2021-22 State of the Habs

[Regis22]

18 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Kadri grew up a Habs fan, so IF given the chance to play here and potentially win with Price, Letang and Co he might take less in actual salary and more in bonuses and royalties. 

lol

We’ve used the “ chance to play with Price “ on Tavares , stamkos —-it doesn’t work . like alL players they want the money . 
 

[ramcharger440]

YEP. Well once the draft is over we will have some kind of idea what we will look like next season. I feel like any big move will be done by then and after that it will be fine tuning for the coming season. Long term as Gorton and Hughes have stated a few times is fast and skilled, works for me. Personally I don't care how the Gm gets the team there I just expect that this new bunch with much more modern views on how the game should be played will get us there, like any sports team it ma or may not work but I will still watch as long as we are moving forward.

[maas_art]

44 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

YEP. Well once the draft is over we will have some kind of idea what we will look like next season. I feel like any big move will be done by then and after that it will be fine tuning for the coming season. Long term as Gorton and Hughes have stated a few times is fast and skilled, works for me. Personally I don't care how the Gm gets the team there I just expect that this new bunch with much more modern views on how the game should be played will get us there, like any sports team it ma or may not work but I will still watch as long as we are moving forward.

I would think there's a good chance a deal or two are made at the draft & certainly based on who we pick we might see the direction we are planning.

I do think that depending upon who is dealt, we might see some UFA signings (beyond just filling spots) the most obvious one being Letang. 

I am curious to see what HuGo does. I dont think this team is anywhere near as bad as we were with a historically unlucky season injury-wise as well as some players going out & others coming in.  Im not sure if we even end up with a top 10 pick next year.  Not sure another tank is in the cards even if we think it might be for the best, long-term. 

[Graeme-1]

On 5/20/2022 at 8:00 AM, habsisme said:

I don't know guys, this is what scares  me. It seems the vast majority of habs fans that I know and the vast majority of the media think the habs should avoid free agency and keep thinking about things at least a year in advance and basically forget this season. 

But I have heard nothing of the sort from HuGo and the rumours are quite the opposite, that they plan to be big players in free agency. I'm very anxious about this off-season. I know what's going to happen. They are going to make a splash in free agency but the moves won't seem TERRIBLE, that's what we'll say, "not my preference but I'm okay with this." We'll start thinking hey Price is supposed to be back and healthy, and Wright is supposed to be NHL ready, we've added x and y in free agency, and we have a few young players that project to be NHL ready this year, maybe we can make some noise. And we'll get excited about the season. It may end up even being a good one, a second round exit or so.

Except now instead of having a gauranteed top 10 and probably top 5 pick in a strong draft, you have players x and y and they're not so good contracts forcing them to sign Caufield to a bridge deal (which didn't make him happy). And instead of having extra picks in the first and second round, we let Drouin, Byron, and Allen walk out for free. It was a self-rental, but we'll say that was prudent, at least we didn't go out and buy anything, forgetting all that we lost. 

I want to remind everyone that all that has happened so far, happened in the Bergevin era too (twice), disaster seasons (at least one partially due to record injury, just like this year), that led to a top 5 pick in a bad draft year, from a player who immediately contributed and gave us hope and then fizzled because they could never live up to the expectations. And then the cycle continues, a handful of years of mediocrity and then the disaster season again. 

Its just one more year. And its not going to be a bad year because we'll be cheering for our younger players and watching them develop but I don't think HuGo is going to let us have it. Anyone want to start a petition begging them not to? 

IIRC, Hughes recently walked back on that comment and suggested we wouldn't be big players in free agency. The cap situation and uncertainty with Price is extra likely to make that true.

Generally though, I'm anti-tank: the two most egregious tanks in the last decade were done by Phoenix and Buffalo and look at where it's gotten them: maybe a coincidence, but that McDavid tank sure seemed to be the start of a "decade of darkness" (ironically, Edmonton, who wasn't trying to tank, actually got McDavid).  I think the right way to look at the next couple of seasons is development years: the focus needs to be on being a contender in 3-5 years. That doesn't mean we try to be bad just to get slightly better draft odds, but does mean the focus is one development and avoiding any "win now" thinking.  So basically, if we could sign a UFA on a short-term deal who would be a good mentor for our youngsters, take tough minutes to protect their confidence, and help build a winning culture, I'm all for it. As long as we aren't causing ourselves cap headaches in a few years or taking away needed development time/opportunities, then great.  If we happen to sneak into the playoffs next year, that's great. If not, that's fine too.  

So in summary: win-now-mode = no, tank-mode = no, development-mode= yes. 

 

[BigTed3]

41 minutes ago, Graeme-1 said:

IIRC, Hughes recently walked back on that comment and suggested we wouldn't be big players in free agency. The cap situation and uncertainty with Price is extra likely to make that true.

