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
09-04-2011, 08:09 AM
  #526
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Very good post. As I've said,of course I'm not 100% correct. There are other ways to build a cup contending team, and you have described this.

What I am saying is why not go for both? Develop well, pick UFA's carefully, do not tank, and draft high, as much as possible. Find a way to draft high even if you finish top 16 every year. I really believe this is very important.

I like the Habs right now by the way, never said I did not. This is a good, young and exciting team. I'm pretty happy with the general direction of things also. I'm not gonna hang myself guys, things are OK.

But they could be better, and the Habs should strive for that next level too.

But one top 5 pick in 25 years is not excusable. It just isn't. All of us should at least agree on this!
How is that inexcusable? Trading quantity of draft picks for a high draft pick doesnt guarantee anything especially for the habs. Seems to me they get the majority of their good players beyond the first round and you would like to package all of those for a higher pick. Subban 2nd rounder, plekanec was a 3rd rounder. Price is the only one living up to his draft position, and kostitsyn was a 10th pick in a deep draft and some people wouldnt trade him for a bucket to **** in. Then you look at how many top 5 picks get traded in general and you seem to expect montreal to get one every 5 years is that satisfactory? I might be mistaken on this but the last one I can think of was vancouver trading to pick the other sedin in 99

Perrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 08:20 AM
  #527
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mix1home View Post
For the moment there I thought I was on Leafs boards. Ha-ha.
I don't see tanking as option really. Not in Toronto or Montreal anyway. There will be 90% pissed fans when product on the ice is not good enough.
I see these ways to improve without high picks in cap league:

1. Invest in management team, doctors, facilities, playing and training arenas for AHL / prospect players.
2. Invest in pro and amateur scouting in NA and Europe.
3. Invest in coaching. Make sure that style of affiliate team play is somewhat similar to NHL club.
4. Be patient with your top prospects.
5. Try to trade for young players that their teams gave up on in violation of point 4. (see also point 2.)
6. Try to capitalize on bad situations within other teams to get their good players / promising prospects.
7. Get 1st round picks from other teams whenever possible as you never know where they will finish.
8. Get some FA signings that will compensate in areas your team lacking.
9. Celebrate the Cup.
This is absolutely brilliant and sums up all the stupid and ranting posts I've been making the last few days.

This is exactly what I've been saying: Habs need to work very hard in many areas, and draft high whenever possible, to be a cup contender.

Tanking has never ever been an option suggested by me. But I have stated, endlessly and drunkenly, (I'm 12 hours ahead of you guys, so if my posts seem irrational, it's because I've had 3 glasses of wine, while you guys are settling into the office at 10 AM!) that the Habs have been a total fail in drafting high.

They must address this problem.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 08:59 AM
  #528
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
This is absolutely brilliant and sums up all the stupid and ranting posts I've been making the last few days.

This is exactly what I've been saying: Habs need to work very hard in many areas, and draft high whenever possible, to be a cup contender.

Tanking has never ever been an option suggested by me. But I have stated, endlessly and drunkenly, (I'm 12 hours ahead of you guys, so if my posts seem irrational, it's because I've had 3 glasses of wine, while you guys are settling into the office at 10 AM!) that the Habs have been a total fail in drafting high.

They must address this problem.
It is brilliant and it is exactly what most teams, including the Habs try to do to be successful. The problem is that there are always 29 other teams trying to get the same young players and draft picks.

Not drafting high is not a fail. It's actually quite the opposite, because it shows consistent performances. You seem to think it's easy to get those picks without tanking. It is not. Besides, drafting high is less important than drafting well and developing your players properly.

Fozz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 09:14 AM
  #529
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
only in your mind there's any proof it works (wether it worked in the 50s 60s or 70s is irrelevant, different eras)

and the reason for this is pretty simple, you completely ignore the teams it didnt work for...

since lock out half the team who tanked won a Cup ? big deal, what about the other half ?

worked for Chicago and Pittsburgh ? good for them...

but what about Vancouver and the twins (both top 5 picks), Luongo (4th overall) and Malhotra (7th overall)

and what about Columbus who drafted top eight for close to a decade ?

and Phoenix drafting Wheeler, Mueller and Turris within four years ?

and LA who drafted between 1 and 7 from 84 to 88 (on top of Robitaille drafted in the 9th in 84) ?

and the Panthers with Bowmeester, Weiss and Horton drafted in the top 4 ?

or the Trashers who drafted top 2 (not top five, top TWO) four years in a row ?
Forget it, he does not get it. He only sees the teams that work, but ignores the other teams (which are way more) that it does not work.

