HFBoards

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

Areas to improve on for next season

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-24-2013, 07:49 PM
  #76
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
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.
You are full of crap dude.

I showed you the link a month ago. It was Markov for JVRD + a pick or Cammy + Halak (when he was a 2nd stringer) for him and a pick... And in that same link you'll see people saying it would be stupid to trade Markov for some kid named Claude Giroux and a pick.

Go find any post where I said we should deal Max. I don't believe in dealing away propspects when you are rebuilding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
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.
It seems silly to you because you don't understand the concept of dealing for the future. You are also narrow minded and only see things through rose coloured glasses... You weren't able to understand that a core of Cammy, Gomez and Gionta wasn't going to take us anywhere...

Does the proposal seem silly now? Will it seem silly three years from now or five?

You STILL don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
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!
He wasn't a question mark... He was an elite prospect. You're talking like it's a blind shot on a dartboard... it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
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.
Yeah... sure seems stupid now to have a 22 year old who's third in the NHL in goals. What was I thinking?

The fact that you can't admit you were wrong with the evidence in front of you just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
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.
Two points:

1. The fans here didn't get it (and as our friend Mr. Lennon shows) still don't get it or can't admit it even when proven wrong...

2. Our club never shopped him.

We should've been making those kinds of trades. And it makes sense to trade him now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Hey Nostradamus, That's two predictions in three sentences. Even the French Astrologer wouldn't be so presumptuous.
It's not a prediction... it's a calculated risk. Elite prospects are not a roulette wheel.

And hey maybe it doesn't work out... but it's worth the risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
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.
Please don't waste my time with strawman crap.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-24-2013 at 07:58 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 08:35 PM
  #77
Habsfannick
Registered User
 
Habsfannick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 1,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You are full of crap dude.

I showed you the link a month ago. It was Markov for JVRD + a pick or Cammy + Halak (when he was a 2nd stringer) for him and a pick... And in that same link you'll see people saying it would be stupid to trade Markov for some kid named Claude Giroux and a pick.

Go find any post where I said we should deal Max. I don't believe in dealing away propspects when you are rebuilding.

It seems silly to you because you don't understand the concept of dealing for the future. You are also narrow minded and only see things through rose coloured glasses... You weren't able to understand that a core of Cammy, Gomez and Gionta wasn't going to take us anywhere...

Does the proposal seem silly now? Will it seem silly three years from now or five?

You STILL don't get it.

He wasn't a question mark... He was an elite prospect. You're talking like it's a blind shot on a dartboard... it's not.

Yeah... sure seems stupid now to have a 22 year old who's third in the NHL in goals. What was I thinking?

The fact that you can't admit you were wrong with the evidence in front of you just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Two points:

1. The fans here didn't get it (and as our friend Mr. Lennon shows) still don't get it or can't admit it even when proven wrong...

2. Our club never shopped him.

We should've been making those kinds of trades. And it makes sense to trade him now.

It's not a prediction... it's a calculated risk. Elite prospects are not a roulette wheel.

And hey maybe it doesn't work out... but it's worth the risk.

Please don't waste my time with strawman crap.
You sir are the real deal I agree with all of it and you're fighting the intolerable people that attack your points

Good on you man

Habsfannick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 06:55 AM
  #78
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Please don't waste my time with strawman crap.
Strawman? Do you even know what that word means?

First you predict that the Habs are definitely not winning the cup.

And second you claim that if we trade him we'll be closer to winning.

I didn't make that crap up. It's in black and white for everyone to read. Can you tell me the winning lottery numbers?

This is a team that is first in the East and second in the league. Yeah let's trade the d-man that's logging the most TOI because you know that this team can't win the cup.

I'm not saying that Markov is an untouchable but if you're going to trade this player it's for something more than the nonsense you're babbling about on this thread.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:01 AM
  #79
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It's not a prediction... it's a calculated risk. Elite prospects are not a roulette wheel.

And hey maybe it doesn't work out... but it's worth the risk.
What calculated risk are you babbling about? May I see those calculations? Give your head a shake, Things are loose in there.

Elite players are less of a roulette wheel than elite prospects.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:01 AM
  #80
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTHabsfan View Post
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.
Agreed, it's very hard to trade veterans for picks/prospects when you're in 1st place.

The time to trade Markov-types was when we spent five years in and around 8th place.

Lafleurs Guy was right. Andrei Markov for James van Riemsdyk would have been a homerun for the Habs, and the Flyers would have obviously done the trade if it was requested at the right time, say at the end of the 2009 season debacle.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:11 AM
  #81
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,851
vCash: 500
Huet was traded for a 2nd rounder when we were top-4 in the conference.

Huet went on to be dismantled by Philadelphia in the 1st round, and Price went on to be dismantled by Philadelphia in the 2nd.

