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

2020-21 State Of The Habs


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Bergevin is approaching nine years on the job this May. Have we progressed at all over those nine years? I would say no. The team Bergevin inherited was able to make the playoffs for the first few seasons under his guidance. However, we now look like a team with little direction and little capacity to even make the playoffs. Let's forget about being a contender. And to be frank, we only made the "playoffs" last season because of COVID. If we make it this year, it will be because of the shortcomings of Calgary, Ottawa, and Vancouver. Not because we've been a competent or consistent team.

There isn't a single player on this team that I can say will be a pillar of this organization for a future Cup window. And yes... I am including Suzuki, Romanov, and Kotkaniemi. Bergevin wasted Price's best years. And now we're tied to both Weber and Price as their play diminishes and we're on the hook for their massive salaries. The cap implications of those two contracts is awful. Our D is awful. It makes no sense that we have ~$15 million invested in Weber, Edmundson, and Chiarot.

Yes, he's made some good trades. But those trades have not resulted in us even being considered a playoff team. That is a massive failure. Bergevin's tenure needs to end and we need to rebuild. Not reset. Not retool. We need a major overhaul.

Marc Bergevin
Carey Price
Shea Weber
Ben Chiarot
Joel Edmundson
Paul Byron

Sorry, nothing personal, but we need to get out from under these contracts. As hard as it will be, it's something a new GM will need to attempt to accomplish.

I agree with this, Edmundson excluded because he has been quite good most of this season. The thing however is this MB is likely not getting fired unfortunately because GM doesn't have the balls to do it to his friend. No one will take Price for anything of value after the season he has had this year. The only hope we have at getting rid of Weber is IF he retires or is left unprotected in the ED but I doubt Seattle would take him anyway and he is too conceded to retire especially after earlier this week when he said he wanted MORE playing time. Byron we would have to give up at least a 2nd maybe a 2nd + 3rd or more to dump his contract. Chiarot is the only player on the list as I see having any value on the list and I don't see us getting anything more than a 4th MAYBE a 3rd. So while we would be trying to rebuild we are not going to get any picks of value to assist with the rebuild. Instead we will just be stockpiling more 3rd-7th round picks of which we have a too many already and have had too many over the last 4 years. However even with those players all gone I don't see our team as being bad enough to get top picks or good enough to contend so we would still be a middling team. Our lineup would still include players like KK, Suzuki, Petry, Danault, Drouin, Gallagher, Romanov, Toffoli, Anderson and Tatar so we would still be in playoff contention but not cup contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Bergevin is approaching nine years on the job this May. Have we progressed at all over those nine years? I would say no. The team Bergevin inherited was able to make the playoffs for the first few seasons under his guidance. However, we now look like a team with little direction and little capacity to even make the playoffs. Let's forget about being a contender. And to be frank, we only made the "playoffs" last season because of COVID. If we make it this year, it will be because of the shortcomings of Calgary, Ottawa, and Vancouver. Not because we've been a competent or consistent team.

There isn't a single player on this team that I can say will be a pillar of this organization for a future Cup window. And yes... I am including Suzuki, Romanov, and Kotkaniemi. Bergevin wasted Price's best years. And now we're tied to both Weber and Price as their play diminishes and we're on the hook for their massive salaries. The cap implications of those two contracts is awful. Our D is awful. It makes no sense that we have ~$15 million invested in Weber, Edmundson, and Chiarot.

Yes, he's made some good trades. But those trades have not resulted in us even being considered a playoff team. That is a massive failure. Bergevin's tenure needs to end and we need to rebuild. Not reset. Not retool. We need a major overhaul.

Marc Bergevin, Carey Price, Shea Weber, Ben Chiarot, Joel Edmundson, Paul Byron

Sorry, nothing personal, but we need to get out from under these contracts. As hard as it will be, it's something a new GM will need to attempt to accomplish.

You've understated hard - with the flat cap, those contracts will be heavy boat anchors!  While you feel we may not have pillars / foundations etc. , we have a lot of IF's that we should not give up on just yet, and if the 73-75 Islanders did that, they would never have morphed into contenders. This team needs to make a major commitment to youth and prospects, so I'm in strong favour of your direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, campabee82 said:

I agree with this, Edmundson excluded because he has been quite good most of this season. The thing however is this MB is likely not getting fired unfortunately because GM doesn't have the balls to do it to his friend. No one will take Price for anything of value after the season he has had this year. The only hope we have at getting rid of Weber is IF he retires or is left unprotected in the ED but I doubt Seattle would take him anyway and he is too conceited to retire especially after earlier this week when he said he wanted MORE playing time. Byron we would have to give up at least a 2nd maybe a 2nd + 3rd or more to dump his contract. Chiarot is the only player on the list as I see having any value on the list and I don't see us getting anything more than a 4th MAYBE a 3rd. So while we would be trying to rebuild we are not going to get any picks of value to assist with the rebuild. Instead we will just be stockpiling more 3rd-7th round picks of which we have a too many already and have had too many over the last 4 years. However even with those players all gone I don't see our team as being bad enough to get top picks or good enough to contend so we would still be a middling team. Our lineup would still include players like KK, Suzuki, Petry, Danault, Drouin, Gallagher, Romanov, Toffoli, Anderson and Tatar so we would still be in playoff contention but not cup contenders.

