HFBoards

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

You Play To Win The Game

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2012, 03:17 PM
  #76
canadiansbronco
Registered User
 
canadiansbronco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
LA is nnot a good exemple they shuold of finished in the top 5 and underacheived like they have for the past 3 years

canadiansbronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 03:28 PM
  #77
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,641
vCash: 500
Rentals are rentals. Teams do it every year. Moore was traded for a 2nd this year and he performed his role perfectly with the habs while he was here. Those players performed their roles well. Same for Wisniewski, it was a shrewd move to trade for him months before the deadline where he would have cost a premium especially since he was in the process of breaking out offensively.


As for the walking of Ufas, i dont really care, teams do it every year and let bigger players walk than we have. Its the nature of the business. The habs have made more than their fair share of shrewd moves.

Whats important in the cases that work is that the habs identified positions to be filled and those players performed in their roles regardless of their extent. Also none of the moves i pointed out are moves that ended up holding this franchise back.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 03:43 PM
  #78
Vsevolod Bobrov
Burn the boats !
 
Vsevolod Bobrov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
did he actually say that?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/416247.../#.T7Ach8XoQfk

Vsevolod Bobrov is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 03:46 PM
  #79
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,740
vCash: 500
rentals are rentals...

but they don't all get traded for the same amount. Some GM's pay more, some less, to fill the need they are trying to fill.

hard to call a move a "good" one, when a similar player gets moved a few days later for less than you paid.

If I need a T.V, and I pay 1000$ for a really good one that does everything (and maybe even more) I wanted it to do, I'm happy, I'm thinking I made a good decision. If the next day I find out that my neighbor, who was willing to do better research, got a T.V that is just as good but paid a fraction of the price, I'm still satisfied with what my purchase does for me, but I'm just lying to myself if I still call it a good decision.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 05:28 PM
  #80
Punkeater
Registered User
 
Punkeater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
As soon that you know your team won't make the playoffs, you gotta move on and think for future. It hurts for couple of days, weeks but it's for the better.

Habs never had the chance to get a young star player that low until Carey Price in the lottery year and we were lucky that year. Now we need that young star forward we've been dreaming of.

So I think it's right for a fan to cheer for tanking when you know your team isn't going anywhere in the present year. Tanking is building towards future and when I speak of tanking, I mean tanking when it's evident you won't make the playoffs. I don't mean like Oilers fans in the past few years who wants to tank when the season is only one month old.

This season was painful for every Habs fans... but I think it will be exciting to have a 3rd overall selection for once. We have a great mix of youth and veterans. I think Montreal is only one decent forward and defencemen away for another playoff run. Of course Markov must remain healthy.

Punkeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 06:27 PM
  #81
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
rentals are rentals...

but they don't all get traded for the same amount. Some GM's pay more, some less, to fill the need they are trying to fill.

hard to call a move a "good" one, when a similar player gets moved a few days later for less than you paid.

If I need a T.V, and I pay 1000$ for a really good one that does everything (and maybe even more) I wanted it to do, I'm happy, I'm thinking I made a good decision. If the next day I find out that my neighbor, who was willing to do better research, got a T.V that is just as good but paid a fraction of the price, I'm still satisfied with what my purchase does for me, but I'm just lying to myself if I still call it a good decision.
But I thought we're not supposed to evaluate deals in hindsight.

A 2nd for rental players is pretty standard around the league(just off the top of my head 2nd round picks have been used to acquire players like Oduya, Campoli, Antropov, Arnott, Eric Belanger, Corvo) especially when you see guys like Penner and Gaustad get 1st round picks. Lang, Moore and Wisniewski all filled their roles perfectly in their time with the habs, about as good a performance you can get from rentals without winning the cup and the fact they filled those positions well demonstrates the ability to identify a need and fill it with the appropriate player. Of course there are the Samsonov's, Spacek's etc etc, but there are also guys like Gorges, Kovalev, Lang, Wisniewski etc etc that played key roles on the team and filled their positions as was expected and then some.


Last edited by Andy: 05-13-2012 at 06:35 PM.
Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 09:54 PM
  #82
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
But I thought we're not supposed to evaluate deals in hindsight.

