HFBoards

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

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2012, 07:41 AM
  #376
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,663
vCash: 500
Anaheim, Boston, Detroit and LA are all teams that won the cup without just depending on a rebuild. You could argue in the case of LA, but I don't think they are over the top if they didn't make the Richard and Carter trades. Also they had guys like Williams, Scuderi and Mitchell play key roles, all were acquired outside of the draft. LA is more of a mix than anything. The point is that since the lockout, there is no one clear way of putting together a Stanley Cup winner. Anaheim was a team largely pieced together: Penner, Kunitz, MacDonald were all college signings, not draftees, Neidermayer was a signing, Pronger was a trade, Selanne was a signing.

Same goes for Boston, Thomas and Chara were signings, peverley, kelley, horton a trade and their best drafted players were not lottery picks. Marchand, Lucic, Bergeron were all second round picks.

Hard to say that the key is tanking when the winners since the lockout outside of Pittsburgh and Chicago have been a mix of good trades and signings coupled with drafting well instead of drafting high.

Then you have cases like the Islanders, Oilers, and Blue Jackets who seem to be in a perpetuem rebuild and then teams like Florida who are always picking relatively high and finally make the playoffs the year they build most of their team via trades and ufa signings.

The whole idea that a full fledged rebuild leads to the cup isn't as clear and definite as it is made out to be.

Andy is online now  
Old
07-31-2012, 07:50 AM
  #377
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,509
vCash: 500
You know who else tanked?!

THE NAZIS!!

They tanked Poland, Denmark and France for 5 years, and it took them a 30-year rebuild to be contenders again.

PricePkPatch is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 07:53 AM
  #378
poetryinmotion
Registered User
 
poetryinmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
You know who else tanked?!

THE NAZIS!!

They tanked Poland, Denmark and France for 5 years, and it took them a 30-year rebuild to be contenders again.


so much tldr in this thread

poetryinmotion is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 08:25 AM
  #379
Davebo
beep beep
 
Davebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Man...this is just hilarious.

Before last season, Montreal got a whopping ONE POINT more than NYR in the last 5 years.

LA? Seriously.

Montreal at the bottom?

What kind of 'what have you done for me lately' garbage is this?
Well said, budda! It's about time someone called out this 'fans' rabid hyperbole...

Now, if the rest of us would stop feeding this *******, he'd dry up and blow away (back to the laffs board)

Davebo is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 08:59 AM
  #380
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
See this is the problem with this argument that people keep making on this board over and over again.

Like I said, the LA Kings were garbage for almost two decades. Two decades. They made the playoffs 6 times in 19 years.

Then one year, everything goes right for them and they win a cup.

Now all of a sudden their 'rebuilding' process is 100% legitimate and qualified because of one year? Give me a break.
What has Montreal done since 1993?

Same as Los Angeles has done.

To reiterate something that's not getting through: a lot of us place no value on 8th place finishes that lead to 1st and 2nd round playoff exits. That's right: no value. We're not satisfied with mediocrity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Of which you know, rarely exist in the real world.

They're extremely common actually.

I mean seriously man, do you have no shame in just completely fabricating an argument such as "rarely exist in the real world" ?? That's totally false, you have no idea if it's true or false, and you post that because you want to pretend you have a clue?

Why don't you just write that you don't know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Of course I did.
Which makes you dishonest. If you pick your borders to give you the answer you want then you're making a false statistical test. You need to pick your borders before knowing the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Actually, the chance of LA winning the cup next year are quite low. With the exception of Pittsburgh and Detroit that one year, no team since the lockout has made it past the first round the following year after winning the cup. Hell, 3 have missed the playoffs altogether.
The point remains. The odds of LA winning the cup next year are much higher than the odds of the Habs winning the cup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
If you noticed, I edited my post with a qualifier about Cammy, Gill and Kosty. About half way through last season, the only missing players were Halak, Bergeron, Moore and Hammer. Big whoop. 4 players on a 22 man roster.
Those players are extremely important.

Halak is the one that beat Washington and Pittsburgh, and Hamrlik was the number 1 dman who played effectively in all situations. Bergeron was the triggerman for the powerplay, and we no longer have triggerman.

You're clearly one of those Habs fans that underrated Hamrlik.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 09:10 AM
  #381
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Oh and BTW, in the last 9 seasons. Guess how many different SC winners there have been?

Wait for it...yeah, 9 different teams.

You know how many different teams have made the finals in those 9 seasons (out of a possible 18)? Wait for it...14 different teams.

Almost half the league has had a 50:50 shot at winning the cup in less than a decade.
So the answer is to not bother trying to build a good team? We just sit there and hope it comes to our turn? That's basically what you're trying to argue here man and it's an absolutely stupid position to take. Hence, your response to my post above was quite fitting in that you are basically arguing like you have no brain here.

There's no doubt that the salary cap has changed things and there is more parity. But it doesn't change the fact that the best players usually come from higher picks. It's always been that way and likely always will.

