Why do habs lose so many good young players before they're good?
View Single Post
03-31-2012, 08:43 PM
Habs of steel
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
I hope people stop with TRYING to justify the McDonagh trade. There is NOTHING to justify.
I've seen McDonagh play quite a lot in 1st and 2nd, way less on his 3rd for obvious reasons. So the report goes like this and please STOP going with stats once in while.
He had a very good 1st year for a rookie. Just didn't look out of place and was doing everything good while his agility had to improve. Then, came the 2nd year....and YES. He did struggle most of the year with a slight improvement till the end. But he struggled defensively to contain fast forwards, and had not the jump he had in his 1st year even if in the end he improved his stats slightly. But then something had changed. He was not taking the chances he did in his 1st year. He was merely joining the attack. CLEARLY, there was a strategy behind this or a coaching's advise for him to work on his defensive work first. And McDonagh had some trouble with his sophomore year. BUT THAT'S JUST FREAKIN IT. He had one average year. What's the whole point of going US, when the 1st thing every organization has in mind is that you might benefit from 4 years of development to know if you want to sign a guy than 2 years of CHL hockey. Wouldn't you want to know how he rebounds in his junior year? How was Kristo's sophomore year by any chance even without his injury? How come everyone agrees that it takes much longer to develop a d-man, yet, the guy has 1 bad game when Gainey is in attendance or just an average year and he's a freakin bust? Hey, while the jump is tough from the US to the CHL, EVERYBODY believed Tinordi would have a much greater impact even in it's first year.....was he a bust? How is he doing now? I can tell you that McDonagh would have look like an absolute superstar in the CHL even in his sophomore year. I was a little dissapointed by his sophomore year. I did say at that point and time that I saw him more as a #3-#4 than a #1-#2 based on that season. So even me, I caught got on being dissapointed. But please remember this. Timmins himself, was already saying that he'd see McDonagh being ready in 2 years. And in that 2nd year he gave that kind of performance, so there's a good reason to be dissapointed. But to a point to be TRADED? NO ****ING WAY. And the ONLY reason to trade a guy like him, would have been to acquire a super stud. So, not only his 2nd season was not a reason to get rid of him....but we were acquiring a super stud in Gomez? A guy EVERYBODY knew was on his way out? You have got to be super kidding me.
Now, his 3rd season, when he was a Rangers, by everybody's account INCLUDING Montreal, the poster, he was NOT a dissapointment. Might not have added the points we thought he would, but he was much more stronger on the back end and THEN showed improvement. In his 3rd year....but no....we had to think he was bust a year 2.
In the end, McDonagh did NOT deserve to be traded. And did not deserve to be implicated in getting a guy going downhill like Gomez was. There are no explications than a mediocre GM making a move while being desperate. How bad is that...
Last edited by Whitesnake: 04-01-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Whitesnake