2019-20 State Of The Habs

[BigTed3]

2 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

All the teams you say are contenders Boston , Tampa, San Jose , Washington none have traded their core veteran players , these teams have built around them. Vegas is an exception. The others mentioned have given their draft picks time to develop and have kept most of their veterans whom you do need to help the kids along the way. Weber , Price , Petry I think will all contribute for at least 3 -5 years. The players we have Suzuki , JK, ect. should all be ready before 5 years from now. Also the teams that may want any of those 3 probably are only giving up futures because it would have to be a team that thought they were close enough. I actually think if we stay the course we will be better off. If we make the playoffs it's great learning experience. If not the kids will have another year in and be farther along. We definitely don't want to have the kids in the line up and not actually be trying to make the playoffs. I would rather instill a winning attitude now.  

Going to agree to disagree with you on how good that trio will be in 3-5 years. In 5 years, Weber will be 39 and Price will be 37. Players who perform well at those ages are the exception to the rule and both Weber and Price are already not the players they were 5 years ago. Weber's having a good year offensively, absolutely, but he's struggled defensively and he's lost a step skating. Price has been inconsistent. I look at the history of players like Plekanec, Gomez, Hamrlik, Markov, Kaberle, etc. all having seen dramatic drops in their quality of play in their early 30's and I wonder why Petry and Weber would be the exception. My guess is that in 2-3 years, Weber could still be an effective PP player and still have a hard shot, but I don't know that his legs will hold up. He might also just retire in the next few years with his take-home salary dropping off. Petry reminds me a lot of Hamrlik, grossly underrated but does a lot of the little things well, but his game depends a lot more on being able to skate well with the puck. That's the type of thing that drops off. And like I said, are we really going to pay Petry in 2 years when we have other priorities to re-sign? Price could be as good in 3 years as he is today, but is today's Price enough? Is it worth it to pay a guy 10M a season for a .900 save percentage or even a .910 save percentage. Price has to be at least at .920 if not .930 to be worth his contract, and he isn't anywhere close to that right now.

As for the other teams, sure they kept some of their core players around, but these are also teams that haven't missed the playoffs in 4 out of the last 5 seasons. It's much easier to stay the course when the course is going well. And like I said, I'm not against keeping our veterans for the next two years, I just think that if we do that, we need to commit to them instead of leaving them without any quality down the left side of the defence. Vegas hasn't been afraid to give up picks and prospects to go and get Pacioretty and Stone and so on. They weren't afraid to try and target Karlsson or to sign a player like Stastny. San Jose went and traded for Brent Burns. They went and traded for Erik Karlsson. They went and traded for Evander Kane. They let Marleau walk when his value wasn't there any more. They let Pavelski walk this past year. They let Niemi go. They've given up prospects and picks, yes, but they've also committed to going for it now rather than waiting for Thornton and Vlasic and so on to retire. Boston let Tim Thomas go when it was time, they dumped Eriksson and Lucic when it was time. And they've brought in guys to hep their core. Ditto Washington, who kept Ovi and Holtby and Backstrom but who went out and got the likes of Eller and Oshie and Shattenkirk briefly. They also weren't afraid to add to fill the holes they had. Tampa has moved on from Lecavalier and St. Louis and Richards when they had to and they've added McDonagh and Shattenkirk and so on when they needed it. Yes those teams have drafted well but they've supplemented those cores with trades when they needed to.

Like I said, I'm fine with staying the course and building through the draft, but I don't think the nucleus of younger drafted guys will be ready in the next year or two and I don't think the likes of Weber, Petry, Byron, Price, etc. will be as valuable to us in 3-5 years as the players we could get back for them in trades. If MB wants to go for it now, then do it and put yourself in the same class as the Caps or Knights or Sharks or so on.

 

 

 

[campabee82]

12 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Going to agree to disagree with you on how good that trio will be in 3-5 years. In 5 years, Weber will be 39 and Price will be 37. Players who perform well at those ages are the exception to the rule and both Weber and Price are already not the players they were 5 years ago. Weber's having a good year offensively, absolutely, but he's struggled defensively and he's lost a step skating. Price has been inconsistent. I look at the history of players like Plekanec, Gomez, Hamrlik, Markov, Kaberle, etc. all having seen dramatic drops in their quality of play in their early 30's and I wonder why Petry and Weber would be the exception. My guess is that in 2-3 years, Weber could still be an effective PP player and still have a hard shot, but I don't know that his legs will hold up. He might also just retire in the next few years with his take-home salary dropping off. Petry reminds me a lot of Hamrlik, grossly underrated but does a lot of the little things well, but his game depends a lot more on being able to skate well with the puck. That's the type of thing that drops off. And like I said, are we really going to pay Petry in 2 years when we have other priorities to re-sign? Price could be as good in 3 years as he is today, but is today's Price enough? Is it worth it to pay a guy 10M a season for a .900 save percentage or even a .910 save percentage. Price has to be at least at .920 if not .930 to be worth his contract, and he isn't anywhere close to that right now.

As for the other teams, sure they kept some of their core players around, but these are also teams that haven't missed the playoffs in 4 out of the last 5 seasons. It's much easier to stay the course when the course is going well. And like I said, I'm not against keeping our veterans for the next two years, I just think that if we do that, we need to commit to them instead of leaving them without any quality down the left side of the defence. Vegas hasn't been afraid to give up picks and prospects to go and get Pacioretty and Stone and so on. They weren't afraid to try and target Karlsson or to sign a player like Stastny. San Jose went and traded for Brent Burns. They went and traded for Erik Karlsson. They went and traded for Evander Kane. They let Marleau walk when his value wasn't there any more. They let Pavelski walk this past year. They let Niemi go. They've given up prospects and picks, yes, but they've also committed to going for it now rather than waiting for Thornton and Vlasic and so on to retire. Boston let Tim Thomas go when it was time, they dumped Eriksson and Lucic when it was time. And they've brought in guys to hep their core. Ditto Washington, who kept Ovi and Holtby and Backstrom but who went out and got the likes of Eller and Oshie and Shattenkirk briefly. They also weren't afraid to add to fill the holes they had. Tampa has moved on from Lecavalier and St. Louis and Richards when they had to and they've added McDonagh and Shattenkirk and so on when they needed it. Yes those teams have drafted well but they've supplemented those cores with trades when they needed to.