And the league is actually trying to make new rules which will force players to have their teams retain their rights longer making the draft even more important in the future. All the more reason to try to stock on more picks esp since we aren't contenders now.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 09:29 AM
  #382
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Anaheim, Boston, Detroit and LA are all teams that won the cup without just depending on a rebuild. You could argue in the case of LA, but I don't think they are over the top if they didn't make the Richard and Carter trades. Also they had guys like Williams, Scuderi and Mitchell play key roles, all were acquired outside of the draft. LA is more of a mix than anything. The point is that since the lockout, there is no one clear way of putting together a Stanley Cup winner. Anaheim was a team largely pieced together: Penner, Kunitz, MacDonald were all college signings, not draftees, Neidermayer was a signing, Pronger was a trade, Selanne was a signing.
LA is definitely a rebuild. Doughty and Kopitar played huge roles in winning that cup.

The question that SHOULD be asked here is how do we replicate success?

Can you replicate Boston's success? The main reason they won was because of a goalie who was lifted up off the scrap heap as a mid 30 year old player and decided he wanted to do a Patrick Roy impression. The signing of Zedeno Chara was brilliant but - we haven't been able to make those kinds of signings. Any reason to think that this is going to change? I think Boston is going to be strong for a long time going forward though because they made some brilliant rebuilding moves in ripping off Toronto for picks. And it's easier to make those trades than dealing for established players. That's how we got Paccioretti.

As I've said many times in the past, Anaheim's GM fell out of the luck tree and hit every branch on the way down. They signed an over the hill player who everyone passed on and he went back to being a 50 goal scorer. They had a HOF blueliner decide he wanted to play with his little brother. They had ANOTHER HOF blueliner inexplicably decide that he wanted to leave the team he just went to the cup final with and would only go to certain markets (ie. not Montreal.) So do we go out and sign an over the hill sniper and hope he wins us a Richard trophy? Maybe we can coax Brendan Shanahan out of retirement. Do we trade for Sidney Crosby's brother and hope that means Sid will come play for us someday? Do we .... well, geez I guess there's nothing we could do about the Pronger situation because he wouldn't have come here anyway. Nobody can replicate this. As for Edmonton btw, they got as many picks and prospects as they could and Pronger's departure at least got them Jordan Eberle.

As for Detroit, they have been great since the 90s after having rebuilt. Somehow they've maintained it but I don't see how a strategy of waiting until the 5th round to draft superstars is going to work. The Wings have now lost Lidstrom and don't have anything in the system anymore. They've had a great run but I'm not sure how they are going to keep doing what they've done in the past without doing a bit of rebuilding themselves. Maybe they can get some FAs to build with since they have great players like Datsyuk and Zetterberg. You can do that when you have those kinds of players but unfortunately, we don't.

And as good as our drafting has been (and it's been great) I don't see how you can expect to draft a guy like Lidstrom in the later rounds the way Detroit did. Certainly not on a consistent basis. Sounds great in theory, but I don't see it as a viable strategy. It doesn't work and we've proved this for decades now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Same goes for Boston, Thomas and Chara were signings, peverley, kelley, horton a trade and their best drafted players were not lottery picks. Marchand, Lucic, Bergeron were all second round picks.

Hard to say that the key is tanking when the winners since the lockout outside of Pittsburgh and Chicago have been a mix of good trades and signings coupled with drafting well instead of drafting high.
Chicago is a rebuild for sure. No point in trying to say otherwise.

A rebuild does not mean every player on the team was a top five pick man. It doesn't work that way. There aren't enough top five picks to go around. But to try to argue that Kane and Toews didn't play major roles in those wins is silly. Ditto with LA.

As for the 'good trades' argument... who would be against this? If we could get Nash for a bag of toys the way the Rangers did obviously you do it. But you can't expect that to happen. That's plain luck and you can't plan for luck. If it comes along you take advantage of it. But there's no way to plan for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Then you have cases like the Islanders, Oilers, and Blue Jackets who seem to be in a perpetuem rebuild and then teams like Florida who are always picking relatively high and finally make the playoffs the year they build most of their team via trades and ufa signings.
Forget about trying to include Edmonton. They could very well go onto to multiple cups. Way too early to know what's going to happen there and it's stupid that folks keep trying to cite them as an argument against rebuilding. Way too soon to say anything there other than the fact that they already have at least three players who look like future stars and a fourth who was picked 1st overall this year.

Columbus, yes they've been terrible. But even Columbus who's managed to screw up most of their prospects and done a horrible job - even they managed to find a Richard winner. We haven't had one of those is over 30 years. And we're the freaking Montreal Canadiens man.

As for the Isles... again, posterboys for why rebuilding works. Dealt away Luongo, Redden, Chara, Spezza, Bertuzzi... all they had to do was hang onto their picks and they probably would've won multiple cups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
The whole idea that a full fledged rebuild leads to the cup isn't as clear and definite as it is made out to be.
How about constantly finishing 8th or 9th? How's that working for us?

You're excited about our future right? Why is that? Does it have anything to do with Galchenyuk? Does it have to do with Price (selected 5th overall?) Does it have anything to do with MaxPac (who we got in a rebuilding trade?)

