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

The case for a 1-year surgical tank for the Habs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-30-2012, 09:44 AM
  #326
Paul Dipietro
Registered User
 
Paul Dipietro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'm putting the reflexive anti-tankers on the spot.

Of course the 9th place bit doesn't really matter. If you want to do that trade, it should not matter if you're 2 points in front of 9th or 2 points behind 8th. Once you do that trade it means you're willing to deliberately put a weaker team on the ice in the short-term (i.e. lose more games), reducing your odds of "winning now" if one defines "winning now" as mimicking the 2011-2012 Ottawa Senators, in order to improve the long-term prospects of your franchise.

People who are not obsessed with euphemisms call that "tanking".
Not sure it's fair to try and make your point using players most fans want out at all costs

Paul Dipietro is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 09:47 AM
  #327
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Why wait for the deadline to make that deal? I'd make that deal today.
Because one could argue that we have done the right amount of selling as of this month. I understand your philosophy and I'm mostly with it. However, I believe that some of these vets you are ready to trade(as I am) could on the flip side become pivotal.

I think we need to get rid of the players we don't see in our medium term first(Gomez, Bourque, Kaberle: main asset back = cap space) before deciding of the fate of those that could fit there(Gionta -Plekanec - Markov - Cole).

I'm for trading Gionta right now, 50-50% on Pleks, Markov I will need until deadline to know, since he might be able to play until he's 40, at a near elite level and a fair cap hit. Cole can stay as long as he can score 20 and play physically.

I want to trade Gionta because he still has value and:

1) Is too small to fit long term at his career stage. Make no mistake, Bergevin and Duddley will make this team bigger and meaner. Gallagher is the same type of player, but he will be much younger and fresh; that's fine...as long as he can produce 40 pts +

2) is not the captain we need(he's not part of Price's sub-group), can we make Gorges captain yet?

3) Seems to have little chemistry with our current centers, it's not working well and we can't wait for Galchenyuk to see if there's magic there...unless...Galchenyuk surprises. I don't want to play Gionta bottom 6 and see his value plummet.

SOLR is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 10:17 AM
  #328
jwolf
Registered User
 
jwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
Because one could argue that we have done the right amount of selling as of this month. I understand your philosophy and I'm mostly with it. However, I believe that some of these vets you are ready to trade(as I am) could on the flip side become pivotal.

I think we need to get rid of the players we don't see in our medium term first(Gomez, Bourque, Kaberle: main asset back = cap space) before deciding of the fate of those that could fit there(Gionta -Plekanec - Markov - Cole).

I'm for trading Gionta right now, 50-50% on Pleks, Markov I will need until deadline to know, since he might be able to play until he's 40, at a near elite level and a fair cap hit. Cole can stay as long as he can score 20 and play physically.

I want to trade Gionta because he still has value and:

1) Is too small to fit long term at his career stage. Make no mistake, Bergevin and Duddley will make this team bigger and meaner. Gallagher is the same type of player, but he will be much younger and fresh; that's fine...as long as he can produce 40 pts +

2) is not the captain we need(he's not part of Price's sub-group), can we make Gorges captain yet?

3) Seems to have little chemistry with our current centers, it's not working well and we can't wait for Galchenyuk to see if there's magic there...unless...Galchenyuk surprises. I don't want to play Gionta bottom 6 and see his value plummet.
I don't see MB getting any sort of decent return on Gionta. An undersized, 33 year-old who's been banged up in recent years won't attract a lot of attention on the trade market.

I think he plays out his contract. As the incumbent captain and consistent 20+ goal scorer, I think he's worth more to us on the ice than what he could yield if dangled.

jwolf is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 10:23 AM
  #329
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,206
vCash: 500
The Habs already have prospects in the pipe line. They will have more regardless of where they finish in 2012-13. Preferably they'd make the playoffs and advance. I'd hold on to players who can contribute for the next 3-4 years. It's been suggested that the Habs get rid rid of Gionta as soon as possible because he's not a capable captain [What's this based on?] and too small [Unfortunately, he can't add height]. Aside from Leblanc, the Habs are short of RWs who shoot right. Gionta is fast and determined. He fits a lot better than somer of his short predecessors, notably Samsonov. AS for trading him, Gionta's salary and age are potential impediments to getting anything worthwhile in return. While I recognize that the Habs could use more size I would wait on dumping him until he can be replaced adequately.

I'd leave the personnel decisions to Bergevin. I judge him not to harbor lemming-like instincts and he has to report to owners who might not be comfortable with another 28th-place finish. Gauthier was fired despite the fact that the team's lowly finish enabled them to draft Galchenyuk and Collberg.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 10:24 AM
  #330
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
bsl, thank you for your posts.

I wonder if part of the reason for our positioning is our geography. You have been in Hong Kong for 15 years. I've been in Columbus for 5 years (where I've witnessed the damage of obsessing over 8th place), and I'm taking 4-year contract in Australia beginning in September. Due to our distance, we are outside of the bubble and can more easily take the sober approach that a 1st round playoff exit is meaningless.

A lot of people in this thread have thrown out the slogan that they have a winning mentality. They pointed to the 2011-2012 senators as an example of success. I like to think I have a winning mentality, and I consider the 2011-2012 Ottawa Senators a failure. IMO, they did no better than Buffalo or Colorado. Yes they made the playoffs, but they were tourists in the playoffs, they didn't make any noise, and they weren't going to.
Your argument is intelligent and reasonable. I agree with it. And I will say so. Many do not agree with it, and no worries, that's why this board is fun.

