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

Canadian team preview: The Montreal Canadiens

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-19-2011, 02:17 PM
  #76
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Really so we've been in 8th place and/or missed the playoffs each year?

We didn't just go to the finals year before last?

We weren't a 1st place team in the east a few years back?

All this is untrue?

The same people have been saying 8th place team year after year is the point being made, and they're wrong most of the time.
LafleursGuy is absolutely right. Montreal's been a borderline playoff club since the mid-90s. One deep run on the back of a hot goaltender, and one exceptionally strong powerplay another year leading to a first-place berth don't break this general truth.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 02:24 PM
  #77
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
LafleursGuy is absolutely right. Montreal's been a borderline playoff club since the mid-90s. One deep run on the back of a hot goaltender, and one exceptionally strong powerplay another year leading to a first-place berth don't break this general truth.
Last year we were a borderline playoff solely due to a stastistically high number of key injuries.

Had we had kept either Patch, Markov or Georges, things would have been quite different. Assets thrown to get Sopel, Mara or Wiz would have been spent on a forward.

This rebuild isn't a flashy short-lived one like we've seen in 03-->07.

PricePkPatch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 02:27 PM
  #78
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
Last year we were a borderline playoff solely due to a stastistically high number of key injuries.

Had we had kept either Patch, Markov or Georges, things would have been quite different. Assets thrown to get Sopel, Mara or Wiz would have been spent on a forward.

This rebuild isn't a flashy short-lived one like we've seen in 03-->07.
We'll see. Montreal has generally experienced 'statistically high number of key injuries' for an awfully long time. Before discounting that and assuming the team will be healthier in the future, let's see if Montreal just isn't more injury prone than most clubs in general. (And this may be due to player personnel being more injury prone, or due to poor preparation to the season, or to the harder boards with less give in the Bell Centre; I'm inclined to believe a little from the first and third.)

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 02:31 PM
  #79
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,804
vCash: 500
The 2003 and 2006 drafts have diminished the possibility of having a real contender in Montreal for few years to come.

Just change A.K and Urquart for Getzlaf and Bergeron in 2003

And just change Fischer, Maxwell and Lapierre for Giroux, Lucic and Marchand (or Clutterbuck)...

And you have a great, great team.

habitue* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 02:32 PM
  #80
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,445
vCash: 500
07-08 was also a statistically unlikely year, as we had a freaky little amount of injuries all year. This helped us into winning the conference.

Swings both ways

PricePkPatch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 03:35 PM
  #81
windycity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Well duh
Posts: 3,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
The 2003 and 2006 drafts have diminished the possibility of having a real contender in Montreal for few years to come.

Just change A.K and Urquart for Getzlaf and Bergeron in 2003

And just change Fischer, Maxwell and Lapierre for Giroux, Lucic and Marchand (or Clutterbuck)...

And you have a great, great team.
hindsight is such a great thing!

windycity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 03:38 PM
  #82
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
The 2003 and 2006 drafts have diminished the possibility of having a real contender in Montreal for few years to come.

Just change A.K and Urquart for Getzlaf and Bergeron in 2003

And just change Fischer, Maxwell and Lapierre for Giroux, Lucic and Marchand (or Clutterbuck)...

And you have a great, great team.
Please, you can do that with any team, choosing years were their draft picks were below average or busts. Useless argument is useless.

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 05:05 PM
  #83
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,212
vCash: 500
that's a pretty fair assessment...

definitely not as deep or a high-end talented as the more serious contenders, but with enough depth to put us in the middle of pack, capable of finishing with a home playoff spot IF things go very well (health, young players stepping up, veterans playing to expectations).

In goal we are as good as anyone and better than most. Budaj arguably gives us a bit better depth in case Price gets hurt, though in that case (and given how much this roster is counting on Price being "top-5" for us to succeed) just making the playoffs would be a success.

On defense, we are as good as anyone IF we can stay healthy, and at least one of Emelin/Weber give us consistent top-6 level play. Markov/Gorges injury recovery, Gill and Spacek being one year older and the what we get from Subban (sophmore slump or continued path to elite level???) are 3 "flip a coin" issues that leave us a bit less certain/solidified than some of the top defense groups in the conference.

Up front, we definitely don't have the high end scoring talent that most top teams have (unless Cammalleri decisdes to show his "A" game in the regular season), but we do have a pretty deep top-9. Gomez bouncing back, MaxPac returning from injury and Eller/DD taking a big step forward... those 3 issues will decide wether or not we are once again a team desperately in need of help creating 5 on 5 offense, or wether we get the kind of offensive contributions that can pair with our goaltending/team play and take us to the top of the conference level.


lot's of reason for optimism, but also still a roster requiring a lot of things to go our way to be realistically contending with the top teams in the conference, both for playoff seeding and in a 7-game series.



with all the question marks/issues, I think 5th is a bit high, I see us more likely to be once again in the 6-10 range, which is not noticeably better than we've been the past 7-8 years.

personally, i don't think that PG made any major mistakes this offseason.
I don't like the contract he gave Cole (term, NTC), but listening to Cole it seemed pretty clear that the only way he'd leave Carolina was if someone made him an offer he couldn't refuse...
the "need" is there, so i get the decision, but remains to be seen:
A- how much of a positive impact he will have (for 4.5M$/4years, we need him to contribute "more" than 50pts, even if it's only in terms of impact on other players/lines).
B- how much/how quickly he declines over the next 3 seasons.
it's not unthinkable that we will end up with another Spacek on our hands, a guy that was supposed to fill a need, but instead ended up as a vastly overpaid veteran depth player (nice to have, but remarkably unnecessary).

otherwise, it seems he did try to move Gomez, to no avail, and I would be shocked if he didn't try to move Spacek... not much room for him available to clean up those messes.
I though he should have kept Hamrlik, and with our defensive group this year and next, I think a 2-year deal would have been fine. If Markov goes down again, we'll see very quickly how much Hamrlik is missed.

the depth moves were "meh"... not tendering Pouliot was a silly waste of an asset imo, but I guess the coach made it clear he was done with him so perhaps PG had no real choice.

not replacing Halpern is a headscratcher... Halpern was a very useful player last year, and right now we are hurting for a strong faceoff centre and for veteran depth. Pyatt was perfect in his role, though I imagine they see Palushaj as being able to step in as needed and provide a bit more.

