1. Are you kidding me? St.Louis' top 9 is great, David Perron, David Backes, T.J. Oshie, Patrick berglund, steen, stewart arnott. Those are some of the best defensive forwards in the game playing in a very defensive system, of course none of them are gonna have exceptional offensive seasons. People said the exact same thing about Boston's top 9 last year.
2. thing is were racing against the clock Markov and Cole and to a lesser extent Plekanec, are all very important pieces to our team moving forward but they're all on the tail end of their career. It could take 3-5 years for our top 3 draft pick to develop and become an effective top 6 player, same goes for players like gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi,Ellis, Bournival and Leblanc.
3. No number one center, I know a lot of people think Desharnais can be a number one center, I just don't think he is capable of being a legit number one. Furthermore I don't even consider patches/desharnais/cole a first line I think of them more as a good 2nd line. I know you think we don't need a true number one center to be a good team and i respect that and to an extent I agree with that, however Plekanec needs to show he can produce offensively on a more consistent bases, then again he does need better line mates. And if eller is to develop into a 50+ point two way center he needs to play with better line mates (just like plekanec) and he also needs more ice time. Which leads me to believe Plekanec should be traded, why? because he's valuable now, and eller needs start developing now.
Perron ---- Max Pac
Backes ---- Cole
Oshie ---- Desharnais
McDonald ----- Plekanec
Berglund ---- Eller
Steen ----- Gionta
Stewart ---- Bourque
Arnott ----- Moen
Langenbruner/D'Agostini --- Leblanc
i'm sorry, but I don't see their top-9 as being "great", but if they are, I don't buy for a second that they are significantly better than our top-9, and certainly not a "worst in the conference- to - best in the conference" difference.
2- ? Markov, due to injuries, is still a big ?, sure, but he has been for the past few years. If we get 60+ games from him at a decent level, it's still a huge upgrade over what we had last year from Kaberle or Campoli.
Cole is 33, not 39, and he's coming off back-to-back 80+game seasons AND a personal best season... I wasn't a fan of the 4-year deal (still doubtful about how he'll look in year 4), but for the next 1-2 seasons I think we can count on a relatively solid level of play.
Plekanec... you have to be kidding me??? he's 29 years old... "racing against the clock" ??? that is patently absurd.
and for those 3, we have Subban, Gorges, Diaz, Emelin, Pacioretty, Desharnais, Eller, Leblanc and most importantly Price, all of which have most likely not yet shown us their "career best" level.
our nucleus is solid, we're missing some important pieces to go from a mediocre team to a contender, that much is clear, but as long as the terrible asset management of the past few years is a thing of the past, our new management team should be able to build a contender from the existing group, and if we land a stud top-6 or top-4 player with the 2012 draft, things get a whole lot easier.
3- Cole-Desharnais-MaxPac, production-wise, outdid St-Louis's top line this year (and matched boston's top line last year). There's more to it than just point production, to be sure, but that's exactly why a guy like Pleks is sorely under appreciated.
i stated that we need a stud top-6 winger to complement this group.
and upgrading from (or getting a "bounce back" year) Bourque is needed as well... but with that 1-piece, a quality winger to pair with Plekanec, our top-9 would be more than strong enough for this team to be much improved (gionta being injured this year was a big loss, having him back healthy, even if he's overpaid, is a big addition to our top-9).
MaxPac, Eller, DD are all at a stage in their career where it's reasonable to expect year-to-year improvements in overall play (if not production).
Leblanc is a bit more "wait and see", but there's also Geoffrion, Palushaj or even potentially that top-3 pick (or Gallagher/Kristo out of camp) to challenge for that spot.
I maintain that this is a top-9 good enough to be part of a dangerous playoff team, even a contender, depending on how shored up the defense is and how effective the coaching is.
plug in a Parise to that top-9, and it's about as good as you will get league-wide (Pleks with Parise would, imo, be back to the ~70pt level he's been at 2x, and improving that line will only open up more space for DD's line to produce).
Hawks never tanked ,, Wirtz didn't give a #### about product on ice and spent very little on development/etc
The Hawks absolutely did tank. 4 top ten picks (3 top 5) in 4 years IS tanking. Not intentionally maybe but they 'tanked.' And I'm not suggesting we lose intentionally btw. I'm suggesting we stay patient and stick to the draft and developing our prospects.
Wirtz was an idiot. If he had lived probably would've dealt away those young prospects. The Hawks succeeded DESPITE him being an idiot. So have a lot of teams. Rebuilding has worked whether it was intentional (Detroit, Colorado) or not (Pittsburgh tried to add all kinds of vets with Crosby and failed.)