I think the split on this board, and I've mentioned it before, is between those who have seen the great Habs teams, live, and those who have not.

Cups are the only thing for every single Habs fan over 40. The only thing. It's a bugger on this board because it pits us against loyal young fans, who deserve better.

That is NOT to criticize younger fans. Thank god they are passionate. Every guy on this board loves the Habs, and they have as much right to post here as we do.

Geography plays a part I think. I have not thought of that before. Interesting. It is true that my distance gives me some calm and perspective. It's tough to be embroiled in the Habs every day in Montreal!

The year after year progression of Habs to cups in spring was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. The problem may be that younger fans don't know how wonderful this feeling is.

They will see!

PS: Good luck in Aussie! Stay in touch with us. And get used to watching Habs games at work, 9 AM. It's a bugger.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
Because one could argue that we have done the right amount of selling as of this month. I understand your philosophy and I'm mostly with it. However, I believe that some of these vets you are ready to trade(as I am) could on the flip side become pivotal.

I think we need to get rid of the players we don't see in our medium term first(Gomez, Bourque, Kaberle: main asset back = cap space) before deciding of the fate of those that could fit there(Gionta -Plekanec - Markov - Cole).

I'm for trading Gionta right now, 50-50% on Pleks, Markov I will need until deadline to know, since he might be able to play until he's 40, at a near elite level and a fair cap hit. Cole can stay as long as he can score 20 and play physically.

I want to trade Gionta because he still has value and:

1) Is too small to fit long term at his career stage. Make no mistake, Bergevin and Duddley will make this team bigger and meaner. Gallagher is the same type of player, but he will be much younger and fresh; that's fine...as long as he can produce 40 pts +

2) is not the captain we need(he's not part of Price's sub-group), can we make Gorges captain yet?

3) Seems to have little chemistry with our current centers, it's not working well and we can't wait for Galchenyuk to see if there's magic there...unless...Galchenyuk surprises. I don't want to play Gionta bottom 6 and see his value plummet.
I buy your arguments. Not happening.

The way we treated Saku was bad enough. Gionta is the Captain of the Montreal Canadiens. One of the ten or so most important positions in world sports. Live with it for one or two more years.


Last edited by bsl: 07-30-2012 at 10:32 AM.
bsl is online now  
Old
07-30-2012, 10:29 AM
  #331
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,206
vCash: 500
The Habs already have prospects in the pipeline. They will have more regardless of where they finish in 2012-13. Preferably they'd make the playoffs and advance. I'd hold on to players who can contribute for the next 3-4 years. It's been suggested that the Habs get rid rid of Gionta as soon as possible because he's not a capable captain [What's this based on?] and too small [Unfortunately, he can't add height]. Aside from Leblanc, the Habs lack RWs who shoot right. Gionta is fast and determined. He fits a lot better than somer of his short predecessors, notably Samsonov. As for trading him, Gionta's salary and age are potential impediments to getting anything worthwhile in return. While I recognize that the Habs could use size I would wait on dumping him until he can be replaced adequately.

I'd leave the personnel decisions to Bergevin. I judge him not to harbor lemming-like instincts and he has to report to owners who might not be comfortable with another 28th-place finish. Gauthier was fired despite the fact that the team's lowly finish enabled them to draft Galchenyuk and Collberg.


Last edited by Teufelsdreck: 07-30-2012 at 10:36 AM. Reason: misspellings
Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 10:30 AM
  #332
Jakomyte
Registered User
 
Jakomyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,116
vCash: 500
The problem with this theory is that, considering the parity that exists in the league, no team should go into a season thinking "We are going to tank this year", and I doubt that any professional athlete is in that state of mind. Now, if a team has a really crappy first third or half of a season, then management can start to decide whether they want to part with current assets to plan for future seasons. However, the time to make such a decision is not now.

Last year is a good example. The Habs weren't pegged to be at the bottom of the league, but when it was clear around December/January that we likely would miss the playoffs, some moves were made (Cammy, Kostitsyn, Gill) to help plan for the future.

Why don't we wait to see what this team can do before a preemptive 'surgical' tank. Health, chemistry and confidence can go a long way in this league.

Jakomyte is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 10:33 AM
  #333
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,206
vCash: 500
Yes, wait. I think it would be worthwhile to see how the team performs when healthy before radical surgery is performed .


Last edited by Teufelsdreck: 07-30-2012 at 10:39 AM.
Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 11:06 AM
  #334
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
The problem with this theory is that, considering the parity that exists in the league, no team should go into a season thinking "We are going to tank this year", and I doubt that any professional athlete is in that state of mind. Now, if a team has a really crappy first third or half of a season, then management can start to decide whether they want to part with current assets to plan for future seasons. However, the time to make such a decision is not now.

Last year is a good example. The Habs weren't pegged to be at the bottom of the league, but when it was clear around December/January that we likely would miss the playoffs, some moves were made (Cammy, Kostitsyn, Gill) to help plan for the future.

Why don't we wait to see what this team can do before a preemptive 'surgical' tank. Health, chemistry and confidence can go a long way in this league.
In most things in life it is to better to plan, to be active, than to simply be reactive.

The problem with trying to compete every year when starting from a position of weakness, where "compete" is defined by the low bar of making the playoffs, is that you are at an extremely high risk of ending up like Toronto, Edmonton, and Calgary. You end up regressing a little bit every year, a slow painful death, because your core is getting older, slowly, and you're not replacing them with enough youth. Once you fall into tankdom by that route, you're no longer discussing 1-year surgical tanks. You're trapped into thinking about 5-year rebuilds like those teams did or will do, and you have little control over your destiny.