Like I said, I'm fine with staying the course and building through the draft, but I don't think the nucleus of younger drafted guys will be ready in the next year or two and I don't think the likes of Weber, Petry, Byron, Price, etc. will be as valuable to us in 3-5 years as the players we could get back for them in trades. If MB wants to go for it now, then do it and put yourself in the same class as the Caps or Knights or Sharks or so on.

 

 

 

I agree Weber, Price, Petry and others will not be the players they are now in 2-4 years but like I said a number of time there is no harm in keeping those guys now and adding say Fowler/Gostisbehere and Hall for a run this year and building for the future as well. You could probably get either of Fowler  or Gostisbehere for say Mete + 2nd in 2020 (Chicago) as both players values are low right now and both are solid puck moving defenders that may just need a change of scenery. Hall could be had for say Romanov + Poehling + 2021 2nd (first and third if he resigns by June 30th). This year you line up 

Drouin-Domi-Suzuki 

Hall-Kotkaniemi-Gallagher

Tatar-Danault-Lehkonen

Cousins-Thompson-Armia 

Fowler/Gostisbehere-Weber

Kulak/Chiarot-Petry

Kulak/Chiarot-Fleury

Price

Primeau

If say Thomson, Cousins, Peca and Folin walk this year and you trade or let walk Petry, Reilly, Weal and Tatar you still have good prospects to bring in and could line up like

Drouin-Domi-Suzuki 

Hall-Kotkaniemi-Caufield

Lehkonen-Danault-Gallagher

Hillis-Evans-Armia

Fowler/Gostisbehere-Weber

Chiarot/Kulak/Leskinen-Brook/Fleury

Chiarot/Kulak/Leskinen-Brook/Fleury

Price/Primeau splitting time then the next year or 2 have Price backup Primeau or retire if he wants that. This allows you to win now while also not give up your best prospects so you can still build for the future and you still have 13 picks this year and 5 or 6 in 2021 depending on if Hall resigns and if he doesn't then you haven't lost too much. This is the strategy we need to embrace right now. Fill those 2 holes and keep drafting for the future as well. If Hall resigns you only gave up a single first round pick in 2021 even so it probably wouldn't be a lottery pick with that lineup so who cares it's not like you gave up say 2 or 3 1sts.

[CANADIENS27]

I am getting the impression Primeau has the potential to be a starting goaltender.  Is this the case?  

 

 

[campabee82]

3 minutes ago, CANADIENS27 said:

I am getting the impression Primeau has the potential to be a starting goaltender.  Is this the case?  

 

 

That's the hope but who knows for sure.

[caperns61]

10 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Going to agree to disagree with you on how good that trio will be in 3-5 years. In 5 years, Weber will be 39 and Price will be 37. Players who perform well at those ages are the exception to the rule and both Weber and Price are already not the players they were 5 years ago. Weber's having a good year offensively, absolutely, but he's struggled defensively and he's lost a step skating. Price has been inconsistent. I look at the history of players like Plekanec, Gomez, Hamrlik, Markov, Kaberle, etc. all having seen dramatic drops in their quality of play in their early 30's and I wonder why Petry and Weber would be the exception. My guess is that in 2-3 years, Weber could still be an effective PP player and still have a hard shot, but I don't know that his legs will hold up. He might also just retire in the next few years with his take-home salary dropping off. Petry reminds me a lot of Hamrlik, grossly underrated but does a lot of the little things well, but his game depends a lot more on being able to skate well with the puck. That's the type of thing that drops off. And like I said, are we really going to pay Petry in 2 years when we have other priorities to re-sign? Price could be as good in 3 years as he is today, but is today's Price enough? Is it worth it to pay a guy 10M a season for a .900 save percentage or even a .910 save percentage. Price has to be at least at .920 if not .930 to be worth his contract, and he isn't anywhere close to that right now.

As for the other teams, sure they kept some of their core players around, but these are also teams that haven't missed the playoffs in 4 out of the last 5 seasons. It's much easier to stay the course when the course is going well. And like I said, I'm not against keeping our veterans for the next two years, I just think that if we do that, we need to commit to them instead of leaving them without any quality down the left side of the defence. Vegas hasn't been afraid to give up picks and prospects to go and get Pacioretty and Stone and so on. They weren't afraid to try and target Karlsson or to sign a player like Stastny. San Jose went and traded for Brent Burns. They went and traded for Erik Karlsson. They went and traded for Evander Kane. They let Marleau walk when his value wasn't there any more. They let Pavelski walk this past year. They let Niemi go. They've given up prospects and picks, yes, but they've also committed to going for it now rather than waiting for Thornton and Vlasic and so on to retire. Boston let Tim Thomas go when it was time, they dumped Eriksson and Lucic when it was time. And they've brought in guys to hep their core. Ditto Washington, who kept Ovi and Holtby and Backstrom but who went out and got the likes of Eller and Oshie and Shattenkirk briefly. They also weren't afraid to add to fill the holes they had. Tampa has moved on from Lecavalier and St. Louis and Richards when they had to and they've added McDonagh and Shattenkirk and so on when they needed it. Yes those teams have drafted well but they've supplemented those cores with trades when they needed to.

Like I said, I'm fine with staying the course and building through the draft, but I don't think the nucleus of younger drafted guys will be ready in the next year or two and I don't think the likes of Weber, Petry, Byron, Price, etc. will be as valuable to us in 3-5 years as the players we could get back for them in trades. If MB wants to go for it now, then do it and put yourself in the same class as the Caps or Knights or Sharks or so on.

I don't think any one expects them to be as valuable in 5 years, that would be crazy to think that, but they could be in a 1 or 2 or 3 ......But anyone of them or even all 3 of them could be smaller pieces to a good team in 4 or 5 years....Chara is 42 and contributing, ....

Vegas best year was without Stone and Patches. 

San Jose could not afford Marleua so they had to make a choice, They could not afford Pavelski thay had to make a choice. We are not face with that issue yet...And if they weren;t i bet they would have kept them. They resigned Marleua this season. 

Yes Boston walked away from players, Tyler Sequin, Joe Thorton, Lucic etc etc etc.. So what, teams do this all the time. We have walked away from players as well Patches, Subban,  Shaw, Deslaurier, Galchenyk etc The same Statsny you said Vegas picked up, St Louis let go and they won a Stanley cup 

 Tim Thomas won a  stanley cup by the way at  37 years old. He also won the  Conn Smythe Trophy, He chose to walk away from hockey.  How old is Price today? 32  

No one will expect them to be our best players....but they still can contribute to our team ...and their are always outliers. And its good to have veterans, role models on your team. 

