View Single Post
Old
07-02-2013, 11:00 PM
  #633
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Souffle View Post
Well, it's about the right mix of players. It's not just size. You have big guys who play small and small guys who play big. Now, I'm not saying I like the chances of winning with a bunch of angry dwarves from Middle Earth (who can play hockey, of course), but there's more to it than measurement.

I'll use Koivu as an example because I was never as big a fan as some were. But the dude was ferocious in the playoffs. You go to war with him, who cares about his height and size. We bring up the Ottawa series as proof of the Habs' softness, but the fact remains that Montreal generally outplayed Ottawa but got stung by injuries and game-changing saves and unlucky breaks. I would not retool the team based solely on the Ottawa series. Seriously, no injury to Emelin and Eller, a healthy Prust, Pacioretty and White, a one-year more mature Tinordi, and how OMG! soft are the Habs really?

My obscure point is that there's always room for talent, even soft guys (which Thomas doesn't seem to be), so long as you get the right mix. I don't think adding Thomas in place of Kristo makes a big difference to that mix. It's not like the Habs traded a Tom Wilson-prospect for Thomas. If there are serious core structural issues with the Habs' size etc, I just don't think this trade has much bearing one way or another.

/end ramble
agree completely with you... but right now, both in the NHL & in our prospect pool, we lack that "right mix".

If you're going to trade one of your top prospects (and Kristo, like him or not, was still one of our top-10, maybe even top-5, prospects), why do it in a swap that brings back a very similar player in style of play, physical stature and likely role...

doesn't make much sense in that regard, unless they are sold on Thomas being a far better bet at being a vastly superior NHLer than Kristo will be, yet very little in either's recent career would seem to indicate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant McCagg View Post
Lineups change my friend.....you can't seriously expect Dd and Gionta to be here for much longer. Gallagher was an NHL rookie so you couldn't expect him to have a fantastic playoff..... that said, are you saying he wasn't effective versus Ottawa? One of our better forwards? But..he's 5-8..how can that be? Pageau played well against us and is 5-9..how can that be? A 5-9 guy won the Conn Smythe..again..how is that possible? Who were perhaps our best players in our last long playoff run? Cammy and Gionta...hmmm.

Check out Detroit's roster over the past five years for one. It may shock you how many players were under 6-0, even on their Cup winner.
Rafalski
Maltby
Draper
Helm
Lebda
Zetterberg
Datsyuk
Hudler

Eight players under 6-0. Again - how can this be????? Simple answer - because a player's height means jack squat!!!!
agree with most of your point, except for the bolded part.

Individually, yes, a player's height is far from a strong indicator to their effectiveness. then again, all other things being equal (which they never are), a physically stronger/larger athlete has the obvious advantage in a physical sport.

But as a collective, even those cup winning Red Wings teams, had a mixture of players including some important players who had large physical frames.

as an organization, we are undersized at every position, and as a league, the style of game that is tacitly promoted in the playoffs is one that favors players/teams that can play a physical brand of hockey.

doesn't mean that highly skilled and/or gritty players of smaller stature can't succeed or even excel come playoff time... but it certainly helps to have the support of some larger framed, physical players who can both stick up for the little guys and draw the attention/wear down the oppositions physically imposing players.

right now, we lack that aspect considerably, especially in our top-9 & top-4.

trading a solid prospect for a very similar prospect that is quite redundant in terms of organizational depth (collberg, holland, bozon, hudon, macmillan, lehkonen, reway, andrighetto... all smallish framed offensively gifted prospects) just doesn't make much sense.

Thomas, as an acquisition in a vacuum, is perfectly fine... just seemingly unnecessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
What frustrates me most on a personal level is watching Kristo develop for 5 long years and then cutting him loose just when he's finally starting his pro career.

What frustrates me on another level is failing to address a need in trading him. Instead of diversifying our prospect pool or even getting an NHL vet, we just got more of the same. And, arguably, worse of the same.
these are 2 good points as well...

i wonder what Timmins thinks about this move? Unless he had soured on Danny as well, wouldn't be surprised if he's pretty pissed. Kristo, after the setbacks related to his poor decision making, finally had the kind of dominant NCAA season you'd like to see a future NHLer put together. Not getting the chance to see him have at least 1 year as a pro before moving him for a lateral acquisition has gotta be frustrating to the guy responsible for picking him in the first place.

i also wonder how much they shopped him around? Was Thomas a target they went after, and reluctantly agreed to give up Kristo for, or was Thomas the best offer they found for a kid they simply wanted off of their hands?

i'm sure, like with McDo, we'll get some insight into that somewhere down the road....

Miller Time is offline