This season is already a wash for me. We're not competing for the cup. Period. I don't care if we make the playoffs and lose in the 1st round -- that has no value whatsoever.

It's important to identify the difference between planning ahead and reacting to a weak position. Here are some:
- Budaj plays for 20-25 games rather than 10. Actually, Price should never play 70 games imo, it's bad strategy to burn out your star.
- Bourque, Gomez, Kaberle are given privileged minutes to try and maximize their trade value. Under no circumstance do you do this if you're trying to claw your way to 8th place. Putting Gomez and Bourque on the power play is a rebuilding/tanking move.
- Once the inevitable injuries happen on defense, do not go out and trade away 2nd rounder, 4th rounder, etc to patch the hole. You first try and use Hamilton cal-ups. If Subban goes down for 30 games, do not trade a 1st rounder to New Jersey for Marek Zidlicky (or whatever), which is what you do if you buy into the theory of league parity and that simply making the playoffs qualifies you as a "winner". First give a 5-game callup to Beaulieu, then 5 games to Tinordi, then 5 games to Weber, then 5 games to Ellis, etc. It will help their long-term development, even though it wil almost certainly cost the team games as these players are not ready. They'll have to be sheltered in their call-ups. The end effect will be to increase their motivation for when they return to Hamilton.

Finally, I wish to call BS on the slogan of "league parity". There is a massive gulf between teams like the New York Rangers, Los Angeles Kings, Vancouver Canucks, Pittsburgh Penguins at the top and teams like the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs and Columbus Blue Jackets at the bottom.


Last edited by DAChampion: 07-30-2012 at 11:13 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 11:29 AM
  #335
Jakomyte
Registered User
 
Jakomyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
In most things in life it is to better to plan, to be active, than to simply be reactive.

The problem with trying to compete every year when starting from a position of weakness, where "compete" is defined by the low bar of making the playoffs, is that you are at an extremely high risk of ending up like Toronto, Edmonton, and Calgary. You end up regressing a little bit every year, a slow painful death, because your core is getting older, slowly, and you're not replacing them with enough youth. Once you fall into tankdom by that route, you're no longer discussing 1-year surgical tanks. You're trapped into thinking about 5-year rebuilds like those teams did or will do, and you have little control over your destiny.

This season is already a wash for me. We're not competing for the cup. Period. I don't care if we make the playoffs and lose in the 1st round -- that has no value whatsoever.

It's important to identify the difference between planning ahead and reacting to a weak position. Here are some:
- Budaj plays for 20-25 games rather than 10. Actually, Price should never play 70 games imo, it's bad strategy to burn out your star.
- Bourque, Gomez, Kaberle are given privileged minutes to try and maximize their trade value. Under no circumstance do you do this if you're trying to claw your way to 8th place. Putting Gomez and Bourque on the power play is a rebuilding/tanking move.
- Once the inevitable injuries happen on defense, do not go out and trade away 2nd rounder, 4th rounder, etc to patch the hole. You first try and use Hamilton cal-ups. If Subban goes down for 30 games, do not trade a 1st rounder to New Jersey for Marek Zidlicky (or whatever), which is what you do if you buy into the theory of league parity and that simply making the playoffs qualifies you as a "winner". First give a 5-game callup to Beaulieu, then 5 games to Tinordi, then 5 games to Weber, then 5 games to Ellis, etc. It will help their long-term development, even though it wil almost certainly cost the team games as these players are not ready. They'll have to be sheltered in their call-ups. The end effect will be to increase their motivation for when they return to Hamilton.

Finally, I wish to call BS on the slogan of "league parity". There is a massive gulf between teams like the New York Rangers, Los Angeles Kings, Vancouver Canucks, Pittsburgh Penguins at the top and teams like the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs and Columbus Blue Jackets at the bottom.
There are two major holes in your argument:

1) This '1-year tank' you are talking about gives absolutely no guarantee of short-, mid-, or long-term improvement. Just ask teams like Edmonton, Columbus, NYI, etc. that have been at or near the bottom of the league forever. I'm sure their fanbases would kill for their team to have a successful season, even if they don't win the cup. There are just as many examples of cup contenders that did not require a series of high draft picks (Detroit, Boston, Philly, NYR, Vancouver) as their are those that succeeded because of their high-pick talent (Pittsburgh, Chicago).

2) The Montreal Canadiens are a business, period. You can talk all you want about your strategy will help us win the cup (no proof of that at all), but every single home game, 21,273 fans come to the Bell Centre and want their team to win. Believe it or not, the majority of fans probably don't think about hockey in terms of managerial moves that can help in 5 years (i.e. the HFboards fan), but in terms of "GO HABS, WIN THE GAME!!" The management of the team has the responsibility of providing the best entertainment product available, game in, game out, regardless of whether their team is a 'contender' this year, in order to satisfy fans, and justify the price of their product. I certainly paid less attention to the Habs during the latter half of last season, because the games they played didn't matter. Also, there's no way an NHL coach will play his backup goalie ahead of his starting goalie just to reduce the chance of winning, that is ridiculous! You can call me a bad fan, or say "but you missed watching player X develop!", but ultimately I got siginificantly more entertainment value out of the 2009-2010 team that made the conference finals, even if some look back and say they were a fluke/outmatched.