Generally though, I'm anti-tank: the two most egregious tanks in the last decade were done by Phoenix and Buffalo and look at where it's gotten them: maybe a coincidence, but that McDavid tank sure seemed to be the start of a "decade of darkness" (ironically, Edmonton, who wasn't trying to tank, actually got McDavid).  I think the right way to look at the next couple of seasons is development years: the focus needs to be on being a contender in 3-5 years. That doesn't mean we try to be bad just to get slightly better draft odds, but does mean the focus is one development and avoiding any "win now" thinking.  So basically, if we could sign a UFA on a short-term deal who would be a good mentor for our youngsters, take tough minutes to protect their confidence, and help build a winning culture, I'm all for it. As long as we aren't causing ourselves cap headaches in a few years or taking away needed development time/opportunities, then great.  If we happen to sneak into the playoffs next year, that's great. If not, that's fine too.  

So in summary: win-now-mode = no, tank-mode = no, development-mode= yes. 

 

IMO the most egregious and obvious one was the one Toronto pulled in the year they ended up drafting Matthews. And while they haven't won in the playoffs with him yet, thye've in the conversation as a contender in large part due to his presence on their roster. Imagine if Toronto had not tanked as hard as they had and ended up with Puljujarvi or Juolevi or Alex Nylander instead. The face of that franchise would be completely different. Also less likely Tavares would have signed there if they weren't a contender.

Regardless of how you feel about tanking (it has its pluses and minuses in my view), the fact remains that few teams win Cups without legit stars and most of those stars are guys you draft yourself within the top 5-10 picks. Sometimes you luck out like Colorado or Ottawa and make a trade that ends up yielding you a top 5 pick you weren't guaranteed to get. Sometimes you luck out like NJ or NYR or Edmonton and win top picks repeatedly, which sets you up nicely for the future. No guarantees you do anything with it, but let's also state the fact that Buffalo and Arizona are both poorly-run franchises in less-than-desirable areas. There are cities players want to live in (New York, Boston, ones in Florida or California, etc.), there are places players want to go for the hockey tradition, there are places with lower taxes, there are places with good shots at winning chamipnships... but hard to imagine Buffalo or Arizona is at the top of anyone's list. Even when Buffalo was strong in the peri-Hasek era, they ended up having an efflux of players (Briere, Drury, Vanek, Peca, etc.) who didn't really have interest in being there long-term, kind of like how the Expos would always lose players in MLB. My feeling is that Montreal, were it to build a good corps of high draft picks, would be a desirable enough location for some free agents, to be able to build a winner and I don't think fans/media/owner would be as complacent about being awful as they are in those other cities.

[Graeme-1]

2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

IMO the most egregious and obvious one was the one Toronto pulled in the year they ended up drafting Matthews. And while they haven't won in the playoffs with him yet, thye've in the conversation as a contender in large part due to his presence on their roster. Imagine if Toronto had not tanked as hard as they had and ended up with Puljujarvi or Juolevi or Alex Nylander instead. The face of that franchise would be completely different. Also less likely Tavares would have signed there if they weren't a contender.

Regardless of how you feel about tanking (it has its pluses and minuses in my view), the fact remains that few teams win Cups without legit stars and most of those stars are guys you draft yourself within the top 5-10 picks. Sometimes you luck out like Colorado or Ottawa and make a trade that ends up yielding you a top 5 pick you weren't guaranteed to get. Sometimes you luck out like NJ or NYR or Edmonton and win top picks repeatedly, which sets you up nicely for the future. No guarantees you do anything with it, but let's also state the fact that Buffalo and Arizona are both poorly-run franchises in less-than-desirable areas. There are cities players want to live in (New York, Boston, ones in Florida or California, etc.), there are places players want to go for the hockey tradition, there are places with lower taxes, there are places with good shots at winning chamipnships... but hard to imagine Buffalo or Arizona is at the top of anyone's list. Even when Buffalo was strong in the peri-Hasek era, they ended up having an efflux of players (Briere, Drury, Vanek, Peca, etc.) who didn't really have interest in being there long-term, kind of like how the Expos would always lose players in MLB. My feeling is that Montreal, were it to build a good corps of high draft picks, would be a desirable enough location for some free agents, to be able to build a winner and I don't think fans/media/owner would be as complacent about being awful as they are in those other cities.

I don't really remember that year as a clear & obvious tank for Matthews so much as management trying to cleanup from the old regime, which left them next to nothing to work with. But I may be remembering wrong.

With tanking, I think the argument would be a lot stronger if you could guarantee the top player (or in a Mcdavid/Eichel year, top two). Of course, higher pick is always better, but I'm not sure the difference between say 3rd overall and 8th overall (most likely outcome of tank versus say a bad team kind of letting the chips fall where they do) to justify the potential  damage that might do to your young players. And of course, higher lottery odds are better, but there's nothing you can do to even make getting Bedard the most likely outcome: even if your tank is successful (not as easy as it sounds) you're most likely drafting 3rd overall.

