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

Poll: Worst Trade


BigTed3

  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the worst trade in recent Habs history?

    • Roy for Thibeault etc.
    • Chelios for Savard
      0
    • McDonagh and Higgins for Gomez etc.
    • Subban for Weber


Recommended Posts

As Habs fans, we've sat through our GM's making some really really awful decisions. Here are some of the worst ones we've seen. Trying to set aside the emotion of today, which trade in recent history do you think was the worst one for the team? Which GM got fleeced the most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gomez one was really, really bad. And only time will tell - maybe the biggest difference in player skill might actually be that one (or I suppose the Roy one).

But with that trade, as bad as it was, I could at least see some logic at the time. We were desperate for a centre, and Gomez was still a coveted player. Yes he was on a bad contract, but it would have been reasonable to expect more than he ended up giving us. An overpaid first line centre is still better than no first line centre - it just so happened that he took a complete nose-dive and we didn't end up with anything. Likewise, McDonagh was still a prospect. Apparently Timmons had a good idea of how good he might be, but that can still go down as an error in judgement rather than a complete lack of logic.

And that, by the way, is what makes this Subban trade so terrible. There is no weighing the pros versus the cons on this one. There are no pros. We gave up the best player. We gave up the youngest player. We gave up the player with the better contract term. We gave up the most entertaining player. We gave away the most marketable player. We gave away the player with the most ties to his community. I mean, I guess we save a million in cap space in the short term - so yay for that I guess? There's just no defending this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I legitimately think it's Subban for Weber. Manatee's thoughts on the Gomez et al trade are pretty much exactly what I think on the matter, only expressed more eloquently. The Roy trade has to be viewed differently, because it was in a different era of the NHL. That the Habs happened to be pretty bad non-stop afterward was an unfortunate thing, but not a guaranteed outcome. They could've (in the generic sense) spent whatever it took to fix it. If it didn't work, they could've buried the contract.

Not now. Need an elite, top 3 defenceman? Better get to drafting, or give up our best player, because you're not going to sign him in his prime. Weber starts to crater at an accelerated pace? Tough, the NHL now worships at the altar of "parity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with what Manatee and 93 have said...

- Chelios for Savard was bad but you could make arguments for it and we won a Cup that year, so there's some forgiveness there for that.

- The Roy deal set us back for years, but Houle's hand was forced by Tremblay and Roy himself. The mistake was keeping Tremblay. Once that decision was made, it was always going to be difficult to get fair value for Roy. We lost the trade, but I don't know that we could have resolved that situation once it hit the point of the trade request.

- The Gomez deal was made by a GM who had his heart in the right place and just made an error in where he wanted to take the team. Gomez as a player was sen to be a very good top 6 player at the time and the main issues with the deal were Gomez' contract and giving up on McDonagh. Many of us thought McDonagh would be a player, BUT that being said, a lot of us also had high hope for Tinordi and he didn't pan out, so it was always a gamble. McDonagh wasn't a proven asset, so we could guess but couldn't definitively conclude the trade was lost until later. As was said, the Gomez trade also set the table for other signings, and we made the ECF, so while the trade hurt us in the long run, there were some short-term gains and Gomez was never as bad as the media made him out to be, he just didn't deserve his contract.

- The Subban deal is not defensible any way you cut it. Not based on on-ice stats, points, possession, not based on contracts, not based on community involvement or anything tangible. The only reason Bergevin could come up with is his tiresome explanation of his love for character and leadership and winning. Winning? Shea Weber has never made a conference final. Subban has made two already. Weber has never won a Cup. He has two Olympic golds playing for a very heavily stacked team. He played well for Canada, but winning Gold is not nearly as hard as winning a Cup, and in that respect, Weber has a longer losing streak than PK. There is no way you can defend the trade, there is no way Bergevin can explain it. So this is the worst trade in the history of the Habs IMO, which goes along nicely with the worst losing streak in the last 80 years that this organization put up last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Montreal's management needs to give its head a shake from this old Ballard style approach (the Maple Laff's former curse), which adheres to an 'us vs them' type attitude. (Thus the foxhole buddies)

There needs to be a balance. One that encompasses and includes the actual players and fans and their concerns, which Toronto has recently committed itself to. Toronto has moved on from this old Ballard curse and is about to succeed, and much to my own dismay.