Jakomyte is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 11:42 AM
  #336
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,779
vCash: 500
07-08 season was also a lot of fun. The city was bustling with Hockey Fervor starting the 19th of February, after the 6-5 rally against the Rangers.

Fluke year? Maybe. We nevertheless built more goodwill in that season than in the 10 previous years combined.

PricePkPatch is online now  
Old
07-30-2012, 11:59 AM
  #337
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
The Habs already have prospects in the pipe line. They will have more regardless of where they finish in 2012-13. Preferably they'd make the playoffs and advance.
Advance to what? A 2nd round exit?

It would be nice if Subban and Max and Price have great years and advance in their development. If they get us to the playoffs, that's great. But we'd actually be better off in the long run with another top pick.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I'd hold on to players who can contribute for the next 3-4 years. It's been suggested that the Habs get rid rid of Gionta as soon as possible because he's not a capable captain [What's this based on?] and too small [Unfortunately, he can't add height]. Aside from Leblanc, the Habs are short of RWs who shoot right. Gionta is fast and determined. He fits a lot better than somer of his short predecessors, notably Samsonov. AS for trading him, Gionta's salary and age are potential impediments to getting anything worthwhile in return. While I recognize that the Habs could use more size I would wait on dumping him until he can be replaced adequately.
I think we should get rid of Gionta for sure. Not sure who said he's not a capable captain but - it really doesn't matter whether he is or not. Bottom line is that we should be trying to win cups and he's not going to help get us one. He can help teams who are contenders but we aren't there. We're wasting him just like we're wasting Pleks and Markov. They'd be better off somewhere else and in the long run we'd be better off with getting returns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I'd leave the personnel decisions to Bergevin.
Well... we don't really have a choice now do we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I judge him not to harbor lemming-like instincts and he has to report to owners who might not be comfortable with another 28th-place finish. Gauthier was fired despite the fact that the team's lowly finish enabled them to draft Galchenyuk and Collberg.
Getting Galchenyuk was great. Unfortunately Guathier tied us to silly contracts all the way down. Instead of rebuilding like he should've he tied us to Bourque and Kaberle. If Bergeron does the same thing he should be fired too.

If he deals vets for prospects though and we finish in the bottom three, he should be applauded not villified.

Big difference.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 12:18 PM
  #338
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
There are two major holes in your argument:

1) This '1-year tank' you are talking about gives absolutely no guarantee of short-, mid-, or long-term improvement.
So what? There's no guarantee no matter what you do... that doesn't mean that rebuidling doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
Just ask teams like Edmonton, Columbus, NYI, etc. that have been at or near the bottom of the league forever.
Just ask Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey and Pittsburgh - all won multiple cups rebuilding.

Edmonton has a bunch of 20 year old in their lineup. Way too soon to write them off. Columbus is a terribly managed team who have destroyed prospects. Steve Mason is exhibit A, the latest ripoff of Nash is exhibit X. And the Islanders traded away the following prospects who could've formed the nuclueus of cup winning teams to this day: Luongo, Chara, Spezza, Jokinen, McCabe, Bertuzzi... as well as others. If anything the Islanders are the classic example as to why avoiding rebuilding is a disastrous idea.

Top picks only mean anything if you aren't ruining them or trading them away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
I'm sure their fanbases would kill for their team to have a successful season, even if they don't win the cup. There are just as many examples of cup contenders that did not require a series of high draft picks (Detroit, Boston, Philly, NYR, Vancouver) as their are those that succeeded because of their high-pick talent (Pittsburgh, Chicago).
Vancouver has the Sedins. Boston has Seguin and Rask who they ripped off from Toronto. Philly actually just traded for a bunch of propsects to build with. Detroit is actually going to be a pretty poor team going forward as they haven't had top picks in years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
2) The Montreal Canadiens are a business, period. You can talk all you want about your strategy will help us win the cup (no proof of that at all), but every single home game, 21,273 fans come to the Bell Centre and want their team to win. Believe it or not, the majority of fans probably don't think about hockey in terms of managerial moves that can help in 5 years (i.e. the HFboards fan), but in terms of "GO HABS, WIN THE GAME!!" The management of the team has the responsibility of providing the best entertainment product available, game in, game out, regardless of whether their team is a 'contender' this year, in order to satisfy fans, and justify the price of their product.
So management has to make short term moves designed for today? That's the most shortsighted thing I've ever heard.

You have things backwards man. It's not management's responsibility to do this, that responsibility rests with the players and coaches. They're the ones who have to go out and give 100% effort every night to win. They are the soldiers trying to take the hill.

The GM is the general. His job is to win the war. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a battle to win the war. And we haven't been willing to do this for years and it's why we are where we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
I certainly paid less attention to the Habs during the latter half of last season, because the games they played didn't matter. Also, there's no way an NHL coach will play his backup goalie ahead of his starting goalie just to reduce the chance of winning, that is ridiculous! You can call me a bad fan, or say "but you missed watching player X develop!", but ultimately I got siginificantly more entertainment value out of the 2009-2010 team that made the conference finals, even if some look back and say they were a fluke/outmatched.
And yet here you are, still following the team. Still writing on their message boards. You're telling me that if the Habs lose for another season everyone's going away? What a load of crap that is.

Fact is that the team will sell out no matter what. The owners will make money no matter what. This pathetic argument about the sky falling if we lose is laughable. If that was the case, we'd have seen the team fold somwhere over the last 20 pathetic years we've seen from the team.

