HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Would you be upset if the new GM did a rebuild?

View Poll Results: Would you be upset?
Yes, I want to win now and feel this core is a contender 57 34.55%
No, I am not opposed to a philosophy change. 108 65.45%
Voters: 165. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-11-2012, 11:08 AM
  #51
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
to quote Ike Taylor (Steelers CB), "we don't rebuild, we reload".

now of course, the steelers are one of the best run franchises in pro sports (operating in the even tougher cap reality that the NFL represents), but the comment is telling.

the idea that a "scorched earth" rebuild is needed is exaggerated imo. Although he did it poorly, Gainey essentially did the same thing in 2009, jettisoning the bulk of the veteran group and replacing them with slightly younger veterans... results speak for themselves.

an elite GM can balance the need to get "younger" and stay within the cap, while maintaining his team at an highly competitive level. RedWings have done it, Bruins look well positioned to do it, Flyers have done it (their one blip non-playoff season was due more to a fluke terrible year than it was to a management decision to gut the team).

We have a lot of solid pieces in place (thank you scouting department), and if you remove Gomez/Kaberle, our veteran group is not terribly ineffective cost-wise (Plekanec, Markov, Gionta, Cole, Bourque, Moen?).

No problem at all keeping the rest of those guys (sure, moving Bourque wouldn't hurt, but at 3.3M$ we can afford to see if he bounces back), as long as the ~12M$ wasted on Kaberle/Gomez is spent more wisely.

With the high picks we have this year, we should get an influx of quality young talent, and over the next 2 years we have 4 top-60 picks, which in the hands of T.Timmins is a lot to work with.

Reload... just do it strategically & without blowing our load on high-risk/low-reward players...

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 11:09 AM
  #52
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,483
vCash: 500
It's been painful watching the Oilers get the first overall pick three years in a row, just as it was was painful to watch the Penguins get Malkin and Crosby. (Sure, the Caps won the lottery and picked Ovechkin ahead of Malkin, but that hardly made a difference.) Not even Chicago was as lucky, since their first round gem, Kane, isn't Crosby, Malkin, or Ovechkin. Of course the Bruins made out like bandits when they traded Kessel to the Leafs and got more than just Seguin.

The only unexpectedly lucky break the Habs have enjoyed in recent years was drawing the fifth pick in 2005 and getting Price. They have the third selection, their reward for futility, but none of the candidates likely to be available to them is a can't-miss superstar. The Habs won't be able to trade the veterans currently on their roster for very high draft picks, so, without a run of great luck or a stroke of genius on the part of trevor Timmins, the rebuilding process will take time. Meanwhile, Edmonton will have had a big head start. The Bruins' dominance in the Northeast division will wane with the aging of several of their mainstays, notably Thomas and Chara, but the Penguins' stars and superstars will be around for a long time.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 11:13 AM
  #53
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
It's been painful watching the Oilers get the first overall pick three years in a row, just as it was was painful to watch the Penguins get Malkin and Crosby. (Sure, the Caps won the lottery and picked Ovechkin ahead of Malkin, but that hardly made a difference.) Not even Chicago was as lucky, since their first round gem, Kane, isn't Crosby, Malkin, or Ovechkin. Of course the Bruins made out like bandits when they traded Kessel to the Leafs and got more than just Seguin.

The only unexpectedly lucky break the Habs have enjoyed in recent years was drawing the fifth pick in 2005 and getting Price. They have the third selection, their reward for futility, but none of the candidates likely to be available to them is a can't-miss superstar. The Habs won't be able to trade the veterans currently on their roster for very high draft picks, so, without a run of great luck or a stroke of genius on the part of trevor Timmins, the rebuilding process will take time. Meanwhile, Edmonton will have had a big head start. The Bruins' dominance in the Northeast division will wane with the aging of several of their mainstays, notably Thomas and Chara, but the Penguins' stars and superstars will be around for a long time.

Subban in the 2nd round was pretty "lucky"...