You say you want to get rid of Weber  and Price and Petry,  for picks but then you say you dont want to tank, thats tanking....

Teams shuffle players around every year, and now, more then ever because of the cap.

40 years, 357 days - Steve Yzerman (2006)

40 years, 355 days - Sergei Gonchar (2015)

40 years, 337 days - Mike Modano (2011)

40 years, 323 days - Larry Robinson (1992)

40 years, 319 days - Mathieu Schneider (2010)

40 years, 311 days - Scott Mellanby (2007)

40 years, 294 days - James Patrick (2004)

40 years, 293 days - Steve Thomas (2004)

40 years, 282 days - Teppo Numminen (2009)

40 years, 189 days - Sean O'Donnell (2012)

40 years, 180 days - Shane Doan (2017)

40 years, 164 days - Rob Blake (2010)

40 years, 163 days - Ray Bourque (2001)

40 years, 155 days - Joe Thornton (Present)

40 years, 142 days - Grant Ledyard (2002)

40 years, 97 days - Al MacInnis (2003)

40 years, 95 days - Brendan Shanahan (2009)

40 years, 90 days - Kimmo Timonen (2015)

40 years, 80 days - Patrick Marleau (Present)

40 years, 79 days - Joe Nieuwendyk (2006)

40 years, 72 days - Mario Lemieux (2005)

40 years, 68 days - Guy Carbonneau (2000)

40 years, 59 days - Luc Robitaille (2006)

40 years, 46 days - Larry Murphy (2001)

48 years, 71 days - Chris Chelios (2010)

45 years, 319 days - Jaromir Jagr (2017)

43 years, 317 days - Teemu Selanne (2014)

43 years, 277 days - Claude Lemieux (2009)

43 years, 134 days - Mark Recchi (2011)

43 years, 129 days - Igor Larionov (2004)

43 years, 73 days - Mark Messier (2004)

42 years, 282 days - Gary Roberts (2009)

42 years, 261 days - Zdeno Chara (Present)

42 years, 155 days - Matt Cullen (2019)

42 years, 100 days - Dave Andreychuk (2006)

41 years, 358 days - Tommy Albelin (2006)

41 years, 357 days - Nicklas Lidstrom (2012)

41 years, 352 days - Ray Whitney (2014)

41 years, 220 days - Adam Oates (2004)

41 years, 136 days - Daniel Alfredsson (2014)

41 years, 66 days - Brett Hull (2005)

41 years, 62 days - Ron Francis (2004)

45 years, 32 days - Johnny Bower (1969)

44 years, 323 days - Gump Worsley (1974)

44 years, 78 days - Jacques Plante (1973)[3]

43 years, 78 days - Dominik Hasek (2008)

42 years, 241 days - Martin Brodeur (2015)

42 years, 178 days - Dwayne Roloson (2012)

41 years, 350 days - Ed Belfour (2007)

41 years, 344 days - Curtis Joseph (2009)

40 years, 307 days - Nikolai Khabibulin (2013)

40 years, 66 days - Sean Burke (2007)

40 years, 10 days - Tim Thomas (2014)

40 years, 3 days - Roberto Luongo (2019)[1]

[BigTed3]

1 hour ago, caperns61 said:

I don't think any one expects them to be as valuable in 5 years, that would be crazy to think that, but they could be in a 1 or 2 or 3 ......But anyone of them or even all 3 of them could be smaller pieces to a good team in 4 or 5 years....Chara is 42 and contributing, ....

Vegas best year was without Stone and Patches. 

San Jose could not afford Marleua so they had to make a choice, They could not afford Pavelski thay had to make a choice. We are not face with that issue yet...And if they weren;t i bet they would have kept them. They resigned Marleua this season. 

Yes Boston walked away from players, Tyler Sequin, Joe Thorton, Lucic etc etc etc.. So what, teams do this all the time. We have walked away from players as well Patches, Subban,  Shaw, Deslaurier, Galchenyk etc The same Statsny you said Vegas picked up, St Louis let go and they won a Stanley cup 

 Tim Thomas won a  stanley cup by the way at  37 years old. He also won the  Conn Smythe Trophy, He chose to walk away from hockey.  How old is Price today? 32  

No one will expect them to be our best players....but they still can contribute to our team ...and their are always outliers. And its good to have veterans, role models on your team. 

You say you want to get rid of Weber  and Price and Petry,  for picks but then you say you dont want to tank, thats tanking....

Teams shuffle players around every year, and now, more then ever because of the cap.

40 years, 357 days - Steve Yzerman (2006)

40 years, 355 days - Sergei Gonchar (2015)

40 years, 337 days - Mike Modano (2011)

40 years, 323 days - Larry Robinson (1992)

40 years, 319 days - Mathieu Schneider (2010)

40 years, 311 days - Scott Mellanby (2007)

40 years, 294 days - James Patrick (2004)

40 years, 293 days - Steve Thomas (2004)

40 years, 282 days - Teppo Numminen (2009)

40 years, 189 days - Sean O'Donnell (2012)

40 years, 180 days - Shane Doan (2017)

40 years, 164 days - Rob Blake (2010)

40 years, 163 days - Ray Bourque (2001)

40 years, 155 days - Joe Thornton (Present)

40 years, 142 days - Grant Ledyard (2002)

40 years, 97 days - Al MacInnis (2003)

40 years, 95 days - Brendan Shanahan (2009)

40 years, 90 days - Kimmo Timonen (2015)

40 years, 80 days - Patrick Marleau (Present)

40 years, 79 days - Joe Nieuwendyk (2006)

40 years, 72 days - Mario Lemieux (2005)

40 years, 68 days - Guy Carbonneau (2000)

40 years, 59 days - Luc Robitaille (2006)

40 years, 46 days - Larry Murphy (2001)

48 years, 71 days - Chris Chelios (2010)

45 years, 319 days - Jaromir Jagr (2017)

43 years, 317 days - Teemu Selanne (2014)

43 years, 277 days - Claude Lemieux (2009)

43 years, 134 days - Mark Recchi (2011)

