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

2020-21 State Of The Habs


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I only watched about 10 minutes of the game, but I see Kotkaniemi had two assists... That seems pretty good for RW duty!

I personally think KK looks much better on the wing than centre. He played well there against TO and last night he was one of the bright spots. Maybe they should leave him there. Once again our defence was brutal. These first minute goals are killing us. Weber completly screened Allen on that first goal. If you are going to block the sight of the goalie then make damn sure you block the shot!

Mete is too small for the position. On that second goal he was all over the opponent and could not stop him from scoring? Right now I am hoping Chiarot would return despite his slow legs he has the grit necessary to take that guy out. Also if you watched last night's game we had four only second shots on scoring attempts? This has been discussed before and is due to lack of aggression around the net. The shots on net were from 25-30 ft out and from real bad angles. the opportunity for rebounds were there but no Hab around for the second shot opportunity? Without #11 this is going to be a problem. Allen looked a little shaky in the first period but he sure came back through the third. He was the reason it wasn't 6-2. This goalie situation could be serious if Price is out longer than a week. We have a B2B every week moving forward.

This team has been mediocre for the last 8 seasons. It will reamin that way until Mr. Molson grows a pair and starts to demand more from Bergevin and the coaches. We have not had a good coach behind the bench for 8 seasons. There are good candidates but this "has to speak French" bullshit is killing this team. If Montreal is going to improve then Molson has to either sell the team or take on the responsibilty of what a team owner really means. We can continue to blame every player in the roster but the guys that are reponsible for the team make-up and the orchestra leaders have to know the game and that is where great teams are built. Over the past seasons we have not had great leadership and we continue to bad leaders. This has to change if this franchise is going to move from a fourth to six place team every year into a contender. 

We have the Jets and then the Leafs over the next three days. This losing streak could go to five out of the last six in a hurry. The team rright now is in disaray and the PP which did looked pretty good has returned to it's old self? 1-17 in the last 8 games?

I am tired of the same old same old every year. 

PS: Can someone tell me why Drouin is still in Montreal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Yeah, we have to win at least one of those upcoming games against Toronto and Winnipeg. We seem safe in fourth place with a points lead on Vancouver, Calgary, and Ottawa, but... it could change in a hurry if we lose the next two.

My question would be whether it matters. If we can't beat Winnipeg or Toronto, we're likely not making it out of our group in the playoffs anyways, never mind beating teams from stronger divisions thereafter. Our showing against those teams has been poor this season and frankly, I'd rather finish out of the playoffs than limp in 4th and get squashed in the first round. A reminder that this team hasn't won a single real playoff series since 2014-15. They've won 3 total playoff series in the 8 years Bergevin has been in charge so far. They had won 4 in the 8 years before that, and 2 in the 10 years prior to that. That's 9 series wins in 26 seasons (27 years since one year with the lockout) since the last time we won the Cup. We've come nowhere close to winning a Cup, albeit we had a couple of years where we made runs as more Cup underdogs than anything. When's the last time this team was a legitimate threat for a Cup going into the year and throughout the season into the playoffs, the way we view Tampa or Vegas or Boston as perennial threats?

So at the end of the day, I don't see us being any better off sneaking in. People talk about how the bubble bought our kids playoff experience last year, but I haven't seen that translate into much this season and if anything, it convinced Bergevin to go into this season without a coaching chance and it convinced him Weber and Price were still his nucleus. I'd rather have had a top 10 draft choice and some impetus for moving on from our aging veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

My question would be whether it matters. If we can't beat Winnipeg or Toronto, we're likely not making it out of our group in the playoffs anyways, never mind beating teams from stronger divisions thereafter. Our showing against those teams has been poor this season and frankly, I'd rather finish out of the playoffs than limp in 4th and get squashed in the first round. A reminder that this team hasn't won a single real playoff series since 2014-15. They've won 3 total playoff series in the 8 years Bergevin has been in charge so far. They had won 4 in the 8 years before that, and 2 in the 10 years prior to that. That's 9 series wins in 26 seasons (27 years since one year with the lockout) since the last time we won the Cup. We've come nowhere close to winning a Cup, albeit we had a couple of years where we made runs as more Cup underdogs than anything. When's the last time this team was a legitimate threat for a Cup going into the year and throughout the season into the playoffs, the way we view Tampa or Vegas or Boston as perennial threats?

So at the end of the day, I don't see us being any better off sneaking in. People talk about how the bubble bought our kids playoff experience last year, but I haven't seen that translate into much this season and if anything, it convinced Bergevin to go into this season without a coaching chance and it convinced him Weber and Price were still his nucleus. I'd rather have had a top 10 draft choice and some impetus for moving on from our aging veterans.

A sobering post but, as usual, bang on.

