HFBoards

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

Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2011, 07:30 PM
  #326
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
You were blasted because they are not realistic.
No.

They were clearly hypothetical. I was blasted because folks said I was crazy to even suggest trading those guys away.

We were in a playoff race with Souray (and we missed out on 8th) so 'there was no way we could trade him'

Koivu was 'the heart and soul' of our team so we couldn't deal him either.

Markov... People just plain freaked out at the idea of dealing him away at all.


People on this board did not want to do those deals.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:53 PM
  #327
WG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I never would've signed Gomez, Gionta or Cammy (who I think is a great player) to begin with. There was no point to doing this, they aren't going to lead us anywhere.

I said years ago that I would've dealt away guys like Koivu, Souray and Markov for strong younger players, picks and prospects who could help us down the road. That's been my philosophy on our team for a long time.

Once you build a team that is at the point that it can actually contend for something, then it makes sense to go the FA market or trade a pick for a vet.
Well, that's at least a consistent philosophy so there is merit in that. But since the team did go with the vets after the big FA purge, then I am perfectly content to see the team continuing to add. Signing a UFA Erik Cole fills a glaring need and only costs money. I'd much rather that vs trading multiple prospects and picks to have acquired Carter, for example. Given the team's current construction, I think you can still build around PK and Price (maybe put Max in that group as well) and rotate in the supporting cast.

So given that the team already had Cammy/Gionta/Gomez and is clearly fancying themselves as a playoff team, are you saying that you'd purge Cammy and Gionta for futures now? I'd still argue that it's more than faint hope that the team could make a strong push in the playoffs so bailing on the current roster isn't the way to go.

If it doesn't work this year, or even next, you could then trade those three for picks/prospects, reload with new UFA and still try to go forward built around PK, Price and whomever pans out of Max/Eller/Leblanc/Yemelin etc.

About the only place I truly disagree with you is the idea that this team, that should be 5th-8th in the conference, should not even bother and just try to aim for the lottery pick. I'd much prefer the team build up their prospect pool, use them in such a way as to maximize their value and then you have more latitude to turn some of them into a package for an elite player. This lands you the top player minus the need to suck for several years.

WG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:54 PM
  #328
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Of course the Bruins had stellar goaltending. Nobody disputes this. But the Sedins were invisible for much of the series. Yes, you can credit defense for this but having watched those games it seemed pretty clear to me that these guys were shellshocked from having been punched out all the time.

If it's teams like Mtl, then yes it is goaltending or defense that stops the puck from going in. The reason for this is that we don't have the ability to push other clubs around. So we absolutely agree here. Boston though had the added dimension of intimidation to go along with defense and goaltending and that's a big reason why the won the cup.
That's the problem. Just because the Bruins have this dimension, people will attribute their success to it. That's a flawed evaluation imo. I've watched the whole series as well. I didn't see the Sedins treated much differently from any other series. They were well defended against, and Thomas shut them down effectively. I saw chirping from both sides, with both teams doing it when they were on top. People like to think they were intimidated because everybody remembers the instance when Marchand was giving little punches to one of them. Other than that time, nothing out of the ordinary.
I think WS called it rather well before this series started. The Canucks, with their hard nosed grinding style, burned themselves out and got to the finals with an energy/health level lower than that of the Bruins. Losing Hamhuis after he delivers a statement hit on Lucic was key, and just another way to prove how lucky the Bruins were. The suspension to Rome was an added bonus.

I don't think intimidation was a factor at all. I don't understand how a club that's intimidated gets a Game 7, even less if their top line gets shutdown.

This series was played exactly where I thought it would, in nets and with special teams.


Last edited by Kriss E: 08-29-2011 at 09:02 PM.
Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:06 PM
  #329
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Well, you're right. We could (as Mathman puts it) get lucky and maybe we make it into the finals. A lot would have to go right but it could happen.
In that, the Habs are no different than any team in the league. Including what you like to call, "real contenders", with superstars and everything.