It's a fair point that Arizona and Buffalo may just be poorly run franchises (although I disagree no one wants to play there, outside of the fact the teams are so bad: Phoenix is an very desirable city, and Buffalo seems at least decent). Still, I really do wonder how much damage it does to a franchise when fans are cheering for them to lose, players know their management doesn't want them to win, there may be a lack of good leadership & mentors, etc.  I'll admit "losing culture" is impossible to quantify and perhaps it's not a real thing, but I suspect it has at least some level of negative impact.

Again, I'm certainly not advocating for an MB "try to sneak into the playoffs" approach, I just don't want to go into next year with the goal to finish 32nd again.

[CaptWelly]

5 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

IIRC, Hughes recently walked back on that comment and suggested we wouldn't be big players in free agency. The cap situation and uncertainty with Price is extra likely to make that true.

Generally though, I'm anti-tank: the two most egregious tanks in the last decade were done by Phoenix and Buffalo and look at where it's gotten them: maybe a coincidence, but that McDavid tank sure seemed to be the start of a "decade of darkness" (ironically, Edmonton, who wasn't trying to tank, actually got McDavid).  I think the right way to look at the next couple of seasons is development years: the focus needs to be on being a contender in 3-5 years. That doesn't mean we try to be bad just to get slightly better draft odds, but does mean the focus is one development and avoiding any "win now" thinking.  So basically, if we could sign a UFA on a short-term deal who would be a good mentor for our youngsters, take tough minutes to protect their confidence, and help build a winning culture, I'm all for it. As long as we aren't causing ourselves cap headaches in a few years or taking away needed development time/opportunities, then great.  If we happen to sneak into the playoffs next year, that's great. If not, that's fine too.  

So in summary: win-now-mode = no, tank-mode = no, development-mode= yes. 

 

I agree with this completely. I would rather try to actually be competitive and play the younger players but also build around enough veterans to support them. Young players no matter the talent still need direction and need to be taught to win, with being able to build and make "some" mistakes. Not all forgiven and continue to make whatever mistakes with no consequences. No matter what, you do want to build around a winning attitude and not a close enough because we will be better down the road..........that may/maynot happen.

If we do lose but are still pushing, then it is what it is. If we squeeze into the playoffs or have a battle for a playoff spot that can be good for the young players also. So we opt to 'tank' , Suzuki and CC are getting hot , but we might lose that draft position do we sit them? Do we rehire Decharme? MSL with a fresh slate may convince the current crew to play over their heads , what do we do then? 

[BigTed3]

1 hour ago, Graeme-1 said:

I don't really remember that year as a clear & obvious tank for Matthews so much as management trying to cleanup from the old regime, which left them next to nothing to work with. But I may be remembering wrong.

With tanking, I think the argument would be a lot stronger if you could guarantee the top player (or in a Mcdavid/Eichel year, top two). Of course, higher pick is always better, but I'm not sure the difference between say 3rd overall and 8th overall (most likely outcome of tank versus say a bad team kind of letting the chips fall where they do) to justify the potential  damage that might do to your young players. And of course, higher lottery odds are better, but there's nothing you can do to even make getting Bedard the most likely outcome: even if your tank is successful (not as easy as it sounds) you're most likely drafting 3rd overall.

It's a fair point that Arizona and Buffalo may just be poorly run franchises (although I disagree no one wants to play there, outside of the fact the teams are so bad: Phoenix is an very desirable city, and Buffalo seems at least decent). Still, I really do wonder how much damage it does to a franchise when fans are cheering for them to lose, players know their management doesn't want them to win, there may be a lack of good leadership & mentors, etc.  I'll admit "losing culture" is impossible to quantify and perhaps it's not a real thing, but I suspect it has at least some level of negative impact.

Again, I'm certainly not advocating for an MB "try to sneak into the playoffs" approach, I just don't want to go into next year with the goal to finish 32nd again.

It's a fine line to walk, I agree. This year really wasn't an awful thing to have happen to us to be honest, for few reasons:

1. We got rid of Ducharme and Bergevin, neither of whom was the answer and neither of whom had any vision or plan for the future.

2. The organization had been blind to how bad they were because of the COVID-related playoff appearance two years ago and then the Canadian-division aided, Carey-Price backed playoff run last season. The odds were always that we would regress back, yet GM and MB didn't see it coming. So in a way, it was good to get a reality check. If we had been battling for a playoff spot this entire season, we likely don't make any progress towards trying to find a competitive window to win a Cup. We don't trade vets like Chiarot and Toffoli for futures, we don't end up getting #1 overall, etc.

3. Another main reason we did badly was man games lost to injury. So there's an excuse here. I don't think it explained everything by any means, but it's something the players can look at and say, let's hope our luck doesn't run that way again and we should be better. We also were able to give bigger roles to some of our younger players who otherwise wouldn't have had a shot and as such, we're going into next year with a more confident Caufield and Romanov, a Harris and Barron with a bit of NHL experience, an Evans who can play like a veteran now, and so on.

