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

Areas to improve on for next season

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2013, 03:54 PM
  #51
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I've been saying it for a while... we should sell high on Markov while we can.
Actually you wanted to trade Markov before the season even started, meaning you wanted to sell him at his lowest possible value remember?

With that said, I agree that at this point it would be worthwhile to trade Markov if the return is high enough. It needs to be worthwhile though, as Markov is still very valuable to this team and is a great role model for our young defensemen.

He is the only defenseman we have above 28 years of age. His experience is important to our youth.

JohnLennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 04:13 PM
  #52
TennisMenace
Registered User
 
TennisMenace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,661
vCash: 500
I don't want to pick up any dman during off season unless the deal is too good to refuse. I like our d now and am willing to wait for the 4 kids to work their way up.

I would like one big bodied nasty player to play on the 4th line.

TennisMenace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 04:35 PM
  #53
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I want us to build towards a cup. It's a means to an end. The logo on the front is more important than the name on the back.

I don't expect him to be dealt (just like I didn't expect Koivu to be dealt) that doesn't mean it's not the right idea.

Because he's the guy it makes sense to deal. High value and can help a team win now. And we can use the return to win in the future.


Yeah right... he's awesome, awesome, awesome but we'd never get anything for him.

Stop being silly.

Have you looked at the standings lately or do you have a copy of the Gazette from last April?

We're in 1st and Markov is helping us win. Win. We're winning. Something you want to turn around and give to another GM.

Who the puck is being silly now?

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 04:51 PM
  #54
CTHabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Have you looked at the standings lately or do you have a copy of the Gazette from last April?

We're in 1st and Markov is helping us win. Win. We're winning. Something you want to turn around and give to another GM.

Who the puck is being silly now?
Exactly! Unlike people who post on message boards, GMs don't have the luxury of tanking for a number of years, building for the future, without getting fired. GMs must also make deals with other GMs based on their needs, unlike posters who think that they would be able to send a player wherever they feel like, while getting a great return for a player that they have no desire to keep.

CTHabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 07:56 PM
  #55
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Actually you wanted to trade Markov before the season even started, meaning you wanted to sell him at his lowest possible value remember?
I said that if he comes back and has a decent season he'd be worth at least a first. Go read the posts.

I also said three years ago that we should deal him for JVRD. A proposition you called ludicrous... well, JVRD is now 22 years old and sitting at 3rd in the league for goals.

Would you make that trade today if you could? Of course you would... Too bad we only think of things on a season by season basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
With that said, I agree that at this point it would be worthwhile to trade Markov if the return is high enough. It needs to be worthwhile though, as Markov is still very valuable to this team and is a great role model for our young defensemen.

He is the only defenseman we have above 28 years of age. His experience is important to our youth.
His experience is beneficial to our youth but he's worth more to us as an trade asset than he is on our team going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Have you looked at the standings lately or do you have a copy of the Gazette from last April?

We're in 1st and Markov is helping us win. Win. We're winning. Something you want to turn around and give to another GM.

Who the puck is being silly now?
I don't give a **** about the standings man. I care about cups. We aren't winning a cup this year.

Dealing Markov for a good prospect or mid first in this draft gets us closer to a cup than keeping him does. I know it's hard for you to get this concept but it's true. And we should've dealt this guy a long time ago when we let Koivu and company walk away...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
Exactly! Unlike people who post on message boards, GMs don't have the luxury of tanking for a number of years, building for the future, without getting fired. GMs must also make deals with other GMs based on their needs, unlike posters who think that they would be able to send a player wherever they feel like, while getting a great return for a player that they have no desire to keep.
We're not going to tank if we trade Markov. And even if we did tank for a year... so what? It's about building towards a cup. The logo on front is more important than the name on the back. Deal him, play Weber and try to make the playoffs. If we make it... great. If not... fine. This season doesn't matter. Next year Bealieu or Tinordi can come up and take a spot.

Just too bad that we didn't figure this out years ago.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-23-2013 at 08:04 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 10:55 AM
  #56
CTHabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We're not going to tank if we trade Markov. And even if we did tank for a year... so what? It's about building towards a cup. The logo on front is more important than the name on the back. Deal him, play Weber and try to make the playoffs. If we make it... great. If not... fine. This season doesn't matter. Next year Bealieu or Tinordi can come up and take a spot.
Does this sound like something a real GM would do? Imagine going to your team to tell them that you have traded Markov for someone who will not have an immediate impact on the team, but it doesn't really matter, since they aren't good enough to win. You can also tell your boss that it really doesn't matter if he loses out on playoff revenue for this year, because you are certain that there will be extended Stanley Cup runs in the future (hopefully), so please don't fire me in the meantime.

