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

All Encompassing Tanking/Rebuilding/Selling at Deadline Thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2013, 10:24 PM
  #251
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I understand your point, but what I am saying is that drafting is the most luck-dependent of any hockey strategies, wouldn't you agree? Trading for an established player involves a smaller gamble than drafting in the top 15.
I think trades are actually very high-risk sometimes. Due to the fact that the players are known quantities, it's extremely difficult to win a trade of players traded for players. Both GMs typically have good information.

In a rational trade market, you can trade bronze for bronze, silver for silver, or gold for gold. You cannot trade silver for gold or bronze for silver. If we offer Eric Cole to the Flyers for Wayne Simmonds, they will say no. If we offer Kaberle to Columbus for Tyutin, they will say no. Most trades are value-neutral, unless you take risks involving prospects and picks, e.g.:

1) Halak for Eller
2) Latendresse for Pouliot
3) Cammalleri, Ramo for Bourque, Holland and a 2nd rounder
4) Gomez for McDonagh
5) Hodgson for Kassian
6) Voracek and an 8th overall for Jeff Carter

Those are risky trades, luck-based trades, and those are the only trades you can win or lose by a lot and thus substantially improve your team. Trades involving involving proven quantities are typically lateral moves. They can slightly improve your team if you have complementary needs, but don't expect to go from 15th to 1st with just trades.

The other factor about trades, hinted at above, is that in order to trade for gold you have to offer gold. The Kingdom of Habsland is short on gold, and where we do have gold we have a single bar at best (e.g. Subban on defense). We're not wealthy enough to rock the trade market, as Los Angeles has been in the past year when they traded Schenn+Simmonds for Richards, Johnson+1st forCarter, and Teubert for Penner. Trades are not a viable team-building option for us right now. If we draft well, stockpile picks, and develop our players, trades *will* become the required team-building strategy in about 2 or 3 years.

If we trade some subset of Plekanec, Markov, Cole, Gionta, Bourque, Kaberle for other roster players we will remain level, approximately. There is almost no risk, but almost no possibility of reward as well. However, if we trade them for picks and prospects, we do risk declining from 13th to 15th place or so, but the potential reward is very high. Further, if we do decline from 13th to 15th, the damage is dampened by a superior lottery pick.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 10:26 PM
  #252
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
We have a good young core, but unless we surround them with similarly talented players we ain't winning a thing. Sure, we have good pieces, but what's that worth if they're no better than half the league's good pieces? We need superiority.

Right now, our crop of prospects is better than we've had in ages. They're supposedly among the top 10 in the league. If we're lucky, guys like Tinordi and Beaulieu will join Subban, Gorges, and Emelin to give us a moderately superior defense in about three years. But even then we probably ain't going all the way because our offence looks weak next to other contending teams. We'll need more goal-scorers than Galchenyuk and Pacioretty, and our secondary scoring has to be much better. Again, we have to be superior, not just adequate. If we're really lucky, guys like Gallagher and Collberg can develop into superior third-line forwards, and Eller will become a solid 20-goal scorer.

But will that make us superior, as in a top-five team? Impossible to say, but right now I'd say no. We might have enough for a strong second and third line, but I still think we're missing one more power forward or a sniper -- one more superior piece that can take us from 'good' to 'great'. Make no mistake -- we have a long way to go to become a strong-scoring team, and our young core won't get us there be themselves. One option is to blow our load on a star UFA, if we're able. The other option is drafting a top pick this year, in the hope that he becomes our missing piece in three or four years. Who should we give away to get that pick? The answer is easy: anyone -- that means ANYONE -- who won't be here in three or four years. 2016 is our focus. Anyone who can't be there is expendable.
See, what I'm trying to say is with this good young core we need a good veteran leadership to help them along. Cole is a great power-forward who does wonders for Patches, Plekanec is a great two-way player and Gionta is all heart with an amazing shot. Cole and Patches have great primary scoring, Gionta and Pleks are great secondary scorers, and we have young pieces like Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Collberg, Hudon and others who could also turn out to be amazing primary/secondary scorers. Our top-six could really be great, and our defense too. I'm kind of scared of our defense as it stands, though.

But if you want that top pick, who would YOU trade away? I totally agree with you that trading a player who won't be here in 3-4 years would be ideal to get a top pick, but NO ONE will trade their first round pick, especially if it is a high one, for an older veteran and nothing else. They will want an established young player and maybe a prospect. I'm not sure who I would give up for that pick, and I sure as hell don't want to rebuild just so I can hope that pick turns out to be a good one.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 10:30 PM
  #253
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Out of our players who aren't part of the long term plans ie, three to four years from now, how many are worth a top pick? Zero. It's not happening. It's sound good in theory, but no one is giving us a lottery pick for our castaways. Players outside of the top 5 are anything but sure things.
I've said the exact same thing. A top-pick is near impossible to trade for. But why not stack the deck with as many high picks as possible, even if they're not top five? Strengthen our pathetic scoring depth, at least. Why not trade some older players to free up cap space to take a legit shot at a star UFA?

Again, the goal is to build our 2016 team, NOT our 2013 team. What do the Habs of 2016 sacrifice by trading players who won't be there anyway? The only formula for winning is superiority, NOT adequacy. Superiority is hard, it's a crapshoot, it takes balls and risk, which is why most teams fail. But we have to try. And the only ways are 1) Loading up on the best picks we can get, or 2) Loading up on as much UFA bribe money. In both cases, something has to be given away.

Lshap is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 10:31 PM
  #254
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I think trades are actually very high-risk sometimes. Due to the fact that the players are known quantities, it's extremely difficult to win a trade of players traded for players. Both GMs typically have good information.