Simple math, every year, there are 5 top picks, yet 1 cup winner which don't always have a top 5 pick on their team, so less than 20% of teams picking top 5 end up winning the cup. If you can't understand this simple math proof, then you are a desperate cause. Even worse, he probably wants 2-3 top 5 picks, so the % drops drastically to oblivion in terms of probability of working.

What a great plan

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 10:31 AM
  #530
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

"Between 1969 and 2000, there have been 160 top-5 picks. 35 of those have become superstars. (using 8.5 on the HF scale as a cutoff).

During that time, there have been 672 11th-30th picks. 23 of those have become superstars, using the same cutoff.

50% more superstars in 1/4 the picks, hmmm...

the actual sucess rates of these blocks of picks work out to 21.9% and 3.4%.

You can talk about Brodeur, Sakic, Hossa, Ignila, MacInnis all you want, but the truth is, they are 5 of the 23 superstars drafted out of 672 picks.

If your goal is to just get a "good" or better NHL player - (a 7.0 or higher, meaning 2nd line, 2nd pairing, or average/journeyman starter), you're looking at 112/160 in the top 5, or 70%. In the 10th-30th slots, you;re looking at 169/672, or 25%.

Or maybe you just want to make sure you get a player who will become a full-time NHLer for at least a few seasons (5 or higher, at worst, Belak). Drafting top-5, you're looking at 148/160, or 92.5%. In 10th-30th, 398/672, or 59.2%, hardly a guarantee that you'll even get an NHL player.

If you have 10 picks in the 10-30 slots, there is actually a 71% chance that you WON'T get a superstar player. (a 29% chance that you will) If you have 3 picks in the top 5, there is a 47% chance that you'll end up without a superstar, but a 53% chance that you will."

"I thought I'd add a fun little note - get outside of the top 30 and there have only been 24 players (EVER!) drafted outside of the top 30 who qualify as superstars, this is from a pool of 6141 picks for a success rate of 0.4%.

In case you're wondering, these players are, in order of greatness:
Roy, Hasek, Messier, Lidstrom, Chelios, Hull, Langway, Fedorov, Kurri, Mogilny, Bure, Blake, Smith, Gilmour, Recchi, Zetterberg, Greschner, Richards, Bondra, Elias, Chara, Kiprusoff, Fleury, Robitaille."
Okay, okay, I know I've said several times that I'm tired of this debate, but I just took a look at this and it's a slightly different debate and I'm intrigued.

I'd love to see the actual list of stars from the top-5 and 6-30 (why is it 11 to 30?).

I'm a little surprised by this list of 24 players outside the top 30 list. Considering what's listed there, why are Datsyuk and Markov not there? Why is Kiprusoff there, but not Vokoun? Or Khabibulin? Or Weight? Lehtinen, Timonen, Alfredsson, Foote, Amonte, LeClair, Konstantinov, Desjardins, Schneider, Numminen, Nieuwendyk, Richter, Richer, Gary Suter, Kevin Stevens, Rick Tocchet, Verbeek, Hextall, Vanbiesbrouck, Naslund, Hunter, Trottier, Mark Howe, Larry Robinson, Bobby Clarke? There seems to be an awful lot of omissions. Am I missing something? There's at least 40 others that are in the same class of player listed above that I haven't named. What gives? What criteria could possibly include Bondra, but not Larry Robinson? Or Bondra, but not Naslund? Or Elias, but not Alfredsson?