So all in all, I actually feel like this bad season will make us better in the long run. Now the problem is that if you start to string several of these losing seasons together, that can be bad for morale, bad for fan support, bad for attracting UFA's, bad for the trade value of your current players, and so on. Conversely, as I've posted, a lot of the contenders have been built on the backs of multiple top 5 picks. Tampa. Pittsburgh. Chicago. Colorado, Toronto, Carolina. All teams that have been built around bad (or lottery-lucky) years where they climbed to the top of the draft. Likewise, have to think New York will get there soon. Maybe New Jersey eventually. 6 of the 8 teams left standing this year feature multiple top 5 picks, and one of the ones that doesn't (Calgary) has 3 top 6 picks on their roster. So it's nice to say don't build a losing culture, but on the other hand, remaining a mediocre fringe playoff team every year also doesn't give you great odds of a winning team down the line. So it could well be that one more year of losing, particularly with the draft crop that's supposed to be available next year, could be a winning ticket. If you finish last, you may not end up with Bedard, but you will be guaranteed one of Bedard, Michkov, or Fantilli, and that's still a win in general.

So what should we do? Well, I'd be looking at the following if I'm GM:

- trade Jake Allen. He's not a long term solution here anyways, he should get us a decent return if you look at what a very similar player in Darcy Kuemper brought back, and playing someone like Monty over Allen allows you to still have a team that plays well in front of him without getting results in the win column.

- Likewise, I'd be very careful with Price. I'd see whether we can trade him too, but even if we don't, I'd limit him to 30-40 games next year. No sense in pushing him too hard in a year that doesn't matter. Let him find his game and health again without pushing his body too hard.

- Not sign Letang, Malkin, Bergeron, etc. Again, those players aren't guys who fit our window to win down the line, so all they'd be doing is taking time away from developing youngsters and boosting your point total high enough to lose a good draft pick but not high enough to win a Cup.

- Play the kids to some degree, as we did this past year. Make this a year of experience and learning. A year where we go 30-52 but where the kids get experience, learn from their mistakes, adjust to the speed of the NHL, etc. can still be a win. I'd like to see some of Ylonen, Poehling, RHP, Guhle, Harris, Barron, Norlinder, Primeau, etc. get some opportunity to play bigger roles here.

Do those things and if we win, we win. If we can win like that, it means we're not that far off from getting to our goal of being a contender in a couple of years anyways. If we suck, we suck, and we add another top 5 pick next year and then can start to look at roster upgrades in trade/free agency/etc. next off-season. If you're further able to trade away some vets like Drouin (impending UFA), Byron, Gallagher, Armia, Allen, Savard, etc. somewhere over the next year, it might also set you up with future assets that you can then trade back to other teams to acquire win-now assets. And not that those guys will all get there, but the 2023 summer could see guys like Mackinnon, Pastrnak, Larkin Dumba, Sanheim, Barbashev, Zub, and Horvat hit UFA status. So just imagine we were to draft a Nemec or Jiricek this year, a Bedard or Fantilli next year and then tack on a Pastrnak or Larkin and Sanheim or Dumba via free agency next summer, along with trading some vets for picks/prospects that we then turn around and trade back for 2-3 other components for our roster. It could be a very quick turnaround to contender status. And having a Bedard and a Wright on your roster, for example, along with MSL as a coach, could be a very attractive opportunity for a skilled free agent. So yeah, there are downsides to over-tanking and you still need some luck in the lottery, but personally, I'm willing to push it one more year of going developmental and then pushing the pedal back to the metal thereafter.

[Graeme-1]

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

It's a fine line to walk, I agree. This year really wasn't an awful thing to have happen to us to be honest, for few reasons:

1. We got rid of Ducharme and Bergevin, neither of whom was the answer and neither of whom had any vision or plan for the future.

2. The organization had been blind to how bad they were because of the COVID-related playoff appearance two years ago and then the Canadian-division aided, Carey-Price backed playoff run last season. The odds were always that we would regress back, yet GM and MB didn't see it coming. So in a way, it was good to get a reality check. If we had been battling for a playoff spot this entire season, we likely don't make any progress towards trying to find a competitive window to win a Cup. We don't trade vets like Chiarot and Toffoli for futures, we don't end up getting #1 overall, etc.

3. Another main reason we did badly was man games lost to injury. So there's an excuse here. I don't think it explained everything by any means, but it's something the players can look at and say, let's hope our luck doesn't run that way again and we should be better. We also were able to give bigger roles to some of our younger players who otherwise wouldn't have had a shot and as such, we're going into next year with a more confident Caufield and Romanov, a Harris and Barron with a bit of NHL experience, an Evans who can play like a veteran now, and so on.