In a rational trade market, you can trade bronze for bronze, silver for silver, or gold for gold. You cannot trade silver for gold or bronze for silver. If we offer Eric Cole to the Flyers for Wayne Simmonds, they will say no. If we offer Kaberle to Columbus for Tyutin, they will say no. Most trades are value-neutral, unless you take risks involving prospects and picks, e.g.:

1) Halak for Eller
2) Latendresse for Pouliot
3) Cammalleri, Ramo for Bourque, Holland and a 2nd rounder
4) Gomez for McDonagh
5) Hodgson for Kassian
6) Voracek and an 8th overall for Jeff Carter

Those are risky trades, luck-based trades, and those are the only trades you can win or lose by a lot and thus substantially improve your team. Trades involving involving proven quantities are typically lateral moves. They can slightly improve your team if you have complementary needs, but don't expect to go from 15th to 1st with just trades.

The other factor about trades, hinted at above, is that in order to trade for gold you have to offer gold. The Kingdom of Habsland is short on gold, and where we do have gold we have a single bar at best (e.g. Subban on defense). We're not wealthy enough to rock the trade market, as Los Angeles has been in the past year when they traded Schenn+Simmonds for Richards, Johnson+1st forCarter, and Teubert for Penner. Trades are not a viable team-building option for us right now. If we draft well, stockpile picks, and develop our players, trades *will* become the required team-building strategy in about 2 or 3 years.

If we trade some subset of Plekanec, Markov, Cole, Gionta, Bourque, Kaberle for other roster players we will remain level, approximately. There is almost no risk, but almost no possibility of reward as well. However, if we trade them for picks and prospects, we do risk declining from 13th to 15th place or so, but the potential reward is very high. Further, if we do decline from 13th to 15th, the damage is dampened by a superior lottery pick.
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say, friend, as I agree with all your points. Of course some trades involve more risk than others, and of course the Habs don't have as many trade options as LA has in the last couple years.

A draft pick is never a guarantee, unless it is a top pick, and even then those sometimes don't pan out. That is why a draft pick is almost always more risky than a trade: for the very reason you are giving. Trades are most often bronze for bronze, silver for silver, etc. You often know what you're getting out of them when it comes to players, not so much when it comes to picks.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 10:50 PM
  #255
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
See, what I'm trying to say is with this good young core we need a good veteran leadership to help them along. Cole is a great power-forward who does wonders for Patches, Plekanec is a great two-way player and Gionta is all heart with an amazing shot. Cole and Patches have great primary scoring, Gionta and Pleks are great secondary scorers, and we have young pieces like Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Collberg, Hudon and others who could also turn out to be amazing primary/secondary scorers. Our top-six could really be great, and our defense too. I'm kind of scared of our defense as it stands, though.

But if you want that top pick, who would YOU trade away? I totally agree with you that trading a player who won't be here in 3-4 years would be ideal to get a top pick, but NO ONE will trade their first round pick, especially if it is a high one, for an older veteran and nothing else. They will want an established young player and maybe a prospect. I'm not sure who I would give up for that pick, and I sure as hell don't want to rebuild just so I can hope that pick turns out to be a good one.
I'm trying to see this as coldly as possible. In that light, what do we do with our vets? Do we drive them into the ground until their resale value is practically zero, or do we flip them now, while their value is higher? Yeah, it sounds heartless, but the question is how to best use them to improve our 2016 club. Sure, trading them probably won't get us a top-five pick, but one thing is 100% certain: We'll get more for them NOW than LATER.

Lshap is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 10:52 PM
  #256
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
On the contrary. I never said we were great, I said we had a good core. You putting words in my mouth to try winning an internet argument shows, in fact, that "you have no credibility".

The first three paragraphs of your post are so silly. Are they just filler to make your argument look bigger? Why are you asking questions about the past when the current management is 100% different from then? And why are you asking questions with obvious answers? Stop being pretentious.
Because you come here talking like what we're saying is crazy. You. The guy who defends the team no matter what.

Pretentious is coming into a thread after you've been wrong for years and criticizing people who've been right.

Folks like you have been posting on here forever. You'll defend everything no matter what. You probably werent' around for this thread but read the posts. Look at how many people defend the Gomez trade. They do it not because it made sense but because they can't see things objectively and that's exactly the kind of poster you are.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...ighlight=gomez
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
People like you, people who think rebuilding is the answer to all the club's woes, make me laugh. First of all, rebuilding is all about luck. I see you posting all around the boards, whining that our current prospects are too many "IFs" and "BUTs". What, may I ask, is a bigger "if and but" than the damn draft? A NHL entry draft is one of the biggest gambles in the league, you draft players and HOPE they do well. It's like a lottery. So when you complain about how our team has too many "IFs" and then turn around and want our team to put 100% of our efforts into a draft, which is THE KING OF IF'S, just seems so silly in my eyes.
Yeah right... Why bother trying to build a team then? Just deal away all your firsts and eventually you'll win cups because it's all about luck. Hell it's worked for the Leafs right?

Top picks generate superstars at a much higher rate than 6-10, exponentially higher that 11-30 and eons ahead of 31+. That is not luck. That is MATH.

Yes, you can get unlucky. Your best young player can kill a teammate in a car crash. You can build a great team right before the salary cap's introduction and choose Chara over Redden... bad luck can happen just like good luck can happen.

But you can't plan for luck man. You build your team the best you can and deal with luck as it comes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I'm the one saying we need to build, build towards championships. But you and others on the boards cry for "rebuilding" which is NOT the same thing and far more risky. We can build around this good core of youth, but trading away ALL the veterans is so stupid! How can you not see that trading away Cole, who obviously helped Pacioretty tremendously last year, is a BAD idea? How can you not see that trading Markov, who can teach Subban and our defense SO MUCH, is a bad idea? Keeping veteran leadership is mandatory on any team.
Build how? With more mediocre players? You are the guy who defended the hell out of Gomez because you couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Veteran leadership is not mandatory. Esp when it comes at the expense of talent. Talent wins cups man. You'll have vets on the roster and they help but it's talent that wins the day.