Fans blamed Gainey for the Huet trade, a lot of people argued that we could have gone further with Huet.

I wonder if the backlash is the reason Gainey stayed put at the 2009 trade deadline, when he missed the opportunity of the decade in not trading Tanguay, Koivu, Kovalev, and Komisarek at the deadline.

Gainey actually had a fair degree of versatility. He did trade Rivet for Gorges and a 1st. He also tried to get Mats Sundin for a 1st, Higgins, and Grabovski (or something like that) at the 2008 deadline, my understanding is that Toronto agreed but Sundin turned it down because he lacked the desire to win a cup.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:14 AM
  #82
SnapVirus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mtl., QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,823
vCash: 500
When its all said and done, i dont think JVR will ever be a superstar player. 17 games in, doesnt make a career. He will produce offensively but not a superstar pace. We could have get moore than JVE at the time of the deal. Hell, the Flyers traded richards for Schenn and Simmonds. And Schenn is a better overall player than JVR (potential wise). And Markov in his peak was a top5-7 dman in the league.

SnapVirus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:18 AM
  #83
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Strawman? Do you even know what that word means?

First you predict that the Habs are definitely not winning the cup.

And second you claim that if we trade him we'll be closer to winning.
Getting a player to help us win down the road DOES get us closer to a cup. Not right away... down the line. Trading away vets is counterintutive because it doesn't produce immediate results, the results are seen later on down the line.

Why does this need to be spoonfed to you.

You're insinuating a contradiction... there is none. That's why its' a strawman's argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
I didn't make that crap up. It's in black and white for everyone to read. Can you tell me the winning lottery numbers?

This is a team that is first in the East and second in the league. Yeah let's trade the d-man that's logging the most TOI because you know that this team can't win the cup.

I'm not saying that Markov is an untouchable but if you're going to trade this player it's for something more than the nonsense you're babbling about on this thread.
I'm not suggesting he be given away... again, you are making strawman arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
What calculated risk are you babbling about? May I see those calculations? Give your head a shake, Things are loose in there.

Elite players are less of a roulette wheel than elite prospects.
Of course they are. It's a calculated risk to deal away a player for a prospect. You do it for future values. But those prospects aren't blind shots on a board.

You're sitting there saying that I was lucky back when I suggested dealing for Bobby Ryan or JVRD? It's not luck. Those players were elite prospects. Stands to reason that they will probably go on to become at least decent players going forward. And there's a good chance they'll be good to great players.

As for now... Markov is a diminishing asset but is a great PP specialist. Assuming he has a good year there are teams that will pay highly for him. Personally I think we should take the risk on this. Our team is young and it won't be the end of the world for us if we don't win the cup this year. By dealing Markov now and getting a player who can help us down the road we extend our window for winning. Yes, we take a step back but we actually get CLOSER to a cup.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:19 AM
  #84
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,684
vCash: 500
Lafleur's Guy making some good points.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:24 AM
  #85
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnapVirus View Post
When its all said and done, i dont think JVR will ever be a superstar player. .
For the record... neither do I. And I said so back when I was proposing the deal. If he was labled as a future superstar we never would've been able to get him. He was a player who was predicted to be a first line player and that's what I think he can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnapVirus View Post
17 games in, doesnt make a career. He will produce offensively but not a superstar pace. We could have get moore than JVE at the time of the deal. Hell, the Flyers traded richards for Schenn and Simmonds. And Schenn is a better overall player than JVR (potential wise). And Markov in his peak was a top5-7 dman in the league.
It doesn't matter if JVR never becomes as good as Markov was. The point of the trade is future value.

Our team is up and coming now. A 22 year old JVRD would be better for us going forward than a 34 year old Markov. Markov is no longer the 28 year old stud that he once was and JVRD is just coming into his prime now. And we wasted the last three years with Scott Gomez.

That's why the trade would've made sense for us. We weren't winning anything anyway. But back then (as now) people asked... 'Do you have a crystal ball?' Why do we need a ****ing crystal ball to be able to see this kind of stuff?

Like I said... what's the worst case scenario now? We deal away our 34 year old blueliner for a bust. It doesn't matter... Our club is up and coming anyway and Markov is unlikely to see a cup with us. I'd rather we take the chance on a prospect than hope for some flukey cup win.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:36 AM
  #86
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
As for now... Markov is a diminishing asset but is a great PP specialist. Assuming he has a good year there are teams that will pay highly for him. Personally I think we should take the risk on this. Our team is young and it won't be the end of the world for us if we don't win the cup this year. By dealing Markov now and getting a player who can help us down the road we extend our window for winning. Yes, we take a step back but we actually get CLOSER to a cup.
Actually, I think if he doesn't get hurt again, Markov will be better the remaining years than he is this year.

