News Article: Lafleur says Vanek, Patches should GTFO

[hototogisu]

Not sure why we didn't make any type of conditional trade based on us re-signing Vanek. I guess it was needed to give Collberg away......but at the very least, how about 2nd if he's re-signed....and 5th if not?

'Cause in retrospect, giving all this for a guy who really never any intention of signing AND wasn't any help in the playoffs.....might be a big price. Now hoping Collberg's fall on his face...

Come on man..."in retrospect" is the key phrase. A 2nd and Collberg for Vanek was an absolute steal. Most people figured we'd have to give up a 1st and a top-shelf prospect.

You can play the "it could have been better" game if you want but it could have easily been a whole lot worse in terms of what we gave up to get him.

 

[Whitesnake]

He basically said you can't win with these guys and have them on the team... that's why the criticism is there. If all he said was "these guys have to step up" the reaction would be different.

Don't know if folks saw this yesterday but there was an article on this in the Star: http://www.thestar.com/sports/hocke...k_on_max_pacioretty_simply_absurd_arthur.html

The comments he makes are simlilar to Price's comments last season. I don't make too much of it but its clear he's stung by it.

No idea if we're keeping Vanek. I'd like to but not at all costs. As for Max, he shouldn't be immune from criticism but Lafleur is being a knob with how he's gone about things here.

Lafleur is like a whole lot of people on this board....black or white. When he says that he wants somebody out, it might also mean that they have to move their butt if they want to still have a job. People who followed and know Lafleur comments would not make a big deal out of it. Make a big deal out of it if Bob Gainey says that. Or if Jean Béliveau says that. But Lafleur?

One thing is sure.....if Pacioretty keeps doing that...we will ALL want him out. Besides, personnally, it's part of the experience now. I don't have that much of a problem with Max based on this one year. The biggest problem I have with Max is how detached I feel he is to this situation, but mostly I will always remember that comment as how he found a new way to play to not be injured....how much he valued "perimeter play".....I mean, if that's not a big question mark....I don't know what is.

 

[Whitesnake]

This board overrates this team's prospects. Big time. Collberg had no progression whatsoever in the last 2 years. He was pathetic in the training camp.

Just like McDonagh had no progression......Obviously not comparing both guys, but we need to be careful in assessing supposed no progression from prospects too...

 

[Whitesnake]

Come on man..."in retrospect" is the key phrase. A 2nd and Collberg for Vanek was an absolute steal. Most people figured we'd have to give up a 1st and a top-shelf prospect.

You can play the "it could have been better" game if you want but it could have easily been a whole lot worse in terms of what we gave up to get him.

Pretty sure that the reason why I wrote "in retrospect" was because that's all there is. I loved the deal when it happened but MOSTLY because I thought we had a serious chance in keeping him. A 2nd and Collberg if Vanek signs would have been an absolute steal. I mean, most people figured out wrong as it was well known that the Isles HAD to do something. They were not that much in the greatest of position except for the fact that we were obviously not the only team going for him, that I know. Thing is, I just wished, like we see in tons of trades, that a condition would have been there, based on how much everybody ALSO knew that Vanek WAS going to July 1st.

Geez, with the comment Vanek just made, I'm not sure we could even trade his rights now. Unless it's for the team he wants, read Minny. But then why would Minny do that if everybody knows this is where he's going....

In the end, the Isles wanted Collberg. They asked for him. So he was the key. Just thought that we could have played a little with the pick. Not with Collberg.

 

[hototogisu]

Pretty sure that the reason why I wrote "in retrospect" was because that's all there is. I loved the deal when it happened but MOSTLY because I thought we had a serious chance in keeping him. A 2nd and Collberg if Vanek signs would have been an absolute steal. I mean, most people figured out wrong as it was well known that the Isles HAD to do something. They were not that much in the greatest of position except for the fact that we were obviously not the only team going for him, that I know. Thing is, I just wished, like we see in tons of trades, that a condition would have been there, based on how much everybody ALSO knew that Vanek WAS going to July 1st.

Geez, with the comment Vanek just made, I'm not sure we could even trade his rights now. Unless it's for the team he wants, read Minny. But then why would Minny do that if everybody knows this is where he's going....

In the end, the Isles wanted Collberg. They asked for him. So he was the key. Just thought that we could have played a little with the pick. Not with Collberg.

I really don't think so though. Most people would have said the Isles were well within their rights to ask for our 1st. We only gave up a 2nd, and you want to weaken the Isles' hold on that as well? I think that's being a little greedy. I understand how much you hate to give up picks or prospects, but this was a trade Montreal makes 100 times out of 100.

 

[Whitesnake]

I really don't think so though. Most people would have said the Isles were well within their rights to ask for our 1st. We only gave up a 2nd, and you want to weaken the Isles' hold on that as well? I think that's being a little greedy. I understand how much you hate to give up picks or prospects, but this was a trade Montreal makes 100 times out of 100.