Anything less than the Stanley Cup for my Habs is unacceptable to me.

This team's management/ownership needs to evolve along with today's hockey rather than sticking to the old fashion, losing style ways.

It ain't gonna cut it, it ain't gonna work, it's a disaster in the making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Subban. An excellent overall player, but I have noticed that many times after a goal scored against the Habs, either he or Markov were on the ice. Too many errors on the defensive side of the puck. Weber is better on this and he can hit hard. Something that no one on Habs does. Maybe we can be nasty once again. Ghosts of Bouchard, Robinson, Savard and Lapointe and Gainey cross my mind. Now the question is how deflating is the loss of PK going to be to the rest of the team. What I saw on the ice is a cohesive tight group. I'm not sure Weber has that kind of unifying presence. Yes PK was emotional, exuberant and sometimes outlandish, but he attracted fans and he appeared to be glue for his teammates. How many players are so liked/loved as to have their helmets kissed by a stand-offish Russian teammate while they're wearing it. And if there was behind the scenes discord it wasn't apparent on the ice. Hope management has been accumulating defensemen, because they have thought thoroughly about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'And once again team management — the GM and the president — have sided with a ho-hum coach over a superstar and that’s why Subban is headed to Nashville. Look, don’t get me wrong. Shea Weber is a great, great player. But he’s almost four years older than Subban and as Pierre McGuire pointed out on TSN 690 Wednesday afternoon, Weber has a lot of long, hard miles under his belt. Weber turns 31 in August. Subban just turned 27.'

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/brendan-kellys-what-the-puck-p-k-subban-trade-worst-move-by-habs-since-the-patrick-roy-deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Subban. An excellent overall player, but I have noticed that many times after a goal scored against the Habs, either he or Markov were on the ice. Too many errors on the defensive side of the puck. Weber is better on this and he can hit hard. Something that no one on Habs does. Maybe we can be nasty once again. Ghosts of Bouchard, Robinson, Savard and Lapointe and Gainey cross my mind. Now the question is how deflating is the loss of PK going to be to the rest of the team. What I saw on the ice is a cohesive tight group. I'm not sure Weber has that kind of unifying presence. Yes PK was emotional, exuberant and sometimes outlandish, but he attracted fans and he appeared to be glue for his teammates. How many players are so liked/loved as to have their helmets kissed by a stand-offish Russian teammate while they're wearing it. And if there was behind the scenes discord it wasn't apparent on the ice. Hope management has been accumulating defensemen, because they have thought thoroughly about this.

Don't have the stat with me, but I think Subban was on for something like 2/3 of Montreal's goals last year. When he was on at 5v5, Montreal also had a significant advantage in goals scored (I think something like 54% of goals went to Montreal), whereas Weber was at something like 51%. It might have felt like Subban was on for a lot of goals against because he was just on the ice a lot period. He's a far superior D man to Weber at both ends of the ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subban for Weber is the only deal that I think felt this bad on the day it happened. My list (of the ones Ive been alive to see, not sure about those before these):

1. Subban for Weber

2. Turgeon + ++ for Corson/Baron - this one still is maybe the worst. Thrown ins when you already have given up the (vastly) better player.

3. Roy - This one on paper wasnt that bad. Thibeault was the top young goaltending prospect. He flamed out. Kovalenko even worse. Ruccinsky was at least good.

4. Gomez for Higgins/McDonaugh - this one hurts once again because of a throw in. Gomez' contract was bad. Losing McDonaugh was worse

5. Chelios for Savard - no one could have predicted how bad this would be. Chelios drank Oil of Olay & Savard retired just a few years later. they were virtually the same age!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I agree the Recchi trade was worse. All the others have excuses, there were circumstances (possibly even here) but Recchi was just done for no reason at all!

I wouldnt even class that trade in the top 5 worst. Sure it turned out bad but no one could possibly imagine LeClair was going to turn into what he did. Even then you could argue that a lot of his success was hitched to Lindros.