Wowytka is a nice depth/hamilton piece, though a more physically imposing player would have been a better fit.

adding Diaz/Emelin was great, and I like taking a chance on Mitera at essentially no cost.

Budaj over Auld, also "meh".

so all in all, not a bad offseason, and his hands were still somewhat tied by Gainey's mistakes.


I'm very curious to see how PG is going to approach the ~5M cap buffer he currently has. I imagine that he has carte blanche to spend to the cap, I just hope that he has a very clear strategy in mind, and that he doesn't settle on an expensive band-aid fix.

with some cap space, and a few NHL level tradeable assets who might actually interest other teams (A.Kost, DD, Gorges, Weber), he could have us in place to make a significant move at some point in the season if/when some teams decide to be sellers and/or to move a quality asset due to budget/contract issues.

we haven't been in place to "poach" in a long time, I hope PG plays his cards right!

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 05:50 PM
  #84
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,445
vCash: 500
Every year, teams have injuries. For the past few years, the Habs have had injuries. I think we will see the same scenario this year.

The thing is, the Habs have proven that despite injuries, they can compete, thanks to JM coaching and Price's performance.

Other teams collapse as soon as they get injured. I think the Canadiens are a safe bet to make the playoffs this year, once again.

That said, I think it's fair to say that if a publication predicts we'll finish 10th or 12th, they could be right. The East's bottom 6 playoff spots (I'm excluding Pitt and Was) will be a very tight race. If the Habs finish 10th, it will be very few points away from 8th.

Gabe84 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 06:54 PM
  #85
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And that's great. We did better than expected on the back of Price's stellar play and despite not managing to put the puck in the net, we actually played much better hockey than the year before.

But it wasn't the fantastic year that you blow it up to be either dude.
You see, that's why I try to respond to you the least possible, you have the unrespectful habit of putting words into people's mouth.

Please reference this, because you are 'defining' my intent for me. Where did I say that it was fantastic year, where do I 'blow it up".

The only thing I did was to show your error in saying the pessimists got it right, more than the optimists did.

The proof I used is that the Habs battled for the division, instead of fighting for a playoff spot, which the pessimist had chosen the latter as their prediction, thus proving that they were the ones to be wrong.

I'm not blowing anything up. You made an assertion and I presented facts to prove that your assertion was wrong.

People around here have a really hard time at grasping the finer details that make up a debate. They derail the points, put words into people's mouth, avoid or outright deny arguments instead of actually countering them. As much or even worse than name calling someone IMO.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 07:10 PM
  #86
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyDarmody View Post
On a more serious note I think it has to do with the upbringing and surroundings certain fans had. They didn't expose themselves to the winning tradition so for them mediocrity is completely acceptable. Even commendable. It goes in line with how some schools will give you a nice ribbon and a sticker just for showing up, even if you fail miserably. I don't believe in that and that's why these mid-90 point finishes for a team that has had ample time to put up 100 point seasons consistently just doesn't tickle me pink.
Well I'm glad we've got the problem all sorted out then. We were just raised extremely poorly guys.

Should I add a touch of psychology and suggest the people who are complaining we don't win the cup every year are just spoiled brats who had everything handed to them growing up?

Protest the Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 07:44 PM
  #87
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyDarmody View Post
And yet 8 is still greater than 6 so there was no need to stay up all night looking for tie-break regulations, Ozy. Meaning that again we were closer to being out of the playoffs than we were to being division winners.

The point stands.
The simple fact is that when a team is fighting for a playoff spot, every game counts and the simple fact is that with 10 games remaining, the Habs had a magic number of 10. This means they could afford to lose 5 of their last 10 games and so not every game was important, and that's considering Carolina would go 10-0-0, without needing them to lose one game. Habs went 5-4-1 and didn't need Carolina to lose in that span, because even if they did go 10-0-0, they would still have finished behind the Habs.

You added that argument about the 6-2 Carolina beating at the end of the season and that CAR were only 2 points behind us, and unlike you, I won't try to sidestep your arguments.

The simple fact is that Carolina were 6 points behind after that game, and in actuality, as they did not have the games remaining to catch up the Habs for the number of regulation wins, they were 7 points behind to pass the Habs, with the Habs having 4 games left and the Canes, 5 games left. The magic number was at 2 after that game (and before it). This meant that out of 9 games (Habs + CAR), Habs either needed ONE win, or ONE Reg loss by Carolina. At that point, it was almost a formality. So yeah, you're probably the one who should've checked that thread... ahem.

All this points to one glarring fact : Habs didn't need to fight for a playoff spot.


And inversely, Habs trailed Boston by a few points almost all season long and did battle for the division for most of the season.


Last edited by Crimson Skorpion: 08-19-2011 at 07:50 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 08:14 PM
  #88
Megaforce
Registered User
 
Megaforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: St. Raymond NDG/Mtl
Country: Azerbaijan
Posts: 1,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post

not replacing Halpern is a headscratcher... Halpern was a very useful player last year, and right now we are hurting for a strong faceoff centre and for veteran depth. Pyatt was perfect in his role, though I imagine they see Palushaj as being able to step in as needed and provide a bit more.
Halpern was terrible. He was so slow he couldn't even get to the point to block the shot that eliminated us. It deflected off him into his own net.

Megaforce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 09:03 PM
  #89
Gally11
Registered User
 
Gally11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: St. John's
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Being sour about poor draft decisions is useless, you could do it the other way too as we could have not gotten Subban in second round. Only thing that really makes me mad last few years is trading McDonagh for Gomez when it shouldn't have been necessary. That trade could have been made without him no doubt.

Gally11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 09:05 PM
  #90
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
It seems that we give whats going on outside of our team too much weight.
Of course, we were not going to finish in the top-5 overall with the 09-10 season we had. But in 2 or 3 years, its absolutely possible.
With Subban and Price on our roster... sure it is. If both become true superstars then we've got something serious to build around.

It's just too bad that we've squandered the past few years on guys like Gomez when we should've been developing more young players to go along with the ones we have now. We'd have been further ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
We improve from last year, which is the main goal, i think, at this point, we still have some potential, the last moves are all positive...

(By the way, when i see some guys "aiming for more", the Cup, i mean, you really have to slow down...especially with 29 opponents...you have to go step by step. Even if its slow.)
I've always advocated the 'slow approach.' So have most of the folks that have complained about what management has done. Trading away McD for Scott Gomez is not the slow approach. It's a quick fix that isn't designed for long term success. Some fans recognize this and they've been upset about it.