What does hanging onto Pleks or Gionta do for us other than keep us mediocre? They can help a contender (which we aren't) win. And we can get a decent return for them. Instead we waste their trade value and sell low. That's what we always do and then we wonder why we don't have great teams.

Rebuilding has been shown to work. No it doesn't always work but it's got a great track record of success and we've got the best scouting in the league. Two of our 3 best players were gotten this way and there's no reason why we shouldn't do MORE of this. Rebuilding is something that actually can be replicated. And we have the resources to do it.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 07-31-2012 at 09:45 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 09:50 AM
  #383
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by poetryinmotion View Post


so much tldr in this thread
The Marshall Plan served in much the same way as NHL revenue sharing. It was applied to many nations but Germany recovered faster than the others. My question is, did it really take 30 years for Germany to recover? I thought they were in pretty good shape before then.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 09:57 AM
  #384
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
The Marshall Plan served in much the same way as NHL revenue sharing. It was applied to many nations but Germany recovered faster than the others. My question is, did it really take 30 years for Germany to recover? I thought they were in pretty good shape before then.
They were, I was being hyperbolic

Although they were crippled by having their main market split in two, with their eastern side locked in the Russian League. Bloody Russian getting all the uncaring selfish players even then.

PricePkPatch is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 10:24 AM
  #385
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
You know who else tanked?!

THE NAZIS!!

They tanked Poland, Denmark and France for 5 years, and it took them a 30-year rebuild to be contenders again.
Instead of rebuilding with low draft picks they rebuilt with a low German Mark - 4 Marks to a Dollar after WW 2. Same thing with Japan, this was done on purpose by the other countries.

Same thing after WW 1, they tanked their currency see Weimer.

Frozenice is online now  
Old
07-31-2012, 10:36 AM
  #386
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
LA is definitely a rebuild. Doughty and Kopitar played huge roles in winning that cup.

The question that SHOULD be asked here is how do we replicate success?

Can you replicate Boston's success? The main reason they won was because of a goalie who was lifted up off the scrap heap as a mid 30 year old player and decided he wanted to do a Patrick Roy impression. The signing of Zedeno Chara was brilliant but - we haven't been able to make those kinds of signings. Any reason to think that this is going to change? I think Boston is going to be strong for a long time going forward though because they made some brilliant rebuilding moves in ripping off Toronto for picks. And it's easier to make those trades than dealing for established players. That's how we got Paccioretti.

As I've said many times in the past, Anaheim's GM fell out of the luck tree and hit every branch on the way down. They signed an over the hill player who everyone passed on and he went back to being a 50 goal scorer. They had a HOF blueliner decide he wanted to play with his little brother. They had ANOTHER HOF blueliner inexplicably decide that he wanted to leave the team he just went to the cup final with and would only go to certain markets (ie. not Montreal.) So do we go out and sign an over the hill sniper and hope he wins us a Richard trophy? Maybe we can coax Brendan Shanahan out of retirement. Do we trade for Sidney Crosby's brother and hope that means Sid will come play for us someday? Do we .... well, geez I guess there's nothing we could do about the Pronger situation because he wouldn't have come here anyway. Nobody can replicate this. As for Edmonton btw, they got as many picks and prospects as they could and Pronger's departure at least got them Jordan Eberle.

As for Detroit, they have been great since the 90s after having rebuilt. Somehow they've maintained it but I don't see how a strategy of waiting until the 5th round to draft superstars is going to work. The Wings have now lost Lidstrom and don't have anything in the system anymore. They've had a great run but I'm not sure how they are going to keep doing what they've done in the past without doing a bit of rebuilding themselves. Maybe they can get some FAs to build with since they have great players like Datsyuk and Zetterberg. You can do that when you have those kinds of players but unfortunately, we don't.

And as good as our drafting has been (and it's been great) I don't see how you can expect to draft a guy like Lidstrom in the later rounds the way Detroit did. Certainly not on a consistent basis. Sounds great in theory, but I don't see it as a viable strategy. It doesn't work and we've proved this for decades now.

Chicago is a rebuild for sure. No point in trying to say otherwise.

A rebuild does not mean every player on the team was a top five pick man. It doesn't work that way. There aren't enough top five picks to go around. But to try to argue that Kane and Toews didn't play major roles in those wins is silly. Ditto with LA.

As for the 'good trades' argument... who would be against this? If we could get Nash for a bag of toys the way the Rangers did obviously you do it. But you can't expect that to happen. That's plain luck and you can't plan for luck. If it comes along you take advantage of it. But there's no way to plan for it.
It's important to state that there's no problem with trying to capitalize on luck. The problem is that the Habs are in no position to do this.

Late-round draft luck:

A poster, I think it was Teufelsdreck, has pointed out that most 2nd round picks yield nothing. He is 100% correct that Cory Uruqhart and Ben Maxwell are the norm. However, some 2nd round picks turn into Milan Lucic, Patrice Bergeron, Paul Statsny, or Shea Weber. Closer to home, some 2nd round picks turn into PK Subban, Maxim Lapierre and Guillaume Latendresse. The moral of the story, which I think is self-evident, is that while any individual 2nd round pick is likely to be useless, if you have a lot of them (like we have in 2013) you accumulate a good shot at striking gold.