Streit, Halak, S.Kost all as very late picks turning into quality top-6/top-4/#1 players was very "lucky" as well, just too bad our management team squandered 2 of them.

luck is very much a matter of perspective, and an excuse used in the place of much needed accountability.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 11:38 AM
  #54
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I never suggested a tank btw. If we look at a GM like Brian Burke(and here comes the "what has he done" comments") in Toronto, years later, he specifically says he wants to build a team both he and Carlye need for their philosophy. While Burke's time in Toronto has mixed reviews, it is because Toronto didn't already have a pacioretty, subban and price. His biggest fail was trying to get a top line forward to build around. While successful, what he lost was significant.
It's a bit OT but I disagree with your assessment. Burke's biggest fail is that he thought the Leafs would make the playoffs and pick 15-20 or worse in 2009-10. So he thought he was giving up something like Riley Sheahan (2010 1st #21) + Calle Jarnkrok (2010 2nd #51) + Connor Murphy (2011 1st #20), not Seguin+Knight+Hamilton. That would have been alright for Kessel. He thought he could make the playoffs with Kessel, Toskala, Komisarek and Colby Armstrong plus what they had before (basically Kaberle, Ponikarovsky, Stajan, Blake, Stempniak). That's his biggest fail.

So back to the Habs -- IMO whether to rebuild or not is not the biggest question. Whatever moves the new GM does, he must not **** up on player evaluation. If Plekanec, Gionta and/or Cole are traded away, something useful needs to come back, and that's a much tougher thing to figure out than whether you want to contend or tank next year.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 11:58 AM
  #55
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
It's a bit OT but I disagree with your assessment. Burke's biggest fail is that he thought the Leafs would make the playoffs and pick 15-20 or worse in 2009-10. So he thought he was giving up something like Riley Sheahan (2010 1st #21) + Calle Jarnkrok (2010 2nd #51) + Connor Murphy (2011 1st #20), not Seguin+Knight+Hamilton. That would have been alright for Kessel. He thought he could make the playoffs with Kessel, Toskala, Komisarek and Colby Armstrong plus what they had before (basically Kaberle, Ponikarovsky, Stajan, Blake, Stempniak). That's his biggest fail.

So back to the Habs -- IMO whether to rebuild or not is not the biggest question. Whatever moves the new GM does, he must not **** up on player evaluation. If Plekanec, Gionta and/or Cole are traded away, something useful needs to come back, and that's a much tougher thing to figure out than whether you want to contend or tank next year.
Fair enough. I meant more trading those picks with no track record to suggest playoffs. Because his primary goal was win now, he sacrificed the future and did not win now either.

The reality is, many guys on the habs roster are useful players. For one, Plekanec, even as a 2nd or 3rd line center is very useful due to his two-way play. Cole has tremendous work ethic and I don't remember last time we've seen a powerforward like that. The rest are good leaders but meh.

Reality is, it's about quality, not quantity. If a team would take gionta,kaberle, bourque, cole for a reasonable price I would do it. Many say "oh no, then picks aren't a sure thing". Alright, but you don't always need to use the picks. I'm sure a buy low candidate like chris stewart is available at the right price. He's no star but he's big, physical, young and provides a need on the team. You look across the NHL to other teams needing some leadership or who want to restock with picks. I mean, look at LA, talks are that Brown MAY be available after they got Carter's contract. Even in Buffalo, Vanek may be available.

Now tell me, Stewart, Brown, Pacioretty, Vanek, isn't that a much bigger and more physical winger group? It's not about physicality per se, but it's about having an identity, wtv it is. I personally don't like our mix and there's options out there. If you manage your assets right, you can acquire just about anybody.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 01:47 PM
  #56
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
Subban in the 2nd round was pretty "lucky"...


Streit, Halak, S.Kost all as very late picks turning into quality top-6/top-4/#1 players was very "lucky" as well, just too bad our management team squandered 2 of them.

luck is very much a matter of perspective, and an excuse used in the place of much needed accountability.
Your post shows that my meaning clearly eluded you. I associated luck with good fortune in getting to pick high in the draft, not with identifying a gem lower in the draft, which involves a degree of skill. According to Trevor Timmins he would have recommended Ryan McDonagh in 2007 even if the Habs had had a somewhat higher pick in the first round and he was right. On the other hand, the Habs weren't unlucky in drafting David Fischer in 2006, they simply blundered.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 01:57 PM
  #57
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
I don't see a need for a full rebuild. We have a good core already, a rebuild implies we do not.