Recchi was an elite forward. He was coming off a 107 point season. We traded Eric Desjardins for him basically. The Flyers wanted some throw ins, so true to his form, Houle added in Dionne (no huge loss) and LeClair who had had a knack for timely goals, but never made anyone think he was going to be a 50 goal scorer, let alone a 40 goal guy.

So while the trade, in hindsight, sucked, at the time most people felt like we stole recchi. We were lacking a top tier RW and he was certainly that. If Houle hadnt been dumb enough to throw in LeClair, it would have been a great trade.

Unlike this trade today, where no one has made a single compelling reason why we are better off today than we were yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy trade made more sense at the time than it feels like it did in hindsight. Roy was a 30 year old who had a so-so year the season prior (first playoff miss since 1970) and even had another so-so year in 95-96, prior to the playoffs obviously. Didn't work out, but trading him for prospects, including the most highly regarded goaltending prospect at least made a shred of sense. Not that it was necessarily well advised but it had a shred of logic and some of these other ones didn't, at least. Thibault actually had a better SV% in MTL that first season than Roy had in MTL or Colorado. It was really stupid to trade for the kid under those circumstances and throw him to the wolves.

Gomez trade is probably the worst if you remove emotion. Not only are you taking on a contract that you shouldn't have touched on waivers but you're trading a young, at least useful NHLer and one of your top prospects to do it? I actually remember trying to convince myself it could work out in 2009 but basically everyone knew it was completely doomed from the start.

Recchi trade is a good example but at the time he was in his prime and viewed clearly as the best player in the deal at that moment. It turned out AWFUL but no one really projected that sort of ceiling from LeClair. Maybe a case of not knowing what you had and yes definitely turned out AWFUL but Recchi was really good.

Turgeon trade, they clearly just didn't like the guy and wanted MOAR TOUGHNESS. Sound familiar? Corson actually had a really good season in 97-98 but that whole trade felt rushed. Turgeon clearly turned them off basically immediately after they named him captain. I wonder if they pinned that 2-0 collapse to the Rangers in 96 on him? Weird to make a move like that under 20 games into the season as opposed to the off-season.

Subban for Weber is bad, part of it is definitely the emotion of a really loveable guy who did a lot and was misunderstood but just from a hockey standpoint, trading away Subban's prime seasons for Weber's 31-40 seasons is really inexplicable. The worst part is this trade will start out bad on the ice and progressively get worse and worse each year. I have nothing against Weber, he's still good but Subban was a franchise defining player.

It's close, Gomez or Weber deal for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with what Manatee and 93 have said...

- Chelios for Savard was bad but you could make arguments for it and we won a Cup that year, so there's some forgiveness there for that.

- The Roy deal set us back for years, but Houle's hand was forced by Tremblay and Roy himself. The mistake was keeping Tremblay. Once that decision was made, it was always going to be difficult to get fair value for Roy. We lost the trade, but I don't know that we could have resolved that situation once it hit the point of the trade request.

- The Gomez deal was made by a GM who had his heart in the right place and just made an error in where he wanted to take the team. Gomez as a player was sen to be a very good top 6 player at the time and the main issues with the deal were Gomez' contract and giving up on McDonagh. Many of us thought McDonagh would be a player, BUT that being said, a lot of us also had high hope for Tinordi and he didn't pan out, so it was always a gamble. McDonagh wasn't a proven asset, so we could guess but couldn't definitively conclude the trade was lost until later. As was said, the Gomez trade also set the table for other signings, and we made the ECF, so while the trade hurt us in the long run, there were some short-term gains and Gomez was never as bad as the media made him out to be, he just didn't deserve his contract.

- The Subban deal is not defensible any way you cut it. Not based on on-ice stats, points, possession, not based on contracts, not based on community involvement or anything tangible. The only reason Bergevin could come up with is his tiresome explanation of his love for character and leadership and winning. Winning? Shea Weber has never made a conference final. Subban has made two already. Weber has never won a Cup. He has two Olympic golds playing for a very heavily stacked team. He played well for Canada, but winning Gold is not nearly as hard as winning a Cup, and in that respect, Weber has a longer losing streak than PK. There is no way you can defend the trade, there is no way Bergevin can explain it. So this is the worst trade in the history of the Habs IMO, which goes along nicely with the worst losing streak in the last 80 years that this organization put up last season.

