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

Recommended Posts

I hope he wins the Norris too. I want us to go farther in the off season though. if our goalie is healthy all year we will.

I'd be equally happy to see Subban win the Norris or one of our guys win it here. Subban's one of those players like Koivu whom I wish success wherever they go. I'd be more than happy to see Montreal meet Nashville in the finals... my first choice would be to have a Cup here, but if you're not going to get it, next best thing is seeing a great player with a connection to Montreal win the prize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps there are people like that, but I think you'll find that on this forum there are quite a few people who have extremely detailed and cogent reasons for assigning a majority of the blame to Michel Therrien.

Evidence implies there exists a method to empirically measure "leadership", or even a consistent definition of it, which there quite evidently isn't. "Leadership" seems to means whatever it needs to mean to whoever's saying it at the moment. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm personally quite sick of hearing about it. But beside that, even granting that this mystical thing can be defined and measured, I frankly don't care a wink if P.K. Subban can't "lead". I care that he's the second best defenceman in the NHL over the last few seasons and has been the driving force in the team's success, and I care that the team is going to be tangibly and measurably worse because he was thrown away for non-hockey reasons.

P.K. Subban has played in two Eastern Conference Finals in the NHL, one of which largely because of his performance in a second round series. Shea Weber has never gotten further than the second round in his career. If his "leadership" is so mightily important, what explains his performance against the Sharks in this year's playoffs?

As for the latter, it isn't, actually. Subban is vastly superior to Weber in every metric that counts except goals personally scored. Shea Weber is not as good a player as P.K. Subban, and that's reality. Whatever "intangibles" some want to claim for him, he does not play as well, and his team does not do as well with him on the ice.

I've heard this train of thought a bit recently, which has gotten me thinking. I'll ask the question of you: should the team be relatively healthy and fail to do anything in the playoffs, will you reassess the importance of "leadership"?

Some good points, however, the one central point you did not address is what if Carey Price goes down again this year? Do you believe the team as it stood before the Subban trade would see a different outcome to the one from last season? In all probability the outcome would be no different. It was inconceivable to me last year that the team would go from being one of the top five teams in the league to 9th worst overall essentially because of the loss of one player but they did it anyway. The team collapsed and if that did not raise one gigantic red flag with team management then that would be very worrisome. Apparently it did and they went and did something about it.

You can downplay leadership and intangibles and put them in between quotation marks all you like but it is a fact that talent alone does not win championships, in any professional team sport.

As well, Shea Weber is no slouch. The team did not trade PK Subban for Patrick Traverse. They traded him for a defenceman who is considered amongst the best in the league. (PK Subban is also in that category.) So, the team traded one elite defenceman for another.

It is unfortunate. I would have preferred to see Subban in a Habs jersey next season. However, I do not see the point of getting upset about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points, however, the one central point you did not address is what if Carey Price goes down again this year? Do you believe the team as it stood before the Subban trade would see a different outcome to the one from last season? In all probability the outcome would be no different. It was inconceivable to me last year that the team would go from being one of the top five teams in the league to 9th worst overall essentially because of the loss of one player but they did it anyway. The team collapsed and if that did not raise one gigantic red flag with team management then that would be very worrisome. Apparently it did and they went and did something about it.

You can downplay leadership and intangibles and put them in between quotation marks all you like but it is a fact that talent alone does not win championships, in any professional team sport.

As well, Shea Weber is no slouch. The team did not trade PK Subban for Patrick Traverse. They traded him for a defenceman who is considered amongst the best in the league. (PK Subban is also in that category.) So, the team traded one elite defenceman for another.

It is unfortunate. I would have preferred to see Subban in a Habs jersey next season. However, I do not see the point of getting upset about it.