We're set in net.

We have some solid D prospects and a some good D (this is our weakness, but instead we can add a big name UFA or two solid UFAs to fill in until our prospects devellop)

We have some good forwards, but we are deficient in impact forwards (see---a 2nd line!). This draft should help with that, and we have the pieces needed to move up and get another 1st rd pick this season to help that along. Add a couple of gritty guys to help the bottom 6 and play the season out.

I bet that team makes the playoffs, and the following season sees a team ready to take the step at being considered a contender

Halifaxhab* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 02:03 PM
  #58
jwolf
Registered User
 
jwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
As the title says, if the new GM came here and sold all the vets, stocked up on picks will keeping the young players in Price, Subban, Pacioretty and likely others in Eller, Emelin, White, etc... would you be upset if it required an extra year or two of building?

Basically:

Markov
Bourque
Gionta
Gomez
Kaberle
Cole
Plekanec
etc...

Can be traded for younger pieces/picks and the GM may go for a new philosophy.

In what situation would a GM move many vets? Think of a GM coming in who prefers a bigger, stronger physical team and doesn't see gionta, kaberle, etc.. as solutions and decides to revamp the roster and acquire new players to fit his mold.

Would you be against it? Assuming he was a shrewd negotiator and got the most out of the assets?
It's hard to answer either yes or no to this question, because I feel the answer is somewhere in between.
I wouldn't want to rid the team of either Markov or Cole. Both are good vets that every successful team needs. Anyone else out of the vets listed (depending on return, of course) is expendable.

jwolf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 02:12 PM
  #59
29dryden29
Registered User
 
29dryden29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,878
vCash: 500
I think we should listen to offers for everyone I do not believe anyone is untouchable. If the return is good ship them out.

29dryden29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 02:26 PM
  #60
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
to quote Ike Taylor (Steelers CB), "we don't rebuild, we reload".

now of course, the steelers are one of the best run franchises in pro sports (operating in the even tougher cap reality that the NFL represents), but the comment is telling.

the idea that a "scorched earth" rebuild is needed is exaggerated imo. Although he did it poorly, Gainey essentially did the same thing in 2009, jettisoning the bulk of the veteran group and replacing them with slightly younger veterans... results speak for themselves.

an elite GM can balance the need to get "younger" and stay within the cap, while maintaining his team at an highly competitive level. RedWings have done it, Bruins look well positioned to do it, Flyers have done it (their one blip non-playoff season was due more to a fluke terrible year than it was to a management decision to gut the team).

We have a lot of solid pieces in place (thank you scouting department), and if you remove Gomez/Kaberle, our veteran group is not terribly ineffective cost-wise (Plekanec, Markov, Gionta, Cole, Bourque, Moen?).

No problem at all keeping the rest of those guys (sure, moving Bourque wouldn't hurt, but at 3.3M$ we can afford to see if he bounces back), as long as the ~12M$ wasted on Kaberle/Gomez is spent more wisely.

With the high picks we have this year, we should get an influx of quality young talent, and over the next 2 years we have 4 top-60 picks, which in the hands of T.Timmins is a lot to work with.

Reload... just do it strategically & without blowing our load on high-risk/low-reward players...
Another negative aspect to the "tank" that makes it really hard in hockey markets is that it puts a lot of pressure on the young players coming in to "resurect" the franchise. It has ruined a lot of young players. Much easier to break in like Seguin or Giroux on teams with strong veterans and not having to "save the franchise".