Bottom line though is that he got top picks and died before he could screw up those top picks. The DID tank (intentionally or not) and got two great players out of it that were key members of that cup winning team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup
And for those that love to bring up Toews/Kane I would remind them the other 2 high picks Hawks got before those 2
2004 - Cam Barker #3
2005 - Jack Skille #7
So what? The STILL got TWO star players out of it. We haven't had a forward as good as either one of those guys since maybe Lafleur. And how did we get him? The Canadiens drafted high throughout the 70s. Many of those picks turned out to be busts. But they still ended up with Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt in the top five. Detroit was horrible at drafting back in the 80s and actually Yzerman was not their first choice but... they still landed one of the best players of all time and a guy who they rebuilt their team around.
I'd be perfectly happy to draft top five over the next few years and wind up with two superstars. You add them to what we already have and we'd be contenders for sure. I'd hope (and expect) that we won't be top five bottom feeders over the next few seasons but if we are, I hope that mgmt isn't dumb enough to short circuit things with more Brian Gionta type signings that lead us nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup
Also Toews falling to Hawks was more a result of Pens/Blues not valuing him as highly as EJ/Staal and we won draft lotto in Kane years ,,, Team wasn't supposed to pick #1
And Detroit didn't want Yzerman... they wanted Lafontaine. Guess what? When you draft high and another team screws up you can actually do something about it and capitalize on the mistake. If you're drafting 20th and you know that the club picking higher screwed up... it's still meaningless because you can't get them. You can only watch and cry as St. Louis takes Chris Pronger, the guy you KNEW was better than Daigle.
Moreover, look at the Detroit example is it so bad if you wind up with Pat Lafontaine instead? No. You might STILL get a star player even if you mess it up.
And btw, Erik Johnson could very well have been the best player in that draft. His first season was great and then he crushed his leg and missed the entire 2nd season. We'll never know how good he could've been. Sometimes stuff happens that's just plain beyond your control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup
Drafting high doesn't = Path to Cup
By itself it doesn't. But drafting high has certainly worked for Detroit, Colorado, NJ, Pittsburgh, Montreal, Chicago, Islanders...
Drafting high certainly has worked for most Stanley Cup winners. Most have a top pick leading the way for them. That's just a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup
It takes more then 2 good young players to compete in NHL... Hawks didn't take next step until guys like Keith/Seabrook/Hjalmarsson/Sharp/Buff/Bolland/Versteeg/Ladd/etc developed (Steeger/Ladd/Sharp acquired via trades)
No doubt about it. Not sure where you got the idea that I'd disagree.
Joe Sakic (a pick Quebec traded for in a rebuilding move btw) was useless by himself. So was Yzerman and so was Mario Lemieux. Of course you need to surround those guys with a good team. But if you have a good team AND Mario Lemieux you've got a pretty big advantage over your opponents. Add in a second star (like Jagr) and it's even better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup
Also big FA's like Hossa/Campbell/Khabibulin helped pull team out of the dark age
Right. Because they already had a good core. It makes perfect sense to trade away a prospect for a vet when you've already got a good team. It makes sense to go after free agents who will put you over the top.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense though to just go after FAs to try to build your core with when you aren't contenders. That's because the best FAs probably won't want to come to a club that's not a contender in the first place. It's rare for superstars to become FAs in their prime in the first place and when they do (like Niedermayer) they usually want to go to a specific place.
Let the Leafs pursue the FA market. Let them make the shortcuts. We tried it and it was a howling failure. Moreover, we've got the best scouting in the NHL! Why not actually use this to our advantage more? It's mind boggling that we haven't done this.
Do you think that going after a guy like Marian Hossa is going to lead this team anywhere? He doesn't do anything for us except make us playoff contenders and not good enough for a cup. That's exactly the opposite of the kind of move we need.
Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 04-06-2012 at 11:39 PM.
. So have a lot of teams. Rebuilding has worked whether it was intentional (Detroit, Colorado) or not (Pittsburgh tried to add all kinds of vets with Crosby and failed.)
comments like that seriously undermine the credibility of your argument...
Pens had 4 straight sub-70pt seasons without Crosby, 58pts the year before Crosby, 58pts his rookie year, then in his 2nd year they hit 100+pts, & in his 3rd year they made the cup finals.
Crosby himself had 102pts, 120pts & then 72pts (in 53 games).
where is this "failure of adding all kinds of vets" you speak of?
comments like that seriously undermine the credibility of your argument...
Pens had 4 straight sub-70pt seasons without Crosby, 58pts the year before Crosby, 58pts his rookie year, then in his 2nd year they hit 100+pts, & in his 3rd year they made the cup finals.
Crosby himself had 102pts, 120pts & then 72pts (in 53 games).
where is this "failure of adding all kinds of vets" you speak of?
I didn't say they failed to add vets. I said they added vets and still failed. They 'tanked' unintentionally that season. Leclair, Lemieux, Palffy, Tarnstrom, Gonchar... all were FAs. They weren't trying to lose but did anyway.
Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 04-06-2012 at 11:59 PM.
Subsitute the word "suck" in for "tank" and it all makes more sense.
The Hawks and Pens sucked for years.