I completely get your point of view. I do. And yes, we got a very good defenceman. If we had traded Petry, Scherbak, and a 2nd round pick to Nashville for Weber, I'd be ecstatic to get the guy. If we had traded Beaulieu and Gallagher for Weber, I'd be disappointed to see those players go but happy to have Weber here. But I think we have to evaluate the trade in the entirety of what it represents. This isn't just selecting Shea Weber for one World Cup tournament, we've made a choice that will affect the club for 5-10 years. Weber is already declining, and it should be no surprise to anyone that D men can go from top pairing guy to role player very quickly. Andrei Markov is not the same player he used to be. Tomas Kaberle went from #1 D man to Cup winner to being traded and seeing his NHL career end in 2- years...and he was 33 years old when he came here. Roman Hamrlik had a pretty sharp decline. Even Chris Chelios, who had very good longevity in the NHL, had 8 seasons of 10+ goals in the league but didn't have a single one after the age of 34. We have Weber signed until the age of 41... but look at some of the older D men in the league who are not yet 40... Chara, Dan Boyle, Brian Campbell. Sergei Gonchar was 40 when he played for us two years ago. How many of those guys have been worth a cap hit of close to 8M at age 40? At age 38? At age 36? We picked up a far worse contract that could potentially handicap our cap for a long time, and we did it trading a younger player on a much shorter term through his prime only.

The other issue with the trade is not just that we gave up Subban, but the way in which it happened... with a coach who spent years trying to drive him out and with a GM who still buys into character and leadership over talent. So even if we ascribe to Weber being a great defenceman and a suitable replacement, he's still not as good as Subban and he's still a guy we picked up for all the wrong reasons. So looking past this trade, it's still a huge issue that Bergevin can't evaluate talent and thinks that Weber is more valuable than Subban, Byron more valuable than Semin or Vanek, Shaw more valuable than Eller, an aging Frankie Bouillon more valuable than a young Nate Beaulieu, DSP more valuable than Sekac, and so on... these are the decisions being made by management and they show a complete lack of understanding of the modern NHL and what predicts success.

Also, as you pointed out, the team went from first to the bottom (actually dead last for worst record from December through April). But Subban was hardly the problem. He was one of the most consistent players through the slump, posting great stats and being one of the few players with a positive Corsi. In fact, without him, we hardly scored any goals and we were dominated in possession metrics. Price's return will help, but the problem with our losing streak wasn't one player or even two or three players. The problem was that the system was awful. The system made all the players look bad. The PP didn't work, the breakout didn't work, the dump-and-chase didn't work, the defensive zone coverage didn't work. If MB really wanted to pinpoint what didn't work, then he would have fired his coach. That solution would have given us a better system and probably would have meant we wouldn't have needed to trade Subban at all.

There was an article in the Nashville newspaper yesterday, which I'll post a link to here:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/nhl/predators/2016/07/02/nashville-predators-pk-subban-trade-shea-weber-nhl/86544228/

Couple of interesting things... Ryan Johansen saying he's heard great things about Subban, that he has a good reputation throughout the league as being a fun guy who cares about everybody. And commentator Kevin Weekes who says Subban's finally going to go to a place where he's valued and that the Habs organization never fully embraced him. He goes on to say Shea Weber is lauded for many of the same things that Subban was not respected for by the Habs. This mirrors the comments we've seen from the likes of James Duthie, Anthony Stewart, Hal Gill, and more.

So no knock on Weber, but he's not as good as Subban, and the main problem with this is the arrogance displayed by MB and MT as they repeatedly knock Subban down and then lie to us as fans and pretend this was purely a "hockey trade." As a fan, I find that lack of honesty to be largely insulting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of leadership and character and how important it is to winning Cups... players are often assigned the title of "great leader" because their tea won something, be it in junior, in the NHL, or internationally. Weber was on a Gold-medal winning Canada team, and as such, he was anointed as being a great leader. He's a very good player, but if we're talking about his leadership being such a valued commodity as to have an effect on his team winning, well then it hasn't done much at an NHL level in the playoffs. And similarly, there's nothing to suggest that Subban's character was an impediment to winning the Cup.