In the period 2008-2011, we had no 2nd round picks. They were traded for Alex Tanguay, Robert Lang, James Wisniewski, I think Dominic Moore, I forget where else. One was packaged to get Tinordi which is ok. We probably missed out on several Uruqhart-type players. But we also probably missed out on 1 or 2 roster players. Maybe we missed out on another PK Subban.

Meanwhile the Habs are decent in the late rounds. We got Halak, Grabovski, Mark Streit, Sergei Kostitsyn in the late rounds. Tomas Plekanec was a 3rd round draft choice, and he is our best all-around forward. He can be the 2nd line center on a contender, even a perennial contender. We can get some good players in the 1st rounds. Not enough to build a contender, but enough to support a contender, to surround our stars with additional depth. We just need to draft often.

To use the crapshoot approximation beloved to many on this board, a roll of two dice will give you snake eyes only one time in 36, and you can't control that. But if you roll the dice more often, you will probably get snake eyes more often, and that you can control.

UFA signing luck:
This one is obvious: If you want a shot at signing players like Chara, you can't clog your cap space with whatever garbage is available. This year Minnesota got Suter and Parise, and they would not have been able to do so if they had spent the previous 4 or 5 summers signing the best available players to long-term contracts. The Habs had no shot at getting those 2 players.

Next year might or might not be a great UFA year. We don't know. But we can know for certain, is that it will be a weak UFA year for the Habs if we don't succeed in clearing cap space. Robyn Regehr and Corey Perry would look spectacular in Habs outfits and would solve nearly all of our problems... but they will cost us 14 million total per year if we want them. We probably won't get them either way. But we definitely won't get them if we don't have cap space.

I don't buy the argument that Habs can't sign UFAs. We were able to get Roman Hamrlik, who was our number 1 dman for 2 years. When he left out 8th place team became a lottery team. We were able to get Erik Cole and Michael Cammalleri, both of whom would be 1st line wingers on lots of teams in the league. We've done ok. However, we can only get these players if we have the cap space available to do so.

We should sign great UFAs if they are available. If we can't get great UFAs, we should consider simply not signing anybody at all rather than signing whatever mediocrity is available to a 5-year contract in order to make 8th place. We then save our cap space and try again next year.


Last edited by DAChampion: 07-31-2012 at 10:48 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 10:43 AM
  #387
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
THE NAZIS!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...in's%20law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Godwin in 1990
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 10:52 AM
  #388
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,509
vCash: 500
The humor went right over your head, didn't it?

PricePkPatch is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 10:53 AM
  #389
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
The humor went right over your head, didn't it?
You're trying to derail the thread, so yes it's annoying.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 11:10 AM
  #390
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You're trying to derail the thread, so yes it's annoying.
It's only a thread and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Besides, I think everyone understands your point by now...

Fozz is online now  
Old
07-31-2012, 11:11 AM
  #391
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You're trying to derail the thread, so yes it's annoying.
You can't derail what's been flying over the ocean for 5 pages now.

When we are down to comparing the predictive statistics regarding the teams finishing in the last 5 places, I think we ran out of stupid arguments to throw around.

PricePkPatch is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 11:12 AM
  #392
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
It's only a thread and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Besides, I think everyone understands your point by now...
OK.

I also saw PricePKPatch made a similar comment in another thread, so I apologize. I misinterpreted his intent.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 11:13 AM
  #393
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
LA is definitely a rebuild. Doughty and Kopitar played huge roles in winning that cup.

The question that SHOULD be asked here is how do we replicate success?

Can you replicate Boston's success? The main reason they won was because of a goalie who was lifted up off the scrap heap as a mid 30 year old player and decided he wanted to do a Patrick Roy impression. The signing of Zedeno Chara was brilliant but - we haven't been able to make those kinds of signings. Any reason to think that this is going to change? I think Boston is going to be strong for a long time going forward though because they made some brilliant rebuilding moves in ripping off Toronto for picks. And it's easier to make those trades than dealing for established players. That's how we got Paccioretti.

As I've said many times in the past, Anaheim's GM fell out of the luck tree and hit every branch on the way down. They signed an over the hill player who everyone passed on and he went back to being a 50 goal scorer. They had a HOF blueliner decide he wanted to play with his little brother. They had ANOTHER HOF blueliner inexplicably decide that he wanted to leave the team he just went to the cup final with and would only go to certain markets (ie. not Montreal.) So do we go out and sign an over the hill sniper and hope he wins us a Richard trophy? Maybe we can coax Brendan Shanahan out of retirement. Do we trade for Sidney Crosby's brother and hope that means Sid will come play for us someday? Do we .... well, geez I guess there's nothing we could do about the Pronger situation because he wouldn't have come here anyway. Nobody can replicate this. As for Edmonton btw, they got as many picks and prospects as they could and Pronger's departure at least got them Jordan Eberle.