Your problem is that you're unable to realize that building gradually over competitive is what teams do unless they have no other choice, and it is in fact the surest path to long-term success. Add to that your skewed view of what makes a player valuable and what makes a team win... But since we've gone in circle on that topic and you've still yet to acknowledge any fact that you can't twist into your worldview, I'm not going to get into that pointless debate with you again. Except to note that it's getting a bit irksome that almost every discussion you gets into turns into a discussion of this.


Last edited by MathMan: 08-29-2011 at 08:15 PM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:10 PM
  #330
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
No.

They were clearly hypothetical. I was blasted because folks said I was crazy to even suggest trading those guys away.

We were in a playoff race with Souray (and we missed out on 8th) so 'there was no way we could trade him'

Koivu was 'the heart and soul' of our team so we couldn't deal him either.

Markov... People just plain freaked out at the idea of dealing him away at all.


People on this board did not want to do those deals.
What about the fact that Burke went on record stating that he was not going to trade Ryan?

Or the fact that JVR and Ryan are both with their drafted teams?

I find it ridiculous that you make these proposals how many years ago, then tout them as some higher level of management thinking in hindsight, when they weren't even realistic in the first place.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:14 PM
  #331
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Indeed, high-end prospects rarely get traded, especially post lockout, unless there are other ircumstances. You basically have to be lucky to get a deal like that fall into your lap.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:32 PM
  #332
Roke
Registered User
 
Roke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
What about the fact that Burke went on record stating that he was not going to trade Ryan?

Or the fact that JVR and Ryan are both with their drafted teams?

I find it ridiculous that you make these proposals how many years ago, then tout them as some higher level of management thinking in hindsight, when they weren't even realistic in the first place.
I e-mailed Rejean Houle (or at least it was his e-mail address listed on the Habs' website) back in 1999 or 2000 suggesting he trade 4/6 of the Habs top-6 forwards and a couple prospects for Lecavalier, Brad Richards, and some Russian prospect the Lightning had.

Think of how good the Habs would have been around 2004! If only he had been smart enough to follow the advice of some random teenager who found his e-mail address.

Roke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:44 PM
  #333
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WG View Post
Well, that's at least a consistent philosophy so there is merit in that. But since the team did go with the vets after the big FA purge, then I am perfectly content to see the team continuing to add. Signing a UFA Erik Cole fills a glaring need and only costs money. I'd much rather that vs trading multiple prospects and picks to have acquired Carter, for example. Given the team's current construction, I think you can still build around PK and Price (maybe put Max in that group as well) and rotate in the supporting cast.

So given that the team already had Cammy/Gionta/Gomez and is clearly fancying themselves as a playoff team, are you saying that you'd purge Cammy and Gionta for futures now? I'd still argue that it's more than faint hope that the team could make a strong push in the playoffs so bailing on the current roster isn't the way to go.

If it doesn't work this year, or even next, you could then trade those three for picks/prospects, reload with new UFA and still try to go forward built around PK, Price and whomever pans out of Max/Eller/Leblanc/Yemelin etc.

About the only place I truly disagree with you is the idea that this team, that should be 5th-8th in the conference, should not even bother and just try to aim for the lottery pick. I'd much prefer the team build up their prospect pool, use them in such a way as to maximize their value and then you have more latitude to turn some of them into a package for an elite player. This lands you the top player minus the need to suck for several years.
I don't think we need to suck for years or 'tank'. And I'm not suggesting we scrap everything and start over. We should've done that two years ago but at this point we have some guys that we could move for picks or prospects. Markov would be a guy I'd look at dealing if he has a good first half. His value won't be what it used to be but I'd really look at dealing high on him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That's the problem. Just because the Bruins have this dimension, people will attribute their success to it. That's a flawed evaluation imo. I've watched the whole series as well. I didn't see the Sedins treated much differently from any other series. They were well defended against, and Thomas shut them down effectively. I saw chirping from both sides, with both teams doing it when they were on top. People like to think they were intimidated because everybody remembers the instance when Marchand was giving little punches to one of them. Other than that time, nothing out of the ordinary.
The Sedins were pushed around a lot. The punches were the most stark example but there were all kinds of instances of them being shoved around. I definitely disagree with you on the intimidation being of little value. I think it impacted the series for sure. It wasn't the only factor but I think it did matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I think WS called it rather well before this series started. The Canucks, with their hard nosed grinding style, burned themselves out and got to the finals with an energy/health level lower than that of the Bruins. Losing Hamhuis after he delivers a statement hit on Lucic was key, and just another way to prove how lucky the Bruins were. The suspension to Rome was an added bonus.