Further, of these top-5 superstar selections, how many of their teams wound up winning any time in the short-term (say, the next 8-10 years)? I see Potvin, Lafleur, Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros (Colorado due to his being traded), and Niedermayer. Anyone else? And how does that compare to how many of them have been traded in that same time span? McDonald, Thornton, Luongo, Lindros, Dionne, McDonald (if he counts), Murphy, Scott Stevens, Hawerchuk, Shanahan, Lafontaine, Barrasso, Turgeon, Sundin, Ron Francis, Chris Pronger, Jovanovski (no superstar), Paul Kariya, Heatley and Gaborik.

Did any of these players' original drafting club benefit from the trade so much so that they became a perennial contender and/or won the Cup? Boston has won the Cup after dealing Thornton, but that trade had nothing to do with it. Colorado won post-Lindros and the trade directly led to the Cup victory. Colorado won post-Sundin, but I don't see that trade as having impacted their Cup victory. I think that about covers it.

In other words: over that entire span, only 4 teams have won a Cup with their top-5 selection (5 players, but Jagr and Lemieux were on the same team). So from 1969-2000, only 4 teams won the Cup with their top-5 selections. Meanwhile, 20 superstars or star players were traded away from their club, and only 1 such trade benefited the original franchise to such an extent as to catapult them to contender status. Those numbers aren't great. So while these franchises may be doing a terrific job at drafting superstars, their rate of success in enjoying contender or Cup-wins is low.

Now let's look at players drafted 6-30 and see if the story is the same. Of the 'superstars' in this category (bear in mind that I don't have the list that Seventies made, and am using my own makeshift list): Brodeur, Sakic, Hatcher, Roenick, Leetch, Maclean (no superstar), Neely, Coffey, Bourque, Fuhr, MacInnis, Bossy, and Gainey were part of their original drafting club's Cup win or Cup appearance within 8-10 years of having been drafted. That's 11-13 players (depending on whether Maclean or Gainey can be included) out of the 23. That's roughly 50%, as opposed to the 5 of 35 players in the top-5 that enjoyed contender/Cup win status with their drafting club. Rough numbers for the top-5 crowd.

Iginla was traded and that directly impacted his original drafting club's Cup win and contender status.

In other words: the list of superstars drafted 6-30 were more likely to:
1) stay with the club that drafted them;
2) win the Cup or at least enjoy contender status with the club that drafted them


What does all of this mean? It seems to me that teams drafting in the top-5 tend to draft higher quality players with greater frequency but have less success and win, or contend, significantly less than teams drafting 6-30. And this doesn't mean that these clubs drafting 6-30 were simply in better positions: a number of the players listed above were drafted in the 6-10 range, meaning they were only marginally better than the worst 5 clubs in the league.

It also seems to indicate that these higher quality players drafted in the top-5 are more easily obtainable via trade or other means.

Conclusion: drafting in the top-5 is no better recipe for team success than other methods mentioned earlier in the thread.

...

On another note: I'd like to know specifically why you cite Pittsburgh, Washington and Chicago as models for employing the rebuilding strategy you desire when it is abundantly clear that such models are predicated on either: a) generational talents rarely available in the top 5; b) incredible luck in Chicago's situation (see: my response to bsl above on the circumstances surrounding Chicago's perfect season).

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:13 AM
  #531
Hero
Raptors 13/14
 
Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,772
vCash: 50
MTL Has enough toughness from an outside view, they're not going to be Philly style of bullying, but they can protect themselves.

Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 11:29 AM
  #532
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hero View Post
MTL Has enough toughness from an outside view, they're not going to be Philly style of bullying, but they can protect themselves.
Yeah thats the way I look at it, they stick up for one another but they arent fighters. Nothing deters people from trying to hit your best players anymore, and then you see teams like boston that go after people for clean hits and trying to send messages for fighting players like krejci when they instigate it. It's becoming an overrated joke now.

Perrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 12:30 PM
  #533
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
Yeah thats the way I look at it, they stick up for one another but they arent fighters. Nothing deters people from trying to hit your best players anymore, and then you see teams like boston that go after people for clean hits and trying to send messages for fighting players like krejci when they instigate it. It's becoming an overrated joke now.
One of my favorite moement of last year when Pouliot kicked is ass with 1 punch.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 01:23 PM
  #534
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
So what have we decided then guys? Montreal will never win the cup because they're not tough...and they will really never win the cup because they never get any high draft picks.