If you are going to trade Markov for a prospect/pick that will not help the team for a few years, and replace him with a kid (Beaulieu or Tinordi) who has not even proven to be NHL-ready, why stop there? You may as well trade everyone aged 30, or over, of any value (Plekanec, Moen, Gionta, Cole, Bourque), since they be on the downside of their careers by the time your new Canadiens dynasty begins.

CTHabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 11:16 AM
  #57
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I've been saying it for a while... we should sell high on Markov while we can.
agreed , if we can get a reliable stay at home guy like a Hamhuis type

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 11:16 AM
  #58
Kjell Dahlin
Registered User
 
Kjell Dahlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Québec, Québec
Posts: 1,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I said that if he comes back and has a decent season he'd be worth at least a first. Go read the posts.

I also said three years ago that we should deal him for JVRD. A proposition you called ludicrous... well, JVRD is now 22 years old and sitting at 3rd in the league for goals.

Would you make that trade today if you could? Of course you would... Too bad we only think of things on a season by season basis.

His experience is beneficial to our youth but he's worth more to us as an trade asset than he is on our team going forward.

I don't give a **** about the standings man. I care about cups. We aren't winning a cup this year.

Dealing Markov for a good prospect or mid first in this draft gets us closer to a cup than keeping him does. I know it's hard for you to get this concept but it's true. And we should've dealt this guy a long time ago when we let Koivu and company walk away...


We're not going to tank if we trade Markov. And even if we did tank for a year... so what? It's about building towards a cup. The logo on front is more important than the name on the back. Deal him, play Weber and try to make the playoffs. If we make it... great. If not... fine. This season doesn't matter. Next year Bealieu or Tinordi can come up and take a spot.

Just too bad that we didn't figure this out years ago.
One of our biggest flaws will soon be filled by Tinordi so I am willing to be patient and not turn into a frantic buyer mode. That said, we are 1st in the freakin’ East, we have a very good mix and depth upfront and Price is... Price. Plus, thanks to Gauthier, we have, just like in the last draft, a good amount of picks in the next draft.

Because of all of the above, I wish Bergevin will “sacrifice” the potential return he could get for guys like Markov and Cole. In the current context, proposing to sell is somewhat absurd... imo! I would not be opposed to a “hockey trade” though...

Just for the record: I don’t think you are an absurd poster Lafleurs Guy; far from it. I do however consider the idea of becoming seller in the current context... well... absurd!

Kjell Dahlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 11:24 AM
  #59
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I said that if he comes back and has a decent season he'd be worth at least a first. Go read the posts.

I also said three years ago that we should deal him for JVRD. A proposition you called ludicrous... well, JVRD is now 22 years old and sitting at 3rd in the league for goals.

Would you make that trade today if you could? Of course you would... Too bad we only think of things on a season by season basis.

His experience is beneficial to our youth but he's worth more to us as an trade asset than he is on our team going forward.

I don't give a **** about the standings man. I care about cups. We aren't winning a cup this year.

Dealing Markov for a good prospect or mid first in this draft gets us closer to a cup than keeping him does. I know it's hard for you to get this concept but it's true. And we should've dealt this guy a long time ago when we let Koivu and company walk away...


We're not going to tank if we trade Markov. And even if we did tank for a year... so what? It's about building towards a cup. The logo on front is more important than the name on the back. Deal him, play Weber and try to make the playoffs. If we make it... great. If not... fine. This season doesn't matter. Next year Bealieu or Tinordi can come up and take a spot.

Just too bad that we didn't figure this out years ago.
bang on brother most fans only see the short term micro view not the large big picture macro view

Markov is not the Markov of old , 5/5 he has been average at best folks and his points are strictly powerplay

agreed 100% we will not fall apart if he gets moved , PK will be the 25 minuite dman he should be

for once lets deal when our poker chips are high

I am not saying dump him but if a team calls for him offering a solid offer u have to think about it , he is not our core moving forward

yes my friend I want cups not standings or popularity contests or to make the fan base happy