He's adjusting his game to the fact that he lost a step. Markov hasn't lost his hockey sense. Strength wise he hasn't lost anything. His only problem this year is he's still thinking as if he has the speed of three-four years ago.

Markov is an intelligent player (very similar to Lindstrom) and he'll adjust.

That's his value as a player. His value as a mentor for the three young d-men we have on the roster plus the two or three (Tinordi, Ellis, Beaulieu, or Patryn) coming up within the next three years is incalculable.

Montreal, Whitesnake and a few others are bemoaning the fact that Hamilton doesn't have any veterans and here you are proposing the same thing for our defence on the big club.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:43 AM
  #87
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Actually, I think if he doesn't get hurt again, Markov will be better the remaining years than he is this year.

He's adjusting his game to the fact that he lost a step. Markov hasn't lost his hockey sense. Strength wise he hasn't lost anything. His only problem this year is he's still thinking as if he has the speed of three-four years ago.

Markov is an intelligent player (very similar to Lindstrom) and he'll adjust.

That's his value as a player. His value as a mentor for the three young d-men we have on the roster plus the two or three (Tinordi, Ellis, Beaulieu, or Patryn) coming up within the next three years is incalculable.

Montreal, Whitesnake and a few others are bemoaning the fact that Hamilton doesn't have any veterans and here you are proposing the same thing for our defence on the big club.
I'm not saying he isn't intelligent, a good player or that he'd be worthless as a mentor. He's good and he has value. THAT's why he'd fetch a good return.

He's worth more as a trade asset then he does as a mentor. We have other players who can do this. The world won't end if we lose Markov.

Galchenyuk, Subban, Max... they'll all be better three or four years from now. Hopefully Tinordi, Beaulieu and others will be key pieces as well. Price will be in his prime.

THAT's when we'll be legit contenders. And it makes sense now to invest in a player who can help us then. A player who if he pans out would help us for the next decade +.

I realize that trading him now seems crazy when we're sitting first in the East. But I think we'll have a better chance of winning a cup in two or three years than we do now. And I think it makes a whole lot of sense to sacrifice a little bit today to get a player who can help us tomorrow.

You say the prospect might not pan out... that's true. But Markov could blow up that knee anyway. All things being equal, it's worth the risk to trade him.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:53 AM
  #88
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
Lafleur's Guy making some good points.
of course he is , he has visionary thinking that most gm`s and people dont

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 07:56 AM
  #89
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm not saying he isn't intelligent, a good player or that he'd be worthless as a mentor. He's good and he has value. THAT's why he'd fetch a good return.

He's worth more as a trade asset then he does as a mentor. We have other players who can do this. The world won't end if we lose Markov.

Galchenyuk, Subban, Max... they'll all be better three or four years from now. Hopefully Tinordi, Beaulieu and others will be key pieces as well. Price will be in his prime.

THAT's when we'll be legit contenders. And it makes sense now to invest in a player who can help us then. A player who if he pans out would help us for the next decade +.

I realize that trading him now seems crazy when we're sitting first in the East. But I think we'll have a better chance of winning a cup in two or three years than we do now. And I think it makes a whole lot of sense to sacrifice a little bit today to get a player who can help us tomorrow.

You say the prospect might not pan out... that's true. But Markov could blow up that knee anyway. All things being equal, it's worth the risk to trade him.
agreed and if some team gives us a solid return u pull the trigger and I think MB
may just do that

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 09:05 AM
  #90
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
You're obssessed with selling everybody... Markov's not going anywhere till the end of his contract, deal with it.

Markov-Emelin
Gorges-Diaz
Tinordi-Subban
Beaulieu (call-up if injuries)

That's going to be our defense next year, asset management, we don't waste cap space on the D sqaud when we currently have 6 defensmens that are capable of playing at both sides of the ice and not cost goals to our team. Our main goal should be to find a big LW to complete the Galchenyuk-Gallagher line next season. Ryan Clowe is a shoe in for that spot.
Agreed. And we forget: UFA guys will be very interested indeed in slotting in with Gally next year. Huge plus for Habs.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 09:33 AM
  #91
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Actually, I think if he doesn't get hurt again, Markov will be better the remaining years than he is this year.

He's adjusting his game to the fact that he lost a step. Markov hasn't lost his hockey sense. Strength wise he hasn't lost anything. His only problem this year is he's still thinking as if he has the speed of three-four years ago.

Markov is an intelligent player (very similar to Lindstrom) and he'll adjust.

That's his value as a player. His value as a mentor for the three young d-men we have on the roster plus the two or three (Tinordi, Ellis, Beaulieu, or Patryn) coming up within the next three years is incalculable.

Montreal, Whitesnake and a few others are bemoaning the fact that Hamilton doesn't have any veterans and here you are proposing the same thing for our defence on the big club.
I'm not convinced his "lost step" is permanent.