Is that about rihgt?

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 01:25 PM
  #535
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
So what have we decided then guys? Montreal will never win the cup because they're not tough...and they will really never win the cup because they never get any high draft picks.

Is that about rihgt?
Yup. Pretty much.

The fact AK was 3 inches from eliminating the Bruins in OT of game 7, we are not tough enough to compete (despite missing our #1 D-man, our #1 Power FWD and our #2 Def-Dman).

Until we fill this roster with 6'5 tough guys and early round picks we aren't going anywhere.

JGRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 01:32 PM
  #536
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Yup. Pretty much.

The fact AK was 3 inches from eliminating the Bruins in OT of game 7, we are not tough enough to compete (despite missing our #1 D-man, our #1 Power FWD and our #2 Def-Dman).

Until we fill this roster with 6'5 tough guys and early round picks we aren't going anywhere.
I'm just glad I don't have to watch any more habs games for the rest of my life. Here I was thinking they had a chance to win something someday, never knew it was so obvious they didn;t

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 02:21 PM
  #537
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Yup. Pretty much.

The fact AK was 3 inches from eliminating the Bruins in OT of game 7, we are not tough enough to compete (despite missing our #1 D-man, our #1 Power FWD and our #2 Def-Dman).

Until we fill this roster with 6'5 tough guys and early round picks we aren't going anywhere.
Here's where the debate loses me. We exaggerate our roster players we've lost to justify our poor performance every, single year. I'll give you the number 1dman, but 2dman, not even close and number 1 power fwd, what? Patches had a good 37 game stretch, I'm not down playing his importance here, but come on. 37 games, that's it. Hardly a proven commodity here.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 02:25 PM
  #538
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Here's where the debate loses me. We exaggerate our roster players we've lost to justify our poor performance every, single year. I'll give you the number 1dman, but 2dman, not even close and number 1 power fwd, what? Patches had a good 37 game stretch, I'm not down playing his importance here, but come on. 37 games, that's it. Hardly a proven commodity here.
No, but in those 37 games he was playing like a legitimate power forward and there's no reason to think he couldn't have conitnued that on in the playoffs.

And he called Gorges the #2 Def. D-man also not the #2 d-man.

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 02:33 PM
  #539
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
No, but in those 37 games he was playing like a legitimate power forward and there's no reason to think he couldn't have conitnued that on in the playoffs.

And he called Gorges the #2 Def. D-man also not the #2 d-man.
I missed that part, but still don't agree. New players go through hot stretches all the time. I'm hopeful Patches will keep it going, but calling him our number 1 power fwd is a bit of an exaggeration and, if not, it's a testament to an area we were severely lacking then.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 02:42 PM
  #540
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I missed that part, but still don't agree. New players go through hot stretches all the time. I'm hopeful Patches will keep it going, but calling him our number 1 power fwd is a bit of an exaggeration and, if not, it's a testament to an area we were severely lacking then.
At the time he was scoring at a 30+ goal pace and WAS our number 1 power forward. I'd say Cole is that guy now.

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 02:45 PM
  #541
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,620
vCash: 500
Tanking/rebuilding or whatever flowery term you want to use to cover up what is actually going on, is just one method amongst others in order to increase your chances at winning a cup. Looking at recent years, it doesn't even look like it's more proven then other methods. Sure you can cite Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA and Washington, but for everyone of these successful teams, you can name a handful of crap ones who have been in the gutter for years using the same method(Atlanta, Islanders, Columbus, Florida).

Likewise, for every team that is unsuccessful in trying to win a cup by rebuilding through trades and signing, you have a Boston or Anaheim.

Even if you do get superstars on your team, it still takes a competant GM to surround them with appropriate talent. I think attributing cup wins to single players based on draft position is really shallow. It takes more than that to win. Look at Carolina, sure they had Staal, but people also forget that they had a stacked top 9 line at the forward position with a goalie that played on top of his head. They had Rob Brind'Amour, Staal, Recchi, Weight, Matt Cullen, Corey Stillman, Justin Williams, Ray Whitney.