I don't think intimidation was a factor at all. I don't understand how a club that's intimidated gets a Game 7, even less if their top line gets shutdown.

This series was played exactly where I thought it would, in nets and with special teams.
Okay, that's fair enough. I disagree with you on that point though.

As far as it showing up statistically, that's where it gets dicey though right? If you ask me... where does it show up on the spreadsheet I'd say it shows up in the goals against. You could disagree... Again, hockey is much harder to quantify than baseball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
In that, the Habs are no different than any team in the league. Including what you like to call, "real contenders", with superstars and everything.

Your problem is that you're unable to realize that building gradually over competitive is what teams do unless they have no other choice,
That's not true and I've given you examples of clubs that have done this in the past. I also disagree with your entire premise here. But, we won't go down that path again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
and it is in fact the surest path to long-term success. Add to that your skewed view of what makes a player valuable and what makes a team win... But since we've gone in circle on that topic and you've still yet to acknowledge any fact that you can't twist into your worldview, I'm not going to get into that pointless debate with you again. Except to note that it's getting a bit irksome that almost every discussion you gets into turns into a discussion of this.
I'm sorry it bothers you, but to be fair WG asked me about what I'd do and I answered him.

And I'm sorry but when we discuss the direction of the team I'm going to say what I think. Yes it's repititious but so is the manner in which we've been building our team for the last two decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
What about the fact that Burke went on record stating that he was not going to trade Ryan?
If I remember correctly he said he wouldn't deal him for a rental player. And even if he did say that he wouldn't deal him, he runs his mouth all the time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Or the fact that JVR and Ryan are both with their drafted teams?

I find it ridiculous that you make these proposals how many years ago, then tout them as some higher level of management thinking in hindsight, when they weren't even realistic in the first place.
Dude, who knows what they would've accepted... I don't. Neither do you. They may not have been realistic (Though I think the Ryan for Koivu one was.)

That's beside the point though. The point is that the folks on this board wouldn't have done those deals... Folks here are only ever concerned about making the playoffs even if it is at the expense of a prospect who could help us down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Indeed, high-end prospects rarely get traded, especially post lockout, unless there are other ircumstances. You basically have to be lucky to get a deal like that fall into your lap.
You'll never get a Crosby type guy but yes you can get good prospects IF you're willing to give up some of your present to get them.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 12:33 AM
  #334
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
No.

They were clearly hypothetical. I was blasted because folks said I was crazy to even suggest trading those guys away.

We were in a playoff race with Souray (and we missed out on 8th) so 'there was no way we could trade him'

Koivu was 'the heart and soul' of our team so we couldn't deal him either.

Markov... People just plain freaked out at the idea of dealing him away at all.


People on this board did not want to do those deals.
The problem is that, like all trades, plenty can go awry. The deals you've suggested look good now because you have the benefit of knowing how the individual players turned out. If you had proposed Koivu for Ryan in 2006, it would probably look about as good as Markov for Pouliot in the same year. But we all know that would be a disaster of a trade.

No offense but your general strategy for team building seems to be unrealistic. You cite the Rivet trade as the kind of trade we should be making, but not every trade is going to turn out so well in our favor. Trading's a can be a double edged sword and to pick out the good ones and to say "do more of that" is a lot easier said than done.

You also complain that we shouldn't be signing vets, but we went farther than we'd been since 93 with a line-up comprised almost entirely of vets. There's really no legitimate basis for this complaint as the team stands now. We may have "regressed" by getting eliminated in the first round, but this team took the champs to seven games without three key players.

