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

Habs will be buyer at trade deadline and will finish 9th...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2010, 09:00 PM
  #101
RevenueSharing*
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercron9000 View Post
yeah patches always falls on his ass. Salo not to sure about. I wouldn't trade price for another goaltender. I know its good to have 2 good goaltenders but halak's the man right now.

I prefer bieksa than salo. But I don't think they will trade bieksa. Oh and they have luongo signed for quite awhile. So I don't think they'd be interested in price anyways.

Which is my bad. patches and a 1st for rypien would make more sense than price for rypien. My bad. I should have put more thought into my proposal. I know how you guys hate ****** proposals.
Rypien can beat up 6'8 monsters like Gill though, so i think we'd have to add more than just patches and 1st. like you said, patches loses value because he's always on his arse. i think we' d have to throw in subban to even it out. imagine rypien on our first line along side cammalleri and plekanec! while cammalleri and plekanec are scorin' rypien will be ass beatin'!

RevenueSharing* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2010, 09:26 PM
  #102
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevenueSharing View Post
Rypien can beat up 6'8 monsters like Gill though, so i think we'd have to add more than just patches and 1st. like you said, patches loses value because he's always on his arse. i think we' d have to throw in subban to even it out. imagine rypien on our first line along side cammalleri and plekanec! while cammalleri and plekanec are scorin' rypien will be ass beatin'!
I think you massively undervalue Subban. I wouldn't be surprised if we get both a young power forward and a young top tier defenseman for him. Wait and see how much of an overpayment we receive for him.


If lose Plekanec for nothing to free agency and Halak heads to the KHL people will finally lose it with management and wholesale changes will happen both on and off the ice. I wouldn't want to have to play in front of that crowd for a full season.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2010, 09:42 PM
  #103
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
If lose Plekanec for nothing to free agency and Halak heads to the KHL people will finally lose it with management and wholesale changes will happen both on and off the ice. I wouldn't want to have to play in front of that crowd for a full season.
If Pleks isn't signed / traded by March 3rd, then Gauthier should be replaced.

macavoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2010, 09:55 PM
  #104
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,848
vCash: 500
If this happens I will have to change the saying under my name and the long road starts again.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2010, 10:41 PM
  #105
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
Lafleurs Guy,

Our core is too good to finish bottom 5 this year. You really want us to tank for 2011, the weakest draft in 15 years?

This isn't the right time to rebuild via the draft.
We have a broken core. Even if the draft next year sucks, we can trade for younger players and prospects now. And if the 2011 draft is as bad as you say then we can ask for 2012 picks instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Chicago missed the playoffs from 98 to 09. They gave out vets like Belfour and Chelios. Rebuilding is only rebuilding if it actually works, right?
Rebuilding is only rebuilding if you actually commit to it. The Islanders drafted high and traded everything away. That's not a rebuild either.

Bill Wirtz is univerally known as the worst owner in professional sports (with all due respect to Pal Hal) Chicago had terrible management and went for quick fixes (see Khabibulin) that didn't work. As for drafting high, it wasn't until 2004 that they actually started to build with top picks. Since that time they have three top five pick and another top ten. Two of those players are in their early 20s and are the leaders of the club. If Dollar Bill were around they'd be gone now. They've done what I've advocated and are doing very well. Are you honestly going to say that they aren't a rebuilt team? It took them about four years to assemble that club and it's a legit contender this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Actually the years the Islanders gave away those youngsters was to stay competitive. I'm talking right now. Why aren't Okposo, Tavares, Bailey and company pulling a Blackhawks/Pens/Caps? That's right, you're not ****ing guaranteed a damn gamebreaker under 25 with a top pick.
Kyle Oposo is 21 years old and Tavares is brand new to the league. It's way too soon to see how good they'll be. They've just started their rebuild and its probably going to continue this year. In a few years they'll probably be doing well and you'll call them a fluke too.

Look at the Kings, they're another team just starting a rebuild. Doughty has made all the difference and they've got two more top pick players on the way up. Will you cite them as a fluke too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
What happened to the Thrashers? How many top picks? Yet 1 sweep with all those great picks, that's all. Compared to their fellow expansion teams like Minnesota and Nashville who have done better while staying away from the bottom. Columbus makes another case for bottom-feeding not necessarily breeding cup contenders.
The Thrashers had the unfortunate experience of having their best player kill a teammate and demand a trade. Their top goalie has had injury problems since day one. Who knows? Maybe OV will kill Semin in a car crash too.

Honestly, are you actually going to argue that Atlanta hasn't gotten superstars by drafting high? Even if you discard Lehtonen alltogether, they got two fifty goal scorers out of it. That's not bad is it? Seriously, what's your problem with that?

They didn't assemble a contender yes, but it's in spite of those top picks not because of them. That is elite talent that any team would want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
They tend to? The only great pick the Ducks had was Bobby Ryan and he was in the minors. There's one case where you don't need the great picks. Or the Canes, which were overachievers led by vets and 1 top pick, which isn't much of a rebuild. Out of their top picks they had for bad years, only one had any impact. It was their late first rounder that actually got them over the top. Where was the Wings' rebuild? Lecavalier was the only Bolts' top pick that had any impact, and he was more of a stud 2nd liner than an impact forward (since Modin, St-Louis and Richards were more important).
Great. You named the Ducks.

Don't even think of mentioning the Canes without Staal. Ditto with the Bolts and Lecavalier. I can also name the Habs, Oilers, Islanders, Rangers, Pens, Devils, Avs, Wings, Stars, Pens again...

You can have the Flames. I'll also spot you the Roy led Habs because Svoboda wasn't leading the way for them either. The Wings did it a couple of years ago too.

The vast majority are still rebuilds.

BTW, it's interesting to note that as soon as the Ducks landed Niedermayer (3rd overall) and Pronger (2nd) they suddenly won the cup. Good thing Pronger inexplicably wanted out of Edmonton and would only go to certain cities, ditto with Niedermayer wanting to play with his bro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
25th in the league in offense, yet our top offensive Dman/PPQB and quite a few top 6 forwards were out for significant parts of the season. Hmmm...No correlation, right?

Obviously, the goalies had a lot to do in our wins. But last time I checked, goalies are a part of the team. You can't really blame the team for having a great strength in nets and pointing it out as a team weakness.

Small, soft, no grit...Ah yes, unlike those great Leafs. Now there's a winning team.

We're still 8th after considering games played. Assuming the teams below pick up points is assuming too much. You seem to like that though (I'll come back on that point later, I promise )

As I said, us sitting in *10th* (notice the stars?) may also have a lot to do with our key positions being as crippled as they have been. I'm not sure one other team has had their key positions hit like ours.
If it was injuries, then why did we get crushed in January with a healthy lineup? The Leafs were playing without Kessel too. Is that the reason they lost? Of course not, when he was back they still lost. Same with us. Why did we continue to get outplayed? Why can't we beat half decent teams?

And yes guy, when a team is one point behind with three games in hand, odds are you're going to lose that playoff spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Oh ok, two great goalies can't be 2 core players. Might as well tell me that anything good the Habs have considering the future can't be counted as good because that would go against your point of view.

Gorges and AK aren't core players? WTF? Young top 6 forward and young consistent, reliable Dman (potential top 4 D, if not already) aren't core players?

C'mon man, when you think of the core players on Washington do you think of secondary scorers and second line defensemen? Get real here. How many core players do you think each team has?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Yes, and there's also the possibility your top pick busts or is not an impact player. Yet you're advocating for us to take that chance.

The Flyers and Ducks disagree with midround picks leading the way. Hell, I'm sure the Devils would be happy to disagree with you also, along with their 3 Cups.

See what I did there?
Yes, you completely forgot that the Devils drafted high for years and had Scott Niedermayer (a Norris winning defenseman) leading the way to three cups. And to prove how good he was, he won another cup with the Ducks.

Thanks for proving my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
You mean in the first year this new core has been together, a year that's been full of key injuries, they haven't shown that ability?

