HFBoards

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

The Hockey News: Habs Draft 2012 = A+

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-27-2012, 08:31 PM
  #76
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I default back to Edmonton.
And this proves that you really don't know what you're talking about. Folks used to say the same thing about Pittsburgh when they had Crosby, Staal, Malkin... But you're sitting there writing off a team of 20 year old players...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Based upon their drafting position over the last few years, they should be a powerhouse by now. But they arent.
WTF are you talking about? Edmonton was in a similar situation to the Wings in the early 80s. Absolute rock bottom. The Detroit Dead Things. Same with the Pens of the 80s and the Avs and Devils. All those clubs were horrible.

The Wings started building in '83. They became a powerhouse by the early 90s but it took until late in the decade to win a cup.

The Pens started drafting high in the mid 80s and got Lemieux in '84, they were horrible until the early 90s and won a couple of cups.

The Devils had awful teams in the 80s and drafted high forever and got really good players out of it. Then they traded away a vet and landed a pick that turned into Niedermeyer. They were horrible for 8 years.

The Nordiques sucked for the late 80s and dealt away all their players like Hunter, Goulet, the Stastnys and wound up getting a bunch of picks out of it. They got Joe Sakic this way as well as others and then drafted Sundin, Lindros and Nolan who they leveraged into Forsberg and company...

All those clubs took a long time to build man. WTF do you think that Edmonton is going to just rise from nothing in the span of three years when they were so horribly bad? It doesn't work that way. It usually takes a player a few years to even make the NHL let alone be an impact player. They already have Hall, RNH, Eberle and Gagner playing pretty good hockey. That's pretty damn good. Yes, there are holes and they need big time help in the blueline and in net but they've got arguably three or four prospects/players that are better than our best guys. It's just too bad for them that they're all at forward.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 09:25 PM
  #77
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,367
vCash: 500
Lafleurs guy,

I hope you have time to comment on my analysis, the OP in the surgical thread.

I believe the reconstruction can be done quickly, with just one more season of being out of contention.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 09:28 PM
  #78
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And this proves that you really don't know what you're talking about. Folks used to say the same thing about Pittsburgh when they had Crosby, Staal, Malkin... But you're sitting there writing off a team of 20 year old players...

WTF are you talking about? Edmonton was in a similar situation to the Wings in the early 80s. Absolute rock bottom. The Detroit Dead Things. Same with the Pens of the 80s and the Avs and Devils. All those clubs were horrible.

The Wings started building in '83. They became a powerhouse by the early 90s but it took until late in the decade to win a cup.

The Pens started drafting high in the mid 80s and got Lemieux in '84, they were horrible until the early 90s and won a couple of cups.

The Devils had awful teams in the 80s and drafted high forever and got really good players out of it. Then they traded away a vet and landed a pick that turned into Niedermeyer. They were horrible for 8 years.

The Nordiques sucked for the late 80s and dealt away all their players like Hunter, Goulet, the Stastnys and wound up getting a bunch of picks out of it. They got Joe Sakic this way as well as others and then drafted Sundin, Lindros and Nolan who they leveraged into Forsberg and company...

All those clubs took a long time to build man. WTF do you think that Edmonton is going to just rise from nothing in the span of three years when they were so horribly bad? It doesn't work that way. It usually takes a player a few years to even make the NHL let alone be an impact player. They already have Hall, RNH, Eberle and Gagner playing pretty good hockey. That's pretty damn good. Yes, there are holes and they need big time help in the blueline and in net but they've got arguably three or four prospects/players that are better than our best guys. It's just too bad for them that they're all at forward.

Thanks buddy. Once again you default back to my original point with your last sentence.

Management and coaching matters more than anything else.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 11:45 PM
  #79
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Thanks buddy. Once again you default back to my original point with your last sentence.

Management and coaching matters more than anything else.
Management and coaching matter for sure. But draft position can help to mitigate poor management.