As for Detroit, they have been great since the 90s after having rebuilt. Somehow they've maintained it but I don't see how a strategy of waiting until the 5th round to draft superstars is going to work. The Wings have now lost Lidstrom and don't have anything in the system anymore. They've had a great run but I'm not sure how they are going to keep doing what they've done in the past without doing a bit of rebuilding themselves. Maybe they can get some FAs to build with since they have great players like Datsyuk and Zetterberg. You can do that when you have those kinds of players but unfortunately, we don't.

And as good as our drafting has been (and it's been great) I don't see how you can expect to draft a guy like Lidstrom in the later rounds the way Detroit did. Certainly not on a consistent basis. Sounds great in theory, but I don't see it as a viable strategy. It doesn't work and we've proved this for decades now.

Chicago is a rebuild for sure. No point in trying to say otherwise.

A rebuild does not mean every player on the team was a top five pick man. It doesn't work that way. There aren't enough top five picks to go around. But to try to argue that Kane and Toews didn't play major roles in those wins is silly. Ditto with LA.

As for the 'good trades' argument... who would be against this? If we could get Nash for a bag of toys the way the Rangers did obviously you do it. But you can't expect that to happen. That's plain luck and you can't plan for luck. If it comes along you take advantage of it. But there's no way to plan for it.

Forget about trying to include Edmonton. They could very well go onto to multiple cups. Way too early to know what's going to happen there and it's stupid that folks keep trying to cite them as an argument against rebuilding. Way too soon to say anything there other than the fact that they already have at least three players who look like future stars and a fourth who was picked 1st overall this year.

Columbus, yes they've been terrible. But even Columbus who's managed to screw up most of their prospects and done a horrible job - even they managed to find a Richard winner. We haven't had one of those is over 30 years. And we're the freaking Montreal Canadiens man.

As for the Isles... again, posterboys for why rebuilding works. Dealt away Luongo, Redden, Chara, Spezza, Bertuzzi... all they had to do was hang onto their picks and they probably would've won multiple cups.

How about constantly finishing 8th or 9th? How's that working for us?

You're excited about our future right? Why is that? Does it have anything to do with Galchenyuk? Does it have to do with Price (selected 5th overall?) Does it have anything to do with MaxPac (who we got in a rebuilding trade?)

What does hanging onto Pleks or Gionta do for us other than keep us mediocre? They can help a contender (which we aren't) win. And we can get a decent return for them. Instead we waste their trade value and sell low. That's what we always do and then we wonder why we don't have great teams.

Rebuilding has been shown to work. No it doesn't always work but it's got a great track record of success and we've got the best scouting in the league. Two of our 3 best players were gotten this way and there's no reason why we shouldn't do MORE of this. Rebuilding is something that actually can be replicated. And we have the resources to do it.
So essentially what you're saying is that when it doesn't follow the tanking model, then it is all luck. The fact is that since the lockout 3 teams have won without having to resort to finishing last multiple years in a row. You could argue that it's 4 teans if you include the kings, however, they are more of a mix of models than one clear model. I wouldn't call Kopitar a tanking pick. Doughty yes, but 10th overall picks are never sure fire: see Andrei Kostitsyn.

You don't only need to draft top 5 to get very good players. Sure it does increase your chances of getting a great player, but if you surround that player with crap like Nash in Columbus, Tavares in NY, Bouwmeester in Florida, you won't win. You need a mix of methods to win, rather than just waiting for a top pick. Look at Carolina, sure they won with Staal, but they also had many key players they acquired in trades and signings. Those players are all gone, Staal is still there, yet they haven't come close to what they were.

Aside from the Pens and the Hawks, no other team has won by just sitting at the bottom year after year since the lockout.

Andy is online now  
Old
07-31-2012, 11:53 AM
  #394
Tom Terrific
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 91
vCash: 500
Just responding to the thread title: The case of a 1 year surgical tank....

I'm all for it, I compare Montreal's situation to Chicago's of a few year's ago. Montreal drafted a good all round centreman prospect in Galchenyuk 3rd overall (Chicago picked good 2-way centreman Toews). The following year Chicago picked offensive RW/C Patrick Kane 1st overall...(Thus my agreement to go for a surgical 1 year tank) Montreal could tank to get in the bottom 5 lottery and (if need be make a move/trade for 1st overall pick) and draft RW/C Nathan McKinnon 1st overall. Chicago had a strong defensive core, Montreal is building a strong defensive core. The one difference is Montreal has a better goaltending situation than Chicago did when they won the cup.

Tom Terrific is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 12:35 PM
  #395
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
So the answer is to not bother trying to build a good team? We just sit there and hope it comes to our turn? That's basically what you're trying to argue here man and it's an absolutely stupid position to take. Hence, your response to my post above was quite fitting in that you are basically arguing like you have no brain here.
I thought you would have got it the first time, but here it is again:



You clearly can't handle not completely taking someone's argument out of your ass and strawmanning the crap out of it.

I never said any of these things, LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
What has Montreal done since 1993?

Same as Los Angeles has done.
Before last year, we came a hell of a lot closer to winning the cup than they did.