Yes, we've done well with Price and Subban. Great! It's just too bad we didn't get more prospects to work with a few years back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Comparing ourselves, whereas we are in the midst of a building process with that team, with squads that are experienced, used to go deep in the post-season, thats not helping, and you are always going to look bad.
Sure. But nobody expects us to be the 1970s Canadiens. That will probably never happen again to any team in a 30 team league.

That doesn't mean though that we shouldn't demand more from what we've gotten from management. Or that folks shouldn't be allowed to come here and voice what they think the club is doing wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
About this season, we had, with NJ, the worst shooting percentage in the league, much lower than the percentage we had in 09-10, when that team was indeed mediocre.
We had injuries, passengers, a lot of reasons who are saying, for me, that we have some room, we really have the potential to improve. To improve from 96 points, thats a good thing, and dont forget that the year before, you were at 88.
Again though, shooting percentage isn't the be all and end all. Especially if you take it out of context. How many total shots are we getting vs. other teams? How long has our shooting percentage sucked? What are the underlying causes... there's more going on here than just one stat with no context to it.

Other clubs go to the net and screen the goalie. Other clubs have larger or more skilled forwards. Other clubs have two centers who are better than our number one... these things matter dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
(Especially when you had 2 players playing above the expectations, whereas you had almost the rest of the team, 10 players, at least, playing under what they're used to. I dont know the odds, but its not likely at all to be like that next season)

Why do you think its not that much of a surprise if Markov goes down again ?
You think he's done ? He became too fragile ?
I don't know. Nobody does.

All we know is the fact that the guy has barely played for us in recent years due to injuries to the same knee. That's not good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Anyway, we cant take the risk of losing him...
Why not? I agree we couldn't just let him walk for nothing but a few years back I argued that we should've traded him for younger players. I suggested JVR and some others. Somebody mentioned JVR and Claude Giroux. People went psycho on us for even suggesting such a thing. Now? We'd have a much better future if we'd done this.

Unfortunately, his value isn't what it used to be and we wouldn't get anywhere near what we would've before. Now we just have to hope that he can stay healthy and play at the high level that we've become accustomed to with him. Hopefully he pans out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
The backup plan ? Thats how i see it, but Wisniewski was traded once Gorges was down. Of course he did not actually replace him in the roster role-wise, but he "physically" was the solution for the loss of Gorges. Im not sure that what im saying is clear.

(We replace the body of Gorges by Wisniewski's, the roles and responsabilities of each player changed after that.)

Subban was the one who did take care of the problem.
Sure, and mgmt did a great job of bringing Wiz on. My point was that it wasn't unexpected that Markov needed to be replaced... or at least it shouldn't have been. That's why I really wanted Wiz back this year but for what he was asking there was no way we could keep him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Anyway, you are always, in the NHL, trying to find the good combination, but its not possible.
You cannot build a team deep enough to deal with the loss of your most important players.

Wisniewski, with an healthy Markov, that would have been "useless" (well, not really useless, but with 2 PMD of the caliber of Subban and Markov, his value is absolutely not the same, and this contribution is not the same either), and the money/picks invested in him would have been of a better use elsewhere considering our needs. We did trade for him once Gorges was down.
I agree some players are irreplaceable. But there comes a time in every players' career where the team has got to realize that he's not going to be the same or he's going to be a much higher injury risk and plan accordingly. The Bruins are at that point with Savard. Let's face it, he's a huge risk everytime he steps on the ice there's a much bigger risk of him getting hurt than any other player on that roster. Boston can't plan their future around him and have to be cognizant of his situation. Same with us.

Many folks here have used Markov's injuries as a built in excuse for our failures in recent years. Would he have made us better? Sure. Cup winners though? I don't see it, do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
What are the odds of losing two defensemen like Gorges and Markov so early in the season ? How can you have a backup plan for such a catastrophic situation ? Its not possible.

If we have Wisniewski, then, for instance, Plekanec or Gionta become a target etc...balance it how you want, be deep on the position you want, every team has weaknesses, and i dont think its possible, or recommended to have a player of the level of Wisniewski as an insurance policy.
Well, its not an insurance policy stricto sensu, in fact, you just have a very deep defensive squad, but if your D is that deep, then, you might be in trouble with your forwards...

This summer, we did improve our D on the long run.
Now, we can deal with the loss of a regular with our own players, helping their development in the process.
Diaz, Mitera etc, they should be able to step up to a bigger role, with the players above them playing in a bigger role etc. Its better that way. (We might have a slight problem with the second-pairing if Yemelin is slow to adapt, but thats a risk)
The odds of Markov getting hurt were very good. As for Gorges, it happens to players every year so (and he's not exactly an all-star) it's not that surprising.

As for this year, we should hope for the best with Markov and expect the worst. That would be the smart approach. Hopefully Gorges is back and Emelin is as good as we hoped. That would obviously go a long way for us doing well.

Flip it around though, what happens if we lose Plekanec? Doesn't that prospect scare the tar out of you? If not, it should...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
About the negativity, dont get me wrong, i dont see you as a negativist, just a guy who like to remind everyone that there is still a very long way before being potentially on the top, but for instance, when JimmyDarmody is complaining about the fact that we did not improve in 10 years, i think its understandable if some posters are reacting like they did, because its a shortcut, and its a wrong one.
If you have a point, then, fine, i could understand, but that kind of talk is not constructive.
Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyDarmody View Post
And yet 8 is still greater than 6 so there was no need to stay up all night looking for tie-break regulations, Ozy. Meaning that again we were closer to being out of the playoffs than we were to being division winners.

The point stands.
It's a silly argument to begin with. We're competing with the Sabres, Leafs and Sens for 2nd place... It's not like it's some kind of grand accomplishment to get the same points as Buffalo and come in 2nd in that division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Less Habitats View Post
Losing is never a good thing, but we weren't terrible. I think that's what I'm arguing, everything has to be black and white. Some people make it sound as though we have a terrible team here, I'll take this team over the one that embarrassed themselves in 09.
We don't have a terrible team. I don't think anyone has said that. I've read people saying that we'll be fighting hard for the last playoff spot and that's about the worst I've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Really so we've been in 8th place and/or missed the playoffs each year?

