you get the sense those two guys are ready, you make your move to trade Domi pre-emptively. You don't make him a 4th line center and play him with the likes of Jordan Weal and Dale Weise and then talk to the media about how he needs to do more to move up the line-up. If the Habs thought they had a center line-up of Suzuki, JK, and Danault in the near future, they should have tried to move Domi in October or in January.

You want another example of where this is going? Let's look at Brendan Gallagher. You now have Josh Anderson on the RW, who gives us something we don't have in a power forward who can score. You have Joel Armia who's an honest 3rd/4th line player with some skill and who you can still control costs on to some degree. And you have potentially Caufield and Ylonen coming in the next 2-3 years. So I'm going to ask today, how long are we projecting Gallagher to be with the organization? How long is his level of play going to hold up, especially with his style of game and his injury history? If the Habs don't think Caufield and Ylonen are progressing well, then you can hold onto Gallagher as you see fit. But let's say a year from now, the Habs really feel Ylonen is ready and Caufield is going to be there soon, you can't just sit on Gallagher and wait for his value to drop off. You're not getting full value if you do what you did with Plekanec or Markov and just let age catch up with them before you move on. We're going to need to make a decision on Gallagher in 2-3 years and MB absolutely can't give him a NTC/NMC that limits what we do with him at at that time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Was wondering if we'd have interest too.

Id prefer we didnt - since both Evans and Poehling should be starting to be grroomed but I worry a little when Suzuki, JK, Poehling & Evans combined ages is less than Joe Thornton (ok slight exaggeration but...)

  ...it would be a pretty good insurance policy for the likes of Poehling and Evans with his experience ...I think he 's still an ok player ...his numbers have dropped in the last 2 or 3 years  and Nashville needs to clear salary ...he still has a big contract for basically a 3rd or 4th  line defensive forward ....maybe Ottawa will take another crack at him ...if he could be had for say 1.5 mill  why not ?....always liked him 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, habsisme said:

yeah but you look at all the trades he's made and they were all successful. As for Tatar, we need goal scoring and he adds that. If we're having a competitive season I'd rather keep him and then lose him for nothing if we can't get a favourable deal done. I think MBs plan is to wait and see how the season turns out and if it's bad he will trade the expiring contracts, and the goes for Danault and Gallagher as well (unless they are ready to sign a team-friendly deal) 

I'm good with this plan

Largely agree - It’s up to Tatar to demonstrate his consistency and commitment to the Habs - this season will demonstrate whether he is a keeper for another 3 years. Giving up Tatar’s scoring now when we are weak in scoring does not make sense unless we are getting a younger equivalent scorer which is a doubtful trade. Giving him up now unless it is part of a bigger package almost sends a signal that we will retool. 
It’s all 20-20 hindsight when one looks back after a player declines and say - oh we f’d up and should have traded him at his peak - you criticizers keep choosing that easy route vs the reality of the decision 

on Domi - one wonders if his diabetes decision to hold off playing due to the covid risk in the bubble entered into the decision to trade him 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, claremont said:

on Domi - one wonders if his diabetes decision to hold off playing due to the covid risk in the bubble entered into the decision to trade him 

I think it might have - simply because I believe thats why they started him on the 4th line.   I dont think the team held the decision against him but rather, wanted to ensure he was in proper game shape so they thought they'd start him there.

The pittsburgh series pushed him down the lineup so while JK/Suzuki essentially took his spot, they wouldnt have maybe had the opportunity if he had started camp with everyone else.
 


Not putting Domi down at all - im not sure, in his shoes, if i would have even played - but i think it was a series of events, precipitated by his decision to start later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I just don't see the value we've added here. He's a hockey player who has never scored more than 47 points in a season. He's already 26, so I don't see much more developing happening. He had FOUR points last season in 26 games. FOUR. This guy might never reach 20 goals ever again.  

have you seen the tapes of him playing? way too much talent to not get his share of points! besides he was playing hurt last year and he fills a need we had that the player we did have did not want to and with his size could not do and that is as a power forward right winger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, claremont said:

Largely agree - It’s up to Tatar to demonstrate his consistency and commitment to the Habs - this season will demonstrate whether he is a keeper for another 3 years. Giving up Tatar’s scoring now when we are weak in scoring does not make sense unless we are getting a younger equivalent scorer which is a doubtful trade. Giving him up now unless it is part of a bigger package almost sends a signal that we will retool. 
It’s all 20-20 hindsight when one looks back after a player declines and say - oh we f’d up and should have traded him at his peak - you criticizers keep choosing that easy route vs the reality of the decision 

on Domi - one wonders if his diabetes decision to hold off playing due to the covid risk in the bubble entered into the decision to trade him 

 

I think too many GM's/fans/media get attached to players and don't assess the reality of a player's expected course. This isn't just hindsight. If you look back at posts over the years, you'll find I called for the trading of Plekanec and Markov well before each guy left. I've been calling for trading Weber for a couple of years and about at least exploring a trade for Price as well. I started talking about trading Tatar last season. Talked about trading Pacioretty in the season before it happened. Personally, I think it's silly to keepplayers well into their 30's when you're paying them for past performance.