A 2nd for rental players is pretty standard around the league(just off the top of my head 2nd round picks have been used to acquire players like Oduya, Campoli, Antropov, Arnott, Eric Belanger, Corvo) especially when you see guys like Penner and Gaustad get 1st round picks. Lang, Moore and Wisniewski all filled their roles perfectly in their time with the habs, about as good a performance you can get from rentals without winning the cup and the fact they filled those positions well demonstrates the ability to identify a need and fill it with the appropriate player. Of course there are the Samsonov's, Spacek's etc etc, but there are also guys like Gorges, Kovalev, Lang, Wisniewski etc etc that played key roles on the team and filled their positions as was expected and then some.

i don't know that I'd call not doing proper market research, and that fact coming to light shortly after a trade, "hindsight".



but yes, Wiz & Moore were pretty standard moves... Wiz i would call a "good" move, but considering that Belanger was available and traded days after Moore for a lesser return (2nd rounder from a much better team, and let's face it, not all picks in the same round are the same value, an 8th seed trading away a 2nd isn't the same value as a 1st seed), I wouldn't say the same for the Moore trade.

Lang, did well for us, but giving up a 2nd for a cap dump is far from a "good" move imo.

would you keep Kovalev in the "good" department if Plekanec had gone the other way? I wouldn't, and certainly wouldn't pump the tires of the GM who lucked out when his peer picked the wrong guy.


anyways, of course there are some moves that worked out, heck even milbury had a few that didn't blow up in his face.

but it's a bit disingenous for people to on the one hand complain that people are too hard on Gainey/Gauthier b/c they are "haters/ignorant/biased et et", while on the other hand going out of the way to positively qualify moves that were pretty "standard" at best.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 10:08 PM
  #83
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Rentals are rentals. Teams do it every year. Moore was traded for a 2nd this year and he performed his role perfectly with the habs while he was here. Those players performed their roles well. Same for Wisniewski, it was a shrewd move to trade for him months before the deadline where he would have cost a premium especially since he was in the process of breaking out offensively.


As for the walking of Ufas, i dont really care, teams do it every year and let bigger players walk than we have. Its the nature of the business. The habs have made more than their fair share of shrewd moves.

Whats important in the cases that work is that the habs identified positions to be filled and those players performed in their roles regardless of their extent. Also none of the moves i pointed out are moves that ended up holding this franchise back.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we finished last in the East this past season.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 10:14 PM
  #84
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we finished last in the East this past season.
i didn't want to be the one to point out the obvious... thx.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 05:14 AM
  #85
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
i don't know that I'd call not doing proper market research, and that fact coming to light shortly after a trade, "hindsight".



but yes, Wiz & Moore were pretty standard moves... Wiz i would call a "good" move, but considering that Belanger was available and traded days after Moore for a lesser return (2nd rounder from a much better team, and let's face it, not all picks in the same round are the same value, an 8th seed trading away a 2nd isn't the same value as a 1st seed), I wouldn't say the same for the Moore trade.

Lang, did well for us, but giving up a 2nd for a cap dump is far from a "good" move imo.

would you keep Kovalev in the "good" department if Plekanec had gone the other way? I wouldn't, and certainly wouldn't pump the tires of the GM who lucked out when his peer picked the wrong guy.


anyways, of course there are some moves that worked out, heck even milbury had a few that didn't blow up in his face.

Plekanec didn't go the other way, so it's not an issue. Kovalev was also one of the faces of the franchise in his time with the habs.

Belanger and Moore is a wash. Both got moved for 2nds. Moore played a key role with the habs and was an excellent fit, he was also much better than Belanger in that series.

Wisniewski was acquired before the trade deadline where he would have recieved a premium. We also acquired him before he broke out completely as an offensive D-man. Good foresight.

Lang was our best forward until injured. Despite being a cap dump, Lang was still a good player and his cap hit wasn't even that bad, it's not like he 10 years left on his dead. He had one year left and was still a productive player. Lang wasn't the first time a cap dump got moved for some pieces in return. It's very comparable to Arnott being moved to the Caps for a 2nd and David Steckel (The addition of Steckel reflected the fact that it was a deadline acquisition rather than an off-season one).


Quote:
but it's a bit disingenous for people to on the one hand complain that people are too hard on Gainey/Gauthier b/c they are "haters/ignorant/biased et et", while on the other hand going out of the way to positively qualify moves that were pretty "standard" at best.
The only person going out of their way is you in your attempt to discredit any successful move. Gill, Gorges, Eller, Cole, Kovalev, Wisniewski, Hamrlik, Lang, Moore, Moen, Huet, Bonk were all successful acquisitions. I have a hard time believing that all these moves were just "luck" or that "even bad GMs are successful" when a lot of these players ended playing extremely key roles when they played with us (Kovalev, Lang, Hamrlik in Markov's absence, Cole last year, Huet was key for a couple of seasons, Gorges and Gill in the playoffs).