Are you for real?
Are you?

Seriously man, these guys aren't rookies. We knew exactly what we were getting with Gomez (a guy who averages around 65 points a year with one of the worst contracts in the league) the pint sized Gionta and Cammy. It's not a surprise that we're a bubble team, they've done exactly what we thought they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Yet you get cases like Alex Daigle, Pat Falloon, Chad Kilger, Oleg Tverdovsky, Jamie Storr, Trevor Kidd, etc.

See what I did there?
Yup,

You cherry picked a bunch of non performing players to suit your argument. And there's no doubt that if you only draft one top five pick in 25 years (as we have) there's a greater chance of not getting a superstar. If you draft multiple top picks though, most of the time you'll land a superstar and probably a decent player as well. Heck even the examples that you've asked for (Atlanta and Columbus) have managed to draft superstars despite not having the best scouting. And even the teams that I've cited (Detroit, Pittsburgh) have drafted high and not every pick is a superstar. Thing is though, if you draft high for a few years, you'll probably end up with an Yzerman, Niedermayer or Jagr. Not every pick has to be a superstar for you to be successful here.

You'll notice that when I make an argument, I point to teams that actually won the cup. I point to the teams that won with and without those top picks. The vast majority of cups are won with those top pick players leading the way. And I actually exclude the passenger types (Svoboda and Ryan) to be fair.

Superstars (regardless of where they were drafted or traded for) are needed to win and most teams have more than one. If you don't have any, good luck. We don't have superstars to compete with the Washington, Pittsburgh and Chicago type teams. Yes, we might be able to fluke out a 7 game series but the team we have will never win a cup. We can be as healthy as can be, it will never happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Of course I'd rather have a Cup. Yet those moments brought great emotion and were very intense. I watch hockey because I love the intensity, the flow, the emotion. Now just because I have a team and it needs to have the Cup or it's not worth my time.

You assume WAY, WAY, WAY too much (see, I told you I'd come back to it). First off, we have no idea if we'll indeed have a great team to show for it. Then, why would we automatically have 15 years of mediocrity if we don't tank? IMO, we're much closer to mediocrity by aiming for the bottom and trying to dig ourselves out of it than by aiming to win and put all our efforts into it.

You just take assumptions and put it as facts. You're trying to make it seem like your opinion is the only reality.
We've tried to build with mid round picks for 15 years, it hasn't worked. We've tried to build with Free Agents... it hasn't worked. Most cup winning teams have won with top picks. Those are the facts.

We don't draft superstars because we don't draft high enough. Even terrible drafting teams like Atlanta (cited by you) have managed to get superstars this way. We have much better scouting than they do and we aren't an expansion team starting from zero.

Seriously, what are you worried about here? Why resist the path that has shown to be successful? Why keep going for 8th place?

You need to stop living in denial and recognize that we don't have a team that's capable of winning anything. We have some good young talent to build with but apart from Price we don't have superstar prospects. Until we do something about this we'll never win.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-15-2010 at 11:07 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2010, 11:35 PM
  #106
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevenueSharing View Post
If it weren't for the damn revenue sharing and cap, we as fans wouldn't be paying for these god damn small market ******** teams to pay for their star players. It's just disgusting how OUR passion and our history is being used against us as it's the majority of our fanbases money (and the leafs) that's funding these welfare teams to stay afloat. Because of our passion it is pretty much impossible for our team to tank. The history nor the "general" fanbase would allow it.
If a team tanks in Carolina, nobody would give a DAMN as nobody would care! So they can draft all the Staals they want and then use OUR money to pay for their contracts because their "fanbase" thinks it's too expensive to pay $20 for a NHL ticket. It's just agonizing to sit and watch how this league operates!

If the MLB can operate in a cap free world then so can the NHL. But as bad as the cap is but to throw in a revenue sharing system as well? That's just bending the Canadian fanbase over and giving it up the back side! I could care less if teams like Atlanta, Carolina, Florida,etc have the funds to compete!

BAH, it's very bitter feeling to be a Habs fan now. Imagine if the Lakers, Yankees and MAN U had to play under the conditions which the Habs played? It's a damn joke.
It takes a special breed of bias to complain about the sheer injustice of teams having to compete on a level playing field.

Yankee fans are relieved when they win. They're supposed to, so much is in their favor. I'd rather see my team win through excellence behind the bench, in the press box and on the ice than just through a slanted playing field.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2010, 11:40 PM
  #107
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You said you would rather finish 10th than 11th. That has nothing to do with hindsight.
You're missing the point of the comment.

After the fact, it is easy to look back at a season and say "well if we knew we were going to lose in round one," or "if we knew we were to have finished 9th" and wish you'd had a better draft pick. But it doesn't work that way.

Obviously, every fan of every team would prefer their team draft higher.

I'm saying, as a fan who watches the games. In that actual moment, I'd rather have the excitement of a stretch run where we come up short than watch the team bomb a season.

Armchair GMs sit back and say "see, a 9th place team!" and bemoan the fact we didn't finish lower over the last 15 years. In those years though, before the standings were set, it wasn't quite so simple to make those choices as it is when you benefit from history.

So yes, I'd rather the Habs go all out to make the playoffs. Why? Because that's something worth watching and despite all you defeatists out there, plenty of teams have won the cup who were not supposed to do it on paper. That's the magic of the playoffs.

If people like you had been in charge in 1993, we would have traded everyone away at the deadline because Roy was having a bad year (3.20 GAA and .894 s%) and that team clearly wasn't up to competing with the likes of Boston (ran away with our division, we finished 3rd in it), Pittsburgh (Lemieux, Jagr, 2 time champions), Chicago (Belfour, nearly won a Cup the year before), and Detroit (Yzerman at his best). You'd be pointing at all these teams full of younger stars and saying we need to finish last to compete with them.

Is this team a 1993 team? Probably not, but no one would have thought they were either before they won. That's why you play the games.


Last edited by Lucius: 02-15-2010 at 11:47 PM.
Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 12:00 AM
  #108
Markowicz
Simple Jacques
 
Markowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
I think the other teams do not have as many variables as Montreal does this year. The goaltending, the 'win and your in' mentality, the odd ability to play really well, then really bad from night to night.

Plus, are you really sold on Martin? Does he inspire the team in front of him, or rather... intimidate them in any way?



Why must you single out a fan like this, as if your ideals make you a better fan, and member of this forum? So what if he's frustrated, this doesn't make you any better.
I think you are better than this, your posts don't usually lead to name calling and this sort of response.
You're right. I was out of line. I'm just tired of hearing the same negativity daily on these boards. Truth be told, there's a ton of things i dont like about this team. I just find that it's a waste of time to examine them when there's nothing we can do about them right now. For instance, i don't like the coach or his system. Unfortunately Martin and Gauthier seem to be as thick as thieves so we're basically stuck with Martin... for awhile. This depresses me, but there's nothing that can be done, so the only thing i can hope for is that Martin proves me wrong, and the team embraces whatever he's preaching. I think the defence is too slow and old and i also think the forwards lack size. Still, despite these problems, i think we're a playoff team, and when we have a complete lineup, a good one.

We dissect our lineup all the time; i could do the same for other teams. Last year for instance, i questioned how a team like the Penguins could win the cup with a bunch of ragtag wingers (Fedotenko, Talbot, dupuis, cooke, kennedy, guerin) and a defence that beyond Gonchar, didn't really impress me. No one on these boards could look me in the eye and tell me that guys like Scuderi, Gill and Eaton were going to hold down the fort against the Ovechkin's of the world. No way. But they did. Somehow. You can say all you want that they have Crosby and Malkin and thats why they won, but i watched almost every Pens playoff game last year and i can assure you they wouldn't have had a shot if not some pretty heroic performances by their fringe players.

And thats what its all about in the playoffs; guys step up, take their game to the next level. Personally, i've seen enough times this year where different guys on our team do just that to win us games. We've got more guts on this team than we've had in years, and i think that gives us a shot.

Markowicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 12:12 AM
  #109
RevenueSharing*
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
It takes a special breed of bias to complain about the sheer injustice of teams having to compete on a level playing field.

Yankee fans are relieved when they win. They're supposed to, so much is in their favor. I'd rather see my team win through excellence behind the bench, in the press box and on the ice than just through a slanted playing field.
How's it a level playing field for the fans and owners who pay with their hard earned money to see their profits go to the opposition whose fans don't give a damn about their team? That's absolutely injustice right there. I don't see the Florida Marlins or the Diamond backs complaining about the spending ways of the Yankees, Bo Sox, Mets, etc. If you're a small market franchise you should be able to compete by managing your team in a cerebral manner but why should the big markets who bring the money for the league to stay afloat suffer? Where would the NHL be without the likes of the Habs, Leafs, Rangers and the other Canadian franchises? They'd be right there with the Professional Lacrosse league.

RevenueSharing* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 01:24 AM
  #110
Basszor
Registered User
 
Basszor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
First of all, teams willingly rebuild. The Wings did it, the Islanders did it and now the Caps are doing it. Leonsis specifically outlined it in a ten point plan. So you are wrong here.

Secondly, even if it wasn't willingly done... IT WORKED. So why not follow a strategy that has worked far more times than any other?

The team we have is mediocre. It's not awful enough to get top picks. Our goaltending has kept us in the hunt for a playoff spot and when we're a bubble team designed to compete for 8th. And when it looks like we're about to slip we make more short term moves (see Dominic Moore) that are designed to keep us competitive for last place.

As for us being the 2nd youngest... our core players aren't young. We have two goalies (and only one net for them to share) who are young and we've got some role players who are young. Compare that to Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington who's core players are on the sunny side of 25. We have Gionta, Markov, Cammy and Gomez at 30.


How do you propose we "try to get to the cup" with the roster we have? You've just admitted we aren't great so do you think we should just count on luck? Get real.

As for the "great unknown" that you're talking about, top five picks are far from a wildcard. If you land more than three you've got a better than 50% chance of landing a superstar type player. And the other two guys will more than likely be good to build around too.

The "great unknown" that you're talking about is in the mid rounds where we've spent most of our time drafting. That's why we don't have superstars and why we won't be winning a cup any time soon.

Doing things the same way we always have isn't going to bring us a cup.

Oh brother...

Get your 6/49 picks here!

Why?

First of all, we're competing for 10th place at this point and are on the outside looking in. Secondly, even if we do get in this team will go nowhere. Why do you want us to continuously be in this situation?


?

If you want them to learn, trade the vets and give them more icetime. We'll lose in the shortterm but they'll get better in the long run and so will we.


This pretty much says it all then. You're happy with 2nd round exits.

Then why is it that last place teams never win?

Luck isn't a winning strategy. Planning and proactive rebuilding is.
Seriously, if you're just going to rant about how this team is mediocre and we should thank and all, why don't you shut up, take your things and follow another team that has sucked for years(Wash Pits Chicago) and don't come watch Mtl games again. With the way you see this team it shouldn't be too hard for you to stop watching them would it?

BETTER YET!! You can go either watch the Hurricanes or the Oilers!! they're #29-30 in the league and they could very well rebuild a few more years.
Oh nevermind. You probably wouldn't like the Canes since they seems to ice a mediocre team just the year after they went to the eastern finals(And the team is really similar to last year team) . But you're right! Teams like this can't do anything in the playoff at all. Nothing, nada. You're daydreaming if you think Montreal will tank knowing full well that the potential this team has if healthy can be much better than what we've seen this year.

As for your top pick SUPERSTAR!!!1! leading the team to the great honour

Mind telling me who it was on the wings on their last cup run?(You did say top pick amirite?)
This #1-2-3 overall thing is great for losers, but you build a contender through good drafting no matter where you get the player. Heck, i'm not sure many of the wings first rounder are playing a key role in their team. It all comes to drafting the good player(Lidstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, ect) because NOT ALL THE PLAYERS DEVELLOP AS EXPECTED.

What would you do if we drafted top 5 for 2-3 years and ended up with players like Daigle and Stefan? Would you be pleased?


Last edited by Basszor: 02-16-2010 at 01:41 AM.
Basszor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 01:26 AM
  #111
THE HOFF
Registered User
 
THE HOFF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
to lafleurs guy,


winning is something that goes beyond a roster. its a mentality, a culture. this is the reason why the habs will take part in the playoffs and the panthers, thrasher and lightning won't. the same reason the sharks won't win the cup...

What the pens achieved is phenomenal, and unique. To win a cup based on draft picks and adding veterans like guerin and gill to the team is a nice feat. but in the end, talbot makes you win, not hossa.

but when you look at reality, teams that have had success in the past decade have been teams like the devils and the wings, teams that have shown outstanding stability, and good development programs (if not for their GM, id say the sabres are heading in that direction as well). You can argue brodeur was the starting point of it all, but without guys like stevens, niedermayer ect... getting brodeur won't give you instant success. and when players go, the mentality stays ... what they brought to your club remains ...

just look at the oilers, the amount of talent they had in the past few years, the coyotes, the blue jackets and the trashers... there is a reason atlanta lost kovalchuk/savard/hossa ... and its because they did not have the right pieces in place before them. pick john tavares, pick malkin ... if they are not surrounded by winners they won't win. these young teams have to make the playoffs within 3-4 years, otherwise they are waisted souls, quite simply. there are exeptions like crosby and ovechkin, but they are rare.

to finish off, players like gionta, cammalleri, gomez ... will help the young players in this organization to rise above expectations and then they will pass on the torch themselves ... and thats the starting point. losing is not and never will be an option to teach anyone how to win ... this winning mentality explains to me why I'd build around zach parise instead of kovalchuk everyday of the week. One was thought how to win, the other one wasn't.


Last edited by THE HOFF: 02-16-2010 at 01:47 AM.
THE HOFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 01:32 AM
  #112
Markowicz
Simple Jacques
 
Markowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE HOFF View Post
to lafleurs guy,


winning is something that goes beyond a roster. its a mentality, a culture. this is the reason why the habs will take part in the playoffs and the panthers, thrasher and lightning won't. the same reason the sharks won't win the cup...

What the pens achieved is phenomenal, and unique. To win a cup based on draft picks and adding veterans like guerin and gill to the team is a nice feat. but in the end, talbot makes you win, not hossa.

but when you look at reality, teams that have had success in the past decade have been teams like the devils and the wings, teams that have shown outstanding stability, and good development programs. You can argue brodeur was the starting point of it all, but without guys like stevens, niedermayer ect... getting brodeur won't give you instant success. and when players go, the mentality stays ... what they brought to your club remains ...

just look at the oilers, the amount of talent they had in the past few years, the coyotes, the blue jackets and the trashers... there is a reason atlanta lost kovalchuk/savard/hossa ... and its because they did not have the right pieces in place before them. pick john tavares, pick malkin ... if they are not surrounded by winners they won't win. these young teams have to make the playoffs within 3-4 years, otherwise they are waisted souls, quite simply. there are exeptions like crosby and ovechkin, but they are rare.

to finish off, players like gionta, cammalleri, gomez ... will help the young players in this organization to rise above expectations and then they will pass on the torch themselves ... and thats the starting point. losing is not and never will be an option to teach anyone how to win ... this mentality, gut feeling ... explains to me why I'd build around zach parise instead of kovalchuk everyday of the week. One was thought how to win.
Don't understand your last sentence, but this is exactly what i've been trying to say.

Markowicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 01:47 AM
  #113
Basszor
Registered User
 
Basszor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Chicago missed the playoffs from 98 to 09. They gave out vets like Belfour and Chelios. Rebuilding is only rebuilding if it actually works, right?