And what should PG have done after nearly knocking off the eventual champs? Should he have NOT signed Cole and let the team get immediately weaker? Should he have traded assets for some prospect who may or may not ever play in the NHL because he's got good size, so that he may or may not make this team better in the future? No, he took the most obvious course of action; he addressed a need. He picked up a big winger who can hit and score and is coming off one of the best seasons of his career. The last year of his contract may be a bit much but there really isn't anything to legitimately complain about with regards to this signing.

Really, what it sounds like you want to do is blow the team up and tank. But that won't happen, and it's not management's fault. Not one single team in the Habs current position is going to run their team that way. Not one. They're following a precedent. The Bruins pretty much proved you don't need a bunch of lottery picks to win. It takes a mix of good drafting, good development, good trades, and good FA signings.

WeeBey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 01:43 AM
  #335
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
Really, what it sounds like you want to do is blow the team up and tank. But that won't happen, and it's not management's fault. Not one single team in the Habs current position is going to run their team that way. Not one. They're following a precedent. The Bruins pretty much proved you don't need a bunch of lottery picks to win. It takes a mix of good drafting, good development, good trades, and good FA signings.
Pretty much, no other strategy seems viable to LG.



Yup, on top of the deadline deals they made, lest not forget none of their goalie were drafted by them and only one of the 6 regular D (McQuaid) is from "within"... and I'm not talking about the Recchi, Campbell, Thornton, Ryder or Horton up front (+ Peverley and Kelly)... that's more or less 2/3 of a SC Champ team.

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:19 AM
  #336
Ivan13
Problem child
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 12,742
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

This year, Washington holds Colorado's 1st round pick for 2012. I think we should try to go after it now before Colorado tanks and winds up in a top 5 position. I'm not sure what the Caps would want for that pick but that's an opportunity where a contending team could very well have a high pick to deal with in next year's draft. Those are the kinds of things we should be looking at. Next year, folks will say that Washington got lucky in getting a top five pick... they didn't get lucky. They were smart. They dealt for a pick that could very well be 1st or 2nd overall if the Avs really tank (which could easily happen.)
I guess that two all-star centers, two proven producers on their wings, great 3rd line center, very good 4th line center, nice forward depth, massivly improved defense and PK, plus a couple of goalies that can actually stop the puck as opposed to last years awful trio makes Avs a lock for 1st overall pick.

Sorry but I don't get your logic.

As for the Habs, they need to think long and hard about their next move. There's a chance that new CBA will reduce salary cap ceilling, and Habs need to resign both PK and Price. Spacek and AK are coming of the books next offseason and that gives them another 7mil to play with, but will that be enough to keep the core together and also improve the team? What if Gorges and Yemelin have great seasons (that would be a great scenario), they will demand a raise also. At the moment Habs have roughly 33mil tied down in six players, PK and Price will probably want at least a 4mil raise each, and that gives them 41mil invested in 8 guys. I don't like that one bit as a Habs fan in terms of cap flexibility.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:34 AM
  #337
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
I guess that two all-star centers, two proven producers on their wings, great 3rd line center, very good 4th line center, nice forward depth, massivly improved defense and PK, plus a couple of goalies that can actually stop the puck as opposed to last years awful trio makes Avs a lock for 1st overall pick.

Sorry but I don't get your logic.