So let's look at the last major trades we made that sent star players away for character reasons... Patrick Roy was dealt away because he didn't get along with Mario Tremblay. The club decided that Tremblay was in the right and traded Roy, who went on to win two Cups with Colorado, while Tremblay flopped as a coach and was fired without winning a single playoff series. No other team has hired him as a head coach since. As a side note, when Tremblay was charged with drunk driving last year, he allegedly told the police officer who stopped him that he couldn't arrest him "because I'm Mario Tremblay" and then proceeded to tell the officer that he was "being petty and showing poor judgment like PK Subban." So even though Tremblay was the one who made the judgment error to drive drunk, he felt himself fit to insult Subban. Tremblay and Therrien are cut from the same cloth, blame others for their poor decisions, and really aren't in a position to judge others' character.

Before Roy, there was Chris Chelios. He too was dealt for character issues. In this case, there were actually some real issues there, so the trade in this case was somewhat more understandable. The Habs won the Cup with the man he was traded for, but Denis Savard had little to do with the win. Chelios himself took the Hawks to a Cup final and won two more Cups with the Wings, despite those character issues. Phil Kessel was deemed by the Torono media to be too soft and lazy and only interested in eating hotdogs. His character was often questioned and he was frequently fighting with the Toronto media. Yet he has been one of the most successful playoff performers of his generation and he probably should have won the Conn Smythe this year as he led the Pens to a Cup. Patrick Kane was accused (wrongfully it turns out) of ***** a woman but has several Cups to his name with the Hawks and was the Hart winner this past season. Jeff Carter and Mike Richards were run out of Philadelphia because they had supposed issues with their teammates, and they've been Cup champions in LA. How about another player the Habs traded because of character problems, Claude Lemieux, who was as big a pest as you can be but who was also a key member of 4 Cup wins with 3 different organizations?

The point is very clear: that just because players don't always have the best reputations in the media or with their teammates, it doesn't mean they can't be valuable to their teams on the ice and it doesn't impede teams from winning Cups. Saku Koivu was an ultimate team player and captain here and he has no Cups to show for his name, because he simply wasn't surrounded by enough talent. Skill will win out every time. Now there are extreme exceptions, with players like Mike Ribeiro and so on who have come through here and been extremely disrespectful to authority or had substance abuse problems, but there is no evidence that was Subban's case. On 24CH, you see Subban getting yelled at and replying politely to Therrien or Daigneault. In his media interviews, Subban is always praising his coaches and teammates.

So as it stands, I'll argue this: there is no evidence that suggests Subban's character should prevent us from winning the Cup, in fact, there is evidence the other way that it should be a non-factor. There is also no evidence that Shea Weber has any sort of outstanding leadership quality that contributes to Cup-winning. If he couldn't make it happen in a good system in Nashville, what are realistic expectations that it would suddenly happen here in Montreal under Therrien? Even past Cup winners like Gomez, Gionta, Gill, Moen, and Kovalev weren't able to make the ultimate dream come true in Habs uniforms. Not because they aren't winners, but because there's more that goes into winning than just being able to rah-rah guys or tell people you've won something before. Subban has the skill to be a winner on the ice, and to me that matters more than the unprovable belief that Weber has magical abilities above what we've actually seen him accomplish.

Great insight Ted ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

And from Jack Todd today:

- Bergevin claimed he had not been shopping Subban’s considerable talent around the league. Sure, you just whip up a deal for two of the league’s premier defencemen in 48 hours because someone happens to call. If you believe that, have I got a swamp for you.

- Of course no one is saying so for attribution, but Subban is gone because the club had issues with his character, which is subtly different than character issues.

- Whatever Subban was like in the room or in the clubs after hours, when the puck dropped, no player on this team battled harder. Subban gave this team all he had every night, so if he wanted to bounce around the room and crow after a loss, he has earned the right. If some of his teammates worked half as hard, there would not have been so many losses to mourn in the proper fashion.

Love that line about it being the Habs who had issues with Subban's character, not Subban's character issues, since that about sums this up nicely. Subban was still the best performer on the Habs despite whatever grief he was taking from management and despite everything else he had going on outside the rink. It would be nice if his teammates and coaches stopped whining about him and gave as much as he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points, however, the one central point you did not address is what if Carey Price goes down again this year?... ...The team collapsed and if that did not raise one gigantic red flag with team management then that would be very worrisome. Apparently it did and they went and did something about it.