Couple of important reasons for this:

1. Salary cap world. You can't just spend unlimited amounts of money building a powerhouse any more. So you need to devote your big contracts to guys that matter. You get control of a player's ELC for the first 4 years or so of their careers and you have a bit of negotiation power while they're RFA's. But many of these guys now hit 27 or 28 and want 7 or 8 year deals and it only takes one of your competitors to offer something stupid to force your hand. The best way to deal with this is identify who your core players are coming out of ELC and trying to lock those specific players up long-term on reasonable contracts. Sometimes you might have to guess/project but I'd rather pay a 23 or 24 year-old bigger money on a 7-year deal than a 28 or 29 year-old. If I look at our current roster, for example, I'd be willing to offer Suzuki 7 years at 7M a season. I'd be willing to offer Kotkaniemi 7 years at 6M. If Romanov impresses over the next couple of years, by all means try to sign him for 6 years at 5-6M. Maybe Primeau or Caufield or Ylonen or Norlinder depending on what those guys show you over their ELC's. If you bridge these guys at 23, then you end up having to pay them even more 2-3 years later, and again, I'd rather pay a 23 year-old 7M a year to get his 23-30 years than pay a guy at 26 something like 8.5M a year to get ages 26-33. And I certainly don't think we can afford to keep all of Weber, Price, Petry, Gallagher, Danault, and Tatar on contracts where they're making 6-9M each playing well into their 30's. You can't survive handing out big money to guys past their prime, even though you can choose 1-2 to do that with, and you can't survive giving out long-term deals to scrubs. These deals we've given out to the likes of Alzner and Moen and Desharnais and Prust and Chiarot and Edmundson and so on just don't impress me. These are guys who are reasonably easy to replace with younger players or year-to-year fill ins on cheaper contracts, so there's zero need to give out 4-year deals to role players. Look at Pittsburgh up front. They pay Crosby and they pay Malkin and maybe 1-2 other key guys and they fill in the rest and whoever they put next to their stars simply ends up producing. Look at Columbus with Seth Jones and Werenski or Nashville with Josi and Ekholm and Ellis and previously Subban. They could afford to have 2-3 cheaper role players filling out their D corps because they throw out their young minute-eaters for 25 minutes a night. A successful team needs to draft high or draft well and find a few legit core stars to build around. You pay those guys for their primes. You don't pay past-prime guys and you don't pay scrubs.

2. Peak performance in today's NHL... any idea what age that happens at? There's a stat called WAR, or wins above replacement, which basically calculates a player's impact on the game based on advanced metrics and determines how much they're contributing to a team's success compared to if they were substituted by a league-average player. The peak for this occurs at about age 22-23 and is sustained for maybe a year or two. By age 25, the large majority of players see a decline in their contributions to team success. Of course, there are exceptions like Crosby, but the fact remains that on average, you're just not getting your money's worth as players age, as this also coincides with UFA status and demands for more money. How many long-term UFA contracts have worked out well for the teams over the past 5 years when they've poached a player from another team? A few, but mostly not. That's one thing I'll credit MB for doing is not getting suckered into bad UFA signings. You want to gamble on a Semin or a Radulov for a year, then that's a perfect, low-risk move. But no need to give a Louie Eriksson or Milan Lucic or David Backes a 5-7 year deal when they're close to or above 30. Most people don't realize how early in their careers players peak. Speed matters. Health matters. Absolutely, supplement your young core with some veterans, but don't overpay them and don't give them long-term deals.

