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

Jonathan Drouin


ramcharger440
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can't believe Scott Matta! from Opinion. Tooting Drouin's horn, because he got a couple points.  Did he even watch the series? albeit on TV? That's how rumours start.  Tell everybody Drouin is a great player, and the next thing you know, you have management believing it. I'd still rather have Domi. At least his good year was a really good year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should trade away all the players on the team that have any natural talent. Then we can lose games 3-1 instead of 3-2.

Or maybe we can start holding the coaching staff accountable. Had of played these lines in the season. maybe things would of been different. Maybe would of added a player at the deadline instead of trading some away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely wouldn't 'give ' him away. I've seen some of the proposed trades and everyone always complains when we run down players or trade them at their lowest value. Well right now you're not getting great value. I also would hold on and start next season with him on a line with Suzuki. That may be what he needs. But to just dump him wouldn't be smart and you're not getting a big ticket for him at this time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

I definitely wouldn't 'give ' him away. I've seen some of the proposed trades and everyone always complains when we run down players or trade them at their lowest value. Well right now you're not getting great value. I also would hold on and start next season with him on a line with Suzuki. That may be what he needs. But to just dump him wouldn't be smart and you're not getting a big ticket for him at this time. 

This.

Drouin has all the tools to be a point per game player. He seems to lack confidence and this is a perennial problem. If we cant figure out a way to solve that (and it seems like we cant) then we should trade him, but he still has value. I think you could get a solid RW or LD for him.  Package him with another player & you maybe even get better value in the return. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, maas_art said:

This.

Drouin has all the tools to be a point per game player. He seems to lack confidence and this is a perennial problem. If we cant figure out a way to solve that (and it seems like we cant) then we should trade him, but he still has value. I think you could get a solid RW or LD for him.  Package him with another player & you maybe even get better value in the return. 

Do you think the rest of the league is gullible and doesn't see the same thing? I don't think we'd get very much for Drouin except for getting rid of his contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

Do you think the rest of the league is gullible and doesn't see the same thing? I don't think we'd get very much for Drouin except for getting rid of his contract.

I just don't think you'll get much at this time. I say start next season with Drouin, Suzuki, Domi and see what happens. Two years ago he actually looked good alongside Domi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drouin was tied for team lead in playoffsf and seemed to find some chemistry with Suzuki.   So I'd be ok with keeping Drouin for another kick at the can.  

Domi however seems to be really put out by having to play wing and now that NS, JK and Danault are the down the middle he needs to move to wing, something he seems petulant about.   He may be the odd man out, and doesn't help he was all but invisible for the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, habs1952 said:

Do you think the rest of the league is gullible and doesn't see the same thing? I don't think we'd get very much for Drouin except for getting rid of his contract.

Well GMs have shown time and again they can be fooled with reclamation projects so, yes.

The other thing is, he's not really a reclamation project. He's coming off a (prorated) 45 point, injury filled season after 53, 46 and 53 point seasons.  He's pretty clearly (at worst) a 45-55 point player.  That does have value in this league.  Maybe not as much as we want but he's not a salary dump as suggested. Not even close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maas_art said:

Well GMs have shown time and again they can be fooled with reclamation projects so, yes.

The other thing is, he's not really a reclamation project. He's coming off a (prorated) 45 point, injury filled season after 53, 46 and 53 point seasons.  He's pretty clearly (at worst) a 45-55 point player.  That does have value in this league.  Maybe not as much as we want but he's not a salary dump as suggested. Not even close. 

True, and even though I've been kinda hard on him, it probably doesn't make much sense to trade him this offseason. Given that the Cap probably isn't going to go up anytime soon, I'd rather keep him and have him maximize his value than sign an UFA to some inflated deal that may or may not pan out. I don't think there's any point in trading him for draft picks, since we have plenty of those and a ton of prospects in the system already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
23 minutes ago, electron58 said:

I think Bergy has to sign the players he has now, to see what is left over. Probably has an idea, meaning Sergachev will be too costly. Not sure if this response is on the same page as your comment.