Actually the years the Islanders gave away those youngsters was to stay competitive. I'm talking right now. Why aren't Okposo, Tavares, Bailey and company pulling a Blackhawks/Pens/Caps? That's right, you're not ****ing guaranteed a damn gamebreaker under 25 with a top pick.

What happened to the Thrashers? How many top picks? Yet 1 sweep with all those great picks, that's all. Compared to their fellow expansion teams like Minnesota and Nashville who have done better while staying away from the bottom. Columbus makes another case for bottom-feeding not necessarily breeding cup contenders.



They tend to? The only great pick the Ducks had was Bobby Ryan and he was in the minors. There's one case where you don't need the great picks. Or the Canes, which were overachievers led by vets and 1 top pick, which isn't much of a rebuild. Out of their top picks they had for bad years, only one had any impact. It was their late first rounder that actually got them over the top. Where was the Wings' rebuild? Lecavalier was the only Bolts' top pick that had any impact, and he was more of a stud 2nd liner than an impact forward (since Modin, St-Louis and Richards were more important).



25th in the league in offense, yet our top offensive Dman/PPQB and quite a few top 6 forwards were out for significant parts of the season. Hmmm...No correlation, right?

Obviously, the goalies had a lot to do in our wins. But last time I checked, goalies are a part of the team. You can't really blame the team for having a great strength in nets and pointing it out as a team weakness.

Small, soft, no grit...Ah yes, unlike those great Leafs. Now there's a winning team.

We're still 8th after considering games played. Assuming the teams below pick up points is assuming too much. You seem to like that though (I'll come back on that point later, I promise )

As I said, us sitting in *10th* (notice the stars?) may also have a lot to do with our key positions being as crippled as they have been. I'm not sure one other team has had their key positions hit like ours.



Oh ok, two great goalies can't be 2 core players. Might as well tell me that anything good the Habs have considering the future can't be counted as good because that would go against your point of view.

Gorges and AK aren't core players? WTF? Young top 6 forward and young consistent, reliable Dman (potential top 4 D, if not already) aren't core players?



Yes, and there's also the possibility your top pick busts or is not an impact player. Yet you're advocating for us to take that chance.

The Flyers and Ducks disagree with midround picks leading the way. Hell, I'm sure the Devils would be happy to disagree with you also, along with their 3 Cups.

See what I did there?



You mean in the first year this new core has been together, a year that's been full of key injuries, they haven't shown that ability?

Are you for real?



Yet you get cases like Alex Daigle, Pat Falloon, Chad Kilger, Oleg Tverdovsky, Jamie Storr, Trevor Kidd, etc.

See what I did there?



Of course I'd rather have a Cup. Yet those moments brought great emotion and were very intense. I watch hockey because I love the intensity, the flow, the emotion. Now just because I have a team and it needs to have the Cup or it's not worth my time.



You assume WAY, WAY, WAY too much (see, I told you I'd come back to it). First off, we have no idea if we'll indeed have a great team to show for it. Then, why would we automatically have 15 years of mediocrity if we don't tank? IMO, we're much closer to mediocrity by aiming for the bottom and trying to dig ourselves out of it than by aiming to win and put all our efforts into it.

You just take assumptions and put it as facts. You're trying to make it seem like your opinion is the only reality.
I made a ******* long post but your post couldn't have resumed it better.

Basszor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 02:21 AM
  #114
Basszor
Registered User
 
Basszor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We have a broken core. Even if the draft next year sucks, we can trade for younger players and prospects now. And if the 2011 draft is as bad as you say then we can ask for 2012 picks instead.


Rebuilding is only rebuilding if you actually commit to it. The Islanders drafted high and traded everything away. That's not a rebuild either.

Bill Wirtz is univerally known as the worst owner in professional sports (with all due respect to Pal Hal) Chicago had terrible management and went for quick fixes (see Khabibulin) that didn't work. As for drafting high, it wasn't until 2004 that they actually started to build with top picks. Since that time they have three top five pick and another top ten. Two of those players are in their early 20s and are the leaders of the club. If Dollar Bill were around they'd be gone now. They've done what I've advocated and are doing very well. Are you honestly going to say that they aren't a rebuilt team? It took them about four years to assemble that club and it's a legit contender this year.

Kyle Oposo is 21 years old and Tavares is brand new to the league. It's way too soon to see how good they'll be. They've just started their rebuild and its probably going to continue this year. In a few years they'll probably be doing well and you'll call them a fluke too.

Look at the Kings, they're another team just starting a rebuild. Doughty has made all the difference and they've got two more top pick players on the way up. Will you cite them as a fluke too?

The Thrashers had the unfortunate experience of having their best player kill a teammate and demand a trade. Their top goalie has had injury problems since day one. Who knows? Maybe OV will kill Semin in a car crash too.

Honestly, are you actually going to argue that Atlanta hasn't gotten superstars by drafting high? Even if you discard Lehtonen alltogether, they got two fifty goal scorers out of it. That's not bad is it? Seriously, what's your problem with that?

They didn't assemble a contender yes, but it's in spite of those top picks not because of them. That is elite talent that any team would want.

Great. You named the Ducks.

Don't even think of mentioning the Canes without Staal. Ditto with the Bolts and Lecavalier. I can also name the Habs, Oilers, Islanders, Rangers, Pens, Devils, Avs, Wings, Stars, Pens again...

You can have the Flames. I'll also spot you the Roy led Habs because Svoboda wasn't leading the way for them either. The Wings did it a couple of years ago too.

The vast majority are still rebuilds.

BTW, it's interesting to note that as soon as the Ducks landed Niedermayer (3rd overall) and Pronger (2nd) they suddenly won the cup. Good thing Pronger inexplicably wanted out of Edmonton and would only go to certain cities, ditto with Niedermayer wanting to play with his bro.

If it was injuries, then why did we get crushed in January with a healthy lineup? The Leafs were playing without Kessel too. Is that the reason they lost? Of course not, when he was back they still lost. Same with us. Why did we continue to get outplayed? Why can't we beat half decent teams?

And yes guy, when a team is one point behind with three games in hand, odds are you're going to lose that playoff spot.



C'mon man, when you think of the core players on Washington do you think of secondary scorers and second line defensemen? Get real here. How many core players do you think each team has?

Yes, you completely forgot that the Devils drafted high for years and had Scott Niedermayer (a Norris winning defenseman) leading the way to three cups. And to prove how good he was, he won another cup with the Ducks.

Thanks for proving my point.

Are you?

Seriously man, these guys aren't rookies. We knew exactly what we were getting with Gomez (a guy who averages around 65 points a year with one of the worst contracts in the league) the pint sized Gionta and Cammy. It's not a surprise that we're a bubble team, they've done exactly what we thought they would.

Yup,

You cherry picked a bunch of non performing players to suit your argument. And there's no doubt that if you only draft one top five pick in 25 years (as we have) there's a greater chance of not getting a superstar. If you draft multiple top picks though, most of the time you'll land a superstar and probably a decent player as well. Heck even the examples that you've asked for (Atlanta and Columbus) have managed to draft superstars despite not having the best scouting. And even the teams that I've cited (Detroit, Pittsburgh) have drafted high and not every pick is a superstar. Thing is though, if you draft high for a few years, you'll probably end up with an Yzerman, Niedermayer or Jagr. Not every pick has to be a superstar for you to be successful here.

You'll notice that when I make an argument, I point to teams that actually won the cup. I point to the teams that won with and without those top picks. The vast majority of cups are won with those top pick players leading the way. And I actually exclude the passenger types (Svoboda and Ryan) to be fair.

Superstars (regardless of where they were drafted or traded for) are needed to win and most teams have more than one. If you don't have any, good luck. We don't have superstars to compete with the Washington, Pittsburgh and Chicago type teams. Yes, we might be able to fluke out a 7 game series but the team we have will never win a cup. We can be as healthy as can be, it will never happen.

We've tried to build with mid round picks for 15 years, it hasn't worked. We've tried to build with Free Agents... it hasn't worked. Most cup winning teams have won with top picks. Those are the facts.