Petry deserves a chance to win - he may be one of our only tradeable pieces for a future prospect or top draft choice. We need to move on from Danault, and Tatar. Drouin has little  trade value at present. Perhaps we should use our cap room to take on someone else's garbage non-tradeable 2 year contracts for prospects while we are in a bit of cap hell. I'm ok with 2nd round draft choices - once we get into 3rd and 4th rounds, the odds diminish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Bergevin is approaching nine years on the job this May. Have we progressed at all over those nine years? I would say no. The team Bergevin inherited was able to make the playoffs for the first few seasons under his guidance. However, we now look like a team with little direction and little capacity to even make the playoffs. Let's forget about being a contender. And to be frank, we only made the "playoffs" last season because of COVID. If we make it this year, it will be because of the shortcomings of Calgary, Ottawa, and Vancouver. Not because we've been a competent or consistent team.

There isn't a single player on this team that I can say will be a pillar of this organization for a future Cup window. And yes... I am including Suzuki, Romanov, and Kotkaniemi. Bergevin wasted Price's best years. And now we're tied to both Weber and Price as their play diminishes and we're on the hook for their massive salaries. The cap implications of those two contracts is awful. Our D is awful. It makes no sense that we have ~$15 million invested in Weber, Edmundson, and Chiarot.

Yes, he's made some good trades. But those trades have not resulted in us even being considered a playoff team. That is a massive failure. Bergevin's tenure needs to end and we need to rebuild. Not reset. Not retool. We need a major overhaul.

Marc Bergevin
Carey Price
Shea Weber
Ben Chiarot
Joel Edmundson
Paul Byron

Sorry, nothing personal, but we need to get out from under these contracts. As hard as it will be, it's something a new GM will need to attempt to accomplish.

Add ownership to that lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, campabee82 said:

I hate to disagree with this cause so much of it is true but here are the 2 I disagree with.

1 elite winger we actually have 2 and 8f Drouin would smarten up a bit I would say 3. Gallagher ranks 5th in the NHL for 5 on 5 goals over the last 3 seasons and not only that but also ranks in the top 5 of many other advanced stats categories see link. The second player is Toffoli who right now sits 11 goals behind Matthew's for the league lead. When was the last time we had a top 10 scorer this close to the end of the season?

2 Petry is 2 goals behind the league leader in goals by a D man while playing 22-25 minutes a night with 14 games left in the season and gives up nothing defensively. I would say that ranks him in the top 15 of the league maybe even top 5 for RHD. 

1. I think Gallagher is a #1 RW in the league. I don't think he's elite. Toffoli is definitely not elite. I'm not looking at how we're ranking a player for this one season, I'm saying who are the top wingers in the league in terms of how you would build your team or who you would trade for whom. Would you trade Ovechkin for Gallagher or Toffoli? Would you trade Marner? Rantanen? Marchand? Pastrnak? I can think of 20 guys I'd rather have at wing than any one of our players and who would be more impactful in terms of driving play.

2. With Petry, as I said, I think he's a strong defenceman and clearly a #1 guy. But I also don't think he's as useful an asset as some of those younger horses (Jones, Makar, etc.) that I listed because he just can't keep up. He hasn't scored in 15 games and only has 5 assists over that time, so his play has clearly dropped off and he and Weber do this every year where they start strong and taper off as they wear down. Read my post, and I said Petry might be elite, I didn't say no. But I think he's elite over a 20-game span and not over 82. If you want to maintain his play at an elite level, he needs to be better-supported. He can't be the only top 4 D man on the entire defence corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, claremont said:

 

As much as I p'd off at tonight's game, Poorly constructed with no true direction is a pretty strong statement so I will disagree on that degree as well

The direction has to be for the window of 2022-23 or 2023-24 or 2-3 seasons from now. In a roster of 13 forwards, 7 d, 2 G, we should have a nucleus of  at least 11 players to be built around - Goal - Primeau up and comer but who knows what we can do with the Price contract anchor , At D, Petry, Romanov, and three of Norlinder, Guhle, Struble, Harris should be in the lineup- (Edmundson is filler even though signed, I hope he is traded). I don't think Brooks, Fleury or Fairweather make the jump. At RHD Petry will be slowing so we will need some more dynamics of a true #1 there, so that will be a weakness even though Romanov and Guhle can play that side, I don't think they are offensively gifted enough. Weber will be retired and not playing for $ 3 million year after next and virtually certain not for $1 million the next year. At forward, Anderson, Toffoli, Gallagher, KK, Suzuki, Caufield, Ylonen, should be on the ascending side. I don't see Drouin unless he has a radical change in the year 23-24 as his contract expires so there needs to be more depth at LW beyond Toffoli. I think Poehling is a 4th line centre, or a checking winger as his foot speed is a challenge. I am choosing to see a constructed plan with a sense of direction on building thru youth. The present lineup is inadequate to contend. There's a lot of IF's here, and we need to luck out on another centre, LW, and RHD thru F/A, trade or draft for those future seasons.

Much of what you say here though is based on best-case scenario. It's assuming that the large majority of our prospects become impact NHLers, which is not a given. Look back over the past 9 years and you'll find plenty of posts talking about how our defence would be great when Beaulieu becomes a top-pairing LHD and Tinordi becomes a shutdown D man and maybe he could be the next Chara and how Markov will still be an impact player into his late 30's. And you'll find talk about Louis Leblanc or Guillaume Latendresse or Michael McCarron were going to become stars or how Victor Mete was a diamond in the rough and a solution to our LHD woes. It's true that any one of our prospects could become a star and I'm certainly thrilled about their potential, but it's a mistake to believe that it's likely or that it's enough.