43 years, 129 days - Igor Larionov (2004)

43 years, 73 days - Mark Messier (2004)

42 years, 282 days - Gary Roberts (2009)

42 years, 261 days - Zdeno Chara (Present)

42 years, 155 days - Matt Cullen (2019)

42 years, 100 days - Dave Andreychuk (2006)

41 years, 358 days - Tommy Albelin (2006)

41 years, 357 days - Nicklas Lidstrom (2012)

41 years, 352 days - Ray Whitney (2014)

41 years, 220 days - Adam Oates (2004)

41 years, 136 days - Daniel Alfredsson (2014)

41 years, 66 days - Brett Hull (2005)

41 years, 62 days - Ron Francis (2004)

45 years, 32 days - Johnny Bower (1969)

44 years, 323 days - Gump Worsley (1974)

44 years, 78 days - Jacques Plante (1973)[3]

43 years, 78 days - Dominik Hasek (2008)

42 years, 241 days - Martin Brodeur (2015)

42 years, 178 days - Dwayne Roloson (2012)

41 years, 350 days - Ed Belfour (2007)

41 years, 344 days - Curtis Joseph (2009)

40 years, 307 days - Nikolai Khabibulin (2013)

40 years, 66 days - Sean Burke (2007)

40 years, 10 days - Tim Thomas (2014)

40 years, 3 days - Roberto Luongo (2019)[1]

 

There are many different ways to win a Cup, I think we've seen that over the years. Obviously, we have different views on how to best build this team, and I'm not saying one is better than the other. In my view though, I don't like the idea of holding onto older players just for the idea that they provide leadership or as mentors. That's why you need to have good coaches and I don't see why a Kirk Muller or Claude Julien or Joel Bouchard can't be the ones to provide the knowledge and experience. I don't know that you need a 36- or 40-year old to do that. I agree that you can't have a team full of rookies and 2nd-year players, just as you can't have a team of all bruisers or all small guys or so on.

With the current group, we're not close to winning a Cup unless we add another 2 key players. I think most people agree on that. Sure, a team could always make a surprise run, but it's just not likely. Look at the standings right now and even as they sit, if you were going to place a bet on which team wins the Cup for the same return on your money, my guess is that most people would be betting on teams like the Caps, Bruins, Sharks, or Knights. Maybe even Tampa. I don't think anyone's betting on the Habs, Sabres, or Coyotes despite where they may be. Why? Because those other teams are not just flashes in the pan, they've shown some sustained ability to be in the upper echelon of the league recently. So short of our jumping into that echelon, my philosophy is that you extract the value you have from your players before it's gone.

I'll give you some hypotheticals about say, Weber. Let's say Colorado wants to go all in this year and offers us Bowen Byram and a 1st rounder to trade for Weber. Would you do it? I would. Yes, Weber is a sure thing now and he's a player who could be the difference for Colorado to win a Cup. But Byram has the potential to be a #1 defenceman for 10 years. It's really really hard to find those types of players in their prime unless you happen to be able to draft them. Ditto for #1 centers, which is why it took us years and a really bad season to acquire Kotkaniemi and dealing our captain and one of our best players in Pacioretty to acquire Suzuki. Look at Quinn Hughes. Look at Cale Makar. Look at Heiskanen. Look at Werenski. Look at Provorov or McEvoy. These are all relatively young defencemen who are playing key roles on their respective teams. I'd trade Weber straight up for any one of those players and I doubt the other teams' GM's would make those trades. Sometimes the only way to grab one of those players is to get in on the ground floor and Byram has been rumored to be a guy Colorado might part with for a Taylor Hall or for another player who puts them over the top this season. Or what if Calgary offered us Dougie Hamilton? He's younger and he's probably a better all-around defenceman than Weber right now, although he's not considered to be a team leader or a rah rah guy. Personally I'd take the on-ice product over the grit or the character, in addition to getting younger. Sending Weber to Calgary for Hamilton wouldn't be tanking in my view. Dealing Weber for Byram and a 1st yes might make you worse this year, but maybe Byram does what Makar or Hughes or so on have done and becomes an impact player in year one next season and you're not necessarily tanking then either.

Another hypothetical... Toronto's D is still a bit of a mess so say they come calling and offer you Nylander for Petry and Chicago's 2nd rounder. Would you do it? You get younger, you extend your Cup window, but you leave a hole on your current roster that might take two years to patch by the time Brook or Fleury or Juulsen step in to be able to be top 4 players. I wouldn't call that tanking either. But these are the types of trades that could help you get younger and probably better in the long run. I'm not against Weber or Petry being on the team, and if they got traded and cut and re-signed with us for 1-2M a year like Marleau did with San Jose, I would take each back in an instant. But to me, there's a difference between building a team like we're drafting All-Star game rosters and asking who's helping us for one game or one season now and having vision to build a sustained winner long-term. Sure, Chara is still a Bruin, but if you ask me, he's a pretty bad hockey player right now. He gets beat frequently, he's not fast, and he's largely overrated right now based on reputation. Markov with us in his final years was still a contributor on the PP but he wasn't a 20-minute a night player and he struggled defensively. If someone asked me if I would give up Markov's last two seasons with us in exchange for getting a couple of good young players, I would easily have done it. We can't go back, but we have the opportunity to do so with Weber and Petry before it's too late now.

 

 

 

 

 

[campabee82]

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

 

There are many different ways to win a Cup, I think we've seen that over the years. Obviously, we have different views on how to best build this team, and I'm not saying one is better than the other. In my view though, I don't like the idea of holding onto older players just for the idea that they provide leadership or as mentors. That's why you need to have good coaches and I don't see why a Kirk Muller or Claude Julien or Joel Bouchard can't be the ones to provide the knowledge and experience. I don't know that you need a 36- or 40-year old to do that. I agree that you can't have a team full of rookies and 2nd-year players, just as you can't have a team of all bruisers or all small guys or so on.

With the current group, we're not close to winning a Cup unless we add another 2 key players. I think most people agree on that. Sure, a team could always make a surprise run, but it's just not likely. Look at the standings right now and even as they sit, if you were going to place a bet on which team wins the Cup for the same return on your money, my guess is that most people would be betting on teams like the Caps, Bruins, Sharks, or Knights. Maybe even Tampa. I don't think anyone's betting on the Habs, Sabres, or Coyotes despite where they may be. Why? Because those other teams are not just flashes in the pan, they've shown some sustained ability to be in the upper echelon of the league recently. So short of our jumping into that echelon, my philosophy is that you extract the value you have from your players before it's gone.