We don't draft superstars because we don't draft high enough. Even terrible drafting teams like Atlanta (cited by you) have managed to get superstars this way. We have much better scouting than they do and we aren't an expansion team starting from zero.

Seriously, what are you worried about here? Why resist the path that has shown to be successful? Why keep going for 8th place?

You need to stop living in denial and recognize that we don't have a team that's capable of winning anything. We have some good young talent to build with but apart from Price we don't have superstar prospects. Until we do something about this we'll never win.
Drafting high is not a guarenteed success. Look at the Trashers and all their superstars they drafted over the few years. Heatley(Traded but they got Hossa. Not too shabby) Kovalchuk, Lehtonen. To get all those great young players, you have to be bad for a while. And you know what? since 2000
(Heatley draft) they only made the playoffs ONCE. And how long did it last? 4 games. And now they are still in the same crap as they are but with different pieces to build around (Kane bogosian) but in the end with an elite talent like Kovalchuk, Lehtonen and Hossa they weren't able to do anything in this playoff against the RANGERS. I'd rather make the playoff 3 times out of 4 and get an exciting season like the 07-08 and be hopefull for the cup than seeing us draft high with nothing sure about the picks.

You said MTLPacman67 picked players that didnt develop as supposed? well here's a list of players who we are still waiting to see the results..

Pouliot(4th 2005) (Playing good for us but will he keep the pace? One can hope
Brule(6th 2005)
Nik Zherdev(4th 2003),good player but nowhere near elite player,
Andrew Ladd (4th 2004)
Blake Wheeler (5th 2004)
Heck even Jack Skille(7th) and Brian Lee(9th) still haven't panned out as impact players.
Kari Lehtonen(2th 2002) and Pitkanen (4th 2002) Scottie Upshall(6th 2002) Joffrey Lupul (7th 2002)
Alexandr Svitov (3rd 2001) and Stanisla Chistov(5th 2001)

Where they all developped the right way? who knows. But I made this list because unlike you i'm not assuming that by tanking we'd get the 1st overall pick guaranteed. I could even name you a player from one of the deepest draft in history that was taking top 5 that didn't made his team better. It's nice to draft early but it's a matter to get the best player out of our pick. I'm not saying AK was the best selection, but clearly it wasn't the worse. So again i'm asking you, do you really want to take the chance and draft decent to good players, but nothing extraordinary considering their rank, like above HOPING you get a superstar player, without being sure you'll draft #1 for all the years of being one of the baddest and most boring team? I sure don't.

Basszor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 03:59 AM
  #115
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basszor View Post
BETTER YET!! You can go either watch the Hurricanes or the Oilers!! they're #29-30 in the league and they could very well rebuild a few more years.
Oh nevermind. You probably wouldn't like the Canes since they seems to ice a mediocre team just the year after they went to the eastern finals(And the team is really similar to last year team) . But you're right! Teams like this can't do anything in the playoff at all. Nothing, nada. You're daydreaming if you think Montreal will tank knowing full well that the potential this team has if healthy can be much better than what we've seen this year.
I've watched about 20 Oilers game this year and I think they have both more talent and are more exciting to watch than Les Habs. Their brutally bad goaltending just destroyed their morale this season more than anything else. Next year when they bring up a couple of guys who can score it's going to strike pure fear into the hearts of the teams competing against them. To me they aren't that far from being a top 5 team in the West and in a couple of years a top 3 team.

Getting Gomez and Gionta was just a dumb and desperate move similar to people shopping on Xmas Eve choosing gifts for their loved ones. They have two or three hundred bucks to spend and they just have to buy something now. The sooner we dump them the better, even if we get nothing in return, at least then we will have cap space to get players that make more sense. If we had gotten Gaborik or Havlat last year instead we would be in a much better situation now.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 06:04 AM
  #116
ReVeuF
Registered User
 
ReVeuF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,038
vCash: 500
Sometimes it is good to take a step back to be able to take 2 steps forward.

I do not want a fire sale, I just want Gauthier to do nothing or maybe sell one or two players at trade deadline. If he is buyer and trade young prospects / draft picks for pending UFA players he will do a big mistake for the future...

ReVeuF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 06:26 AM
  #117
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReVeuF View Post
Sometimes it is good to take a step back to be able to take 2 steps forward.

I do not want a fire sale, I just want Gauthier to do nothing or maybe sell one or two players at trade deadline. If he is buyer and trade young prospects / draft picks for pending UFA players he will do a big mistake for the future...
true in a lot of cases, but lets not forget that players become UFA at 27 (at most) now, and that there's also a salary cap...


look at the "rising teams"

Hawks : been rebuilding for a few years now and while they havent won anything (yet?) they're already in cap Hell and it's the only reason Barker has been traded, and it's not over yet, even with Barker out they'll still have to trimm some salary

Caps : seeing what it will cost to keep Semin, Backstrom, Green and AO with them for years to come they can't afford to upgrade their D or get a star goalie... and they better hope Varlamov doesnt become as good as projected otherwise they'll have to make some trimming too... unless you want to put your hopes for a Cup on Theo's shoulder ?

Pens : sure... who else in this league can pretend to have two players of Malkin/Crosby's caliber... AND a great goalie ? they're not the norm, they're the exception...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 07:52 AM
  #118
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevenueSharing View Post
How's it a level playing field for the fans and owners who pay with their hard earned money to see their profits go to the opposition whose fans don't give a damn about their team? That's absolutely injustice right there. I don't see the Florida Marlins or the Diamond backs complaining about the spending ways of the Yankees, Bo Sox, Mets, etc. If you're a small market franchise you should be able to compete by managing your team in a cerebral manner but why should the big markets who bring the money for the league to stay afloat suffer? Where would the NHL be without the likes of the Habs, Leafs, Rangers and the other Canadian franchises? They'd be right there with the Professional Lacrosse league.
Ummm - You don't hear small market baseball teams complaining? Seriously? How about Jays, Orieles and, two years ago not withstanding, Devil Rays fans? They have nearly zero chance of ever making the playoffs. Period.

The Leafs, Rangers and other Canadian franchises cannot play in the league alone. They live or die as a league and if all the other teams imploded, so would the NHL.

Also, you're more than a little over estimating profit sharing. The new rules mean that Montreal and Toronto make money hand over fist. Yes, they pay out to smaller teams (FYI, that happens in baseball too), but they save so much money thanks to the cap that they make a nice profit.

Now, I will give you one thing. The NHL really should have been more agressive on moving/folding underperforming teams. The cap is set based on league revenues and teams like Phoenix cause the league's cap to be diminished. Had they moved them somewhere more profitable, everyone would have more money to spend.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 09:52 AM
  #119
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Rebuilding is only rebuilding if you actually commit to it. The Islanders drafted high and traded everything away. That's not a rebuild either.

Bill Wirtz is univerally known as the worst owner in professional sports (with all due respect to Pal Hal) Chicago had terrible management and went for quick fixes (see Khabibulin) that didn't work. As for drafting high, it wasn't until 2004 that they actually started to build with top picks. Since that time they have three top five pick and another top ten. Two of those players are in their early 20s and are the leaders of the club. If Dollar Bill were around they'd be gone now. They've done what I've advocated and are doing very well. Are you honestly going to say that they aren't a rebuilt team? It took them about four years to assemble that club and it's a legit contender this year.
The Hawks didn't tank. Actually you're just blowing hot air. None of these teams 'committed' to rebuilding. The Hawks acquired Havlat for the 06-07 campaign and a bunch of new players, and failed msierably and ended up with Pat Kane.

That's not rebuilding. It's the team you built to try to make the playoffs not working out. Which may be what will happen to us. Like the 06-07 Flyers too. It happens, it's not written out to be like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Kyle Oposo is 21 years old and Tavares is brand new to the league. It's way too soon to see how good they'll be. They've just started their rebuild and its probably going to continue this year. In a few years they'll probably be doing well and you'll call them a fluke too.