You talk about how 2023 might be a target to contend. I agree that it's more realistic than present. But if that has been the plan all along, then why the heck have we hung onto Shea Weber when we had the opportunity to trade him a couple of years ago before he fell off the cliff? Why have we hung on to Carey Price? 90% of players see a significant drop-off in their level of play when they hit the 32-35 range. Sure, there are the rare exceptions of guys who hang on a bit longer, but most NHlers peak in their early to mid 20's, kind of plateau through their mid-late 20's, and then start to drop off when they hit 30, eventually reaching a point where they're role players or just not able to play in the NHL. Look at Weber. Look at Gomez, Kaberle, Hamrlik, Plekanec, Streit, Markov, Kovalchuk, Staal, Semin, Gonchar, Briere, Perry etc. These were all really strong players at one point and to have had them here in their heyday would have been fantastic. But we can't keep pretending the players we have on our roster at the time we have them are still the same players they once were. Weber is currently a #4-5 D man. He's getting #1 minutes. Price is a passable starter but his numbers put him in the 20-40 range for a goalie now, not the top 5. Staal has shown he's struggling to stay in the NHL. Perry is too slow to keep up at ES, even though he's been great on the PP.

So now fast-forward to 2023-24. Yes, I think Suzuki and Kotkaniemi will both be in their prime then. Is one of the going to be a Barkov or a Barzal? Maybe. But it's also possible they become Plekanec-Koivu, which isn't bad, but it's not driving you to a championship unless you're elite somewhere else. Yes, I love Josh Anderson and there's hope for Caufield being an elite scorer and I really like Ylonen as being an underrated prospect. But in the 2023-24 season, Petry will be 36 and Gallagher and Toffoli will both be turning 32, Danault 31, and Tatar 33. That's if those guys are still here. They might still be serviceable players or they might not be, but I doubt any of them are better then than they are today. So look at our projected D corps... Petry at 36, Romanov, an older/slower Edmundson or Chiarot, and a collection of guys who haven't played a game in the NHL yet. That's what we're banking on right now.

And so here's what my point has been all along: you're not winning now. You weren't winning last year or the year before that. You're not winning a Cup next year either. So why are we hanging on to all these veterans whom you can't win with and who aren't going to be around when you can win? When I say there's no plan or direction, I mean that there's no plan towards being a top 5-8 team in the league and having a realistic shot at winning a Cup. I posted a week or two ago about the Cup winners in the post-lockout era and how most of them were top 5-8 teams in the regular season the years they won. Bergevin's "plan" is to build a team that has a chance at sneaking into the playoffs every year. He's never tried to be elite. His goal is to avoid being a bottom-feeder, to stay average and mediocre for a long time rather than to be elite for a shorter time, and when that's your plan, do you know what franchise you build? You build a team that makes the playoffs one year out of two and that almost never makes it out of the first round and that never gets a sniff of the Cup finals. That's the team we have under Bergevin. I have zero problem with a plan that says 2023-26 are the years where we can expect to challenge for a Cup. I have no problem with having long-term vision, and in fact I welcome that. But if that's the vision, you also can't sit here and acquire Dwight King's and Steve Ott's and Eric Staal's and Jon Merril's while failing to trade your Weber's, Price's, Chiarot's, Edmundson's, Byron's, Armia's, Lehkonen's, Tatar's, Danault's, and yes even Petry's (one of my favorite players but becoming less and less likely we'll win in a window with his being a central player).

Go back through Bergevin's tenure here and ask yourself when's the closest he's been to a Cup. Ask yourself what team nucleus felt like it was the most promising in terms of how few pieces extra we needed to get us over the hump and into elite status. My answer: it was when our core was Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Plekanec, Markov, and with two promising youngsters in Gallagher and Galchenyuk. It was 2013-15 range. That was a clear window, where if Bergevin had traded away some prospects or picks, he could have acquired a 1C and we would have been in a strong position. We had a great nucleus then. It was the nucleus that was handed to Bergevin. Since then, he's let that window pass by, he's traded our best players at their lowest possible values, and he's failed to pick a new window in which we're a challenger. To me, that's a lack of a vision and plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

 

Go back through Bergevin's tenure here and ask yourself when's the closest he's been to a Cup. Ask yourself what team nucleus felt like it was the most promising in terms of how few pieces extra we needed to get us over the hump and into elite status. My answer: it was when our core was Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Plekanec, Markov, and with two promising youngsters in Gallagher and Galchenyuk. It was 2013-15 range. That was a clear window, where if Bergevin had traded away some prospects or picks, he could have acquired a 1C and we would have been in a strong position. We had a great nucleus then. It was the nucleus that was handed to Bergevin. Since then, he's let that window pass by, he's traded our best players at their lowest possible values, and he's failed to pick a new window in which we're a challenger. To me, that's a lack of a vision and plan.

To me it's incompetence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

Vegas has a good team and Pacs and Stone (top players along with Petrangilo) are all by trade. It doesn't matter how you aquire your players , not every team wins a draft lottery.

