Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
H_T_L

2020-21 State Of The Habs

199 posts in this topic

On 10/23/2020 at 6:21 PM, BigTed3 said:

All that seemed to suggest that the Habs will go into the season with the worst possible configuration for their defence and play Chiarot-Weber and Edmundson-Petry as their top 4, followed by Mete-Romanov having the inside edge for the 3rd pairing with one guy playing the off-side. The 7th job would be Kulak's unless he's dealt or Juulsen supplants him. Utterly disappointed by all of this... the defence will be our downfall.

Agree that this is likely what we'll see.  Not happy.  We needed to make the group better, but at very least *maybe* this could have been a decent group:

Romanov - Weber
Kulak - Petry
Chairot - Juulsen


Instead, we're likely going to get:

Chiarot - Weber
Edmundson - Petry
Romanov - Mete




 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Price reporting his new addition to the family. It's a boy. Congrats.:6280:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everyone so high on Kulak?  He looked lost last season, certainly doesn't add much of a physical element, nor is a huge impact on Offense.  I think Chariot and Edmunson are both an upgrade over him.  TBH I think Kulak should be delt while he does have some value as Fluery and Brooks are both better than he is.

 

Maybe I missed something watching him play, but certainly not a huge fan

Edited by 26NCounting
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 26NCounting said:

Why is everyone so high on Kulak?  He looked lost last season, certainly doesn't add much of a physical element, nor is a huge impact on Offense.  I think Chariot and Edmunson are both an upgrade over him.  TBH I think Kulak should be delt while he does have some value as Fluery and Brooks are both better than he is.

 

Maybe I missed something watching him play, but certainly not a huge fan

I tend to agree, he had a good playoff run but during the season he was off and on and his production was so so. i know a lot of folks who are into the advanced stats are not high on Edmundson and Chiarot but I feel they will add some stability to the Dcorps. we gave up a ton of goals right after we scored last season and they should help our PK too. having some big bodies also take the heavy lifting off of Webber and Petry and may make them more effective, if Romanov is a revelation and or one of our young guns suddenly takes a big leap forward they can be moved.

0

Share this post


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

Why is everyone so high on Kulak?  He looked lost last season, certainly doesn't add much of a physical element, nor is a huge impact on Offense.  I think Chariot and Edmunson are both an upgrade over him.  TBH I think Kulak should be delt while he does have some value as Fluery and Brooks are both better than he is.

 

Maybe I missed something watching him play, but certainly not a huge fan

I mean ultimately we're all going to have different opinions but to me, if we look at ranking our dmen, I believe we have two top pairing guys in  Weber, Petry  a few possible second pair guys(Kulak, Chiarot, Juulsen, Mete) but all of them are, imho #4s not #3s.    We then have a plethora of bottom pairing guys, with Romanov being a wildcard (can he be a 1st?)

So  i dont necessarily think Kulak is anything special but i think he's a fine #4 (if Petry is your #3). Chairot, Edmundson, Mete, Juulsen - maybe one of those guys are too - and certainly any of them (plus Fleury) are decent 3rd pairing guys.  All are NHL defensmen.

I think the problem is that, aside from size, what does Edmundson bring to the table that Kulak didnt?  At least with Kulak you have a guy who may not be as positionally sound but can skate well enough to compensate.  


To me, the issue isnt so much Kulak vs Chiarot vs Edmundson vs Mete.  We have a good all round defense. The problem is putting them in the right order, and most importantly finding a guy to play #1LD so everyone else falls back into place.

 

Imagine for a minute that Romanov breaks out & is immediately NHL top pairing ready. Then you suddenly have a strong defense with Weber, Petry & Romanov as your top 3 - no matter who plays #4-6.  Thats a huge "if" though, and i think MB could have addressed that better than bringing in another #4-6 guy in Edmundson

0

Share this post


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

I mean ultimately we're all going to have different opinions but to me, if we look at ranking our dmen, I believe we have two top pairing guys in  Weber, Petry  a few possible second pair guys(Kulak, Chiarot, Juulsen, Mete) but all of them are, imho #4s not #3s.    We then have a plethora of bottom pairing guys, with Romanov being a wildcard (can he be a 1st?)

So  i dont necessarily think Kulak is anything special but i think he's a fine #4 (if Petry is your #3). Chairot, Edmundson, Mete, Juulsen - maybe one of those guys are too - and certainly any of them (plus Fleury) are decent 3rd pairing guys.  All are NHL defensmen.

I think the problem is that, aside from size, what does Edmundson bring to the table that Kulak didnt?  At least with Kulak you have a guy who may not be as positionally sound but can skate well enough to compensate.  