We didn't just go to the finals year before last?

We weren't a 1st place team in the east a few years back?

All this is untrue?

The same people have been saying 8th place team year after year is the point being made, and they're wrong most of the time.
No they aren't. They've argued that we're a bubble team which is exactly what we've been. That one year doesn't change this.

Hopefully going forward we do better but I don't see how anyone could seriously try to argue that we haven't been a bubble team for the past decade or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
You see, that's why I try to respond to you the least possible, you have the unrespectful habit of putting words into people's mouth.
You lecturing ANYONE on this board about being respectful is just about the funniest thing I've read on these boards in years. Please save us the self righteousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Please reference this, because you are 'defining' my intent for me. Where did I say that it was fantastic year, where do I 'blow it up".

The only thing I did was to show your error in saying the pessimists got it right, more than the optimists did.
No.

You cited shooting percentage as a 'fact' and then extrapolated from this one stat that anyone who disagreed with Mathman had some kind of 'agenda.' And it goes beyond this thread dude. Anyone says anything remotely negative about this team (esp Markov) and you go apecrazy on them. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
The proof I used is that the Habs battled for the division, instead of fighting for a playoff spot, which the pessimist had chosen the latter as their prediction, thus proving that they were the ones to be wrong.
The whole point of your post was to try to belittle those who felt the club was a bubble team. That's it.

You're coming here with an 'I told you so' post only you don't have a whole lot of ammo. So as usual, you try to make things look better than they actually were by dressing things up and telling us that we were in contention for a Division title for much of the year. But you omit the following:

1. We're in a terrible division with little to no competition.
2. We didn't come anywhere close to winning the division.
3. Any other Division in the Conference and we come in 3rd.
4. The only other mediocre team in our division got the same points as we did.
5. We'd have missed the playoffs in the West.

Yet, you come here crowing as though folks who thought we'd be on the bubble were off their rocker. Sorry dude, but that's not the case here. I know you really, really want to rub it in their faces but the truth is that 96 points isn't all that great and we wouldn't have even made the playoffs if we were in the West so please give it up.

Yes, we were less of a bubble team than in the past. But no, people weren't crazy for thinking we might miss the playoffs. The whole Optimist vs. Pessimist argument is bogus. Most thought we'd be a bubble team and finishing 6th/7th qualifies, just like finishing 8th or 9th does. Yes, it was better than our usual 92 points but just because we didn't get a playoff spot on the last day of the season as we've been known to do in recent years, doesn't mean that we had a great season or weren't a bubble team. We were mediocre as usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I'm not blowing anything up. You made an assertion and I presented facts to prove that your assertion was wrong.
You pick and choose which data to look at. You omit the Division we're in or the fact that we were nowhere close to Boston at the end of the day. As usual, you only looked at the postiive side of the coin. And then you turned around and blasted all the 'crazy naysayers' who thought we were a bubble team (which we were... again)

Who cares where we were mid-season? Who cares if we were close to Boston in February? Does it matter that NJ was the hottest team in the league in the second half? Of course not. So why should it matter for us?

It's where we finish that matters. 96 points isn't bad but it's not great either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
People around here have a really hard time at grasping the finer details that make up a debate. They derail the points, put words into people's mouth, avoid or outright deny arguments instead of actually countering them.
I hope you're including yourself in that group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
As much or even worse than name calling someone IMO.
Practice what you preach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
The simple fact is that when a team is fighting for a playoff spot, every game counts and the simple fact is that with 10 games remaining, the Habs had a magic number of 10. This means they could afford to lose 5 of their last 10 games and so not every game was important, and that's considering Carolina would go 10-0-0, without needing them to lose one game. Habs went 5-4-1 and didn't need Carolina to lose in that span, because even if they did go 10-0-0, they would still have finished behind the Habs.

You added that argument about the 6-2 Carolina beating at the end of the season and that CAR were only 2 points behind us, and unlike you, I won't try to sidestep your arguments.

The simple fact is that Carolina were 6 points behind after that game, and in actuality, as they did not have the games remaining to catch up the Habs for the number of regulation wins, they were 7 points behind to pass the Habs, with the Habs having 4 games left and the Canes, 5 games left. The magic number was at 2 after that game (and before it). This meant that out of 9 games (Habs + CAR), Habs either needed ONE win, or ONE Reg loss by Carolina. At that point, it was almost a formality. So yeah, you're probably the one who should've checked that thread... ahem.

All this points to one glarring fact : Habs didn't need to fight for a playoff spot.


And inversely, Habs trailed Boston by a few points almost all season long and did battle for the division for most of the season.
Who cares?

It doesn't matter if we had a couple of days of breathing space to enjoy getting ready for the playoffs. It doesn't matter if during the season we were close to Boston. We still finished in the bottom end of the Conference playoff qualifiers. We were a bubble team again. Only this time we managed to avoid being at the very bottom of the bubble.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-19-2011 at 10:16 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 11:31 PM
  #91
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You lecturing ANYONE on this board about being respectful is just about the funniest thing I've read on these boards in years. Please save us the self righteousness.
I'm not lecturing you about being respectful, but about debating. But it's no surprise you can't make the difference considering what follows :

Quote:
No.

You cited shooting percentage as a 'fact' and then extrapolated from this that anyone who disagreed with Mathman had some kind of 'agenda.'
You're pretty lost actually. I never accused anyone had an agenda.

But this is what happens, has happened many times actually, when you don't take time to read what people are saying.

Here, I'll baby step you through the convo since you seem to need help :

Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
lol is that mathman?

or is Oliver buying into mathman's agenda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
It is highly revealing when someone regards a statement of facts as an 'agenda'
Okay, just to make it clear here. The key verb here is 'regards', the pronoun is 'someone'. That someone is Macavoy. Regards what? "a statement of facts as an 'agenda'". And I found that highly revealing about him, in the sense that he can't make the difference between facts (stats) and opinions (Mathman's).

The shooting % stats show low years for a majority of our forwards. That's a fact, not an agenda.

Most of mathman's posts about this are not opinions, but conclusions on the probabilities of said event not happening over two years.

So anyway, just the fact you thought I was the one saying someone else had an agenda just shows how lost you are in your own rhetoric.


You then responded :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yeah right...
So you don't agree... okay, we'll get to that later on. But for now, it is clear you completely misread what you responded to. I never said anyone had an agenda.