And nobody (including me) is suggesting we deal every last vet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I'm not wearing rose-coloured glasses,
You've been wearing them for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
and I never said everything is okay. This team isn't looking amazing obviously. But stop pretending like you've always had the right idea all along. Stop pretending HFBoards has always been right, "saying it for years and years". I remember, one or two years ago, reading these boards, and you were preaching the same thing you are preaching now: rebuilding and making big trades for the future. You ended your argument by saying we needed to trade Pacioretty and a 1st round pick for James Van-Riemsdyk because our team needed a good young power forward to build around. Now, looking back, can you imagine how stupid that would've been? Giving up Pacioretty and Galchenyuk for JVR? Ridiculous.
WTF are you talking about man? I never said to deal away prospects for prospects. We were talking about dealing away Markov, not Max. And if you read it, you'd see that somebody mentioned dealing for Giroux and folks on this board (probably including you) thought it was ridiculous. People flipped out at the very idea of dealing Markov for anything... Well, how about now? The guy might be worth a 1st IF he has a good year.

You don't ever learn.

Would you rather have Giroux or JVRD plus the pick that we would've gotten now or Markov?

Do you get it now? Is it sinking in? YOU were wrong then and YOU are wrong now. We wasted years having our players get older and we've missed out on prospects that we could've cashed in on.

Yet you STILL don't understand this and you come in here as though what we've been saying is ludicrous?

When will you LEARN?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
So yes, YOU have been the one who is wrong.
Yeah, you're right. I'd much rather have Markov now than Giroux or JVRD plus the pick we were talking about....

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Listening to the stupid ideas of ridiculous trades on these boards would be the dumbest thing the Habs management could do. You, and everyone else preaching this stupid rebuild have no idea how that would result, and neither do I. Betting this team on hoping for the best is ridiculous. Marc Bergevin has been the GM of this team for one NHL game and you already want him to blow up this team for a bunch of kids. Do you see how silly that sounds? This thread is gibberish and you can guarantee that experts would never be spewing the garbage that is in this thread.
This thread makes a whole lot more sense than what we've seen for years from management. We've sucked for years and actually YEAH a lot of the proposals over the years (the same ones you are now calling stupid) would've been great for us.

Koivu and Souray for Bobby Ryan? Yeah, I guess that was a stupid idea too right? And please don't give me this (Anaheim wouldn't do it) crap. Bottom line is that guys like you sit there and call us crazy for even suggesting it.

Then the prospect becomes a player and realizes some of his potential and you sit there and call it luck. As though there was no way to see that this player was a good prospect in the first place.

Yet... you STILL haven't learned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I take that back. This is the best post in this thread AINEC lol..
Apart from basing his post on a trade prosposal that was never made, getting things completely backwards and actually making himself look silly in the process... uh yeah.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 01-21-2013 at 11:41 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 10:58 PM
  #257
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
We have a good young core, but unless we surround them with similarly talented players we ain't winning a thing. Sure, we have good pieces, but what's that worth if they're no better than half the league's good pieces? We need superiority.

Right now, our crop of prospects is better than we've had in ages. They're supposedly among the top 10 in the league. If we're lucky, guys like Tinordi and Beaulieu will join Subban, Gorges, and Emelin to give us a moderately superior defense in about three years. But even then we probably ain't going all the way because our offence looks weak next to other contending teams. We'll need more goal-scorers than Galchenyuk and Pacioretty, and our secondary scoring has to be much better. Again, we have to be superior, not just adequate. If we're really lucky, guys like Gallagher and Collberg can develop into superior third-line forwards, and Eller will become a solid 20-goal scorer.

But will that make us superior, as in a top-five team? Impossible to say, but right now I'd say no. We might have enough for a strong second and third line, but I still think we're missing one more power forward or a sniper -- one more superior piece that can take us from 'good' to 'great'. Make no mistake -- we have a long way to go to become a strong-scoring team, and our young core won't get us there by themselves. One option is to blow our load on a star UFA, if we're able. The other option is drafting a top pick this year, in the hope that he becomes our missing piece in three or four years. Who should we give away to get that pick? The answer is easy: anyone -- that means ANYONE -- who won't be here in three or four years. 2016 is our focus. Anyone who can't be there is expendable.
You sound like you've been converted. I don't remember you coming to the dark side like this before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I never specified your arguments, and I'm sorry but rebuilding usually involved trading most of your established veterans and other assets for picks or young players, no? I would fully support trading veterans for some good return that helps the team now and in the future, but many posters are looking at trading upwards of 4-5 veterans for nothing but picks. That is obviously an issue.

I would NOT like to buy out Markov, which is ridiculous. I do not want to trade Cole, Pacioretty or Gionta unless the return is outstanding, because we need these great role-models to help our young players along.

Trading most of our veterans would be silly, but of course trading some mid-level veterans would be fine. I would have no qualms with doing what Ottawa did, which is a case where everyone said they should rebuild yet look where they are today. They traded mid-level veterans and some placeholders, they picked up some great Swedes, made some solid trades and filled some needs. That isn't what I call a rebuild, that is a nice retool, or a solid build, which is more of what I would prefer the Habs did. Do you understand my stance?
Trading middling vets isn't going to bring any kind of return. It's fine to do this but it won't get us far.

What does Cole do for this team now? How is he not worth a 1st to build with going forward? Ditto with Markov. Those are the guys with value and they're going to bring returns. Kaberle won't. Nobody wants this guy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
I'm trying to see this as coldly as possible. In that light, what do we do with our vets? Do we drive them into the ground until their resale value is practically zero, or do we flip them now, while their value is higher? Yeah, it sounds heartless, but the question is how to best use them to improve our 2016 club. Sure, trading them probably won't get us a top-five pick, but one thing is 100% certain: We'll get more for them NOW than LATER.
You have been converted. Still not willing to deal Plecs though correct?

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 11:05 PM
  #258
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You sound like you've been converted. I don't remember you coming to the dark side like this before.

...