To me, the issue isnt so much Kulak vs Chiarot vs Edmundson vs Mete.  We have a good all round defense. The problem is putting them in the right order, and most importantly finding a guy to play #1LD so everyone else falls back into place.

 

Imagine for a minute that Romanov breaks out & is immediately NHL top pairing ready. Then you suddenly have a strong defense with Weber, Petry & Romanov as your top 3 - no matter who plays #4-6.  Thats a huge "if" though, and i think MB could have addressed that better than bringing in another #4-6 guy in Edmundson

Perhaps he tried? not many players want to come here although that may change if we have the season i think we will.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ramcharger440 said:

Perhaps he tried? not many players want to come here although that may change if we have the season i think we will.

A couple of things:

1) before the UFA period started, it was pretty clear MB wasnt going to make any moves. He flat out said he wasnt persuing Krug, for example, which,if you identified LD as a weakness, you'd at least explore.  im 99% sure he's confident in our defense with the addition of Romanov and Edmundson.

2) I think the idea of free agents not wanting to come to montreal is overblown.  As fans, we always compare our team to the 30 other teams but when you compare each team 1 on 1, most teams have a pretty similar track record at attracting free agents.  Weather can play a factor, as can taxes, but for other players they want to play in a hockey market or closer to home etc.   We've had our fare share of fop UFA over the years.  A guy like Alzner may not have worked out but he was one of the top names heading into that year's UFA crop.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   The Toronto Sports Network asked Mike Johnson and Craig Button today " which Canadian team is in the best shape ?" :

 Mike Johnson had #1 Toronto #2 Calgary #3 Vancouver #4 Montreal #5 Winnipeg #6 Edmonton #7 Ottawa 

Craig Button had ...#1 Montreal #2 Calgary #3 Winnipeg #4 Toronto #5 Vancouver #6 Edmonton # 7 Ottawa ...interesting 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, arpem-can said:

   The Toronto Sports Network asked Mike Johnson and Craig Button today " which Canadian team is in the best shape ?" :

 Mike Johnson had #1 Toronto #2 Calgary #3 Vancouver #4 Montreal #5 Winnipeg #6 Edmonton #7 Ottawa 

Craig Button had ...#1 Montreal #2 Calgary #3 Winnipeg #4 Toronto #5 Vancouver #6 Edmonton # 7 Ottawa ...interesting 

That is interesting. 9 times out of 10 im siding with Johnson over Button but i think I agree more with Craig on this one.

My own list would be: 

Calgary - Montreal - Vancouver - Edmonton - Winterpeg - Toronto - Ottawa

I think that Calgary & Montreal have the best chance of being "safe bets" with teams like Edmonton and TO possibly doing better if their stars play like stars and their plugs can just "hold on" during their shifts. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the habs will do to get under the cap or when will they get under it just because if the season starting in January you'd think they would be under it soon if not already 

Edited by pcharnish
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, pcharnish said:

I wonder what the habs will do to get under the cap or when will they get under it just because if the season starting in January you'd think they would be under it soon if not already 

They were already under the cap ($383k under to be exact) when Ouellet's money was taken off the roster (presumably he will immediately be sent to the minors) but they only have 21 players on the roster.   Most likely they want to add 2 players but it is conceivable they enter the season with the players they have (12F, 7D and 2G) and see where injuries happen.
 

The team could easily make a move like waiving Weal (effectively burying most of his $1.4m contract) but they'd have to bring up a guy like Poehling or Evans (neither of whom is listed on the active roster right now).

The smart move at this point would probably be to try to trade Byron (if he's even tradable) to clear up some space.  I like Byron & he's quite a versatile player but he's clearly your 11th-13th forward & he makes $3.4m a year which is not ideal.  I also feel like Kulak is probably being shopped - $1.8m would allow you to bring up both Juulsen and Poehling.

So you could wave Weal, trade Kulak and replace them with Evans, Poehling, Juulsen & Fleury (assuming you didnt have to retain/take back salary on Kulak) to bring your roster up to 23 men.   Of course Id still rather have Kulak than Edmundson but maybe he'll surprise me. 

0

Share this post


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

They were already under the cap ($383k under to be exact) when Ouellet's money was taken off the roster (presumably he will immediately be sent to the minors) but they only have 21 players on the roster.   Most likely they want to add 2 players but it is conceivable they enter the season with the players they have (12F, 7D and 2G) and see where injuries happen.
 

The team could easily make a move like waiving Weal (effectively burying most of his $1.4m contract) but they'd have to bring up a guy like Poehling or Evans (neither of whom is listed on the active roster right now).