I'll give you some hypotheticals about say, Weber. Let's say Colorado wants to go all in this year and offers us Bowen Byram and a 1st rounder to trade for Weber. Would you do it? I would. Yes, Weber is a sure thing now and he's a player who could be the difference for Colorado to win a Cup. But Byram has the potential to be a #1 defenceman for 10 years. It's really really hard to find those types of players in their prime unless you happen to be able to draft them. Ditto for #1 centers, which is why it took us years and a really bad season to acquire Kotkaniemi and dealing our captain and one of our best players in Pacioretty to acquire Suzuki. Look at Quinn Hughes. Look at Cale Makar. Look at Heiskanen. Look at Werenski. Look at Provorov or McEvoy. These are all relatively young defencemen who are playing key roles on their respective teams. I'd trade Weber straight up for any one of those players and I doubt the other teams' GM's would make those trades. Sometimes the only way to grab one of those players is to get in on the ground floor and Byram has been rumored to be a guy Colorado might part with for a Taylor Hall or for another player who puts them over the top this season. Or what if Calgary offered us Dougie Hamilton? He's younger and he's probably a better all-around defenceman than Weber right now, although he's not considered to be a team leader or a rah rah guy. Personally I'd take the on-ice product over the grit or the character, in addition to getting younger. Sending Weber to Calgary for Hamilton wouldn't be tanking in my view. Dealing Weber for Byram and a 1st yes might make you worse this year, but maybe Byram does what Makar or Hughes or so on have done and becomes an impact player in year one next season and you're not necessarily tanking then either.

Another hypothetical... Toronto's D is still a bit of a mess so say they come calling and offer you Nylander for Petry and Chicago's 2nd rounder. Would you do it? You get younger, you extend your Cup window, but you leave a hole on your current roster that might take two years to patch by the time Brook or Fleury or Juulsen step in to be able to be top 4 players. I wouldn't call that tanking either. But these are the types of trades that could help you get younger and probably better in the long run. I'm not against Weber or Petry being on the team, and if they got traded and cut and re-signed with us for 1-2M a year like Marleau did with San Jose, I would take each back in an instant. But to me, there's a difference between building a team like we're drafting All-Star game rosters and asking who's helping us for one game or one season now and having vision to build a sustained winner long-term. Sure, Chara is still a Bruin, but if you ask me, he's a pretty bad hockey player right now. He gets beat frequently, he's not fast, and he's largely overrated right now based on reputation. Markov with us in his final years was still a contributor on the PP but he wasn't a 20-minute a night player and he struggled defensively. If someone asked me if I would give up Markov's last two seasons with us in exchange for getting a couple of good young players, I would easily have done it. We can't go back, but we have the opportunity to do so with Weber and Petry before it's too late now.

 

 

 

 

 

So what your saying by this post is older players have no value to a team. Let's go back and tell Henri Richard that his 11 cups as a player were just dumb luck then. You keep saying that you can't have it both ways building for the future while building for the future but I have given multiple examples of how to do just that that you keep ignoring cause it proves you wrong. There is one more huge problem with your trading all of the older players for younger ones. That is all those young guys become UFA at the same time and will all require increases at the same time as well then your screwed like the leafs

[arpem-can]

Dougie Hamilton is in his 2nd year with Carolina . He last played in Calgary in 2017/2018 

 

[ChiLla]

49 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

So what your saying by this post is older players have no value to a team. Let's go back and tell Henri Richard that his 11 cups as a player were just dumb luck then. You keep saying that you can't have it both ways building for the future while building for the future but I have given multiple examples of how to do just that that you keep ignoring cause it proves you wrong. There is one more huge problem with your trading all of the older players for younger ones. That is all those young guys become UFA at the same time and will all require increases at the same time as well then your screwed like the leafs

Wow, so many straw mans in one post. Nobody ever said older players have no value to a team. In fact Ted said that Petry + a pick may be worth a younger player of Nylander's calibre, i.e. a ~60-point winger who could be more benefitial to our retool/reset/rebuild or whatever you want to call it than holding on to Petry until you'll lose him for nothing once his contract expires after next season. We've lost so many guys for nothing over the years, which in my opinion is just terrible asset management in the Cap era. I much rather give up on a guy a year before his contract runs out and actually get something of value in return than have him play out his contract and then see him leave without anything to show for it.

The whole becoming UFA at the same time thing is also a non-issue, there are plenty of younger players on long-term deals you could target in a trade for a guy like Petry, Nylander happens to be one of them (just to be clear: I'm not saying we absolutely have to trade for Nylander, I'm just picking up on Ted's hypothetical). Additionally, was Henri Richard an older player for 11 Cup runs? He won his last Cup in 1975 if I'm not mistaken, so I'm not sure how that or dumb luck is relevant to today's game.

Like Ted said, there are many ways to building a winning team. We all have our preferences and opinions, which is fine and makes for good discussion. No need to move the goal posts though, no offense

[campabee82]

10 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

Wow, so many straw mans in one post. Nobody ever said older players have no value to a team. In fact Ted said that Petry + a pick may be worth a younger player of Nylander's calibre, i.e. a ~60-point winger who could be more benefitial to our retool/reset/rebuild or whatever you want to call it than holding on to Petry until you'll lose him for nothing once his contract expires after next season. We've lost so many guys for nothing over the years, which in my opinion is just terrible asset management in the Cap era. I much rather give up on a guy a year before his contract runs out and actually get something of value in return than have him play out his contract and then see him leave without anything to show for it.

The whole becoming UFA at the same time thing is also a non-issue, there are plenty of younger players on long-term deals you could target in a trade for a guy like Petry, Nylander happens to be one of them (just to be clear: I'm not saying we absolutely have to trade for Nylander, I'm just picking up on Ted's hypothetical). Additionally, was Henri Richard an older player for 11 Cup runs? He won his last Cup in 1975 if I'm not mistaken, so I'm not sure how that or dumb luck is relevant to today's game.