How great a coach do you have to be when you're sitting there coaching Malkin, Crosby, Staal and Fleury? It doesn't really matter. All you have to do is just keep those guys and you'll at least have a contending team. We've seen terrible management win cups despite themselves... why? Draft position. Combine draft position WITH good management and you're in really good shape. Its not one or the other... its both.

Too bad you still don't understand this.

As for Edmonton, you get the best players you can. Period. Doesn't matter if the best players are always at forward. You take Yakupov no matter what. Then you wait and see and maybe make some trades down the road. Again, not sure what it is that you think you've proven here except the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 03:55 AM
  #80
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And this proves that you really don't know what you're talking about. Folks used to say the same thing about Pittsburgh when they had Crosby, Staal, Malkin... But you're sitting there writing off a team of 20 year old players...

WTF are you talking about? Edmonton was in a similar situation to the Wings in the early 80s. Absolute rock bottom. The Detroit Dead Things. Same with the Pens of the 80s and the Avs and Devils. All those clubs were horrible.

The Wings started building in '83. They became a powerhouse by the early 90s but it took until late in the decade to win a cup.

The Pens started drafting high in the mid 80s and got Lemieux in '84, they were horrible until the early 90s and won a couple of cups.

The Devils had awful teams in the 80s and drafted high forever and got really good players out of it. Then they traded away a vet and landed a pick that turned into Niedermeyer. They were horrible for 8 years.

The Nordiques sucked for the late 80s and dealt away all their players like Hunter, Goulet, the Stastnys and wound up getting a bunch of picks out of it. They got Joe Sakic this way as well as others and then drafted Sundin, Lindros and Nolan who they leveraged into Forsberg and company...

All those clubs took a long time to build man. WTF do you think that Edmonton is going to just rise from nothing in the span of three years when they were so horribly bad? It doesn't work that way. It usually takes a player a few years to even make the NHL let alone be an impact player. They already have Hall, RNH, Eberle and Gagner playing pretty good hockey. That's pretty damn good. Yes, there are holes and they need big time help in the blueline and in net but they've got arguably three or four prospects/players that are better than our best guys. It's just too bad for them that they're all at forward.
Three or four better than Galchenyuk ? God damnit we missed good prospects then

Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 05:45 AM
  #81
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 500
I love Lafleurs Guy and his fan boys. They advocate a tanking strategy and yet give no proof of their lame brain idea.

Since the turn of the millennium we've had 12 Stanley Cup winners. Why don't we look at the top 5 prospects they landed in the years before they won the cup. I went back 15 years.

L.A. (Schenn, Doughtery, Hickey) 1
Bruins (Seguin, Kessel, Thornton) 1
Hawks (Kane, Toews, Barker) 3
Pens ((Staal, Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Whitney) 5
Wings ------------------- 0
Ducks (Ryan, Christov, Vishnevsky, Kilger, Tredevisky, Kariya) 1
Canes (Jackson, Ladd, Staal) 2
Lightning (Svitov. Lecavalier, Langkow, Gratton, Hamrlik) 1
Devils (Niedermayer, Guerin) 1
Wings (Primeau, Murphy) 1
Avanlanche (Warriner, Lindros, Nolan, Sundin) 0
Devils (-----)0

Of those 12 last Stanley Cup winners ONLY 3 teams had two or more of their top 5 picks on the team when they won.

Hawks with 3, Pens with 5, Canes with 2.

So these guys are asking us to tank on the grounds that 3 out of the last 12 Stanley Cup winners had more than one top 5 pick on their roster.

Next time you guys come up with a lame brain idea, please do some research before you decide to post.

Tanking guarantees nothing except a top pick which may or may not turn out to be of any help in winning.


Last edited by onice: 07-29-2012 at 06:09 AM.
onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 08:35 AM
  #82
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
I love Lafleurs Guy and his fan boys. They advocate a tanking strategy and yet give no proof of their lame brain idea.

Since the turn of the millennium we've had 12 Stanley Cup winners. Why don't we look at the top 5 prospects they landed in the years before they won the cup. I went back 15 years.