You have been converted. Still not willing to deal Plecs though correct?
A lot of people are going to be converted as it becomes clear just how bad the team is.

There is major denial about our 15th place finish from last year. People point out what went wrong while failing to recognize what went right.

I have faith in the collective intelligence of the people here. If we're 13th, 14th, 15th again then many people will wake up, realize we're not that good, and endorse the greater good strategy.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 11:11 PM
  #259
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
A lot of people are going to be converted as it becomes clear just how bad the team is.

There is major denial about our 15th place finish from last year. People point out what went wrong while failing to recognize what went right.

I have faith in the collective intelligence of the people here. If we're 13th, 14th, 15th again then many people will wake up, realize we're not that good, and endorse the greater good strategy.
Go look at that link I posted. It's hilarious. Same arguments only it's people defending the Gomez move.

I'm glad some folks are coming around. I hope that fans don't just accept but demand a rebuild from management. We really aren't that far away and as Lshap has said, we've got a lot of the right pieces. It might be good enough but if we use this year as you've stated in your thread I think we'd ensure ourselves of being a force for the future. Maybe not next year but in a couple of years we'd be really strong. Then we can look at adding FAs...

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 11:38 PM
  #260
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Because you come here talking like what we're saying is crazy. You. The guy who defends the team no matter what.

Pretentious is coming into a thread after you've been wrong for years and criticizing people who've been right.

Folks like you have been posting on here forever. You'll defend everything no matter what. You probably werent' around for this thread but read the posts. Look at how many people defend the Gomez trade. They do it not because it made sense but because they can't see things objectively and that's exactly the kind of poster you are.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...ighlight=gomez

Yeah right... Why bother trying to build a team then? Just deal away all your firsts and eventually you'll win cups because it's all about luck. Hell it's worked for the Leafs right?

Top picks generate superstars at a much higher rate than 6-10, exponentially higher that 11-30 and eons ahead of 31+. That is not luck. That is MATH.

Yes, you can get unlucky. Your best young player can kill a teammate in a car crash. You can build a great team right before the salary cap's introduction and choose Chara over Redden... bad luck can happen just like good luck can happen.

But you can't plan for luck man. You build your team the best you can and deal with luck as it comes.


Build how? With more mediocre players? You are the guy who defended the hell out of Gomez because you couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Veteran leadership is not mandatory. Esp when it comes at the expense of talent. Talent wins cups man. You'll have vets on the roster and they help but it's talent that wins the day.

And nobody (including me) is suggesting we deal every last vet.



You've been wearing them for a long time.

WTF are you talking about man? I never said to deal away prospects for prospects. We were talking about dealing away Markov, not Max. And if you read it, you'd see that somebody mentioned dealing for Giroux and folks on this board (probably including you) thought it was ridiculous.

You don't ever learn.

Would you rather have Giroux or JVRD plus the pick that we would've gotten now or Markov?

Do you get it now? Is it sinking in? YOU were wrong then and YOU are wrong now. We wasted years having our players get older and we've missed out on prospects that we could've cashed in on.

Yet you STILL don't understand this and you come in here as though what we've been saying is ludicrous?

When will you LEARN?

Yeah, you're right. I'd much rather have Markov now than Giroux or JVRD plus the pick we were talking about....


This thread makes a whole lot more sense than what we've seen for years from management. We've sucked for years and actually YEAH a lot of the proposals over the years (the same ones you are now calling stupid) would've been great for us.

Koivu and Souray for Bobby Ryan? Yeah, I guess that was a stupid idea too right? And please don't give me this (Anaheim wouldn't do it) crap. Bottom line is that guys like you sit there and call us crazy for even suggesting it.

Then the prospect becomes a player and realizes some of his potential and you sit there and call it luck. As though there was no way to see that this player was a good prospect in the first place.

Yet... you STILL haven't learned.

Apart from basing his post on a trade prosposal that was never made and actually making himself look silly in the process... uh yeah.
Oh my god, reading your posts makes me cringe most of all. You're so judgmental and ignorant, it's ridiculous. Too bad no one can ever take you down a notch because instead of bringing up arguments you just go rambling about something else entirely. For example, stop pretending like I've always defended everything the Habs do. Your whole first paragraph or two is just attacking me saying that I defend everything the Habs ever stand for and never want change. Stop pulling crap out of your ass, I never said any of that and even said I didn't think the team was that great right now. The reason no one likes talking to you ever is because you always make up arguments for other people, which you've done about three times against me already.

I'm laughing at how you just twist things into how you want them to look. I said drafting is more involving luck than anything else, and you start saying that I want to trade all our picks? Dude, stop. Just stop pretending you have a valid point, this is silly. I always made the claim that Gomez was better than we gave him credit for, and I still think so, but he doesn't belong on the Habs and there is no place for him here. YOU are the guy who wanted to trade Pacioretty and a pick for JVR. Stop denying it, I remember it vividly. I even argued with you about it but you went on your same rant you are now, saying we will never get anywhere without making big moves.

And yes, veterans are obviously mandatory. What are you talking about man? You need players who are experienced in order to get you far in the playoffs. A bunch of rookies will rarely get you anywhere. Just... every second paragraph you write oozes of ********! Like, you just start talking about how people were saying we should have traded for Giroux, and said I probably didn't want to, and then came to the conclusion that I am wrong and always have been wrong? I'm sorry, but is your post a big joke? Everything you say lacks credibility, not to mention maturity.

Like, when have I ever said I wanted Markov over Giroux? What are you rambling on about this entire time? It is really awe-inspiring how you talk yourself into a fit without me saying anything. Your stupid rebuilding idea is bound for failure because you want to trade all our top players for nothing but prospects and picks, picks that always wind up as luck-of-the-draw anyways, even sometimes when you draft high.