Like Ted said, there are many ways to building a winning team. We all have our preferences and opinions, which is fine and makes for good discussion. No need to move the goal posts though, no offense

Or you just resign the guy cause he is still a valuable part of the team and show other players your loyal to your players and are willing to commit to them even in their twilight years. I mean isn't that more valuable to an organization having players actually want to come and stay instead of being made to come and leaving as soon as they can. It's called job security for a reason and most people in any situation prefers that over weather, location and tax rate

[ChiLla]

6 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Or you just resign the guy cause he is still a valuable part of the team and show other players your loyal to your players and are willing to commit to them even in their twilight years. I mean isn't that more valuable to an organization having players actually want to come and stay instead of being made to come and leaving as soon as they can. It's called job security for a reason and most people in any situation prefers that over weather, location and tax rate

Provided that the guy actually wants to re-sign and you come to an agreement that makes sense for both sides. We could have re-signed both Markov and Radulov for example, instead we lost both of them for nothing. Loyalty is great and all but at the end of the day it's a business. If you want job security, there probably are better places to look for a job than the NHL.

[CaptWelly]

1 minute ago, ChiLla said:

Provided that the guy actually wants to re-sign and you come to an agreement that makes sense for both sides. We could have re-signed both Markov or Radulov for example, instead we lost both of them for nothing. Loyalty is great and all but at the end of the day it's a business. If you want job security, there probably are better places to look for a job than the NHL.

And that is exactly why a lot of players want no trade clauses. So by your standards that players always drop off in their 30's (Yzerman, Sakic, Roy cupps!) if you have a star player say at 26 do you agree to a long term with No movement clause or let them walk to another.

[BigTed3]

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

So what your saying by this post is older players have no value to a team. Let's go back and tell Henri Richard that his 11 cups as a player were just dumb luck then. You keep saying that you can't have it both ways building for the future while building for the future but I have given multiple examples of how to do just that that you keep ignoring cause it proves you wrong. There is one more huge problem with your trading all of the older players for younger ones. That is all those young guys become UFA at the same time and will all require increases at the same time as well then your screwed like the leafs

 

8 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

Wow, so many straw mans in one post. Nobody ever said older players have no value to a team. In fact Ted said that Petry + a pick may be worth a younger player of Nylander's calibre, i.e. a ~60-point winger who could be more benefitial to our retool/reset/rebuild or whatever you want to call it than holding on to Petry until you'll lose him for nothing once his contract expires after next season. We've lost so many guys for nothing over the years, which in my opinion is just terrible asset management in the Cap era. I much rather give up on a guy a year before his contract runs out and actually get something of value in return than have him play out his contract and then see him leave without anything to show for it.

The whole becoming UFA at the same time thing is also a non-issue, there are plenty of younger players on long-term deals you could target in a trade for a guy like Petry, Nylander happens to be one of them (just to be clear: I'm not saying we absolutely have to trade for Nylander, I'm just picking up on Ted's hypothetical). Additionally, was Henri Richard an older player for 11 Cup runs? He won his last Cup in 1975 if I'm not mistaken, so I'm not sure how that or dumb luck is relevant to today's game.

Like Ted said, there are many ways to building a winning team. We all have our preferences and opinions, which is fine and makes for good discussion. No need to move the goal posts though, no offense

Thanks for the clarification ChiLla. I'll reiterate what I said before: I'm not against keeping veterans. I'm not against keeping Weber, Petry, and Price, and I think they're 3 of our most valuable players right now. But I AM absolutely against keeping veterans when your GM isn't giving you the tools to win a Cup during the time when those veterans have value. I've gone over this before but Petry is going to be a UFA in two years. He's going to be a UFA in a year when we have a lot of other free agents and in a year where we'll have to make decisions about which 3 defencemen to protect in an expansion draft. Are we protecting Petry and giving him a decently-sized contract in a year when he's going to turn 34? My guess is that he's going to want a contract that's at least 3-4 years in duration, and someone somewhere will give that to him. Maybe he'll want to go and play in Detroit. Maybe he'll want to play for a team with a better chance at winning. Who knows. I just really don't see him still being here in 2021-22, whether it's via free agency, expansion draft loss, or a trade beforehand. For me, re-signing the likes of Kotkaniemi, Mete, Domi, Suzuki, Gallagher, and Danault are going to be higher priorities to spend our money on than a 34-year old Petry (or Tatar for that matter). So again, it's not to say you have to trade Petry and Weber today. But if your plan as a GM is to wait it out for these young kids and your upcoming drat picks, it just reasons that Petry isn't going to be here when those kids mature. So why not get something of value for him now? It doesn't have to be a tank move. It doesn't mean we hate Petry (in fact he's one of my favorite Habs). But it's a good business decision IMO to make a move.

The other point I'll make is that the reliance on younger players now is much more necessary than it was in the 1970's with Henri Richard or even the early 2000's. The cap has changed everything. You cannot just keep veterans around on big contracts any more. You can maybe afford to have 1-2 mulligans like Alzner and still be competitive, but this is not the pre-cap era where the Habs can just flex financial muscle and relegate two D men in their mid-30's to lesser roles because they can just offer 10M to a UFA to replace them. The other thing that has changed is the speed of the game. The game is so much faster than it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's, just because of how much bigger and fitter the players are. It's faster than the trap era of the 90's and 2000's as well. So this is not a league where older players can rely on being smart or being good shooters and live by that. If you can't skate and keep up, you can't play. I'll go back through the list I gave before of recent Habs who have just hit a wall... Markov, Plekanec, Hamrlik, Kaberle, etc. These are guys who went from being top 6 forwards/top 4 D men to being fairly obsolete within a couple of years. Yes, there will be Chelios' or Lidstroms' or so on who can hang around and play well late into their careers, but those players are largely the exception. For the most part, age can catch up to you all of a sudden, and we need to make decisions before that happens. Otherwise, you get nothing in a trade return.

 

[campabee82]

26 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

Provided that the guy actually wants to re-sign and you come to an agreement that makes sense for both sides. We could have re-signed both Markov and Radulov for example, instead we lost both of them for nothing. Loyalty is great and all but at the end of the day it's a business. If you want job security, there probably are better places to look for a job than the NHL.

And your example proves my point exactly. We could have resign Markov or Radulov IF MB was willing to negotiate however MB said here is what We are offering take it or leave it. You think all the other players out there didn't take note of that and say well there's one GM I never want to play for if that's how he treats his players. No FA is going to want to sign in Montreal for say 5 years play well enough to earn a raise just to be told by MB here's our offer take it or there's the door. Would you?

