HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

A Max Pac away from Winning the Cup?

View Poll Results: What if we had Max?
Yes 26 16.67%
No 38 24.36%
We could have beat the Bruins, but would have lost eventually 92 58.97%
Voters: 156. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2011, 02:05 AM
  #126
Mr. Hab
Registered User
 
Mr. Hab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
And Vancouver doesn't get blown away if Hamhuis isn't injured. Playing the "what if" game is pointless. Unless Max literally steps in during overtime in game seven. His presence could change the series for a positive or a negative. Maybe is victimized on a poor play and Boston scores on the powerplay, leading to motivate said powerplay moving forward. This is why you don't play these games. Frankly, on paper Boston was the better team and they proved that on the ice.
What if Pronger was healthy?
What if M. Richards was not injured?
What if Jeff Carter was not injured?
What if Philly had a good goalie?

What if Mtl scored in OT of game 7?
What if Tampa Bay won by a goal in game 7?
What if Hamhuis wasn't injured?


Boston proves that you can cheat and injure and get rewarded with a Cup...imo.


Lucic violently sucker-punching Hedman and not getting a suspension is ridiculous.

Chara got away with something close to murder (Pacioretty).
He was seeking revenge on Max for months.

**** the Bruins. They didn't deserve it (so ****ing lucky).
**** the Bruins.


p.s.: we're one Subban brother (dman) away from the Cup!! (Jordan? Jordan Subban...got to get him in the 2012 or 2013 Draft...gotta!).


Last edited by Mr. Hab: 06-16-2011 at 02:21 AM.
Mr. Hab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 06:38 AM
  #127
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoeLemay View Post


no respect for lord Stanley winner
Despite the romantic mysticism we ascribe to winning the Stanley Cup, it did not make the Bruins better than they are. They're the champion team, legitimately -- you can only play who's ahead of you, and the Bruins did that. But they were also far from being the best club in the league.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 08:17 AM
  #128
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I see what you mean and on many levels. I did in the past , and still do agree with you...

It goes without saying that the teams with best top end players win. But there are many factors that are evening-out the distribution of talent across 30 teams, via draft or acquisition.
Absolutely. And there's no set rule as to how you build a winner. Winners have and will continue to be built in different ways. Most winners though, draft their core and augment it with free agents, not the other way around. That pattern has existed for a long time.

I don't think this will change for a few reasons. First, free agents tend to want more money than their worth. If that wasn't the case, their clubs would pay up. That's why you don't see the Sidney Crosby, Evegeni Malkin, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux type players ever hit the FA market. Why? Because their clubs would pay them anything to stay. But if Brad Richards wants 10 million a year, most teams will let him walk. He's not near worth that cash. Somebody out there will probably pay it, but unless they already have a great core, he's not going to be good enough to build around to win.The only true bonafied superstar (and I've said this before) that really hit the FA market in his prime was Zedeno Chara. You could site Niedermayer but he was never really a FA, he just decided to go play with his brother in Anaheim.

The second problem is that you are forced to choose from a limited field of FAs on a year by year basis and they have to want to play for you. If you want them to come, sometimes you have to overpay and in the cap world that is not a good thing. And even if you get Brad Richards for 10 million, you now have a center who's good but not as good as the superstars on other clubs, plus he's eating up a huge portion of your payroll so you can't fill out the roster with the depth that you need to win.

On the other side of the coin, you have the clubs that draft their own superstars and get to have them cheap for years due to the cap. That allows them to spend extra money filling out their rosters with secondary support players and the kind of depth that you need to win. They builld around younger, better, less expensive players and augment it from there. That's why it's not a surprise that clubs like Pittsburgh, Washington, Chicago and now maybe Tampa Bay are quickly becoming contenders or cup winners. (TB is questionable but hey... they've got a couple of great young players there and if they want to deal some vets they could be that much better.)

You're right in that the cap has changed things and it will certainly be harder to keep clubs together but at the end of the day, I still think that you'll see teams that rebuild being at the top of the heap most (but not ALL) of the time. The introduction of the cap has meant that teams that get more bang for their buck are the ones with a distinct advantage over other clubs. The more production you can get for the least amount of money, the better off you are. If you have a point per game center making the 2 million, that is a huge advantage in a cap based world. And the only way to get that kind of value is by drafting elite players. A 27 year old point per game center is going to stay with you for 2 million bucks (or whatever that maximum number is, I don't remember)... it just ain't gonna happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Boston does have 2 potential HOF players as it seems, however, I don't see them as a dynasty. And I suspect that more and more teams will be modeled as such.
Boston was extremely lucky in it's matchups this year. Yes, they deserve credit as they had a goalie with the best season of all-time on his resume, played great physical D and have the best blueliner in the world on their roster... but they didn't have to face Pittsburgh with Crosby (who probably would've won the cup if they had their superstars) and walked out of a conference that is in the worst shape in years. There's no way they get to the finals if they're in the West. But that's how it goes sometimes. We got lucky with our matchups in '86 and '93 too.

As for dynasties, they'll be much harder to keep together. Boston though has Rask and Seguin (two guys who barely factored in this years win) to build around for the future. I have been saying for some time now that they're going to be scary and the fact that they've already won a cup without those guys just makes it even scarier. I was shocked they won this year but they look like they have a heck of a good future there. I think Rask is the real deal and if Seguin turns out to be half the player he's supposed to become, they could be a great team for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
That's not to say that draft built teams like the Hawks or maybe eventually the Oilers won't emerge victorious.