L.A. (Schenn, Doughtery, Hickey) 1
Bruins (Seguin, Kessel, Thornton) 1
Hawks (Kane, Toews, Barker) 3
Pens ((Staal, Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Whitney) 5
Wings ------------------- 0
Ducks (Ryan, Christov, Vishnevsky, Kilger, Tredevisky, Kariya) 1
Canes (Jackson, Ladd, Staal) 2
Lightning (Svitov. Lecavalier, Langkow, Gratton, Hamrlik) 1
Devils (Niedermayer, Guerin) 1
Wings (Primeau, Murphy) 1
Avanlanche (Warriner, Lindros, Nolan, Sundin) 0
Devils (-----)0

Of those 12 last Stanley Cup winners ONLY 3 teams had two or more of their top 5 picks on the team when they won.

Hawks with 3, Pens with 5, Canes with 2.

So these guys are asking us to tank on the grounds that 3 out of the last 12 Stanley Cup winners had more than one top 5 pick on their roster.

Next time you guys come up with a lame brain idea, please do some research before you decide to post.

Tanking guarantees nothing except a top pick which may or may not turn out to be of any help in winning.
Here's the problem in your analysis: while I'm not a fan of tanking, and I agree that you can win without tanking, what you don't mention is that Lindros, Sundin, Schenn, etc. while not being on the roster, were used as trade bait to land extremely important parts to the teams' success (Forsberg, Richards, Ozolinsh, and so on).

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 09:05 AM
  #83
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
Here's the problem in your analysis: while I'm not a fan of tanking, and I agree that you can win without tanking, what you don't mention is that Lindros, Sundin, Schenn, etc. while not being on the roster, were used as trade bait to land extremely important parts to the teams' success (Forsberg, Richards, Ozolinsh, and so on).
I knew someone would pipe in with this.

So, you proved my point. Winning involves more than just tanking and drafting. You actually have to manage - trade, sign UFAs, develop your players.

Thank you.

The Habs the past 10 years are the perfect example of why Lafleurs Guy and his minions are wrong. Timmins has had the best drafting record and yet the Habs won nothing. Why? Because we had nimrods managing the team. Drafting is one of many tools to build a team.

Tanking and picking in the top 5 means nothing if you have a GM like Columbus or the Habs had the last 10 years.

But you don't mention the other teams that won Cups and didn't have a long list of top 5 picks. Only Anaheim & the Avs had a number of top 5 picks which is what you are referring to.

What about the other 7 teams that won the Cup and didn't have a slew of top 5 picks. How do you explain them?


Last edited by onice: 07-29-2012 at 09:16 AM.
onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 09:45 AM
  #84
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
I knew someone would pipe in with this.

So, you proved my point. Winning involves more than just tanking and drafting. You actually have to manage - trade, sign UFAs, develop your players.

Thank you.

The Habs the past 10 years are the perfect example of why Lafleurs Guy and his minions are wrong. Timmins has had the best drafting record and yet the Habs won nothing. Why? Because we had nimrods managing the team. Drafting is one of many tools to build a team.

Tanking and picking in the top 5 means nothing if you have a GM like Columbus or the Habs had the last 10 years.

But you don't mention the other teams that won Cups and didn't have a long list of top 5 picks. Only Anaheim & the Avs had a number of top 5 picks which is what you are referring to.

What about the other 7 teams that won the Cup and didn't have a slew of top 5 picks. How do you explain them?
Not that I disagree with you, but you still don't get those assets without tanking. But I agree, we've been drafting well and had our assets been managed better, we would've had a much better roster now.

As for the teams that won without tanking, did you not read my post? I actually said that I think you can win without tanking. Still, I don't think I understand what you're saying. The Hawks and Pens all won directly thanks to high draft picks, while the Kings and Avs won because of pieces they acquired from trading their top picks. Meanwhile, the Devils acquired what must be their most important player via a high pick, same with the Canes who got their best forward from tanking.

Again, I still think you can win without it, but I think that stats show that tanking sometimes leads to winning. Not always.

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 11:00 AM
  #85
jwolf
Registered User
 
jwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
I knew someone would pipe in with this.