Look at the Kings, they're another team just starting a rebuild. Doughty has made all the difference and they've got two more top pick players on the way up. Will you cite them as a fluke too?
Uh huh. So we can't know how good they'll be, and if they end up being bottom-feeders for the next 5 years, it's all the better, right?

The Kings didn't try to rebuild. They couldn't ice a good team because of budget restrictions. Now that they decided the best way to make money was to spend some and acquired vets like Smyth, Williams, Stoll, Greene, etc. (even at the cost of your precious youth). What do you know? The youngsters are getting better with those vets surrounding them AND the team is playing great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The Thrashers had the unfortunate experience of having their best player kill a teammate and demand a trade. Their top goalie has had injury problems since day one. Who knows? Maybe OV will kill Semin in a car crash too.

Honestly, are you actually going to argue that Atlanta hasn't gotten superstars by drafting high? Even if you discard Lehtonen alltogether, they got two fifty goal scorers out of it. That's not bad is it? Seriously, what's your problem with that?

They didn't assemble a contender yes, but it's in spite of those top picks not because of them. That is elite talent that any team would want.
They actually got a player of relatively equal talent in the deal. If OV killed say David Steckel in a car accident and they got Malkin or Crosby back, I'm not sure the team would suffer much from it.

Of course they got superstars, but those superstars got them in the playoffs for a sweep. All those years of bad hockey...for more bad hockey! How great!

We did better than them in that stretch despite not having any of those flashy susperstar picks. Goes to show it's not the be-all, end-all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Great. You named the Ducks.

Don't even think of mentioning the Canes without Staal. Ditto with the Bolts and Lecavalier. I can also name the Habs, Oilers, Islanders, Rangers, Pens, Devils, Avs, Wings, Stars, Pens again...

You can have the Flames. I'll also spot you the Roy led Habs because Svoboda wasn't leading the way for them either. The Wings did it a couple of years ago too.

The vast majority are still rebuilds.

BTW, it's interesting to note that as soon as the Ducks landed Niedermayer (3rd overall) and Pronger (2nd) they suddenly won the cup. Good thing Pronger inexplicably wanted out of Edmonton and would only go to certain cities, ditto with Niedermayer wanting to play with his bro.
Ok...so we know teams can win without top picks...But we have to rebuild because in other instances, they were winners with top picks. Nah, I'll stay the course instead of going for an easy way out that could easily turn into a massive fiasco.

Nieds and Pronger weren't acquired via rebuild. That's a moot point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
If it was injuries, then why did we get crushed in January with a healthy lineup? The Leafs were playing without Kessel too. Is that the reason they lost? Of course not, when he was back they still lost. Same with us. Why did we continue to get outplayed? Why can't we beat half decent teams?

And yes guy, when a team is one point behind with three games in hand, odds are you're going to lose that playoff spot.
How were we healthy in January? We lost another top 6 forward. And those guys didn't play much together from the get-go, so it's only fair we give them time to build chemistry. If we had the Big Ben-Gomer-Gio line going with the AK-Pleks-Cammy line, don't you think our offense would be a lot better?

Odds are that, but they could go 4-5-1 in their next ten and we could go 4-2-1 in our next 7 which would leave us ahead with the same games played. You can't predict how it'll play itself out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

C'mon man, when you think of the core players on Washington do you think of secondary scorers and second line defensemen? Get real here. How many core players do you think each team has?
They are young players also. They can grow into more important roles. They're not in their prime yet hold key positions.

Obviously some teams have better core players, but then, they have to pay such players and will lose some to FA, where they can be scooped up by another team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yes, you completely forgot that the Devils drafted high for years and had Scott Niedermayer (a Norris winning defenseman) leading the way to three cups. And to prove how good he was, he won another cup with the Ducks.

Thanks for proving my point.
Proving your point? Nieds was about their only home pick in the top 5 that had any importance in their Cup runs.

You could make a case that because they had Shanahan, they were able to get Stevens though.

But they didn't 'commit' to rebuild. They were just terrible and couldn't get out of it until Lou came along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Are you?

Seriously man, these guys aren't rookies. We knew exactly what we were getting with Gomez (a guy who averages around 65 points a year with one of the worst contracts in the league) the pint sized Gionta and Cammy. It's not a surprise that we're a bubble team, they've done exactly what we thought they would.
Our top 6 has been crippled with injuries. We've had major player movements in the offseason. Give these guys time to gel ffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yup,

You cherry picked a bunch of non performing players to suit your argument. And there's no doubt that if you only draft one top five pick in 25 years (as we have) there's a greater chance of not getting a superstar. If you draft multiple top picks though, most of the time you'll land a superstar and probably a decent player as well. Heck even the examples that you've asked for (Atlanta and Columbus) have managed to draft superstars despite not having the best scouting. And even the teams that I've cited (Detroit, Pittsburgh) have drafted high and not every pick is a superstar. Thing is though, if you draft high for a few years, you'll probably end up with an Yzerman, Niedermayer or Jagr. Not every pick has to be a superstar for you to be successful here.

You'll notice that when I make an argument, I point to teams that actually won the cup. I point to the teams that won with and without those top picks. The vast majority of cups are won with those top pick players leading the way. And I actually exclude the passenger types (Svoboda and Ryan) to be fair.

Superstars (regardless of where they were drafted or traded for) are needed to win and most teams have more than one. If you don't have any, good luck. We don't have superstars to compete with the Washington, Pittsburgh and Chicago type teams. Yes, we might be able to fluke out a 7 game series but the team we have will never win a cup. We can be as healthy as can be, it will never happen.
Well, I could say the same about you. Obviously, cases where guys have been winners are much flashier and easier to remember than guys who fizzle out. Especially since these guys had long careers.

Doesn't make their cases the pattern for success.

But I'm not going to go on a 'no, you're a towel!' arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We've tried to build with mid round picks for 15 years, it hasn't worked. We've tried to build with Free Agents... it hasn't worked. Most cup winning teams have won with top picks. Those are the facts.

We don't draft superstars because we don't draft high enough. Even terrible drafting teams like Atlanta (cited by you) have managed to get superstars this way. We have much better scouting than they do and we aren't an expansion team starting from zero.

Seriously, what are you worried about here? Why resist the path that has shown to be successful? Why keep going for 8th place?

You need to stop living in denial and recognize that we don't have a team that's capable of winning anything. We have some good young talent to build with but apart from Price we don't have superstar prospects. Until we do something about this we'll never win.
Superstars don't win cups. Teams do. You can get superstars by other ways than drafting top 5, and that's the right way to do it for the fans. Don't let them have years of terrible hockey because you don't want to work in order to build a strong franchise.

In fact, quite a few teams around the league are holding on to good spots (like the Devils, the Flyers, the Sabres, the Yotes) who aren't led by players picked up from methodic tanking. This is something that can be done and to just give up in order to take the 'easy' way out that can stretch for a good number of years is not something I want to see a great franchise like the Habs do.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 10:40 AM
  #120
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Jr View Post
You're right. I was out of line. I'm just tired of hearing the same negativity daily on these boards. Truth be told, there's a ton of things i dont like about this team. I just find that it's a waste of time to examine them when there's nothing we can do about them right now.
I think that our frustration really has boiled over this year, the team needs a superstar to rally around. It has been a long time since anyone could identify with this team.


Quote:
For instance, i don't like the coach or his system. Unfortunately Martin and Gauthier seem to be as thick as thieves so we're basically stuck with Martin... for awhile. This depresses me, but there's nothing that can be done, so the only thing i can hope for is that Martin proves me wrong, and the team embraces whatever he's preaching. I think the defence is too slow and old and i also think the forwards lack size.
I agree 100%.