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 11:47 AM
  #60
CTHabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onemorecup View Post
Markov is not the Markov of old , 5/5 he has been average at best folks and his points are strictly powerplay

agreed 100% we will not fall apart if he gets moved , PK will be the 25 minuite dman he should be

for once lets deal when our poker chips are high

I am not saying dump him but if a team calls for him offering a solid offer u have to think about it , he is not our core moving forward
I think that we all would have traded Markov three years ago had we been able to see into the future and know that he would suffer two devastating knee injuries. As far as trading him now, if the Canadiens were to get someone who could make an immediate impact, why not? If you are talking about trading someone away for a prospect/pick who will not help the team for a few years while you are currently in first place, that makes no sense. Just because you might think the Canadiens cannot win the Cup this year doesn't mean that it cannot happen. If it were to happen, it wouldn't be the first time that a team wins a championship when it is not expected. As a matter of fact, there are a number of examples of the Canadiens winning a Cup when it was not expected (1971, 1986, and 1993 immediately come to mind).


Last edited by CTHabsfan: 02-24-2013 at 11:48 AM. Reason: spelling
CTHabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 12:02 PM
  #61
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
I think that we all would have traded Markov three years ago had we been able to see into the future and know that he would suffer two devastating knee injuries. As far as trading him now, if the Canadiens were to get someone who could make an immediate impact, why not? If you are talking about trading someone away for a prospect/pick who will not help the team for a few years while you are currently in first place, that makes no sense. Just because you might think the Canadiens cannot win the Cup this year doesn't mean that it cannot happen. If it were to happen, it wouldn't be the first time that a team wins a championship when it is not expected. As a matter of fact, there are a number of examples of the Canadiens winning a Cup when it was not expected (1971, 1986, and 1993 immediately come to mind).
agreed my friend , if Vancouver lets say offered Hamhuis , straight up

I would drive Markov to the airport , I am not giving him away but you have to be realistic, in the next three years he will not be a core player on this roster

seriously Markov has looked average the last 2 weeks, even with our success

ditto with Cole if the right offer comes around and makes sense , why not , he is not a core guy as well 3 years down the road

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 12:06 PM
  #62
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
I think that we all would have traded Markov three years ago had we been able to see into the future and know that he would suffer two devastating knee injuries. As far as trading him now, if the Canadiens were to get someone who could make an immediate impact, why not? If you are talking about trading someone away for a prospect/pick who will not help the team for a few years while you are currently in first place, that makes no sense. Just because you might think the Canadiens cannot win the Cup this year doesn't mean that it cannot happen. If it were to happen, it wouldn't be the first time that a team wins a championship when it is not expected. As a matter of fact, there are a number of examples of the Canadiens winning a Cup when it was not expected (1971, 1986, and 1993 immediately come to mind).
those examples are nice but ROY WAS CHRIST IN DISGUISE

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 12:38 PM
  #63
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
Does this sound like something a real GM would do?
That's what Ozy said about trading away Huet... we did it anyway and we were fine for doing it. The return was way too low but dealing him didn't hurt us at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
Imagine going to your team to tell them that you have traded Markov for someone who will not have an immediate impact on the team, but it doesn't really matter, since they aren't good enough to win. You can also tell your boss that it really doesn't matter if he loses out on playoff revenue for this year, because you are certain that there will be extended Stanley Cup runs in the future (hopefully), so please don't fire me in the meantime.
I'd present it this way...

Guys, we believe in you. It's YOUR team now. I believe in you and that's why I've made the trade. Now go prove me right.

Then I'd order MT to start playing PK 25+ mins a night like he should be doing anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
If you are going to trade Markov for a prospect/pick that will not help the team for a few years, and replace him with a kid (Beaulieu or Tinordi) who has not even proven to be NHL-ready, why stop there? You may as well trade everyone aged 30, or over, of any value (Plekanec, Moen, Gionta, Cole, Bourque), since they be on the downside of their careers by the time your new Canadiens dynasty begins.
We SHOULD deal some of those guys away too.

I'd have said Plecanec but with Galcheyuk's emergence I think we should hold onto him. Cole, Bourque, Gionta... Fine by me. If you can get a first for ANY of them do it. Problem is that none are worth a first. Cole was probably worth it at the end of last year but he's sucked so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjell Dahlin View Post
One of our biggest flaws will soon be filled by Tinordi so I am willing to be patient and not turn into a frantic buyer mode. That said, we are 1st in the freakin’ East, we have a very good mix and depth upfront and Price is... Price. Plus, thanks to Gauthier, we have, just like in the last draft, a good amount of picks in the next draft.

Because of all of the above, I wish Bergevin will “sacrifice” the potential return he could get for guys like Markov and Cole. In the current context, proposing to sell is somewhat absurd... imo! I would not be opposed to a “hockey trade” though...