The Oilers are on a streak of sucking.
The Habs are beginning theirs.
Teams don't tank they involuntarily suck because they lack talent.
That's why I don't like the word 'tank' it has implications that it was done on purpose.
Some teams purposefully rebuilt and others didn't. And some half rebuilt and then tried quick fixes and still dropped in the standings.
As for the Habs... who knows? Like I said, I think next year is a crapshoot. I don't see how anyone could say it isn't. We've got some good talent but that talent was present and playing well this season and we still lost. We could be better for sure but who's to say?
I doubt the top five pick that we get this year will be an impact player for us next season. And if we finish low again next year it won't be the worst thing in the world. Just please no more stupid quick fixes for vets who will take us nowhere. I can just see us trying to get Ollie Jokinen now.
I didn't say they failed to add vets. I said they added vets and still failed. They 'tanked' unintentionally that season. Leclair, Lemieux, Palffy, Tarnstrom, Gonchar... all were FAs. They weren't trying to lose but did anyway.
i understood what you meant, I didn't mean to imply it differently...
but still, i think you're way off.
Tarnstrom was already there (and was traded 30 games into the season)
Lemieux was "added" b/c he wanted to play a bit more & Pitt was the obvious only place for him to play
Gonchar was an addition, a big UFA addition, but adding 1 key player to a 58pt team is hardly a sign of a team trying to add veterans... it was a smart addition to a team looking to build around it's young stars, one that did in fact pay off big time just 2 years later (or even 1-year, if you consider the 100 pt season a success).
Leclair was a 37-year old declining vet, whose career lasted all of 90 games after the Pens signed him.
hardly a reasonable argument to be made that they "tried to add all kinds of vets to Crosby and failed"... especially since they hit 100pts in Crosby's 2nd season ( and besides, that team was largely led by young players... Crosby, Whitney, Malkin, Fleury, Staal... only 3 of their top 10 pt getters where over 25, and one of those only 26).
Sorry LG... i'm not a huge fan of your whole "tank to get superstars to have success" as the only viable path to success, but I do see the rational in most of your arguments.
in that specific example though, you spoke far too soon and made a statement that is about as false as they come.
Perron ---- Max Pac
Backes ---- Cole
Oshie ---- Desharnais
McDonald ----- Plekanec
Berglund ---- Eller
Steen ----- Gionta
Stewart ---- Bourque
Arnott ----- Moen
Langenbruner/D'Agostini --- Leblanc
i'm sorry, but I don't see their top-9 as being "great", but if they are, I don't buy for a second that they are significantly better than our top-9, and certainly not a "worst in the conference- to - best in the conference" difference.
2- ? Markov, due to injuries, is still a big ?, sure, but he has been for the past few years. If we get 60+ games from him at a decent level, it's still a huge upgrade over what we had last year from Kaberle or Campoli.
Cole is 33, not 39, and he's coming off back-to-back 80+game seasons AND a personal best season... I wasn't a fan of the 4-year deal (still doubtful about how he'll look in year 4), but for the next 1-2 seasons I think we can count on a relatively solid level of play.
Plekanec... you have to be kidding me??? he's 29 years old... "racing against the clock" ??? that is patently absurd.
and for those 3, we have Subban, Gorges, Diaz, Emelin, Pacioretty, Desharnais, Eller, Leblanc and most importantly Price, all of which have most likely not yet shown us their "career best" level.
our nucleus is solid, we're missing some important pieces to go from a mediocre team to a contender, that much is clear, but as long as the terrible asset management of the past few years is a thing of the past, our new management team should be able to build a contender from the existing group, and if we land a stud top-6 or top-4 player with the 2012 draft, things get a whole lot easier.
3- Cole-Desharnais-MaxPac, production-wise, outdid St-Louis's top line this year (and matched boston's top line last year). There's more to it than just point production, to be sure, but that's exactly why a guy like Pleks is sorely under appreciated.
i stated that we need a stud top-6 winger to complement this group.
and upgrading from (or getting a "bounce back" year) Bourque is needed as well... but with that 1-piece, a quality winger to pair with Plekanec, our top-9 would be more than strong enough for this team to be much improved (gionta being injured this year was a big loss, having him back healthy, even if he's overpaid, is a big addition to our top-9).
MaxPac, Eller, DD are all at a stage in their career where it's reasonable to expect year-to-year improvements in overall play (if not production).
Leblanc is a bit more "wait and see", but there's also Geoffrion, Palushaj or even potentially that top-3 pick (or Gallagher/Kristo out of camp) to challenge for that spot.
I maintain that this is a top-9 good enough to be part of a dangerous playoff team, even a contender, depending on how shored up the defense is and how effective the coaching is.
plug in a Parise to that top-9, and it's about as good as you will get league-wide (Pleks with Parise would, imo, be back to the ~70pt level he's been at 2x, and improving that line will only open up more space for DD's line to produce).