Unless Michel Therrien is completely subverted, we're going to get a similarly poor outcome. There are a lot of post-lockout Therrien-coached teams to examine, and they're all pretty similar regardless of skill level. We know what we're getting from him, and it's not good. The only thing keeping this team above water in the last 3 seasons has been Carey Price being the best goalie on earth. Removing one of our best possession players and replacing him with a less effective player is not going to change the reality of how bad Therrien's coaching is in the modern NHL. The real question IMO should be what happens if Carey Price doesn't get injured again? He'll face more scoring changes and traffic in the defensive zone, and receive less offensive support, particularly sustained offensive pressure. We'll need another 2014-15 performance from Carey Price to tread water, and I truly fail to see how anyone should be heartened by that.

I do think you're correct, though: just as the organization panicked and overreacted after the 2013 first round series against Ottawa, it made a rash, stupid, indefensible decision after Therrien's historic collapse last season. This is a front office helmed by Marc Bergevin that values appearances and cargo cult thinking over objective reality.

You can downplay leadership and intangibles and put them in between quotation marks all you like but it is a fact that talent alone does not win championships, in any professional team sport.

I put "leadership", "character", "intangibles" and so on in scare quotes because no one, ever, has been able to demonstrate that these things objectively exist, are in any way discernable from luck and random fluctuations, or can even be defined and agreed upon between different people. If talent doesn't win championships, why do good teams add talent and mediocre teams chase "character" and "leadership"? Why does "heartless", "no work ethic", "lazy" Phil Kessel have a Stanley Cup ring being made for him right now while Andrew Ladd doesn't?

They traded him for a defenceman who is considered amongst the best in the league.

Shea Weber fits the archetype of last era's defenceman, and he's thus popular with media personalities that prefer to live in the past, or at least put as little effort into their craft as possible because they assume their audience to be clods. He's received largely uncritical press while playing a simple game. Shea Weber is massively, vastly overrated by the hockey establishment and P.K. Subban is criminally underrated. This is a sport that just gave Drew Doughty its award for best defenceman over Erik Karlsson, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't pay much attention to what the ponderous mossbacks in the NHL media "cognoscenti" say about defencemen in 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shea Weber fits the archetype of last era's defenceman, and he's thus popular with media personalities that prefer to live in the past, or at least put as little effort into their craft as possible because they assume their audience to be clods. He's received largely uncritical press while playing a simple game. Shea Weber is massively, vastly overrated by the hockey establishment and P.K. Subban is criminally underrated. This is a sport that just gave Drew Doughty its award for best defenceman over Erik Karlsson, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't pay much attention to what the ponderous mossbacks in the NHL media "cognoscenti" say about defencemen in 2016.

Weber definitely fits the archetype of last era's DMan but he also was absolutely fantastic in his prime. 2012 Weber was a beast in every aspect, probably on the level of or near the level PK is today. Problem being he's regressed a fair bit. Le_Matheux on twitter posted his HERO chart from 2012 vs 2016 and it was ridiculous. Offensively he's still fantastic, obviously but man he's regressed everywhere else. So combination of being overrated by style but also living on past performance.

It's actually kind of funny that Weber is a really good offensive DMan who seemingly struggles badly in lots of other important areas, which is the reputation PK has and meanwhile PK is an all around beast with no current real flaw in his game, which is the reputation Weber has.

Edited by roy_133
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I see how it's a ridiculous statement to make. It is very clear IMO that Therrien disliked Subban before he even became coach. It is very clear Therrien treated him unfairly, called him out repeatedly in the media, benched him for mistakes that other players did not get benched for.

He plays 24-26 minutes per game. Most players would kill to be mistreated like that. How often does he play the entirety of penalty kills? That does not scream mistreatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weber definitely fits the archetype of last era's DMan but he also was absolutely fantastic in his prime. 2012 Weber was a beast in every aspect, probably on the level of or near the level PK is today. Problem being he's regressed a fair bit. Le_Matheux on twitter posted his HERO chart from 2012 vs 2016 and it was ridiculous. Offensively he's still fantastic, obviously but man he's regressed everywhere else. So combination of being overrated by style but also living on past performance.