Quote:
And it goes beyond this thread dude. Anyone says anything remotely negative about this team (esp Markov) and you go apecrazy on them. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
Again, I'm gonna have to lecture you about debating. First, you use diffamation, by grossly exagerating my interventions, putting them out of context, and also not providing any supporting quotes to prove your many false assertions. And then, the mother of all sophism, 'don't try to say otherwise'. Thing is, I can easily prove all this wrong with examples of my posts, and examples of many posts that are negative towards the team and that I don't respond too, and some I even agree (and I can prove that one many times).

And this debate 'style' you have, these uses of exagerations, putting words into people's mouth, putting things out of context, and such, goes waaaay beyond this thread. That I can prove too.


Quote:
The whole point of your post was to try to belittle those who felt the club was a bubble team. That's it.
Hmmm, no, the point of my post was to disprove your assertion that the pessimists were most often the ones who were right. It was a response to your own assertion, and it didn't contain any belittling, what it contained was a debatable proof that your assertion was wrong, by saying that the optimists were right last year when they said the Habs would battle for the division, while the pessimists were wrong because they said the Habs would fight for a playoff spot. Instead of tackling that argument... you went on and derailed the point, by insinuating I was saying the Habs were fantastic and 'blowing up' the season, when I was just debating the validity of the Habs battling the division vs fighting for a spot in the playoffs.

Now you're trying to turn my rebutal of your own assertion into, not a rebutal, but an attack. Again, you won't even be able to prove this because I never did the bolded part (belittling) in this thread, but, on the other hand, I can easily repost the whole thing to easily prove what I just said.


Quote:
You're coming here with an 'I told you so' post only you don't have a whole lot of ammo.
Again, you dismiss and twist anything I say. My first post in this thread was regarding Mathman's posting of stats being labeled as an agenda. That's not a 'I told you so' post...

After the Mathman 'agenda' misunderstanding/derailment you made, I then responded to one of your posts where you were saying that negative fans were more right than optimist fans. I tried to prove otherwise by stating the fact that negative fans saw the Habs battling for a playoff spot in the 10-11 season, which they didn't, while the positive fans saw the Habs battling for a division title, which they did.

Instead of responding to this argument, you then made it out as if I was trying to paint the season as fantastic, and blowing it up, when all I was doing is showing an example that disproved your assertion.

Y'know, someone with no a lot of ammo would do exactly what you did, which is, not respond to the argument disproving your assertion, and then trying to derail the argument disproving your assertion.


Quote:
So as usual, you try to make things look better than they actually were by dressing things up
Coming from you, this is priceless. I mean, vs your argumentation...

I wasn't 'telling' and 'dressing'. This is actual proof of what I just said, you derail the argument that disproved your assertion. You try to make the argument about something that it is not.


Quote:
and telling us that we were in contention for a Division title for much of the year. But you omit the following:
I was telling YOU. As proof that the optimists were right. Do you represent everyone on the board now? When I quote you directly and give you arguments to disprove what you say, you act for the whole community??? Again, another part of the derailment. You try to make it sound as though my initial posting about the division thing, was a lone post, but it wasn't, it was a response to YOU, to DISPROVE your assertion (optimists vs pessimists = who's right, who's not).

Man, you're so off the rails, it's not even funny anymore. It's just sad.

Quote:
1. We're in a terrible division with little to no competition.
2. We didn't come anywhere close to winning the division.
3. The only other mediocre team in our division got the same points as we did.
See, this doesn't have to do with anything I said. Ever since I gave you that argument that we fought for the division instead of the playoff, TO DISPROVE that negative posters were right more than the optimists, you've been trying to make it about something else. You,re still implying I'm arguing we had a great year, which I never did in this thread.

I don't need to respond to those things, as they are entirely off-topic to the initial argument I had with you. If you want to debate that, great, do it, but I wasn't arguing over any of that. I even said so in my last post to you before this one.

Quote:
Yet, you come here crowing as though critics were off their rocker.
Again, exageration, and false intent. I did two initial things in this thread, respond to someone who said Mathman had an agenda (in reference to his use of shot % stats) and the second one, respond to your assertion that optimistic posters were wrong compared to negative posters. Nothing else. All my other subsequent posts were all related to these two things.

What's even more funny, is that my response to you was regarding your own "crowing" of optimistic posters and sayng they were wrong compared to the negative fans..


Quote:
Sorry dude, but that's not the case here. I know you really, really want to rub it in their faces but the truth is that 96 points isn't all that great and we wouldn't have even made the playoffs if we were in the West so please give it up.
Again, totally off topic to what I was discussing with either you, Macavoy or JimmyDharmony.

You're again trying to make it sound as though I was giving my opinion about the habs season, when all I was doing is offering the difference between the optimistic view and the pessimist view and who ended-up right. The quote you responded too now, is just further debatting arguing as to WHETHER WE DID BATTLE FOR THE PLAYOFFS, OR BATTLED FOR THE DIVISION THIS SEASON. It doesn't infer we did great, or good, or mediocre, or fantastic. You make those conclusions all by yourself, and completely misrepresent what I said.

Quote:
Yes, we were less of a bubble team in the past. But no, people weren't crazy for thinking we might miss the playoffs.
And I never said as such, sigh, again, I have to repeat, and again, you completely difform my intent and what I said. I don't care debating comparing to the past... I was giving this argument to prove your own assertion was wrong.

Quote:
The whole Optimist vs. Pessimist argument is bogus.
And yet, in the first post I quoted you about this, you were the one using that paradigm, and saying pessimists were more often right than the optimists.

And in circles we go. Since, by this point in your writing, you seemed to kinda figured I wasn't arguing over anything else but this, well now, the argument is bogus.... You used that argument first , and that was the sole thing I was responding too from you and disproving... Epic.


Quote:
Most thought we'd be a bubble team and finishing 6th/7th qualifies.
FINALLY. You're actually responding my first counter-argument. Wow, I'm actually impressed. But not that much, since you're using generalities. Habs weren't on the bubble as they were in playoff contention for the almost the WHOLE season, and were never in trouble of losing it in the last 30 games. They were mostly at just a few points of Boston for the majority of the season. That's not a bubble team.