Like I said, the Blues play in a system that kills offense I promise you if you put berglund/steen/oshie/stewart in an offensive orientated team like pittsburgh or philadelphia some of these comparison would look ridiculous.
2. I agree on markov it would be huge upgrade form what we've had this year. You said it yourself, im questioning how cole will look in his 4th year. This is the problem with having markov and Cole in our future plans in 4 years cole probably won't be considered an effective top 6 winger and markov won't be seen as top 4 defenseman anymore. This is the problem since everyone is including beaulieu, tinordi, gallagher and our future pick alongside markov and cole. When people look at those rosters and sees cole and markov they think of the players now and not what they will be in 4 years.
That's why i said to a lesser extent to plekanec, he turns thirty during off season, I believe we can get 6 good seasons out of him.
3. I don't think it's fair to compare the desharnais line to teams like boston and st louis and say our top line produced just as much as one of the best team in the league's top line that means that they're a legitimate first line. The desharnais is a very good one i'll say that but they aren't on the same level defensively as the blues and bruins top lines.
I agree that they need a top 6 winger, but where are they gonna get it? I highly doubt parise will sign here and other then parise i don't see any top 6 wingers in the FA. We have no prospects that are going to come in and fill top 6 roll unless kristo or gallagher manage to exceed expectations. The only forward in the draft other than Yakupov that can potentially fill a top 6 role is Grigorenko and i persoanlly don't believe we will be drafting him and even if we did he is a center after all. The way Gionta was playing this year my expectations of him next year are very low, he wasn't even playing like a top 6 forward when he was healthy, it's hard for me to believe that he will reinvigorate plekanec's line when he gets back. To add saltt to the wound I wouldn't even consider Bourque a top 6 forward, so if we truly want to become a competitive team we need 2 more top 6 wingers. If we draft Forsberg that fills one role, but it will probably take 2-3 years of development before he can really make an impact in the NHL. We could potentially trade for one but that means giving up prospects and or roster players, which I am strongly against I would much rather wait 2-3 years draft high again or wait for someone to develop into the role.
Like I said before I don't expect eller to take another step forward until he gets better linemates and more icetime, and how is he gonna to that? Take plekanecs place as second line center, I highly doubt it will happen.
i understood what you meant, I didn't mean to imply it differently...
but still, i think you're way off.
Tarnstrom was already there (and was traded 30 games into the season)
Lemieux was "added" b/c he wanted to play a bit more & Pitt was the obvious only place for him to play
Gonchar was an addition, a big UFA addition, but adding 1 key player to a 58pt team is hardly a sign of a team trying to add veterans... it was a smart addition to a team looking to build around it's young stars, one that did in fact pay off big time just 2 years later (or even 1-year, if you consider the 100 pt season a success).
Leclair was a 37-year old declining vet, whose career lasted all of 90 games after the Pens signed him.
hardly a reasonable argument to be made that they "tried to add all kinds of vets to Crosby and failed"... especially since they hit 100pts in Crosby's 2nd season ( and besides, that team was largely led by young players... Crosby, Whitney, Malkin, Fleury, Staal... only 3 of their top 10 pt getters where over 25, and one of those only 26).
Sorry LG... i'm not a huge fan of your whole "tank to get superstars to have success" as the only viable path to success, but I do see the rational in most of your arguments.
in that specific example though, you spoke far too soon and made a statement that is about as false as they come.
I didn't say they were smart about it man. In fact when they were making all those moves I thought it would be a disaster. It might've worked except that it was the year after the strike and they probably didn't count on the game being as fast as it now became. Moreover, those guys had missed a year and it really seemed to kill the older players.
But yeah, I do think they felt that they were trying to win that year. I don't think that was an intentional tank (not that season anyway.) I mean look at the dollars they threw around. They were trying to save the team back then and they hoped to be able to buy a winner.
BTW, I don't think we should 'tank' to win. I just think that we shouldn't do quick fixes. If the drop in the standings happens... so be it. And there's nothing wrong with dealing vets for prospects when you know you aren't winning.
Nothing wrong with rebuilding at all.
Moreover, I also don't think it's the ONLY way. Of course there are other ways. It's just that this path is repeatable, doesn't have some of the limitations that the other methods do (esp for our club) and has been shown to work. That's why I've advocated it.
Perron ---- Max Pac
Backes ---- Cole
Oshie ---- Desharnais
McDonald ----- Plekanec
Berglund ---- Eller
Steen ----- Gionta
Stewart ---- Bourque
Arnott ----- Moen
Langenbruner/D'Agostini --- Leblanc
i'm sorry, but I don't see their top-9 as being "great", but if they are, I don't buy for a second that they are significantly better than our top-9, and certainly not a "worst in the conference- to - best in the conference" difference.
2- ? Markov, due to injuries, is still a big ?, sure, but he has been for the past few years. If we get 60+ games from him at a decent level, it's still a huge upgrade over what we had last year from Kaberle or Campoli.
