31Careyprice Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Habs new 4th line: Moen - Briere - Weise ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTed3 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Saying that trading Diaz is acceptable because Diaz wasn't in the plans here is a logical fallacy. We refuse to play him, therefore he is not good enough to play here. Therrien chooses to play Murray and Parros and Bourque, but that doesn't make them better players simply because the coach can't see their deficiencies. In Diaz's case, there was clearly something wrong between him and the coach. As I said, I am highly suspicious he asked for a trade, as I simply cannot see any intelligent coaching staff sitting out its 4th best defenceman for 3 weeks. Even as a benching, that's extremely harsh, and there's nothing we can pinpoint on Diaz to show why he would suddenly deserve to be press-boxed. But the bottom line in all this is that Diaz only had a low value to us because benching him made it so. If we had played him, he probably has a higher worth and it becomes much more clear that the alternatives are not as capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habs1952 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 They're able to break the stats out on a per player basis. While there are other players on the team who also have bad stats, Murray's are by far the worst. If you want a quick visual without having to go too deeply into the numbers, check out the chart with all the coloured circles about half way down this page: http://www.extraskater.com/team/montreal-canadiens/2013 Murray's circle is that bright red one in the bottom-right corner. The more red the circle is, the worse his possession numbers. There are other guys that are just as red (Prust and White) but they also are way further left on the chart (meaning they always start in the defensive zone). Likewise there are other players who are babied almost as much as Murray with zone starts (Patches, Desharnais, the two Gallys) but they also play against better competition and three of those for are blue (meaning positive possession, even on our bad team). So to recap, Murray is babied more than any other player in terms of zone starts, bar none. He plays against easier competition than every player other than White. And even with those two factors he is still the worst possession player on the team. I guess my point is that people aren't just saying 'we don't like Murray' because they don't like his style of play. I also don't think that anybody is saying that Murray is the cause of our troubles - after all, he doesn't even play that often. The problem for me and a lot of people (and how it relates to this trade) is that we were playing a guy like Murray, who is objectively making us worse when he plays, while at the same time leaving a guy like Diaz to rot on the bench and to eventually be traded. It's not that we're blaming Murray for the team being bad (or really for anything), it's that we're blaming the coaching/management for not being able to see that Murray has been playing badly despite all evidence that he has been. I saw the chart and admittedly it's obviously bad for Murray. But the point I'm trying to make is it's not completely his fault. Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win face offs in the O-zone thus giving up possession? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't score? Can we blame him solely for players who can't forecheck and keep the puck in the O-zone for more than 5 seconds? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win board battles to regain possession of the puck or who miss checking assignments D-zone? Maybe if the 5 man unit on the ice including Murray played better as a whole Murray's numbers wouldn't look so bad. Maybe if the same 5 man unit including Murray stayed together for several games we'd see five players with bad Corsi numbers but the forwards tend to get a reprieve by playing with a better pair of d-men who can cover up for the forwards deficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manatee-X Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I saw the chart and admittedly it's obviously bad for Murray. But the point I'm trying to make is it's not completely his fault. Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win face offs in the O-zone thus giving up possession? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't score? Can we blame him solely for players who can't forecheck and keep the puck in the O-zone for more than 5 seconds? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win board battles to regain possession of the puck or who miss checking assignments D-zone? Maybe if the 5 man unit on the ice including Murray played better as a whole Murray's numbers wouldn't look so bad. Maybe if the same 5 man unit including Murray stayed together for several games we'd see five players with bad Corsi numbers but the forwards tend to get a reprieve by playing with a better pair of d-men who can cover up for the forwards deficiencies. Yeah, for sure. It's easy for anybody, myself included, to get hung up one thing (in this case Murray). There's definitely problems that go a lot deeper than him, though. I guess he's just the easiest thing to point to when I was trying to figure out why Diaz wasn't getting any ice time. It's not even just about Murray, though - it seems like Diaz should have at the very least been in some sort of rotation with Murray, Bouillion and Emelin. I think Ted might be on to something when he guesses that Diaz probably requested a trade a few weeks ago - I just don't know why else he could have been press-boxed for so long. Edit: And I'll add, too, that there could be some real truth to what you're saying. Maybe on a better team Murray wouldn't look so bad, even when compared to his teammates. If he only needs to clear the net, knock someone off the puck (i.e. his strengths) and then make a quick pass to an open forward I'm sure his numbers would look much better. With us he clears the net, gets possession in our end and just ends up dumping it out or giving it away because our forwards are already looking to get up the ice instead of supporting our D-men. Guys like Subban and Markov (and Diaz ) can make the kind of tape-to-tape passes that compensate a bit for that poor support, which ends up leaving a defensive guy like Murray looking even worse by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerplay2009 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I saw the chart and admittedly it's obviously bad for Murray. But the point I'm trying to make is it's not completely his fault. Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win face offs in the O-zone thus giving up possession? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't score? Can we blame him solely for players who can't forecheck and keep the puck in the O-zone for more than 5 seconds? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win board battles to regain possession of the puck or who miss checking assignments D-zone? Maybe if the 5 man unit on the ice including Murray played better as a whole Murray's numbers wouldn't look so bad. Maybe if the same 5 man unit including Murray stayed together for several games we'd see five players with bad Corsi numbers but the forwards tend to get a reprieve by playing with a better pair of d-men who can cover up for the forwards deficiencies. I definitely see what you're saying. We really only have one forward line that can drive possession (DD) and that's against basically the weakest competition in the NHL. We'll give a break to the Pleks line because they face the Crosbys and Toews night in night out. So yes, our forwards suck, and in that regard Murray isn't the problem, However, you can look at each of our defensemen in the lineup, and you see the same thing if you look at their numbers. They play significantly worse. Significantly. And the same thing happens to the forwards, although it is much harder to track. The system is a problem, and so are some of the players. But the biggest part is the common denominator, and that's Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I saw the chart and admittedly it's obviously bad for Murray. But the point I'm trying to make is it's not completely his fault. Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win face offs in the O-zone thus giving up possession? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't score? Can we blame him solely for players who can't forecheck and keep the puck in the O-zone for more than 5 seconds? Can we blame him solely for forwards who can't win board battles to regain possession of the puck or who miss checking assignments D-zone? Maybe if the 5 man unit on the ice including Murray played better as a whole Murray's numbers wouldn't look so bad. Maybe if the same 5 man unit including Murray stayed together for several games we'd see five players with bad Corsi numbers but the forwards tend to get a reprieve by playing with a better pair of d-men who can cover up for the forwards deficiencies. It works that way for any player, with any stat. I mean Pacioretty wouldn't score 30 goals on the ice alone right? No stat for a fluid game like hockey will be perfect but it does give a pretty good indication and there's a pretty consistent trend of players possession numbers being much worse when they play with Murray. The other thing is his possession numbers were bad in the last year or 2 in San Jose and in Pittsburgh, 2 very good teams. Here's the the thing, stats like Corsi or Fenwick require context. If Murray had inferior numbers because he was taking a lot of Dzone starts or playing very tough competition, it would be a different assessment but there isn't a DMan on the team who starts a higher % of his shifts on offensive zone faceoffs, so essentially Therrien is trying to baby him 5 on 5. My only guess would be that they view him as a PK specialist but either way he's playing WAY too much 5 on 5. Murray is bad no matter who he plays with the last few years and no matter where and I mean really bad 5 on 5. This is the thing, think about the things Murray is good at and it's basically all dependent on the other team having the puck. He can't skate, pass or shoot, we're essentially playing 4 on 5 offensively with him on the ice. It's hard to generate any kind of pressure like that. I completely get the need and importance for defensive DMen but the problem is Murray isn't very good defensively 5 on 5 anymore because of his foot speed. When you look at a pretty basic thing for our DMen like shots against per 20 minutes, Diaz is at 8.3 shots against per 20 minutes and Murray is at 10.2 and Murray of course is on the ice for the fewest shots for per 20 (7.8) and that's 5 on 5. It would be one thing, again like I said if Murray was actually used as a shutdown guy, facing the other team's top scoring line and taking a ton of defensive zone starts but he doesn't. Some people believe in the advanced stats and some people don't, it's totally fine by me to those who don't, I get it but my question then would be, can anyone tell me how Murray is helping us at 5 on 5? We give up a TON of shots with him out there 5 on 5, we are a huge minus in goals for/against, we even try starting him in the offensive zone more than any other DMan and he hemorrhages shots against. I mean I know there's a need for strong DMen, I know there's a need for defensive DMen but shouldn't we want them to be shutdown defensively? Shouldn't we want them to either limit shots/goals against or at least play against the other team's line? Gorges is a valuable defensive guy, Emelin was last season. Those are the kind of guys we need to be physical and defensive. Guys who can skate