By my count of the current roster only 4 players are "homegrown". That leaves 18 players either traded for or signed as free agents all during MB time. That, to me, is pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't use the word "rebuild" ....................................................... we can't wait another 28 years for that to happen so there is a Cup in Montreal. Sorry to say this, but I must agree that Carey's best days are behind him. I remember sitting in a restaurant in Toronto a few years back and we got talking to some Leafs. Someone asked how do you ever beat Carey Price, they answered, top shelf. Whenever I watch a game now, I am constantly noticing where the goals go in and you guessed it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night was a coaching issue. it has been most of this season there is the issue with asset management then there is the way we play, we can beat the Laffs but not Ottawa? COME ON! we are not as bad as last night and not a contender either the coach has the job of prepping the team mentally and with a solid game plan then he has to ice the players to win. young fast team in Ottawa why do we have slow vets playing? bigger hard hitting teams we play the younger faster players WTH? sure we have some holes but we also have some good players the issue that makes us so inconsistent is how we are using our players. many folks love to hate our Dcorps and there are issues there for sure but the team needs to score look at JD not getting any meaningful goal scoring from him Tater and Dano no real offence there either Suzuki is coming around a bit but he is still pretty much a rookie Anderson has been pretty good as has Tofu but we are a team that needs all of its parts getting it done. the coach we have now does not seem to be able to get the team going perhaps we need Torts! LOL! just joking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Much of what you say here though is based on best-case scenario. It's assuming that the large majority of our prospects become impact NHLers, which is not a given. 

I agree - I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - There are many IF's but the defensive prospect pipeline gives me hope for the future and I am clinging to that for a starting nucleus.

You talk about how 2023 might be a target to contend. I agree that it's more realistic than present. But if that has been the plan all along, then why the heck have we hung onto Shea Weber when we had the opportunity to trade him a couple of years ago before he fell off the cliff? Why have we hung on to Carey Price?

I don't think that has been the plan all along at all - I am suggesting that for the first time, I am seeing a new plan given that we have not dumped prospects for the last couple of years. Perhaps the arrogance of Bergevin's reset plan has led to a change in his thinking. IMO he took the easy way out to sign Toffoli and Edmundson as F/A's to save his job for another year. The Domi for Anderson trade does look good but how many of those can he make in the future?

So now fast-forward to 2023-24. Yes, I think Suzuki and Kotkaniemi will both be in their prime then. Is one of the going to be a Barkov or a Barzal? Maybe. But it's also possible they become Plekanec-Koivu, which isn't bad, but it's not driving you to a championship unless you're elite somewhere else. Yes, I love Josh Anderson and there's hope for Caufield being an elite scorer and I really like Ylonen as being an underrated prospect. But in the 2023-24 season, Petry will be 36 and Gallagher and Toffoli will both be turning 32, Danault 31, and Tatar 33.

I cannot imagine we resign Danault or Tatar and next year is Chiarot's last year unless he is hopefully traded, and if we did, then I would say that blows up the youth development plan. As for Petry, I suggest we take a hard look next year at his trade value vs. fall-off risk, but you still need some veterans on your team. 

And so here's what my point has been all along: you're not winning now. You weren't winning last year or the year before that. You're not winning a Cup next year either. So why are we hanging on to all these veterans whom you can't win with and who aren't going to be around when you can win?

I don't disagree with this point.  Chiarot and Edmundson are incompetent filler (taking up space) mistakes - we would have been better off trading an Armia, Byron, Tatar for a Heinola, Bouchard or Bean or similars and wait it out. 

When I say there's no plan or direction, I mean that there's no plan towards being a top 5-8 team in the league and having a realistic shot at winning a Cup. I posted a week or two ago about the Cup winners in the post-lockout era and how most of them were top 5-8 teams in the regular season the years they won. Bergevin's "plan" is to build a team that has a chance at sneaking into the playoffs every year. He's never tried to be elite. His goal is to avoid being a bottom-feeder, to stay average and mediocre for a long time rather than to be elite for a shorter time, and when that's your plan, do you know what franchise you build?

You build a team that makes the playoffs one year out of two and that almost never makes it out of the first round and that never gets a sniff of the Cup finals. That's the team we have under Bergevin. Since then, he's let that window pass by, he's traded our best players at their lowest possible values, and he's failed to pick a new window in which we're a challenger. To me, that's a lack of a vision and plan.

No debate on Bergevin's failures - He didn't have the patience and I think he was arrogant enough to think he could quickly fix it.  All I am suggesting is that I think he has a new plan through the draft and youth investment. Otherwise at the deadline, he would have traded away our better prospects. I would love to see MB gone and someone new, pick up his pieces but sadly I think Molson will say you made the playoffs so I will give you one more year to continue your progression. Picking at the 15-20 spot is unlikely to deliver elite players so some stronger moves are required. I have a fear that he will give up the farm for Eichel or even Crosby. I would offer that Detroit, Ottawa, LA Kings, New Jersey and Anaheim are in the dreaded rebuild mode with many draft picks, prospects and few stars - I don't count Buffalo there yet. I hold out some hope with the IF's and some moves that we can get younger with potential ascension. 

My replies are in bold to your statements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Much of what you say here though is based on best-case scenario. It's assuming that the large majority of our prospects become impact NHLers, which is not a given. Look back over the past 9 years and you'll find plenty of posts talking about how our defence would be great when Beaulieu becomes a top-pairing LHD and Tinordi becomes a shutdown D man and maybe he could be the next Chara and how Markov will still be an impact player into his late 30's. And you'll find talk about Louis Leblanc or Guillaume Latendresse or Michael McCarron were going to become stars or how Victor Mete was a diamond in the rough and a solution to our LHD woes. It's true that any one of our prospects could become a star and I'm certainly thrilled about their potential, but it's a mistake to believe that it's likely or that it's enough.