The fact we have only won 9 series' out of a possible 104  (26 years x 4 rounds) is pretty staggering.  I know bergevin is only responsible for the past 8 years (3 out of a possible 32) but it still speaks volumes about how bad this team has been since the early 90s.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maas_art said:

A sobering post but, as usual, bang on.

The fact we have only won 9 series' out of a possible 104  (26 years x 4 rounds) is pretty staggering.  I know bergevin is only responsible for the past 8 years (3 out of a possible 32) but it still speaks volumes about how bad this team has been since the early 90s.  

 

 

And here's the thing... people largely don't talk about the Habs' lack of success because somehow people have been convinced that the way to define a successful season is whether you make it into the playoffs. But over half the teams do that every year. Now grant it, the Habs have made the playoffs 15 times in the past 26 seasons (and I don't consider last year as being the case because they finished out of the playoffs and got a technicality pass to sneak in, they didn't earn it the way you normally would over a season). So that's a very slight amount above average. If there had been 32 teams in the league every year, then 13 playoff appearances in 26 seasons would have been exactly average. Given there have been fewer teams, then the exact average is probably somewhere between 14-15 times. So almost bang on.

Now every year there are 15 playoff series that are won. So that's 390 series wins over the past 26 years. Again, I don't know exactly how many teams have been in the league every year, but there were 26 in 1994 and there are 31 now, so maybe an average of 28-29 let's say. That means the average team over the past 26 years would have about 14 playoff series wins. An average team. We're at 9. So yeah, we're way below average here. It means that we're doing average job of sneaking into the playoffs and most years we're having no success when we get in. This team has been largely abysmal in the post-season and let's also recall that 4 of the 9 post-season series victories came in two seasons where we made runs to the ECF (and in both cases we finished the regular season down the rankings and won two series on the road to get there).

So people here largely accept mediocrity and celebrate making the playoffs as a measure of success. I'm saying it shouldn't be. We're in a division this year that was winnable. In an ordinary year, Toronto might have been the 3rd or 4th best team in our division behind Tampa, Boston, and possibly Florida. If we can't at least play on par with Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Toronto, we're not deserving of any success. In an ordinary year, we'd likely be sitting 5th in our division and possibly well out of the playoffs (assuming we'd have been playing better competition and not feeding on the Canucks all year). Instead, the way things are shaping up, we're going to finish 3rd or 4th in the division. If we end up upsetting someone in the 1st round, Bergevin and the organization are going to come out of the year calling it a great success (as they did last year when we beat Pittsburgh in a toss-up series). To me, the minimum criteria for a good year would be coming out of the North after winning two playoff series. Minimum. Anything less and all we're doing is convincing ourselves to stay the course with a losing formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

And here's the thing... people largely don't talk about the Habs' lack of success because somehow people have been convinced that the way to define a successful season is whether you make it into the playoffs. But over half the teams do that every year. Now grant it, the Habs have made the playoffs 15 times in the past 26 seasons (and I don't consider last year as being the case because they finished out of the playoffs and got a technicality pass to sneak in, they didn't earn it the way you normally would over a season). So that's a very slight amount above average. If there had been 32 teams in the league every year, then 13 playoff appearances in 26 seasons would have been exactly average. Given there have been fewer teams, then the exact average is probably somewhere between 14-15 times. So almost bang on.

Now every year there are 15 playoff series that are won. So that's 390 series wins over the past 26 years. Again, I don't know exactly how many teams have been in the league every year, but there were 26 in 1994 and there are 31 now, so maybe an average of 28-29 let's say. That means the average team over the past 26 years would have about 14 playoff series wins. An average team. We're at 9. So yeah, we're way below average here. It means that we're doing average job of sneaking into the playoffs and most years we're having no success when we get in. This team has been largely abysmal in the post-season and let's also recall that 4 of the 9 post-season series victories came in two seasons where we made runs to the ECF (and in both cases we finished the regular season down the rankings and won two series on the road to get there).

So people here largely accept mediocrity and celebrate making the playoffs as a measure of success. I'm saying it shouldn't be. We're in a division this year that was winnable. In an ordinary year, Toronto might have been the 3rd or 4th best team in our division behind Tampa, Boston, and possibly Florida. If we can't at least play on par with Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Toronto, we're not deserving of any success. In an ordinary year, we'd likely be sitting 5th in our division and possibly well out of the playoffs (assuming we'd have been playing better competition and not feeding on the Canucks all year). Instead, the way things are shaping up, we're going to finish 3rd or 4th in the division. If we end up upsetting someone in the 1st round, Bergevin and the organization are going to come out of the year calling it a great success (as they did last year when we beat Pittsburgh in a toss-up series). To me, the minimum criteria for a good year would be coming out of the North after winning two playoff series. Minimum. Anything less and all we're doing is convincing ourselves to stay the course with a losing formula.