So, you proved my point. Winning involves more than just tanking and drafting. You actually have to manage - trade, sign UFAs, develop your players.

Thank you.

The Habs the past 10 years are the perfect example of why Lafleurs Guy and his minions are wrong. Timmins has had the best drafting record and yet the Habs won nothing. Why? Because we had nimrods managing the team. Drafting is one of many tools to build a team.

Tanking and picking in the top 5 means nothing if you have a GM like Columbus or the Habs had the last 10 years.

But you don't mention the other teams that won Cups and didn't have a long list of top 5 picks. Only Anaheim & the Avs had a number of top 5 picks which is what you are referring to.

What about the other 7 teams that won the Cup and didn't have a slew of top 5 picks. How do you explain them?
My sentiments exactly! Earning or acquiring a Top 5 pick is not the only thing that puts you over the hump. There are MANY factors that contribute to the success of a franchise.

Indeed a high pick is worth less in the hands of a bungling organization (Islanders, BJays, Thrashers) than, let's say, a lower pick in the hands of an organization like CHI, DET or NJD. Our Habs were crap this past year for many different reasons. Not the least of which was our ineptitude in asset management. Let's see how the new regime does in righting that ship.

jwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 11:28 AM
  #86
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Management and coaching matter for sure. But draft position can help to mitigate poor management.

How great a coach do you have to be when you're sitting there coaching Malkin, Crosby, Staal and Fleury? It doesn't really matter. All you have to do is just keep those guys and you'll at least have a contending team. We've seen terrible management win cups despite themselves... why? Draft position. Combine draft position WITH good management and you're in really good shape. Its not one or the other... its both.

Too bad you still don't understand this.

As for Edmonton, you get the best players you can. Period. Doesn't matter if the best players are always at forward. You take Yakupov no matter what. Then you wait and see and maybe make some trades down the road. Again, not sure what it is that you think you've proven here except the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about.
There are two glaring (more, but I will focus on two right now) examples staring you in the face that dispute what you are saying.

1. Columbus. An average of pick #5 in the first round for 12 years. And still a lottery team. Management problems? Yes. Drafting position problem? No.

2. Boston. Only FIVE (5) top ten 1st round draft picks since 2000. Here they are........

2000 Lars Jonsson (#7) -- Not on Stanley Cup winning team.
2006 Phil Kessel (#5) -- Not on Stanley Cup winning team.
2007 Zach Hamill (#8) -- On roster. Had one point all season.
2010 Tyler Seguin (#2) -- Played on Stanley Cup winning team. Seven points in the playoffs. A non-factor.
2011 Dougie Hamilton (#9) -- Did not play in NHL.

So how did Boston win the Cup?

They won with their 2nd and 3rd round players....Krejchi, Bergeron, Lucic, Marchand stepping up their game. They won with their trades and acqusitions......Horton, Ryder, Recchi, Kelly, Peverly, Paille, Campbell AND Tim Thomas stepping up their game.

Sorry man. You have been exposed to Gainey and Gauthier for so long that you have forgotten that a shrewd and savvy General Manager can build a Stanley Cup winning team without the idiotic notion of tanking and/or relying soley upon draft position.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 11:32 AM
  #87
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
Not that I disagree with you, but you still don't get those assets without tanking. But I agree, we've been drafting well and had our assets been managed better, we would've had a much better roster now.

As for the teams that won without tanking, did you not read my post? I actually said that I think you can win without tanking. Still, I don't think I understand what you're saying. The Hawks and Pens all won directly thanks to high draft picks, while the Kings and Avs won because of pieces they acquired from trading their top picks. Meanwhile, the Devils acquired what must be their most important player via a high pick, same with the Canes who got their best forward from tanking.

Again, I still think you can win without it, but I think that stats show that tanking sometimes leads to winning. Not always.


What I highlighted in your post is the all time FAIL award winner at HF Boards.

You were a Gauthier fan, right?