and sort of move the puck. I know Murray blocks shots and in theory I get why that's good but it's only good if it limits shots allowed, right now he blocks so many shots because the other team is taking so many shots when he's on the ice. That's not necessarily a good thing. If we as a team block 30 shots and the other team has 16 SOG, that's a probably good thing. If we block 30 shots and the other team still has 35 SOG, it's just an indication we're getting killed out there. Anyway, Murray seems like a cool dude but let's give Tinordi or Pateryn that experience. Diaz should have been playing but that's dead and gone now. Let's see what the kids have got. Both Pateryn and Tinordi are huge and move a whole lot better than Murray and have a future in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I suppose the whole thing is a philosophical thing more than a stats thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinot-1 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I suppose the whole thing is a philosophical thing more than a stats thing. Come again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodenhhead Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 ugh, this has to be a cap space move... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1IscottieI1I Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think all along mb new once beaulieu was ready Diaz was done just like if tinordi had been ready he would have never signed Murray and once tinordi is ready Murray will also be moved.question now is who will we need to move to make room for pateryn..... Gorges?..... Markov? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think all along mb new once beaulieu was ready Diaz was done just like if tinordi had been ready he would have never signed Murray and once tinordi is ready Murray will also be moved.question now is who will we need to move to make room for pateryn..... Gorges?..... Markov? I think there's a better than 0 chance Markov gets moved if there's the right offer out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Great trade by the Habs. Adding a fourth liner should address the Habs' current inability to score goals ^ this is why some , well probably alot are scratching their head and not jumping for joy. We need someone to score goals, or someone to help strengthen the defense. I understand trading someone if their going to be UFA in the summer or if they just dont figure into your long term plans. Improving our 4th line would have been near the bottom of the priority list for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwdemonwolf Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Loved Diaz. But if he wasn't in our future plans, we got a decent player for him. Weise has scored 30 goals in the AHL and while that is no guarantee for NHL success, he could definately play a third line role. Good speed as well. Got to be another trade on the way though, when Galchenyuk is back we have a real logjam at forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeanCountingHab Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 On the bright side, at least we had a lot of right handed defensemen to spare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs_Hockey_Nutz Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think as soon as contract negotiations started thqt was the end of Diaz with the Habs... I may be wrong but wonder if his pressbox duties didn't start around the same time as his contract negotiations did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeanCountingHab Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think as soon as contract negotiations started thqt was the end of Diaz with the Habs... I may be wrong but wonder if his pressbox duties didn't start around the same time as his contract negotiations did. If that's the case though, and you determine he won't be back next year, why on earth do you sit him for that long when: a) He's still a useful contributor (that's an understatement) while you still have him and You could be showcasing him instead of destroying his market value Unfortunately, there really is no possible scenario where we can say this was handled well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs_Hockey_Nutz Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 If that's the case though, and you determine he won't be back next year, why on earth do you sit him for that long when: a) He's still a useful contributor (that's an understatement) while you still have him and You could be showcasing him instead of destroying his market value Unfortunately, there really is no possible scenario where we can say this was handled well. Oh I agree... maybe the likes of Bergevin and Therrien should stop listening to RDS and the Antichambre boys. They seem to think Diaz was just not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HabsAlways Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm still chuckling that a lot of people posting believe Diaz was our 3rd best or at the very least a top4 defender .... How many players of that calibre sit as a healthy scratch for as long as he did without drawing interest from other teams? The fact that it took this long to finally trade him tells me that the other 29 GM's in the league didn't think he was a top3 or 4 defender either. Like somebody else said, and I 've said ... at best Diaz is a 3rd pairing dman that you use on the power play. He's a MABergeron, nothing more, nothing less. Some teams nead that kind of dman ,... we don't with Subban and Markov, and the kids coming up. Loved Diaz. But if he wasn't in our future plans, we got a decent player for him. Weise has scored 30 goals in the AHL and while that is no guarantee for NHL success, he could definately play a third line role. Good speed as well. Got to be another trade on the way though, when Galchenyuk is back we have a real logjam