The smart move at this point would probably be to try to trade Byron (if he's even tradable) to clear up some space.  I like Byron & he's quite a versatile player but he's clearly your 11th-13th forward & he makes $3.4m a year which is not ideal.  I also feel like Kulak is probably being shopped - $1.8m would allow you to bring up both Juulsen and Poehling.

So you could wave Weal, trade Kulak and replace them with Evans, Poehling, Juulsen & Fleury (assuming you didnt have to retain/take back salary on Kulak) to bring your roster up to 23 men.   Of course Id still rather have Kulak than Edmundson but maybe he'll surprise me. 

I have a similar question to this. 

Who would be for bringing back Chucky on a 700k 1 year deal? We would have waive Weal for sure if you did. You would have 2 options 1. It only allows for a 21 man roster but Chucky could get 20 goals again on a line with KK and Taffoli. 2. Trade two of Byron, Kulak and Armia for picks. That would make a possible line up of

Tatar-Danault-Gallagher 

Drouin-Suzuki-Anderson

Galchenyuk-Kotkaniemi-Taffoli

Lehkonen-Evans-Armia/Byron

Belzile-Weal 

Chiarot-Weber 

Edmondson-Petry 

Romanov-Mete

Juulsen

Would you do it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

I have a similar question to this. 

Who would be for bringing back Chucky on a 700k 1 year deal? We would have waive Weal for sure if you did. You would have 2 options 1. It only allows for a 21 man roster but Chucky could get 20 goals again on a line with KK and Taffoli. 2. Trade two of Byron, Kulak and Armia for picks. That would make a possible line up of

Would you do it?

I certainly wouldnt be opposed to bringing him back on a show me deal.  

I dont think that MB would want him back.  I dont think Julien would want him back. I dont think Chucky would want to come back.

I could be wrong about 1 or 2 of those things but I suspect that at least one of the 3 is correct, so... probs no Chucky. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, arpem-can said:

   The Toronto Sports Network asked Mike Johnson and Craig Button today " which Canadian team is in the best shape ?" :

 Mike Johnson had #1 Toronto #2 Calgary #3 Vancouver #4 Montreal #5 Winnipeg #6 Edmonton #7 Ottawa 

Craig Button had ...#1 Montreal #2 Calgary #3 Winnipeg #4 Toronto #5 Vancouver #6 Edmonton # 7 Ottawa ...interesting 

 

3 hours ago, maas_art said:

That is interesting. 9 times out of 10 im siding with Johnson over Button but i think I agree more with Craig on this one.

My own list would be: 

Calgary - Montreal - Vancouver - Edmonton - Winterpeg - Toronto - Ottawa

I think that Calgary & Montreal have the best chance of being "safe bets" with teams like Edmonton and TO possibly doing better if their stars play like stars and their plugs can just "hold on" during their shifts. 

In the "best shape" to me means not only are they competitive this year but that they're in good shape for the future with their farm system, not up against cap concerns going forward, etc. I think one's answer depends on how they define the term... my list would differ from everyone else's:

1. Montreal - need some things to pan out, but we have some really good young players with potential, especially on D and at center. Those are key positions. Will depend a bit on whether we can hit a homerun with someone like Norlinder to be a #1 D man and whether Primeau ends up being NHL caliber, but I think the Habs will be competitive for the next 5-6 years.

2. Vancouver: Pettersson is a stud. Hughes is a modern-day D man. They have the young pieces to build around and they're already competitive now. They need Demko or someone else to step up as a long-term goalie solution though and they could use a bit more depth. Juolevi is heading towards bust territory if he doesn't develop soon.

3. Edmonton: McDavid and Draisaitl keep you competitive for the next 5 years. Evan Bouchard and Philip Broberg could be game-changers for this team in 2-3, so they're going to have more window to work with. Puuljujarvi is back. They need help in goal, but they have the potential.

4. Ottawa: Not sure why everyone has them last. They'll be bad again this year, but you can build around Chabot as a 7-10 year #1 D man and they just came out with two top 5 draft picks and a few other nice pieces in their organization. They are setting up to be very strong in a few years and if it wasn't for their owner holding them  back they would be higher up this list based on talent pool alone.

5. Toronto: they have a strong top of the line-up with Matthews, Marner, Tavares, Nylander, and Rielly. The rest of the D is questionable. The cap room is questionable. They have another year or two to go for it and then they're going to be in trouble unless they can move salary. I don't love where they're at because I don't think they're a top 5 Cup contender right now despite being in their window actively, and the future is less bright than the present.

6. Calgary: they've traded away a few top picks in recent years and I don't love their prospect pool. Gaudreau appears to be on the outs, goaltending is a mess. Don't love thi situation.