You want to deal massive pieces for picks that you think will end up as high picks, but what if they're not? What if we traded Markov, like you want, for a first round pick, and that team ends up being good and the pick is lower and we pretty much traded Markov for a potential second liner? And, what if there was a team that was obviously going to finish low with a high draft pick. You want to trade Markov for them right? Well they're going to want a young established player, and our first round pick, and maybe even a prospect. Can't you see your stupid rebuilding idea isn't smart when we have so many good young players and great veterans to help develop them?

I love how you act like I never want to trade! I was speaking earlier about obviously agreeing with a trade that would give us a good return. I guess you chose to ignore that. But I would much rather a GOOD TRADE than giving away some of our top players for nothing but a pick that we will HOPE will be in the top 5, and THEN, HOPE that the player we draft will be any good.

EVERYONE supports trades that are good for our present or future, but when you call "building a team" trading so many good pieces that are useful today for something that COULD be useful tomorrow, I'm sure it doesn't make sense in many peoples' eyes. Also, I'm almost positive you have no clue what the term "rebuilding" means. Because you say rebuilding is a good idea but yet you still want to keep our entire youth group, and trade away some of the vets. You specified you don't want to trade most of them, though. So we trade Gionta, Markov and what, Plekanec? What do you expect us to get in return? A bunch of guys who might pan out, right? Or some picks? What are the odds they pan out to be as useful to the team as Gionta, Markov and Plekanec are on the very day we trade them? Do you not SEE how your logic is lacking, how what you want to do, first of all, isn't even rebuilding, and will most probably not even yield us the type of results the players currently yield today?

We don't need a rebuild dude, you're wrong. This team has a great young core to build around. We could do what Ottawa has done; while their whole fanbase, kind of like you, cried for a rebuild after their failures, they just retooled their team a bit, get rid of some mid-level veterans but no important ones, picking up some young players, making some mid-level trades, picking up a goalie, and look where they are today. In the days of parity, rebuilding is not the best option for a struggling team anymore; re-tooling is. That is what the Habs need. We have the goalie, we have some young forwards to build around, we have a good defense core to build around. Your idea of rebuilding is old, used, and not worthwhile today for this Habs organization. Everyone supports trades, everyone supports actions to make our team better, but for posters in here who support buying out Markov, or trade him out (like you) to give room to young defense like Beaulieu and Tinordi to make the team, you don't understand these kids aren't ready and we are developing our youth properly.You don't trade off a bunch of vets then just place a bunch of young kids on the team, that's not how it works and that will never be successful.

Please, stop acting so angry and childish and stop putting words in my mouth. If your next post is anything like the last, I won't bother responding to you.


Last edited by JohnLennon: 01-21-2013 at 11:53 PM.
JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 11:48 PM
  #261
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
I'm trying to see this as coldly as possible. In that light, what do we do with our vets? Do we drive them into the ground until their resale value is practically zero, or do we flip them now, while their value is higher? Yeah, it sounds heartless, but the question is how to best use them to improve our 2016 club. Sure, trading them probably won't get us a top-five pick, but one thing is 100% certain: We'll get more for them NOW than LATER.
It doesn't matter what you get out of trading a veteran. Why does everyone think solely in trades? If you trade Plekanec, let's say, how do you know what you get in return will be anywhere NEAR as efficient as he could be now and in the next 5 years? Of course trading him NOW will get us a better return than LATER, but that return most probably won't bring us anything near as good as what he currently brings us now. Do you see my logic here? Just simply trading vets for the sake of trading them is never going to work, and never has worked.

Actually, we want veterans to help support the youth and help develop them. We need players that have experience in the NHL, in the playoffs it is even more important. Imagine what it would look like if we traded Gionta and Cole for the sake of trading them, got some young decent players or maybe a second rounder or two out of them. That won't benefit the team now, and only has a small chance of doing anything near as useful in the future as what they would've done on the team. As you can see, it all depends on WHO you want to trade, and for WHAT.

As everyone said, we all agree on trades that are good for the team, but we most likely won't get anything as useful in the future by trading our veterans now as these veterans probably would've done by keeping them on the squad. So what's the point? Well, it all depends on the return. Keep in mind, you're not getting many number one picks for most of our veterans, and they are much more useful on this team than what a 2nd-3rd round pick will ever get us, most probably.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 11:55 PM
  #262
JustAHabFan
Registered User
 
JustAHabFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
As everyone said, we all agree on trades that are good for the team, but we most likely won't get anything as useful in the future by trading our veterans now as these veterans probably would've done by keeping them on the squad. So what's the point? Well, it all depends on the return. Keep in mind, you're not getting many number one picks for most of our veterans, and they are much more useful on this team than what a 2nd-3rd round pick will ever get us, most probably.
You do not know what kind of return we get for a Gionta, or a Plekanec at the trade deadline. Some desperate team who wants to make a playoff may give us some good young prospect or 1st round pick. I watched the Ottawa game and Kyle Turris played great. This is the kind of prospect we hope to get by trading a Gionta or a Plekanec.

JustAHabFan is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:02 AM
  #263
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAHabFan View Post
You do not know what kind of return we get for a Gionta, or a Plekanec at the trade deadline. Some desperate team who wants to make a playoff may give us some good young prospect or 1st round pick. I watched the Ottawa game and Kyle Turris played great. This is the kind of prospect we hope to get by trading a Gionta or a Plekanec.
I understand your point, but why would you want to get rid of Plekanec? He is a proven veteran and is effective in all situations. Why would you want to get rid of such a big piece of our forward group just for the sake of trading?

You have to realize that Plekanec will at most, get us a first round pick from a contending team, meaning it will be lower. We can only hope this low pick will be as good as Plekanec currently is and probably will be for 5+years. Getting Turris required David Rundblad AND a second round pick, and Plekanec won't get us anywhere NEAR that return.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:13 AM
  #264
JustAHabFan
Registered User
 
JustAHabFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I understand your point, but why would you want to get rid of Plekanec? He is a proven veteran and is effective in all situations. Why would you want to get rid of such a big piece of our forward group just for the sake of trading?

You have to realize that Plekanec will at most, get us a first round pick from a contending team, meaning it will be lower. We can only hope this low pick will be as good as Plekanec currently is and probably will be for 5+years. Getting Turris required David Rundblad AND a second round pick, and Plekanec won't get us anywhere NEAR that return.
I am not fixated on trading Plekanec. My point is that we are not going to win the current roster. We should be active at the trade deadline and look for trade that can improve our team. If the right deal come along that required Plekanec as the main piece, we should pull the trigger.

JustAHabFan is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:20 AM
  #265
Ghetto Sangria
Groupthink
 
Ghetto Sangria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAHabFan View Post
I am not fixated on trading Plekanec. My point is that we are not going to win the current roster. We should be active at the trade deadline and look for trade that can improve our team. If the right deal come along that required Plekanec as the main piece, we should pull the trigger.
I don't see this team making the playoffs this season, but trading proven vets like pleks, cole, gorges... even gio to a certain degree (obviously depending on the return) just because we want more picks makes no sense. Every rebuilding team needs their share of vets who can play big minutes... Can't just have a bunch of potential with nothing proven on the ice

Ghetto Sangria is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:20 AM
  #266
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAHabFan View Post
I am not fixated on trading Plekanec. My point is that we are not going to win the current roster. We should be active at the trade deadline and look for trade that can improve our team. If the right deal come along that required Plekanec as the main piece, we should pull the trigger.
Of course we should pull the trigger on any trade that benefits us! Imagine we traded Beaulieu and a second for someone like Turris on the wings? My point is that we can NOT be trading just for the sake of making trades, and surely not our most important veterans unless the return is of equal or greater value, of course (which is doubtful).

The idea of buying out Markov and the general lack of understanding of the usefulness of effective veterans is kind of mind-boggling to me, though. I'm sure you understand how I see things at this point and can sympathize.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:28 AM
  #267
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I'm laughing at how you just twist things into how you want them to look. I said drafting is more involving luck than anything else, and you start saying that I want to trade all our picks? Dude, stop. Just stop pretending you have a valid point, this is silly. I always made the claim that Gomez was better than we gave him credit for, and I still think so, but he doesn't belong on the Habs and there is no place for him here. YOU are the guy who wanted to trade Pacioretty and a pick for JVR. Stop denying it, I remember it vividly. I even argued with you about it but you went on your same rant you are now, saying we will never get anywhere without making big moves.
Dude, you are out to lunch.

I said I'd do Markov for JVR and a pick and folks FREEEEEEAKED out. At another point I said I'd do Cammy + Halak (who turned into a starter) for JVR and a pick. Ironically it was Cammy that people were upset about, not Halak... You are way, way off here.

I don't believe in dealing prospect for prospect... never did.

You are dead wrong here. And if you have a post where I suggested dealing Max for ANY player, please find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
And yes, veterans are obviously mandatory. What are you talking about man?
I'm talking about the development phase... not the contending phase. Look at the Oilers young team going to cut their teeth together... they don't need a ton of vets and neither do we. We have Gorges, Price and Gionta. We don't need to keep Cole, Plecs or Markov. If we were contending it would be a different story but we're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
You need players who are experienced in order to get you far in the playoffs. A bunch of rookies will rarely get you anywhere. Just... every second paragraph you write oozes of ********! Like, you just start talking about how people were saying we should have traded for Giroux, and said I probably didn't want to, and then came to the conclusion that I am wrong and always have been wrong? I'm sorry, but is your post a big joke? Everything you say lacks credibility, not to mention maturity.
The playoffs are not important now. Getting the best talent is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Like, when have I ever said I wanted Markov over Giroux? What are you rambling on about this entire time? It is really awe-inspiring how you talk yourself into a fit without me saying anything. Your stupid rebuilding idea is bound for failure because you want to trade all our top players for nothing but prospects and picks, picks that always wind up as luck-of-the-draw anyways, even sometimes when you draft high.
It's in the thread that YOU referenced from a couple of years back. People laughed at the Markov trade suggestion (no way we can trade him.) If you're referencing it and you thought it was stupid, then you're right there with the other posters.

I'm referencing a thread that YOU brought up and got wrong. Don't bring this stuff up if you don't want to be bashed over the head with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
You want to deal massive pieces for picks that you think will end up as high picks, but what if they're not? What if we traded Markov, like you want, for a first round pick, and that team ends up being good and the pick is lower and we pretty much traded Markov for a potential second liner? And, what if there was a team that was obviously going to finish low with a high draft pick. You want to trade Markov for them right? Well they're going to want a young established player, and our first round pick, and maybe even a prospect. Can't you see your stupid rebuilding idea isn't smart when we have so many good young players and great veterans to help develop them?
What if it didn't work out? Three things would have to go wrong for it not to work out. First JVR would have to bust. Second, the pick would have to bust. And third our own pick (which likley would've been a lot higher) would have to bust.

On the flipside we lose Markov who wasn't going to take us anywhere. That's a good risk to take man. Do you not see this?

BTW, we can play this game with Markov too... what if he gets hurt for three years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I love how you act like I never want to trade! I was speaking earlier about obviously agreeing with a trade that would give us a good return. I guess you chose to ignore that. But I would much rather a GOOD TRADE than giving away some of our top players for nothing but a pick that we will HOPE will be in the top 5, and THEN, HOPE that the player we draft will be any good.
What's the flipside? Seriously man, so what if that trade busts? Is it the end of the world if we lose Markov or Cole? I mean come on man we were 15th with Cole and Plecs in the lineup, what are we holding onto them for?

And dude sorry but Timmins has been great for us. A 1st for Cole and Markov gives us two firsts and Pleks can get us a prospect +. What are the odds of all these picks and prospects being busts in a deep draft with Timmins at the helm?