Maybe you are right. Not sure again though that they were in their rights to get a 1st...not for a player that Isles HAD to get rid of and not for a player that the world knew was going to free agency. But I guess we never know till we're there. Yet, I would have hope for a condition either way. We don't know, maybe the condition goes to the other way around.....we sign him it's a 1st. We don't it's a 2nd. AT least, that would have told me that real value and that we were working on conditions.

 

[Em Ancien]

Just like McDonagh had no progression......Obviously not comparing both guys, but we need to be careful in assessing supposed no progression from prospects too...

Let's be fair here. McDonagh had shown progression. He didn't show significant offensive progression at that point (part of it being McBain, amongst other more puck-moving oriented defensemen, taking most of the offensive responsabilities). He also didn't have a great outing at the WJC. People equated this to him not progressing well, yet he still projected as a top 4 D and obviously Timmins had a lot of faith in that pick even at that point.

Collberg on the other hand, has not shown significant progress in ANY areas of his game. He lived on his first WJC performance, and most teams, by the draft, had seen that the kid never had the puckhandling or decision making ability of a top end offensive player. That's not crippling in itself, but he doesn't have in his toolbox a lot of stuff other than his shot and some speed.

On that note, he's still raw and has some room to improve and become a good player, but what progress he's made in those 2 years since his draft seem fairly insignificant.

 

[Whitesnake]

Let's be fair here. McDonagh had shown progression. He didn't show significant offensive progression at that point (part of it being McBain, amongst other more puck-moving oriented defensemen, taking most of the offensive responsabilities). He also didn't have a great outing at the WJC. People equated this to him not progressing well, yet he still projected as a top 4 D and obviously Timmins had a lot of faith in that pick even at that point.

Collberg on the other hand, has not shown significant progress in ANY areas of his game. He lived on his first WJC performance, and most teams, by the draft, had seen that the kid never had the puckhandling or decision making ability of a top end offensive player. That's not crippling in itself, but he doesn't have in his toolbox a lot of stuff other than his shot and some speed.

On that note, he's still raw and has some room to improve and become a good player, but what progress he's made in those 2 years since his draft seem fairly insignificant.

You don't need to convince me on McDonagh, I know he had progression. He was dissapointing in some occasions but it was NOT about not progressing, I know. Collberg is still playing in a men's league with the icetime that it means. I know, can't be proven, but I can and will tell you that despite all of his deficiencies, and he has a few, Collberg would have showed progression playing in juniors. Now....I understand that Collberg was the price to pay, and I don't care about that. It's still Vanek with the tons of points that goes with the guy. But just showing that we should be careful with the non-progressing part of a player. Lukas Sutter didn't progress. You play in a junior league, no matter how much you work on some other aspects of his game, you need to improve statistically and other areas. But as a junior, you have PLENTY of icetime to do so. Collberg, not that much. But true, he has tons of things to work on.

 

[Frozenice]

Pretty sure that the reason why I wrote "in retrospect" was because that's all there is. I loved the deal when it happened but MOSTLY because I thought we had a serious chance in keeping him. A 2nd and Collberg if Vanek signs would have been an absolute steal. I mean, most people figured out wrong as it was well known that the Isles HAD to do something. They were not that much in the greatest of position except for the fact that we were obviously not the only team going for him, that I know. Thing is, I just wished, like we see in tons of trades, that a condition would have been there, based on how much everybody ALSO knew that Vanek WAS going to July 1st.

Geez, with the comment Vanek just made, I'm not sure we could even trade his rights now. Unless it's for the team he wants, read Minny. But then why would Minny do that if everybody knows this is where he's going....

In the end, the Isles wanted Collberg. They asked for him. So he was the key. Just thought that we could have played a little with the pick. Not with Collberg.

One of the advantages of trading Vanek is that the team getting him gets an extra year on his next contract to lower the caphit. As an example, I could see Vanek going for 8 years * $6 million caphit and if it's 7 years it would almost have to be 7 years * $6.5 caphit. Vanek is at an age where the extra year on his contract can make a big difference or he's almost better off going for 3 or 4 years and then looking for another contract to bring him to the end of his career.

It seems weird but I could see us trading him back to the NYI's, it may be the best deal out there.

 

[Kriss E]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/spor...akes+shot+Vanek+Pacioretty/9907401/story.html

That's right, he retracted yesterday. That is not at all the tune he sang with his initial statement.

I think it's a lost in translation thing tbh, I think Agnostic's version of Lafleurs words are most accurate. He said "they might as well stay at home if they're not willing to pay the price" implying, that if they are willing to pay the price they're fine to be on the team.

How is it a ''lost in translation'' issue??? Those were the exact quotes in french and the english ones I provided were perfectly translated.