Just for the record: I don’t think you are an absurd poster Lafleurs Guy; far from it. I do however consider the idea of becoming seller in the current context... well... absurd!
That's fair enough. I understand that it goes against the grain to deal players away while you're doing well. I'd still do it though because I think we'd be better off in the long run.

There is something to be said for being 1st in the East... I just think that it's a bit of a mirage. Then again, the East completely sucks so maybe we actually have a shot at something this season. We'll see I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onemorecup View Post
bang on brother most fans only see the short term micro view not the large big picture macro view

Markov is not the Markov of old , 5/5 he has been average at best folks and his points are strictly powerplay

agreed 100% we will not fall apart if he gets moved , PK will be the 25 minuite dman he should be

for once lets deal when our poker chips are high

I am not saying dump him but if a team calls for him offering a solid offer u have to think about it , he is not our core moving forward

yes my friend I want cups not standings or popularity contests or to make the fan base happy
I was hoping Markov would keep it up this year but he seems to be slowing down. I still think we could get something good for him though. Lots of teams need help on the PP.

Seriously, look at the Rangers. They'd kill to have him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
I think that we all would have traded Markov three years ago had we been able to see into the future and know that he would suffer two devastating knee injuries. As far as trading him now, if the Canadiens were to get someone who could make an immediate impact, why not? If you are talking about trading someone away for a prospect/pick who will not help the team for a few years while you are currently in first place, that makes no sense.
I would have done it without seeing into the future. Even if he'd been healthy... so what? We weren't going to win with him anyway. We let our core walk away and had Gomez as our number one center. No way we win so... deal him.

As I said above, I suggested it years ago and named the propsects I'd do it for. I said JVRD and people laughed... well, is it funny now? NVRD is just starting his career. He has YEARS left to play and is only going to improve. Meanwhile Markov is 34 and getting older. Dealing him 3 years ago would've made a lot of sense regardless of the injuries he's had.

It's the same situation now. We'd be trading away a diminishing asset for something to help us down the line. Why not do it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
Just because you might think the Canadiens cannot win the Cup this year doesn't mean that it cannot happen. If it were to happen, it wouldn't be the first time that a team wins a championship when it is not expected. As a matter of fact, there are a number of examples of the Canadiens winning a Cup when it was not expected (1971, 1986, and 1993 immediately come to mind).
You're right... we could win it. But it's a better gamble to get a player who can help us win for YEARS going forward rather than hoping that we fluke out a cup this year.

I agree, the East is weak and I agree that we have Price. But we'll have Price next year and probably the next decade. That's a wide window for him to win us some cups. It's a transition year... no harm adding to what we've got.

I want you to stop thinking about this year. Think about three years from now. Think about five years from now... PK, Galchenyuk, Max all those guys will be better than they are now. Imagine having another player to go along with them just entering his prime. We need to start thinking this way if we ever want to see a cup in this city again. If we could get say Ryan McDonaugh back for Markov... for God's sake make the trade. Hell, I'd give the Rangers a 2nd to go along with it.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-24-2013 at 03:33 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 01:56 PM
  #64
CTHabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I want you to stop thinking about this year. Think about three years from now. Think about five years from now... PK, Galchenyuk, Max all those guys will be better than they are now. Imagine having another player to go along with them just entering his prime. We need to start thinking this way if we ever want to see a cup in this city again. If we could get say Ryan McDonaugh back for Markov... for God's sake make the trade. Hell, I'd give the Rangers a 2nd to go along with it.
I want you to start thinking like a real GM. If there is an opportunity to trade Markov for McDonaugh, or any current Canadien for any other player who would be an immediate improvement, go right ahead. However, I can't believe that a real GM would dismantle a first place team for guys that may be able to help 3-5 years down the road, unless they have no interest in keeping their job.

CTHabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 03:17 PM
  #65
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
I want you to start thinking like a real GM.
Which GM do you want me to think like? Do you want me to think like PG and Gainey or do you want me to think like Peter Chiarelli and Sam Polloch? Two of these guys focused on the present, the other two worried about the future. Which do you think were more successful?

The conventional way of thinking by most 'real GMs' is to win now. If they can improve their team immediately they'll make a trade if they think they have a shot at winning or making the playoffs. We should exploit this conventional way of thinking for our own benefit. The fact that most 'real GMs' think this way is exactly why this kind of trade would work for us. Polloch understood this. That's why he was so successful. And I know he was around 40 years ago but the principles are the same. You trade for the long term and you come out on top in the long run. We have to stop looking at things season by season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
If there is an opportunity to trade Markov for McDonaugh, or any current Canadien for any other player who would be an immediate improvement, go right ahead. However, I can't believe that a real GM would dismantle a first place team for guys that may be able to help 3-5 years down the road, unless they have no interest in keeping their job.
Trading Markov doesn't dismantle the team. And why does it have to be an immediate improvement? Is it too much to ask for some real vision?