7. Winnipeg: likewise, not quite good enough to be a contender now but not sure where they're headed either. Some of their stars are aging and their D is maybe the worst in the league without Byfuglien. So what's their window? They're in no-man's land right now.

0

Share this post


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

I certainly wouldnt be opposed to bringing him back on a show me deal.  

I dont think that MB would want him back.  I dont think Julien would want him back. I dont think Chucky would want to come back.

I could be wrong about 1 or 2 of those things but I suspect that at least one of the 3 is correct, so... probs no Chucky. 

This is the only place he has really found any success. So he may want a chance to prove himself. MB probably would do it cause he likes his reclamation projects. CJ may not want to do it but probably is one of the best coaches for AG to go to cause he already knows AG's limits.

Edited by campabee82
0

Share this post


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

I have a similar question to this. 

Who would be for bringing back Chucky on a 700k 1 year deal?

Would you do it?

No . The Habs would never re sign him  and I see no need to bring him back .  He's going to end up playing in the KHL with that other Russian they got rid of .

Edited by Regis22
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing back Galchenyuk is an interesting consideration. I mean, he's gotta be good for what? 30-40 points? However, I assume he would be slotted in on a bottom six line... Not sure Julien would see the value of having him there. I just can't see it happening.

0

Share this post


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

In the "best shape" to me means not only are they competitive this year but that they're in good shape for the future with their farm system, not up against cap concerns going forward, etc. I think one's answer depends on how they define the term... my list would differ from everyone else's:

Thats fair (and good breakdowns) but i read it as "for the 2020-21 season" and I would guess, based on their rankings, Button and Johnson did too. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Bringing back Galchenyuk is an interesting consideration. I mean, he's gotta be good for what? 30-40 points? However, I assume he would be slotted in on a bottom six line... Not sure Julien would see the value of having him there. I just can't see it happening.

 Clearly we don’t think he’s any better than Weal, Poehling or Evans in terms of potential - Gally had some talent but it’s largely been wasted and time to move on to other projects - Ottawa is a good wasteland for him 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, claremont said:

 Clearly we don’t think he’s any better than Weal, Poehling or Evans in terms of potential - Gally had some talent but it’s largely been wasted and time to move on to other projects - Ottawa is a good wasteland for him 

 

35 minutes ago, claremont said:

 Clearly we don’t think he’s any better than Weal, Poehling or Evans in terms of potential - Gally had some talent but it’s largely been wasted and time to move on to other projects - Ottawa is a good wasteland for him 

since he signed with Ottawa for only slightly over 1 mill my guess is Montreal already moved on and Galchenyuk didn't want to play on the 4th line making 1/4 of what he made in Montreal as a reminder of how far he has fallen off the charts ...in Ottawa he gets to play 1st or 2nd and PP time and put points up to try again next year to land a bigger contract ...I wish him well just not against the Habs  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, claremont said:

 Clearly we don’t think he’s any better than Weal, Poehling or Evans in terms of potential - Gally had some talent but it’s largely been wasted and time to move on to other projects - Ottawa is a good wasteland for him 

Nah, I think Ottawa will be a good spot for him. He'll see plenty of top-six minutes and PP time. He's only 26 years old. I wasn't interested in bringing him back here, but I think he'll have a successful season playing for the Senators (i.e. 45-50 points).

Edited by jennifer_rocket
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tossing this out to see others opinions....

 

Would like to see the habs move on from Drouin move him for a pick and take a run at signing Hoffman.

 

Yes we get older but I believe we get a much more rounded player that will play the 200' game

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

Just tossing this out to see others opinions....

 

Would like to see the habs move on from Drouin move him for a pick and take a run at signing Hoffman.

 

Yes we get older but I believe we get a much more rounded player that will play the 200' game

If a team has the money to afford Drouin i would think they would use it to sign Hoffman themselves rather then give up assets to get JD. That's what i would do.

0

Share this post


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

If a team has the money to afford Drouin i would think they would use it to sign Hoffman themselves rather then give up assets to get JD. That's what i would do.

But dude JD has so much potential........at some point he better show it! i would move on too i hate to say it but i don't think we will ever see much more than we already have. and he plays selfish, soft and scared. a player like Hoffman and all his so called baggage might love a chance to come play here on what looks like it may be a good team if so he may tow the line and just play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ramcharger440 said:

But dude JD has so much potential........at some point he better show it! i would move on too i hate to say it but i don't think we will ever see much more than we already have. and he plays selfish, soft and scared. a player like Hoffman and all his so called baggage might love a chance to come play here on what looks like it may be a good team if so he may tow the line and just play.

And most other teams can clearly see this as well ... Drouin despite his natural talent will probably never put it together enough to be more than what he is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.