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 12:06 PM
  #88
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
This whole thread is a bucket full of correlation does not imply causation.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 12:26 PM
  #89
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uwey View Post
LA finished 8th in their conference, just sayin'!!!
lol

Did you actually follow hockey this season or did you only pick it up during the playoffs?

LAs third line center is probably better than our first line center.

They struggled throughout the season but were significantly better after the coaching change. That's the only reason they fell to 8th.

WeeBey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 12:29 PM
  #90
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
lol

Did you actually follow hockey this season or did you only pick it up during the playoffs?

LAs third line center is probably better than our first line center.

They struggled throughout the season but were significantly better after the coaching change. That's the only reason they fell to 8th.
The interesting thing is,

New Jersey finishing 6th is actually the example they should be using. New Jersey didn't finish so low in the standings because of bad luck, like LA. They finished low because they're not that good. And they went to game 6 in the finals.

They're the true example of a Cinderella run.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 12:33 PM
  #91
Beendair Donedat
Registered User
 
Beendair Donedat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
There are two glaring (more, but I will focus on two right now) examples staring you in the face that dispute what you are saying.

1. Columbus. An average of pick #5 in the first round for 12 years. And still a lottery team. Management problems? Yes. Drafting position problem? No.

2. Boston. Only FIVE (5) top ten 1st round draft picks since 2000. Here they are........

2000 Lars Jonsson (#7) -- Not on Stanley Cup winning team.
2006 Phil Kessel (#5) -- Not on Stanley Cup winning team.
2007 Zach Hamill (#8) -- On roster. Had one point all season.
2010 Tyler Seguin (#2) -- Played on Stanley Cup winning team. Seven points in the playoffs. A non-factor.
2011 Dougie Hamilton (#9) -- Did not play in NHL.

So how did Boston win the Cup?

They won with their 2nd and 3rd round players....Krejchi, Bergeron, Lucic, Marchand stepping up their game. They won with their trades and acqusitions......Horton, Ryder, Recchi, Kelly, Peverly, Paille, Campbell AND Tim Thomas stepping up their game.

Sorry man. You have been exposed to Gainey and Gauthier for so long that you have forgotten that a shrewd and savvy General Manager can build a Stanley Cup winning team without the idiotic notion of tanking and/or relying soley upon draft position.
Not to nitpick, but Seguin was a rookie who didn't play the first two rounds. Only came in when Bergeron was hurt.

After being a healthy scratch for the first two rounds of the 2011 NHL Playoffs, Seguin was put into the lineup to start round 3, after Patrice Bergeron sustained a mild concussion. Seguin scored a goal and added an assist in his first game, and followed that up with 2 goals and 2 assists in the second. He became the first teenager to score 4 points in a NHL playoff game since Trevor Linden in 1989. On June 15, 2011, the Boston Bruins captured the Stanley Cup, winning the series 4-3, and 4-0 in Game 7.

I'd say he was a factor.

Beendair Donedat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 12:58 PM
  #92
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post


What I highlighted in your post is the all time FAIL award winner at HF Boards.

You were a Gauthier fan, right?
I have no idea why you feel the need to be so antagonistic, but I'm not going to put too much importance in what you said. Let's try to get this conversation back on track instead of using emoticons and insults as come backs.

Here's what was said, that you don't seem to be paying attention to:

Someone claimed that we should tank.

Someone else claimed that tanking is pointless, because most past winners didn't win with their high picks in the line-up.

I said that this was a false statement, because those picks might not have been in the line-up but they still were used in order to acquire other crucial elements to the cup run.

That person replied that this was his point, that good management comes first.

I said that without those high picks acquired via terrible seasons (call it tanking if you will), acquiring the Forsbergs and Richards wouldn't have happened.

Care to point where I'm wrong or where I made any claim that Gauthier was a good GM?

Even teams like Detroit (Yzerman--in their 90s run of course) and the Devils (Nieds) won with high picks in their line-up. Sure, teams like Boston and the later Detroit team won without any of those high picks. But they seem to be more of an exception rather than a standard. Winning the cup doesn't rely solely on one factor, but to brush off the contribution of top-end draft picks and whatever return they yielded is silly.