Quote:
Still, despite these problems, i think we're a playoff team, and when we have a complete lineup, a good one.
I would agree with you if I liked our defense a little more, I think it is far too suspect to secure a playoff birth. When I watch Roman and Spacek.. and some of the errors they make, I do not have very much faith. The entire defense doesn't seem to make a lot of second efforts in the defensive zone, and the goaltenders are really left out in the cold.

Quote:
And thats what its all about in the playoffs; guys step up, take their game to the next level. Personally, i've seen enough times this year where different guys on our team do just that to win us games. We've got more guts on this team than we've had in years, and i think that gives us a shot.
This is what I was debating about earlier. This team competes only half the time, at best. A lot of our wins are completely because of goaltending, 45+ shot performances and still squeaking out a win.

I thought we had more character than we do, or maybe it is just our coaching that isn't inspiring anyone on a consistent basis. Whatever it is, a small trade isn't going to fix it from what I can tell.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 10:41 AM
  #121
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
You're missing the point of the comment...
I didn't miss the point of the comment dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basszor View Post
Seriously, if you're just going to rant about how this team is mediocre and we should thank and all], why don't you shut up, take your things and follow another team that has sucked for years(Wash Pits Chicago) and don't come watch Mtl games again. With the way you see this team it shouldn't be too hard for you to stop watching them would it?
I'm a Habs fan and I want to see us win. If you don't like my comments and want me to shut up, put me on ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE HOFF View Post
to lafleurs guy,

winning is something that goes beyond a roster. its a mentality, a culture. this is the reason why the habs will take part in the playoffs and the panthers, thrasher and lightning won't. the same reason the sharks won't win the cup...

What the pens achieved is phenomenal, and unique. To win a cup based on draft picks and adding veterans like guerin and gill to the team is a nice feat. but in the end, talbot makes you win, not hossa.

but when you look at reality, teams that have had success in the past decade have been teams like the devils and the wings, teams that have shown outstanding stability, and good development programs (if not for their GM, id say the sabres are heading in that direction as well). You can argue brodeur was the starting point of it all, but without guys like stevens, niedermayer ect... getting brodeur won't give you instant success. and when players go, the mentality stays ... what they brought to your club remains ...
And that's fine. I think there's a case to be made for what you're saying. We saw that with the Oilers in 1990 too.

But how did those traditions begin? How did that attitude and culture get fostered in the first place? They rebuilt with elite young prospects and it worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE HOFF View Post
just look at the oilers, the amount of talent they had in the past few years, the coyotes, the blue jackets and the trashers... there is a reason atlanta lost kovalchuk/savard/hossa ... and its because they did not have the right pieces in place before them. pick john tavares, pick malkin ... if they are not surrounded by winners they won't win. these young teams have to make the playoffs within 3-4 years, otherwise they are waisted souls, quite simply. there are exeptions like crosby and ovechkin, but they are rare.
I'm not suggesting that we'll draft Crosby or Malkin. What I'm saying though is that if you draft high for a few years you will land a superstar. Superstars are needed to win a cup. Most teams have two or three on them (regardless of whether they were traded for or drafted low) without them you won't win.

We've tried FA, we've tried drafting in the mid rounds and it hasn't worked. We draft very well and it still hasn't worked. We tried trading for that superstar and that hasn't worked either and it's even less likely to work now that we have our cap being taken up by mediocre 30 year old players.

As for the Thrashers, well that's what happens when your top pick superstar kills a teammate. It tends to wreck your chemistry. Their mistfortune aside though, drafting high worked for them too. They lost despite drafting Kovalchuk and Heatley... not because of it.

Nowhere.... nowhere have I suggested that a superstar will guarantee you a cup. But if you want to win a cup, it's awfully hard to win it without at least one on your roster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE HOFF View Post
to finish off, players like gionta, cammalleri, gomez ... will help the young players in this organization to rise above expectations and then they will pass on the torch themselves ... and thats the starting point. losing is not and never will be an option to teach anyone how to win ... this winning mentality explains to me why I'd build around zach parise instead of kovalchuk everyday of the week. One was thought how to win, the other one wasn't.
Look at the teams who won the cup, look at the environment that most top picks grew up in. It was a losing environment. Even if we include lower picks in the equation here...

Potvin, Yzerman, Crosby, Modano, Lemieux... they played for awful teams. They are the guys who made their teams great not the other way around. You have to start somewhere and landing elite talent is the best way to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basszor View Post
Drafting high is not a guarenteed success.
I never said it was. Go and acually read my posts.

What I've said is that winning teams are mostly rebuilt clubs. I've also said that rebuilding clubs tend to have higher rates of success at finding superstars than non-rebuilding teams. Superstars (HOF caibre players) win cups at a higher rate than clubs with non-superstars.

We don't have those kinds of players on our roster because we don't draft high enough to get them. One top five pick in the last quarter century isn't enough. We also don't trade for elite young talent either. I'm all for rebuilding with players under the age of 24 via trading regardless of where they were drafted. Pouliot might work out for example...

The more you have the better your odds.

I'm not sure why you're asking for a guarantee though. There are no guarantees in the NHL. All you can do is maximize your chances. And there's a much better chance of building a winner via a rebuild than there is if we continue to do the same thing we always have. FAs, low to mid round picks hasn't worked for us.

And if I thought we could go out and trade for guys like Thornton and Heatley in their prime I'd be all for that too, but it's not something I see happening anytime soon.

Rebuilding is a smart way to go for a few reasons:

1. It's been proven to work (don't confuse this with a guarantee)
2. It yields superstars at a higher rate than the mid round drafting method
3. It's repeatable

The third point is the most important. It's actually a repeatable process. Esp for us with the fan base we have. We can afford to do this. Trading for picks and prospects and drafting high will eventually yield superstars. That's how we should build this team.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-16-2010 at 11:31 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 10:57 AM
  #122
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I didn't miss the point of the comment dude.
Well your response made no sense to what I was saying and then you curiously chose to ignore the rest of the post where I explained why you missed the point... but sure, you got it.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 11:08 AM
  #123
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
true in a lot of cases, but lets not forget that players become UFA at 27 (at most) now, and that there's also a salary cap...


look at the "rising teams"

Hawks : been rebuilding for a few years now and while they havent won anything (yet?) they're already in cap Hell and it's the only reason Barker has been traded, and it's not over yet, even with Barker out they'll still have to trimm some salary

Caps : seeing what it will cost to keep Semin, Backstrom, Green and AO with them for years to come they can't afford to upgrade their D or get a star goalie... and they better hope Varlamov doesnt become as good as projected otherwise they'll have to make some trimming too... unless you want to put your hopes for a Cup on Theo's shoulder ?

Pens : sure... who else in this league can pretend to have two players of Malkin/Crosby's caliber... AND a great goalie ? they're not the norm, they're the exception...
The exceptions are the clubs who won without rebuilding.

As for cap problems, I know I'd rather have Washington's problems than worry about Scott Gomez's contract and deciding which player I can and can't keep because my 65 point center is making the 10th highest cap hit in the league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
The Hawks didn't tank. Actually you're just blowing hot air. None of these teams 'committed' to rebuilding. The Hawks acquired Havlat for the 06-07 campaign and a bunch of new players, and failed msierably and ended up with Pat Kane.
I just told you that they went for quick fixes that didn't work (see Khabibulin)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
That's not rebuilding. It's the team you built to try to make the playoffs not working out. Which may be what will happen to us. Like the 06-07 Flyers too. It happens, it's not written out to be like that.
Intentional or not, it worked. They got top picks out of it and now have a competitive team that actually has a shot at the cup. And if they hadn't wasted their time on Khabibulin and instead commited to a rebuild the process would've been shorter and they'd have more picks and prospects to show for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Uh huh. So we can't know how good they'll be, and if they end up being bottom-feeders for the next 5 years, it's all the better, right?

The Kings didn't try to rebuild. They couldn't ice a good team because of budget restrictions. Now that they decided the best way to make money was to spend some and acquired vets like Smyth, Williams, Stoll, Greene, etc. (even at the cost of your precious youth). What do you know? The youngsters are getting better with those vets surrounding them AND the team is playing great.
Again, I'm not going to argue whether it was done intentionally or not... because it doesn't matter.