at forward. Most likely ... and Bourque's name keeps coming up ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedimaas Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm still chuckling that a lot of people posting believe Diaz was our 3rd best or at the very least a top4 defender .... How many players of that calibre sit as a healthy scratch for as long as he did without drawing interest from other teams? The fact that it took this long to finally trade him tells me that the other 29 GM's in the league didn't think he was a top3 or 4 defender either. Like somebody else said, and I 've said ... at best Diaz is a 3rd pairing dman that you use on the power play. He's a MABergeron, nothing more, nothing less. Some teams nead that kind of dman ,... we don't with Subban and Markov, and the kids coming up. I think there's some truth to what you're saying although to be honest I dont think anyone knows how good Diaz is because we didnt play him enough. 128 NHL games usually doesnt tell you a lot about how a player will pan out, especially a defenseman, albeit he's not a young dman... Interestingly out here in BC the consensus is that Diaz is here to help get the nucks through injuries & he will only be a spare part after guys like Bieksa return to action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeanCountingHab Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm still chuckling that a lot of people posting believe Diaz was our 3rd best or at the very least a top4 defender .... How many players of that calibre sit as a healthy scratch for as long as he did without drawing interest from other teams? The fact that it took this long to finally trade him tells me that the other 29 GM's in the league didn't think he was a top3 or 4 defender either. Like somebody else said, and I 've said ... at best Diaz is a 3rd pairing dman that you use on the power play. He's a MABergeron, nothing more, nothing less. Some teams nead that kind of dman ,... we don't with Subban and Markov, and the kids coming up. Most likely ... and Bourque's name keeps coming up ... I'm still pounding my head against the desk that some people believe Murray is a better defensemen despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (I'm not saying you said that). If you measure a defenseman's value as the ability to minimize shots directed at his own net and maximizing his team's shots towards the opposing net, than Diaz was at minimum our 4th best defenseman and it's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColRouleBleu Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Saying that trading Diaz is acceptable because Diaz wasn't in the plans here is a logical fallacy. We refuse to play him, therefore he is not good enough to play here. Therrien chooses to play Murray and Parros and Bourque, but that doesn't make them better players simply because the coach can't see their deficiencies. In Diaz's case, there was clearly something wrong between him and the coach. As I said, I am highly suspicious he asked for a trade, as I simply cannot see any intelligent coaching staff sitting out its 4th best defenceman for 3 weeks. Even as a benching, that's extremely harsh, and there's nothing we can pinpoint on Diaz to show why he would suddenly deserve to be press-boxed. But the bottom line in all this is that Diaz only had a low value to us because benching him made it so. If we had played him, he probably has a higher worth and it becomes much more clear that the alternatives are not as capable. Logic has nothing to do with it as I'm not passing any judgement on whether it's a good or bad trade. My post is about me not having control over any of this so whether diaz is not playing because he's scratched or not playing because he's not on the team anymore has the same result, he's not playing for the Habs in a game. Part 2 is do I like Weise? Cant tell until i've seen him play. Again, not talking about value to the team and what not, every vet on here should know by now that im allergic to armchair GMing so I dont enter those discussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalesArmy Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Just a little info on Dales stats while at home in the Netherlands playing for the Tilburg Trappers during the last NHL lockout. Dale played 19 games during the lockout and amassed 22 goals with 26 helpers for a total of 48 points in 19 games. I think that he wasn't used to his strengths while in Vancouver. Good luck Dale and good luck Canadiens! http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=15727 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadHabbler Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Glad he is gone, I was never a Diaz fan, i wish him luck in Vancouver... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstStar Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Afternoon folks! Been trying to get on here since hearing/reading of the trade. Well, can't say I'm surprised, always had a feeling he wasn't in our future plans. At least they let him go, he gets a chance to start fresh in Vancouver. Already 5 pages of discussed, any good word on the kid? I know we have Bo up, still I hope pateryn gets a shot. He is a right handed dman, we're down a righty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habs1952 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Just a little info on Dales stats while at home in the Netherlands playing for the Tilburg Trappers during the last NHL lockout. Dale played 19 games during the lockout and amassed 22 goals with 26 helpers for a total of 48 points in 19 games. I think that he wasn't used to his strengths while in Vancouver. Good luck Dale and good luck Canadiens! http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=15727 That's what I'm hoping. And hey, welcome to the forum Dale! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.