Well said. I only disagree about this year. I think Toronto could also have been 1st in the division. They're a stacked team. And I also think we can beat the other teams in a playoff series (I think we will if we don't play leafs first) but no way we get passed the 2nd round this year, even if we added Taylor Hall. 

We're also at the end of our runway. Our only 2 elite players are no longer elite, and we can only hope they will be better in the playoffs. 

I don't know what to do about it. I know you wanted the rebuild approach, but then I think of Buffalo, and even Edmonton (nothing worked until they got McJesus). Some teams seem to be rebuilding every year with no end in sight. 

I think part of the problem is that we've had good goaltending over many of the past 26 years. Good goaltending will always make a team at leasst mediocre 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, habsisme said:

Well said. I only disagree about this year. I think Toronto could also have been 1st in the division. They're a stacked team. And I also think we can beat the other teams in a playoff series (I think we will if we don't play leafs first) but no way we get passed the 2nd round this year, even if we added Taylor Hall. 

We're also at the end of our runway. Our only 2 elite players are no longer elite, and we can only hope they will be better in the playoffs. 

I don't know what to do about it. I know you wanted the rebuild approach, but then I think of Buffalo, and even Edmonton (nothing worked until they got McJesus). Some teams seem to be rebuilding every year with no end in sight. 

I think part of the problem is that we've had good goaltending over many of the past 26 years. Good goaltending will always make a team at leasst mediocre 

We've been the beneficiary of great goaltending for many years with Dryden, Roy, Theodore, and Price as examples. But I remember years when we had Jeff Hackett or Andy Moog or Jaroslav Halak and I don't remember goaltending being the reason for being a bad team. As you kind of alluded to, you need to have elite talent somewhere and to get that, you mostly need to draft in the top 5-10. If you're a fringe playoff team, you end up with picks in the 15-20 range and while you can find quality NHLers, it's much harder to find game-changing franchise cornerstones.

 I'll say there's no one way to build a winning team, but it certainly helps when you have top-end talent. Where would TB be without Stamkos and Hedman? Where would Pit have been without Crosby, Fleury, and Malkin? Chicago without Toews and Kane? Yes, you can still manage to screw up building a team around a superstar, but having 1-2 of those guys makes the task easier. Toronto has essentially admitted to purposely tanking to get the best odds at Matthews and without him, I think they're a worse team than us.

As for the Habs, we have a number of really strong pieces. I think we can build around Suzuki and Kotkaniemi and Anderson and Ylonen and Caufield and so on. I'm most excited about Norlinder because of his ceiling. He has at least a shot of being a game-changer like Subban or Karlsson or Keith, and you have to have guys like that who have skill and can take over a game. We have a good goalie prospect in Primeau too, and we have a lot of eggs in the LHD basket, some of whom are likely to pan out. There are some good things on the horizon. So I'm not sure I necessarily need to call it a re-build, I just think a GM needs to define an intended Cup window. Cup window to me means a 3-5 year-period where you are legitimately a top 5 team in the league. As I said, I don't want to be a fringe playoff team. I'd rather have 3 years of being a bottom feeder in exchange for 3 years where I have a 20% shot at a Cup each season instead of being on the edge of the playoffs for 5 of the 6 years but never being dominant in any of them. As it stands, this Habs team isn't a top 5 team and there's no defined window. It's been Bergevin's biggest fault as a GM. He's too afraid of being bad that he can't let go of anything that lowers his chances of winning now in exchange for a higher chance of winning in the future. He's said it himself. He doesn't want to trade Price or Petry or Weber or Gallagher. But he also doesn't want to sell his top prospects or give up 1st rounders. He's in no-man's land.

So when we talk about re-build, it's not so much a re-build as it is identifying when your Cup window is. There was a legitimate argument to be made that we could have had a real window with prime Price, Subban, and Pacioretty accompanied by supporting players like Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Markov, and Plekanec. But Bergevin blew that when the organization failed to develop any impact prospects and gave away its roster spots to guys who shouldn't have been in the NHL (Murray, Bouillon, King, Ott, Martinsen, etc.). He failed to find enough to fill out the roster to win then, and then he ended up making divergent trades... he dealt Subban for an older win-now player but he dealt Pacioretty for pieces that would largely help him in the future. He tried to fill one hole at center by acquiring Drouin but created an equally big hole at LHD in doing so. And while MB has won many other trades, his overall management style has been tinkering without addressing the teams' real needs and providing direction towards a clear Cup window. Right now, I do not see a winning formula. I do not see how we can be a top 5 team in the next 2 years. Suzuki and JK are not elite yet, so we would need another top-end center. We have a huge hole at LHD. We need more support at RHD because Weber and Petry can't play those big minutes long-term. There are too many holes. So rather than trying to fill those big holes, I think we have a better chance at finding elite talent at key positions by allowing our own players to develop. Maybe in 2-3 years Suzuki or JK follows along the lines of what Barkov did and become a true 1C. Maybe Norlinder or Romanov or Guhle or Harris fills out our top 4. Maybe Caufield or Ylonen give us better scoring from the wing. Maybe Primeau takes over the net from Price and is more consistent. I think those guys in 3-5 years have a better chance at being a great nucleus than what we have now.