Be practical man. You're talking like its darts on a board... it doesn't work that way. You'll probably get a decent player with a 1st round pick and we can build with that. Factor in Timmins and a deep draft and it really makes sense to do it esp since we aren't contending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
EVERYONE supports trades that are good for our present or future, but when you call "building a team" trading so many good pieces that are useful today for something that COULD be useful tomorrow, I'm sure it doesn't make sense in many peoples' eyes.
1. Useful pieces for today don't mean anything for us if we're finishing 15th. Doesn't matter at all, esp if those players are in their mid 30s.
2. Again, you use the term COULD like its a roulette wheel. Its not man. Its not a 1 in a 100 that we'll get a good player. Maybe this is why you don't understand what we're talking about.

Good picks usually become good prospects. Good prospects usually become good players. Yet you're talking like its a total crapshoot. It's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Also, I'm almost positive you have no clue what the term "rebuilding" means. Because you say rebuilding is a good idea but yet you still want to keep our entire youth group, and trade away some of the vets. You specified you don't want to trade most of them, though. So we trade Gionta, Markov and what, Plekanec? What do you expect us to get in return? A bunch of guys who might pan out, right? Or some picks? What are the odds they pan out to be as useful to the team as Gionta, Markov and Plekanec are on the very day we trade them? Do you not SEE how your logic is lacking, how what you want to do, first of all, isn't even rebuilding, and will most probably not even yield us the type of results the players currently yield today?
I expect a return of the following as long as these players have a decent year:

Markov: 1st
Cole: 1st
Plecs: Good prospect + picks

Very realistic and reasonable return. Makes us better for the future and we maximize their value now. They aren't going to lead us anywhere but they can help contending teams who are going for it now. That still leaves us plenty of vets for mentoring etc... but we still cash in on our assets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
We don't need a rebuild dude, you're wrong.
How long have you been saying this? 15 years? 10? 5?

And before you say it's irrelvant... think for a second. You were just as passionate that we didn't need a rebulid five years ago. Well, do you think we'd be stronger now if we'd done it then?

Yeah, I guess I'm wrong there too right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
This team has a great young core to build around. We could do what Ottawa has done; while their whole fanbase, kind of like you, cried for a rebuild after their failures, they just retooled their team a bit, get rid of some mid-level veterans but no important ones, picking up some young players, making some mid-level trades, picking up a goalie, and look where they are today. In the days of parity, rebuilding is not the best option for a struggling team anymore; re-tooling is. That is what the Habs need. We have the goalie, we have some young forwards to build around, we have a good defense core to build around. Your idea of rebuilding is old, used, and not worthwhile today for this Habs organization. Everyone supports trades, everyone supports actions to make our team better, but for posters in here who support buying out Markov, or trade him out (like you) to give room to young defense like Beaulieu and Tinordi to make the team, you don't understand these kids aren't ready and we are developing our youth properly.You don't trade off a bunch of vets then just place a bunch of young kids on the team, that's not how it works and that will never be successful.
I don't think I'd like to do what Ottawa has done. They're not fully rebuilt yet and I don't see them competing anytime soon.

As for our core, yeah we've got a good core to start with. I think it makes a whole lot of sense to add to it though. Going ahead and getting FAs now with what we have wont' get us anywhere. We're better off adding more prospects to what we have. If we get another top pick this year that's great. Ditto with the returns that I've suggested. If you're happy with our upcoming core now, how much happier would you be if we had some more great prospects to go with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Please, stop acting so angry and childish and stop putting words in my mouth. If your next post is anything like the last, I won't bother responding to you.
Take your own advice. You came in here like a jerk and got schooled. You want to be spoken (written to) with respect then extend the same courtesy. Don't come in like a cowboy saying all of our opinions are absurd. If you do that you can expect a measured response.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:31 AM
  #268
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAHabFan View Post
You do not know what kind of return we get for a Gionta, or a Plekanec at the trade deadline. Some desperate team who wants to make a playoff may give us some good young prospect or 1st round pick. I watched the Ottawa game and Kyle Turris played great. This is the kind of prospect we hope to get by trading a Gionta or a Plekanec.
you know the two players you named have contracts that go beyond this season right ?

you also know they both have NTC/NMC right ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:37 AM
  #269
JustAHabFan
Registered User
 
JustAHabFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
you know the two players you named have contracts that go beyond this season right ?

you also know they both have NTC/NMC right ?
I know that. At the trade deadline, players with contract for 1 more year and NTC have been traded before. My point is that we should be active at the trade deadline and look for opportunity to improve the team. It does not have to be Gionta or Pleks.

JustAHabFan is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:43 AM
  #270
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
It doesn't matter what you get out of trading a veteran. Why does everyone think solely in trades? If you trade Plekanec, let's say, how do you know what you get in return will be anywhere NEAR as efficient as he could be now and in the next 5 years? Of course trading him NOW will get us a better return than LATER, but that return most probably won't bring us anything near as good as what he currently brings us now. Do you see my logic here? Just simply trading vets for the sake of trading them is never going to work, and never has worked.
Your whole argument hinges on the picks not working out. If you have multiple picks, they aren't all going to flop. You keep talking about the possibility of flops, well we got McD and Max out of the same draft. What if we got a return like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Actually, we want veterans to help support the youth and help develop them. We need players that have experience in the NHL, in the playoffs it is even more important. Imagine what it would look like if we traded Gionta and Cole for the sake of trading them, got some young decent players or maybe a second rounder or two out of them. That won't benefit the team now, and only has a small chance of doing anything near as useful in the future as what they would've done on the team. As you can see, it all depends on WHO you want to trade, and for WHAT.
So keep some vets. Keep Gio (he's probably not going to bring a huge return anyway) keep Gorges as he's a vet but still young. We've got Price and others...

Don't keep vets at the expense of talent when you aren't going to win anything anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
As everyone said, we all agree on trades that are good for the team, but we most likely won't get anything as useful in the future by trading our veterans now as these veterans probably would've done by keeping them on the squad. So what's the point? Well, it all depends on the return. Keep in mind, you're not getting many number one picks for most of our veterans, and they are much more useful on this team than what a 2nd-3rd round pick will ever get us, most probably.
Not true. Not true at all.