You talk about how 2023 might be a target to contend. I agree that it's more realistic than present. But if that has been the plan all along, then why the heck have we hung onto Shea Weber when we had the opportunity to trade him a couple of years ago before he fell off the cliff? Why have we hung on to Carey Price? 90% of players see a significant drop-off in their level of play when they hit the 32-35 range. Sure, there are the rare exceptions of guys who hang on a bit longer, but most NHlers peak in their early to mid 20's, kind of plateau through their mid-late 20's, and then start to drop off when they hit 30, eventually reaching a point where they're role players or just not able to play in the NHL. Look at Weber. Look at Gomez, Kaberle, Hamrlik, Plekanec, Streit, Markov, Kovalchuk, Staal, Semin, Gonchar, Briere, Perry etc. These were all really strong players at one point and to have had them here in their heyday would have been fantastic. But we can't keep pretending the players we have on our roster at the time we have them are still the same players they once were. Weber is currently a #4-5 D man. He's getting #1 minutes. Price is a passable starter but his numbers put him in the 20-40 range for a goalie now, not the top 5. Staal has shown he's struggling to stay in the NHL. Perry is too slow to keep up at ES, even though he's been great on the PP.

So now fast-forward to 2023-24. Yes, I think Suzuki and Kotkaniemi will both be in their prime then. Is one of the going to be a Barkov or a Barzal? Maybe. But it's also possible they become Plekanec-Koivu, which isn't bad, but it's not driving you to a championship unless you're elite somewhere else. Yes, I love Josh Anderson and there's hope for Caufield being an elite scorer and I really like Ylonen as being an underrated prospect. But in the 2023-24 season, Petry will be 36 and Gallagher and Toffoli will both be turning 32, Danault 31, and Tatar 33. That's if those guys are still here. They might still be serviceable players or they might not be, but I doubt any of them are better then than they are today. So look at our projected D corps... Petry at 36, Romanov, an older/slower Edmundson or Chiarot, and a collection of guys who haven't played a game in the NHL yet. That's what we're banking on right now.

And so here's what my point has been all along: you're not winning now. You weren't winning last year or the year before that. You're not winning a Cup next year either. So why are we hanging on to all these veterans whom you can't win with and who aren't going to be around when you can win? When I say there's no plan or direction, I mean that there's no plan towards being a top 5-8 team in the league and having a realistic shot at winning a Cup. I posted a week or two ago about the Cup winners in the post-lockout era and how most of them were top 5-8 teams in the regular season the years they won. Bergevin's "plan" is to build a team that has a chance at sneaking into the playoffs every year. He's never tried to be elite. His goal is to avoid being a bottom-feeder, to stay average and mediocre for a long time rather than to be elite for a shorter time, and when that's your plan, do you know what franchise you build? You build a team that makes the playoffs one year out of two and that almost never makes it out of the first round and that never gets a sniff of the Cup finals. That's the team we have under Bergevin. I have zero problem with a plan that says 2023-26 are the years where we can expect to challenge for a Cup. I have no problem with having long-term vision, and in fact I welcome that. But if that's the vision, you also can't sit here and acquire Dwight King's and Steve Ott's and Eric Staal's and Jon Merril's while failing to trade your Weber's, Price's, Chiarot's, Edmundson's, Byron's, Armia's, Lehkonen's, Tatar's, Danault's, and yes even Petry's (one of my favorite players but becoming less and less likely we'll win in a window with his being a central player).

Go back through Bergevin's tenure here and ask yourself when's the closest he's been to a Cup. Ask yourself what team nucleus felt like it was the most promising in terms of how few pieces extra we needed to get us over the hump and into elite status. My answer: it was when our core was Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Plekanec, Markov, and with two promising youngsters in Gallagher and Galchenyuk. It was 2013-15 range. That was a clear window, where if Bergevin had traded away some prospects or picks, he could have acquired a 1C and we would have been in a strong position. We had a great nucleus then. It was the nucleus that was handed to Bergevin. Since then, he's let that window pass by, he's traded our best players at their lowest possible values, and he's failed to pick a new window in which we're a challenger. To me, that's a lack of a vision and plan.

It's like reliving the nightmare,  all over again. & the team we have now, displays it. bergevin is all over the map, Harry scary. Can not stick to one plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Bird said:

Please don't use the word "rebuild" ....................................................... we can't wait another 28 years for that to happen so there is a Cup in Montreal. Sorry to say this, but I must agree that Carey's best days are behind him. I remember sitting in a restaurant in Toronto a few years back and we got talking to some Leafs. Someone asked how do you ever beat Carey Price, they answered, top shelf. Whenever I watch a game now, I am constantly noticing where the goals go in and you guessed it. 

Exactly!!  CP  is on his knees,  ALL the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

1. I think Gallagher is a #1 RW in the league. I don't think he's elite. Toffoli is definitely not elite. I'm not looking at how we're ranking a player for this one season, I'm saying who are the top wingers in the league in terms of how you would build your team or who you would trade for whom. Would you trade Ovechkin for Gallagher or Toffoli? Would you trade Marner? Rantanen? Marchand? Pastrnak? I can think of 20 guys I'd rather have at wing than any one of our players and who would be more impactful in terms of driving play.

2. With Petry, as I said, I think he's a strong defenceman and clearly a #1 guy. But I also don't think he's as useful an asset as some of those younger horses (Jones, Makar, etc.) that I listed because he just can't keep up. He hasn't scored in 15 games and only has 5 assists over that time, so his play has clearly dropped off and he and Weber do this every year where they start strong and taper off as they wear down. Read my post, and I said Petry might be elite, I didn't say no. But I think he's elite over a 20-game span and not over 82. If you want to maintain his play at an elite level, he needs to be better-supported. He can't be the only top 4 D man on the entire defence corps.