Not quite haha.  A year ago I made the conscious decision to not watch the habs until Bergevin gets fired.  That changed in the playoffs because I always watch the playoffs regardless of team.  So this is my annual blowing off steam rant.

We had Sergachev, we're not getting him back, but boy does he look like what we need right about now.  I said at the onset we lost that trade.  That seems to be a trend with Bergevin.  Lose value with every trade.  Subban for Webber (nothing against Webber, he was nothing but professional); destroying Galchenyuk's confidence and more importantly value then trade for Domi when it should have been Domi + pick (in retrospect it's fine, results-wise, but should have been Domi + pick); now destroying Domi's value then trading for Anderson and we gave up the pick.  Look, I like Anderson in isolation, but he just had a major injury.

I as a casual fan wouldn't have done that trade for Drouin, so why does Bergevin still have a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Disillusioned1 said:

Not quite haha.  A year ago I made the conscious decision to not watch the habs until Bergevin gets fired.  That changed in the playoffs because I always watch the playoffs regardless of team.  So this is my annual blowing off steam rant.

We had Sergachev, we're not getting him back, but boy does he look like what we need right about now.  I said at the onset we lost that trade.  That seems to be a trend with Bergevin.  Lose value with every trade.  Subban for Weber (nothing against Weber, he was nothing but professional); destroying Galchenyuk's confidence and more importantly value then trade for Domi when it should have been Domi + pick (in retrospect it's fine, results-wise, but should have been Domi + pick); now destroying Domi's value then trading for Anderson and we gave up the pick.  Look, I like Anderson in isolation, but he just had a major injury.

I as a casual fan wouldn't have done that trade for Drouin, so why does Bergevin still have a job.

Nailed it.  All valid & I believe to be true statements. Even the Pacioretty trade. I know a lot of people say that Bergevin knows what he is doing, to be lucky that many times. I'm not one of them. Bergevin also says, that he doesn't want to trade from one area, to weaken it, for the chance to improve another area. Yet the Sergachev trade was exactly that. He was trying to fill a center spot with Drouin, who hadn't played that position since Juniors. He really rolled the dice, and Drouin failed miserably, chance after chance, while not offering the same opportunities to Galchenyuk.  So, we all know, why Bergevin still has a job.  All we can hope for, as a Habs diehard fan, is that he gets lucky and these moves are going to work and we can cheer during the season, as well. I think the biggest acquisition was Jake Allen.  We all seen what a rested Price can do. This will be the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, electron58 said:

Nailed it.  All valid & I believe to be true statements. Even the Pacioretty trade. I know a lot of people say that Bergevin knows what he is doing, to be lucky that many times. I'm not one of them. Bergevin also says, that he doesn't want to trade from one area, to weaken it, for the chance to improve another area. Yet the Sergachev trade was exactly that. He was trying to fill a center spot with Drouin, who hadn't played that position since Juniors. He really rolled the dice, and Drouin failed miserably, chance after chance, while not offering the same opportunities to Galchenyuk.  So, we all know, why Bergevin still has a job.  All we can hope for, as a Habs diehard fan, is that he gets lucky and these moves are going to work and we can cheer during the season, as well. I think the biggest acquisition was Jake Allen.  We all seen what a rested Price can do. This will be the key.

The thing about Bergevin is that I think that some of his luck is actually real - but - he has a very strange way of valuing assets.

lets say you had a crystal ball & you knew that some 4th round pick in columbus was going to be the next NHL scoring champ. No one else knows this or values him even close to that high.    Would you trade McDavid for him? Of course not. Even though in 3 years time he may be outscoring McDavid every year.  Because today, his value is not as high. 

