What?
Rangers were a cup contender that imploded this season and are teetering on the brink of missing playoffs entirely... Despite mostly making trades
They traded away 24 year old Kakko for 28 yr old Borgen and 25yr old Chytil + 1st for 32 year old Miller.
They also traded a pick for Soucy.
The only players they really "sold" were Lindgren, whose cap hit next year they wanted to get rid of, and Smith (for a pick used to get Soucy & a mediocre depth prospect).
Being "right there with the Habs" is a result of inept management and roster/culture building... Whereas the Habs are where they are for exactly the opposite reasons.
Rangers season reminds me of the quip:
How do you make a million bucks?
Start with 10M and buy a winery in Napa.
Yeah, they traded away Kakkp whp was struggling hard with the Rangers.
Miller is probably an 80 point forward thats a pain in the ass to play against. Maybe gers 90 points.
They sold and bought, which isnt any difference than what i suggested for the habs.
Yes, their season is a disappointment. They traded pieces and added others, which is what the Habs would do.
Wrong … this is a sum of all parts team. They are successful when all 4F lines and D pairings are working in tandem
Every player on this team knows their role:
- Evans, Armia, Dvorak, Anderson & Savard are key to help maintain a top-12 PK
- 1st line + Laine + Hutson are key to PP success
- Hutson - Struble are successful at driving the play when limited to Ozone starts
- Matheson - Carrier (during Guhle’s) absence did an amicable job with Dzone starts helping shelter the rest of the D
- Habs bottom-6 have dominated their opposition vast majority of the season
- The 4th line and team were lost with Heineken out due to injury
Point being … it’s not only about G, A, and Pts…every player has a key role. It would’ve been ideal to find a way to upgrade 2nd line at deadline, unfortunately Habs didn’t have a Norris to offer up for Cozens…
Again, what i suggested in Sturm and Desharnais as an example are those type of players. Sturm is probavly more valuable
They have 21 picks in the next two drafts.. they don't NEED extra picks, they have more than enough to do anything you want. Throwing in an extra 5th round pick because you traded Dvorak while you were in a playoff spot, just to piss off your captain and your team, isn't going to move the needle at all.
Being loyal to a fault is one thing. Not cutting the knees out from your team when they just rattled off a massive winning streak to be back in a playoff spot is a totally different other thing.
What you wanted them to do is nothing that any sane general manager would have done in that situation. You are getting needlessly bogged down with an obsession over low value picks. If a 1st came in for Savard, he would have made that trade. He wasn't going to move Savard for a 4th round pick.
It's insane.. people are way too draft pick pilled. They've used a lot already, have 21 more in the next two drafts, have one of the best and deepest prospect pools in the entire league, plenty of cap space. Not doing anything at the deadline was more than justified.
The majority of those picks are this year.
If the habs can swing a trade for a 2nd line centre, you're losing minimum 2 picks, a 1st and likely a 2nd in a deal. Still, 19 picks is alot and youre right.
If you read what i was saying the picks might be in 2026, but more 2027, or 2028. 2027 is hopefully when the habs start pushing, will have made another sizeable trade to the roster losing prospects and picks. Habs would still have extra picks to add depth AND add players to their prospect pool.
The best way to keep your team rolling is by having picks you can use to draft a player, or two who can at leaat make the NHL and allow you have a low contract in order to spend on free agents. Or the player becomes good enough that you can replace that player while trading him away for assets in return. You self replenish your team and keep that window open a bit longer instead of having a 5 year window maybe more, maybe less where you have nothint coming and everyone is getting close to a decline
Fair enough on your first point, although obviously I don't agree.
Regarding loyalty, the problem with the Bergevin contracts to Gallagher, Byron, etc was not that he was being loyal to those players in recognition of their invaluable contributions, but because Bergevin was terrible at contract negotiations and gave them far too much instead of weighing that loyalty with the usual factors that go into contract offers.
In contrast under Hughes, any loyalty to players whom have earned it is balanced by what that player's worth will be to the Habs now and into the future. Just to give 2 examples,
Evans had earned being resigned, but only at a price (and term) and Hughes didn't exceed that. Great contract, and Evans plus teammates are happy he is still there.
Savard made it known that he wanted to stay with the Habs at the end of last year and this. I believe Hughes honoured those requests not only because it shows loyalty (to Savard, Suzuki and the team) but because he recognizes the specific contributions Savard is making during this pressure cooker run being far more valuable than what little he would have gotten back in a deadline deal.
As for the Rangers, their situation is fundamentally different than that of the Habs, as Miller Time explained better than I could have.
Bergevin should have dealt both of those players. The team wasn't good and everyone knew it.
Should have parted ways with Armia then, too.
Team didn't, went on a miracle cup run and delayed the rebuild/retool that went on.
At the very leaat he should have dealt Armia. Get Sturm and you lose some hands/Armia's ability to cycle, but Sturm is a wizard on the dot and gives the habs another player and he would be a nice 4th line option with Evans and now you have a 4th line that has a centre with either handedness.