They did exactly what I said we should do and now they're an up and coming team with more top prospects in the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
They actually got a player of relatively equal talent in the deal. If OV killed say David Steckel in a car accident and they got Malkin or Crosby back, I'm not sure the team would suffer much from it.
Right... I'm sure that Heatley killing his teammate in no way affected the culture of that team. Nor did getting an unhappy Marian Hossa who had just been duped by the Sens into signing a contract only to be immediately traded.

Stop trying to make silly arguments here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Of course they got superstars, but those superstars got them in the playoffs for a sweep. All those years of bad hockey...for more bad hockey! How great!

We did better than them in that stretch despite not having any of those flashy susperstar picks. Goes to show it's not the be-all, end-all.
And that's not surprising. We have better scouting and can actually get decent players in the later rounds. The Thrashers were an expansion team starting from absolute zero.

And you're missing the point here. I never said that a superstar or two can win you the cup alone. I don't believe this and I'd never argue it. What I am saying though is that superstars are a key ingredient to winning. If you don't have them, you won't win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Ok...so we know teams can win without top picks...But we have to rebuild because in other instances, they were winners with top picks. Nah, I'll stay the course instead of going for an easy way out that could easily turn into a massive fiasco.

Nieds and Pronger weren't acquired via rebuild. That's a moot point.
I didn't say they were acquired via a rebuild. What I'm saying is that the way they were acquired isn't repeatable. It was a fluky situation where the Ducks lucked out.

1. Niedermayer wanted to play with his brother. You only get him if his bro happens to be on your roster.
2. Pronger inexplicably wanted out and would only go to certain places (Montreal wasn't one of them)
3. They landed an over the hill Teemu Selanne who suddenly became a 50 goal scorer again.
4. The fact that Niedermayer and Pronger were both top five picks for their original teams was just a side note. Selanne was drafted 10th btw.

So if you think this is repeatable, let's go and sign Michael Ovechkin in the hopes that Alex comes here. Then let's hope that Nik Lidstrom wants out of Detroit for no reason and will only play in Montreal and then we can sign Keith Tkatchuk and hope that he scores 50 for us.

Sounds like a great strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
How were we healthy in January? We lost another top 6 forward. And those guys didn't play much together from the get-go, so it's only fair we give them time to build chemistry. If we had the Big Ben-Gomer-Gio line going with the AK-Pleks-Cammy line, don't you think our offense would be a lot better?

Odds are that, but they could go 4-5-1 in their next ten and we could go 4-2-1 in our next 7 which would leave us ahead with the same games played. You can't predict how it'll play itself out.

They are young players also. They can grow into more important roles. They're not in their prime yet hold key positions.

Obviously some teams have better core players, but then, they have to pay such players and will lose some to FA, where they can be scooped up by another team.
We lost a player who has averaged .5 points per game and we were drastically outplayed. Stop making excuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Proving your point? Nieds was about their only home pick in the top 5 that had any importance in their Cup runs.

You could make a case that because they had Shanahan, they were able to get Stevens though.

But they didn't 'commit' to rebuild. They were just terrible and couldn't get out of it until Lou came along.
Yes, you proved my point by using the Devils as an example. They had Niedermayer on it.

They also landed Muller, Shananhan, Guerin and Maclean via the rebuild. All very good players. Some were leveraged for other players and that's fine. How can you say they weren't a rebuilt club though?

As for Niedermayer being the only 'superstar'... it doesn't matter. If you draft high for a while you'll land decent players and the odd superstar. Not all your picks will be superstars even if you get 1st overall every time. But even if you draft mostly nobodies and still wind up with Steve Yzerman it's still worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Our top 6 has been crippled with injuries...
I'm going to skip this part because it's a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
Superstars don't win cups. Teams do.
Right.

And teams with superstars win at a rate that's much higher than teams without them.

I will exclude teams after 2000 because players like Crosby and Staal are too young to fit into this category but every single cup winning team before 2000 has won the cup with at least one HOF player in his prime leading the way. That includes non-top picks and traded players. It also excludes guys like McDonald on the Flames who was a passenger.

We don't have anyone on our roster with a legit shot at the HOF with the possible exception of our younger players like Price, Subban, Pouliot and Maxpac (too young to know).

Our best player is Markov and every single team that won before 2000 has at least one player who is head and shoulders better (most teams have two or three players who are head and shoulders better.)

So yes, superstars are a key ingredient to winning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
You can get superstars by other ways than drafting top 5, and that's the right way to do it for the fans. Don't let them have years of terrible hockey because you don't want to work in order to build a strong franchise.
Yes, you can. But we haven't been able to do it. And it's a lot harder to land these guys in their prime than to draft them as prospects because of cap issues, player desires and competitive considerations.

It's awfully hard to get a Joe Thornton in his prime and guys of his calibre rarely go on the FA market. Getting superstars is a lot easier if you're drafting high.

Again, if we'd shown the capability of landing an Ovechkin via Free Agency then I'd be all for it. It's not going to happen though.

Getting top picks on the other hand is good for a few reasons. One, its a repeatable process. Two, those players play for you cheaply for a few years. Three, they can become the face of your franchise and you can mold them the way you want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLPacman67 View Post
In fact, quite a few teams around the league are holding on to good spots (like the Devils, the Flyers, the Sabres, the Yotes) who aren't led by players picked up from methodic tanking. This is something that can be done and to just give up in order to take the 'easy' way out that can stretch for a good number of years is not something I want to see a great franchise like the Habs do.
The Flyers, Sabres and Yotes won't win the cup. The Devils might now that they've landed Kovalchuk. More likely though is Washington or Pittsburgh. We'll have to see on 2010 but my money is on Leonsis' strategy paying off.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-16-2010 at 11:41 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 11:22 AM
  #124
Ubercron9000*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
I think that gainey missed managed this team. He traded players for assets but he also let a lot of them go. In his supposed 5 year plan he should have went for as many young prospects and draft picks available. Especially first round picks. He did so once and got max pac and mickey d. He traded mickey d to the rangers...

My beef with gainey is that last year he should have traded his UFA's for draft picks and prospects. No instead he waited and didn't sign any of them. Komisarek could have yielded us a good return. Even Kovalev could have gotten us something good. Seeming that we only gave up balej for him.

But the point is he could have traded them all and still ice a good team. It would have been taking a huge chance but we were a bubble team. In the end we would gain more assets and assure our future. Sometimes you have to take chances. So far the only player he took a chance with was Gomez... Now we have a small team with an aging defense.

The cap is also so tight that it will be hard to move our assets for at least another 4 years.

Ubercron9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 11:28 AM
  #125
Habs10Habs
Retired
 
Habs10Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,727
vCash: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercron9000 View Post
I think that gainey missed managed this team. He traded players for assets but he also let a lot of them go. In his supposed 5 year plan he should have went for as many young prospects and draft picks available. Especially first round picks. He did so once and got max pac and mickey d. He traded mickey d to the rangers...

My beef with gainey is that last year he should have traded his UFA's for draft picks and prospects. No instead he waited and didn't sign any of them. Komisarek could have yielded us a good return. Even Kovalev could have gotten us something good. Seeming that we only gave up balej for him.

But the point is he could have traded them all and still ice a good team. It would have been taking a huge chance but we were a bubble team. In the end we would gain more assets and assure our future. Sometimes you have to take chances. So far the only player he took a chance with was Gomez... Now we have a small team with an aging defense.

The cap is also so tight that it will be hard to move our assets for at least another 4 years.
It seems both Komisarek and Kovalev were in Gainey's future plans. As he made offers to both of them on July 1st.

You may have a point with the other UFA's. Though as it's been pointed out many times in the past. Not many teams dump UFA's at the deadline if they are in a playoff position.

Habs10Habs 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 11:17 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.