As for the Habs, they need to think long and hard about their next move. There's a chance that new CBA will reduce salary cap ceilling, and Habs need to resign both PK and Price. Spacek and AK are coming of the books next offseason and that gives them another 7mil to play with, but will that be enough to keep the core together and also improve the team? What if Gorges and Yemelin have great seasons (that would be a great scenario), they will demand a raise also. At the moment Habs have roughly 33mil tied down in six players, PK and Price will probably want at least a 4mil raise each, and that gives them 41mil invested in 8 guys. I don't like that one bit as a Habs fan in terms of cap flexibility.
It's OK to be optimistic, but that's a little too much...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 05:24 AM
  #338
Ivan13
Problem child
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 12,742
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
It's OK to be optimistic, but that's a little too much...
Stastny and Duchene were all-stars last year, and IMHO they could only get better, unless you think that 57 and 67 points are their max output, Staz is one year removed from a 79 point season.
Jones is a guy that will score 30 next year without a doubt in my mind if he gets to plays with Staz .
Hejduk is a proven guy that will chip in another 20 goal 50 point season on Dutchy's wing.
O'Reilly is a very good 3rd line center, that can only get better, and if he gets a chance on PP like he did at the end of the last season he'll get around 40 points.
McClement is their 4th line center and he would be a 3rd line center on most of NHL teams.
Their forward depth is pretty good compared to last year with guys like Mueller, Hishon, Landeskog, Kobasew, Galiardi, Lindstrom, Winnik, Malone, Mercier, Walker, Olver etc - of those guys listed only Winnik played on regular basis last year.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 06:42 AM
  #339
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
I guess that two all-star centers, two proven producers on their wings, great 3rd line center, very good 4th line center, nice forward depth, massivly improved defense and PK, plus a couple of goalies that can actually stop the puck as opposed to last years awful trio makes Avs a lock for 1st overall pick.

Sorry but I don't get your logic.

As for the Habs, they need to think long and hard about their next move. There's a chance that new CBA will reduce salary cap ceilling, and Habs need to resign both PK and Price. Spacek and AK are coming of the books next offseason and that gives them another 7mil to play with, but will that be enough to keep the core together and also improve the team? What if Gorges and Yemelin have great seasons (that would be a great scenario), they will demand a raise also. At the moment Habs have roughly 33mil tied down in six players, PK and Price will probably want at least a 4mil raise each, and that gives them 41mil invested in 8 guys. I don't like that one bit as a Habs fan in terms of cap flexibility.
I agree with what you said except the bold part. It will never happen in a million years. Too many top teams that attrack the most fans that are already at the ceiling. Imagine if they all had to let go of talent...the league will never allow it, it would hurt the league and the revenues even more...

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 06:45 AM
  #340
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
I guess that two all-star centers, two proven producers on their wings, great 3rd line center, very good 4th line center, nice forward depth, massivly improved defense and PK, plus a couple of goalies that can actually stop the puck as opposed to last years awful trio makes Avs a lock for 1st overall pick.

Sorry but I don't get your logic.
His logic vis-a-vis the Avs is sound. The Avs were a terrible hockey club and adding Varlamov isn't great improvement. Expecting "massive" improvements is unreasonable. The Avs may not be last in the league (that's most likely to be Edmonton), but they may well be, and they're a contender for the bottom five. They might end up higher than that, and the Avs are certainly hoping so now, but in terms of ability, they are likely one of the bottom ten clubs in the league.

Mind you, trading first-round picks for goalies with Vokoun on the market is stupid on the face of it, let alone a goalie with a track record so slim. League-average goalies are just not that hard to find.

In all likelihood, the Caps lucked into a high pick. And I used the term 'lucked' advisedly; exploiting an incompetent GM is not something you can plan for, and while they were smart to jump onto the opportunity when it presented itself, I have to question how much intelligence is really required to accept a 100$ bill when it's just handed to you. But even a high pick is nothing more than a lottery ticket, especially without knowing its position (the Avs could have a fluke season and finish high). For a competitive team to sell off massive assets to acquire it is a silly strategy; despite what the media have repeated, scorched-Earth rebuilding, which this consitutes, generally results in failure, and teams that can avoid it prefer to build gradually.

Basically, the likelihood of that pick becoming a more valuable than Varlamov is very high, but the likelihood of that pick becoming more valuable than, say, Gionta, is actually quite low.


Last edited by MathMan: 08-30-2011 at 06:54 AM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 07:35 AM
  #341
Ivan13
Problem child
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 12,742
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
His logic vis-a-vis the Avs is sound. The Avs were a terrible hockey club and adding Varlamov isn't great improvement. Expecting "massive" improvements is unreasonable. The Avs may not be last in the league (that's most likely to be Edmonton), but they may well be, and they're a contender for the bottom five. They might end up higher than that, and the Avs are certainly hoping so now, but in terms of ability, they are likely one of the bottom ten clubs in the league.