Now maybe some guys like Gallagher, Danault, Anderson, Drouin, Evans, etc. can still be pieces on those teams. But others like Weber, Petry, Tatar, Price, Chiarot, Edmundson, etc. aren't going to be. So as I've said, if you can't make a push with them now, isn't it a better strategy to trade some of them and recoup assets that will be helpful when you have your window? This is what I've been saying for 3 years now and I'm still insistent on the fact that we can't win with Price/Weber and need to do what we can to move on from the belief that we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

We've been the beneficiary of great goaltending for many years with Dryden, Roy, Theodore, and Price as examples. But I remember years when we had Jeff Hackett or Andy Moog or Jaroslav Halak and I don't remember goaltending being the reason for being a bad team. As you kind of alluded to, you need to have elite talent somewhere and to get that, you mostly need to draft in the top 5-10. If you're a fringe playoff team, you end up with picks in the 15-20 range and while you can find quality NHLers, it's much harder to find game-changing franchise cornerstones.

 I'll say there's no one way to build a winning team, but it certainly helps when you have top-end talent. Where would TB be without Stamkos and Hedman? Where would Pit have been without Crosby, Fleury, and Malkin? Chicago without Toews and Kane? Yes, you can still manage to screw up building a team around a superstar, but having 1-2 of those guys makes the task easier. Toronto has essentially admitted to purposely tanking to get the best odds at Matthews and without him, I think they're a worse team than us.

As for the Habs, we have a number of really strong pieces. I think we can build around Suzuki and Kotkaniemi and Anderson and Ylonen and Caufield and so on. I'm most excited about Norlinder because of his ceiling. He has at least a shot of being a game-changer like Subban or Karlsson or Keith, and you have to have guys like that who have skill and can take over a game. We have a good goalie prospect in Primeau too, and we have a lot of eggs in the LHD basket, some of whom are likely to pan out. There are some good things on the horizon. So I'm not sure I necessarily need to call it a re-build, I just think a GM needs to define an intended Cup window. Cup window to me means a 3-5 year-period where you are legitimately a top 5 team in the league. As I said, I don't want to be a fringe playoff team. I'd rather have 3 years of being a bottom feeder in exchange for 3 years where I have a 20% shot at a Cup each season instead of being on the edge of the playoffs for 5 of the 6 years but never being dominant in any of them. As it stands, this Habs team isn't a top 5 team and there's no defined window. It's been Bergevin's biggest fault as a GM. He's too afraid of being bad that he can't let go of anything that lowers his chances of winning now in exchange for a higher chance of winning in the future. He's said it himself. He doesn't want to trade Price or Petry or Weber or Gallagher. But he also doesn't want to sell his top prospects or give up 1st rounders. He's in no-man's land.

So when we talk about re-build, it's not so much a re-build as it is identifying when your Cup window is. There was a legitimate argument to be made that we could have had a real window with prime Price, Subban, and Pacioretty accompanied by supporting players like Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Markov, and Plekanec. But Bergevin blew that when the organization failed to develop any impact prospects and gave away its roster spots to guys who shouldn't have been in the NHL (Murray, Bouillon, King, Ott, Martinsen, etc.). He failed to find enough to fill out the roster to win then, and then he ended up making divergent trades... he dealt Subban for an older win-now player but he dealt Pacioretty for pieces that would largely help him in the future. He tried to fill one hole at center by acquiring Drouin but created an equally big hole at LHD in doing so. And while MB has won many other trades, his overall management style has been tinkering without addressing the teams' real needs and providing direction towards a clear Cup window. Right now, I do not see a winning formula. I do not see how we can be a top 5 team in the next 2 years. Suzuki and JK are not elite yet, so we would need another top-end center. We have a huge hole at LHD. We need more support at RHD because Weber and Petry can't play those big minutes long-term. There are too many holes. So rather than trying to fill those big holes, I think we have a better chance at finding elite talent at key positions by allowing our own players to develop. Maybe in 2-3 years Suzuki or JK follows along the lines of what Barkov did and become a true 1C. Maybe Norlinder or Romanov or Guhle or Harris fills out our top 4. Maybe Caufield or Ylonen give us better scoring from the wing. Maybe Primeau takes over the net from Price and is more consistent. I think those guys in 3-5 years have a better chance at being a great nucleus than what we have now.