Even the Chicago team was stacked. Keith and Seabrooke on defense. Versteeg, Hossa, Brouwer, Byfuglien, Ladd, Sharp, Bolland. Again these wins went beyond just Toews and Kane.

All drafting high does is give you a better chance at acquiring a star player. But even at that, just because you have a star player doesn't mean you're guarenteed success because for every Staal, Crosby and Toews that win a cup, there is a Nash, Kovalchuk, Eric Johnson, Joe Thorton, Nathan Horton, Vanek, Dany Heatley, Marian Gaborik, Spezza...that cannot win cups with their originally drafted teams.

Moreover, sometimes you don't even need to have drafted a top 5 pick to win. Look at the Red Wings, the Ducks and the Bruins.

What's interesting about the ducks is that they had three key players that weren't even drafted at all. Kunitz, Penner and Macdonald all went undrafted and three played a pretty key role all season. In fact most of that team was assembled through trades and signings.(Pronger, Scott Neidermayer, Selanne were all signed and traded for).

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 02:49 PM
  #542
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I missed that part, but still don't agree. New players go through hot stretches all the time. I'm hopeful Patches will keep it going, but calling him our number 1 power fwd is a bit of an exaggeration and, if not, it's a testament to an area we were severely lacking then.
Who was Boston missing that was a significant loss? Savard? That's about it. Pacioretty was one of our best forwards (if not the best) at the time he was injured, that's not speculation that's a fact. You can speculate that he wouldn't keep up that pace all season, just as I could speculate that he could. No one knows, the fact is he was on fire and making whatever line he played on better at that time.

I suppose we we're much better off having offensively inept guys like Moen and Darche slot next to Gomez and Gionta in the playoffs, losing Max was a huge blow to our already flat offense. His production vs Boston this season spoke for itself. To think he couldn't have made a difference is straight up ignorance.

JGRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 02:54 PM
  #543
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Who was Boston missing that was a significant loss? Savard? That's about it. Pacioretty was one of our best forwards (if not the best) at the time he was injured, that's not speculation that's a fact. You can speculate that he wouldn't keep up that pace all season, just as I could speculate that he could. No one knows, the fact is he was on fire and making whatever line he played on better at that time.

I suppose we we're much better off having offensively inept guys like Moen and Darche slot next to Gomez and Gionta in the playoffs, losing Max was a huge blow to our already flat offense. His production vs Boston this season spoke for itself. To think he couldn't have made a difference is straight up ignorance.
Just to give you an idea of how good the Canadiens were at one point. Wisniewski was acquired two weeks after Pacioretty was called and from teh time of that trade to the Pacioretty injury, the Canadiens were 17-7-5(of course, it's a small sample size and nothing can be determined beyond that, but the Habs were one of the better teams in the league for a good 30 games)...then their play slowed down immediately after that. The habs for once not only had scoring depth up front, but also from the backend. That is why until that injury the habs were battling it out with Boston for top spot in NE.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 03:00 PM
  #544
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
How is that inexcusable? Trading quantity of draft picks for a high draft pick doesnt guarantee anything especially for the habs.
First of all, nobody said it's a guarantee. Get that through your head.

Now go look at where stars get drafted... it happens with much greater frequency in the top 5 or top 10 than it does later on. We don't draft high and we don't trade for enough prospects that's why we don't have the stars that other clubs have had.

And I'm not sure why you're saying "especially for the Habs..." We've actually done very well for where we've drafted. Our ONLY top five pick in over 25 years is our best player and the guy everyone is hanging our hopes on for another cup. You say we haven't done well drafting high? How would you know? It hasn't happened except once and we got our best player out of it so what are you talking about?

Believe it or not in the past 25 years we've only had three top ten picks in the last 25 years as well. Two of those picks panned out with pretty decent players (which is what you would hope for from 5-10) and the other guy was a bust.

What exactly is your problem with the way we've drafted? We've drafted very well overall. And please don't come back here and try to cherrypick this pick or that pick... on the whole we've done much better than most clubs. We just haven't drafted high enough to get stars on a consistent basis nor have we done enough to trade for prospects that could help us down the road.