So how does this apply to Tatar? Well let's say he's looking for a 5 or 6-year deal, which would be a reasonable thing for him to want, given this is likely his last chance to cash in as a UFA on a big long-term deal. He might certainly continue to provide some value for the first year or two, but over time, is he really worth that money as he hits 33, 34, or 35 years old? Now consider if we were to replace him in a year or two with a Cole Caufield or Jesse Ylonen. Yes, there could well be some drop off in production at the beginning, but over time, those players will provide more value to your team with less drop-off and at a cheaper rate. I'd rather pay Ylonen 1.5 or 2.5M a year to be a middle-6 winger in two years than pay Tatar 6M a season to do the same and potentially be sitting on a contract I can't move. I'll reiterate that the team can't afford to already be paying Price and Weber and Petry and Drouin AND know they need to pay Suzuki and Kotkaniemi soon AND retain Gallagher, Danault, and Tatar. It's extremely foreseeable. All 3 of those guys are going to want at least 5-6M a year and probably more. The math just doesn't work. So if you can go out and trade a Tatar now for a 1st rounder or for a younger version of someone who plays that role who's not quite as established yet or you can package Tatar with other assets to make an even bigger splash, I'm all in for that. That's just good asset management. I've said the same thing about countless other players and my philosophy has been consistent, so it's not really a hindsight decision and it has absolutely nothing to do with the players themselves or attachment to them. MB needs to do what's best for the team and not live in the past thinking Weber and Tatar and Gallagher and so on will continue to provide the same value 3 years from now or 5 years from now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I just don't see the value we've added here. He's a hockey player who has never scored more than 47 points in a season. He's already 26, so I don't see much more developing happening. He had FOUR points last season in 26 games. FOUR. This guy might never reach 20 goals ever again.  

Don't look at the point totals. Anderson was hurt most of last year. He has size, he plays a strong power game, and he can finish. I think at worst, he'll be another Joel Armia (which yes, would be a bad trade for the Habs but still a useful player) and at best, he'll give us what Erik Cole gave us a few years back. I think he'll be a nice addition to a line like Drouin-Suzuki. Drouin has always played well with Armia IMO, because Armia have him more space and did a lot of the dirty work. Now picture that with a better version in Anderson who can maybe produce more offensively. I think it'll work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I just don't see the value we've added here. He's a hockey player who has never scored more than 47 points in a season. He's already 26, so I don't see much more developing happening. He had FOUR points last season in 26 games. FOUR. This guy might never reach 20 goals ever again.  

.....This trade will take a year or so to sort out .  Domi was in no-mans land as a centre with KK and Suzuki stock rising . Maybe more to the point is Montreal decided to keep  Danault over  Domi  thus putting the nail in at least the 2nd line centre aspirations for Max . These players want to put up points so they can make the big money down the line so that's probably why you saw the change in agents and a bit of grumbling . I'm also guessing that Hab fans wouldn't have been as accepting of this trade had it been Danault instead of Domi . The jury is still out on Anderson but he fills a RW need ( at least on paper ) and it looks like no secret that Bergevin is looking to make the team tougher and bigger without sacrificing speed . I'm guessing here but I think the Habs will sign Anderson to a $10 mill contract over 3  years with cash up front . I don't think Bergevin is done yet .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I just don't see the value we've added here. He's a hockey player who has never scored more than 47 points in a season. He's already 26, so I don't see much more developing happening. He had FOUR points last season in 26 games. FOUR. This guy might never reach 20 goals ever again.  

 

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

Don't look at the point totals. Anderson was hurt most of last year. He has size, he plays a strong power game, and he can finish. I think at worst, he'll be another Joel Armia (which yes, would be a bad trade for the Habs but still a useful player) and at best, he'll give us what Erik Cole gave us a few years back. I think he'll be a nice addition to a line like Drouin-Suzuki. Drouin has always played well with Armia IMO, because Armia have him more space and did a lot of the dirty work. Now picture that with a better version in Anderson who can maybe produce more offensively. I think it'll work.

Agree with BT.  Stats from last year dont tell Anderson's full story. It was, by all accounts, a nightmare season for him with a serious injury he rushed back with. Remember Gallagher's 2016-17 season where he only scored 10 goals in 60+ games?  

If you look at Anderson before that, he was trending (heavily) up: 17 - 19 - 27 goals.   He wont get you a ton of assists most likely but could well be a consistent 30 goal scorer on the right line.   I think BT's suggestion (and where he's likely penciled in) of Drouin - Suzuki - Anderson will be very good.  As mentioned, he's Armia with a wicked shot and very good hockey IQ in terms of knowing where to go in the offensive zone for room and rebounds.  When he doesnt find room, he'll make it himself. I saw him fight Chara a few years back and while he didnt win, its maybe the first time ive ever seen someone at least make it close. 

 

Having said all that, while im happy to have him, i still think we should have gotten more for Domi who imho is a more appealing, consistent player who plays a more important role.   It could all work out but once again I think MB sold too low. 

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...