Now maybe some guys like Gallagher, Danault, Anderson, Drouin, Evans, etc. can still be pieces on those teams. But others like Weber, Petry, Tatar, Price, Chiarot, Edmundson, etc. aren't going to be. So as I've said, if you can't make a push with them now, isn't it a better strategy to trade some of them and recoup assets that will be helpful when you have your window? This is what I've been saying for 3 years now and I'm still insistent on the fact that we can't win with Price/Weber and need to do what we can to move on from the belief that we can.

I think it may be too late unfortunately, and even this year, its hard to sell your upcoming ufa's when you're a playoff team. I've never seen a team do that, a GM would be putting himself out there doing something like that. But I agree, I've lost excitement for this season because I KNOW we can't beat the leafs so its 2nd round exit if things go well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I for one am not burying this team and I hope they dont sell the farm. I want this team to get to the playoffs. I really think we have a  legit shot to get out of this division and make noise.  We have shelled Winnipeg at times this year. We seem to have Edmontons number. And Albeit we have struggled with Toronto I think playing them in a bump and grind playoff serious we get the better of them. 

I get our so called better players are on the downside of there careers, but when the whistles disapear in the palyoffs, guys like Mathews and Marner will be feeling alot of sticks from, Weber, Chariot and Edmunston. And Musin there on defenense will be mushie after Anderson runs him 7 or 8 times a game. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding some previous posts I will continue to celebrate every appearance we make in the playoffs. I enjoy the upsets when players reach deep and come up with performances that defy all the statistical nonsense that is passed on as being meaningful but seldom is when the games begin to mean something..

Chairot comes back, Edmundson resumes supporting Petry, Mete catches the taxi, Perry teaches our group of cement handed forwards that it is OK not to shoot at the crest and when this money grabbing travesty of a regular season finishes Carey will get interested and the Leafs will fall in seven........or MB will improve us over the weekend and the Leafs will wilt in six.

I have reached my best by date and probably have only a couple of seasons left so I admit it is selfish of me to disparage the retool/rebuild tactics, favoured by many, of moving players when they reach their peak value in return for maybe potentially, better players ......then rinsing and repeating....... ad nauseam. If others support finishing outside the play-offs for the next 3 or so years for a chance of winning in five or more years I hope it works out for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say this but it kind of is true that anything can happen in the playoffs a team can get hot or cold an injury here or there or even binging up a kid who is special can change what happened during a season. that being said we are not a great regular season team and it shows we have some declining assets in key spots and some of our good young players are not quite ripe! but I have hope that some of the youth will work out with the better development we are seeing in Laval and a true blue chip sniper down there getting his feet wet right now. yeah we lost last night to one of the best teams in the league they had to suck a long time to get all that firepower up front and even they have some holes in the lineup. We need to get some help on D and cut some of the dead weight from our lineup Byron Armia Lehks do pretty much nothing for us! i would rather have a young player there or at least an old star on the way out who can still get some points like our man Perry. if we make the playoffs we may just get a surprise I mean it is not like the Laffs have ever done much in the playoffs with all that talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

I hate to say this but it kind of is true that anything can happen in the playoffs a team can get hot or cold an injury here or there or even binging up a kid who is special can change what happened during a season. that being said we are not a great regular season team and it shows we have some declining assets in key spots and some of our good young players are not quite ripe! but I have hope that some of the youth will work out with the better development we are seeing in Laval and a true blue chip sniper down there getting his feet wet right now. yeah we lost last night to one of the best teams in the league they had to suck a long time to get all that firepower up front and even they have some holes in the lineup. We need to get some help on D and cut some of the dead weight from our lineup Byron Armia Lehks do pretty much nothing for us! i would rather have a young player there or at least an old star on the way out who can still get some points like our man Perry. if we make the playoffs we may just get a surprise I mean it is not like the Laffs have ever done much in the playoffs with all that talent.

I still like Byron, Lehkonen and Armia. I don't like Byron's contract. Anyway, a good chance we lose the 2 of them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

I hate to say this but it kind of is true that anything can happen in the playoffs a team can get hot or cold an injury here or there or even binging up a kid who is special can change what happened during a season. that being said we are not a great regular season team and it shows we have some declining assets in key spots and some of our good young players are not quite ripe! but I have hope that some of the youth will work out with the better development we are seeing in Laval and a true blue chip sniper down there getting his feet wet right now. yeah we lost last night to one of the best teams in the league they had to suck a long time to get all that firepower up front and even they have some holes in the lineup. We need to get some help on D and cut some of the dead weight from our lineup Byron Armia Lehks do pretty much nothing for us! i would rather have a young player there or at least an old star on the way out who can still get some points like our man Perry. if we make the playoffs we may just get a surprise I mean it is not like the Laffs have ever done much in the playoffs with all that talent.