Fortunately we may have hit the jackpot with Subban and with our lottery win pick (that was a total fluke and gave us a top 5) with Price we might actually have two stars to build around. That doesn't mean we should continue going the route of getting older overpaid players like Gionta, Gomez and Cole...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
Seems to me they get the majority of their good players beyond the first round and you would like to package all of those for a higher pick. Subban 2nd rounder, plekanec was a 3rd rounder. Price is the only one living up to his draft position, and kostitsyn was a 10th pick in a deep draft and some people wouldnt trade him for a bucket to **** in. Then you look at how many top 5 picks get traded in general and you seem to expect montreal to get one every 5 years is that satisfactory? I might be mistaken on this but the last one I can think of was vancouver trading to pick the other sedin in 99
Pleks is a good player, Subban looks like he could be great too... but why in the world would you think that we wouldn't draft better players if we had higher picks? You don't think we'd have drafted Sidney Crosby if we had first overall? Of course we would... problem is that you can't get him unless you have the top pick. As another example, you might know that Toews is the real deal. He's not a generational talent, but your scouts know that he's the best player in the draft... It doesn't matter if you drafting 15th overall. Those great players are already gone and you're left with whatever is left.

Some years (1979 and 2003) come along with a bumper crop and it doesn't matter as much but you're always better off letting your scouts have first pick at who they want... that's just common sense. How does picking 20th overall give you a better advantage than drafting 3rd?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
It is brilliant and it is exactly what most teams, including the Habs try to do to be successful. The problem is that there are always 29 other teams trying to get the same young players and draft picks.
No there aren't. There are other clubs out there who are contending or looking for quick fixes... Those are the clubs that you have to trade with. And just because clubs are in the basement it doesn't mean they're rebuilding. The Isles and Leafs are perfect examples of this. They sucked but continued to trade away all their picks. The Isles only had to keep what they had drafted and they'd have had a cup contending team but they did the opposite. So you are wrong here, 29 other clubs aren't out there doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
Not drafting high is not a fail. It's actually quite the opposite, because it shows consistent performances. You seem to think it's easy to get those picks without tanking. It is not. Besides, drafting high is less important than drafting well and developing your players properly.
Nobody said it was easy... we've said the opposite. We've said that you have to be willing to pay a price to get those picks. That's something that we haven't shown any willingness to do and we've let a ton of players walk away from us with nothing in return.

And that has killed us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
Forget it, he does not get it. He only sees the teams that work, but ignores the other teams (which are way more) that it does not work.
Dude... YOU don't get it.

29 teams every year fail to win the cup. We all know this. Some of those failures are rebuilds and some aren't. But we are looking for what has made WINNING teams successful. Why should we try to learn from the Islanders and Leafs except to learn from their mistakes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
Simple math, every year, there are 5 top picks, yet 1 cup winner which don't always have a top 5 pick on their team, so less than 20% of teams picking top 5 end up winning the cup. If you can't understand this simple math proof, then you are a desperate cause. Even worse, he probably wants 2-3 top 5 picks, so the % drops drastically to oblivion in terms of probability of working.

What a great plan
Strange that the cup winners are ones that HAVE those picks leading the way...

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 03:05 PM
  #545
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,620
vCash: 500
Also I'd like to point out that not trading quality players for picks and prospects when your team is in 6th-7th-8th or 9th place is not something unique to the Canadiens. Almost no team in the nhl trades impending UFAs when they are in or close to a playoff spot. It just doesn't happen. We can sit here and argue until we're blue in the face about how trading UFAs(quality ones) for picks and prospects, while at the same time making your team worse so that you can get higher draft picks in hopes that you will better team in the future, is a better method.....but in reality it just doesn't happen. There is just so much uncertainty with such a method when you're actually above average team that the risk is not worth the potential payout because you can be stuck in perpetual rebuild mode.

When you're already terrible, finishing 12th-15th place year in and year out, I can see why trading quality players for makes seems attractive, but when you're an above average team it doesn't make sense, whether you have star players or not.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 03:11 PM
  #546
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Strange that the cup winners are ones that HAVE those picks leading the way...
cup winners being one of the 27 or 28 teams to have one or more top 5 pick on their roster...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 04:16 PM
  #547
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
Who was Boston missing that was a significant loss? Savard? That's about it. Pacioretty was one of our best forwards (if not the best) at the time he was injured, that's not speculation that's a fact. You can speculate that he wouldn't keep up that pace all season, just as I could speculate that he could. No one knows, the fact is he was on fire and making whatever line he played on better at that time.