It's actually kind of funny that Weber is a really good offensive DMan who seemingly struggles badly in lots of other important areas, which is the reputation PK has and meanwhile PK is an all around beast with no current real flaw in his game, which is the reputation Weber has.

I love Subban's play but he does have one flaw in my opinion and it has nothing to do with his character, turnovers he plays the puck a lot so he will have his share but if he could drop the amount of turnovers I would say he is the best in the league overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And from Jack Todd today:

- Bergevin claimed he had not been shopping Subban’s considerable talent around the league. Sure, you just whip up a deal for two of the league’s premier defencemen in 48 hours because someone happens to call. If you believe that, have I got a swamp for you.

Well and thats not to mention the fact that if you indeed do move a guy like Subban you'd better be talking with all 29 other GMs or else you end up with a subpar deal... hrm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Subban's play but he does have one flaw in my opinion and it has nothing to do with his character, turnovers he plays the puck a lot so he will have his share but if he could drop the amount of turnovers I would say he is the best in the league overall.

Don't have the numbers handy ... but ... if you compare Subbans Turn-Overs vs Puck Touches to say Webers ratio ... Subban's turnover rate is much more palatable. Turn overs themselves as a stat are useless ... if I'm say Hall Gill I rarely play the puck thus I won't have many turn overs.

PK also had one of the highest defensive zone puck recovery stats ... so even if he did turn it over, he recovered the puck at the highest rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing in on a week later since Le Trade 2.0 and Im still trying to make sense of it. The problem is that the foundation of its necessity seems to be built on conjecture.
It certainly seems as if Bergevin was trying to move Subban (as opposed to trying to acquire Weber) meaning he was in a position of weakness - especially since the NTC was about to kick in.

We can argue till we're blue in the face that you dont trade your most dynamic player just because some people may have a problem with him, but we just dont know what was going on behind closed doors. Some analysts seem convinced that most of the Montreal dressing room fell into that "some people" category. IF thats true, you understand why MB would feel compelled to do something. I dont buy it but I can at least consider it. Chances are, we'll never know.

One of the strangest parts of this whole sequence to me is Kirk Muller. Just a short while ago Muller was hired to be a 'buffer' between Therrien & the players. There was specific mention of Pk - and i know the two (Muller & PK) talked... so why trade him before they even get a chance to work together? Does this mean Muller also thought PK was going to be a problem?

Its just so odd.

History has shown us that any player can be traded and depending upon the return, the winning team is not always who got the best player. On paper the Dallas stars gave away one of the most dynamic scorers of his generation (Iginla) for a handful of years of subpar scoring from Joe N. But they also won a cup - which most agree they probably wouldnt have without that trade. Likewise, Boston traded Joe Thornton to the Sharks - unquestionably the best player in the deal - but then laid the groundworks for their latest cup in the process.

The thing that has bugged me most about this trade isnt that we "had" to trade PK Subban (despite the fact that I really liked PK)...what really bugs me is the return. We should have been able to get a lot more - and in fact, if you can believe the rumors, we were offered a lot more. So why did MB take such a low payoff?

My only answer is this: He believes we can win now. Our window is the next couple of years. If we had traded PK for a bunch of young players then we would probably be burning up more of Price & Pacioretty's prime years. However, by moving PK for (most likely) the only available impact defensman we mitigage that loss. We still have a bonefide #1 dman. He'd be #1 on most teams in the NHL. It still hurts we couldnt parlay the difference in age & skill into at LEAST a draft pick or a young prospect coming back with Weber but i guess it is what it is.