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-24-2013 at 03:22 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 04:13 PM
  #66
CTHabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Which GM do you want me to think like? Do you want me to think like PG and Gainey or do you want me to think like Peter Chiarelli and Sam Polloch? Two of these guys focused on the present, the other two worried about the future. Which do you think were more successful?
If this were 1971, you would be writing about how Sam Pollock should trade Yvan Counoyer and Henri Richard, since they are declining assets and the Habs have no chance of winning the Cup, and that you would have traded Jean Beliveau for Bobby Orr three years earlier.

CTHabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 04:50 PM
  #67
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Which GM do you want me to think like? Do you want me to think like PG and Gainey or do you want me to think like Peter Chiarelli and Sam Polloch? Two of these guys focused on the present, the other two worried about the future. Which do you think were more successful?

The conventional way of thinking by most 'real GMs' is to win now. If they can improve their team immediately they'll make a trade if they think they have a shot at winning or making the playoffs. We should exploit this conventional way of thinking for our own benefit. The fact that most 'real GMs' think this way is exactly why this kind of trade would work for us. Polloch understood this. That's why he was so successful. And I know he was around 40 years ago but the principles are the same. You trade for the long term and you come out on top in the long run. We have to stop looking at things season by season.

Trading Markov doesn't dismantle the team. And why does it have to be an immediate improvement? Is it too much to ask for some real vision?
great post

think about it , how many GM`S would of had the BALLZ to move Kesell Boston`s best pure scorer for 2 unkown draft picks

Botton line is Peter saw an inconsistent Phil and not part of his plans and he wanted too much money and decided to make the move

Trust me no one other than maybe Holland makes this deal , they put aside favourites , media or fan pressure and now Seggie has a cup

the key is u have to know where you are now and what you can be down the road
not be caught up with just now , cause as u have seen lately no job is safe

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 05:45 PM
  #68
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
If this were 1971, you would be writing about how Sam Pollock should trade Yvan Counoyer and Henri Richard, since they are declining assets and the Habs have no chance of winning the Cup, and that you would have traded Jean Beliveau for Bobby Orr three years earlier.
Except that I actually DID post dealing Markov for Ryan or JVRD in the past - BEFORE those guys were regular NHL players. I'm on record with this. It's not revisionist history man... I said it a long time ago. And people said I was crazy just like you're saying it now. I don't understand why you can't learn from this...

And for Pete's sake dealing Markov is not the same thing as dealing away Jean Beliveau...


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-24-2013 at 05:52 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 05:48 PM
  #69
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onemorecup View Post
great post

think about it , how many GM`S would of had the BALLZ to move Kesell Boston`s best pure scorer for 2 unkown draft picks

Botton line is Peter saw an inconsistent Phil and not part of his plans and he wanted too much money and decided to make the move

Trust me no one other than maybe Holland makes this deal , they put aside favourites , media or fan pressure and now Seggie has a cup

the key is u have to know where you are now and what you can be down the road
not be caught up with just now , cause as u have seen lately no job is safe
Closest we've come to doing this was when we dealt Halak for a propsect. I didn't think we got enough but at least we went after a prospect we believed in and I won't fault PG for that move even if it doesn't work out. At least we took a shot.

BTW, Chiarelli also dealt away an NHL goalie for a prospect he believed in and landed Rask who four years later is now their starter.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 06:19 PM
  #70
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Closest we've come to doing this was when we dealt Halak for a propsect. I didn't think we got enough but at least we went after a prospect we believed in and I won't fault PG for that move even if it doesn't work out. At least we took a shot.