Cole is 33, not 39, and he's coming off back-to-back 80+game seasons AND a personal best season... I wasn't a fan of the 4-year deal (still doubtful about how he'll look in year 4), but for the next 1-2 seasons I think we can count on a relatively solid level of play.
Plekanec... you have to be kidding me??? he's 29 years old... "racing against the clock" ??? that is patently absurd.
and for those 3, we have Subban, Gorges, Diaz, Emelin, Pacioretty, Desharnais, Eller, Leblanc and most importantly Price, all of which have most likely not yet shown us their "career best" level.
our nucleus is solid, we're missing some important pieces to go from a mediocre team to a contender, that much is clear, but as long as the terrible asset management of the past few years is a thing of the past, our new management team should be able to build a contender from the existing group, and if we land a stud top-6 or top-4 player with the 2012 draft, things get a whole lot easier.
3- Cole-Desharnais-MaxPac, production-wise, outdid St-Louis's top line this year (and matched boston's top line last year). There's more to it than just point production, to be sure, but that's exactly why a guy like Pleks is sorely under appreciated.
i stated that we need a stud top-6 winger to complement this group.
and upgrading from (or getting a "bounce back" year) Bourque is needed as well... but with that 1-piece, a quality winger to pair with Plekanec, our top-9 would be more than strong enough for this team to be much improved (gionta being injured this year was a big loss, having him back healthy, even if he's overpaid, is a big addition to our top-9).
MaxPac, Eller, DD are all at a stage in their career where it's reasonable to expect year-to-year improvements in overall play (if not production).
Leblanc is a bit more "wait and see", but there's also Geoffrion, Palushaj or even potentially that top-3 pick (or Gallagher/Kristo out of camp) to challenge for that spot.
I maintain that this is a top-9 good enough to be part of a dangerous playoff team, even a contender, depending on how shored up the defense is and how effective the coaching is.
plug in a Parise to that top-9, and it's about as good as you will get league-wide (Pleks with Parise would, imo, be back to the ~70pt level he's been at 2x, and improving that line will only open up more space for DD's line to produce).
I basically agree with all of this. St. Louis is the kind of team Montreal was in a position to be to start this season if Markov was in the lineup and they can get there again.
I know your not the fondest of microstats but by those measurements Montreal's and St. Louis's forwards were pretty similar then. The linchpin being the a strong two-way centerman at the top of the lineup (Backes in St. Louis, Plekanec in Montreal) that allowed a system based on forward depth to work. Big reason Montreal dominated 5 on 5 to start the year (Subban being pretty comparable to Petroangelo being another).
Pacioretty-Desharnais-Cole score like a first line but they don't defend like one. In this respect they resemble Krejci's line in Boston. They can be the sword but they'll need the "shield" to go with it (Bergeron in the Boston analogy, Backes line in the St. Louis one). A two way line that matches against opponents best players and comes out at least even.
Montreal has the skeleton of such a unit in place, the leading two-way player in Plekanec and a stud two-way defender to back them up in Subban. A common denominator of great two-way forwards in the league is having a strong two-way pairing behind them (Datsyuk has Lidstrom, Kopitar has Doughty, Bergeron has Chara, Kesler has Hamhius-Bieksa etc.). Gionta's a fine defensive winger as well. Its the third player they are missing currently because Bourque hasn't shown he can be that guy in the slightest. Kostitsyn and Cammaleri were less than ideal in that role but far better than him. Throwing Gomez's cap at Parise and he coming in to do that job would be the ideal solution of course.
Of course if you can find a couple of pure offense wingers to go with Desharnias, Pacioretty and Cole would be ideal players to put with Plekanec themselves, which might end up being easier finds than wingers that can bring it on both ends of the rink.
On the defense. Subban-Gorges is imminently capable of being a top pairing. Emelin-Diaz is a fine third one. Markov is a great start to a second. So finding a decent top 4 for Markov would leave them sitting pretty. If you can't manage that, I think Emelin can grow into that role pretty soon so a quality veteran 5 like what Spacek provided in 10-11 would probably be good enough (someone big would be nice but fundamental defense is probably the quality to look for).
I didn't say they were smart about it man. In fact when they were making all those moves I thought it would be a disaster. It might've worked except that it was the year after the strike and they probably didn't count on the game being as fast as it now became. Moreover, those guys had missed a year and it really seemed to kill the older players.
But yeah, I do think they felt that they were trying to win that year. I don't think that was an intentional tank (not that season anyway.) I mean look at the dollars they threw around. They were trying to save the team back then and they hoped to be able to buy a winner.
BTW, I don't think we should 'tank' to win. I just think that we shouldn't do quick fixes. If the drop in the standings happens... so be it. And there's nothing wrong with dealing vets for prospects when you know you aren't winning.
Nothing wrong with rebuilding at all.