The picks we get now will be starting their NHL careers in two or three years. In two or three years Markov might not even be in the league. So I'm not sure what you're going on about here.

Are you saying that the only way it makes sense to deal Markov is if we get another young Markov in return? If so, you really don't understand anything here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAHabFan View Post
You do not know what kind of return we get for a Gionta, or a Plekanec at the trade deadline. Some desperate team who wants to make a playoff may give us some good young prospect or 1st round pick. I watched the Ottawa game and Kyle Turris played great. This is the kind of prospect we hope to get by trading a Gionta or a Plekanec.
I would've loved to have gotten Turris but they wanted younger players and prospects. I would've given up Plecs for him though and taken the chance.

Maybe he busts but I would've taken that chance on a talent like Turris. He finally seems to be realizing some of that potential too so maybe Ottawa will actually be in good shape going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I understand your point, but why would you want to get rid of Plekanec? He is a proven veteran and is effective in all situations. Why would you want to get rid of such a big piece of our forward group just for the sake of trading?

You have to realize that Plekanec will at most, get us a first round pick from a contending team, meaning it will be lower. We can only hope this low pick will be as good as Plekanec currently is and probably will be for 5+years. Getting Turris required David Rundblad AND a second round pick, and Plekanec won't get us anywhere NEAR that return.
Nobody wants to 'get rid of' Plecs. It makes sense though to deal him for a good return. And if he's so effective, why would he only get us a 1st?

His return should be higher. A good prospect and some picks. And if he doesn't get this kind of return... then just hold onto him. Nobody is suggesting we deal him for the hell of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Danglez View Post
I don't see this team making the playoffs this season, but trading proven vets like pleks, cole, gorges... even gio to a certain degree (obviously depending on the return) just because we want more picks makes no sense. Every rebuilding team needs their share of vets who can play big minutes... Can't just have a bunch of potential with nothing proven on the ice
Why doesn't it make sense? We aren't winning and those vets are getting older. They can help other teams win and we get help to win down the road.

It makes perfect sense.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 12:47 AM
  #271
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't think I'd like to do what Ottawa has done. They're not fully rebuilt yet and I don't see them competing anytime soon.
21 years old Silfverberg on the 1st line, 22 years old Turris and 25 years old Latendresse on the 2nd, other in their early 20 on the 3rd and 4th lines. 22 years old Karlsson as their #1 D, along with 22 years old Wiercioch on the blue line as well. 20 years old Lehner as their backup.

what you're saying is exactly what I've thought. For you, it's never enough, Price, Eller, Pacc, Subban isnt enough, and after a top 3 pick it's not enough, we GOT TO get another one, even then it's not enough, we GOT TO get other picks by trading vets. we also have to get more picks next year, and the next, and so on...

the way to eternal rebuild...


dont worry though, there's enough people who will blindly follow you, like DAC for example, and a few others who like fantasies like surgical tanks and whatnot.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 01:06 AM
  #272
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I understand your point, but why would you want to get rid of Plekanec? He is a proven veteran and is effective in all situations. Why would you want to get rid of such a big piece of our forward group just for the sake of trading?

You have to realize that Plekanec will at most, get us a first round pick from a contending team, meaning it will be lower. We can only hope this low pick will be as good as Plekanec currently is and probably will be for 5+years. Getting Turris required David Rundblad AND a second round pick, and Plekanec won't get us anywhere NEAR that return.
Mike Richards was worth Brayden Schenn and Wayne Simmonds.

How much would Plekanec be worth? Two thirds as much? A 1st and Simmonds? A 2nd and Simmonds? Ok, I'm sold.

We also need to trade one or both of Plekanec/Desharnais because our 1-2 punch of the future oughtta be Galchenyuk-Eller down the middle.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 01:12 AM
  #273
JustAHabFan
Registered User
 
JustAHabFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Mike Richards was worth Brayden Schenn and Wayne Simmonds.

How much would Plekanec be worth? Two thirds as much? A 1st and Simmonds? A 2nd and Simmonds? Ok, I'm sold.

We also need to trade one or both of Plekanec/Desharnais because our 1-2 punch of the future oughtta be Galchenyuk-Eller down the middle.
At this point, I am not yet sold on Eller to be our 2nd line center. If we are drafting at 4th or 5th, I think we should get another center in Barkov/Linhholm.

JustAHabFan is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 01:15 AM
  #274
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAHabFan View Post
At this point, I am not yet sold on Eller to be our 2nd line center. If we are drafting at 4th or 5th, I think we should get another center in Barkov/Linhholm.
You're totally right.

If we're drafting top-5:

Dmen:
Seth Jones

Wingers:
MacKinnon
Drouin

Centers:
Barkov
Lindholm

I say draft BPA and totally ignore organizational needs. If Timmins says that BPA is Barkov or Lindholm, then Eller is no longer our 2nd line center of the future.

However, regardless of who we draft, neither Plekanec nor Desharnais oughtta be our 2nd line center of the future.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 01:15 AM
  #275
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Mike Richards was worth Brayden Schenn and Wayne Simmonds.

How much would Plekanec be worth? Two thirds as much? A 1st and Simmonds? A 2nd and Simmonds? Ok, I'm sold.

We also need to trade one or both of Plekanec/Desharnais because our 1-2 punch of the future oughtta be Galchenyuk-Eller down the middle.
Mike Richard was in his mid 20's at the time of the trade. Was part of TC in the Olympics the year before the trade, already posted 80 and 70+ pts seasons...

Plekanec is already 30, got 70 pts ONCE, never won anything at the Olympics (not his fault, Czech team isnt that great)...

love the guy, one of my favorites on the Habs, but no way you get a return close to Mike Richards return.

ECWHSWI 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 01:19 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.