Like I said I wasn't trying to start a debate but if you followed the link I shared the states were for the 3 years prior to this one. Gallagher has not only been among the top 5 in 5 vs 5 goals but also many other advanced stats. You ask if I would trade Gallagher for guys like Raantanen, Marner, Marchand or Pasternak well my answer to that is absolutely not 3 of the 4. The only one I would consider is Raantanen but it would only be 1 for 1 and only due to the age difference as Raantanen fits better with the time frame of KK, Suzuki and Romanov. There are maybe 3-5 RW in the league I would consider moving Gally for and that list does not include Ovi or Stammer. Kane even would be hard for me to consider due to just the age gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

 You ask if I would trade Gallagher for guys like Raantanen, Marner, Marchand or Pasternak well my answer to that is absolutely not 3 of the 4. The only one I would consider is Raantanen but it would only be 1 for 1 and only due to the age difference as Raantanen fits better with the time frame of KK, Suzuki and Romanov. There are maybe 3-5 RW in the league I would consider moving Gally for and that list does not include Ovi or Stammer. Kane even would be hard for me to consider due to just the age gap.

Glad your not G. M . ( just kidding ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

Like I said I wasn't trying to start a debate but if you followed the link I shared the states were for the 3 years prior to this one. Gallagher has not only been among the top 5 in 5 vs 5 goals but also many other advanced stats. You ask if I would trade Gallagher for guys like Raantanen, Marner, Marchand or Pasternak well my answer to that is absolutely not 3 of the 4. The only one I would consider is Raantanen but it would only be 1 for 1 and only due to the age difference as Raantanen fits better with the time frame of KK, Suzuki and Romanov. There are maybe 3-5 RW in the league I would consider moving Gally for and that list does not include Ovi or Stammer. Kane even would be hard for me to consider due to just the age gap.

I get that fans tend to like their own players better and feel hard-pressed to trade the guys they have for something that's less known to them. That said, here's a partial list of guys I would immediately swap Gallagher for if I had the option (not looking at contracts, just skill and what they bring to the table):

- Ovechkin

- Rantanen

- Marner

- Marchand

- Pastrnak

- Stone

- Svechnikov

- Panarin

- Forsberg

- Huberdeau

- Connor

- Ehlers

- Laine

- Kucherov

- Benn

- Nylander

 

There are also guys who I would trade Gallagher for only on account of potential, like Stutzle or Kaprizov or Lafreniere, but where we can't say they're elite yet, and there are guys who I think today are better players than Gallagher but where I might have pause about actually making the trade, like Patrick Kane, Pacioretty, Landeskog, Stamkos, or Hall. In any case, as I said, I think Gallagher is a 1st line RW in the league. but I don't consider him to be elite. I don't think he's a superstar and I don't think you can build a team around him as your focal player. He's almost 30 and while he's a consistent performer and hard worker and good scorer, I don't yet think of him as a big-game player. I don't think of him as a guy who puts his team on his back and carries them to wins the way we've seen Ovechkin or Kane do. I don't see him as being a threat to be the top-scoring winger in the league. And I don't see him as being in contention for any major awards at the end of a season. He's a strong player, I'm not arguing that. He's just not in my definition of elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I get that fans tend to like their own players better and feel hard-pressed to trade the guys they have for something that's less known to them. That said, here's a partial list of guys I would immediately swap Gallagher for if I had the option (not looking at contracts, just skill and what they bring to the table):

- Ovechkin

- Rantanen

- Marner

- Marchand

- Pastrnak

- Stone

- Svechnikov

- Panarin

- Forsberg

- Huberdeau

- Connor

- Ehlers

- Laine

- Kucherov

- Benn

- Nylander

 

There are also guys who I would trade Gallagher for only on account of potential, like Stutzle or Kaprizov or Lafreniere, but where we can't say they're elite yet, and there are guys who I think today are better players than Gallagher but where I might have pause about actually making the trade, like Patrick Kane, Pacioretty, Landeskog, Stamkos, or Hall. In any case, as I said, I think Gallagher is a 1st line RW in the league. but I don't consider him to be elite. I don't think he's a superstar and I don't think you can build a team around him as your focal player. He's almost 30 and while he's a consistent performer and hard worker and good scorer, I don't yet think of him as a big-game player. I don't think of him as a guy who puts his team on his back and carries them to wins the way we've seen Ovechkin or Kane do. I don't see him as being a threat to be the top-scoring winger in the league. And I don't see him as being in contention for any major awards at the end of a season. He's a strong player, I'm not arguing that. He's just not in my definition of elite.

Ok here's my opinion on that list let's start with the ones we have the same.

Rantanen 

Pasternak

Svechnikov 

Conner

Panarin

Huberdeau 

Kucherov

Now that that is out of the way I will give my reasoning for the rest

Ovi - Too old to fit our contention window therefore not of interest. By contention window I mean with KK, Zuke, Romanov and Goal Caufield.

Marner - too soft

Ratboy - HELL NO

Pasternak -jthe only player I have on both lists but this is more because I am not a fan of his more than his skill level. LOL.