So all in all, I actually feel like this bad season will make us better in the long run. Now the problem is that if you start to string several of these losing seasons together, that can be bad for morale, bad for fan support, bad for attracting UFA's, bad for the trade value of your current players, and so on. Conversely, as I've posted, a lot of the contenders have been built on the backs of multiple top 5 picks. Tampa. Pittsburgh. Chicago. Colorado, Toronto, Carolina. All teams that have been built around bad (or lottery-lucky) years where they climbed to the top of the draft. Likewise, have to think New York will get there soon. Maybe New Jersey eventually. 6 of the 8 teams left standing this year feature multiple top 5 picks, and one of the ones that doesn't (Calgary) has 3 top 6 picks on their roster. So it's nice to say don't build a losing culture, but on the other hand, remaining a mediocre fringe playoff team every year also doesn't give you great odds of a winning team down the line. So it could well be that one more year of losing, particularly with the draft crop that's supposed to be available next year, could be a winning ticket. If you finish last, you may not end up with Bedard, but you will be guaranteed one of Bedard, Michkov, or Fantilli, and that's still a win in general.

So what should we do? Well, I'd be looking at the following if I'm GM:

- trade Jake Allen. He's not a long term solution here anyways, he should get us a decent return if you look at what a very similar player in Darcy Kuemper brought back, and playing someone like Monty over Allen allows you to still have a team that plays well in front of him without getting results in the win column.

- Likewise, I'd be very careful with Price. I'd see whether we can trade him too, but even if we don't, I'd limit him to 30-40 games next year. No sense in pushing him too hard in a year that doesn't matter. Let him find his game and health again without pushing his body too hard.

- Not sign Letang, Malkin, Bergeron, etc. Again, those players aren't guys who fit our window to win down the line, so all they'd be doing is taking time away from developing youngsters and boosting your point total high enough to lose a good draft pick but not high enough to win a Cup.

- Play the kids to some degree, as we did this past year. Make this a year of experience and learning. A year where we go 30-52 but where the kids get experience, learn from their mistakes, adjust to the speed of the NHL, etc. can still be a win. I'd like to see some of Ylonen, Poehling, RHP, Guhle, Harris, Barron, Norlinder, Primeau, etc. get some opportunity to play bigger roles here.

Do those things and if we win, we win. If we can win like that, it means we're not that far off from getting to our goal of being a contender in a couple of years anyways. If we suck, we suck, and we add another top 5 pick next year and then can start to look at roster upgrades in trade/free agency/etc. next off-season. If you're further able to trade away some vets like Drouin (impending UFA), Byron, Gallagher, Armia, Allen, Savard, etc. somewhere over the next year, it might also set you up with future assets that you can then trade back to other teams to acquire win-now assets. And not that those guys will all get there, but the 2023 summer could see guys like Mackinnon, Pastrnak, Larkin Dumba, Sanheim, Barbashev, Zub, and Horvat hit UFA status. So just imagine we were to draft a Nemec or Jiricek this year, a Bedard or Fantilli next year and then tack on a Pastrnak or Larkin and Sanheim or Dumba via free agency next summer, along with trading some vets for picks/prospects that we then turn around and trade back for 2-3 other components for our roster. It could be a very quick turnaround to contender status. And having a Bedard and a Wright on your roster, for example, along with MSL as a coach, could be a very attractive opportunity for a skilled free agent. So yeah, there are downsides to over-tanking and you still need some luck in the lottery, but personally, I'm willing to push it one more year of going developmental and then pushing the pedal back to the metal thereafter.

Totally agree with this season being a good thing. Having a smart and forward-thinking management group combined with the top pick was easily worth the last place finish.

With that said, had they not had the second half under St. Louis, where, while still losing a lot, at least looked competative, young players grew, and the team and fans were having fun, I  wouldn't be looking back so positively. Sure, we'd still have a smart front office and the top pick, but I'd be seriously worried about the development of the young players and culture of the team.

In a way, it was almost the perfect losing season. We fixed the root of the organization's problems, got the top pick, but also avoided that "tanking" feeling and culture after St. Louis came in: while we traded away a few useful but ultimately replacable players for futures, it otherwise didn't "feel" like a tank. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can engineer that sort of perfect outcome, which is why I wouldn't go into next year with the goal to finish last. It may not be the worst thing were it to happen, so long as the team looks competative and our young players continue to grow, but I wouldn't try to force it. 

[BigTed3]

5 minutes ago, Graeme-1 said:

Totally agree with this season being a good thing. Having a smart and forward-thinking management group combined with the top pick was easily worth the last place finish.

With that said, had they not had the second half under St. Louis, where, while still losing a lot, at least looked competative, young players grew, and the team and fans were having fun, I  wouldn't be looking back so positively. Sure, we'd still have a smart front office and the top pick, but I'd be seriously worried about the development of the young players and culture of the team.

In a way, it was almost the perfect losing season. We fixed the root of the organization's problems, got the top pick, but also avoided that "tanking" feeling and culture after St. Louis came in: while we traded away a few useful but ultimately replacable players for futures, it otherwise didn't "feel" like a tank. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can engineer that sort of perfect outcome, which is why I wouldn't go into next year with the goal to finish last. It may not be the worst thing were it to happen, so long as the team looks competative and our young players continue to grow, but I wouldn't try to force it. 