They can report it how they like, those were his exact words. "They can stay at home if they're not willing to pay the price".

I think what Guy said here is being blown out of proportion and completely misinterpreted. It's possible he meant that we should get rid of them based on this, but I didn't get that from what he said. It's entirely possible that I'm misinterpreting his words.

Yes, he said ''they can stay at home if they're not willing to pay the price'' (just like he wasn't for about 60 total PO games), but he also said ''you don't win with those guys''.
Flat out. Until yesterday where he realized how much crap it caused and tried to downplay his words.

 

[Agnostic]

One of the advantages of trading Vanek is that the team getting him gets an extra year on his next contract to lower the caphit. As an example, I could see Vanek going for 8 years * $6 million caphit and if it's 7 years it would almost have to be 7 years * $6.5 caphit. Vanek is at an age where the extra year on his contract can make a big difference or he's almost better off going for 3 or 4 years and then looking for another contract to bring him to the end of his career.

It seems weird but I could see us trading him back to the NYI's, it may be the best deal out there.

this has been discussed on this board. The 8 year term can only be signed with a club that carried the player at the trade deadline, which was the Habs. That privilege does not get transferred to a team he's traded to after the deadline.

 

[Frozenice]

this has been discussed on this board. The 8 year term can only be signed with a club that carried the player at the trade deadline, which was the Habs. That privilege does not get transferred to a team he's traded to after the deadline.

Thanks. Now I know why there hasn't been more discussion about trading him.

 

[Big Lurk]

Patches led the team in shots per game. He was willing and able to pay the price, the shots just weren't going in for him.

i remember they showed a shot chart during the Boston series

he had no shots from "la zone payante"

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

Just like McDonagh had no progression......Obviously not comparing both guys, but we need to be careful in assessing supposed no progression from prospects too...

This. If Colberg turns into a good player,

 

[hototogisu]

This. If Colberg turns into a good player,

I don't get the logic, so a team should never trade any prospects because in theory they all have a chance to turn into superstars?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Lafleur is like a whole lot of people on this board....black or white. When he says that he wants somebody out, it might also mean that they have to move their butt if they want to still have a job. People who followed and know Lafleur comments would not make a big deal out of it. Make a big deal out of it if Bob Gainey says that. Or if Jean Béliveau says that. But Lafleur?

Lafleur is a legend. When he says something it matters. That's why he should think before he opens his mouth. One thing to shoot from the hip, but when your criticizing players publicly, you should watch what you say.

He's basically done a 180 now and suddenly it's "you need guys like this to win" instead of you need to get rid of these kinds of guys... He knows what he said was stupid.

One thing is sure.....if Pacioretty keeps doing that...we will ALL want him out. Besides, personnally, it's part of the experience now. I don't have that much of a problem with Max based on this one year. The biggest problem I have with Max is how detached I feel he is to this situation, but mostly I will always remember that comment as how he found a new way to play to not be injured....how much he valued "perimeter play".....I mean, if that's not a big question mark....I don't know what is.

The question isn't whether or not these guys played well though... everyone agrees that for the most part they didn't. The question is whether or not we should keep them.

As far as Max goes... well sure it's concerning. But as I told you before, people lose perspective when a player does poorly. We heard the same nonsense from reactionary posters last year about Price. Very few players can produce in the playoffs consistently. Most will be effective against one team, not so much against another...

In my mind, neither Max nor Vanek is good enough to carry an offense alone. They are legit first line players, they are both part of the solution because they can score but neither can be THE guy your scoring is built around. We don't have THE guy in our lineup and it doesn't look like we'll have one soon, so it's scoring by committee. Personally I love the idea of having them on different lines. The checking strategies of the other teams become much more challenging for them to adjust. I think Vanek esp would help Galchenyuk develop his game next year too so that's another reason I'd like him kept.

He had a bad run and folks are screaming that he's useless... Well, its those same posters that told us to get rid of Price. At the end of the day talent usually pans out. It may not happen every playoff series but if you stick with it you're usually rewarded. And hey, if Vanek sucked again next postseason we could always trade him for something of value if we really wanted to move him. We give up zero assets for him and hopefully he helps us win. As for Max, crazy to even think of letting him go for what he makes. But yes, the perimeter play we saw in the playoffs has to change. And - don't want to beat a dead horse but - he needs a new center. I'd love to see him with Eller. It wouldn't be an I'll pass/ you score type line. Both guys would work well together.

 

[habsfanatics*]

That's right, he retracted yesterday. That is not at all the tune he sang with his initial statement.



How is it a ''lost in translation'' issue??? Those were the exact quotes in french and the english ones I provided were perfectly translated.


Yes, he said ''they can stay at home if they're not willing to pay the price'' (just like he wasn't for about 60 total PO games), but he also said ''you don't win with those guys''.
Flat out. Until yesterday where he realized how much crap it caused and tried to downplay his words.