[ChiLla]

9 minutes ago, CaptWelly said:

And that is exactly why a lot of players want no trade clauses. So by your standards that players always drop off in their 30's (Yzerman, Sakic, Roy cupps!) if you have a star player say at 26 do you agree to a long term with No movement clause or let them walk to another.

Nope, not at all. Where did I say that players always drop off in their 30s? All I've said is that it's a reasonable business decision to ponder the idea of trading older players on expiring contracts like Petry while they're still valuable instead of keeping them around and then lose them for nothing, especially when you're a bubble team like we are right now.

Price is my favorite player on the team, has been for years. I love Petry, I really like Weber a lot, and Tatar is great, too. That makes none of them untouchable for the right price though. If there's a trade that makes sense for everyone involved, I thank the guy for his services, pull the trigger on the deal, and never look back because it's a business and the future of the team is more important than any single player I think.

[ChiLla]

9 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

And your example proves my point exactly. We could have resign Markov or Radulov IF MB was willing to negotiate however MB said here is what We are offering take it or leave it. You think all the other players out there didn't take note of that and say well there's one GM I never want to play for if that's how he treats his players. No FA is going to want to sign in Montreal for say 5 years play well enough to earn a raise just to be told by MB here's our offer take it or there's the door. Would you?

Uhm, we could have easily signed Duchene this year had we offered him more money. Same for Gardiner, even though it was reported he preferred to play in a non-hockey market after the debacle in TO. There are many reasons players don't want to sign in Montreal, I'm sure MB's incompetence in handling the Markov/Radulov situation is pretty far down on the list though. Players hit free agency or get traded all the time, Poile traded the team captain and one of the most popular players in all of Canada for a somewhat controversial figure in Subban and he's still signing top UFAs like Duchene. It's a business and the GM's job is to maximize the value of his assets, which is something Bergevin has spectacularly failed to do on many occasions.

[campabee82]

7 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

Nope, not at all. Where did I say that players always drop off in their 30s? All I've said is that it's a reasonable business decision to ponder the idea of trading older players on expiring contracts like Petry while they're still valuable instead of keeping them around and then lose them for nothing, especially when you're a bubble team like we are right now.

Price is my favorite player on the team, has been for years. I love Petry, I really like Weber a lot, and Tatar is great, too. That makes none of them untouchable for the right price though. If there's a trade that makes sense for everyone involved, I thank the guy for his services, pull the trigger on the deal, and never look back because it's a business and the future of the team is more important than any single player I think.

This kind of statement irritates me cause while it is a business it is also people's lives. Look at teams like San Jose do you honestly think they are ever trading JT? No he has been the staple of that team for years. That's why players want to sign there as FA's not just cause they are contenders. Look at both Nashville and Carolina both signed big name FA's this year. You think it was cause they were contenders or perhaps cause those guys didn't want to have to deal with the classic MB negotiations in the future. Both teams finished last year around us in the standings and both teams are still right there with us this year. So how does that make them more of a contender than the Habs it doesn't. So then there must be another reason then and for me it has to be how do they treat their players do they ask guys like Williams to return for another year or do they say here's our deal or there's the door. Which team would you sign with?

[ChiLla]

11 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

This kind of statement irritates me cause while it is a business it is also people's lives. Look at teams like San Jose do you honestly think they are ever trading JT? No he has been the staple of that team for years. That's why players want to sign there as FA's not just cause they are contenders. Look at both Nashville and Carolina both signed big name FA's this year. You think it was cause they were contenders or perhaps cause those guys didn't want to have to deal with the classic MB negotiations in the future. Both teams finished last year around us in the standings and both teams are still right there with us this year. So how does that make them more of a contender than the Habs it doesn't. So then there must be another reason then and for me it has to be how do they treat their players do they ask guys like Williams to return for another year or do they say here's our deal or there's the door. Which team would you sign with?

How many players wanted to sign in Arizona while Shane Doan was still there? How many big UFAs have signed after Doan retired? First and foremost, players sign with teams because of money and potential of success. Of course there are other external factors involed, e.g. proximitiy to home, familiy ties, etc., everything else just icing on the cake though. As for Nashville and Carolina, I've already adressed that in my previous post. I'm sure Duchene and/or Gardiner would be Habs now had we offerered them more money/term.

As for your last question, I'm signing with the team that offers me the best deal all things considered. That includes external factors like personal preferences, family constraints, potential contender status. As a professional hockey player, I know that I have a very limited number of years to make serious money. Why wouldn't I make the best out of those years?

[campabee82]

48 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

 

Thanks for the clarification ChiLla. I'll reiterate what I said before: I'm not against keeping veterans. I'm not against keeping Weber, Petry, and Price, and I think they're 3 of our most valuable players right now. But I AM absolutely against keeping veterans when your GM isn't giving you the tools to win a Cup during the time when those veterans have value. I've gone over this before but Petry is going to be a UFA in two years. He's going to be a UFA in a year when we have a lot of other free agents and in a year where we'll have to make decisions about which 3 defencemen to protect in an expansion draft. Are we protecting Petry and giving him a decently-sized contract in a year when he's going to turn 34? My guess is that he's going to want a contract that's at least 3-4 years in duration, and someone somewhere will give that to him. Maybe he'll want to go and play in Detroit. Maybe he'll want to play for a team with a better chance at winning. Who knows. I just really don't see him still being here in 2021-22, whether it's via free agency, expansion draft loss, or a trade beforehand. For me, re-signing the likes of Kotkaniemi, Mete, Domi, Suzuki, Gallagher, and Danault are going to be higher priorities to spend our money on than a 34-year old Petry (or Tatar for that matter). So again, it's not to say you have to trade Petry and Weber today. But if your plan as a GM is to wait it out for these young kids and your upcoming drat picks, it just reasons that Petry isn't going to be here when those kids mature. So why not get something of value for him now? It doesn't have to be a tank move. It doesn't mean we hate Petry (in fact he's one of my favorite Habs). But it's a good business decision IMO to make a move.

