Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

#67 Max Pacioretty 2014-2015


ColRouleBleu

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Habs I/O:

The only other Hab to make the top-14 position rankings was Max Pacioretty, who came in at No. 7 on the list of left-wingers, behind Dallas’s Jamie Benn, Minnesota’s Zach Parise, San Jose’s Joe Pavelski, Chicago’s Patrick Sharp, Edmonton’s Taylor Hall, and Colorado’s Gabriel Landeskog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

.....did I just step into a time-warp pulsar black hole, or is this really the player page for our resident Wolverine who came within one goal of being the first 40-goal scoring Hab in a millenia?

And, who happens to be playing at a ferocious pace at the moment?

If tonight's game against the Boo-ins was any indication, I think Patches puts together another great season this year. He's good. He's real good. In fact, he's so good, that Canadiens fans have let this page go to seed for over TWO MONTHS!

Well, I'm gonna pick my jaw up off the floor and post a comment here: this franchise would be CRAZY to ever trade Pacioretty.

Now that that's out of the way, I will say that I sure am enjoying watching the game played at such a high level. So why wouldn't we see Patches actually pass to Desharhais once in a while? I'm enjoying watching the chemistry grow as they get more creative. And this Weise-to-Patches thing has my attention, too.

Ho, hum....just another two-goal night at the office.....I'll be at the bar after work......see ya back here in a month or two......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....did I just step into a time-warp pulsar black hole, or is this really the player page for our resident Wolverine who came within one goal of being the first 40-goal scoring Hab in a millenia?

And, who happens to be playing at a ferocious pace at the moment?

If tonight's game against the Boo-ins was any indication, I think Patches puts together another great season this year. He's good. He's real good. In fact, he's so good, that Canadiens fans have let this page go to seed for over TWO MONTHS!

Well, I'm gonna pick my jaw up off the floor and post a comment here: this franchise would be CRAZY to ever trade Pacioretty.

Now that that's out of the way, I will say that I sure am enjoying watching the game played at such a high level. So why wouldn't we see Patches actually pass to Desharhais once in a while? I'm enjoying watching the chemistry grow as they get more creative. And this Weise-to-Patches thing has my attention, too.

Ho, hum....just another two-goal night at the office.....I'll be at the bar after work......see ya back here in a month or two......

NANANANA_zps25687ce4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think that when you consider his cap hit Pacioretty is one of the best players in the NHL. I can't think of anyone who gives you more bang for buck (excluding anyone on entry level deal, and even then!)

Agreed. He'd be good value at 6M a year, and it's even better that we have him at the price we do. Currently 9th in the league in goals, and one of the best even-strength scorers in the league in the past few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think that when you consider his cap hit Pacioretty is one of the best players in the NHL. I can't think of anyone who gives you more bang for buck (excluding anyone on entry level deal, and even then!)

Agreed. That was my biggest issue when trade rumors concerning Patch surfaced last season.

Sure we could've maybe gotten similar skill/production back, but not with a cap friendly hit.

No matter how you looked at it, had we traded him last season, we would've come out losers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. That was my biggest issue when trade rumors concerning Patch surfaced last season.

Sure we could've maybe gotten similar skill/production back, but not with a cap friendly hit.

No matter how you looked at it, had we traded him last season, we would've come out losers.

Would love to add Kane, but there's no way you look at their respective contracts and deal Pacioretty for him. Pacman is the better player and on the better contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would love to add Kane, but there's no way you look at their respective contracts and deal Pacioretty for him. Pacman is the better player and on the better contract.

He's a bit older but yeah, better contract and better player plus we know he fits in with this roster, whatever that's worth. It's hard to envision a workable scenario where trading Pacioretty would make any sort of sense. When you factor in the amount of good goalies (not as good as Carey but it does decrease the overall value because there's less desperate need) and Subban's salary Pacioretty and Galchenyuk are arguably our 2 most valuable trade assets and I think there's a strong case with that contract + his age that Pacioretty is number 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Agreed. He'd be good value at 6M a year, and it's even better that we have him at the price we do. Currently 9th in the league in goals, and one of the best even-strength scorers in the league in the past few years.

There was a stat on the night of his birthday that he scored more goals than anyone in the NHL from his last birthday to his current one. Thats pretty impressive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we know he'll never get any consideration for the NHL player safety board.

Because it should definitely be Chris Pronger instead of a retired on-ice official. :lol: I find Kerry Fraser's column on TSN.ca quite refreshing. I know he has the benefit of hindsight, but it is nice to hear from someone who officiated in the league. He knows the rule book and he was around for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it should definitely be Chris Pronger instead of a retired on-ice official. :lol: I find Kerry Fraser's column on TSN.ca quite refreshing. I know he has the benefit of hindsight, but it is nice to hear from someone who officiated in the league. He knows the rule book and he was around for a long time.

On the flip side, you have Stephane Auger doing approximately the same thing Fraser does and he said that no penalty was the correct decision, the hit was not late (therefore no interference) and Max was hit from his side (therefore no boarding) and Max should know to protect hiimself yada yada yada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, you have Stephane Auger doing approximately the same thing Fraser does and he said that no penalty was the correct decision, the hit was not late (therefore no interference) and Max was hit from his side (therefore no boarding) and Max should know to protect hiimself yada yada yada

I always thought "boarding" could be called without it having to be a hit from behind?

Anyway, Pacioretty is back! And added two more assists to his total! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought "boarding" could be called without it having to be a hit from behind?

Anyway, Pacioretty is back! And added two more assists to his total! :D

It doesn't. The essence of the rule is that you can't hit a defenseless opponent into the boards, and Pacioretty was clearly vulnerable. Was there intent to injure? I don't believe so. Was it a hit from behind? No. But I do think it was a bit late (not sure when these people are counting from who said it wasn't) and it definitely met the criteria for boarding. The decision between a minor and major comes down to ref discretion about the violence of the impact, but that was at least a 2 minute penalty that was brutally ignored by FSL. Here's the rule:

Rule 41 - Boarding

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who

checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that

causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or

dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with

the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the

application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player

applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless

position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in

determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the

circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put

himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously

with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be

considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when

applying this rule.

Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an

obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player hitting or

impacting the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In

other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be

treated as “charging.”

41.2 Minor Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor

penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the

boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent.

41.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major

penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the

boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent (see 41.5).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...