Yes, "you don't win with those guys" meaning guys who "don't pay the price". Lafleur says some stupid things from time to time, but he stands behind his comments almost always, the fact he retracted shows that he maybe didn't articulate himself clearly the first time around. I think we're making a big deal out of nothing here.

 

[Whitesnake]

I don't get the logic, so a team should never trade any prospects because in theory they all have a chance to turn into superstars?

No. Just that, it better not be. If it doesn't, no problem. If it does, we will still be looked at as a team who let go a great player for 2 months of a rental one. Sometimes it's the bet you're taking.

While we all knew that the Gomez deal would be awful, if McDonagh "just" happens to be a #4 d-man....we don't talk as much about the deal. So it's the same deal....but it all depends of how it turns out. So you do make trades. But you certainly hope you are at the right end of it. But it's also about your analysis of a player. If you analyse that he might end up just a frail 3rd liner, you say that it's worth. But if you think that the guy will be a top 3 player for 15 years....I'm pretty certain that you DON'T make the deal, no matter how great you think Vanek will look on your team. Wuold you have traded Tinordi instead of Collberg? How about DLR?

 

[overlords]

Yes, "you don't win with those guys" meaning guys who "don't pay the price". Lafleur says some stupid things from time to time, but he stands behind his comments almost always, the fact he retracted shows that he maybe didn't articulate himself clearly the first time around. I think we're making a big deal out of nothing here.

He was probably just fired up and said some stupid ****. Who here hasn't said stupid **** when pissed off at the habs?

That being said, everyone has a right to call the **** he said stupid. Because it was very stupid.

 

[Whitesnake]

He's basically done a 180 now and suddenly it's "you need guys like this to win" instead of you need to get rid of these kinds of guys... He knows what he said was stupid.

Strangely for me, it means the same thing. As you don't need guys that doesn't bring it, looks lazy and don't want to be a key factor and yet....you need those guys as they have the talent enough to be a gamebreaking player. So you need their talent. But you don't need their lack of implication. For me, they go perfectly together. But Lafleur can't put it too eloquently.

As for Max, crazy to even think of letting him go for what he makes. But yes, the perimeter play we saw in the playoffs has to change. And - don't want to beat a dead horse but - he needs a new center. I'd love to see him with Eller. It wouldn't be an I'll pass/ you score type line. Both guys would work well together.

Well that's my main problem. The perimeter play HAS to change and yet...nobody talks about his comments and how HE thinks that his game is perfectly fine and that it should be the way to play? How the perimeter game suits his game so much? Nobody is concerned about that?

 

[Agnostic]

He was probably just fired up and said some stupid ****. Who here hasn't said stupid **** when pissed off at the habs?

That being said, everyone has a right to call the **** he said stupid. Because it was very stupid.

Actually the fan reaction was stupid. Lafleur was 100 percent correct he's just bending now to the ensuing stupidity.

 

[Markov4Captain]

I didn't read through this thread but I cannot believe some fans have resorted to bashing the first prolific scorer this franchise has had in a decade. Patch is big, strong, sound defensively and HE'S ONLY 25. Let that sink in. He hasn't even hit his prime. I wish I could put my frustration into words but I cannot. All I'll say is if you can't be happy with what Pacioretty has offered this franchise since he was drafted, especially after what he's been through, then you might as well accept your permanent state of disappointment because nothing any player may or may not offer to this team will ever be enough for you.

 

[overlords]

Actually the fan reaction was stupid. Lafleur was 100 percent correct he's just bending now to the ensuing stupidity.

So he didn't say that we needed to get rid of Max Pacioretty? I'm going off what the thread title was here and the quote in the OP.

 

[habsfanatics*]

So he didn't say that we needed to get rid of Max Pacioretty? I'm going off what the thread title was here and the quote in the OP.

I don't know how you can read the OP and come away with this tbh. He said you don't need players who don't show up. He didn't say OMG Pacioretty must go. He was implying that his play was a major disappointment. I can't help but agree with him.

 

[overlords]

I don't know how you can read the OP and come away with this tbh. He said you don't need players who don't show up. He didn't say OMG Pacioretty must go. He was implying that his play was a major disappointment. I can't help but agree with him.

Des gars comme (Thomas) Vanek et (Max) Pacioretty, tu ne peux pas garder ça dans ton équipe.

Translated: "guys like Vanek and maxpac, you can't keep that on your team"

That's pretty cut and dry. Yes, he goes on to qualify that you can't keep players who aren't giving it their all. He didn't only say that their play was intolerable, though, but that they, themselves, were intolerable. Big difference. This isn't semantics, this is word for word what he said.

It was dumb. Yes he was a great scorer for us, but that doesn't make him a saint, untouchable, intelligent or a good person. He may very well be all of those things, but not because he was a good hockey player.