The case for a 1-year surgical tank for the Habs
View Single Post
08-03-2012, 02:12 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
There's a lot of interesting stuff in this thread! But, the way I see things, it's a hypothetical argument, with Habs management already having moved in a different direction.
If the idea was to "surgically tank," the bottom end of the lineup should have been filled with two kinds of players:
- young (say, under 27), talented but flawed discards from other teams, given a one year audition to see if a change of scenery can make them into assets going forward
- veterans signed to one year contracts, to be traded for futures at the deadline
Instead, Bergevin signed Prust and Moen to 4 year contracts. At 28 and 30 years old, they will be expected to perform in 2012-13. If the plan is anything other than to win games, we're just playing them to get old.
As it is, the Habs' possible deadline chips if they are out of contention are Budaj, Bouillon, Armstrong and Nokelainen, none of which are close to 2nd round pick material, IMO.
Sloppy surgery, if that was the intention.
I would have definitely signed Moen this offseason, and considered Prust. You need those kinds of players if you're going for a surgical rebuild. They stabilize the bottom 2 lines so they can be productive learning environments -- see the effect Moen had on Eller. They also provide playoff character for the final 3 seasons of the contract.
You don't want a 3rd line of Leblanc-Palushaj-Geoffrion, because lines like that only play 3 minutes a game, make a lot of mistakes, and don't improve. You need veteran stabilizers on the line for the kids to improve.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion