View Single Post
01-13-2013, 11:51 PM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,604
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I get labeled as a lover only because I didn't speak in hyperbole's when old management was here. To say that team is currently crap is not say that it was crap every single year from 2003-2012. 07-08-08-09 had good teams on paper (only one of those years were successful). 09-10 the habs got lucky and I thought that 10-11 the team was trending upwards (they were actually a very good team despite losing Markov and Gorges) until the Pacioretty injury. Management in 11-12 took the right move in bringing Cole, but made a wrong move in not getting a Hamrlik type (when Hamrlik was at the top his game here) replacement on D and banking everything on Markov being healthy, which I explained a thousand times before that season started. We finished last and the team gutted its depth on the wings by dumping Andrei and Cammalleri. And of course, the defense was never fixed from the start. I never said the management was exceptional, I just said they weren't nearly as bad as what they have been portrayed as by Habs fans. Apparently this last statement means I think the management is awesome.

They made some good moves and some bad ones. Gainey and Gauthier's plans failed in the end and now they are gone and it happens.

so maybe in the future we can save everyone extensive bandwith... "habs fans" as you use it above is a pretty generic term.
I find right here in this board, that there are countless variations, sometimes quite subtle, in what "habs fans" think/say.

in previous back-forths with you, it has often come across as though you were quite unwilling to view the previous management team's overall performance as subpar.

unless you think it is only possible to evaluate a management team's performance after the moment they get fired, it would stand to reason that their failure (as you note above) was visible for at least some time before the actual firing/change of direction occurred.

in all of our, sometimes lengthy, postings, I've often found myself questioning how a poster who otherwise seemed to be able to discuss topics/points in such a rational manner, was so fixated on emphasizing the strength of a management team that was spiralling toward failure.

as unpredictable as team/pro sports can be, there are some very predictable patterns that both successful & unsuccessful teams/organizations/individuals reflect. It's not an exact science, but, as they say...

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

or, perhaps more suitable in this case:

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

Originally Posted by Andy View Post
The forward depth at the start of last season was good. It was finally refreshing to see the team have 3 potential scoring lines (and well balanced ones at that) after the team had signed Cole, but Gauthier gambled everything on Markov being healthy and lost spectacularly. Also selling depth when you are not in a playoff position generally will make your team weaker. The defense of the current team isn't built very well (a problem which I admitted several times before the last season started, but I guess since I'm a "Gauthier-Gainey lover/apologizer" etc etc everyone overlooked how many times I said that the defense needed work BEFORE 11-12 season started). Losing Gill, who isn't the best d-man in the world, but does make the D a lot better, at least if he would be at his level just the year prior to last season, doesn't make the current D-core look any better.

this is where I'd say that a guy like O'byrne (as much as I do like what Bournival *might* one day be as an NHLer), was poorly dismissed.

I'm high on Weber (probably to optimistic), but with our group of Dmen, with or without the Kaberle addition, would look a lot better with O'byrne (and his skill set/abilities) pencilled in as a bottom-pairing (or in exceptional situations, top-4) dman. Imo not far off from what Gill, in his good moments, brought to the team (big body, ability to make safe first pass to clear the zone, ability to hold his ground in front of the net).

Bournival may eventually be an exceptional 3rd liner, but those are not so hard to find, a lot easier than a home-grown, large dman with solid mobility & decent passing skills.

current D has too much of one (broad) mould of dman (strong skating/passing, weak physically) and an almost complete lack of the complimentary mould (and to put the cherry on top, we go out and sign a depth guy who has the perfect attitude/heart/toughness, but is almost comically miscast in that role due to his miniscule size)

Originally Posted by Andy View Post
TOf course, they sold their offensive depth and never fixed the problem on defense. If the D-core was better (hey for all we know, Diaz and Emelin progress well, Markov stays healthy and it works) I wouldn't be surprised to see the current team squeak into the playoffs. I think the forward group can be (if arranged properly with Cole and Pacioretty spread out) good enough to make this a 7th-8th-9th place team as it isn't any worse than the forward group we have in 09-10 with Eastern Conference birth.
there certainly is enough pure hockey talent on our roster to ice a playoff team... all comes back to odds when looking at it before the fact.

our roster is poorly assembled to be resilient in the face of injuries/underachievement/cohesiveness in the face of shortened season (despite an almost completely "returning" roster).

most of that falls on gainey/gauthier's shoulders.

but certainly, if enough things go right (or, perhaps, few enough things go wrong), then we can be a playoff team, and with the kind of goaltending Price is capable of & the positive emotional surge success in montreal can give to a team in the playoffs (good luck finding a stat to back that one... but without a doubt, the positive energy of playoff time in montreal can have a positive effect on helping a team overachieve... or conversely, push a struggling team over the edge, more so than in markets with less of a city-wide cult-ish following).

Originally Posted by Andy View Post
TAnyway, s**t happens. They had a plan it didn't work out and we move on. The are in a transition period, but the core is there and it's not as though there isn't anything to work with. The only place that needs significant work is winger depth. Defense could use some work, but I'd rather they just stand pat on the front and wait for Beaulieu, Tinordi and Ellis to develop. I think the centre depth is good for once. Of course there is always room for improvement, even the best teams, but I would be more than comfortable with Desharnais-Plekanec-Eller and Galchenyuk as my centre depth, especially if Galchenyuk develops into what we expect him to, let's hope.
i don't know that they had much of a plan, at least beyond year-to-year... that's a case I've made enough in the past, no need to rehash that now.

The team is in a transition period and the most exciting part of it is that, in our very limited exposure, it would seem that the new group does indeed have a plan/vision in place and is working toward that.

and with Perry, Semin, Iginla, Lupul, Elias, Morrow, Horton, Clowe, Gagne, Filpulla... the list of prospective UFA wingers for this summer is pretty solid (especially if MaxPac takes another step forward & Cole/Gionta can maintain).

Adding any one of those (or better 2) coupled with our existing players staying on track, and our forward group looks pretty solid.

I agree with standing pat on defense.

Subban (assuming we keep him) & Gorges are staples.

Markov/Kaberle, as long as 1 of the 2 regains som
Diaz/Emelin/Weber... if even just 1 of the continues to progress positively, that's great.
Beaulieu/Tinordi/Elis/Bennett... that's a pretty solid prospect pool to work with

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote