View Single Post
08-20-2011, 05:32 PM
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,242
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Possibly, but maybe not. We're often reading that the future of the X or Y team is great, but it just cant be great for everyone. Some of them are going to lose anyway.
And honestly, Gomez and Spacek are the only guys that are indeed not assets for the team.

Well, its not necessarily about a slow rebuild from scratch, but mainly about being patient while your team is build.
As we saw with Burke and Toronto, does a market like that have the time and the desire for it ? Not sure at all.
Using a slow rebuild approach is not without risks. Your young players need to be in a solid structure, you still need vets etc.
Not to say that they're just potential and promises. If you fail to have a solid team after 5 or 6 years...the reputation of the team is not the same, you've lost at least 8-9 years, which is huge in such a competitve world.
The biggest risk in life is not taking one.

We've proven that we have great scouting and have done much better than average for where we've drafted in recent years. I'd much rather have handed the reigns to our scouting group and traded for youngsters and additional picks than do what we did.

What exactly were we risking by doing this? Missing out on all the 8th place spots that we've achieved over the years?

You're right, maybe it wouldn't have worked out, but at least we could've tried. I think it would've yielded us better results than what we've gotten.

Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
St.Louis is an interesting example, i've already talked about it, but its been what, 3 years that we're saying that they're going to break out this year. Well, we're still waiting.

The time in Montreal, its even more precious, and rare.
We haven't had much to show for it. We've been a bubble club for a long, long time.

Yeah, I think we'll improve due to the emergence of Price and (hopefully) the emergence of Subban as stars. I just would've liked us to focus more on getting additional prospects to work with instead of going the route we chose.

Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
A lot of posters were asking for the head of Martin after the 09-10 season. Do you think its possible to see a team developing and evolving through the years in a stable environment for more than 4 years before being truely a solid team with a good chance of going deep in PO ?

The Gomez's trade is a bad decision, but heavily influenced by the weaknesses in the organization at the time. Lack of prospects, lack of young players in the NHL team, lack of heterogeneity in the profiles...its like a crack in the wall, its often leading to other problems later on.
The moves we made two years ago defined the direction of the team for more than you realize. It's not just the years that we have these guys under contract that are affected, it's the opportunity cost of not having invested in younger players that we could've developed to go along with guys like Price, Subban and MaxPac.

It didn't just ensure mediocrity for the short term, it made it more difficult for us to become a great team for the future...
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Weber is maybe good enough to be playing like Wisniewski is playing right now. A second-pairing defenseman with a good offensive potential on the PP.
We still have Pacioretty and Eller as first-round picks that are likely to be as good as they were supposed to be. And a wildcard in Desharnais.
Its not that bad.

It could have been better, but it implies radical changes that im not totally sure to be that positive for the team, even after few years.
What did we have to lose?

Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Well, they're often complaining about things that has been done months, if not years ago. And we cant fix it that easily, if we can, which is not sure, now.

The players are not always the same, the HC and the GM, too, a lot changes in 3 years. Even more in 5 or 6...

Right now, the last moves, through the last 2 seasons, at least, of Gauthier makes sense, and they're good.
He hasn't really put his stamp on the team yet but he seems to have been okay.

He had balls of steel to deal away Halak. I'm not sure if Eller will pan out or if we got enough in return but at least he went with a prospect that he believed in. To me, that's definitely a good sign. I also felt that he did well dealing for Wiz. Even though he wasn't able to re-sign him, he still put us in a position where we got him and had a chance at getting a good young player for little cost. So, I think he's actually done an okay job so far.
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
What i meant, i think you know it, its the fact that the metrics data, and a lot of statistics (like the s%) are saying that we're in progress, just like the table is showing us that we did progress last year, just like it was obvious after watching the games.

We dont have to check whats going on with the other teams, just ours.
Our S% was much worse in 2011 than in 2010. While the 2011 team was much better. Not even debatable. The style of each one is even likely to help the 2011 version, i think, with the changes in the use of a guy Kostitsyn, the good help of Darche, and the 35 games of Pacioretty. was not the case, which doesnt make much sense.

Its just to say that thats another reason to believe that we can easily improve.
And thats much more interesting to talk about that rather than if we were closer to Boston or Carolina.
Yes, as Mathman has stated shooting percentage has a high 'variability' (not sure if that's a word but whatever) to it and I believe him. That being said though (as you pointed out) the club was night and day different from the year before. Yes, we played better but we haven't shown enough consistency yet for me to buy that we're going to continue that path. I'm optimistic that we will (I have us ranked higher than the analysts) but it wouldn't suprise me in the least if we slumped back to what we were. We'll see.
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Well, im not a specialist, but today, its possible to come back after several surgeries in the same knee/foot/arm, the body of the player is obviously the most important factor in that, but we could think that he "simply" came back too early after the first knee surgery he had. Thats the positive thinking, but i feel its the one that sounds logical to me.
Nobody knows what's going to happen with him... The right thing to do is expect the worst and hope for the best. That way we're prepared if he goes down and improve even more if he doesn't.
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
A few years back, if we trade him, we take the road for Hall/Nugent-Hopkins. Its an important decision that will change everything for over a decade. The only season when we could trade him was in 09. Otherwise, its simply not possible. Earlier, he dont have enough value, later, the process is impossible to start again.

Again, you can have a roster full of promising players, it could not work. Especially in a market like ours.
If we traded him a few years ago it wouldn't have affected us at all. He hasn't really played for us anyway... we just would've got the benefit of the picks/prospects that we would've received in return.

Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Savard's injuries are not the same as Markov's. Its not even close, i would rather have Markov than Savard right now.
The same applies for Bergeron, he's fragile, too, the concussions are much worse than a serious problem at the knee.
The injuries are a part of the game, anyway, complaining about them wont win you games...
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that the injuries are the same. I'm saying the situation is the same. You're in denial if you don't see Markov as an injury risk now. He is, just like he was last year.
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Yes, we would have been obviously better, and Cup Winners ? Thats not really the point, the point, right now, for that team, is to progress year after year.
And that hasn't been the case. In recent years it's been a case of one step forward, one step back. We haven't seen progression or consistent improvement... yet.
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Gorges is not an all-star, but he's a solid D for us, and we already lost a solid D weeks before.
When you lose 2 players like them in the same position, you can take the best insurance policies you want, you're going to have a problem.

With Emelin, Diaz and Mitera, plus Weber, i think that Gauthier did indeed take care of that.
If he goes down, the young players are going to play and develop their game.
Again, not really my point. The point I was making was that players get hurt all the time. Gorges injury was a surprise but Markov's wasn't.
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
What happens if we lose Plekanec ? Thats the salary cap. You cant be deep everywhere. You have to make decisions, we decided to help our D. Thats the obvious decision with the recent injuries of Gorges and Markov.
Living in the fear brings nothing. Well, im not sure that the author of the sentence meant the fear of the injury, but still, i think it works.
Problem is that Pleks is a below average first line center to begin with. You're saying that if he goes down we should go out and get yet another mediocre type center to replace him? Then next year we're stuck with Pleks, Gomez plus whatever patchhole fix we get this year for Pleks... that's not going to help us build towards a cup.

Originally Posted by CrimsonSkorpion View Post

If you guys can't keep it respectful and talk about the article and the team, and not start a pissing contest in the process, you'll get pulled from this thread.
That was awesome.
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I would just like to add that LafleursGuy pretty much sums up how I feel about the team and teams management. We've been pretty mediocre for years, but the one area we may disagree is the direction of this teams future. I think this team is building towards great things. We have one of the brightest futures in the league, we use to be lacking in the top end talent area, but even those days are passing. With Guys like PK/Price, we have solidified the 2 most important positions, then throw in guys like Pleks, Pac, Eller, Desharnais, Gorges, Yemelin, Weber, AK. We have plenty of pieces going forward, most of them affordable.
PK and Price have me excited. They are the best young players/prospects that we've had in... forever. The rest are okay. I'd really like us to have added more to go along with what we've got but that didn't happen.

Price and Subban have me excited but beyond that it's far murkier at this point.

Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Where we agree, is that the players that excite us and are likely to lead the way, won't be Gomez, Gionta ect. No offense to those 2 guys, but we'd be better off had we held onto McDonagh, Grabs, SK, Lats ect. We'd still be a playoff threat every year while positioning ourselves greatly towards the future. Gainey wasn't terrible, but the Gomez deal alone kinda cancels out all the good he has done. It was one of the dumbest moves since the lockout.
Yes, we definitely agree.
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
Doom and gloom. The habs needed stability at center, and they went out and got it. I'm not that concerned about McD, the habs have lots of d-men in the system.
So what though. Even if we have lots of d-men in the system that was the worst example of resource management I've seen by us in years.

If Gainey wanted to get a center, fine. If he wanted (for some inexplicable reason) to get Gomez, fine. But don't trade McD for Gomez, that's a total waste of a valued prospect.

The Gomez deal made no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
Koivu was not, and is not better than Gomez by the way, and I'd rather have 3 more seasons at 7.3 on Gomez than 5? or 6? at 5.5 with Wizniewski, and Richards wasn't going to come to Montreal unless they were giving him 8+ per year long term, and then in a couple years he would have been just as bad as Gomez.

He isn't worht his salary, but with the youth the habs have n the line up his salary is really a non factor. Now when he gets sub 40 points on a season it's an issue, but all this talk about who the habs could have been is just pure unadulterated malarkie.
It's not just his salary that's hurt us though. It's the opportunity cost of having wasted our time on a player that isn't going to lead us anywhere. If Gainey was eager to deal away McD, he should've used him to get us a better younger player who we could've built around. The asset management on that deal was atrocious and we never should've picked up Gomez to begin with...

Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
So it wasn't correct that the Habs had a serious lack of depth in terms of top 6 centers and had to fix that problem?

Good to know.

Also LoL at preferring Koivu over Gomez. Guess I'm the only one who remember him not being able to play at a consistently high level over an 82 game season hey?

If Gomez' contract was such a huge deal, why do the habs have 5 million in cap space now? And why haven't they lost anyone who they really needed to keep because they couldn't afford them?
Again, it's not just the cap space that's the killer (though it's not good) it's the direction we took when we got him, the prospect we needlessly gave up and the opportunity cost of not getting a better, younger player to build around that really killed us. We could've been much further ahead if we went a different direction.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote