moving assets for new pieces as opposed to losing assets and trying to replace them with new pieces.
unfortunately, we seen to be the destination for salary dumps (gomez, moore, schneider) as opposed to the team dumping their bad salaries for young assets/picks from other teams.
What difference does it make if you loose assets for zero gain or gain them at zero cost? Souray-Hamrlik, Cammy-Kovalev, Koivu-Gionta, Komisarek-Spacek, Kostopoulos-Moen, Streit-Bergeron so on and so forth. Now of course comparing the quality of players lost with the quality of players that replaced them is subject to another debate.
It's no secret that teams who are believed to be in a position to make a cup run go after rentals that they do not intend to keep due to cap restraint. I include Tanguay and Lang in this category. They were short term boosts and didn't fit in the club's longterm plans.
As for being the league's dumping ground, Schneider and Gomez filled a huge need at the time of acquisition. If you can patch a gaping hole by taking more salary, I'm alright with that given our position. The Moore deal was puzzling to me. If this guy walks and ended up being a rental, then you'll find me echoing your opinion since we are not in a position to be overpaying for rentals at this time.
What difference does it make if you loose assets for zero gain or gain them at zero cost? Souray-Hamrlik, Cammy-Kovalev, Koivu-Gionta, Komisarek-Spacek, Kostopoulos-Moen, Streit-Bergeron so on and so forth. Now of course comparing the quality of players lost with the quality of players that replaced them is subject to another debate.
It's no secret that teams who are believed to be in a position to make a cup run go after rentals that they do not intend to keep due to cap restraint. I include Tanguay and Lang in this category. They were short term boosts and didn't fit in the club's longterm plans.
As for being the league's dumping ground, Schneider and Gomez filled a huge need at the time of acquisition. If you can patch a gaping hole by taking more salary, I'm alright with that given our position. The Moore deal was puzzling to me. If this guy walks and ended up being a rental, then you'll find me echoing your opinion since we are not in a position to be overpaying for rentals at this time.
the difference is in building a team from one level to a higher one vs fluttering at the same level...
if you are constantly replacing players/assets, but not building on them, then how do you get any better.
Your point about schneider/gomez highlights it best.
We had streit, we let him go for nothing creating a void as a result, we traded away other assets to fill that void in the short term in schneider whom we then let walk for nothing...
start with Streit, add a few draft picks, end up with nothing. That is not "building" a team, that's a great example of the exact opposite.
ditto for gomez... start with koivu, let him walk for nothing, trade away two more assets for his replacement (who also happens to take up 3M$ more in cap space, making it more difficult to surround him with adequate talent, which was the biggest problem the team had with Koivu in the first place), end up with a player producing at a very similar rate but minus 2 quality assets and ~3M in cap space.
I do agree that the moves the team made in the 08 offseason reflected a team "going for it", and in spirit I had no issues with that call... but in "practice" the decisions made/players targeted, combined with the players let go, seemed (and ultimately proved to be) poorly thought out.
The team lacked grit/physical play (primarily from top 6/top4D roles), goal scoring, and arguably leadership... and because of letting Streit go/poorly evaluating his role in making the PP click, we also ended up needing to add an element to our PP.
in Tanguay/Lang/Laraque we didn't address any of those needs. So while the approach/philosophy was good, the decisions made were poor.
but instead of acknowledging the mistake made at the management level, we put the blame on the coach, fire him, and then limp into the playoffs without either solidifying the team OR addressing the impending offseason UFA situation.
we compound that mistake by rushing to "re-build" on the fly, completely overhauling the roster in the most dangerous way possible... UFA and gambling on another teams contract blunder.
Instead of accepting that mistakes were made, and patiently restructuring our team with an approach focused on building a winner, we went the desperation route, trying to fill the vast holes created by allowing almost 1/2 of the roster hit UFA at the same time.
The moore trade reeks of that same approach, and like you, if we see him let go in the offseason it will only serve as yet another puzzling/questionable move by a management team that doesn't seem to get the importance of carefully managing the assets the team has.
I do agree that the moves the team made in the 08 offseason reflected a team "going for it", and in spirit I had no issues with that call... but in "practice" the decisions made/players targeted, combined with the players let go, seemed (and ultimately proved to be) poorly thought out.
The team lacked grit/physical play (primarily from top 6/top4D roles), goal scoring, and arguably leadership...
You're misidentifying the needs of 07-08 big-time. The team at that point had no needs for leadership (it had just gone on an inspired run), grit/physical play (having defeated the physical Boston, and suffering no ill-effects from a physical Philadelphia team's supposed superiority in that area), or, especially, goal-scoring. Montreal, lest it be forgotten, was an offensive powerhouse in 07-08. It was second in the league goals scored that year -- one goal off the pace!
What that team needed was really simple: it needed to improve 5-on-5, because it was too reliant on the power play. (This may sound familiar.) The reason the team petered out against Boston was because the power play failed them; a stronger 5-on-5 club could have won that series much earlier. (There's wasn't much more the Habs could have done to carry the play against Philly.)
So Gainey quite shrewdly went after players who were good 5-on-5. Tanguay, especially, was exactly what the team needed, being a very strong 5-on-5 producer. But Carbo messed up his personnel utilization (Tanguay was badly underutilized, the grinders overused), the team's top 5-on-5 player from the previous year (Plekanec) had the Crap Season From Hell and their second-best 5-on-5 player (AKost) also struggled, and then the injuries finished that team off.
Size-and-grit is the superficial explanation that pundits who don't want to bother looking at things or thinking them through bring up because it's easy ("oh, look, dem small, must be the problem!"). The real problem of the Habs is, and has always been, 5-on-5 play -- and that's been at least as much a coaching issue as a personnel issue for years.
But yeah, Laraque was a serious goof. Gainey had previously operated under the policy that this kind of player was completely superfluous -- in which he was right, and I can't fathom what made him change his mind. Maybe Laraque's actual hockey skills were overevaluated?
You're misidentifying the needs of 07-08 big-time. The team at that point had no needs for leadership (it had just gone on an inspired run), grit/physical play (having defeated the physical Boston, and suffering no ill-effects from a physical Philadelphia team's supposed superiority in that area), or, especially, goal-scoring. Montreal, lest it be forgotten, was an offensive powerhouse in 07-08. It was second in the league goals scored that year -- one goal off the pace!
What that team needed was really simple: it needed to improve 5-on-5, because it was too reliant on the power play. (This may sound familiar.) The reason the team petered out against Boston was because the power play failed them; a stronger 5-on-5 club could have won that series much earlier. (There's wasn't much more the Habs could have done to carry the play against Philly.)
So Gainey quite shrewdly went after players who were good 5-on-5. Tanguay, especially, was exactly what the team needed, being a very strong 5-on-5 producer. But Carbo messed up his personnel utilization (Tanguay was badly underutilized, the grinders overused), the team's top 5-on-5 player from the previous year (Plekanec) had the Crap Season From Hell and their second-best 5-on-5 player (AKost) also struggled, and then the injuries finished that team off.
Size-and-grit is the superficial explanation that pundits who don't want to bother looking at things or thinking them through bring up because it's easy ("oh, look, dem small, must be the problem!"). The real problem of the Habs is, and has always been, 5-on-5 play -- and that's been at least as much a coaching issue as a personnel issue for years.
But yeah, Laraque was a serious goof. Gainey had previously operated under the policy that this kind of player was completely superfluous -- in which he was right, and I can't fathom what made him change his mind. Maybe Laraque's actual hockey skills were overevaluated?
the 07-08 regular season certainly did see the Habs explode offensively, but as you point out, the PP drove much of that, as did the fact that we lost the fewest man-games to injuries that year in the league, by a considerable margin if I recall.
Stats are nice and sometimes useful, but there's a reason most analyst often talk about teams that play "playoff hockey". While it's not as objectively sound as goals scored, it's a reflection of very noticeable difference between the styles of play that can survive the gruelling 4 x 7 game series format of the NHL playoffs, were the rule book definitely changes.
In the playoffs, cycling the puck, clutch performers/leaders, and the ability to play through physical punishment are all much more important than in the regular season.
Despite the success of the 07-08 habs during the regular season, it was pretty apparent on many nights that we didn't play a very "playoff hockey" style of game... even if the stats didn't reveal as much.
the boston and philly series pretty much showcased that. We struggled hugely against the physical play of the bruins (even though we had manhandled them during the regular season, where their style of play = penalties= easy goals for our deadly pp), and then against philly, while we did carry the play for most of the series, we showed a lack of reliable goal scoring/finish, and a leadership void that failed to "step up" when the youngsters that had played so well in the regular season began to falter under the pressure of the post-season/physical play... Where was the dressing room/on ice leader standing up for Pleks and making him feel ten feet tall instead of "like a girl" ?
neither Lang nor Tanguay did, or could have, filled those voids. If anything, their style of play/skill sets were the opposite of what we were clearly missing in those playoffs... Lang had never really been a solid playoff producer (in all but 1 of his playoff seasons he produced well below his regular season clip), and Tanguay had failed in Calgary precisely because his style of play was deemed too "soft" and despite 1 great year and 1 average year of production in the regular season, had been a major disappointment in both playoff appearances for them.
While we certainly did, and continue to, struggle at 5 on 5, I think it's a strong reflection of us lacking the very same elements (most notably grity/physical play in the top 6) that prevent us from carrying our 07-08 regular season success into that postseason.
a while back I had a long ongoing "argument" with several posters about the "size" issue. I agree with you that it's not as simple as saying that we have to get bigger to be better. There are countless examples of teams that excel despite not having particularly "big" players in their top 6...
but, and it's a big but, imo it does come down to having a roster with the right kinds of players and the right balance. the 08-09 roster lacked that, as did/does the 09-10 lineup.
You need to have players that play top 6 minutes that are willing and capable to play gritty/physical hockey, or at least continue to play/perform when the opponents try to "muck it up".
tanguay/lang didn't fill that need, and really none of the players we got in the offseason are particularly suited to do that either (though god bless him, gionta certainly tries!)
Stats are nice and sometimes useful, but there's a reason most analyst often talk about teams that play "playoff hockey".
And like most cliches, they are often full of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
In the playoffs, cycling the puck, clutch performers/leaders, and the ability to play through physical punishment are all much more important than in the regular season.
I'll buy that 5-on-5 play, wherever it may come from, is necessary for a solid playoff run, but I would've thought Detroit and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh would have demonstrated that for that, skill is paramount over physicality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
the boston and philly series pretty much showcased that. We struggled hugely against the physical play of the bruins (even though we had manhandled them during the regular season, where their style of play = penalties= easy goals for our deadly pp)
Boston only dragged out because the Habs' previously awesome PP was shockingly bad, something which was pinpointed on Streit struggling, actually. If the Habs had scored at a 25% clip on the PP like during the regular season -- not something that requires any great physicality -- the Bruins would have been done in five, and we wouldn't be talking so much about their physicality because they would have risked penalties a lot less.
Sometimes you go cold at the worst possible time, but I'm sure Streit's issue on the PP point was a factor in him not being re-signed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
and then against philly, while we did carry the play for most of the series, we showed a lack of reliable goal scoring/finish,
Otherwise known as "bad luck". A taboo subject in hockey, but very real. The loss of the Habs despite outrageous dominance in flow of play could not realistically be laid to any other factor except maybe goaltending (and even then!). The Habs were even ahead on hits!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
and a leadership void that failed to "step up" when the youngsters that had played so well in the regular season began to falter under the pressure of the post-season/physical play...
They didn't falter. The Kostitsyns and Plekanec dominated Philly more than any other Habs line. They just were even more luckless than the rest of the team with the finish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
Where was the dressing room/on ice leader standing up for Pleks and making him feel ten feet tall instead of "like a girl" ?
I thought Pleky did a pretty good job of doing that himself. He ate the Flyers for lunch in terms of puck possession all series. Unfortunately, they couldn't buy a goal to save their life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
neither Lang nor Tanguay did, or could have, filled those voids.
Sure they could. Tanguay, especially, is a very strong producer of 5-on-5 offense, and actually led the Habs in goal production per icetime. He's also a career 20% shooter, a rarity that's mostly due to him picking his spots for shooting, but does make the point that he does not lack for finishing. As for Lang, he had size and went on a very good goal-scoring streak with the Habs, so he addressed the finish issue as well.
Misconstruing the results of the 07-08 playoffs, especially the Philly series, as being the result of physical play will lead to some pretty unrealistic conclusions. Gainey identified that the team needed a 5-on-5 boost and provided it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
Tanguay had failed in Calgary precisely because his style of play was deemed too "soft" and despite 1 great year and 1 average year of production in the regular season, had been a major disappointment in both playoff appearances for them.
Tanguay, to quote a Flames blogger of the time, was crowded out by the suck. I know I've said GMs rarely get screwed over by the cap, but Sutter must be the worst cap manager of the post-lockout era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time
While we certainly did, and continue to, struggle at 5 on 5, I think it's a strong reflection of us lacking the very same elements (most notably grity/physical play in the top 6) that prevent us from carrying our 07-08 regular season success into that postseason.
The problems with 5-on-5 are not really in terms of personnel, it's in terms of system. Neither Carbonneau nor Martin have proven capable of implementing even the tiniest bit of a decent transition game or puck possession system, and the 5-on-5 game craters as a result despite Gainey continually upgrading the 5-on-5 ability of the roster. It would still suck if we added bigger skill players. In fact the big guys perform worse than the little guys, relative to their skill level, because Martin's system forces the Habs to eke out scoring on the occasional rush.
The #1 need for the Habs right now is a coach who is good 5-on-5. The #2 need is for more players who are good 5-on-5. That's the be-all and end-all of what they need because if they fix their 5-on-5 game, to merely bring it to "average"... with their goaltending and special teams, they could be a good, perhaps even very good team.
You're making an exteme example. Usually games in hand are 1 and 2 so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they will lose those...plus our injury ravaged team is getting healthy and had a chance to rest a lot of guys which can only help us.
So where do you draw the line ? At 1-2-3 or 4 games in hand ?
Of course there's a possibility all those teams will lose enough of those games in hand that the habs will remain in 8th. That's just obvious. But you have to consider both the possibility they will win, and the possibility they will lose, hence why you'd give some sort of benefit/compensation to the teams with games in hand. Or, you refuse to consider those games in hand and you simply come to the conclusion that those are merely temporary standings that mean nothing outside of possibilities that are already excluded due to impossible outcomes.
Give up, you're just wrong here. It's not an opinion, it's just basic logical thinking and you're failing miserably at it.
EDIT: Furthermore, on a pure statistical point of view, what do you think the chances are that over the 3 teams directly behind the habs, none of them win one single game in the 6 games they'll play combined ? I certainly wouldn't bet my lifesavings on that. The pure truth of the matter is that the habs are currently more out of the playoffs than they are in statistically.