Imagine the Habs trade the farm and finisg bottom 5 next year then the guys they draft as "stars" in 2012 and 2013 have a ton of pressure and turn into Doug Wickenheider...you end up sucking for another 5 years a la Toronto Maple Leafs.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 02:34 PM
  #61
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,385
vCash: 500
I wouldn't be upset, I would just be very surprised. Molson doesn't look like he wants to miss the playoffs a second time in a row, and I perfectly understand why.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 02:49 PM
  #62
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 29dryden29 View Post
I think we should listen to offers for everyone I do not believe anyone is untouchable. If the return is good ship them out.
You would ship out Pacioretty, Price or Subban for a good offer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Your post shows that my meaning clearly eluded you. I associated luck with good fortune in getting to pick high in the draft, not with identifying a gem lower in the draft, which involves a degree of skill. According to Trevor Timmins he would have recommended Ryan McDonagh in 2007 even if the Habs had had a somewhat higher pick in the first round and he was right. On the other hand, the Habs weren't unlucky in drafting David Fischer in 2006, they simply blundered.
I don't think Fischer was a blunder. At that pick it was a reasonable assumption taht he could turn out to be the best NHLer. He had size, above average mobility, offensive skill plus a RH shot but his development derailed at Minnesota.

Before somebody whines about drafting a HS kid, I'll tell you similar picks like McDonagh, Nelson and Bjugstad look like good picks all 1st rounders. Leddy also.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 03:00 PM
  #63
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,784
vCash: 500
I think we should continue the rebuild that began (poorly) this year. We've got some great young players on our roster... PLAY them. See what they can do and then build via the draft. We're not that far away from assembling a great team but we need some more pieces. I believe in drafting and developing from within and THEN adding vets down the line.

Very surprised and happy to see the majority of voters here actually support a rebuild. Hopefully management realizes it's the right path too. I'm so tired of the window dressing quick fix moves that we always do to appease the fans. Enough. Time to actually get serious about building an actual winner in Montreal.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 03:00 PM
  #64
29dryden29
Registered User
 
29dryden29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
Carey Price;47739535]You would ship out Pacioretty, Price or Subban for a good offer?[/B]



I don't think Fischer was a blunder. At that pick it was a reasonable assumption taht he could turn out to be the best NHLer. He had size, above average mobility, offensive skill plus a RH shot but his development derailed at Minnesota.

Before somebody whines about drafting a HS kid, I'll tell you similar picks like McDonagh, Nelson and Bjugstad look like good picks all 1st rounders. Leddy also.
If the return was sufficient then there is no one that I wouldn't move as is the way any GM worth his salt would be also.

29dryden29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 05:55 PM
  #65
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,061
vCash: 500
By rebuilding we would miss out on Gorges, Pacioretty, Desharnais, Subban and Price's prime. We already have some good players and decent prospects. All we need is good depth and perhaps a key signing or two.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 05:58 PM
  #66
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 29dryden29 View Post
If the return was sufficient then there is no one that I wouldn't move as is the way any GM worth his salt would be also.
Good GM's don't trade their best players just for a good offer. Stud players are worth more than what a "good" offer can usually bring. Price is worth more to us than a good offer would bring us. Same with Subban Pacioretty Gorges and Plekanec.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 06:05 PM
  #67
AllanMTL46
Alexei BOOM Emelin
 
AllanMTL46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ste-Agathe, Lotb.
Country: Canada
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
No need for a rebuilt, we have a good core and some good prospects coming up soon. Just need to do the right moves this off-season, and we're a contender. My opinion.

AllanMTL46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 07:13 PM
  #68
baldrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by strutsboa View Post
I think Cole and Plekanec should be part of our plans for the next 3-4 years unless we get tremendous offers (or Grigorenko/Galchenyuk makes Plekanec expendable at the deadline).
I didn't realize Crosby was being drafted this year. Seriously, I'm saddened
by the lack of appreciation given to Plekanec,considered so easy to replace.

baldrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 07:19 PM
  #69
Hank Scorpio
Registered User
 
Hank Scorpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
I know this is supposed to be a simple 'yes' or 'no' but I, personally, would like transparency at an organizational level and humility as a a virtue the GM carries if/when mistakes are made. If this means a rebuild, great, if it means stay the course with a few minor moves, great, just explain how you plan on arriving at our overall goal (the cup) and how your moves fit. If/when mistakes are made, acknowledge them, correct them, and move on.

Hank Scorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 08:15 PM
  #70
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
By rebuilding we would miss out on Gorges, Pacioretty, Desharnais, Subban and Price's prime. We already have some good players and decent prospects. All we need is good depth and perhaps a key signing or two.
Ridiculous.