Yah there were bad trades with Sergei, Gomez and Ribeiro, but just because they were bad trades doesn't mean we can't admit that their were also positive transactions. I don't know why it's so hard for you to do. I guess I'll just end it there, since you'll continue to find some way to twist something around.


Last edited by Andy: 05-14-2012 at 05:51 AM.
Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 11:47 AM
  #86
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
The only person going out of their way is you in your attempt to discredit any successful move. Gill, Gorges, Eller, Cole, Kovalev, Wisniewski, Hamrlik, Lang, Moore, Moen, Huet, Bonk were all successful acquisitions. I have a hard time believing that all these moves were just "luck" or that "even bad GMs are successful" when a lot of these players ended playing extremely key roles when they played with us (Kovalev, Lang, Hamrlik in Markov's absence, Cole last year, Huet was key for a couple of seasons, Gorges and Gill in the playoffs).

Yah there were bad trades with Sergei, Gomez and Ribeiro, but just because they were bad trades doesn't mean we can't admit that their were also positive transactions. I don't know why it's so hard for you to do. I guess I'll just end it there, since you'll continue to find some way to twist something around.

and once again you leave me wondering if you actually read what's been written?

it's not about discrediting any successful move, but just as some moves that don't work out weren't necessarily "bad", some that do work out aren't necessarily "good".

i think you judge the decision making within the context of the move, more so than how the move works out.

so many variables can play into wether or not a particular player succeeds or fails, often times outside of reach of reasonable foresight on the part of the decision maker.

take for example the gomez trade. While some only reacted poorly to the trade 2-3 years later, when Gomez turned into a 4th liner and McDo into a minute eating stud top pairing dman, I'd argue that the move was a bad decision at the time.

no one could have foreseen that Gomez would turn into a sub-40pt player, and even the people most confident in McDo I doubt saw him being this good this soon.

were Gomez still putting up 55-65pts, and McDo in more of a depth role (or even busted for that matter), it still would have been a bad decision, just one that worked out much better.


i fully agree that Kovalev, Wiz, Hamerlik, Gorges, Cole, Eller etc were moves that worked out pretty well (or even very well), but i wouldn't say that all of those were good moves at the time.

and besides, all of this came up from Teuf once again making some crass comment in defense of Gainey/Gauthier's "shrewd" moves, I asked what moves he was speaking of, and proceed to outline why I felt some of those were not so much schrewd as simply standard or average.


perhaps if people weren't so determined to constantly make revisionist attempts at highlighting the "good" of the Gainey/Gauthier tenure, discussion about how little good there actually was wouldn't be necessary

line up all of the moves made over the past 10 years, put them into good/average/bad, and i think the results speak for themselves.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 01:16 PM
  #87
Plante
Registered User
 
Plante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Wowwwww,a bunch of you guys are delusional. Do you think hockey teams tank on purpose? You do realize the idea was batted around by a bunch of teenagers on the internets?

How many of you even have a 'winning' attitude? I don't know about most of you, but if you have even ONE competitive bone in your body it makes it impossible to tank. Lucky I got some dedicated athletes playing for my team and not a bunch of HFBoarders.

Plante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 05:32 PM
  #88
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
it's not about discrediting any successful move, but just as some moves that don't work out weren't necessarily "bad", some that do work out aren't necessarily "good".
I've already stated why the moves were good, maybe your the one with the reading problem.

Quote:
i think you judge the decision making within the context of the move, more so than how the move works out.
I judge with both. Which is why I think the moves were particularily good.

Quote:
so many variables can play into wether or not a particular player succeeds or fails, often times outside of reach of reasonable foresight on the part of the decision maker.
And you know of that persons foresight or lack there of how? Again, it's too unlikely that the trades and signings that worked out well were just luck instead of the GM actually having some foresight of the player and insight of his team's capabilities.

Quote:
take for example the gomez trade. While some only reacted poorly to the trade 2-3 years later, when Gomez turned into a 4th liner and McDo into a minute eating stud top pairing dman, I'd argue that the move was a bad decision at the time.
Yes, in hindsight the trade is worse than it was I agree.