Mind you, trading first-round picks for goalies with Vokoun on the market is stupid on the face of it, let alone a goalie with a track record so slim. League-average goalies are just not that hard to find.

In all likelihood, the Caps lucked into a high pick. And I used the term 'lucked' advisedly; exploiting an incompetent GM is not something you can plan for, and while they were smart to jump onto the opportunity when it presented itself, I have to question how much intelligence is really required to accept a 100$ bill when it's just handed to you. But even a high pick is nothing more than a lottery ticket, especially without knowing its position (the Avs could have a fluke season and finish high). For a competitive team to sell off massive assets to acquire it is a silly strategy; despite what the media have repeated, scorched-Earth rebuilding, which this consitutes, generally results in failure, and teams that can avoid it prefer to build gradually.

Basically, the likelihood of that pick becoming a more valuable than Varlamov is very high, but the likelihood of that pick becoming more valuable than, say, Gionta, is actually quite low.
I don't want to derail this thread, I was just responding to a certain guy because I strongly disagree with his opinion.

You seem to forget that an Avs team worse that next seasons edition made the playoffs in 09/10. Their main problem last year was their midget D and they fixed that without a doubt, there isn't a single guy that played big mins last year, that will do the same on next seasons roster, this year they have guys that can actually play D. You also forget that Avs were neck and neck whith Nucks until december for NW division lead, and that they were holding down a playoff position at the all-star break (all that with atrocious goaltending and porous D), plus they were one of the top 4 offense in the entire league until the all-star break alongside Philly, Hawks, and Nucks. Avs dressed 16 different D-man last year, and I'm sure that guys like Yip and Porter won't get top 6 min like they did last year at the end of the season wich in the end led to Avs breakdown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
I agree with what you said except the bold part. It will never happen in a million years. Too many top teams that attrack the most fans that are already at the ceiling. Imagine if they all had to let go of talent...the league will never allow it, it would hurt the league and the revenues even more...
It happend in 2005. I think that NHL will try to reduce the gap between cap floor and cap ceiling, to create better pairity (I realize that there never was such pairity in NHL history as it is today) inside the NHL, and one of the ways to do it is by lowering cap ceiling. I don't see how better level of competition would hurt the NHL.

Oh and I failed to add Price's and PK's base salaries to that 4mil raise, Habs would actually have around 44.5mil tied up in 8 guys.


Last edited by Mike8: 08-30-2011 at 07:47 AM. Reason: merge
Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 08:05 AM
  #342
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Too much sugar, no baking powder... the cake's ingredients are off. Tastes okay but doesn't rise.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 09:01 AM
  #343
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
You seem to forget that an Avs team worse that next seasons edition made the playoffs in 09/10.
But they did so on the back of percentages: unsustainably high shooting percentage, and excellent goaltending. The Avs were a terrible puck possession club (they got outshot 27.4 to 31.3 at evens) which is a sign of a team that won't be sustainably good unless it improves that aspect.

And they did improve incrementally (29.0 to 31.1) but their goaltending cratered and their great shooting percentage went back to league average (as shooting percentage always eventually does, though almost nobody here believes this will happen to the Habs. ). Now that's better than I remembered, perhaps "terrible" was an overstatement, but it's still not good. With average goaltending they wouldn't be in the league basement, but the playoffs are a long shot; that pick they handed to Washington still looks like a 9-10th overall, which is an awful thing to trade for a goalie, unless you're sure he's Carey Price (and even then...)

Habs fans are quite familiar with teams with bad puck possession and really good goaltending...

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 09:14 AM
  #344
Ivan13
Problem child
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 12,742
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
But they did so on the back of percentages: unsustainably high shooting percentage, and excellent goaltending. The Avs were a terrible puck possession club (they got outshot 27.4 to 31.3 at evens) which is a sign of a team that won't be sustainably good unless it improves that aspect.

And they did improve incrementally (29.0 to 31.1) but their goaltending cratered and their great shooting percentage went back to league average (as shooting percentage always eventually does, though almost nobody here believes this will happen to the Habs. ). Now that's better than I remembered, perhaps "terrible" was an overstatement, but it's still not good. With average goaltending they wouldn't be in the league basement, but the playoffs are a long shot; that pick they handed to Washington still looks like a 9-10th overall, which is an awful thing to trade for a goalie, unless you're sure he's Carey Price (and even then...)