You don't like the idea of a rebuild? That's fine. Deliberately tanking is unethical and the team would never do it? I agree there too. But to suggest that the club is going to lose it's fan base if we lose for a couple of years is nothing more than grasping at straws to try to support the fact that you don't want to see the team rebuild. It does nothing but make you look silly. I read it time and again and it's nothing but BS.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 12:23 PM
  #339
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
Because one could argue that we have done the right amount of selling as of this month. I understand your philosophy and I'm mostly with it. However, I believe that some of these vets you are ready to trade(as I am) could on the flip side become pivotal.

I think we need to get rid of the players we don't see in our medium term first(Gomez, Bourque, Kaberle: main asset back = cap space) before deciding of the fate of those that could fit there(Gionta -Plekanec - Markov - Cole).

I'm for trading Gionta right now, 50-50% on Pleks, Markov I will need until deadline to know, since he might be able to play until he's 40, at a near elite level and a fair cap hit. Cole can stay as long as he can score 20 and play physically.

I want to trade Gionta because he still has value and:

1) Is too small to fit long term at his career stage. Make no mistake, Bergevin and Duddley will make this team bigger and meaner. Gallagher is the same type of player, but he will be much younger and fresh; that's fine...as long as he can produce 40 pts +

2) is not the captain we need(he's not part of Price's sub-group), can we make Gorges captain yet?

3) Seems to have little chemistry with our current centers, it's not working well and we can't wait for Galchenyuk to see if there's magic there...unless...Galchenyuk surprises. I don't want to play Gionta bottom 6 and see his value plummet.
If somebody offers us a 2nd rounder for Kaberle... you take it. You don't wait. You make the trade and count your blessings.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 12:27 PM
  #340
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
In most things in life it is to better to plan, to be active, than to simply be reactive.

The problem with trying to compete every year when starting from a position of weakness, where "compete" is defined by the low bar of making the playoffs, is that you are at an extremely high risk of ending up like Toronto, Edmonton, and Calgary. You end up regressing a little bit every year, a slow painful death, because your core is getting older, slowly, and you're not replacing them with enough youth. Once you fall into tankdom by that route, you're no longer discussing 1-year surgical tanks. You're trapped into thinking about 5-year rebuilds like those teams did or will do, and you have little control over your destiny.

This season is already a wash for me. We're not competing for the cup. Period. I don't care if we make the playoffs and lose in the 1st round -- that has no value whatsoever.

It's important to identify the difference between planning ahead and reacting to a weak position. Here are some:
- Budaj plays for 20-25 games rather than 10. Actually, Price should never play 70 games imo, it's bad strategy to burn out your star.
- Bourque, Gomez, Kaberle are given privileged minutes to try and maximize their trade value. Under no circumstance do you do this if you're trying to claw your way to 8th place. Putting Gomez and Bourque on the power play is a rebuilding/tanking move.
- Once the inevitable injuries happen on defense, do not go out and trade away 2nd rounder, 4th rounder, etc to patch the hole. You first try and use Hamilton cal-ups. If Subban goes down for 30 games, do not trade a 1st rounder to New Jersey for Marek Zidlicky (or whatever), which is what you do if you buy into the theory of league parity and that simply making the playoffs qualifies you as a "winner". First give a 5-game callup to Beaulieu, then 5 games to Tinordi, then 5 games to Weber, then 5 games to Ellis, etc. It will help their long-term development, even though it wil almost certainly cost the team games as these players are not ready. They'll have to be sheltered in their call-ups. The end effect will be to increase their motivation for when they return to Hamilton.

Finally, I wish to call BS on the slogan of "league parity". There is a massive gulf between teams like the New York Rangers, Los Angeles Kings, Vancouver Canucks, Pittsburgh Penguins at the top and teams like the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs and Columbus Blue Jackets at the bottom.
I've enjoyed reading your commentary.

I think the big thing to remember is that doing in-depth analysis and thinking about the hockey team and debating it with others who find holes in your ideas makes you a more knowledgeable fan of the game.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 12:36 PM
  #341
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
There are two major holes in your argument:

1) This '1-year tank' you are talking about gives absolutely no guarantee of short-, mid-, or long-term improvement. Just ask teams like Edmonton, Columbus, NYI, etc. that have been at or near the bottom of the league forever. I'm sure their fanbases would kill for their team to have a successful season, even if they don't win the cup. There are just as many examples of cup contenders that did not require a series of high draft picks (Detroit, Boston, Philly, NYR, Vancouver) as their are those that succeeded because of their high-pick talent (Pittsburgh, Chicago).
There is no strategy in the history of pro sports that comes with a 100% guarantee. As such, it's completely non-sequitur to argue that a strategy sucks because "it doesn't have 100% certainty of succeeding". No strategy does. Further, just because no strategy comes with guarantees doesn't mean that your favorite strategy is the best one. The point is to pick the strategy with the highest probability of success.

Now for your examples:

1) Columbus is a poorly managed team. Not relevant.
2) Islanders are not allowed to spend above the cap floor, and they're still recovering from the Millbury era. Not relevant.
3) Edmonton has Yakupov, RNH, and Hall. They're in a better position to compete for the cup in the next 3 years than the Habs.
4) Detroit drafted Lidstrom in the 3rd round, Zetterberg in the 6th round, and Datsyuk in the 7th round. Good luck with that. They can't reproduce that success -- no team can -- and that's why they are in a slow decline. In a few seasons they will resemble the Calgary Flames.
5) Boston signed Zdeno Chara as a UFA. Excellent move. That might be the greatest UFA signing in the history of the NHL. It's a low-probability strategy. Shea Weber is not going to be a UFA next summer.
6) Philly's a great team. I like how they traded Richards and Carter for Schenn, Couturier, Voracek and Simmonds. Holmgren is a great GM, I hope we see such vision from Bergevin. An analogy would be Bergevin trading Andrei Markov to Washington for Kuznetzov and Forsberg.
7) Vancouver made the stanley cup finals by drafting high. Their offense depends on the Sedin twins, who were drafted 2nd and 3rd overall.
8) Rangers? They traded Gomez for McDonagh and then used the cap space to sign Marian Gaborik. I can't even imagine a comparable level of ownage that Bergevin could pull off. The following year they brought in Brad Richards because he wanted to live in NY, and the year after that Rick Nash waived his no-trade clause for the Rangers because he wanted to live in Manhattan.

A lesson in statistics 101:

Astute readers will point out that I attributed low probability to three different teams: Red Wings, Rangers, and Bruins. They will say that you can't do that too often. Actually, you can.

Winning the cup is a very rare thing. Thus, in order to be one of the best teams in the league, you need everything: luck and skill. If you're selecting stanley cup contenders you are necessarily selecting for teams that have had luck.

I'll note that the luck of the Red Wings, Rangers, and Bruins are not the same. Red Wings got lucky in the draft. Rangers are lucky in that they are based in the world's most beloved city and got in touch with Bob Gainey when he was at his dimmest and then being able to cash in Marian Gaborik. Bruins are lucky in that they managed the best UFA signing in the history of the NHL. Anaheim was "lucky" in that they had Scott Niedermayer's brother under contract, which got them a cup. The Habs might get this lucky, or they might not. It does help that there are many ways to be lucky. However, they probably won't.

If you see a good opportunity, say Corey Perry goes UFA next year, then take that opportunity. Carry the flexibility to capitalize on these opportunities when they present themselves. But don't expect these opportunities.

Meanwhile, a consistent theme among the bulk of recent cup contenders: Vancouver, LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Carolina all relied on high draft picks. There are fewer teams getting high draft picks then there are teams trying to get lucky, yet more of these teams have success.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
2) The Montreal Canadiens are a business, period. You can talk all you want about your strategy will help us win the cup (no proof of that at all), but every single home game, 21,273 fans come to the Bell Centre and want their team to win. Believe it or not, the majority of fans probably don't think about hockey in terms of managerial moves that can help in 5 years (i.e. the HFboards fan), but in terms of "GO HABS, WIN THE GAME!!" The management of the team has the responsibility of providing the best entertainment product available, game in, game out, regardless of whether their team is a 'contender' this year, in order to satisfy fans, and justify the price of their product. I certainly paid less attention to the Habs during the latter half of last season, because the games they played didn't matter. Also, there's no way an NHL coach will play his backup goalie ahead of his starting goalie just to reduce the chance of winning, that is ridiculous! You can call me a bad fan, or say "but you missed watching player X develop!", but ultimately I got siginificantly more entertainment value out of the 2009-2010 team that made the conference finals, even if some look back and say they were a fluke/outmatched.
This thread was put together (and probably the whole foum) to discuss a strategy to build a stanley cup contending team, not to discuss how to further line Molson's pockets.

Go buy a case of Molson Dry. That will fulfill your priority.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 12:39 PM
  #342
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Finally, I wish to call BS on the slogan of "league parity". There is a massive gulf between teams like the New York Rangers, Los Angeles Kings, Vancouver Canucks, Pittsburgh Penguins at the top and teams like the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs and Columbus Blue Jackets at the bottom.
I think the reason the "parity" illusion persists is that there are enough upsets & Cinderella stories that happen in the league that give false hope to fanbases like ours. For example:
  • An 8th seeded Oilers team gets all the way to the finals in 2006.
  • The Thrashers won their division & made the playoffs in 2007.
  • We rode some kind of freak wave to a first-place conference finish in 2008.
  • The 117-point Sharks got knocked out in the first round in 2009, and the Jackets made the playoffs for the first time with a rookie goalie.
  • Our own Halak-driven ride to the conference finals in 2010.
  • This year's Senators came out of almost nowhere and nearly upset the Rangers.
  • Finally, the 8th-place Kings won the Cup this year.
What people tend to forget is what happens after the clock strikes 12:
  • The Oilers haven't made the playoffs since.
  • Nor have the Thrashers/Jets.
  • We crashed down to 8th in 2009 and got swept in the first round.
  • The Sharks got taken out by what was still a pretty good Ducks team. Said Sharks have also been perennial playoff underachievers with their core and their window is closing/closed.
  • The Jackets have ruined themselves and possibly said goalie too.
  • The Flyers curb-stomped us in the ECF and we didn't do much better standings-wise in 2011.
  • The Rangers were playoff underachievers in 2012 and have significantly reloaded this offseason. They won't squander themselves in 7-game series against inferior opponents next spring.
  • The Kings underachieved all year and had to change coaches to get themselves righted, then they showed just how good they were with an absolute steamroll through the playoffs.
The teams that actually win Cups are the teams that actually should be winning Cups, a great mix of talent at all positions on the ice. Our squads on paper over the past 6 years simply don't match up to the squads that won the Cups.