Quote:
To reiterate something that's not getting through: a lot of us place no value on 8th place finishes that lead to 1st and 2nd round playoff exits. That's right: no value. We're not satisfied with mediocrity.
Yeah, I have heard it ad nauseum on this board. Blah blah, mediocrity, 8th place means nothing. Let's forget that Philly made the finals in 8th, LA won the cup in 8th, NJ made the finals in 6th, Edmonton made the finals in 8th, Pittsburgh won in 4th, ect. ect. ect. There is only one Stanley Cup winner, it doesn't mean jack **** what place you came in in the regular season as long as you won a ticket to the show.

What is it with this entitlement complex of Habs fans? I never saw ANY satisfaction when we placed 1st in the East and basically lit the net of any team we played against. Nah, that would be too much. Instead we called it a fluke and bashed Gainey for ruining the future of the team the next season for trading for excellent players like Lang and Tanguay.

Quote:

They're extremely common actually.

I mean seriously man, do you have no shame in just completely fabricating an argument such as "rarely exist in the real world" ?? That's totally false, you have no idea if it's true or false, and you post that because you want to pretend you have a clue?

Why don't you just write that you don't know?
Enlighten me then. Honestly, what complex matters have uniform probability distributions? No, I ain't talking about how much customers are charged at a salad bar for how much salad they stuff their mouths with. I am talking about actual real life examples of complex matters with high numbers of variables, like you know, how a hockey team does in an association of other hockey teams.

Quote:
Which makes you dishonest. If you pick your borders to give you the answer you want then you're making a false statistical test. You need to pick your borders before knowing the answer.
This isn't a science experiment man, its a freaking hockey message board.

I have pointed out various variables that you didn't take into account and you ignored them. I didn't get all ******** about it.

Quote:
The point remains. The odds of LA winning the cup next year are much higher than the odds of the Habs winning the cup.
My parent's dog has a higher probability of crapping on the floor than I do.

And what is the significance of this? It doesn't have any.

Quote:
Those players are extremely important.

Halak is the one that beat Washington and Pittsburgh, and Hamrlik was the number 1 dman who played effectively in all situations. Bergeron was the triggerman for the powerplay, and we no longer have triggerman.

You're clearly one of those Habs fans that underrated Hamrlik.
Actually, I wasn't. Go on a hunt for my posts if you feel like it.

And that isn't even correct. The Habs employed a defense by committee that year. Hamrlik got like 12 minutes in the last few games against Washington. Go ahead, look it up.

Gill and Gorges were used the most in the Pittsburgh series, Subban and Harmlik, along with Spacek all got big minutes.

So you got three players that were no longer on the team mid way through last season. Come on man, in today's environment that is actually quite remarkable.

And honestly, who gives a rats ass about Bergeron.


Last edited by guest1467: 07-31-2012 at 12:49 PM.
guest1467 is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 12:40 PM
  #396
Dekar
Registered User
 
Dekar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bound Kingdom
Posts: 5,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
Funny that you manage to make your point without talking about Markov. He alone makes a major difference.
I know! All I talked about was a healthy Gionta, another year of the veteranization of Pacioretty and Subban, and a bit of experience for formerly first-year NHLers (Emelin and Diaz).

I know full-well that there are going to be injury issues, and the inclusion of Markov is a big question mark as the team's been effectively playing without him for the better part of a couple of years. I'm confident he'll make a difference, but the point I want to make is that even without him, we're a much better team with captain Gionta in the lineup. I'm by no means a Gionta fanboy, but his determination, effective work on the boards, the lead-by-example work ethic he puts on, and just how he finds ways to score 20 to 30 timely goals all season is a huge boost to the team.

I've already had a couple of people say "Oh that's all well and nice that we're going to have a full year with a perfect outcome to every scenario and the stars are aligned, etc" but I never once said or hinted at that. Some people need to learn to read, stop making up fake implications, and reply to what's there.

Dekar is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 01:13 PM
  #397
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
So essentially what you're saying is that when it doesn't follow the tanking model, then it is all luck. The fact is that since the lockout 3 teams have won without having to resort to finishing last multiple years in a row. You could argue that it's 4 teans if you include the kings, however, they are more of a mix of models than one clear model. I wouldn't call Kopitar a tanking pick. Doughty yes, but 10th overall picks are never sure fire: see Andrei Kostitsyn.
No pick is sure fire. The top five are the best but the slots from 6-10 are the next best. And so on and so on. Problem is that we haven't had near enough this many picks and that's why we've not had stars. The Kings had multiple top ten picks and landed two stars. That's the difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
You don't only need to draft top 5 to get very good players.
Sure. You can get lucky. But why do it the hard way? If you get three top five picks, you'd have to be unlucky or have bad scouting or development to not get at least one star. Conversely, you can have tons of picks past the 30th overall and you still probably won't get one. It's a needle in the haystack later on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Sure it does increase your chances of getting a great player, but if you surround that player with crap like Nash in Columbus, Tavares in NY, Bouwmeester in Florida, you won't win.
And that's the way it will always be. Most teams in the league have at least one star player. Some have superstars. A superstar alone won't win you anything... everyone knows this dude.

