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

#67 Max Pacioretty 2017-18


habs_93
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't see a need to trade him for immediate help. I think the goal with a trade should be to get a younger player with star potential, maybe 2-3 pieces. Talk to Edm about Puljujarvi and Nurse. Talk to Columbus about Dubois and Murray. Talk to the Isles about Barzal and Pulock. Just a couple of examples... There are guys out there who are younger and who can become top-line players over the next couple of years. The idea is to trade Pacioretty while he's still a top-tier player himself and on a cap-friendly deal, and acquire assets in return that can be good for longer while giving the other team a better shot at the Cup for 1-2 years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

Whoever we got in return would have to replace his scoring, and in theory, be "better" than Max. We would have to find a trading partner who is near the cap, has a scorer who they can trade, (no NTC or NMC), and who might be thinking of tanking. It's too early for any team to think about tanking, so it might be a while before we see a bonafide elite player heading this way. IMO, we have to bite the bullet until the trade deadline.

no he wouldnt!! that was my whole point. it doesnt matter.  the cap space we save is what you use on the "better" player. it doesnt necessarily have to come back in the trade.

again im not saying trade him for gatorade, im saying if we trade him for a 1st and 2 prospects lets say......the backlash would be well these 2 prospects may both never pan out and replace his 30 goals, and what do we do now? we are out 30 goals from our lineup!!! ....... and im saying it doesnt matter, because we saved ourselves not paying 8 mill to a pretend star player which would have painted us into a horrible corner, and on top of that we have our potential futures.  we are not winning with this team. we are not winning with max. thats the reality here, and we need to process that.  moving on from him is 1st, getting something nice back is an important but distant 2nd.  

the situation with max and weber is exactly like phaneuf and kessel in that era. I live in toronto, so id be driving around listening to the radio and fans would call in and say "trade phaneuf"  and the hosts would say "yeah but whos gonna play 25 minutes a night if we trade him?"  WHO CARES!!!!  your losing every night anyway! whats his 25 minutes doing to make you win!?  so I say is the case with weber and his 25 minutes of making 4 foot passes and the occasional PP goal, and captain max, who has got to be the most ineffective "star" player in the league. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it's kinda two different conversations. I agree we won't get equivalent value to a 5 time 30G scorer on a 4.5M deal by trading Pacioretty, but that isn't really the goal in the first place if you're moving a core player away for a rebuild. I think the Kessel comparison is apt in that he's not able to carry a team but if we trade Pacioretty to a contender that already has the elite core in place he's going to flourish just like Kessel did with Crosby/Malkin. If the team wants to rebuild and you get offered Puljujarvi+RNH for Pacioretty or something I think you end up better off in 2-3 years than giving Pacioretty 8Y/7.5M or something. 

I'm of two minds. If there's a plan to make a big move for Tavares or whatever and make an honest run at the cup (provided they don't keep losing like crazy and dig the hole even deeper) then I'd want to keep Pacioretty. I don't really see Price/Pacioretty/Weber/Tavares as a dynamite elite core compared to Kucherov/Stamkos/Hedman/.....Sergachev or Crosby/Malkin/Letang/Kessel/Murray but it'd be good enough to give it a go. There's no guarantee you draft another Price/Subban/Pacioretty within 2 years and I'd rather the team make an honest "all-in" run with Price than just blow it up. But if the plan is to just stay the course and burn another year of Pacioretty's deal then try to roll the dice again next year when Weber and Price are another year older then I think it's time to start thinking rebuild and Pacioretty's probably the first domino to fall since he'd be the easiest to get full value for with that sweetheart contract. Price and Weber you'd probably get 75 cents on the dollar at best since they're signed for a billion dollars until the heat death of the universe.

Pacioretty to Nashville for Samuel Girard+? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

Whoever we got in return would have to replace his scoring, and in theory, be "better" than Max. We would have to find a trading partner who is near the cap, has a scorer who they can trade, (no NTC or NMC), and who might be thinking of tanking. It's too early for any team to think about tanking, so it might be a while before we see a bonafide elite player heading this way. IMO, we have to bite the bullet until the trade deadline.