Secondly, and I can prove this, many of the usual array of negative nancy's said we'd be battling for a playoff spot. So yeah, try to turn it into something else. Those posters were wrong. Many posters, including myself, said that they would battle for the division, and those posters and I were right. Thus partly DISPROVING your assertion that negative posters were more right. Since you've figured that all this actually did happen, you're resorting to switching labels and muddying the line by using the term "bubble team" and those who predicted 6th and 7th, but no matter who was right in those cases, the other cases I mentioned did also happen and do partly disprove your assertion.

Quote:
Just because we didn't get a playoff spot on the last day of the season as we've been known to do in recent years, doesn't mean that we had a great season.
And I never said or infered that. You made that up yourself.

Quote:
We were mediocre as usual.
And this has to do with anything I said? No, it doesn't. You're arguing that with yourself, because I was never part of that debate.

Quote:
You pick and choose which data to look at.
I thought you had understood, but it seems you still believe I was arguing we had a great year... sigh.

Quote:
You omit the Division we're in or the fact that we were nowhere close to Boston at the end of the day.
Again, irrelevant to my argument, irrelevant to anything I said. You're trying to steer the debate into something totally different. You're already arguing over this with other posters, and you're wildly mixing things up between me and them. May I suggest you lower your interventions, and the number of posters you argue with, so you won't get all mixed-up next time.


Quote:
As usual, you only looked at the postiive side of the coin. And then you turned around and blasted all the crazy 'naysayers'.
Completely off the track. It's been 3-4 times in this post were you've said something similar, but repeating a lie won't make it more true. I never "looked at the positive side of coin". What I did is offer examples of predictions that were right vs predictions that were wrong, then someone (JimmyD) argued whether who was right and who was wrong, and that's why I was counter-arguing, trying to prove to him that we didn't battle for the playoffs (those who were wrong) and that we did battle for the division (those who were right).

Quote:
Who cares where we were mid-season? Who cares if we were close to Boston in February? Does it matter that NJ was the hottest team in the league in the second half? Of course not. So why should it matter for us?
Again, you're speaking for everyone, again pretending you're responding to a sole post, when the post you quoted was quoting someone else (JD) and was part of the debate I had with him on whether we battled for playoff vs battle for division, all related to my initial counter-argument to you on who was right and who was wrong (optimists vs pessimistics). You're completely off-track for 95% of this whole quote from you. Try reading what I respond to, what is the key assertion, and counter-argument. You don't seem to have done that ONCE, in all the replies you made to me, and I've proven this many times in this post.


Quote:
It's where we finish that matters. 96 points isn't bad but it's not great either.
Irrelevant to what I was saying. I never said it was great. You completely miss the point of the debate and argument, again and again and again.

Quote:
I hope you're including yourself in that group.
You have no idea how ironic this is, especially since I've clearly shown that you 1- misread/misunderstand 2- twist of words/intent 3- derailing of arguments 4- Put posts out of their context by ignoring the assertions/argument they counter

No one can debate properly if they do these things, and you do ALL of them.

Whereas, I stay on point, I try to counter every argument given and not sidestep any. I don't put words into your mouth. I don't twist your words. I don't twist your intent, and I don't try to derail your argument, my initial reply to you about this was a direct counter-argument to an argument you gave.

Quote:
Practice what you preach.
Proper debating? I do it everyday. The times I get disrepectful is actually when people can't properly debate.

Quote:
Who cares?
Right, I forgot, you speak for the whole community here. And they say I'm arrogant.

Quote:
It doesn't matter if we had a couple of days of breathing space to enjoy getting ready for the playoffs. It doesn't matter if during the season we were close to Boston. We still finished in the bottom end of the Conference playoff qualifiers. We were a bubble team again. Only this time we managed to avoid being at the very bottom of the bubble.
Because you want to debate about something else than what I was responding to the other poster, to which you quoted my post.

I know you want to argue about something else, but I'm solely arguing with the other poster (JD) on whether we battled for the playoffs or battled for the division. All you bring are arguments that are irrelevant to the argument I'm having with JD.



Finally, I wanted to clear something up from one of your earlier replies, where you still believed I said someone had an agenda (when it was Macavoy who actually said that) :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You're right, I just laughed at your batcrazy comments... I didn't realize I needed an argument here. Quite frankly, you sound like Joe McCarthy and his 'if she floats, she's a witch' type paranoia.
Now that you know I never said this (agenda), do you wonder how all those things might just look like yourself....

Quote:
First of all, they aren't Mathman's shot%. If they were, he'd be shooting zero. (Sorry Mathman, just kdn')
No **** Sherlock. You really think you made anyone laugh with this one....?

But here is the truly hilarious part :

Quote:
Secondly, stats are just that... numbers. They are tools used to form opinions.
No, stats are used to show trends, to show the numerical reality of a given situation. They become opinions when people EXTRAPOLATE from them. But as they are, stats are facts.

Quote:
Opinions aren't facts... opinions are subjective. I shouldn't have to explain this to you...
Nope, but I think someone should teach you that create a false-paradigm doesn't prove anything. What you are saying here is that since stats ARE opinions, than stats ARE subjective....

Yeah, it's pretty subjective to say Subban scored 14 goals last year (a example of a statistic).

Quote:
Yes, numbers help justify arguments,
No, they help to see realistic trends and help to make predictions.

Quote:
but when you ONLY look at one number and ignore others, your arguments don't hold water.
For sure, because then I would add that Subban finished 6th among all Dmen in the league for goals. The proper conclusion is that Subban scored a lot of goals. That's a statement of fact based on a statistic. It's not subjective. It's something quantifyable., hence FACTS.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 11:34 PM
  #92
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,237
vCash: 500
While I'm finding this tutorial in online debating highly fruitful, let's try to keep this less personal, less about how to debate, and more about hockey.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 12:09 AM
  #93
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
While I'm finding this tutorial in online debating highly fruitful, let's try to keep this less personal, less about how to debate, and more about hockey.
No worries Mike. I spent about 10 seconds reading that post and decided to skip. Thanks for your advice, I am going to take it.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 09:34 AM
  #94
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,445
vCash: 500
Overall, my personal feeling of our situation is, we have more reasons to be optimistic and look up than the other way around.

Compared to the beginning of last season, after just trading Halak and an injured Markov. Or the season before, with a completely rebuilt core.

PricePkPatch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 09:38 AM
  #95
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
With Subban and Price on our roster... sure it is. If both become true superstars then we've got something serious to build around.

It's just too bad that we've squandered the past few years on guys like Gomez when we should've been developing more young players to go along with the ones we have now. We'd have been further ahead.
Possibly, but maybe not. We're often reading that the future of the X or Y team is great, but it just cant be great for everyone. Some of them are going to lose anyway.
And honestly, Gomez and Spacek are the only guys that are indeed not assets for the team.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I've always advocated the 'slow approach.' So have most of the folks that have complained about what management has done. Trading away McD for Scott Gomez is not the slow approach. It's a quick fix that isn't designed for long term success. Some fans recognize this and they've been upset about it.
Well, its not necessarily about a slow rebuild from scratch, but mainly about being patient while your team is build.
As we saw with Burke and Toronto, does a market like that have the time and the desire for it ? Not sure at all.
Using a slow rebuild approach is not without risks. Your young players need to be in a solid structure, you still need vets etc.
Not to say that they're just potential and promises. If you fail to have a solid team after 5 or 6 years...the reputation of the team is not the same, you've lost at least 8-9 years, which is huge in such a competitve world.

St.Louis is an interesting example, i've already talked about it, but its been what, 3 years that we're saying that they're going to break out this year. Well, we're still waiting.

The time in Montreal, its even more precious, and rare.

A lot of posters were asking for the head of Martin after the 09-10 season. Do you think its possible to see a team developing and evolving through the years in a stable environment for more than 4 years before being truely a solid team with a good chance of going deep in PO ?

The Gomez's trade is a bad decision, but heavily influenced by the weaknesses in the organization at the time. Lack of prospects, lack of young players in the NHL team, lack of heterogeneity in the profiles...its like a crack in the wall, its often leading to other problems later on.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Yes, we've done well with Price and Subban. Great! It's just too bad we didn't get more prospects to work with a few years back.
Weber is maybe good enough to be playing like Wisniewski is playing right now. A second-pairing defenseman with a good offensive potential on the PP.
We still have Pacioretty and Eller as first-round picks that are likely to be as good as they were supposed to be. And a wildcard in Desharnais.
Its not that bad.

It could have been better, but it implies radical changes that im not totally sure to be that positive for the team, even after few years.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Sure. But nobody expects us to be the 1970s Canadiens. That will probably never happen again to any team in a 30 team league.

That doesn't mean though that we shouldn't demand more from what we've gotten from management. Or that folks shouldn't be allowed to come here and voice what they think the club is doing wrong.
Well, they're often complaining about things that has been done months, if not years ago. And we cant fix it that easily, if we can, which is not sure, now.

The players are not always the same, the HC and the GM, too, a lot changes in 3 years. Even more in 5 or 6...

Right now, the last moves, through the last 2 seasons, at least, of Gauthier makes sense, and they're good.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Again though, shooting percentage isn't the be all and end all. Especially if you take it out of context. How many total shots are we getting vs. other teams? How long has our shooting percentage sucked? What are the underlying causes... there's more going on here than just one stat with no context to it.

Other clubs go to the net and screen the goalie. Other clubs have larger or more skilled forwards. Other clubs have two centers who are better than our number one... these things matter dude.
Obviously.
What i meant, i think you know it, its the fact that the metrics data, and a lot of statistics (like the s%) are saying that we're in progress, just like the table is showing us that we did progress last year, just like it was obvious after watching the games.

We dont have to check whats going on with the other teams, just ours.
Our S% was much worse in 2011 than in 2010. While the 2011 team was much better. Not even debatable. The style of each one is even likely to help the 2011 version, i think, with the changes in the use of a guy Kostitsyn, the good help of Darche, and the 35 games of Pacioretty. But...it was not the case, which doesnt make much sense.

Its just to say that thats another reason to believe that we can easily improve.
And thats much more interesting to talk about that rather than if we were closer to Boston or Carolina.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post


I don't know. Nobody does.

All we know is the fact that the guy has barely played for us in recent years due to injuries to the same knee. That's not good.
Well, im not a specialist, but today, its possible to come back after several surgeries in the same knee/foot/arm, the body of the player is obviously the most important factor in that, but we could think that he "simply" came back too early after the first knee surgery he had. Thats the positive thinking, but i feel its the one that sounds logical to me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Why not? I agree we couldn't just let him walk for nothing but a few years back I argued that we should've traded him for younger players. I suggested JVR and some others. Somebody mentioned JVR and Claude Giroux. People went psycho on us for even suggesting such a thing. Now? We'd have a much better future if we'd done this.

Unfortunately, his value isn't what it used to be and we wouldn't get anywhere near what we would've before. Now we just have to hope that he can stay healthy and play at the high level that we've become accustomed to with him. Hopefully he pans out.
A few years back, if we trade him, we take the road for Hall/Nugent-Hopkins. Its an important decision that will change everything for over a decade. The only season when we could trade him was in 09. Otherwise, its simply not possible. Earlier, he dont have enough value, later, the process is impossible to start again.

Again, you can have a roster full of promising players, it could not work. Especially in a market like ours.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Sure, and mgmt did a great job of bringing Wiz on. My point was that it wasn't unexpected that Markov needed to be replaced... or at least it shouldn't have been. That's why I really wanted Wiz back this year but for what he was asking there was no way we could keep him.

I agree some players are irreplaceable. But there comes a time in every players' career where the team has got to realize that he's not going to be the same or he's going to be a much higher injury risk and plan accordingly. The Bruins are at that point with Savard. Let's face it, he's a huge risk everytime he steps on the ice there's a much bigger risk of him getting hurt than any other player on that roster. Boston can't plan their future around him and have to be cognizant of his situation. Same with us.

Many folks here have used Markov's injuries as a built in excuse for our failures in recent years. Would he have made us better? Sure. Cup winners though? I don't see it, do you?
Savard's injuries are not the same as Markov's. Its not even close, i would rather have Markov than Savard right now.
The same applies for Bergeron, he's fragile, too, the concussions are much worse than a serious problem at the knee.
The injuries are a part of the game, anyway, complaining about them wont win you games...

Yes, we would have been obviously better, and Cup Winners ? Thats not really the point, the point, right now, for that team, is to progress year after year.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

The odds of Markov getting hurt were very good. As for Gorges, it happens to players every year so (and he's not exactly an all-star) it's not that surprising.