I suppose we we're much better off having offensively inept guys like Moen and Darche slot next to Gomez and Gionta in the playoffs, losing Max was a huge blow to our already flat offense. His production vs Boston this season spoke for itself. To think he couldn't have made a difference is straight up ignorance.
Matt d'agostini was real hot for awhile too. I love patches and of course he is a more suitable option than moen, darch ect, but that's not really the point. We exaggerate our losses to justify our performance. Never mind the fact that we replaced Markov with the wiz who is no markov btw, but a pretty damn good player in his own right. I'm not comparing our injuries to Boston, but Savard's is a pretty significant one for sure. He's a better player than Patches/Gorges combined when healthy.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 05:04 PM
  #548
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Matt d'agostini was real hot for awhile too. I love patches and of course he is a more suitable option than moen, darch ect, but that's not really the point. We exaggerate our losses to justify our performance. Never mind the fact that we replaced Markov with the wiz who is no markov btw, but a pretty damn good player in his own right. I'm not comparing our injuries to Boston, but Savard's is a pretty significant one for sure. He's a better player than Patches/Gorges combined when healthy.
I don't have to justify or exaggerate anything. We had more significant injuries then them, and despite this we could have just as easily been the ones advancing to the next round despite all the "toughness" that Boston has over us.

I am over the loss to Boston, I was simply making a point that we could go toe-to-toe with them anytime despite the fact they are arguably the toughest team in the league and we are one of the least. My original post made specific reference to the shot AK took in OT, which ultimately trickled wide. A bounce one way or another could have changed the entire 2011 playoff picture, but that's hockey and I'm not naive enough to believe stuff like that won't happen time and time again or that we haven't been the beneficiary of such luck before as well. If that shot goes in, and we get by Boston, are we still talking about a lack of toughness despite defeating arguably, the toughest team in the league despite those injuries? Because in my eyes that's all it comes down to. Game 7, OT, one shot. You don't get that close if your team is that flawed, as it is according to some people.

People will try to say time and time again that it's also the reason Philly got by us in 2010, when really it had nothing to do with it. Again, we we're missing our best defenseman. On top of that, Philly just had FAR superior offensive depth then we did. Pronger was able to shut down Cammalleri. Halak had began to unravel. It had nothing to do with toughness, not even close.

JGRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 05:07 PM
  #549
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
I don't have to justify or exaggerate anything. We had more significant injuries then them, and despite this we could have just as easily been the ones advancing to the next round despite all the "toughness" that Boston has over us.

I am over the loss to Boston, I was simply making a point that we could go toe-to-toe with them anytime despite the fact they are arguably the toughest team in the league and we are one of the least. My original post made specific reference to the shot AK took in OT, which ultimately trickled wide. A bounce one way or another could have changed the entire 2011 playoff picture, but that's hockey and I'm not naive enough to believe stuff like that won't happen time and time again or that we haven't been the beneficiary of such luck before as well. If that shot goes in, and we get by Boston, are we still talking about a lack of toughness despite defeating arguably, the toughest team in the league despite those injuries? Because in my eyes that's all it comes down to. Game 7, OT, one shot. You don't get that close if your team is that flawed, as it is according to some people.
and cup champs dont need 3 OT to beat you in a best of 7 if their team is that much better than yours.

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 06:06 PM
  #550
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Strange that the cup winners are ones that HAVE those picks leading the way...
Like the team that had Horton (trade), Bergeron (second round pick), Krejci (second round pick), Marchand (third round pick), Ryder (UFA), Recchi (UFA), Kelly (trade), Peverley (trade), Lucic (second round pick), Kaberle (trade), Seidenberg (trade), Ference (trade), Boychuk (trade), Chara (UFA), McQuaid (trade) and Thomas (UFA) has their core.

Forsead 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 10:06 PM.

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.