You wanna argue that good management is important? No ****. I'm not going to debate you. Of course it is. Whether you tank or not. We could split into a bunch of different arguments while we're at it and talk about development, health, the moon cycles and refereeing.

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 01:04 PM
  #93
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beendair Donedat View Post
Not to nitpick, but Seguin was a rookie who didn't play the first two rounds. Only came in when Bergeron was hurt.

After being a healthy scratch for the first two rounds of the 2011 NHL Playoffs, Seguin was put into the lineup to start round 3, after Patrice Bergeron sustained a mild concussion. Seguin scored a goal and added an assist in his first game, and followed that up with 2 goals and 2 assists in the second. He became the first teenager to score 4 points in a NHL playoff game since Trevor Linden in 1989. On June 15, 2011, the Boston Bruins captured the Stanley Cup, winning the series 4-3, and 4-0 in Game 7.

I'd say he was a factor.
Every player contributed to the Bruins winning the Stanley Cup. That's why they won. They played as a unified team. One can also make the argument that Shawn Thornton was a factor.

So you are right that I was wrong to state that "he was not a factor". I probably should have stated that he was not the main reason that the Bruins won the Cup.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 01:12 PM
  #94
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
I have no idea why you feel the need to be so antagonistic, but I'm not going to put too much importance in what you said. Let's try to get this conversation back on track instead of using emoticons and insults as come backs.

Here's what was said, that you don't seem to be paying attention to:

Someone claimed that we should tank.

Someone else claimed that tanking is pointless, because most past winners didn't win with their high picks in the line-up.

I said that this was a false statement, because those picks might not have been in the line-up but they still were used in order to acquire other crucial elements to the cup run.

That person replied that this was his point, that good management comes first.

I said that without those high picks acquired via terrible seasons (call it tanking if you will), acquiring the Forsbergs and Richards wouldn't have happened.

Care to point where I'm wrong or where I made any claim that Gauthier was a good GM?

Even teams like Detroit (Yzerman--in their 90s run of course) and the Devils (Nieds) won with high picks in their line-up. Sure, teams like Boston and the later Detroit team won without any of those high picks. But they seem to be more of an exception rather than a standard. Winning the cup doesn't rely solely on one factor, but to brush off the contribution of top-end draft picks and whatever return they yielded is silly.

You wanna argue that good management is important? No ****. I'm not going to debate you. Of course it is. Whether you tank or not. We could split into a bunch of different arguments while we're at it and talk about development, health, the moon cycles and refereeing.
My apologies to you if you thought that was over the top.

Losing to win is a loser's belief. Columbus proves that. Yes, high first round draft picks have been traded for assets that are helpful to a team. Happens all the time.

The point is that Columbus has not been able to make losing pay because of poor management. Edmonton is still years away from making losing pay. Boston took a different approach and did not rely on losing like some are suggesting to create a successful team.

Draft picks are important. What management does with those draft picks in subsequent years is the most important piece of the puzzle. And that piece of the puzzle in Montreal is why we are in the position we are in now. We have been a team led by excruciatingly inept management for too long.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 01:13 PM
  #95
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
This whole thread is a bucket full of correlation does not imply causation.
Well chime in and offer your wisdom.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 02:36 PM
  #96
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
What a lot of tanking fans fail to understand is that the difference between a top-5 and a top-20 pick is not important enough to justify tanking. Sure, you can bring out stats about the laws of averages for a top-5 pick to have slightly better chances at becoming a star player but year in, year out, there are players drafted in the top-5 that do not have the success of others drafted later. Tanking doesn't build a winning team... It only gives you one player with a slightly better chance of being an impact player. That's it , that's all.

Fozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 02:58 PM
  #97
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post


Even teams like Detroit (Yzerman--in their 90s run of course) and the Devils (Nieds) won with high picks in their line-up. Sure, teams like Boston and the later Detroit team won without any of those high picks. But they seem to be more of an exception rather than a standard. .
That's where you're wrong. Most teams won the Cup without a large slew of top 5 picks - whether they held onto them or not. Many of the winners didn't have them in the first place.