Habs fans are quite familiar with teams with bad puck possession and really good goaltending...
The funny thing is that most people (both Avs fans and outsiders) were saying that they would trade #11 pick for one of Bernier, Schneider, or Enroth. You'll have to agree that Varlamov is more proven than all of those guys.

Considering their S/A totals, I don't know if you saw Avs on regular basis in 09/10, but their team D was really good that year, they did allow high shot totals, but they forced opposing teams to shot from the perimiter, they cleared the front of the net, gave their goalies a clear view of the puck, and they were good at denying 2nd chances, which is something last years edition of Avs was terrible at.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 09:45 AM
  #345
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
The funny thing is that most people (both Avs fans and outsiders) were saying that they would trade #11 pick for one of Bernier, Schneider, or Enroth. You'll have to agree that Varlamov is more proven than all of those guys.
And I think these people are nuts. I'd just have signed Vokoun or, barring that, dug up a league-average goalie somewhere. Goaltending is important, but with the glut of goalies out there, it just isn't that valuable. Unless it's consistently elite, but there again: Vokoun was on the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
Considering their S/A totals, I don't know if you saw Avs on regular basis in 09/10, but their team D was really good that year, they did allow high shot totals, but they forced opposing teams to shot from the perimiter, they cleared the front of the net, gave their goalies a clear view of the puck, and they were good at denying 2nd chances, which is something last years edition of Avs was terrible at.
Hey, that sounds familar! That's exactly what we heard when Halak stoned the Caps and the Pens! And that's exactly what we heard when the Habs dominated the Flyers in 2007-2008 but couldn't buy a goal!

Actually, that's always the refrain when a club allows lots of shots but not many goals against -- "but they were bad shots! Perimeter shots! And they were clearing the front of the net!"

The problem with this argument? It's pretty much never true in reality, once you go and start examining the shots systematically. We seem to be unwilling to accept that a goalie has been playing over his head, or just plain been lucky. Problem is, over a long period, a team just cannot sustain a save percentage that's significantly above their goalie's talent level.

It's also a completely circular argument. "The shots were bad and that's why they didn't give up goals." "How do you know the shots were bad?" "Because they didn't give up goals!"

On the specific subject of Colorado's 2009-2010 season, you may find this link of interest (particularly because they had scoring chance data for half the Avs' season):
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/...rado-avalanche

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 09:52 AM
  #346
Maxpac
Registered User
 
Maxpac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 13,041
vCash: 500
From Tanguay to Varlomov and terrible trade proposals, this thread has turned into a major snoozefest and is ready to be shut down imo.

Maxpac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:00 AM
  #347
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
From Tanguay to Varlomov and terrible trade proposals, this thread has turned into a major snoozefest and is ready to be shut down imo.
Its way more interesting than anything the silly toughness subject has to offer.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:09 AM
  #348
Ivan13
Problem child
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 12,742
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
And I think these people are nuts. I'd just have signed Vokoun or, barring that, dug up a league-average goalie somewhere. Goaltending is important, but with the glut of goalies out there, it just isn't that valuable. Unless it's consistently elite, but there again: Vokoun was on the market.
Well so do I. The Vokoun thing is difficult to understand from fans POV, my reasoning for that situation is that Avs didn't want to be where they were before trading for Varlamov, which is without a longterm solution in goal. Did they overpay for Varlamov, sure they did, will it be worth while, we can only wait and see, Varly's injury problem could easily be a product of bad Caps medical staff, which is something Varlys KHL agent mentioned. In his words it was something like: They forced him to play when he said he wasn't healthy, and when he said he's still in pain, but they told him to get in goal which he did, and in the end he hurt himself even more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Hey, that sounds familar! That's exactly what we heard when Halak stoned the Caps and the Pens! And that's exactly what we heard when the Habs dominated the Flyers in 2007-2008 but couldn't buy a goal!