So, while I am still 100% pissed at this trade, if we somehow miraculously pull out a cup win this year or next, i suppose you would have to look at it as a winning trade. If we once again go out early or miss altogether then I think its clear that it was an unmitigated disaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if goalies think turnover stats are useless! I know when I played as a d man job #1 was to either get the puck move the puck or keep it and get it up the ice in whichever order it came too you. as a d man if you lose the puck there is usually no one between you and the goal. until we see a season played out we won't really know what we have, who knows how each player will adapt to the new teams and linemates. I am not a huge stats person I see them as a great tool I just have a hard time understanding how they can be put into exact context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He plays 24-26 minutes per game. Most players would kill to be mistreated like that. How often does he play the entirety of penalty kills? That does not scream mistreatment.

Sure, Therrien has bumped up his ice time in the past two years, but that's also part of self-preservation for the coach. In Subban's first year here, Therrien refused to play him on the penalty kill despite the fact Subban had been golden in that role the year before. Therrien cited that he didn't want to wear Subban out, yet he was playing the much older Markov on the PK and giving him more ice time per game, despite his age and the fact he had come off several key injuries. Markov wore down. Subban's play from start to finish has been pretty consistent over every season he's played.

Again comparatively, look at how Therrien treated Subban after his fall against Colorado (despite the fact Pacioretty's lazy back-check was a key part of the goal against) vs. how he treated Markov after his fall against Stl in OT. Look at how Therrien stated he was going to make PK a better person before even meeting him, something he didn't say about any other player.

No, Therrien didn't play Subban 12 minutes a game, but even Therrien could figure out that if he played a Norris winner that little, it'd look suspicious. Just because he got better ice time, doesn't mean Therrien was fair to him or showed him any type of respect.

I love Subban's play but he does have one flaw in my opinion and it has nothing to do with his character, turnovers he plays the puck a lot so he will have his share but if he could drop the amount of turnovers I would say he is the best in the league overall.

Not sure if you read French but this is a piece from Andrew Berkshire on turnovers for RDS from a couple of days ago:

http://www.rds.ca/hockey/canadiens/un-defenseur-sur-le-declin-1.3446959

The key points;

- turnovers mean very little, and the variation in what is called a turnover is quite drastic from one arena's scorekeeper to another.

- players play within different systems, and some systems are bad, don't encourage passing and puck control, and lead to more turnovers.

- Weber touches the puck 69 times for every 20 minutes of ice; Subban 89 times (first overall in the NHL). The league average is 75, so Weber is less involved in the play than the average NHLer and thus has less opportunity to turn the puck over. Subban is the player in the NHL who touches the puck the most, so he has the greater risk of turning it over.

- Players who touch the puck around as much as Subban include Hedman, Karlsson, and Burns. Players who touch it around as much as Weber are Tyutin, Ceci, and Smid.

- If you take each player's turnover totals per attempted play and compare them to the turnover rates for their team as a whole, it gives you a better idea of how that player stacks up compared to players in the same system and with the same scorekeepers. The graph Berkshire puts up shows the data as inverse ratios, so the bigger the bar, the better a player is. Subban's turnover ratio in the O zone is #1 in the league, meaning he turns the puck over the least of any player when you compare him to his own team. Weber's ratio is awful. Weber is marginally better in the D zone, but the players are essentially tied, and they are essentially the same in the neutral zone as well.

- Subban's Corsi relative is also elite, as is his ratio of goals for-to-against while on the ice compared to when he's not on. Conversely, Weber's Corsi is inferior to his team's average, as his team actually scores a higher percentage of goals for-to-against when he's off than when he's on.

- The conclusion from looking at this data is that Subban is actually NOT a turnover machine. His turnover rates are actually some of the best in the league when you correct for the fact that he touches the puck the most in the NHL per ice time and for the fact that he plays in a terrible system and/or for a scorekeeper who hands out the turnover stat more readily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Francis Bouilon: "Some days Subban made you laugh, some days he got on your nerves. But I loved having him as a teammate."

Still waiting to hear who these players are who took issue with Subban, because most people we've heard from seem to be fine with him... Johansen, Jagr, Gill, Bouillon, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, etc. No one seems to have called him out and in fact, people have complimented him as being a good guy. This really just seems to have stemmed from MB/MT alone, along with the conspicuous absence of support from Pacioretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, while I am still 100% pissed at this trade, if we somehow miraculously pull out a cup win this year or next, i suppose you would have to look at it as a winning trade. If we once again go out early or miss altogether then I think its clear that it was an unmitigated disaster.