As for this year, we should hope for the best with Markov and expect the worst. That would be the smart approach. Hopefully Gorges is back and Emelin is as good as we hoped. That would obviously go a long way for us doing well.

Flip it around though, what happens if we lose Plekanec? Doesn't that prospect scare the tar out of you? If not, it should...
Gorges is not an all-star, but he's a solid D for us, and we already lost a solid D weeks before.
When you lose 2 players like them in the same position, you can take the best insurance policies you want, you're going to have a problem.

With Emelin, Diaz and Mitera, plus Weber, i think that Gauthier did indeed take care of that.
If he goes down, the young players are going to play and develop their game.

What happens if we lose Plekanec ? Thats the salary cap. You cant be deep everywhere. You have to make decisions, we decided to help our D. Thats the obvious decision with the recent injuries of Gorges and Markov.
Living in the fear brings nothing. Well, im not sure that the author of the sentence meant the fear of the injury, but still, i think it works.

Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 10:19 AM
  #96
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
I want them to pursue cups too. I'm just realistic about it. I understand there's only certain players who want to play for each team. Only so many coaches, GM's etc in the NHL that can be had. 29 other teams trying to win a cup too. They are pursuing a cup and people who don't think they are just because they don't go about it their way are just being naive and arrogant frankly. They know better than we do how to run a team. I don't understand how being realistic and understanding this defaults us optimists to being the folk who don't want management to pursue a cup. That notion is absolutely ludicrous and is the type of comment I've been complaining about all along. The pessimists just don't get it. They think it's a lot easier than it is and automatically assume management just doesn't care because we haven't succeeded in winning that cup yet. I on the other hand don't just automatically assume the completely preposterous notion that not winning = not wanting to win.

Sorry but I don't operate on some retarded assumption that management isn't actively trying to pursue a cup just based on the fact that we didn't land Lecavalier or whoever News flash, you see as much behind closed doors as I do. Who are you or anyone else to assume that they haven't tried landing guys who would make a difference?

The mere fact that the pessimists in this thread try to pain the optimists with that brush is just annoying. So just because I'm realistic and understand it's a 30 team league I'm supposed to just bow down and accept that I'm some tool who doesn't want the team to win, doesn't care about the cup, just because we haven't won one yet and I'm okay with progress?

A lot of the pessimists sound like 40 something+ people who are still living in the past and simply can't accept the fact that we won most of those 24 cups by being in an advantageous position and smaller league. So now they come on here to whine and tell the optimists how stupid and wrong they are and say we're an 8th place team year after year in hopes that finally one day they'll actually be right more than 20% of the time. It's like they'd rather the team fails just so they can be right on an internet forum It gets tiresome when all you ever hear is euro bash this, Gauthier trade **** up that, Gainey with no real statement, opinion, nothing to back up their words.
I understand you. I agree with much of what you say.

However, every single negative thing in your post that you attribute by proxy to me I have never said. Ever. Example: Vince to Montreal? I never ever wanted such a move, in fact, for those of us who argue the Habs need to be more competent, that would have been a joke.

I don't live in the past either. And I don't want to. So to you and others who keep bringing this up, please stop.

And I am not a retard dude. I don't call you one, therefore don't use the term when quoting me please. And don't put words in my mouth.

Yes it's hard to succeed in the NHL today. We 'pessimists' know that. What's the term? Oh yeah: DUH!

We have not been a cup threat for 20 years. That is all I have to say, and it is all I need to say. I think that is unacceptable, and I stand by my opinion.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 10:22 AM
  #97
Crimson Skorpion
Moderator
 
Crimson Skorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lachine, Quebec
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,393
vCash: 500
Awards:


If you guys can't keep it respectful and talk about the article and the team, and not start a pissing contest in the process, you'll get pulled from this thread.

__________________
Shawn Wilken,
Head of Hockey Department
LastWordOnSports.com


Want to write for us? Head to lastwordonsports.com/writeforus and apply!
Crimson Skorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 10:48 AM
  #98
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megaforce View Post
Halpern was terrible. He was so slow he couldn't even get to the point to block the shot that eliminated us. It deflected off him into his own net.
So 1 play erases a whole season in your mind?

Halpern was only playing, through injury, b/c the coach didn't trust any of the other roster options he had...
Beyond that, wouldn't the fact that he was put on the ice early in overtime of a game 7 pretty much underlie his value to the team?

Sure halpern had his limitations, but his contributions met or exceeded expectations IMO

26pts, 3gwg, 57% on the face off, all in 13min/game and @ <1million.

That is great value from a bottom 6 veteran, and right now our top 12 could very much use exactly that.

I like white, more than most, and engqvist might surprise and take the 4th line C role, but with a coach like Martin, hard to imagine either young guy earning enough regard to b used consistently, leaving a hole that will inevitably b filled by leaning heavier on pleks and or Gomez... At least until we make a move to address the hole.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 10:56 AM
  #99
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonSkorpion View Post


If you guys can't keep it respectful and talk about the article and the team, and not start a pissing contest in the process, you'll get pulled from this thread.
Yeah this thread was pretty intense. Sorry if I insulted anyone.

I'm in the so called 'pessimist' group, but I like the Habs this year, I'm excited about this team.

All I have to say is Marky better bloody well wear his brace this time, at all times, like in the shower, or even with the wife in the sack. He better never take the damn thing off!

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2011, 11:34 AM
  #100
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
I would just like to add that LafleursGuy pretty much sums up how I feel about the team and teams management. We've been pretty mediocre for years, but the one area we may disagree is the direction of this teams future. I think this team is building towards great things. We have one of the brightest futures in the league, we use to be lacking in the top end talent area, but even those days are passing. With Guys like PK/Price, we have solidified the 2 most important positions, then throw in guys like Pleks, Pac, Eller, Desharnais, Gorges, Yemelin, Weber, AK. We have plenty of pieces going forward, most of them affordable.

Where we agree, is that the players that excite us and are likely to lead the way, won't be Gomez, Gionta ect. No offense to those 2 guys, but we'd be better off had we held onto McDonagh, Grabs, SK, Lats ect. We'd still be a playoff threat every year while positioning ourselves greatly towards the future. Gainey wasn't terrible, but the Gomez deal alone kinda cancels out all the good he has done. It was one of the dumbest moves since the lockout.

habsjunkie2* 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 05:35 PM.

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

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