I also wouldn't try to force it really. I wouldn't throw games. But I would prioritize development over immediate success. I wouldn't be trying to add short-term free agents. And I wouldn't be playing veterans over players with a future here just to try and scrape together a few more points or stay in the playoff race a bit longer. As examples, I'd rather see RHP play the 4th line over Byron. I'd rather see Ylonen get top 6 linemates instead of Gallagher. I'd rather see Harris or Guhle or Barron get more ice time overall and get work on special teams than see that ice time go to a Savard or Wideman. I'd rather see Primeau get some games than sign a veteran back-up or overplay Allen or Price for 70 games. And as noted, I think trading Allen, for example, sets you up for using Montembeault and having games where your team plays well but just doesn't have games stolen for you by goaltending. In a lot of these cases, it might actually lead you to win more points (e.g. Ylonen might do better in a scoring role than Gallagher or Harris might win you more puck battles than Savard ever would). And if that's the case, so be it. I wouldn't revert back just to avoid winning points. But if we're going to win games, let it be with players whereby winning games now makes us stronger in the future. There's no sense in trying to do what we've done in the past running the likes of Murray and Bouillon and Alzner and Merrill out there while more promising prospects miss their chance. I'll live with whatever results the core of the future can deliver for us and I'm simply not sweating it much if we lose and end up with a top 5 pick. In short, I'm just avoiding what Bergevin always did in trying to bandage the situation enough to make us a playoff contender without ever being much better than that.

[habsisme]

1 minute ago, BigTed3 said:

I also wouldn't try to force it really. I wouldn't throw games. But I would prioritize development over immediate success. I wouldn't be trying to add short-term free agents. And I wouldn't be playing veterans over players with a future here just to try and scrape together a few more points or stay in the playoff race a bit longer. As examples, I'd rather see RHP play the 4th line over Byron. I'd rather see Ylonen get top 6 linemates instead of Gallagher. I'd rather see Harris or Guhle or Barron get more ice time overall and get work on special teams than see that ice time go to a Savard or Wideman. I'd rather see Primeau get some games than sign a veteran back-up or overplay Allen or Price for 70 games. And as noted, I think trading Allen, for example, sets you up for using Montembeault and having games where your team plays well but just doesn't have games stolen for you by goaltending. In a lot of these cases, it might actually lead you to win more points (e.g. Ylonen might do better in a scoring role than Gallagher or Harris might win you more puck battles than Savard ever would). And if that's the case, so be it. I wouldn't revert back just to avoid winning points. But if we're going to win games, let it be with players whereby winning games now makes us stronger in the future. There's no sense in trying to do what we've done in the past running the likes of Murray and Bouillon and Alzner and Merrill out there while more promising prospects miss their chance. I'll live with whatever results the core of the future can deliver for us and I'm simply not sweating it much if we lose and end up with a top 5 pick. In short, I'm just avoiding what Bergevin always did in trying to bandage the situation enough to make us a playoff contender without ever being much better than that.

agree completely, only caveat is sometimes you have to play vets to protect the younger players from losing confidence or asking them to do too much at once. But we should act with development in mind, not trying to win games

[BigTed3]

2 minutes ago, habsisme said:

agree completely, only caveat is sometimes you have to play vets to protect the younger players from losing confidence or asking them to do too much at once. But we should act with development in mind, not trying to win games

Sure, but IF it's in the best interest of your future asset. As an example, if we end up trading Allen and going into next season with Primeau and Monty, Primeau is the guy I'm protecting a bit and Monty is the sacrificial lamb if needed. If a Barron or Harris is struggling and needs a night off to watch from the pressbox because it's for their learning, that's different than trying to play a Savard or Wideman ahead of them because you think the vets should get first crack.

[claremont]

10 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I also wouldn't try to force it really. I wouldn't throw games. But I would prioritize development over immediate success. I wouldn't be trying to add short-term free agents. And I wouldn't be playing veterans over players with a future here just to try and scrape together a few more points or stay in the playoff race a bit longer. As examples, I'd rather see RHP play the 4th line over Byron. I'd rather see Ylonen get top 6 linemates instead of Gallagher. I'd rather see Harris or Guhle or Barron get more ice time overall and get work on special teams than see that ice time go to a Savard or Wideman. I'd rather see Primeau get some games than sign a veteran back-up or overplay Allen or Price for 70 games. And as noted, I think trading Allen, for example, sets you up for using Montembeault and having games where your team plays well but just doesn't have games stolen for you by goaltending. In a lot of these cases, it might actually lead you to win more points (e.g. Ylonen might do better in a scoring role than Gallagher or Harris might win you more puck battles than Savard ever would). And if that's the case, so be it. I wouldn't revert back just to avoid winning points. But if we're going to win games, let it be with players whereby winning games now makes us stronger in the future. There's no sense in trying to do what we've done in the past running the likes of Murray and Bouillon and Alzner and Merrill out there while more promising prospects miss their chance. I'll live with whatever results the core of the future can deliver for us and I'm simply not sweating it much if we lose and end up with a top 5 pick. In short, I'm just avoiding what Bergevin always did in trying to bandage the situation enough to make us a playoff contender without ever being much better than that.

