View Single Post
01-18-2013, 08:13 AM
Global Moderator
Lshap's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,569
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dealing Markov, Pleks and Cole will bring us closer to a cup. I realize this is a hard concept to get... but sometimes a step back means two steps forward. Those guys aren't going to win anything with us. Makes sense to trade them.
Within the tiny window of years an athlete has, the four year difference between 30-year-old Pleks and 34-year-old Cole and Markov is relevant. In three or four years when the Habs rebuild starts giving fruit, Cole and Markov may still be useful, but I agree we'd get more by dealing them sooner while their stock remains high(ish). So no argument with you there. On the other hand, in three years Plekanec will have just turned 33 -- still prime. Not only is he a huge asset, he's the perfect leader-by-example. He is our Yzerman.

Knowing which pieces to KEEP is as important as knowing which ones to trade. Plekanec, IMO, is a keeper.

You have things backwards. Sticking wtih vets who will never win anything for you is defer defer defer and that's what we've done for 20 years.

How do you not understand this yet?
You misunderstood. I have zero interest in pursuing vets. Bouillon is a perfect example -- great for a one-season bridge but useless in the long run. Bergevin seems to get this concept and hasn't saddled us with any crippling contracts to older guys. He understands this, I understand this, everyone understands this. My point was that we shouldn't fall into the reverse trap of being in a chronic restocking mode.

At some point, you have to stop filling the tank and start driving.

No kidding. The players we add now will be better in three years. By that time guys like Subban, Price, Emelin, Max and Gorges will be vets. As we get better and actually become contenders THEN we can deal away picks for more vets and we can go after whatever FAs are available to help.

We've tried to do it backwards and it hasn't worked.
Agree with this. I think our only contentious player is Plekanec. I want to give this guy a ring and pledge my undying love, you want to use him as arm-candy when you walk into the pickup bar.

Are you kidding?
About Plekanec being the perfect vet for our future team? No. I have no sense of humour. I never kid.

Washington wouldn't? Maybe you're right. But they'd might do it for Pleks. Or maybe it's a combination of vets... Let Timmins guide us on which prospects to go after. We should trust his judgement. If Forsberg is a real building block, then do it. Now you've got Forsberg, Galchenyuk plus whatever else we get in the draft... THAT's how you build teams.

If Washington is in the hunt and we can give them the final piece, they might give up Forsberg. And I find it hilarious that the same folks last season who said they'd never deal Markov for that pick are now turning around and saying Washington would never trade Forsberg for Markov...

Funny how those picks turn into good prospects.
Hey, I'd love to grab Forsberg and Grigorenko, then find a way to poach this year's picks like Drouin, Jones or McKinnon. But as that request finds its place among the queue with 29 other teams who want the same thing, it should become clear the chances of doing that are zero. It ain't the horse-thievin' days of Sam Pollock. I just don't think it's possible to build a team by poaching a bunch of top picks. We're much better than we were a couple of years ago -- a ton of cap space set to come off the books after 2013/14 and no aging vet commitments weighing us down after that. We have a prospect pool that -- on paper -- appears to be among the league's best. The rebuild is underway.

The tank's as full as it's going to be. Bergevin's operating the GPS and Therrien's steering. Let's start driving somewhere.

Lshap is offline   Reply With Quote