Problem is though that WITHOUT those superstars, it also becomes a lot harder to win. Superstars are an important ingredient to most cup winning teams no matter how you get them. Anaheim had three of them (Two were top five picks and the other was an early 1st rounder btw) so did pretty much every other team that's ever won a cup.

We don't get superstars though. Not surprising at all that we don't win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
You need a mix of methods to win, rather than just waiting for a top pick. Look at Carolina, sure they won with Staal, but they also had many key players they acquired in trades and signings. Those players are all gone, Staal is still there, yet they haven't come close to what they were.
Of course you need a mix. But as part of that mix you need a superstar. If you don't have at least one, you probably won't win. Most cup winning teams have two or three superstars on it. We have zero.

The question is, how do we get those top tier players to help us win?

It's awfully hard to trade for a superstar in his prime. Most teams won't give them up and when they do it's because the star asks to be dealt or leaves on his own (see Niedermayer, Progner, Nash.) So how do you get them?

1. Trade for an established star. If you can do this... great. But good luck with that. It's not easy to do. For whatever reason stars don't seem to want to come here. The only guys who come here are 2nd tier players looking for the big check. That's it. And if by chance we could get an established superstar it's probably going to gut our team.

If we can do a rip-off trade like the Rangers just did - great. Go do it. But don't be surprised when this doesn't happen.

2. Free agency. Most FAs aren't superstars. Even the very good players like Suter or Parise aren't in that superstar tier. Very rarely you might get a guy like Chara become available. But it doesn't happen often and when it does we have shown no ability - none - to get those kinds of players. And look at the stupid money it took to get Parise and Suter. They aren't worth those contracts.

If you can get a superstar this way with a decent contract - great. But again... not going to happen dude.

3. Trade for picks and prospects. Stockpiling picks and prospects is a great way of getting good young players. You get them before the team giving them away knows what they're giving up. If the draft is as good as people say this year, we should be all over making as many trades as we can for 1st rounders.

4. Draft them. The odds of getting a superstar is about 1 in 4 in the top five. It drops off a cliff after that and it's next to impossible beyond the 1st round. Sure, we can try to do this. Sooner or later we might land the superstar we're looking for but if we're going to do it this way it only makes sense to try to at least get other 1st rounders to pick with.

Were all those other cup winners lucky? Anaheim sure was. No doubt about that. The others? There's going to be luck involved no matter what. What you want to do though is put yourself into a position where you're good enough to exploit the good luck to try to win cups or have enough talent to overcome the bad luck that gets in your way.

We haven't been good enough to capitialize on good luck even when we've had it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Aside from the Pens and the Hawks, no other team has won by just sitting at the bottom year after year since the lockout.
And before the lockout teams won year after year after year rebuilding this way. And the proposed changes in the new agreements are probably going to bring it back this way again.

No matter how you slice it, it makes sense to try to build with the best young players you can. Esp when you aren't contenders and we aren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I thought you would have got it the first time, but here it is again:

Oh, I got it. I just think it's ironic that you posted it considering the crap you're trying to pass off as argument here.

Buddasmoka posting the Scarecrow... ironic indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
You clearly can't handle not completely taking someone's argument out of your ass and strawmanning the crap out of it.

I never said any of these things, LOL.]
Your 'arguments' don't need to be strawmanned. They're ridiculous on their own face. You're sitting there saying that it's a crapshoot. And that's just flat out stupid.

Assuming you were correct (and you aren't) then there'd be no point in building a the best team you can (which is what you are implying here.) You're sitting there trying to argue that there's no point to rebuilding because at the end of the day it's just some random event that happens.

And yet we haven't been to the cup final in 20 years and the Leafs haven't been there in over 40. Strange how that works...

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 01:18 PM
  #398
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
What is it with this entitlement complex of Habs fans? I never saw ANY satisfaction when we placed 1st in the East and basically lit the net of any team we played against. Nah, that would be too much. Instead we called it a fluke and bashed Gainey for ruining the future of the team the next season for trading for excellent players like Lang and Tanguay.
It's not an entitlement complex. It's a winner's mentality. This is a sport, we want to win, or at least be legitimate contenders. We don't want a mediocre 8th place, we don't want an "A for effort" like the 2011-2012 Ottawa Senators... we want to win the championship. We want an "A for excellence". Similarly, in the olympics we rank countries by how many medals they win -- not how many people they have competing.

The team that came 1st in 2007-08 was an excellent team. It wasn't an 8th place team, it was a top-4 team and a legitimate contender. It fell apart the next year due too many injuries. People whining about the injuries in 2011-2012 should look up 2008-09. In my view that team was a valid example of a non-tank team being able to compete. The highest draft pick was Mike Komisarek at 7th overall, and he was only the 3rd most important defenseman.

The fact it didn't win doesn't negate the fact that it had decent odds to win. I'd be satisfied with a legitimate contender. For example, the Pittsburgh Penguins have been legitimate contenders for 4 of the past 5 years (scratch the year Crosby and Malkin were both injured) and have only made the finals twice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Enlighten me then. Honestly, what complex matters have uniform probability distributions? No, I ain't talking about how much customers are charged at a salad bar for how much salad they stuff their mouths with. I am talking about actual real life examples of complex matters with high numbers of variables, like you know, how a hockey team does in an association of other hockey teams.
Many things that are crapshoots are distributed as uniform random variables, for example the probability of getting "3" when you roll one die. It's 16.7%. That's the definition of a crapshoot I think.

You're the one saying it's a crapshoot. Nobody's denying that luck/randomness plays a role, but it's not uniform. Different teams have different probabilities, which means it's not entirely about luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I have pointed out various variables that you didn't take into account and you ignored them.
They were not fit to respond to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Actually, I wasn't.
OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
And that isn't even correct. The Habs employed a defense by committee that year. Hamrlik got like 12 minutes in the last few games against Washington. Go ahead, look it up.

Gill and Gorges were used the most in the Pittsburgh series, Subban and Harmlik, along with Spacek all got big minutes.

So you got three players that were no longer on the team mid way through last season. Come on man, in today's environment that is actually quite remarkable.
That conference finals team overachieved that rode a Halak hot streak. It was an 8th place with Gomez, Hamrlik, Spacek, Moore, Bergeron. Replace those players with Desharnais, Cole, Emelin, Diaz, Kaberle and you have a 12th place team. Remove Cammalleri and Kostitsyn and you have a 15th place team.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 01:18 PM
  #399
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Your 'arguments' don't need to be strawmanned. They're ridiculous on their own face. You're sitting there saying that it's a crapshoot. And that's just flat out stupid.

Assuming you were correct (and you aren't) then there'd be no point in building a the best team you can (which is what you are implying here.) You're sitting there trying to argue that there's no point to rebuilding because at the end of the day it's just some random event that happens.

And yet we haven't been to the cup final in 20 years and the Leafs haven't been there in over 40. Strange how that works...
Actually, the crapshoot comment was a reference in regards to fans if you didn't notice.

You build the best possible team and hope for the best. You know, like, how professional sports always go.

If it doesn't work out, there is always next year. It is just a game after all.

I'll answer to your little minion later.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 01:53 PM
  #400
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's not an entitlement complex. It's a winner's mentality. This is a sport, we want to win, or at least be legitimate contenders. We don't want a mediocre 8th place, we don't want an "A for effort" like the 2011-2012 Ottawa Senators... we want to win the championship. We want an "A for excellence". Similarly, in the olympics we rank countries by how many medals they win -- not how many people they have competing.
There are 30 teams in this league. What gives you the right to demand excellence every single season? What makes your team so special that you feel that you deserve to win?

Quote:
The team that came 1st in 2007-08 was an excellent team. It wasn't an 8th place team, it was a top-4 team and a legitimate contender. It fell apart the next year due too many injuries. People whining about the injuries in 2011-2012 should look up 2008-09. In my view that team was a valid example of a non-tank team being able to compete. The highest draft pick was Mike Komisarek at 7th overall, and he was only the 3rd most important defenseman.
So you admit that you can build a legitimate contender without this amazing infallible rebuild strategy?

Quote:
The fact it didn't win doesn't negate the fact that it had decent odds to win. I'd be satisfied with a legitimate contender. For example, the Pittsburgh Penguins have been legitimate contenders for 4 of the past 5 years (scratch the year Crosby and Malkin were both injured) and have only made the finals twice.
Yeah, they are contenders because they won a lottery to get the best player in the game.

Quote:
Many things that are crapshoots are distributed as uniform random variables, for example the probability of getting "3" when you roll one die. It's 16.7%. That's the definition of a crapshoot I think.

You're the one saying it's a crapshoot. Nobody's denying that luck/randomness plays a role, but it's not uniform. Different teams have different probabilities, which means it's not entirely about luck.
Nice dodge. Seriously, I apparently talked out of my ass and made a complete mockery of myself. Yet...you didn't provide examples of real life complex matters having uniform probability distributions.

You know what is cool about language? Words can be used in certain contexts and have different meanings.

When I said 'glorified crapshoot' do you honestly, actually, believe I mean that every team has a 1/30 chance of winning the cup?

Quote:
They were not fit to respond to.
Yeah, I guess the fact that there are teams that barely scrape the salary floor that stay in the cellar is a variable that has no bearing on your statistical analysis on the lottery.

Uh-huh.

Quote:
That conference finals team overachieved that rode a Halak hot streak. It was an 8th place with Gomez, Hamrlik, Spacek, Moore, Bergeron. Replace those players with Desharnais, Cole, Emelin, Diaz, Kaberle and you have a 12th place team. Remove Cammalleri and Kostitsyn and you have a 15th place team.
Yeah, I must have forgot that Martin was leading the team to a playoff berth until he got axed. 15th team my ass.

I guess you can explain to me, precisely the way you did there, how Philly nose-dived all their way down to the **** bin before going to the SC finals the next year with virtually the same team?

guest1467 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 02:07 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.