Moreover, I also don't think it's the ONLY way. Of course there are other ways. It's just that this path is repeatable, doesn't have some of the limitations that the other methods do (esp for our club) and has been shown to work. That's why I've advocated it.
the bolded part is so true, and so obvious, it's amazing that some (even many) professionals in the sport business seem to completely miss.
i get that it's entertainment, and that the pressure to "win" is huge... but especially for guys with enough experience/reputation/contacts to be relatively confident of finding another job should they get fired prematurely, it's amazing how poorly they approach long-term sustainable building of a sport team.
in some ways, a well run team should ALWAYS be "rebuilding". perhaps not in the sense of "selling off" assets at the deadline, but an astute GM should always have an eye on the future, managing both his cap space and his young assets in a way that maximizes both immediate payoff and long term success. Holland seems to straddle that line quite well, and when you look at how the Wings have managed things since the lockout, you can almost see the quick adaptation to the new paradigm that the cap era fostered... initially there were some moves that were a bit more suited to pre-cap era (picks/prospects moved freely at deadline time for immediate solutions), but he got burnt (and this, despite a cup win & back to back finals appearances), and since then he's been far more conservative in managing his young assets, even though Lidstrom is just about done and his team is annually a serious contender (a situation that many GM's automatically view as "win at all cost" time).
Within a cap system as rigid as the NHL's (without the benefits of luxury tax like the NBA or non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL), every decision should be made with a thorough consideration for both present and future implications, that's an area that the outgoing management team never seemed to fully grasp.
With Price/Subban in place, the depth of quality future NHLers we seem to have and (hopefully) a star player coming this year via the draft, we have the elite talent in place we need... (despite the poor "rankings" of our prospect pool as a whole, I look at our group of prospects and see one of the deepest groups of future NHlers in the league... granted not many surefire top-6/top-4 players, but a lot of young players that, thus far, seem likely to become regular NHLers... a smart GM will manage that group in such a way that those who we don't have room for turn into other assets we can benefit from (as opposed to losing them for nothing)
I basically agree with all of this. St. Louis is the kind of team Montreal was in a position to be to start this season if Markov was in the lineup and they can get there again.
I know your not the fondest of microstats but by those measurements Montreal's and St. Louis's forwards were pretty similar then. The linchpin being the a strong two-way centerman at the top of the lineup (Backes in St. Louis, Plekanec in Montreal) that allowed a system based on forward depth to work. Big reason Montreal dominated 5 on 5 to start the year (Subban being pretty comparable to Petroangelo being another).
Pacioretty-Desharnais-Cole score like a first line but they don't defend like one. In this respect they resemble Krejci's line in Boston. They can be the sword but they'll need the "shield" to go with it (Bergeron in the Boston analogy, Backes line in the St. Louis one). A two way line that matches against opponents best players and comes out at least even.
Montreal has the skeleton of such a unit in place, the leading two-way player in Plekanec and a stud two-way defender to back them up in Subban. A common denominator of great two-way forwards in the league is having a strong two-way pairing behind them (Datsyuk has Lidstrom, Kopitar has Doughty, Bergeron has Chara, Kesler has Hamhius-Bieksa etc.). Gionta's a fine defensive winger as well. Its the third player they are missing currently because Bourque hasn't shown he can be that guy in the slightest. Kostitsyn and Cammaleri were less than ideal in that role but far better than him. Throwing Gomez's cap at Parise and he coming in to do that job would be the ideal solution of course.
Of course if you can find a couple of pure offense wingers to go with Desharnias, Pacioretty and Cole would be ideal players to put with Plekanec themselves, which might end up being easier finds than wingers that can bring it on both ends of the rink.
On the defense. Subban-Gorges is imminently capable of being a top pairing. Emelin-Diaz is a fine third one. Markov is a great start to a second. So finding a decent top 4 for Markov would leave them sitting pretty. If you can't manage that, I think Emelin can grow into that role pretty soon so a quality veteran 5 like what Spacek provided in 10-11 would probably be good enough (someone big would be nice but fundamental defense is probably the quality to look for).
just to clarify... I'm actually very "fond" of micro stats... it's just that I hate the one-track thinking that postulates statistical analysis as a clearly superior way to evaluate an environment as dynamic and "unknown" as a team sport. imo they are a necessary complement to any competent hockey ops team, but the notion of relying solely/primarily on them is wrong... that is wrong IF you have quality people in the right places.
agree very much with your breakdown.
I think the pleks line can go either way... adding a better defensive player to him/gionta and deploying them as a "match-up" line is one possibility, but I'd almost prefer to see us give pleks a great offensive compliment (Pleks is the kind of player who can perfectly complement a "star" winger, but who isn't quite dynamic enough to really highlight a more one-dimensional player like gionta -or cammy/kost imo) which would be just as/or more effective at "unleashing" the Maxpac/dd/cole line...
they had a great season this year despite for the most part being the primary focus for the opposition "shut-down" groups.
if Pleks line was just as dangerous (or more), by default it would lead to tougher match ups for the opposition, thus opening up "space" for DD's line.