This is what we have to believe,  if we want to have hope. And you know, it could very well happen that way. I still think,  that we NEED to get an above average puck moving left D. It would go a long way to evening out the lineup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habsisme said:

I still like Byron, Lehkonen and Armia. I don't like Byron's contract. Anyway, a good chance we lose the 2 of them 

I like them too but they have little to no impact because they don't produce enough. the reality is they should all be scoring 15-20 goals a year and they are not other teams know that and can key in on our more skilled players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ramcharger440 said:

I like them too but they have little to no impact because they don't produce enough. the reality is they should all be scoring 15-20 goals a year and they are not other teams know that and can key in on our more skilled players.

Up until this year, Byron had scored 15 in each of his last 3 full seasons. He was injured last year and then the season ended...

Armia too has scored 13 goals in 57 games, 16 in 58, and 5 in 24 in his three seasons in Montreal. That's a pace for over 15 goals per 82 games every year.

Lehkonen likewise has hit 15+ once and was on pace for 15 in two other seasons if he had played 82 games. So that's 3 of 4 seasons for 15 goals before this one.

For bottom 6 players, I don't think any of them are weak. They can't play in the top 6 consistently, but they're completely adequate bottom 6 guys who can play defence and add some amount of offence. That said, the biggest issue with them is that it's a fair chunk of money invested in bottom 6 players, especially Byron's contract. Would we be any worse off using younger players like Ylonen, Poehling, etc. for less money?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Up until this year, Byron had scored 15 in each of his last 3 full seasons. He was injured last year and then the season ended...

Armia too has scored 13 goals in 57 games, 16 in 58, and 5 in 24 in his three seasons in Montreal. That's a pace for over 15 goals per 82 games every year.

Lehkonen likewise has hit 15+ once and was on pace for 15 in two other seasons if he had played 82 games. So that's 3 of 4 seasons for 15 goals before this one.

For bottom 6 players, I don't think any of them are weak. They can't play in the top 6 consistently, but they're completely adequate bottom 6 guys who can play defence and add some amount of offence. That said, the biggest issue with them is that it's a fair chunk of money invested in bottom 6 players, especially Byron's contract. Would we be any worse off using younger players like Ylonen, Poehling, etc. for less money?

 

In the playoffs the 3-4 lines and role players almost always make a huge difference. Also anything can happen how many top end players were on St. Louis not that long ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

 If you're a fringe playoff team, you end up with picks in the 15-20 range and while you can find quality NHLers, it's much harder to find game-changing franchise cornerstones.

As for the Habs, we have a number of really strong pieces. I think we can build around Suzuki and Kotkaniemi and Anderson and Ylonen and Caufield and so on. I'm most excited about Norlinder because of his ceiling. He has at least a shot of being a game-changer like Subban or Karlsson or Keith, and you have to have guys like that who have skill and can take over a game. We have a good goalie prospect in Primeau too, and we have a lot of eggs in the LHD basket, some of whom are likely to pan out. There are some good things on the horizon. So I'm not sure I necessarily need to call it a re-build, I just think a GM needs to define an intended Cup window. Cup window to me means a 3-5 year-period where you are legitimately a top 5 team in the league. As I said, I don't want to be a fringe playoff team. I'd rather have 3 years of being a bottom feeder in exchange for 3 years where I have a 20% shot at a Cup each season instead of being on the edge of the playoffs for 5 of the 6 years but never being dominant in any of them. As it stands, this Habs team isn't a top 5 team and there's no defined window. 

Maybe Norlinder or Romanov or Guhle or Harris fills out our top 4. Maybe Caufield or Ylonen give us better scoring from the wing. Maybe Primeau takes over the net from Price and is more consistent. I think those guys in 3-5 years have a better chance at being a great nucleus than what we have now.

Now maybe some guys like Gallagher, Danault, Anderson, Drouin, Evans, etc. can still be pieces on those teams. But others like Weber, Petry, Tatar, Price, Chiarot, Edmundson, etc. aren't going to be. So as I've said, if you can't make a push with them now, isn't it a better strategy to trade some of them and recoup assets that will be helpful when you have your window? This is what I've been saying for 3 years now and I'm still insistent on the fact that we can't win with Price/Weber and need to do what we can to move on from the belief that we can.

Price has carried and pardon the pun, masked our mediocre team for too long. I've heard it too many times from Laffs's fans that all we have is Price and that's a hard argument to defend although the Laffs haven't won a playoff round since 2004.