Good post plus the previous post on being a developmental team as a priority first however coaching management has to walk the continuous psychological human nature line as follows;

1) the veterans that are signed on with the team have to clearly know your priorities and that there will be stretches whereby they may not get the top or 2nd line minutes. Better to tell Gally or Petry, Hoffman, Savard, Eddy etc., right now vs having severe malcontents that are suddenly demanding trades mid-season for lack of ice time and disrupting the chemistry of the team

2) The kids in development mode will inevitably incur failure - you can’t over expect results, have a creeping losing culture or have a revolving door of kids in, vets out, then vets in, kids out - a team needs some degree of consistency in positions and lines 

3) There has to be a moderate amount of earned respect for the vets - if the kids see how vets are treated (e.g. benched), and you are only as good as your last game, the longer term implications of being viewed as commodities for performance can be demoralizing. 
My key summary here, is a developmental team needs massive communications on expectations. This is probably where a coach like MSL shines. A veteran mature team where everyone is a seasoned pro will generally accept and understand coaching decisions without as much need for reasoning dialogue 

[CaptWelly]

44 minutes ago, claremont said:

Good post plus the previous post on being a developmental team as a priority first however coaching management has to walk the continuous psychological human nature line as follows;

1) the veterans that are signed on with the team have to clearly know your priorities and that there will be stretches whereby they may not get the top or 2nd line minutes. Better to tell Gally or Petry, Hoffman, Savard, Eddy etc., right now vs having severe malcontents that are suddenly demanding trades mid-season for lack of ice time and disrupting the chemistry of the team

2) The kids in development mode will inevitably incur failure - you can’t over expect results, have a creeping losing culture or have a revolving door of kids in, vets out, then vets in, kids out - a team needs some degree of consistency in positions and lines 

3) There has to be a moderate amount of earned respect for the vets - if the kids see how vets are treated (e.g. benched), and you are only as good as your last game, the longer term implications of being viewed as commodities for performance can be demoralizing. 
My key summary here, is a developmental team needs massive communications on expectations. This is probably where a coach like MSL shines. A veteran mature team where everyone is a seasoned pro will generally accept and understand coaching decisions without as much need for reasoning dialogue 

It would be very tough to ask any UFA say Letang to come in and be told you may sit or get reduced ice time because we want to play kids "who have potential" , but haven't earned ice time over you! 

[campabee82]

I don't like to tank, if you are bad you are bad and deserve the 1st pick to get better. I really simply dislike the lottery. However I also hate those teams who were taking advantage of the old system and intentionally tanking to get the best players. There are ways to improve the team, move out salary and build for the future all at the same time. Here are some of my thoughts on how to do just this.

1. Swap Hoffman for JVR, simple 1 for 1 trade. Sure we add 2.5 mil on next year's cap but also gain 7 mil cap space at the end of next season. 

2. Weber to Arizona for a pick.

3. Savard to the Sabres for a 2nd or 3rd.

4. Allen traded anywhere for a 2nd or 3rd.

5. Dvorak + 2nd (Edm) to the Rags for Kravstov + Lundkvist + Georgiev. 

6. 2023 1st (Fla) (top 5 protected) + 2022 3rd (Ana) for Pacioretty + Roy. 

Next offseason we can let one or both of Patches and JVR walk or resign one for less money and gain significant cap space. 

Lineup:

Caufield-Suzuki-Anderson 

Pacioretty-Wright-Gallagher

JVR-Roy-Kravtsov

Poehling-Evans-Armia

Pezzetta, Byron

Edmundson-Petry

Romanov-Lundkvist

Harris-Barron

Schueneman 

Price

Georgiev

This assumes that Drouin is either traded or on LTIR for the entire season. Georgiev is brought in as a precaution to Price's uncertainty.

[claremont]

33 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

I don't like to tank, if you are bad you are bad and deserve the 1st pick to get better. I really simply dislike the lottery. However I also hate those teams who were taking advantage of the old system and intentionally tanking to get the best players. There are ways to improve the team, move out salary and build for the future all at the same time. Here are some of my thoughts on how to do just this.

1. Swap Hoffman for JVR, simple 1 for 1 trade. Sure we add 2.5 mil on next year's cap but also gain 7 mil cap space at the end of next season. 

2. Weber to Arizona for a pick.

3. Savard to the Sabres for a 2nd or 3rd.

4. Allen traded anywhere for a 2nd or 3rd.

5. Dvorak + 2nd (Edm) to the Rags for Kravstov + Lundkvist + Georgiev. 

6. 2023 1st (Fla) (top 5 protected) + 2022 3rd (Ana) for Pacioretty + Roy. 

Next offseason we can let one or both of Patches and JVR walk or resign one for less money and gain significant cap space. 