In the case of Subban, Galchenyuk, Domi and many others in the past, we have given up the more valuable player (at that moment) for less than fair market value. Yes, in all those cases (Verdict out on Domi) we ended up with the better player but why overpay?   Even though you are 100% positive Josh Anderson is going to become the next star power forward, why give up a 72 point player AND a 3rd rounder for him?   

Funnily enough (since this is the drouin thread) I think one place MB did not do this is with Drouin. In June 2017 Drouin was actually a more valuable asset than Sergachev who was a very highly touted prospect but still had proven nothing at the NHL level.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, maas_art said:

The thing about Bergevin is that I think that some of his luck is actually real - but - he has a very strange way of valuing assets.

lets say you had a crystal ball & you knew that some 4th round pick in columbus was going to be the next NHL scoring champ. No one else knows this or values him even close to that high.    Would you trade McDavid for him? Of course not. Even though in 3 years time he may be outscoring McDavid every year.  Because today, his value is not as high. 

In the case of Subban, Galchenyuk, Domi and many others in the past, we have given up the more valuable player (at that moment) for less than fair market value. Yes, in all those cases (Verdict out on Domi) we ended up with the better player but why overpay?   Even though you are 100% positive Josh Anderson is going to become the next star power forward, why give up a 72 point player AND a 3rd rounder for him?   

Funnily enough (since this is the drouin thread) I think one place MB did not do this is with Drouin. In June 2017 Drouin was actually a more valuable asset than Sergachev who was a very highly touted prospect but still had proven nothing at the NHL level.  

Agreed generally on Drouin probably having more value Sergachev at the point, though I think it's necessary to point out one caveat.  We just lost our Norris winning top RD in Subban and Andrei Markov.  Then we trade off the projected "next Andrei Markov?"  Yes I know projections and all that, but I think strong skating puck moving D has more value than skilled wingers.  On top of that Drouin was on the outs in Tampa.

Also, we supposedly traded away plenty of skilled players for character issues.  Subban, Galchenyuk, Semin, Kassian, Tinordi, now apparently Domi (even though I think health issues is a legitimate concern in the bubble), but we traded for a malcontent hold-out like Drouin?  Not only that, we didn't offer him a bridge contract when we tried to stiff Subban with a bridge then of course having to overpay later, then of course whining non-stop about "overpaying" even though we did it to ourselves.  What's the logic there?

Anyways, end rant, see you guys next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Disillusioned1 said:

Agreed generally on Drouin probably having more value Sergachev at the point, though I think it's necessary to point out one caveat.  We just lost our Norris winning top RD in Subban and Andrei Markov.  Then we trade off the projected "next Andrei Markov?"  Yes I know projections and all that, but I think strong skating puck moving D has more value than skilled wingers.  On top of that Drouin was on the outs in Tampa.

Also, we supposedly traded away plenty of skilled players for character issues.  Subban, Galchenyuk, Semin, Kassian, Tinordi, now apparently Domi (even though I think health issues is a legitimate concern in the bubble), but we traded for a malcontent hold-out like Drouin?  Not only that, we didn't offer him a bridge contract when we tried to stiff Subban with a bridge then of course having to overpay later, then of course whining non-stop about "overpaying" even though we did it to ourselves.  What's the logic there?

Anyways, end rant, see you guys next year.

Oh dont get me wrong, the trade was horrible for us (at least without a followup trade). It was a stupid move because we were trading away our best prospect at a position we were painfully thin at.   We acquired a guy who played a position we were strong at, but then tried to make him work at a position we were also weak at. It  was just a dumb move all-around for this team - but from a standpoint of a 1 for 1 deal in a vacuum the risk was actually more on TB's side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Disillusioned1 said:

Agreed generally on Drouin probably having more value Sergachev at the point, though I think it's necessary to point out one caveat.  We just lost our Norris winning top RD in Subban and Andrei Markov.  Then we trade off the projected "next Andrei Markov?"  Yes I know projections and all that, but I think strong skating puck moving D has more value than skilled wingers.  On top of that Drouin was on the outs in Tampa.