What scoring? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I don't see a need to trade him for immediate help. I think the goal with a trade should be to get a younger player with star potential, maybe 2-3 pieces. Talk to Edm about Puljujarvi and Nurse. Talk to Columbus about Dubois and Murray. Talk to the Isles about Barzal and Pulock. Just a couple of examples... There are guys out there who are younger and who can become top-line players over the next couple of years. The idea is to trade Pacioretty while he's still a top-tier player himself and on a cap-friendly deal, and acquire assets in return that can be good for longer while giving the other team a better shot at the Cup for 1-2 years now.

This.  Not only do you end up with a couple of guys who will be good after Max is on his next contract, you get yourself some cap relief in the immediate future.  


The thing about this team right now is that we're devoid of talent - we just we have a really poorly constructed roster.  Elite goalie, some top end wingers, a few good RD - so we have some very intriguing trade pieces.   We, theoretically should be able to trade 3 or 4 guys, get back some very good young players and retain our core 5 or 6 guys and be competitive - i mean genuinely competitive, not "get to the playoffs and hope" a lot sooner than you'd think.

Of course this means that we a) Need to come to the conclusion we're in a rebuild and b )  get a GM  who can assess talent &make big moves. Neither are happening under the current regime imho. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ramcharger440 said:

yeah he's junk.

Not junk... but as always, needs a set-up man and other players who actually work harder than he does to help him produce. Definitely not a leader on the ice most of the time... opportune scorer because of that and all the ice-time he gets most games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

Not junk... but as always, needs a set-up man and other players who actually work harder than he does to help him produce. Definitely not a leader on the ice most of the time... opportune scorer because of that and all the ice-time he gets most games.

:6280:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2017 at 5:32 PM, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

Not junk... but as always, needs a set-up man and other players who actually work harder than he does to help him produce. Definitely not a leader on the ice most of the time... opportune scorer because of that and all the ice-time he gets most games.

lol always needs a set-up man? Yeah I guess if it wasn't Sidney Desharnais or Jaromir Weise it's Connor Danault. Pacioretty, for whatever warts he has and he certainly has some, produces no matter who he plays with in the long run. It's an admirable skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, roy_133 said:

lol always needs a set-up man? Yeah I guess if it wasn't Sidney Desharnais or Jaromir Weise it's Connor Danault. Pacioretty, for whatever warts he has and he certainly has some, produces no matter who he plays with in the long run. It's an admirable skill.

I knew this type of comment would come... that said, it doesn't take away the fact he does have warts and as a captain does not play with the same intensity as others do and still gets preferential treatment with top-line minutes. So... he plays more and gets more opportunity because of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

I knew this type of comment would come... that said, it doesn't take away the fact he does have warts and as a captain does not play with the same intensity as others do and still gets preferential treatment with top-line minutes. So... he plays more and gets more opportunity because of that.

I mean your argument was Pacioretty's elite level goal scoring isn't as valuable because he gets carried by a set-up man and now you're walking that back and moving the goal posts because someone pointed out he's played with Danault and Desharnais his entire career. It's fine to say you don't like stylistic aspects about Pacioretty's game but if you're trying to knock his goal scoring beacuse he's getting carried by...Desharnais and Danault I don't know what to tell you. If you think we should trade him because his contract's expiring soon or because he has more trade value than real value then go ahead and make that argument, but "Pacioretty isn't intense enough so he shouldn't get first line minutes" isn't a very useful argument unless we're talking about an all-star team or Team USA full of star players.

I don't know how Pacioretty getting top 6 minutes with Desharnais or Danault is "preferential treatment". I'll concede that Pacioretty should be replaced by Galchenyuk on the 1st wave PP, but in general Pacioretty's ice time doesn't come at the expense of Drouin, Gallagher, Lehkonen, or Galchenyuk. Right now they're all playing comparable time at even strength and getting PP minutes, Pacioretty just gets more raw ice time because he's the only top 6 forward that kills penalties. If he's played with Danault/Desharnais his whole career it means Galchenyuk and other skilled wingers got to play with better centers like Drouin, prime Plekanec, or Eller. 