"But we almost beat Carolina/Boston" really doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Only in 2006 was a path to a Cup actually conceivable because of what happened elsewhere around the league (Oilers Cinderella run in the west, Sabres ravaged by injuries, Hasek hurting/quitting on the Senators, numerous upsets of 100+ point teams), but years like 2006 only come around maybe once every 10-15 years.

I don't want this organization to have to catch a freak year to win a Cup. I want this organization to be considered a favorite. We're not there yet.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 12:43 PM
  #343
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
If somebody offers us a 2nd rounder for Kaberle... you take it. You don't wait. You make the trade and count your blessings.
I have been trying to visualize the best case scenario.

If Dennis Wideman gets injuried in the 16th game of the season, after the Flames have started hot and are under illusions of making the playoffs, we can then call Jay Feaster and trade them Kaberle for a 2013 1st rounder.

We can then draft both McKinnon and Jones :-)

[[ brought to you by the guy who just lectured the forum on low probability events ]] :-)

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 01:29 PM
  #344
Jakomyte
Registered User
 
Jakomyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
There is no strategy in the history of pro sports that comes with a 100% guarantee. As such, it's completely non-sequitur to argue that a strategy sucks because "it doesn't have 100% certainty of succeeding". No strategy does. Further, just because no strategy comes with guarantees doesn't mean that your favorite strategy is the best one. The point is to pick the strategy with the highest probability of success.

Now for your examples:

1) Columbus is a poorly managed team. Not relevant.
2) Islanders are not allowed to spend above the cap floor, and they're still recovering from the Millbury era. Not relevant.
3) Edmonton has Yakupov, RNH, and Hall. They're in a better position to compete for the cup in the next 3 years than the Habs.
4) Detroit drafted Lidstrom in the 3rd round, Zetterberg in the 6th round, and Datsyuk in the 7th round. Good luck with that. They can't reproduce that success -- no team can -- and that's why they are in a slow decline. In a few seasons they will resemble the Calgary Flames.
5) Boston signed Zdeno Chara as a UFA. Excellent move. That might be the greatest UFA signing in the history of the NHL. It's a low-probability strategy. Shea Weber is not going to be a UFA next summer.
6) Philly's a great team. I like how they traded Richards and Carter for Schenn, Couturier, Voracek and Simmonds. Holmgren is a great GM, I hope we see such vision from Bergevin. An analogy would be Bergevin trading Andrei Markov to Washington for Kuznetzov and Forsberg.
7) Vancouver made the stanley cup finals by drafting high. Their offense depends on the Sedin twins, who were drafted 2nd and 3rd overall.
8) Rangers? They traded Gomez for McDonagh and then used the cap space to sign Marian Gaborik. I can't even imagine a comparable level of ownage that Bergevin could pull off. The following year they brought in Brad Richards because he wanted to live in NY, and the year after that Rick Nash waived his no-trade clause for the Rangers because he wanted to live in Manhattan.
You list a number of ways for a team to succeed without tanking right here: screwed drafting, targeted FA signings and intelligent trades. Maybe tanking works sometimes, but so do these strategies, and they involve losing fewer games.

Quote:
Meanwhile, a consistent theme among the bulk of recent cup contenders: Vancouver, LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Carolina all relied on high draft picks. There are fewer teams getting high draft picks then there are teams trying to get lucky, yet more of these teams have success.
Montreal now has two of its own top 5 picks in the lineup/pipeline (Price, Galchenyuk). Do we really need more? Vancouver has the Sedins, LA has Doughty (and used Schenn in a trade), Chicago has Kane and Toews, Carolina has Staal. No more than two, unless I missed something. Do we really need more top 5 picks? At the cost of abysmal seasons? We took our lumps from a poor season last year and I'd rather we be happy with our draft and move on to a positive season.

Quote:
This thread was put together (and probably the whole foum) to discuss a strategy to build a stanley cup contending team, not to discuss how to further line Molson's pockets.

Go buy a case of Molson Dry. That will fulfill your priority.
Lol, my priority isn't to line anyone's pockets. I'm just stating a reason why the Habs won't be doing a planned tank any time soon, regardless of how effective you think your strategy might be. Feel free to have some high-fives with some other posters, but that's about as far as it will go.

Jakomyte is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 05:29 PM
  #345
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Holy ****. This thread is like watching the old movie Sybil.

"I am for tanking.........but I am not for intentionally losing" was a classic line.

Thanks for the chuckles.

DA, you should turn the TV off this season and not watch hockey......at all. No need to. It seems that you already know how this season will progress and end. (Can you tell me who wins the Cup so I can make a bet?)

I am willing to bet that if you went to any of the other team boards, I am certain that you will see threads where teams are unwilling to win the 1st round of the playoffs because they might lose in subsequent rounds. Especially the Kings and Bruins board.

Holy ****, this one goes off the boards of reality. I am sure that you have surpassed your wildest dreams in creating this thread and seeing the number of posts. If you were a fisherman, you would officially be way above the legal limit.

Poor management in Columbus with all of their high draft picks is not relevant............that one still has me laughing.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 06:23 PM
  #346
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
DA, you should turn the TV off this season and not watch hockey......at all. No need to. It seems that you already know how this season will progress and end.
I know the Habs won't win, with high confidence. That doesn't mean I know who will win. It could be any of a number of teams: Vancouver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, New York, etc.

I will watch yet another stanley cup finals that does not include the Habs.

Hopefully one day I can see the Habs in the finals. Bergevin is on the right track.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 06:28 PM
  #347
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakomyte View Post
Montreal now has two of its own top 5 picks in the lineup/pipeline (Price, Galchenyuk). Do we really need more? Vancouver has the Sedins, LA has Doughty (and used Schenn in a trade), Chicago has Kane and Toews, Carolina has Staal. No more than two, unless I missed something. Do we really need more top 5 picks? At the cost of abysmal seasons? We took our lumps from a poor season last year and I'd rather we be happy with our draft and move on to a positive season.
What does "need" mean?

I'm not claiming there is only a single strategy that can lead to victory -- I don't think that would be true. I'm claiming that a single extra year of entering the season with a weak roster, as Bergevin is doing, should be enough to solidify a championship core. I'm claiming that this is *a* good strategy. I listed some specific points. If you have an alternative, specific strategy, please start a thread about it. I'm curious.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 06:38 PM
  #348
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Your argument is intelligent and reasonable. I agree with it. And I will say so. Many do not agree with it, and no worries, that's why this board is fun.

I think the split on this board, and I've mentioned it before, is between those who have seen the great Habs teams, live, and those who have not.

Cups are the only thing for every single Habs fan over 40. The only thing. It's a bugger on this board because it pits us against loyal young fans, who deserve better.

That is NOT to criticize younger fans. Thank god they are passionate. Every guy on this board loves the Habs, and they have as much right to post here as we do.

Geography plays a part I think. I have not thought of that before. Interesting. It is true that my distance gives me some calm and perspective. It's tough to be embroiled in the Habs every day in Montreal!

The year after year progression of Habs to cups in spring was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. The problem may be that younger fans don't know how wonderful this feeling is.

They will see!

PS: Good luck in Aussie! Stay in touch with us. And get used to watching Habs games at work, 9 AM. It's a bugger.
I'm 28 years old :-)

I was 9 when the Habs won the cup in 1993. I remember a few details of that year. We had good players like Roy, Schneider, and Muller. We lucked out when the Islanders defeated the Penguins for us. We then beat the LA Kings handily which was impressive.

I think the next year Schneider and Muller got into a fight, and that was the beginning of the end.

A few years after that, we had Saku Koivu in our system, and he was considered the best player in the world not playing in the NHL, I don't remember whose opinion that was. I was excited for him. We then spent 10 years playing him with Brian Savage and Matt D'Agostini. We then forfeited Koivu to upgrade to the inferior Gomez.

19 years after Koivu's draft, we're discussing tanking.


Last edited by DAChampion: 07-30-2012 at 06:58 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 07:44 PM
  #349
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'm 28 years old :-)

I was 9 when the Habs won the cup in 1993. I remember a few details of that year. We had good players like Roy, Schneider, and Muller. We lucked out when the Islanders defeated the Penguins for us. We then beat the LA Kings handily which was impressive.

I think the next year Schneider and Muller got into a fight, and that was the beginning of the end.

A few years after that, we had Saku Koivu in our system, and he was considered the best player in the world not playing in the NHL, I don't remember whose opinion that was. I was excited for him. We then spent 10 years playing him with Brian Savage and Matt D'Agostini. We then forfeited Koivu to upgrade to the inferior Gomez.

19 years after Koivu's draft, we're discussing tanking.
I am older than you. I have never seen the Habs intentionally tank. And I have seen the Habs lift the Stanley Cup and skate it around on several occasions.

Bottom line, here is the problem with the Habs.........

Rejean Houle 1995 2000
Andre Savard 2000 2003
Bob Gainey 2003 2010
Pierre Gauthier 2010 2012

Those four men have overseen the decline of the Montreal Canadiens. Throw in Pierre Boivin and the list of ineptitude is complete.

We dont need to tank. We need management that is committed to developing players who are drafted, committed to sound asset management, committed to excellence.

Geoff Molson is on his way to righting this ship. It is a shame that a small................but VERY VOCAL minority is using the words tank and Canadiens in the same sentence.

DA, you would get more support if you addressed the need for better asset management. You would also get support if you expressed your desire to trade or ship out or bury in Hamilton certain low performing players. That is not tanking............No, that is asset management that the previous four GMs did not understand........and the president (Boivin) did not care about.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
07-30-2012, 08:11 PM
  #350
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Advance to what? A 2nd round exit?

It would be nice if Subban and Max and Price have great years and advance in their development. If they get us to the playoffs, that's great. But we'd actually be better off in the long run with another top pick.



I think we should get rid of Gionta for sure. Not sure who said he's not a capable captain but - it really doesn't matter whether he is or not. Bottom line is that we should be trying to win cups and he's not going to help get us one. He can help teams who are contenders but we aren't there. We're wasting him just like we're wasting Pleks and Markov. They'd be better off somewhere else and in the long run we'd be better off with getting returns.

Well... we don't really have a choice now do we?


Getting Galchenyuk was great. Unfortunately Guathier tied us to silly contracts all the way down. Instead of rebuilding like he should've he tied us to Bourque and Kaberle. If Bergeron does the same thing he should be fired too.

If he deals vets for prospects though and we finish in the bottom three, he should be applauded not villified.

Big difference.
Gauthier traded three vets (Cammalleri, Gill, and Kostitsyn) for prospects. Bergevin hasn't traded any prospects for vets and there are no hints that he plans to. The veterans he added to bolster the Habs in this coming season were all affordable free agents. He didn't even nibble at Semin and I doubt he'll go ater Doan. Please withhold any criticism of Bergevin until you become aware of his intentions. So far he seems to be sane. I doubt he'll do anything to make me change my mind.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:52 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.