I think you're being too forgiving on the Gomez deal. While it's true at the time we didn't realize what we were giving up, this was a 12th overall pick from 2 years earlier. And my feeling since I first heard the trade has always been that we got ripped off. I was okay with us going after Gomez, but I don't think Gainey grasped the idea that in a cap world, a player's value is a mix of how they perform and their cap hit. I would have been okay with taking on a bad contract to fill a need, but don't send a top prospect the other way.

In hindsight, the Gomez and Roy trades will almost certainly look worse than the Subban trade, just because this trade is two known commodities, deals with prospects & picks always have a higher potential to look bad in hindsight. But I agree that the Subban trade just feels completely pointless. At least the other trades had some upside at the time: Gomez could have been an upgrade at center, andhad Thibault worked out we would have been younger in goal plus Roy was demanding a trade. But in this trade we clearly gave up too much - much like the Gomez deal - but it also doesn't fill a need or have any real upside. The other trades *could* have looked okay in hindsight, this one is almost guaranteed to look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gomez trade is probably the worst if you remove emotion. Not only are you taking on a contract that you shouldn't have touched on waivers but you're trading a young, at least useful NHLer and one of your top prospects to do it? I actually remember trying to convince myself it could work out in 2009 but basically everyone knew it was completely doomed from the start.

If I remember correctly, I talked myself into thinking maybe taking on his contract would be okay - he might be an upgrade over Koivu (as much as Koivu was my favorite player, Gomez had a couple really solid seasons in NJ). If the trade were Gomez for Higgins straight up, I still would have questioned it (correctly, in hindsight) but it would have seemed like a decent chance to take.

But about the best you could do for the Mcdonagh 'throw-in' was hope he'd be a bust: at no point did including him ever make any sense to me. The fact the Rangers went on to sign a top UFA with the money they saved was a pretty clear indication how badly we got hosed (was effectively Gomez for Higgins, Gaborik, and a top prospect).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say now because I am heartbroken and seething with anger about this moronic and utterly disastrous trade but I genuinely feel like you can make an argument this is the worst one.

The Gomez trade looks awful in hindsight, but at the time McDonagh was just a Michigan high school prospect, he was far from a sure thing and was a bit unconventional as a pick. Subban is a Nortis trophy winner and the 2nd best defenseman in the world. We knew full well how good Subban was and how good Weber is when the trade was made, while the Gomez deal had more uncertainty. It looks terrible in hindsight but the Subban/Weber fiasco looks worse from day 1, and will only get worse and worse as tome goes by.

I'm flabbergasted. What an awful move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say now because I am heartbroken and seething with anger about this moronic and utterly disastrous trade but I genuinely feel like you can make an argument this is the worst one.

The Gomez trade looks awful in hindsight, but at the time McDonagh was just a Michigan high school prospect, he was far from a sure thing and was a bit unconventional as a pick. Subban is a Nortis trophy winner and the 2nd best defenseman in the world. We knew full well how good Subban was and how good Weber is when the trade was made, while the Gomez deal had more uncertainty. It looks terrible in hindsight but the Subban/Weber fiasco looks worse from day 1, and will only get worse and worse as tome goes by.

I'm flabbergasted. What an awful move.

For sure Subban has more present day value than McD did at the point of that trade but so does Weber over Gomez. I think the main point of contention for me that makes it close is that Gomez was probably a player we shouldn't have even claimed off waivers at that time, it was widely known that Gomez was majorly overpaid. So in terms of assets, yes we gave up McD and Higgins but we also took on 7.3 million of bad contract without sending any money back, in this case while Weber's term is annoying, we're actually saving a bit on the cap short term. Honestly though on Weber's term, I'm fairly confident whoever is GM at that point will be able to get out of it. That's only a small reason this is a bad trade. Not to say it isn't a negative, just small in the grade scheme of this disaster.