If we were starting from scratch that may be true but not now. Subban is 22 for Pete's sake. We'll miss out on Plekanec's prime but that's what I said would happen three years ago when we went for stupid quick fixes anyway. No point in repeating the errors of the past.

We've got a top 3 this season. If we dealt Pleks for another prospect and drafted high next season we would be in awesome shape going forward. We're not that far away but we've got to be smart and patient about this. In three years time some of the D prospects we've got will be in the lineup. This year's pick will be in the lineup. Price, Subban and Max will be in their prime. We could have a serious contender in as soon as two or three years and it could be a contender for a long time if we do it the right way.

Getting quick fixes now isn't going to do that for us. We'll compete for 8th (as we usually do) and maybe win a playoff round or two. That's it.

One more season of rebuilding. A couple more trades of vets for prospects... that's how far we are from being away from a perpetual contender. That's my opinion anyway and I hope that the new GM sees it the same way. Once we've got those pieces in place THEN we can look at adding FAs. That would be a great situation for us. We're close and I hope we don't screw it up now. And good Lord how stupid is that Ryan McDonnaugh trade looking now?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 08:18 PM
  #71
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Scorpio View Post
I know this is supposed to be a simple 'yes' or 'no' but I, personally, would like transparency at an organizational level and humility as a a virtue the GM carries if/when mistakes are made. If this means a rebuild, great, if it means stay the course with a few minor moves, great, just explain how you plan on arriving at our overall goal (the cup) and how your moves fit. If/when mistakes are made, acknowledge them, correct them, and move on.
I agree with you and I think that comes with the territory. I'd much rather a guy say "look, I build my team differently and it's gonna take me a few years to build it to my vision which is _______" now rather than "I will try a new core" 3 years down the road like gainey did.

Really not in the mood for fake fixes again.

If the guy has a vision, do what you gotta do, just keep our core.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 08:24 PM
  #72
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,881
vCash: 500
The vet group is actually so weak I don't think it matters who stays except for Cole, Plekanec, Gorges and Markov. Gionta was hardly making a difference before the injury, the rest are a bunch of scrubs.

I'd deal Pleks for good pieces (blue-chip prospect+), get some veterans like the Blues got in Arnott and Langenbrunner and not give a **** where the team ends up next year. Then you keep building on that.

Not sure if that's a so-called rebuild.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 08:59 PM
  #73
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 16,774
vCash: 500
As long as the next GM doesn't trade picks/prospects for veterans, and he doesn't sign average players to insane contacts like the one we gave to Gionta, then we should be fine. Just hope he won't come with the idea he can turn the team around in 2 weeks unless he can actually do it which I doubt.

E = CH² is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 09:02 PM
  #74
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 500
Let's suck for 5 years so we can choke away 3 goal leads against a team that never tanks in the playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
The vet group is actually so weak I don't think it matters who stays except for Cole, Plekanec, Gorges and Markov. Gionta was hardly making a difference before the injury, the rest are a bunch of scrubs.

I'd deal Pleks for good pieces (blue-chip prospect+), get some veterans like the Blues got in Arnott and Langenbrunner and not give a **** where the team ends up next year. Then you keep building on that.

Not sure if that's a so-called rebuild.
Well the players you listed are the "vet group" most of us talk about. Nobody is saying Darche and Bourque are our future, those are the kind of vets that are nice additions but are replaceable.

I'm curious to know an example of a blue-chip prospect you'd deal Plek for, because I hear you say that a lot. The problem with someone like Pleks is he's not going to get you say, Schenn. He's regarded as slightly under a Richards type player in this league, and the problem with that is Plek alone isn't worth a must have prospect. That and Desharnais-Eller as your top 2 Cs, especially when you only have 3 decent wingers, is horrible. Expect another 2 years in the lotto with that unless we seriously overhaul the defense.

Et le But is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 09:06 PM
  #75
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
Let's suck for 5 years so we can choke away 3 goal leads against a team that never tanks in the playoffs.
Never said to tank, but you're referring to pitts and philly. For arguments sake, which has a cup in last 5 years? 2 final appearance vs 1?

LyricalLyricist 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 09:04 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.