Look at LA for example. The only player who was of consequence was Doughtery. Hickey wasn't around and Schenn was TRADED for a player selected at a LOWER draft pick which contradicts the idea of stacking up on higher draft picks.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 03:00 PM
  #98
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Look at LA for example. The only player who was of consequence was Doughtery. Hickey wasn't around and Schenn was TRADED for a player selected at a LOWER draft pick which contradicts the idea of stacking up on higher draft picks.
1) No Doughty, no cup.
2) They can't get Richards if they don't have Schenn.
3) Kopitar was drafted 11th. That's not top-5 but it's pretty high.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 03:13 PM
  #99
Beendair Donedat
Registered User
 
Beendair Donedat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,657
vCash: 500
I think pointing to teams like New Jersey and Detroit as teams that didn't use the draft as a tool to build from tanking Is flawed. Those teams were both horrible and drafted franchise players that they signed and built teams around them... Detroit got guys like Yzerman and Lidstrom (first and third round) and built teams around those cornerstones... New Jersey drafted guys like Brendan Shanahan, Martin Brodeur, and Niedermayer... Shanahan eventually went to St Louis for the Stevens RFA fiasco... So now you have two of the best defensemen of all time and the winningest goaltender ever.... They held on to those pieces and built around them.

The problem with the Habs is that we've had the talent but we haven't evaluated it correctly. Patrick Roy AND Mike Keane for spare parts??? John Leclair AND Eric Desjardins for Recchi? Chelios for Savard? Guys like Souray, Koivu, Komisarek all having value and walking. Chris Higgins, Latendresse, Lapierre, Sergei Kostitsyn, Grabovski, Cammelleri all run out of town... And you wonder why Montreal doesn't attract free agents?

Truth be told we have to use the draft... Our history of mismanagement and incompetence... Of winning "now" and not building a foundation is what is killing this franchise. We restocked the cupboards nicely this draft but there are still many holes to fill... The team we have now isn't good enough to compete, so when we are out of it at the deadline... Sell and sell hard. Rebuild from the ashes and develop with franchise draftees and add complementary pieces through free agency and trades.

Sorry for the rant.

Beendair Donedat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 03:26 PM
  #100
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beendair Donedat View Post
I think pointing to teams like New Jersey and Detroit as teams that didn't use the draft as a tool to build from tanking Is flawed. Those teams were both horrible and drafted franchise players that they signed and built teams around them... Detroit got guys like Yzerman and Lidstrom (first and third round) and built teams around those cornerstones... New Jersey drafted guys like Brendan Shanahan, Martin Brodeur, and Niedermayer... Shanahan eventually went to St Louis for the Stevens RFA fiasco... So now you have two of the best defensemen of all time and the winningest goaltender ever.... They held on to those pieces and built around them.

The problem with the Habs is that we've had the talent but we haven't evaluated it correctly. Patrick Roy AND Mike Keane for spare parts??? John Leclair AND Eric Desjardins for Recchi? Chelios for Savard? Guys like Souray, Koivu, Komisarek all having value and walking. Chris Higgins, Latendresse, Lapierre, Sergei Kostitsyn, Grabovski, Cammelleri all run out of town... And you wonder why Montreal doesn't attract free agents?

Truth be told we have to use the draft... Our history of mismanagement and incompetence... Of winning "now" and not building a foundation is what is killing this franchise. We restocked the cupboards nicely this draft but there are still many holes to fill... The team we have now isn't good enough to compete, so when we are out of it at the deadline... Sell and sell hard. Rebuild from the ashes and develop with franchise draftees and add complementary pieces through free agency and trades.

Sorry for the rant.
Of course we have to use the draft. That's not the point. The point is a team doesn't have to tank and improve it's draft rank to succeed.

By the way, Montreal attract free agents and if there is something that might make them think twice, it's the taxes. Nothing else.

Fozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 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.