Also, we supposedly traded away plenty of skilled players for character issues.  Subban, Galchenyuk, Semin, Kassian, Tinordi, now apparently Domi (even though I think health issues is a legitimate concern in the bubble), but we traded for a malcontent hold-out like Drouin?  Not only that, we didn't offer him a bridge contract when we tried to stiff Subban with a bridge then of course having to overpay later, then of course whining non-stop about "overpaying" even though we did it to ourselves.  What's the logic there?

Anyways, end rant, see you guys next year.

 

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

Oh dont get me wrong, the trade was horrible for us (at least without a followup trade). It was a stupid move because we were trading away our best prospect at a position we were painfully thin at.   We acquired a guy who played a position we were strong at, but then tried to make him work at a position we were also weak at. It  was just a dumb move all-around for this team - but from a standpoint of a 1 for 1 deal in a vacuum the risk was actually more on TB's side. 

And that was the crux of it: in isolation, the trade was fine. It was sending out a young blue chip prospect D man for a slightly older but still young talent up front. It wasn't like when we dealt McDonagh for a past-prime player in Gomez. Drouin could have been and might still be a guy who plays for us for a decade, and he was more established at that time. The problem with the trade was always that MB didn't situate it in the big picture of team needs. He was so focused on trying to fix his lack of top 6 centers and wrongly believed Drouin could play there, that he didn't bother to notice he was creating an even bigger hole at left D. It wasn't just that we had lost Markov, but also Emelin and Beaulieu as well. So essentially, we had to re-build our entire left D at once, and then to add insult to injury, Drouin didn't even end up fixing the hole at center. I by no means think the trade was a total loss, but for it to have been a win, MB needed to have turned around and dealt a winger away to find a top pairing LHD and he didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

 

And that was the crux of it: in isolation, the trade was fine. It was sending out a young blue chip prospect D man for a slightly older but still young talent up front. It wasn't like when we dealt McDonagh for a past-prime player in Gomez. Drouin could have been and might still be a guy who plays for us for a decade, and he was more established at that time. The problem with the trade was always that MB didn't situate it in the big picture of team needs. He was so focused on trying to fix his lack of top 6 centers and wrongly believed Drouin could play there, that he didn't bother to notice he was creating an even bigger hole at left D. It wasn't just that we had lost Markov, but also Emelin and Beaulieu as well. So essentially, we had to re-build our entire left D at once, and then to add insult to injury, Drouin didn't even end up fixing the hole at center. I by no means think the trade was a total loss, but for it to have been a win, MB needed to have turned around and dealt a winger away to find a top pairing LHD and he didn't.

It’s very possible that my memory is failing me, but did the trade not take place prior to Markov not signing? It’s possible that Markov was still unsigned, but I don’t think it was conclusive that he wouldn’t be signing until well after the Drouin trade. I mean, not that it matters all that much, Markov was still pretty old and was bound to be in need of replacing sooner than later, so trading Sergachev was still a questionable move to make. Just saying that perhaps LD wasn’t as obvious of a problem at the time of the trade as it turned out to be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a very real chance that the handling of Drouin was actually above Bergevin's head.  It's always surprised me that a portion of the team's fans tout the lineage and history of the club but insist and pretend that the whole Montreal English / French dichotomy isn't a thing.  Drouin was simply trending upwards, on the outs with his then current team french kid.  I may not like all the dude's moves, but Marc probably isn't to be blamed with the handling of Jonathan's situation.  If your boss tells you to do something, it's likely that you do it or start looking for another job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

It’s very possible that my memory is failing me, but did the trade not take place prior to Markov not signing? It’s possible that Markov was still unsigned, but I don’t think it was conclusive that he wouldn’t be signing until well after the Drouin trade. I mean, not that it matters all that much, Markov was still pretty old and was bound to be in need of replacing sooner than later, so trading Sergachev was still a questionable move to make. Just saying that perhaps LD wasn’t as obvious of a problem at the time of the trade as it turned out to be...