I hate seeing continuous below average Habs teams. I want to see this team start to rise. Making the playoffs this year is a step in the right direction, and as a positive person trying to catch someone doing something right (it is so so easy to fall into the trap of being a critical naysayer), MB has done some good things of Domi for Anderson, Signing Toffoli, establishing Bouchard in Laval, building a winning culture with the Rocket, building come center depth with Nick (although he has hit a wall this year) & KK, and finally having some reasonable draft prospects including Romanov, to which Ted has mentioned above. 

The flip side of being optimistic, is that one always thinks we are better than we are, and that our players are better than everyone else's. Plus the dreaded "in the playoffs anything can happen" - well it usually doesn't .While a team has to have a supporting cast, time to turn over Danault, Armia, Byron, Chiarot, Mete as bare minimums. Lehkonen has 1 year for me, and that's a stretch.Tatar certainly not term. We will have to choose Edmundson or Kulak for the season after next. Weber and Price both deserve a chance to win somewhere so that future without them has to be planned for, even though it may be selling low on them. Petry is a cornerstone for the next 2 years after this season, The point here is that Management needs continuous replacement plans vs. using "supporting cast filler" and plugs which is what has been largely done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ramcharger440 said:

I like them too but they have little to no impact because they don't produce enough. the reality is they should all be scoring 15-20 goals a year and they are not other teams know that and can key in on our more skilled players.

Just throwing this out there. If they have little to no impact because they are not scoring 15 to 20 goals a year.  What about Droun 2 goals in 37 games, on pace for 4 or 5 goals, Danualt 4 goals 37 games, on pace for 8 or 9 goals.  And just to let you know Armia is on pace for 17 to 18 goals and plays 2 minutes less per game than Danault and Drouin,  Byron is on pace for 9 to 10 goals and plays 4 minutes less per game than Danualt and Drouin. Lekonen is on pace for 8 to 9 goals and plays 3 minutes less per game then Danualt and Drouin. So measuring a plays value just by goal...well 

Leks, Armia and Byron are role players. The only problem I see is the money they pay Byron. You need good strong filler players that play a good 200 foot game and can move up and down the lineup as needed on a given night, for certain you want to be paying them less then 3 million.  Its paying guys like Drouin 5.5 for less then 8 or 9 goals, and Danualt 5 plus million for 8 or 9 goals that will kill a team. You want to keep the money 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree with making the playoffs should not be celebrated! That's like saying making the cut in a PGA tournament should not be celebrated? The saying anything can happen in the playoffs sometimes gets overused for sure. However there is no chance of winning the prize if you are not in competition for it. Over the years there have been some great tems that have played great, won the President's Cup and then were eliminated in the first round. Then there are teams like the Blues who made it in and then won the prize. Last year in the bubble the Habs played by far their best hockey of the entire season. We lost by one goal in the sixth game against the Flyers from moving on to the tird round. Just to get there we eliminated the Penguins! The Leafs on the other hand had a real good team and were once again eliminated in the first round?

As I said in my post above thie team has been medicocre for the last 8 seasons and under Bergevin it is not improving. He made some great moves this year for Anderson and Toffoli and actually the Perry acquisition is proving to be good as well. He has scored more goals than most of our regulars. However these moves do nothing for the future of the team and are small bandaids for a season only. Also as I said the coaching over this period has been critical and I do not care who you have on the roster without good coaching is like being stuck out on the ocean without a rudder. This team right now can play much better than they have been and we have all seen it this year. However they are not consistant  and the schedule due to the Covid situation in not supported by the older legs on the bench. Yes we have some great prospects in the system but over the years I have seen many highly touted prospects not reach theri potential once they hit the big show. I have also seen a lot of these prospects lose their way once they hit the big show due to poor coaching. So although the future looks bright those bright lights can still experience a power outage if not handled properly.

I am hoping we see a different team tonight because this game is the turning point. A win tonight against a much better team will provide some confidence for the game against TO on Monday. After that they have 5 out of eight games against the Flames which they should win even with a mediocre performance.

But as far as making the playoffs I am sorry "BigTed3" but I think the goal of every team should always be to make the post season play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until our D improves, I don't think we are winning anything.

The level of mediocre results over Bergevin's entire tenure is reason enough for dismissal if I am Geoff Molson. However, I am not Geoff Molson and I expect Bergevin will be back again next season. The goal should be to assemble a competitive team that can challenge any other team in the league over a 3-5 season period. I think defining your goal as making the playoffs is just a money thing. You make the playoffs, you get extra revenue. It's a hollow goal that Bergevin parades out each season because ownership wants that added revenue. And Bergevin hasn't even been able to accomplish that. His results are SO bad I cannot believe he's still our G.M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Obviously you need to make the post-season to win it all, but what I'm saying is that I'd rather have a true window. I'd rather win the PGA Championship twice and miss the cut three times than make the cut 4 out of 5 years but come nowhere close to winning anything.