He looked quicker early in the year then logged a ton of minutes the first 15 games. Until a week ago he was averaging 25 minutes in a condensed schedule. Then last Monday they started dropping his ice time a bit. I think if he can catch his breath a bit he should get his legs back. Maybe not to what they were 4-5 years ago, but to a more than adequate level where he can still be a strong asset with his hands, vision and hockey sense.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:15 AM
  #92
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
I'm not convinced his "lost step" is permanent.

He looked quicker early in the year then logged a ton of minutes the first 15 games. Until a week ago he was averaging 25 minutes in a condensed schedule. Then last Monday they started dropping his ice time a bit. I think if he can catch his breath a bit he should get his legs back. Maybe not to what they were 4-5 years ago, but to a more than adequate level where he can still be a strong asset with his hands, vision and hockey sense.
Markov was never particularly fast to begin with, it was all positioning and anticipation. After barley playing for 3 years it's no surprise that his timing is off which puts him out of position and so you notice his lack of speed more as he tries to get back into the play. The first few weeks he was probably high on adrenaline of finally being back which masked his rust. By the end of the year I think he will be back o his old self.

Sorinth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:20 AM
  #93
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm not saying he isn't intelligent, a good player or that he'd be worthless as a mentor. He's good and he has value. THAT's why he'd fetch a good return.

He's worth more as a trade asset then he does as a mentor. We have other players who can do this. The world won't end if we lose Markov.
So who exactly do we have that would do as good a job at mentoring Subban, Diaz, Emelin?

Also his trade value is down until he "proves" that his injuries are behind him.

Sorinth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:46 AM
  #94
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
So who exactly do we have that would do as good a job at mentoring Subban, Diaz, Emelin?

Also his trade value is down until he "proves" that his injuries are behind him.
If he has to "prove" that he's great... then I really don't get why folks are freaking out about the idea of trading him.

As for mentoring... are we talking on the ice? Because Subban can do this. Off the ice? We have tons of vets who can do this. We don't need Markov.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 11:49 AM
  #95
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Huet was traded for a 2nd rounder when we were top-4 in the conference.

Huet went on to be dismantled by Philadelphia in the 1st round, and Price went on to be dismantled by Philadelphia in the 2nd.

Fans blamed Gainey for the Huet trade, a lot of people argued that we could have gone further with Huet.

I wonder if the backlash is the reason Gainey stayed put at the 2009 trade deadline, when he missed the opportunity of the decade in not trading Tanguay, Koivu, Kovalev, and Komisarek at the deadline.

Gainey actually had a fair degree of versatility. He did trade Rivet for Gorges and a 1st. He also tried to get Mats Sundin for a 1st, Higgins, and Grabovski (or something like that) at the 2008 deadline, my understanding is that Toronto agreed but Sundin turned it down because he lacked the desire to win a cup.
I think you're off base on the Huet thing.

He was great in Washington getting them in the playoffs and he was more than respectable 2.93 and .909% on a run and gun team vs Phillie. Numbers like that would have gotten us past Phillie. Price and Halak really struggled in that series.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 12:53 PM
  #96
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
If he has to "prove" that he's great... then I really don't get why folks are freaking out about the idea of trading him.

As for mentoring... are we talking on the ice? Because Subban can do this. Off the ice? We have tons of vets who can do this. We don't need Markov.
Markov is high risk high reward. Because of the risk his trade value is low. Because of the reward people want to keep him. What's not to get?

So Subban is going to mentor himself now?

Sorinth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 12:57 PM
  #97
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Markov is high risk high reward. Because of the risk his trade value is low. Because of the reward people want to keep him. What's not to get?

So Subban is going to mentor himself now?
Subban doesn't need a mentor. He's developed fine without Markov and is now our best blueliner.

You can make all the excuses you want to not to trade him but they're false objections. Yes, he has value to us but he'd have value to other teams as well. The same reasons you're saying to keep him is why teams would pay for him.

I'd rather we cash in the asset than keep him as a babysitter. We don't need one.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 01:56 PM
  #98
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Subban doesn't need a mentor. He's developed fine without Markov and is now our best blueliner.

You can make all the excuses you want to not to trade him but they're false objections. Yes, he has value to us but he'd have value to other teams as well. The same reasons you're saying to keep him is why teams would pay for him.

I'd rather we cash in the asset than keep him as a babysitter. We don't need one.
Subban still has a lot to learn and he'll learn quicker/more with a guy like Markov on the team.

Sorinth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 01:59 PM
  #99
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 2,484
vCash: 500
Some size on the blueline to clear the crease would be good, which is all about waiting for Tinordi to develop.

No Team Needed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 02:01 PM
  #100
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Subban still has a lot to learn
What does he have to learn?

http://awinninghabit.com/2012/08/15/...-to-his-peers/

impudent_lowlife 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 09:56 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.