It did. Drouin was traded in June so theoretically we could have still signed Markov (although he was already too old to be a 1st pairing dman over 82 games imho) and we also still had Emelin (ED hadnt happened yet) and Im almost positive that Beaulieu was traded (for a pick) a couple of days later.  So, chronology:

- We traded away Sergachev (still had Markov, Beau and Emelin)

- We traded away Beaulieu (still had Markov & Emelin)

- Expansion draft - they claimed Emelin (Still had Markov)

- We sign Karl Alzner & Joe Morrow (UFA) 

- We offer Markov a take it or leave it 1 year deal (he wants 2) & when he finally agrees we say "too late"

 

Which, when you look at it this way, is even worse.  We traded away Sergachev - which should have prompted a follow up trade for another LD but instead we traded away (or lost) 3 more!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, maas_art said:

It did. Drouin was traded in June so theoretically we could have still signed Markov (although he was already too old to be a 1st pairing dman over 82 games imho) and we also still had Emelin (ED hadnt happened yet) and Im almost positive that Beaulieu was traded (for a pick) a couple of days later.  So, chronology:

- We traded away Sergachev (still had Markov, Beau and Emelin)

- We traded away Beaulieu (still had Markov & Emelin)

- Expansion draft - they claimed Emelin (Still had Markov)

- We sign Karl Alzner & Joe Morrow (UFA) 

- We offer Markov a take it or leave it 1 year deal (he wants 2) & when he finally agrees we say "too late"

 

Which, when you look at it this way, is even worse.  We traded away Sergachev - which should have prompted a follow up trade for another LD but instead we traded away (or lost) 3 more!!

 

So we helped out Tampa with their salary structure, as they were close to the cap then, as well. We took on Tampa's malcontent.  We let all those defencemen go, signed Alzner, and Bergeron had the audacity to say, the Habs defence was BETTER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

It’s very possible that my memory is failing me, but did the trade not take place prior to Markov not signing? It’s possible that Markov was still unsigned, but I don’t think it was conclusive that he wouldn’t be signing until well after the Drouin trade. I mean, not that it matters all that much, Markov was still pretty old and was bound to be in need of replacing sooner than later, so trading Sergachev was still a questionable move to make. Just saying that perhaps LD wasn’t as obvious of a problem at the time of the trade as it turned out to be...

 

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

It did. Drouin was traded in June so theoretically we could have still signed Markov (although he was already too old to be a 1st pairing dman over 82 games imho) and we also still had Emelin (ED hadnt happened yet) and Im almost positive that Beaulieu was traded (for a pick) a couple of days later.  So, chronology:

- We traded away Sergachev (still had Markov, Beau and Emelin)

- We traded away Beaulieu (still had Markov & Emelin)

- Expansion draft - they claimed Emelin (Still had Markov)

- We sign Karl Alzner & Joe Morrow (UFA) 

- We offer Markov a take it or leave it 1 year deal (he wants 2) & when he finally agrees we say "too late"

 

Which, when you look at it this way, is even worse.  We traded away Sergachev - which should have prompted a follow up trade for another LD but instead we traded away (or lost) 3 more!!

 

 

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to have implied an order to what MB did, just saying that he let all those D men go in the same off-season and tried to rebuild the left side of his D from scratch. And don't forget his contingency plan of signing Mark Streit and telling everyone he had found a cheaper replacement for Markov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

 

 

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to have implied an order to what MB did, just saying that he let all those D men go in the same off-season and tried to rebuild the left side of his D from scratch. And don't forget his contingency plan of signing Mark Streit and telling everyone he had found a cheaper replacement for Markov.

Oof. I was trying to block that out.


We went from Markov - Sergachev - Emelin - Beaulieu

to

Alzner - Morrow - Streit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...