Stone - Like Ovi too old for our window

Forsberg - kind of a sideways move IMO

Ehlers -Again a sideways move IMO

Laine - too soft as well

Benn - too old and too slow like Staal

Nylander - way too soft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Go back through Bergevin's tenure here and ask yourself when's the closest he's been to a Cup. Ask yourself what team nucleus felt like it was the most promising in terms of how few pieces extra we needed to get us over the hump and into elite status. My answer: it was when our core was Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Plekanec, Markov, and with two promising youngsters in Gallagher and Galchenyuk. It was 2013-15 range. That was a clear window, where if Bergevin had traded away some prospects or picks, he could have acquired a 1C and we would have been in a strong position. We had a great nucleus then. It was the nucleus that was handed to Bergevin. Since then, he's let that window pass by, he's traded our best players at their lowest possible values, and he's failed to pick a new window in which we're a challenger. To me, that's a lack of a vision and plan.

Bluntly, I think the closest MB was to a cup was the team he inherited.   It's been a yoyo experience since then.  We haven't improved, and in same cases regressed ... and any window we had to win with Weber, Price and other 30+ players we have was in the past and firmly gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I get that fans tend to like their own players better and feel hard-pressed to trade the guys they have for something that's less known to them. That said, here's a partial list of guys I would immediately swap Gallagher for if I had the option (not looking at contracts, just skill and what they bring to the table):

- Ovechkin

- Rantanen

- Marner

- Marchand

- Pastrnak

- Stone

- Svechnikov

- Panarin

- Forsberg

- Huberdeau

- Connor

- Ehlers

- Laine

- Kucherov

- Benn

- Nylander

 

There are also guys who I would trade Gallagher for only on account of potential, like Stutzle or Kaprizov or Lafreniere, but where we can't say they're elite yet, and there are guys who I think today are better players than Gallagher but where I might have pause about actually making the trade, like Patrick Kane, Pacioretty, Landeskog, Stamkos, or Hall. In any case, as I said, I think Gallagher is a 1st line RW in the league. but I don't consider him to be elite. I don't think he's a superstar and I don't think you can build a team around him as your focal player. He's almost 30 and while he's a consistent performer and hard worker and good scorer, I don't yet think of him as a big-game player. I don't think of him as a guy who puts his team on his back and carries them to wins the way we've seen Ovechkin or Kane do. I don't see him as being a threat to be the top-scoring winger in the league. And I don't see him as being in contention for any major awards at the end of a season. He's a strong player, I'm not arguing that. He's just not in my definition of elite.

I too, would make any of those trades, except for Benn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Ok here's my opinion on that list let's start with the ones we have the same.

Rantanen 

Pasternak

Svechnikov 

Conner

Panarin

Huberdeau 

Kucherov

Now that that is out of the way I will give my reasoning for the rest

Ovi - Too old to fit our contention window therefore not of interest. By contention window I mean with KK, Zuke, Romanov and Goal Caufield.

Marner - too soft

Ratboy - HELL NO

Pasternak -jthe only player I have on both lists but this is more because I am not a fan of his more than his skill level. LOL.

Stone - Like Ovi too old for our window

Forsberg - kind of a sideways move IMO

Ehlers -Again a sideways move IMO

Laine - too soft as well

Benn - too old and too slow like Staal

Nylander - way too soft

I respect others' opinions to who they would want and not want, it's very subjective in the end. I will say, however, that if we're going to exclude Benn for being too old at 31 but accept Gallagher at 28, then it doesn't make sense to say Stone (who is exactly the same age as Gallagher) is too old or that Forsberg and Ehlers (2-3  years younger and maybe better fits for our "window") are lateral moves. Again, for my list, I was purely talking about who was a better aide to our team as opposed to who I would take on. If we want to re-frame the list as who is too old or so on, then as I said, I would then look at including players like Stutzle, Lafreniere, etc. who are much younger and not elite yet but who have a much better chance at getting there and who have more value than Gallagher in a trade because of their younger age and expected shelf life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

I respect others' opinions to who they would want and not want, it's very subjective in the end. I will say, however, that if we're going to exclude Benn for being too old at 31 but accept Gallagher at 28, then it doesn't make sense to say Stone (who is exactly the same age as Gallagher) is too old or that Forsberg and Ehlers (2-3  years younger and maybe better fits for our "window") are lateral moves. Again, for my list, I was purely talking about who was a better aide to our team as opposed to who I would take on. If we want to re-frame the list as who is too old or so on, then as I said, I would then look at including players like Stutzle, Lafreniere, etc. who are much younger and not elite yet but who have a much better chance at getting there and who have more value than Gallagher in a trade because of their younger age and expected shelf life.

That is fair, also I didn't look to see how old Benn was I just assumed he was 34+ because he seems to have been around forever. I apologize for that that one is on me lol. I think many people undervalue Gallagher. Many people think elite means they score goals at an above average rate, however the reality is that there are many many different ways to be elite. You say Gallagher is not elite but I am pretty sure I have seen you say that Danault is an elite defensive center (I could be mistaken though). To say that Gallagher doesn't drive play IMO is untrue though and the proof is in the pudding as they say. Since he went down our offense has been stagnant. He may not be the one that goes out and scores at a 50 goal rate but there have been many many many nights where he has scored the goal that started the comeback. If that is not putting the team on his back and carrying them to victory, we'll then I don't know what it is. Being top 5 in the league at 5 vs 5 in goals for the past 3 seasons plus having top 5 advanced stats numbers for the same time frame suggest that he is in fact elite. He is better than many of the players you categorize as elite in many areas, therefore he has to be considered elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

That is fair, also I didn't look to see how old Benn was I just assumed he was 34+ because he seems to have been around forever. I apologize for that that one is on me lol. I think many people undervalue Gallagher. Many people think elite means they score goals at an above average rate, however the reality is that there are many many different ways to be elite. You say Gallagher is not elite but I am pretty sure I have seen you say that Danault is an elite defensive center (I could be mistaken though). To say that Gallagher doesn't drive play IMO is untrue though and the proof is in the pudding as they say. Since he went down our offense has been stagnant. He may not be the one that goes out and scores at a 50 goal rate but there have been many many many nights where he has scored the goal that started the comeback. If that is not putting the team on his back and carrying them to victory, we'll then I don't know what it is. Being top 5 in the league at 5 vs 5 in goals for the past 3 seasons plus having top 5 advanced stats numbers for the same time frame suggest that he is in fact elite. He is better than many of the players you categorize as elite in many areas, therefore he has to be considered elite.