I also think that Eller can/will be able to take on greater defensive responsibilities next year, which is why i like the idea of an Eller/Leblanc/Gionta line... Gionta being solid defensively and dangerous offensively would be a nice complement to Eller, and Leblanc will have one more offseason of training under his belt (from all indications, he's a dilligent/dedicated athlete) and he's already shown signs of being the kind of player who can/will be defensively responsible with enough skill to win puck battles and be useful in the offensive zone.
add all of that up, and that's my optimism for a very solid top-9 emerging from the nucleus we have IF we can make 1 key addition...
I didn't say they were smart about it man. In fact when they were making all those moves I thought it would be a disaster. It might've worked except that it was the year after the strike and they probably didn't count on the game being as fast as it now became. Moreover, those guys had missed a year and it really seemed to kill the older players.
But yeah, I do think they felt that they were trying to win that year. I don't think that was an intentional tank (not that season anyway.) I mean look at the dollars they threw around. They were trying to save the team back then and they hoped to be able to buy a winner.
BTW, I don't think we should 'tank' to win. I just think that we shouldn't do quick fixes. If the drop in the standings happens... so be it. And there's nothing wrong with dealing vets for prospects when you know you aren't winning.
Nothing wrong with rebuilding at all.
Moreover, I also don't think it's the ONLY way. Of course there are other ways. It's just that this path is repeatable, doesn't have some of the limitations that the other methods do (esp for our club) and has been shown to work. That's why I've advocated it.
You do actually. You pretend you dont, but you do.
just to clarify... I'm actually very "fond" of micro stats... it's just that I hate the one-track thinking that postulates statistical analysis as a clearly superior way to evaluate an environment as dynamic and "unknown" as a team sport. imo they are a necessary complement to any competent hockey ops team, but the notion of relying solely/primarily on them is wrong... that is wrong IF you have quality people in the right places.
agree very much with your breakdown.
I think the pleks line can go either way... adding a better defensive player to him/gionta and deploying them as a "match-up" line is one possibility, but I'd almost prefer to see us give pleks a great offensive compliment (Pleks is the kind of player who can perfectly complement a "star" winger, but who isn't quite dynamic enough to really highlight a more one-dimensional player like gionta -or cammy/kost imo) which would be just as/or more effective at "unleashing" the Maxpac/dd/cole line...
they had a great season this year despite for the most part being the primary focus for the opposition "shut-down" groups.
if Pleks line was just as dangerous (or more), by default it would lead to tougher match ups for the opposition, thus opening up "space" for DD's line.
I also think that Eller can/will be able to take on greater defensive responsibilities next year, which is why i like the idea of an Eller/Leblanc/Gionta line... Gionta being solid defensively and dangerous offensively would be a nice complement to Eller, and Leblanc will have one more offseason of training under his belt (from all indications, he's a dilligent/dedicated athlete) and he's already shown signs of being the kind of player who can/will be defensively responsible with enough skill to win puck battles and be useful in the offensive zone.
add all of that up, and that's my optimism for a very solid top-9 emerging from the nucleus we have IF we can make 1 key addition...
Well, if Montreal gets Yakopov or Grigorenko and they are NHL ready they could slide into Pacioretty's spot (both shoot left) and we could see if 67 is ready to be the dynamic winger to play with Plekanec. Counting on an 18 year old in a top six role is another less than ideal move though.
Both my eyes and numbers love Leblanc. His underlyings compare pretty favorably to his draft cohort (he's creeped up to the point that you could argue, based on this season, he's just as good as Kadri for example and leapfrogged previous flavours of the month MPS and Josefsson) for the most part and his AHL work seems pretty solid all things considered. Third line work should be well within his reach if he doesn't get a setback. Its an open and fair question whether he'll be a better player than Bourque next year. Both he and Eller should look up Pacioretty's personal trainer.
the bolded part is so true, and so obvious, it's amazing that some (even many) professionals in the sport business seem to completely miss.
i get that it's entertainment, and that the pressure to "win" is huge... but especially for guys with enough experience/reputation/contacts to be relatively confident of finding another job should they get fired prematurely, it's amazing how poorly they approach long-term sustainable building of a sport team.
in some ways, a well run team should ALWAYS be "rebuilding". perhaps not in the sense of "selling off" assets at the deadline, but an astute GM should always have an eye on the future, managing both his cap space and his young assets in a way that maximizes both immediate payoff and long term success. Holland seems to straddle that line quite well, and when you look at how the Wings have managed things since the lockout, you can almost see the quick adaptation to the new paradigm that the cap era fostered... initially there were some moves that were a bit more suited to pre-cap era (picks/prospects moved freely at deadline time for immediate solutions), but he got burnt (and this, despite a cup win & back to back finals appearances), and since then he's been far more conservative in managing his young assets, even though Lidstrom is just about done and his team is annually a serious contender (a situation that many GM's automatically view as "win at all cost" time).