I just don't really get what else you'd have the team do. Pacioretty plays with less skilled C's like Desharnais/Danault and Galchenyuk has already got to play most of his career with better centers (prime Plekanec, Eller, now Drouin). Should Byron-Danault-Shaw be the "first line" and Pacioretty-Plekanec-Gallagher be the "third line"? Should we have given Rene Bourque or P.A. Parenteau first line minutes with Desharnais and put Pacioretty on the "third line" with Eller? I just don't really understand your vision of a Habs team that doesn't give "preferential treatment" to Pacioretty and what that would actually look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, roy_133 said:

lol always needs a set-up man? Yeah I guess if it wasn't Sidney Desharnais or Jaromir Weise it's Connor Danault. Pacioretty, for whatever warts he has and he certainly has some, produces no matter who he plays with in the long run. It's an admirable skill.

There's a pretty interesting discussion to be had about Pacioretty needing certain linemates but to me it doesn't reflect negatively on him at all. Throughout his career we've always salivated at the idea of Pacioretty scoring 40+ with a better center, whether that was prime Plekanec or now Drouin, but those experiments were always short lived and after a few games he'd go back to what worked (Desharnais or Danault). He's always been at his best with a digger on his line, whether that's Danault, Shaw, Gallagher, Weise, or Cole. Desharnais isn't exactly a north-south player but they always had Gallagher/Cole/Weise on the RW in that role. Even Radulov who's obviously a super talented player tends towards more of a north-south game which complements Pacioretty very well. 

I generally agree with the stylistic knocks on Pacioretty. He's elite in transition, strong defensively, and an elite penalty killer, but he's generally a softish player that doesn't use his size to gain possession in the offensive zone, isn't all that hard on the forecheck, and isn't a particularly good passer in the offensive zone. That adds up to more or less the general anger at him, that he's a streaky scorer that doesn't get involved physically or create his own opportunities when he's not scoring off the rush. I just don't really care about those things because it's so easy to find players that can do those things, while Pacioretty's scoring talents and transition game are very hard to find and usually very expensive.

I think people just see the causality backwards. Pacioretty can score 35G with linemates that complement his weaknesses. Danault and Shaw aren't secretly elite players and Hudon wouldn't score 35G with them, Pacioretty is still the guy driving the bus on that line but he meshes stylistically with north-south players more than other high skill guys. Lots of scoring wingers need star playmaking centers and skilled linemates to enable them, but if Pacioretty only needs a couple pluggers to score 35G that's great because you can leave Drouin to Galchenyuk and Lehkonen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noob616 said:

I mean your argument was Pacioretty's elite level goal scoring isn't as valuable because he gets carried by a set-up man and now you're walking that back and moving the goal posts because someone pointed out he's played with Danault and Desharnais his entire career. It's fine to say you don't like stylistic aspects about Pacioretty's game but if you're trying to knock his goal scoring beacuse he's getting carried by...Desharnais and Danault I don't know what to tell you. If you think we should trade him because his contract's expiring soon or because he has more trade value than real value then go ahead and make that argument, but "Pacioretty isn't intense enough so he shouldn't get first line minutes" isn't a very useful argument unless we're talking about an all-star team or Team USA full of star players.

I don't know how Pacioretty getting top 6 minutes with Desharnais or Danault is "preferential treatment". I'll concede that Pacioretty should be replaced by Galchenyuk on the 1st wave PP, but in general Pacioretty's ice time doesn't come at the expense of Drouin, Gallagher, Lehkonen, or Galchenyuk. Right now they're all playing comparable time at even strength and getting PP minutes, Pacioretty just gets more raw ice time because he's the only top 6 forward that kills penalties. If he's played with Danault/Desharnais his whole career it means Galchenyuk and other skilled wingers got to play with better centers like Drouin, prime Plekanec, or Eller. 

I just don't really get what else you'd have the team do. Pacioretty plays with less skilled C's like Desharnais/Danault and Galchenyuk has already got to play most of his career with better centers (prime Plekanec, Eller, now Drouin). Should Byron-Danault-Shaw be the "first line" and Pacioretty-Plekanec-Gallagher be the "third line"? Should we have given Rene Bourque or P.A. Parenteau first line minutes with Desharnais and put Pacioretty on the "third line" with Eller? I just don't really understand your vision of a Habs team that doesn't give "preferential treatment" to Pacioretty and what that would actually look like.

:2008122810303:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...