BTW, Chiarelli also dealt away an NHL goalie for a prospect he believed in and landed Rask who four years later is now their starter.
we got more than enough for halak

eller was a top prospect ,we havent used him at all , cause we are waiting for dd to turn into St louis one day

goalies are worth zilch in trades look at history over the years my friend

Eller is a legit 50-60 player a 2 way solid player if played properly

Halak simply doesnt have the frame to be a 65 game goalie , injury prone
and small

let me ask you this question , would Philadelphia give up their #1 pick for Reimer ?

would the Sabres give you Grigorenko for Reimer who has shown flashes of being solid ? I doubt it very much my friend

Eller was a legit maybe not a blue chipper but a future NHL legit top 6 when the trade was made , thats what we got for a 20 game hero

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 07:09 PM
  #71
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onemorecup View Post
we got more than enough for halak

eller was a top prospect ,we havent used him at all , cause we are waiting for dd to turn into St louis one day

goalies are worth zilch in trades look at history over the years my friend

Eller is a legit 50-60 player a 2 way solid player if played properly

Halak simply doesnt have the frame to be a 65 game goalie , injury prone
and small
I agree that we haven't given Eller a real chance. I think we could've gotten more but like I said it was a prospect we apparently believed in so I have no issue with it.

I sincerely hope that we play Eller with Galchenyuk going forward at least to see if it clicks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onemorecup View Post
let me ask you this question , would Philadelphia give up their #1 pick for Reimer ?

would the Sabres give you Grigorenko for Reimer who has shown flashes of being solid ? I doubt it very much my friend

Eller was a legit maybe not a blue chipper but a future NHL legit top 6 when the trade was made , thats what we got for a 20 game hero
I think there's a huge difference between Halak (who was coming off a dream season and Ken Dryden like playoff run shutting down Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin) and James Reimer.

And no Reimer is not worth a number one pick in my opinion. Not in this draft anyway.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 07:12 PM
  #72
68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,600
vCash: 500
I just want some smaller, softer players to get replaced by bigger players. I don't want Bergevin to rush anything. A quick fix like Gainey did (Gomez, Gionta, Cammalleri) would be hell.

68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 07:23 PM
  #73
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I said that if he comes back and has a decent season he'd be worth at least a first. Go read the posts.

I also said three years ago that we should deal him for JVRD. A proposition you called ludicrous... well, JVRD is now 22 years old and sitting at 3rd in the league for goals.
Ha! I remember that so vividly and you continue to wrongly defend it. Your proposal for JVR was to trade Pacioretty for him. That proposal looks kind of dumb now, and I told you how dumb that trade was the moment I saw it. That was back when everyone was hating on Pacioretty and calling him a bust. Good times.

Not only that, but trading Markov for a JVR back then kind of seems pretty silly too, now that I think of it. 34 points in 45 games for Markov that season, +11 for a defenseman. JVR: 35 points in 75 games while playing top six minutes. Now that I think of it, even if you did propose Markov for JVR back then (which you didn't) it seems absolutely retarded.

Markov was an elite top defenseman and you wanted to trade him for a question mark rookie forward playing on a Philadelphia team who was just as bad as we were? Where is the logic in trading your one generational talent for a young kid with nothing but potential? At the time, we didn't know Markov was going to be out for three years and he was still putting up ridiculous numbers for a defenseman. The year before, he had 64 points in 78 games. Trading the best player on your team for JVR, what a joke!

Trading Markov, the best player on the Habs and our one true superstar, at the height of his career, for James Van Riemsdyk, a young rookie who hadn't proven he could do anything in the league, would've been absolutely stupid.

JohnLennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 07:29 PM
  #74
CTHabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Except that I actually DID post dealing Markov for Ryan or JVRD in the past - BEFORE those guys were regular NHL players. I'm on record with this. It's not revisionist history man... I said it a long time ago. And people said I was crazy just like you're saying it now. I don't understand why you can't learn from this...

And for Pete's sake dealing Markov is not the same thing as dealing away Jean Beliveau...
I don't recall the Canadiens rejecting those offers for Markov; could it be that it's because it didn't happen? Once again, there is a difference between being a GM and a guy typing on a keyboard. I am sure that there have been a number of trade proposals from Montreal GMs that would have been beneficially for the club, had only the other GM accepted the offer. I also doubt that you would be bringing up your proposals if Ryan and JVRD had turned out to be Terry Ryan and Matt Higgins.

CTHabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 07:30 PM
  #75
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

I don't give a **** about the standings man. I care about cups. We aren't winning a cup this year.

Dealing Markov for a good prospect or mid first in this draft gets us closer to a cup than keeping him does. I know it's hard for you to get this concept but it's true. And we should've dealt this guy a long time ago when we let Koivu and company walk away...
Hey Nostradamus, That's two predictions in three sentences. Even the French Astrologer wouldn't be so presumptuous.

So you sitting in front of your computer can declare we're not winning the cup and if we trade Markov we'll be closer to winning it.

Jeeze, Bergevin must be a fool not to bring you onto his management staff.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.