I think if Hughes wants to spread that being in control of our prospect's development is so crucial for him and his team then he must bring Reinbacher over to Laval. We are the masters of developing players apparently so if he lets him go back to Europe I won't know what to believe anymore.
Prospect Info: David Reinbacher
- Thread starter Adam Michaels
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 11,333
- 12,857
Leclair was an outstanding skater and a tank and certainly was not "tripping over the blueline" while in Montreal. I called the trade out as an atrocity the moment it was announced. Leclair was one of my favourite Habs and no, I did not expect him to be a 50 goal scorer but definitely saw the potential for a consistent 30+ goal scoring power forward. His combination of speed, size, strength and shot were extremely rare and he was being obviously misused as a center. He needed to be unleashed as a winger on the forecheck and that is what Philadelphia immediately did with him. Giving up a top pairing dman in Desjardins was payment enough for a player like Recchi but to give up on Leclair as well was a brain dead decision.
There have been three trades in my lifetime that I was absolutely appalled by and this was the second one. The first was trading Chelios for a clearly declining Savard and the 3rd was dealing for a washed up Gomez who was on a terrible contract for McDonagh and Higgins.
I did incorrectly support the Sergachev trade as Drouin truly was an elite young talent and Sergachev was so gaffe prone. I thought (and still believe) that Sergachev would get eaten alive in Montreal and would end up getting moved anyways at a greatly diminished return. Regardless, that trade looks terrible now as do I for supporting it. I have no problem eating crow when I am wrong and do not feel compelled to defend mistakes that I have supported with revisionist takes.
My take on the Leclair trade is certainly not revisionist and there was a ton of public pushback against the trade at the time as well. The deployment of Leclair in Montreal as a center playing the F3 was idiotic only to be trumped by the trade that later ensued.
I am not sure if I was one of the posters that you had targeted with your claim of revisionist history but I take no offence to it if you did as I am sure that there are many who do employ this tactic to such trades, just wanted to clear my name lol.
Last edited:
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 11,333
- 12,857
You needn't limit your thoughts on the matter to a binary conclusion. It can also be true that Hughes believes that Laval is too congested and just like Engstrom last season is ok with allowing him to continue to develop in a professional league where the organization will still have full access to him albeit less convenient than having him in Laval. Clearly his time in Kloten was very productive last season as his development was among the most meteoric of the entire draft class.
Laval is too congested is a terrible reason. This is our supposed best D prospect right? You make room for him in the environment you think is best for him. Trade the other lesser prospects that might be standing in the way if need be. Our management team has repeatedly said the best development is under their control. That's the narrative that has been spread far and wide. And "still have full access too him" is an odd statement. How do you know that? Will they be able to increase/decrease his ice time? Ensure he gets maximum PP time to develop his offensive tools? Of course not. It's not their organization. As for your last sentence, so Hughes believes developing prospects under our control is so crucial it impacts our draft selections but if the prospect is developing well in their current environment then it's no longer important? Aren't most prospects drafted high by implication in good development environments in which they've done well (thus being drafted high?).
- Jan 18, 2022
- 9,108
- 13,648
It’s too early for me and you but the beauty of pluralism is we will be around people with different thresholds.
I don’t think the Michkov non-pick is a rock solid bit of evidence for or against the Habs culture change but clearly some others do think this. Until we know for sure we can all argue about it
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 11,333
- 12,857
Of Course they will have full access to him, he will be playing in Switzerland? What possible reason are you attempting to concoct that would indicate that they wouldn't have full access to him? And trading our prospects just to make room in Laval for Reinbacher is egregiously stupid....sorry but that is the truth.
Reinbacher took a monumental leap with Kloten and was not on anyone's radar as a top 10 prospect prior to the season. To suggest that all prospects that are drafted high must be in favourable developmental programs is just dishonest reasoning and barely warrants a reply. If you are going to insist on using generalizations to discredit specific scenarios you would appear to be more bias driven then truth driven. If you can't discern the difference from playing in a junior league where most prospects are procured from to a pro league then I do not know what to say to you.
Comparing him to Slafkovsky's situation is a poor comparison as Reinbacher has a very advanced understanding of the game for a player of his age and thrived in Kloten. Slafkovsky on the other hand was drafted as an extremely raw player with a very limited understanding of positional hockey. He was playing on a pro team that he was struggling on and it certainly appeared as though he was being poorly managed. If you are going to choose to ignore the fact that every organization is different and in many cases the differences are vast, then I can easily surmise what you agenda actually is here.
I am not against him playing in Laval at all and if Hughes can make it work then so be it. You just need to stop with this black and white narrative that appears designed to justify building a case against Hughes and the organization's philosophy. Just because you are not aware of every nuance in their philosophy does not indicate that it is as simplistic as you seem to believe.
The Habs had a far better top 6 forward before the trade particularly for that era. I was devastated.
Jaynki
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2014
- 5,871
- 6,054
Indeed! HFBoards would be a sad place without all our debate and all our spectacular hot takes.It’s too early for me and you but the beauty of pluralism is we will be around people with different thresholds.
I don’t think the Michkov non-pick is a rock solid bit of evidence for or against the Habs culture change but clearly some others do think this. Until we know for sure we can all argue about it
cphabs
The 2 stooges….