The other point I'll make is that the reliance on younger players now is much more necessary than it was in the 1970's with Henri Richard or even the early 2000's. The cap has changed everything. You cannot just keep veterans around on big contracts any more. You can maybe afford to have 1-2 mulligans like Alzner and still be competitive, but this is not the pre-cap era where the Habs can just flex financial muscle and relegate two D men in their mid-30's to lesser roles because they can just offer 10M to a UFA to replace them. The other thing that has changed is the speed of the game. The game is so much faster than it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's, just because of how much bigger and fitter the players are. It's faster than the trap era of the 90's and 2000's as well. So this is not a league where older players can rely on being smart or being good shooters and live by that. If you can't skate and keep up, you can't play. I'll go back through the list I gave before of recent Habs who have just hit a wall... Markov, Plekanec, Hamrlik, Kaberle, etc. These are guys who went from being top 6 forwards/top 4 D men to being fairly obsolete within a couple of years. Yes, there will be Chelios' or Lidstroms' or so on who can hang around and play well late into their careers, but those players are largely the exception. For the most part, age can catch up to you all of a sudden, and we need to make decisions before that happens. Otherwise, you get nothing in a trade return.

 

Oh and to be clear Ted my disagreement with you isn't about who to trade or who to keep my issue is you keep saying pick either rebuild and get rid of the vets or go all in. Like you have said we are basically 2 players short of serious contention why not get those 2 and go for it now while still retooling on the fly. If we got Hall and Fowler or Gostisbehere we would be contenders now and for the rest of Weber, Price and Petry's careers and it still wouldn't cost so much to get 2 of them that you sacrificing the future.

[campabee82]

7 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

How many players wanted to sign in Arizona while Shane Doan was still there? How many big UFAs have signed after Doan retired? First and foremost, players sign with teams because of money and potential of success. Of course there are other external factors involed, e.g. proximitiy to home, familiy ties, etc., everything else just icing on the cake though. As for Nashville and Carolina, I've already adressed that in my previous post. I'm sure Duchene and/or Gardiner would be Habs now had we offerered them more money/term.

As for your last question, I'm signing with the team that offers me the best deal all things considered. That includes external factors like personal preferences, family constraints, potential contender status.

How do Carolina and Nashville have any better chances of success than Montreal when last year we finished 4 points apart and this year we are all 5 points apart? Also how do you know we didn't offer Duchene or Gardiner more money? All you have to go on is what the pundits have suggested they really don't know either. 

As for the last part perhaps you would sign for more money and term somewhere else but for me I have had a horrible boss and I would definitely not put myself in that situation again while there are other teams out there with just as much chance of success at winning as the habs. 

[ChiLla]

7 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

How do Carolina and Nashville have any better chances of success than Montreal when last year we finished 4 points apart and this year we are all 5 points apart? Also how do you know we didn't offer Duchene or Gardiner more money? All you have to go on is what the pundits have suggested they really don't know either. 

As for the last part perhaps you would sign for more money and term somewhere else but for me I have had a horrible boss and I would definitely not put myself in that situation again while there are other teams out there with just as much chance of success at winning as the habs. 

None of us knows and all we have to go on is what the pundits/media report, how do we know that Bergevin has actually played hardball with both Radulov and Markov? Bergevin also claimed that he offered Radulov the same contract as Dallas if I recall correctly, so considering the difference in take-home pay (taxes), money seems to be a factor after all.

Regardless of the point difference between us and them last season, I think that both Carolina and Nashville are generally better and more balanced teams, especially on the backend. They are also younger and don't rely on an aging core as much. As a free agent, I'm looking at trends and not only the past season. How many playoff games have we won recently? How often did we actually make the playoffs? These are important factors for UFAs as well, as I've tried to explain in my previous post.

Having a horrible boss is a terrible thing, I've been there as well. As a hockey player though, I think your day-to-day interaction with the GM is fairly limited. For those guys, the head coach is probably more important.

[caperns61]

 

1 hour ago, ChiLla said:

Provided that the guy actually wants to re-sign and you come to an agreement that makes sense for both sides. We could have re-signed both Markov and Radulov for example, instead we lost both of them for nothing. Loyalty is great and all but at the end of the day it's a business. If you want job security, there probably are better places to look for a job than the NHL.

Lost them for nothing? Radulov was signed on a one year contract, when did you want to trade him, in January?

When was the right time to trade Markov?

The whole problem with your Hyperbole and Teds, is you want to move players for the sake of moving players, because you feel we are not a top 5 team,  or you want to sign free agents for the sake of signing free agents.

What GM wouldn't make a trade if the right deal came along, old or young, what GM wouldnt sign an Unrestricted free agent for the right amount of money or if its  a positional player you need...

[ChiLla]

1 minute ago, caperns61 said:

Lost them for nothing? Radulov was signed on a one year contract, when did you want to trade him, in January?

When was the right time to trade Markov?

The whole problem with your Hyperbole and Teds, is you want to move players for the sake of moving players, or you want to sign free agents for the sake of signing free agents.

What GM wouldn't make a trade if the right deal came along, old or young, what GM wouldnt sign an Unrestricted free agent for the right amount of money or if its  a positional player you need...

My hyperbole? Wow. Thanks for not even taking the time to read my previous posts.

[campabee82]

17 minutes ago, caperns61 said:

 

Lost them for nothing? Radulov was signed on a one year contract, when did you want to trade him, in January?

When was the right time to trade Markov?

The whole problem with your Hyperbole and Teds, is you want to move players for the sake of moving players, because you feel we are not a top 5 team,  or you want to sign free agents for the sake of signing free agents.

What GM wouldn't make a trade if the right deal came along, old or young, what GM wouldnt sign an Unrestricted free agent for the right amount of money or if its  a positional player you need...

I don't think they are saying to just move someone for the sake of moving them. They are saying to move them before their value drops and we get nothing in return but to me they have more value remaining on the team for the next 2-4 years than the prospects or picks bring back over that same span.

[ChiLla]

4 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

I don't think they are saying to just move someone for the sake of moving them. They are saying to move them before their value drops and we get nothing in return but to me they have more value remaining on the team for the next 2-4 years than the prospects or picks bring back over that same span.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make. It's perfectly fine to have different opinions on the subject and I completely understand that having a mentor like Weber is very valuable in itself. I just think it makes more sense to maybe trade guy like Petry for a really good return, take all those assets and still have Weber on the team. Petry is what, 33 years old when his contract expires? What's his next contract going to look like? I've never said we should blow this up and trade Price, Weber, and Petry right now for whatever we can get, that's just dumb.