Lineup:

Caufield-Suzuki-Anderson 

Pacioretty-Wright-Gallagher

JVR-Roy-Kravtsov

Poehling-Evans-Armia

Pezzetta, Byron

Edmundson-Petry

Romanov-Lundkvist

Harris-Barron

Schueneman 

Price

Georgiev

This assumes that Drouin is either traded or on LTIR for the entire season. Georgiev is brought in as a precaution to Price's uncertainty.

OK I read this and your solution seems to be one of weaponizing future cap space for the 2023-24 season. How would you use that cap space when those expired contracts depart? Sign free agents or provide raises to our youth performers - who and both? From what I read about Gorton's style, other than Panarin, who was a youthful free agent signing, he doesn't build by free agent acquisitions, but sees potential in other teams undeveloped prospects so I like your #5 trade.  #6 trade is muddled as Roy part is ok but patches hmmmm. Maybe your method is conflicting with his modus operandi? I think you will be surprised by Guhle in next year's lineup - he has been labelled as a can't miss prospect and Braden Schneider of the NYR was drafted behind him with similar qualifications and he has made the Rags roster, yet you write Guhle off vs Schueneman.   

[claremont]

2 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

It would be very tough to ask any UFA say Letang to come in and be told you may sit or get reduced ice time because we want to play kids "who have potential" , but haven't earned ice time over you! 

excellent point - how do you lure free agents into a development team is a conflict in culture

[campabee82]

19 minutes ago, claremont said:

OK I read this and your solution seems to be one of weaponizing future cap space for the 2023-24 season. How would you use that cap space when those expired contracts depart? Sign free agents or provide raises to our youth performers - who and both? From what I read about Gorton's style, other than Panarin, who was a youthful free agent signing, he doesn't build by free agent acquisitions, but sees potential in other teams undeveloped prospects so I like your #5 trade.  #6 trade is muddled as Roy part is ok but patches hmmmm. Maybe your method is conflicting with his modus operandi? I think you will be surprised by Guhle in next year's lineup - he has been labelled as a can't miss prospect and Braden Schneider of the NYR was drafted behind him with similar qualifications and he has made the Rags roster, yet you write Guhle off vs Schueneman.   

Actually my plan would be to  to keep money for the RFA's and build for the future. However you could be active in FA IF you chose lol.

[campabee82]

21 minutes ago, claremont said:

OK I read this and your solution seems to be one of weaponizing future cap space for the 2023-24 season. How would you use that cap space when those expired contracts depart? Sign free agents or provide raises to our youth performers - who and both? From what I read about Gorton's style, other than Panarin, who was a youthful free agent signing, he doesn't build by free agent acquisitions, but sees potential in other teams undeveloped prospects so I like your #5 trade.  #6 trade is muddled as Roy part is ok but patches hmmmm. Maybe your method is conflicting with his modus operandi? I think you will be surprised by Guhle in next year's lineup - he has been labelled as a can't miss prospect and Braden Schneider of the NYR was drafted behind him with similar qualifications and he has made the Rags roster, yet you write Guhle off vs Schueneman.   

No I really like Guhle but left him off the roster in favor of giving him a significant role in Laval next year as I could see moving Eddy the year after to open a spot for Guhle.

[Graeme-1]

14 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I also wouldn't try to force it really. I wouldn't throw games. But I would prioritize development over immediate success. I wouldn't be trying to add short-term free agents. And I wouldn't be playing veterans over players with a future here just to try and scrape together a few more points or stay in the playoff race a bit longer.

Totally agree. Personally I don't consider that "tanking" (which I consider to be essentially trying to lose, cheering against your own team, etc), it's more just a focus on development, which may have a nice side-effect of a high draft pick, but that isn't the explicit goal.

There could be an argument for short-term free agents even with this mindset though. Just throwing out a bunch of 20 year olds against the top NHL teams may not be the development win it seems. We need to balance giving youngsters playing time with not overwhelming them, starving them of AHL playing time, ruining their confidence, getting used to a losing culture, lacking mentorship, etc. I know you've made arguments for keeping Petry around for these types of reasons, so if we were to trade him I could see the argument to make an offer to Letang or similar that aligns with the development goal of the next couple of seasons.

[habsisme]

Just for the record, when i say tanking, I don't mean the team is TRYING to lose. I just mean you don't do anything that will help your team UNLESS it ALSO helps you in the future. Ideally you lose a lot of games... but if your team surprises and plays well, that's not a bad thing at all. That means your future core did it all on its own with a bare bones team and you have a lot of good young talent. That's no problem at all!

[Regis22]

lol

They didn' tank this year .  They were a bad hockey club  . Bad with Ducharme and still Bad with MSL . 

[ramcharger440]

25 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

lol

They didn' tank this year .  They were a bad hockey club  . Bad with Ducharme and still Bad with MSL . 

Captain Happy!

[Regis22]

17 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

Captain Happy!

Truth hurts

Wait until next yr 

[ramcharger440]

1 minute ago, Regis22 said:

Truth hurts

Wait until next yr 

Yes it does, I wait in anticipation of a fun season filled with new players learning the NHL game and moving us forward into the modern era.