- Dec 21, 2012
- 7,814
- 5,306
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
That was just a prelude of the horror movie that followed. Carbonneau was traded for Jim Montgomery, Turgeon and Conroy for Corson and Baron, the Patrick Roy trade and the Damphousse trade (Habs had 3 picks #145 Marc-André Thinel, #15 Marcel Hossa and #53 Kiel McLeod). The whole Habs team was destroyed, thin skin to the bone. After it was the Koivu opnkly good player era with some help from Markov, Ryder, Souray and Theodore. We had a lot of Dackell, Juneau and Bulis, wink to a poster here, haha. The culture became an oh we feel so sorry for you smurfs lil' players but nice effort, better chance next game, etc.
Houle was admittedly the worst GM of all time, no doubt about it. Bergevin looks good in comparison but, so would I, probably.
NORiculous
Registered User
I think it has been reported Serge was trying to trade Roy for Nolan and Fiset.
Some things have changed and some things haven’t. We don’t know yet how much difference it will make.
Even if almost everything ends up being equal, the new management get the edge on contract negotiations at minimum.
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 30,601
- 22,237
No, Reinbacher is the best D prospect but not yet the best D.
And in order to trade the other D prospects they first need to play. Mailloux, Barron, Struble, Harris, Trudeau etc can all be expected to have far more value 12 months from now than that day.
Also they need ice time too.
I don't know what the Habs are doing with Reinbacher this year but Kloten would be fine.
Pompeius Magnus
Registered User
TBF, Leclair had been an enigma up to that point. His post amazing 93 cup performance had been followed by a return to form 94 season. The potential was there but there was also a chance he'd always be a 40-ish points a season depth guy who leaves you looking for more.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 12,044
- 6,922
The thing about Houle is he was being told to dump guys, to keep salary low, etc... Bergevin had free reign so he has no excuse for being as terrible as he was.Houle was admittedly the worst GM of all time, no doubt about it. Bergevin looks good in comparison but, so would I, probably.
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
This link is good as history. Five trades that destroyed the Habs.Houle was admittedly the worst GM of all time, no doubt about it. Bergevin looks good in comparison but, so would I, probably.
Montreal Canadiens: Five Trades That Ruined Habs Latest Dynasty Before It Started
The Montreal Canadiens have had some of the greatest dynasties in sports. They had a chance for last one but these 5 trades ruined it.
awinninghabit.com
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 30,601
- 22,237
Houle was admittedly the worst GM of all time, no doubt about it. Bergevin looks good in comparison but, so would I, probably.
Bergevin worked from a much stronger position than Houle. Full cap, inherited a young core, got ten years.
HabzSauce
Registered User
- Jun 10, 2022
- 2,052
- 2,976
I think they'd rather Laval for obvious reasons. What are the even the benefits of going back to Swiss? He's already proved he can play vs men and Laval has a lot more resources available to help him develop.
For me it's a no brainer I think they definitely want him in Laval if I had to guess
Well, from what I heard, at the time, Flyers were more after Desjardins than Leclair, really. I don't think they imagined Leclair would become a 50-goal scorer either. That he could put everything together surrounded by line mates such as Lindros and Renberg wasn't far-fetched, by any means, but it certainly came as a HUGE bonus for the Flyers in that trade that Leclair would actually play up to the level he did.
I think they would have been happy with a physical, 25-goal power forward winger. What they got was awesome.
HuGo Burner Acc
Registered User
- Mar 30, 2016
- 4,750
- 5,437
Very true but remember Molson in part hired MB because he was willing to go full competitive mode instead of retooling around an already existent core. Nobody on here can honestly say the retool from 2018-2020 wasn't partially successful and very good GMing on MBs part. I'd be interested in what this team would look like if Molsons mandate was different in 2012-14/15
Leclair was an outstanding skater and a tank and certainly was not "tripping over the blueline" while in Montreal.
He was, actually. Leclair's puck-handling did not match his speed early on. He would put himself offside as he handled the puck crossing the blue line.
He was lanky awkward and that's a fact, but it's not abnormal by any stretch.
Montreal also didn't have the players that the Flyers had to maximize Leclairs confidence and output.
I'm not sure that, with the system and the supporting cast in Montreal, Leclair would have become as dominant over time. His growth, from Recchi's own dwindling numbers in Montreal, would have been stunted here.
At the time, it was not uncommon for offensive players coming over and seeing their offensive production drop at least 20%, if not 30% or more.
Last edited:
Funny, because Bergevin's first lie was that he would rebuild through the draft over time. Then, of course, he added Cole and Prost to the roster and promoted youngsters immediately instead of developing them beforehand.
I honestly think that the shortened season because of the labour conflict applied pressure to generate more revenue and that's why Bergevin was asked to deviate from the idealistic initial plan.
Beyond that, Bergevin's lack of confidence, early on, really prevented follow up moves on good trades and wasted otherwise good shorter term moves.
His inability to follow through is what lead to the team's downfall, along with the insistence that the conservative coaching approach was the means of winning.
All the personal attacks on Bergevin have no reason to exist, but one can clearly be critical of his choices.
It's normal to be hopeful at the start of any season, or following any move. That's the essence of fandom, not cynicism.
Of course, the hyped up praise for players like Alzner, McCarron, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Scherbak, Mete and many more seems ludicrous today
Some players, like Poehling, had shown actual flashes of greatness, if only for short samples, but the refusal to trade him for O'Reilly (along with another first round pick -- was that the rumour?) and actually acquiring a bonafide top-6 C...
Hindsight is 20/20 vision.
BLONG7
Registered User
Reggie had zero control, and was a foot soldier. Don't blame Reggie at all.......Ronald Corey destroyed the habs......
Bergevin had total control and as we now know was just an idiot.
His second contract was not earned, he just rode Price....
- Status