Quote:
no one could have foreseen that Gomez would turn into a sub-40pt player, and even the people most confident in McDo I doubt saw him being this good this soon.
No, but it happens and it made the trade much worse.

Quote:
were Gomez still putting up 55-65pts, and McDo in more of a depth role (or even busted for that matter), it still would have been a bad decision, just one that worked out much better.
Yes, like I said a week ago in the prospects thread, had Gomez produced the trade while bad wouldn't be as bad.

Quote:
i fully agree that Kovalev, Wiz, Hamerlik, Gorges, Cole, Eller etc were moves that worked out pretty well (or even very well), but i wouldn't say that all of those were good moves at the time.
They were good moves. All those players have played key roles or are playing key roles on the team. They filled a need on the team in every case. Not only did they fill the need, but they performed their expected functions(Eller aside, as he's still developing).


Quote:
and besides, all of this came up from Teuf once again making some crass comment in defense of Gainey/Gauthier's "shrewd" moves, I asked what moves he was speaking of, and proceed to outline why I felt some of those were not so much schrewd as simply standard or average.
The Wisniewski deal was a shrewd move. Gauthier acquired him months before the deadline where he would have gone for a premium and just as he was breaking out offensively. The Kovalev deal was shrewd, a player was acquired for virtually nothing and he became the face of the franchise while he was here.

Quote:
perhaps if people weren't so determined to constantly make revisionist attempts at highlighting the "good" of the Gainey/Gauthier tenure, discussion about how little good there actually was wouldn't be necessary
Maybe if you were able to admit good moves and not find any little excuse to give credit where credit is due you'd understand. I don't expect to change your uncomprimising view.

Quote:
line up all of the moves made over the past 10 years, put them into good/average/bad, and i think the results speak for themselves.
I've already compiled a list of good moves. A lot of the players in that list became a part of the teams core and were instrumental inwhatever success the team had under the Gainey and Gauthier regime. But you're right, all the moves were bad even though the players were success or Gainey and Gauthier just lucked out.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 06:06 PM
  #89
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I've already stated why the moves were good, maybe your the one with the reading problem.
.
i know you are but what am i.... classic andy.

let's end it then as we clearly don't agree and once it drops to that level of discussion, its not worth the time.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 03:00 PM
  #90
Madam Kadri
Fight, Troll, Score
 
Madam Kadri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 5,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
The whole tanking thing is stupid to begin with since no GM/coach/team is going to try and lose on purpose. I hope the Habs go 82-0 next year, but I know they won't and with the terrible defense they currently have mixed with a struggling offense I personally don't expect much and with next year's draft looking like it could rival 2003 at least if we suck again I hope we end up with a very good pick if the draft ends up being as good as it appears it's going to be. Also imo it would be a great time to try and acquire an additional 1st rounder if things are going poorly again.

Agree though, all you have to do is make the playoffs and anything can happen.
Except winning the Cup...unless you have a godly goaltender, the right coach, and a DEEP team that underachieved all season, all of which the Habs do not have or are not.

Madam Kadri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2012, 05:34 PM
  #91
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 13,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
..
Even if Gomez had performed incredibly well, it would have been a stupid move.

It was stupid because the habs weren't in a context where they should have traded future for present. We were completely rebuilding the core with average UFAs. That's a retarded premise. Rebuilding with top UFAs is already sketchy because you don't know if they will play hard, adapt well, etc. Now imagine rebuilding by trading/signing for players who are average but making top dollars and expecting them to be your core. Obviously you're going to have a weaker team than others who chose to bank on better players. It's so obvious I feel kinda dumb pointing it out.

Move was dumb back then, incredibly so.
Time has managed to make it worse, which I didn't foresee. It's quite something.

E = CH² is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:13 PM
  #92
BJG
Registered User
 
BJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
Get back to me when a 7th or 8th place team wins the cup.
I'm back.

And don't tell me the Kings weren't really an 8th place team, that they "underachieved". You know how I know they were an 8th place team? Because they finished 8th. As Hall Gill recently said in an interview, in order to win the cup, EVERY team must overachieve.

Again, the point of my initial post, if you make the playoffs, anything can happen.

BJG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:16 PM
  #93
BJG
Registered User
 
BJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habitant#1 View Post
8th placed teams don't win the Cup.
Hey there.

BJG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:20 PM
  #94
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
We finished 3rd last.

We were right to support the tank. This team wasn't good enough to be 8th.

And now you will see what cleaning house will do for us. This season was instrumental in ridding us of Gauthier and his henchmen.
You assume the Habs will be good with the new management. They could still finish out of the money with Bergevin and Therrien in their first season.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:28 PM
  #95
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJG View Post
I'm back.

And don't tell me the Kings weren't really an 8th place team, that they "underachieved". You know how I know they were an 8th place team? Because they finished 8th. As Hall Gill recently said in an interview, in order to win the cup, EVERY team must overachieve.

Again, the point of my initial post, if you make the playoffs, anything can happen.
Shyeah right.

There's a reason the Kings are the first 8th seed to win the Cup, and why there probably won't be another one for another 10-20 years if not more. 8th seeds usually aren't nearly as good as this Kings squad was. Look at them on paper. They're about as far from what you'd expect an 8th place team to look like as you can imagine. A forward corps that includes guys like Kopitar, Richards, Carter, Brown, and Penner. An absolute stud like Doughty anchoring the D. A budding superstar goalie in Quick. The Kings had ungodly scoring troubles all year, had to dump a coach that wasn't working, and then finally that roster clicked into place come playoffs. The result? An absolute steamroll.

I'm sorry - our roster doesn't stack up to what the Kings have. We're not big enough, not deep enough. Not even close. Sneaking into the playoffs this year just would've gotten us dumped out in a round, at most two.

optimus2861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:37 PM
  #96
Lshap
Registered User
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Shyeah right.

There's a reason the Kings are the first 8th seed to win the Cup, and why there probably won't be another one for another 10-20 years if not more. 8th seeds usually aren't nearly as good as this Kings squad was. Look at them on paper. They're about as far from what you'd expect an 8th place team to look like as you can imagine. A forward corps that includes guys like Kopitar, Richards, Carter, Brown, and Penner. An absolute stud like Doughty anchoring the D. A budding superstar goalie in Quick. The Kings had ungodly scoring troubles all year, had to dump a coach that wasn't working, and then finally that roster clicked into place come playoffs. The result? An absolute steamroll.

I'm sorry - our roster doesn't stack up to what the Kings have. We're not big enough, not deep enough. Not even close. Sneaking into the playoffs this year just would've gotten us dumped out in a round, at most two.
Have to agree. Nothing wrong with sneaking into the playoffs, having hope and enjoying an underdog run -- 2010 was fantastic! -- but luck alone won't win take you all the way to a Cup. Not every 8th place team is created equal. Los Angeles ended up in 8th place because of BAD luck; had the Habs ended up in 8th, it would've been because of GOOD luck. And once you're in the playoffs, the amount of luck you attract usually matches the talent you have.

Lshap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:37 PM
  #97
habtastic
Registered User
 
habtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai via MTL
Country: India
Posts: 8,507
vCash: 500
Comparing the Habs this season to the Kings at the point at which most of us non tankers turned to tankers is silly.

We were sooooo out of the picture and a total mess. Not many people wanted to tank when we still had a chance to make the playoffs. When we were essentially mathematically out, THAT is when the tanking got legit from the real optimists (myself included). If we had a shot at 8th and made it, I was all for that, but don't kid yourself about our team this year being anywhere near as good as the kings. FTR I don't even think we need much change. Was just a horrible season every which way except for being promising for the future. Playoffs are over, now let's work towards getting a team that can win a cup and that starts 11 days from now.

If you don't remember how atrocious things were, two words to recall the latter part of the season:

Rene Bourque

habtastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:43 PM
  #98
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Kings lost 5/8 of their last games heading into the POs
That's what 8th place teams do

AntonCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 10:43 PM
  #99
Shabutie
Registered User
 
Shabutie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Portugal
Posts: 15,628
vCash: 500
With the team that they had, LA should have finished in the top 4. They couldn't score worth crap during the reg. season.

Not a fair comparison...but like others have said if we felt like we deserved to be in the playoffs, we would've cheered till the very end. Instead we felt like this was the year for the full rebuild. If we get a number one center out of it...it'll have been the most successful year in my years of watching the habs.

Shabutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 12:17 AM
  #100
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 16,773
vCash: 500
8th is the new 1st

Et le But 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 01:38 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.