In the end, I think the best approach comes down to balance ... quality scouting / drafting, good management (that knows when to buy or sell), and player dev. Too much concentration (or extreme strategy) on anyone of these categories may provide more harm (or delay) than benefit.
Yes, it is about balance for sure. But I don't think you can discount the value of having superstars. The question is, how do you get them? I'd say drafting, developing the best prospects you can find is the way to go.

Look at us. We're optimistic for the future... why? It's not because we signed Gionta and Gomez. It's because we have Subban and Price to build around. You add an elite young forward to those two and all of a sudden you have a trio that you can build around and actually become a cup winner. That's why I was so upset two years ago when we squandered the chance to improve our stable of Price, McD, Max, Subban and other promising young players. Instead of doing what we should've done we've invested in overpriced free agents to try to build our core with and I don't agree with this strategy. Dealing away McD for Gomez may have helped get us into 7th or 8th a couple of years ago but it was three steps back as far as winning a cup goes. We have perpetuated the cycle of mediocrity that we've been stuck in for over a decade. But you saw the usual suspects here defending the deal because they only see what they want to.

As for right now... no I don't see how we can seriously be considered contenders. Anything is possible. You're right, one day an 8th place team that has no business winning will somehow win. But we shouldn't count on that or build our team on that premise. We should try to build the best team possible and go from there. Our current team just isn't up to snuff with most cup winning teams. Heck, this year's cup winner isn't up to snuff and they have a Norris winner and a goalie with the best season in the modern era. I think we need to aim higher because we're not there yet.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 06-16-2011 at 08:34 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 10:58 AM
  #129
LastChancePrice
Registered User
 
LastChancePrice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,927
vCash: 500
The difference between the Bruins and the Habs. When we face them back the other games after Pacioretty hit, we show no intensity at all and got whipped 7-0.

What did the Bruins did after Norton hit? They show their muscle and destroyed Vancouver 8-1 and 4-0.

Bruins left a message that if you touch our guy, you will get burned. We pass the message, if you touch one of our guy, we will cry in our corner, and call 9-1-1.

LastChancePrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 11:04 AM
  #130
MoeLemay
Registered User
 
MoeLemay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Despite the romantic mysticism we ascribe to winning the Stanley Cup, it did not make the Bruins better than they are. They're the champion team, legitimately -- you can only play who's ahead of you, and the Bruins did that. But they were also far from being the best club in the league.
If a Stanley Cup doesn't prove they're the best in the league.
In your eyes what does?

MoeLemay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 11:23 AM
  #131
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoeLemay View Post
If a Stanley Cup doesn't prove they're the best in the league.
In your eyes what does?
Wait... you're saying that you think the team who wins the Stanley Cup every year is automatically "the best team" overall, no matter the circumstances? I mean... really? You REALLY believe that?

Wow.

"What does"? Really? You can't come up with even 1 metrics that would provide a better picture than Stanley Cup wins?

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 11:53 AM
  #132
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
Wait... you're saying that you think the team who wins the Stanley Cup every year is automatically "the best team" overall, no matter the circumstances? I mean... really? You REALLY believe that?
The day after the Stanley Cup is awarded is kind of the dumbest time of year to try to split hairs over "What does 'best team' really mean," dontcha think? They're laughing all the way to their parade, and we're at 18 years and still counting

optimus2861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 11:56 AM
  #133
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoeLemay View Post
If a Stanley Cup doesn't prove they're the best in the league.
In your eyes what does?
There are many things that go into it; I prefer the team that has the highest level of play over a long period, which the playoffs aren't. If you magically reset the playoffs and tried again tomorrow, what do you feel the odds of the Bruins winning the Cup would be?

The Stanley Cup designates the champion team, not the best team.

Honestly, for "best team", the President's Trophy is probably a better yardstick than the SC, despite itself being very imperfect. But NA sports heavily devaluate regular season results (whereas European sports leagues, especially in soccer, do not).

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 12:01 PM
  #134
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
The day after the Stanley Cup is awarded is kind of the dumbest time of year to try to split hairs over "What does 'best team' really mean," dontcha think? They're laughing all the way to their parade, and we're at 18 years and still counting
And they should be very happy regarding this hard achievement. They certainly deserved it.

But this thread topic never had anything to do with the Stanley Cup, nor has winning the Cup become a good yardstick for team evaluation just because it was won yesterday.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 12:06 PM
  #135
Ollie Williams
Registered User
 
Ollie Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,763
vCash: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
And they should be very happy regarding this hard achievement. They certainly deserved it.

But this thread topic never had anything to do with the Stanley Cup, nor has winning the Cup become a good yardstick for team evaluation just because it was won yesterday.
If there's a team in the playoffs that did not deserve it this season, it was the Bruins, especially after witnessing all the atrocities committed on the ice with no repercussions due to the NHL's double standard.

Yes they worked hard to get to the end, however they definitely did not get what they deserved. The players on that team that deserved a Cup can be counted on one hand.


Last edited by Ollie Williams: 06-16-2011 at 12:17 PM.
Ollie Williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.