I agree 100% I did not like the trade either In fact If I were the GM I don't think I'd have the balls to pull this trade off. My issue is most here are giving Shea Weber no credit what so ever. If we do pull out a cup this year like you said its all worth it to me. Lets face it 24 years is long enough to wait. None of us here are experts on these forums but we all bleed the Red White And Blue. We get sour about losing our favorite players. But look at it this way This is the Team Canada Management team. A lot of great Hockey minds.

Tom Renney, President

Scott Smith, Chief Operating Officer

Scott Salmond, Hockey Operations

Doug Armstrong, General Manager

Marc Bergevin, Assistant General Manager

Rob Blake, Assistant General Manager

Ken Holland, Assistant General Manager

Bob Murray, Assistant General Manager

Mike Babcock, Head Coach

Claude Julien, Assistant Coach

Bill Peters, Assistant Coach

Joel Quenneville, Assistant Coach

Barry Trotz, Assistant Coach

(They all picked Shea Weber over PK Subban for some reason).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the deal is done. at the end of the next season we will have new stats it will be interesting to see which way things go as in do the players stats still trend the same way or do they change due to the new teams and systems. in a perfect world we would have had both PK and Webber would have been one hell of a right side in terms of pairings it would have put Petry on he third pairing!

Edited by ramcharger440
Link to post
Share on other sites

Francis Bouilon: "Some days Subban made you laugh, some days he got on your nerves. But I loved having him as a teammate."

Still waiting to hear who these players are who took issue with Subban, because most people we've heard from seem to be fine with him... Johansen, Jagr, Gill, Bouillon, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, etc. No one seems to have called him out and in fact, people have complimented him as being a good guy. This really just seems to have stemmed from MB/MT alone, along with the conspicuous absence of support from Pacioretty.

"It's so funny I'm being asked this," Pacioretty said. "If you guys could bring the cameras into the wives' room and see P.K. playing mini-sticks with my son after the game I don't think I'd be asked this question.

"What do you want me to say? P.K. Subban came to my wedding. I think you guys are looking way too far into this."

Either way, there's plenty of teammates who didn't like PK personally, maybe Max was one, just a reality of spending that much time with different groups of personalities. That's true of every player who's spent time in an NHL room, there's current or ex teammates who dislike them. I really think this is a false narrative being whispered around to absolve the organization of any blame if things go wrong. Yeah but they traded PK because him and Max or him and X didn't get along. If Pacioretty had NEAR the kind of pull to make someone as stubborn as Bergevin make any kind of move, nevermind a big one, I'd be surprised.

Edited by roy_133
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't think Max had anything to do with PK"s being traded. We know Molson had to approve this deal and so I think it is fair to say PK was seen as being overpayed. The opportunity to get Weber was jumped on so apparently Weber's value as a leader was moe important than stats that Bergevin might have looke at showing PK was the better player. PK is a fine talent as were many players on this team last year. But this team did not come together in a crisis last year. I am not surprsied by the changes and am glad Bergevin made some moves. He has definitely sent a strong message to the dressing room. Now we await the response from the players.

I think the message is clear for Therrien as well. He has moved out perhaps the most talented player on the team and I am sure the coaches will be next if the team cannot turn it around. I think the 9 mil was a mistake, but not the only reason for the trade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of us here are experts on these forums... ...But look at it this way This is the Team Canada Management team.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

(I'd also point out that there's a refreshingly diverse collection of people here on the forum who cover a wide swath of expertise.)

Weber's value as a leader was moe important than stats that Bergevin might have looke at showing PK was the better player.

Indeed. This isn't the first time Bergevin has dismissed reality and made a horrible decision without tangible evidence to support it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't think Max had anything to do with PK"s being traded. We know Molson had to approve this deal and so I think it is fair to say PK was seen as being overpayed. The opportunity to get Weber was jumped on so apparently Weber's value as a leader was moe important than stats that Bergevin might have looke at showing PK was the better player. PK is a fine talent as were many players on this team last year. But this team did not come together in a crisis last year. I am not surprsied by the changes and am glad Bergevin made some moves. He has definitely sent a strong message to the dressing room. Now we await the response from the players.