You're right that Gallagher has great 5v5 numbers and in fact, he is a pretty good goal scorer as well. He doesn't fit the concept of a sniper but he gets his goals nonetheless. Where he falls out of the elite category for me are the following:

- He isn't a guy I think you build a line or team around the way you can say that about a Kucherov, Pastrnak, Ovechkin, etc. He's worked out really well with Danault and Tatar, but I don't think to myself that you can put Gallagher with anyone and the line will have success.

- He's been injured a lot in his career and not just that, but he also plays a style of game that leads to a high risk of future injury. He's a small guy and he gets battered a lot and it gives pause as to his future value on that account.

- Gallagher doesn't provide a ton of value at special teams. Yes, his 5v5 play is top-line worthy, and I've said that I agree with you that he's a clear first-line player. But he hasn't been a huge PP asset over his career and he doesn't play the PK really. So I don't think we can just say he's on a top 5v5 line and therefore he's elite, he doesn't contribute as much as some of those other guys I listed in other facets of the game.

Everyone will have their own definition of elite, but again to me, I'm thinking of guys who are top 5 maybe top 10 in the league at center, D, or wing or top 5 goalies. I'm thinking of guys where if you were to dissolve all the teams and have a re-draft of everyone that would be someone's top choice (ie one of the first 31 players re-drafted). I like Gallagher, I think he's a valuable asset, I think he's a first-line player, but I simply don't think he's elite the way others are. (also just to be clear, I wasn't saying everyone on my list was elite either, just showing that I have a long-enough list of guys I'd consider more valuable than Gallagher at wing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

You're right that Gallagher has great 5v5 numbers and in fact, he is a pretty good goal scorer as well. He doesn't fit the concept of a sniper but he gets his goals nonetheless. Where he falls out of the elite category for me are the following:

- He isn't a guy I think you build a line or team around the way you can say that about a Kucherov, Pastrnak, Ovechkin, etc. He's worked out really well with Danault and Tatar, but I don't think to myself that you can put Gallagher with anyone and the line will have success.

- He's been injured a lot in his career and not just that, but he also plays a style of game that leads to a high risk of future injury. He's a small guy and he gets battered a lot and it gives pause as to his future value on that account.

- Gallagher doesn't provide a ton of value at special teams. Yes, his 5v5 play is top-line worthy, and I've said that I agree with you that he's a clear first-line player. But he hasn't been a huge PP asset over his career and he doesn't play the PK really. So I don't think we can just say he's on a top 5v5 line and therefore he's elite, he doesn't contribute as much as some of those other guys I listed in other facets of the game.

Everyone will have their own definition of elite, but again to me, I'm thinking of guys who are top 5 maybe top 10 in the league at center, D, or wing or top 5 goalies. I'm thinking of guys where if you were to dissolve all the teams and have a re-draft of everyone that would be someone's top choice (ie one of the first 31 players re-drafted). I like Gallagher, I think he's a valuable asset, I think he's a first-line player, but I simply don't think he's elite the way others are. (also just to be clear, I wasn't saying everyone on my list was elite either, just showing that I have a long-enough list of guys I'd consider more valuable than Gallagher at wing).

A lot of "elite' scorers don't play PK including McDavid. Which in my opinion makes a player a complete player is being able to play all aspects pf the game. So you are correct everyone has their own opinion on this. Gallagher actually has been effective on the pp in the past. His being in front of the goalie and pestering the defense has lead to a lot of goals , maybe he didn't score them himself but he may have caused them to happen. I do believe he could play on any line. A player like Gallagher also drives play by his own example and energy sparking the team and other players. There are a lot of pure scorers that if they aren't scoring "Laine" that really then offer nothing else. If a player is only effective on the PP personally I don't consider them actually "elite". A player has to be able to play the whole game , PP's aren't a given. In the playoffs there usually are less. Size and possible injuries well Lindros was hurt a lot! It's when they are in the line up that counts. Yszerman and Sakic became 'Elite" IMO latter when they both were playing PP & PK. Scotty Bowman first thing in Detroit talked to Stevie and said you probably won't score as many points but now you'll win cups and he became an overall better player. From faceoffs to PK's ect. Personally I'd take Draisital over McDavid because he does play in more situations and is more well rounded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of arguing semantics, I think there are generational players like McDavid who essentially have their own category. Then there are guys with a certain game-breaking ability based on being exceptional/elite in one or more specific aspects of the game (e.g. Laine, Matthews, Kane etc.), followed by legit first-line forwards based on individual production. Who belongs into which specific category can certainly be debated and is ultimately subjective. What we can all agree on, I think, is that we don't have any generational talent on the roster and we're also lacking players who can single-handedly influence/decide the outcome of a game (with the exception of our goalies, but that probably applies to any other team in the league). I love Gallagher and he's without a doubt a first-line forward but I don't think he can be described as elite, as there's still a bit of a gap there IMO.

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...