I'm not saying it's certain the Gomez trade is worse but I think it's a toss up in a strict hockey sense. With everything else factored, yes this is much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're being too forgiving on the Gomez deal. While it's true at the time we didn't realize what we were giving up, this was a 12th overall pick from 2 years earlier. And my feeling since I first heard the trade has always been that we got ripped off. I was okay with us going after Gomez, but I don't think Gainey grasped the idea that in a cap world, a player's value is a mix of how they perform and their cap hit. I would have been okay with taking on a bad contract to fill a need, but don't send a top prospect the other way.

In hindsight, the Gomez and Roy trades will almost certainly look worse than the Subban trade, just because this trade is two known commodities, deals with prospects & picks always have a higher potential to look bad in hindsight. But I agree that the Subban trade just feels completely pointless. At least the other trades had some upside at the time: Gomez could have been an upgrade at center, andhad Thibault worked out we would have been younger in goal plus Roy was demanding a trade. But in this trade we clearly gave up too much - much like the Gomez deal - but it also doesn't fill a need or have any real upside. The other trades *could* have looked okay in hindsight, this one is almost guaranteed to look bad.

Not trying to forgive Gainey at all. I said at the time the trade was made that it was an awful deal, because of Gomez's contract and because of McDonagh leaving. But my point is that with respect to McDonagh, we were hedging our best guesses that he would be a good player. As I said, Tinordi was also highly-touted, Beaulieu has come with a lot of expectations, and so on. There are guys that just don't pan out despite how much potential and promise they have as juniors. So as much as we hated losing McDonagh, it was also a possibility that he flamed out as a player and never established himself in the NHL, something that happens to probably 50-60% of prospects who are chosen in the first round. And if that had happened, we wouldn't have been talking about the trade as being as bad as it ended up being. The outcome was bad for us, no doubt. But I just think that at the time the trade happened, there was at least the possibility it didn't end up poorly and there was at least some amount of logic to explain doing it (e.g. we need a number one center, Gomez will help to attract other UFA's as well, etc.).

In the Subban trade, there is no rationale of any sort. Even Bergevin couldn't give an explanation. He put his head down a lot, he mumbled, he read from a prepared script, and when asked directly, he said he couldn't say exactly how the team was better off with Weber than Subban because he knew that no matter what he said, he would be caught in another lie. The only reason Subban was traded was because Bergevin, Pacioretty, and especially Therrien just plain didn't like him. Because the French media and all of MB and MT's friends just plain didn't like him. They ignored what he did on the ice, they ignored how electrifying he is (in fact, that's one of the things they despised), and they ignored how much most fans loved him as a player, and they put their personal egos and friendship ahead of what was best for the team. Bergevin lied to us: this wasn't a hockey trade by any means. This was a vengeance trade on a personal level, and Bergevin knew he couldn't say that to the media. So he said nothing instead. Weber is easily a better player than Gomez, but it's much easier to compare Weber to Subban heads up than it was to compare Gomez to Higgins/McD heads up, and when you stack them up, Weber is inferior to Subban in almost every measurable hockey statistic, in age, and in contractual terms. So that's why to me, it is much clearer that the trade was the worst in recent history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll make this simple, if you're here to rile up everyone by posting nonsense, then don't post.

Those are the two trades I have liked the least. Both had no reason to me made. The others were made for reasons even if they were bad ones. Not sure why this would rile anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if Roy had been pulled much sooner while the Red Wings were blasting the Habs. Thank God I wasn't there for that one, as I was attending a friend's induction into the Greater Flint Sports Hall Of Fame.

It just looked to me when I heard about it afterward, and saw replays of that game that the coach and general manager were both out to shame Roy for some reason. If Roy was that mad, then it was for the best that he left, especially if he was being shown up. But they should have gotten far better in trade value. The guys they did get weren't all that good. This is the reason I call this one the worst in recent Habs history. Just the fact that they could have gotten much better players in exchange for Roy.

Worst trade in Habs history? Doug Harvey for Lou Fontinato. I know Harvey was on the outs with Toe Blake and management, but trade him for the guy who Gordie Howe whipped very badly? And he did not last long with the Habs, suffering a paralyzing injury just a couple of years after that? Let's get this straight everyone - I do not wish that any player, no matter what team he's playing for, to get seriously injured and / or end his career. It's just that his effectiveness was pretty much lost after the Howe fight.

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...