I think the message is clear for Therrien as well. He has moved out perhaps the most talented player on the team and I am sure the coaches will be next if the team cannot turn it around. I think the 9 mil was a mistake, but not the only reason for the trade.

I would argue the only one who showed any kind of drive was Subban. In fact MT, MB and the Media were hell bent on assassinating PK's character and talent ... what other Norris trophy winner has to go through the kind of treatment and degradation that PK did? The Colorado incident ... PK stumbles and falls but Max P totally gives up on the play and sits there like a pylon watching the Avalanche score. Yet it is PK that is called out, it is PK whose abilities are called in to question. Even the English media is to blame, not just the french media. Watching a game between the Sens and Habs and the collective drooling over Karlsson was disgusting ... even while Karlsson made more mistakes and cost the Sens some goals ... still they praised and preached his talent and in the very next breath derided PK for one small error as being over rated and "a very risky player".

The message sent to the dressing room I think is the wrong one ... show flair, determination and be outspoken and you'll get shipped off. I absolutely believe Max P had something to do with this trade ... he fits the conservative mold of a hockey player that MT desires and the repeated reports of a rift between him and PK sure look to be true now. I'm sure they valued Max over PK in this situation, wrongfully so, as a 25-30 goal scorer who disappears down the stretch vs a franchise top 3-5 in the league defenceman should have been a no brainer. Max should have been told to put on his big boy pants and remember he's being paid ludicrous amounts of money to play what is essentially a game

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as disappointed with this trade as anybody, but I don't think that Max Pacioretty necessarily deserves a lot of the shade being thrown his way.

From our outsider perspective, Max seems to have a very straight-laced, "old-school" hockey attitude that jives well with what our management and coaching groups are looking for. As a result he is very trusted by the coaches and ends up with what some of us see as preferential treatment. Is it necessarily fair? No, I don't think so. But is it his fault? Again, I would say no. There's a difference between being a suck-up and just having views that align with management's, and I've seen nothing in Patches that would make me think that he's the former.

Max's personality is what it is. Maybe he got along with PK and maybe he didn't, but - and this is the key here - I never saw either of them let it show through on the ice. Who cares who likes who in the locker room, as long as everyone is professional enough to leave it behind and do their jobs? It was different with Therrien. His personal dislike of Subban did factor in to his decisions as a coach, and as such it caused a very real problem for the team. But I've never seen that with Max. Again, even if there was a rift in the locker room (which we really don't know one way or another) he never let it show through on the ice.

It was unfair to PK that the coaches singled him out because of his personality. It's equally unfair if we single out Max because of his.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as disappointed with this trade as anybody, but I don't think that Max Pacioretty necessarily deserves a lot of the shade being thrown his way.

From our outsider perspective, Max seems to have a very straight-laced, "old-school" hockey attitude that jives well with what our management and coaching groups are looking for. As a result he is very trusted by the coaches and ends up with what some of us see as preferential treatment. Is it necessarily fair? No, I don't think so. But is it his fault? Again, I would say no. There's a difference between being a suck-up and just having views that align with management's, and I've seen nothing in Patches that would make me think that he's the former.

Max's personality is what it is. Maybe he got along with PK and maybe he didn't, but - and this is the key here - I never saw either of them let it show through on the ice. Who cares who likes who in the locker room, as long as everyone is professional enough to leave it behind and do their jobs? It was different with Therrien. His personal dislike of Subban did factor in to his decisions as a coach, and as such it caused a very real problem for the team. But I've never seen that with Max. Again, even if there was a rift in the locker room (which we really don't know one way or another) he never let it show through on the ice.

It was unfair to PK that the coaches singled him out because of his personality. It's equally unfair if we single out Max because of his.

This.

Its no different than blaming Desharnais for his ice time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...