While it's true that a team an sometimes surprise and win the Cup as an underdog, most Cup winners are top-tier teams:

- Tampa was maybe the Cup favorite going into the season last year and finished 3rd overall in the regular season

- Stl won two years ago having nine teams finishing ahead of them, but it wasn't like they were a bad team. In fact, a number of experts had picked them to win the West before the season and they stumbled out of the gate. They were one of the strongest teams in the 2nd half of the season before making their playoff run.

- Washington the year before that won their division and was 6th overall.

- Pittsburgh in 2016-17 was the 2nd overall team in the regular season when they won the Cup.

- In 2015-16, Pit was the 4th overall team and won.

- In 2014-15, the Hawks were the 7th best team overall and that in a tough division.

- In 2013-14, the Kings were the 8th overall team in the regular season and had a 100-point season.

- In 2012-13, the Hawks were the #1 team overall.

- In 2011-12, the Kings were the 13th overall team and surprised everyone, one of the few times a lower-ranked team has actually won the Cup.

- In 2010-11, the Bruins were the 7th overall team.

- In 2009-10, the Hawks ere 3rd overall.

- In 2008-09, the Pens were 8th overall.

- In 2007-08, the Wings were #1 overall.

- In 2006-07, the Ducks were #3 overall.

- In 2005-06, the Canes were #3 overall.

So those are the 15 winners in the post-lockout era. Their average regular-season ranking going into the post-season was #5 overall. The median ranking was 4th overall. Seven of the 15 winners (just about half) were ranked in the top 3 regular-season teams in the years they won the Cup. The Habs are currently the 15th-ranked team by points and 14th by point percentage, and again, no team in the post-lockout era has won a Cup being ranked below 13. Can anything happen? Sure. But the odds of that are extremely low.

I'm not saying there's no joy in making the playoffs. And if you told me it was a given the Habs would not win a Cup in the next 20 years, then yes, I'd rather make the playoff each of those years than not make it. BUT that's not the way the NHL works. When you finish really poorly, the NHL rewards you with top 5 draft picks and that frankly increases your chances of winning a Cup later down the line. So all I'm saying is give me a few great chances at winning a Cup rather than a couple more playoff appearances with virtually no chance at winning a Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

While it's true that a team an sometimes surprise and win the Cup as an underdog, most Cup winners are top-tier teams:

So those are the 15 winners in the post-lockout era. Their average regular-season ranking going into the post-season was #5 overall. The median ranking was 4th overall. Seven of the 15 winners (just about half) were ranked in the top 3 regular-season teams in the years they won the Cup. The Habs are currently the 15th-ranked team by points and 14th by point percentage, and again, no team in the post-lockout era has won a Cup being ranked below 13. Can anything happen? Sure. But the odds of that are extremely low.

Your data also reinforces that retooling or resetting with a handful of players seldom works (exception - St. Louis). If you don't have a stable core block of 5-7 players that will be together for a 5 year window, then you're average. With the anxiety in Montreal the last 6 years, most fans don't have the patience for development. I'm hopeful that we are starting to track with our prospect pool, and if we are going to sign or trade for a player, they have to have some ceiling like a Vince Dunn or other RFA prospects. I'm done with players like David Savard, Ghost, Ekholm, and Foligno - IMO they are filler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not saying there's no joy in making the playoffs. And if you told me it was a given the Habs would not win a Cup in the next 20 years, then yes, I'd rather make the playoff each of those years than not make it. BUT that's not the way the NHL works. When you finish really poorly, the NHL rewards you with top 5 draft picks and that frankly increases your chances of winning a Cup later down the line. So all I'm saying is give me a few great chances at winning a Cup rather than a couple more playoff appearances with virtually no chance at winning a Cup."

 

Well if the current course continues as it has in the last 12 years then I guess making the playoffs every year will be the highlight of the Habs seasons over the next 20.:6396:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, richard464 said:

"I'm not saying there's no joy in making the playoffs. And if you told me it was a given the Habs would not win a Cup in the next 20 years, then yes, I'd rather make the playoff each of those years than not make it. BUT that's not the way the NHL works. When you finish really poorly, the NHL rewards you with top 5 draft picks and that frankly increases your chances of winning a Cup later down the line. So all I'm saying is give me a few great chances at winning a Cup rather than a couple more playoff appearances with virtually no chance at winning a Cup."

 

Well if the current course continues as it has in the last 12 years then I guess making the playoffs every year will be the highlight of the Habs seasons over the next 20.:6396:

Exactly. Because MB doesn't have any direction. He's busy trying to stay afloat and not building towards a Cup window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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