Within a cap system as rigid as the NHL's (without the benefits of luxury tax like the NBA or non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL), every decision should be made with a thorough consideration for both present and future implications, that's an area that the outgoing management team never seemed to fully grasp.
With Price/Subban in place, the depth of quality future NHLers we seem to have and (hopefully) a star player coming this year via the draft, we have the elite talent in place we need... (despite the poor "rankings" of our prospect pool as a whole, I look at our group of prospects and see one of the deepest groups of future NHlers in the league... granted not many surefire top-6/top-4 players, but a lot of young players that, thus far, seem likely to become regular NHLers... a smart GM will manage that group in such a way that those who we don't have room for turn into other assets we can benefit from (as opposed to losing them for nothing)
I'm not sure what you disagree with me about then.
Oilers drafting high again. For how many years now? Why aren't they contender yet? Our pick will change little to the equation in the first 3-4 years.
They are drafting high for the 3rd straight year.
No one said it was an immediate but it beats the Leafs path of finishing 9th/10th every season. Except for the two years you legitimately suck you've traded your 1sts away.
If we won the lottery, I think the impact will be immediate and positive.
Immediate and positive impact? I'm skeptical that a 2012 lottery pick would have an earth-shaking effect and I have history on my side.
The Penguins took several years to rise after they drafted Mario Lemieux, a far more talented player than anyone in the upcoming draft. In fact, they didn't surge even after they added Jagr to Lemieux. It took time.
Guy Lafleur made his first appearance in a Habs uniform at the age of 20, not 18. What were his goal totals in his first few seasons? In the low 20s. It took time for Lafleur to develop plus the addition of Shutt, Robinson, and others to make the Habs a powerhouse.
Oilers drafting high again. For how many years now? Why aren't they contender yet? Our pick will change little to the equation in the first 3-4 years.
****** goaltending and 2-3 AHLers playing in the top 6 defense. If the Oilers had good goaltending, they would have been fighting for a playoff spot this year. That's one thing lottery teams usually have in common - poor/inconsistent goaltending. I'm actually quite surprised to see the Habs finishing so low with Price as the goalie.
Edmonton has nearly sold out every game in the last 10 years. Smaller city. Less rabid fans.
Calgary + Edmonton = 2 million fans in the metro areas combined yet they easily support two NHL teams (including one that is a perennial tank).
Montreal has 3.8 million in the metro area and no competition.
It would take a lot for the fans not to sell out the Bell Centre.
If EDM has less rabid fans than MTL then it's only because MTL has the most rabid fans in the league. However, I put Oiler fans' passion up against anyone else in the league.
As for the fans "accepting" a tank, I think one has to remember how they got there first. It wasn't an easy sell by any means. Other avenues were tried and failed. Trying to sign expensive free agents like Chara and Hossa... hell, even Paul Kariya said no. The failed attempt to get Heatley. Overspending to get Souray. Trying the offer sheet route with Vanek and Penner. Management did everything they could to become a contender the "quick and easy way" and it was clearly not working. It was only then that ownership, after doing things like surveys and lunch-in meetings with season ticket holders, realized that fans would be willing to support a rebuilding from scratch. That's what they've been doing for two years now.
If EDM has less rabid fans than MTL then it's only because MTL has the most rabid fans in the league. However, I put Oiler fans' passion up against anyone else in the league.
As for the fans "accepting" a tank, I think one has to remember how they got there first. It wasn't an easy sell by any means. Other avenues were tried and failed. Trying to sign expensive free agents like Chara and Hossa... hell, even Paul Kariya said no. The failed attempt to get Heatley. Overspending to get Souray. Trying the offer sheet route with Vanek and Penner. Management did everything they could to become a contender the "quick and easy way" and it was clearly not working. It was only then that ownership, after doing things like surveys and lunch-in meetings with season ticket holders, realized that fans would be willing to support a rebuilding from scratch. That's what they've been doing for two years now.
and when Khabibulin went down for a couple of months they were done like dinner. I think they didn't win a game in a full month during that stretch which they capped off with an All you can spend New Years Eve Bash.
When Edmonton did well a couple years earlier they signed some stupid contracts and made some bad decisions on who to keep and who to let go.
The Oilers are "rebuilding" as a way to excuse management incompetence, not out of a designed strategy. Heck they thought they'd make the playoffs this year, or at least avoid the lottery.
Signing Khabibulin to a long 35+ contract was especially silly. He just had his best season as a Oiler with .910. He's been terrible for them, but that was a bad deal on the face of it.
In fact when they were making all those moves I thought it would be a disaster. It might've worked except that it was the year after the strike and they probably didn't count on the game being as fast as it now became. Moreover, those guys had missed a year and it really seemed to kill the older players. 