Actually, that's always the refrain when a club allows lots of shots but not many goals against -- "but they were bad shots! Perimeter shots! And they were clearing the front of the net!"

The problem with this argument? It's pretty much never true in reality, once you go and start examining the shots systematically. We seem to be unwilling to accept that a goalie has been playing over his head, or just plain been lucky. Problem is, over a long period, a team just cannot sustain a save percentage that's significantly above their goalie's talent level.

It's also a completely circular argument. "The shots were bad and that's why they didn't give up goals." "How do you know the shots were bad?" "Because they didn't give up goals!"

On the specific subject of Colorado's 2009-2010 season, you may find this link of interest (particularly because they had scoring chance data for half the Avs' season):
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/...rado-avalanche
Anderson was good without a doubt, anyone trying to argue that is ignorant (I still hate him because of his heartless performance this season tough). But look at Budaj's stats from those two season, is that coincidence? I don't think so. Avs were much better at limiting scoring chances in 09/10 than last season, and that's a fact, their best D-man last year was Liles who's as much I like him is at best average D-man in his own zone, and I even don't want to talk about guys like Shatty, Foote (sadly he stayed one year too long), Hunwick, Cumiskey, Holos etc. Only guys capable of playing good D last year were Hannan and EJ, and they both played only around 20 games for Colorado.

I think that's enough about Colorado, we took too much space in this thread already.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:11 AM
  #349
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
I don't want to derail this thread, I was just responding to a certain guy because I strongly disagree with his opinion.

You seem to forget that an Avs team worse that next seasons edition made the playoffs in 09/10. Their main problem last year was their midget D and they fixed that without a doubt, there isn't a single guy that played big mins last year, that will do the same on next seasons roster, this year they have guys that can actually play D. You also forget that Avs were neck and neck whith Nucks until december for NW division lead, and that they were holding down a playoff position at the all-star break (all that with atrocious goaltending and porous D), plus they were one of the top 4 offense in the entire league until the all-star break alongside Philly, Hawks, and Nucks. Avs dressed 16 different D-man last year, and I'm sure that guys like Yip and Porter won't get top 6 min like they did last year at the end of the season wich in the end led to Avs breakdown.



It happend in 2005. I think that NHL will try to reduce the gap between cap floor and cap ceiling, to create better pairity (I realize that there never was such pairity in NHL history as it is today) inside the NHL, and one of the ways to do it is by lowering cap ceiling. I don't see how better level of competition would hurt the NHL.

Oh and I failed to add Price's and PK's base salaries to that 4mil raise, Habs would actually have around 44.5mil tied up in 8 guys.
It happened with the one shot possibility of buying out guys without a cap hit and reducing every players contract by a certain %. If it happens again, it will be with that possibility, otherwise it won't happen, which would fix our problem anyways. I don't see an issue with teh cap for the Habs.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 10:19 AM
  #350
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post


This year, Washington holds Colorado's 1st round pick for 2012. I think we should try to go after it now before Colorado tanks and winds up in a top 5 position. I'm not sure what the Caps would want for that pick but that's an opportunity where a contending team could very well have a high pick to deal with in next year's draft. Those are the kinds of things we should be looking at.

We've had one top five pick in the last 25 years
I always tend to agree with LG, who argues well and not with anger.

If you don't like tanking, then at least we MUST find another way to get top 5 picks. That is what people are just not understanding on this site. We have to have top 5 picks over a few years to contend. We really do.

That is exactly what LG is proposing above, and that is exactly what we have not been doing, for years.

One top 5 pick in 25 years is SAD. It is shocking. Inexcusable. There are always some cunning trades that can be made every year to increase your chances of at least a top 10 pick, and higher, every couple of years. Desperate teams. Contenders that need just one piece. On and on....

I know everybody here hates the old timers, (scre-w you by the way), but Pollock consistently and constantly went after high picks. It was his first order of business.

Result? Dynasty. Yeah he had it easier with high Q picks at first, but he understood the system he was in, identified other team's weaknesses, and capitalized, again and again. That is the least we should expect these days as from our GM as well.

bsl 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 11:28 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.