The state of the Habs Rebuild - The Next step

[Anardil]

I voted C simply because I'm hard to impress, especially when it comes to the Habs.

Contracts + extensions: A
Drafting and development, at this moment: B
Trades: C

This brings HuGo's grade down significantly at this moment. His mantra of targeting advanced prospects hasn't really worked yet. Barron and Heineman, who were the main pieces in the trades look like tweeners at best. It's now up to the draft choices to develop to make these trades close to a wash.

Dach can't stay healthy enough to see his true potential.

Newhook at least looks interesting still.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I voted C simply because I'm hard to impress, especially when it comes to the Habs.

Contracts + extensions: A
Drafting and development, at this moment: B
Trades: C

This brings HuGo's grade down significantly at this moment. His mantra of targeting advanced prospects hasn't really worked yet. Barron and Heineman, who were the main pieces in the trades look like tweeners at best. It's now up to the draft choices to develop to make these trades close to a wash.

Dach can't stay healthy enough to see his true potential.

Newhook at least looks interesting still.

One point I’d reiterate (it was raised by someone here earlier) I don’t think you should just look at outcomes.

The Kirby Dach trade for example was a great move. No, it hasn’t worked out for us because he’s been injured. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great move at the time.

Imagine for example if we traded Suzuki for McDavid. Great trade right? Now imagine McDavid gets hit by a bus before he ever plays a game with us. Is it still a great trade? I’d say it is even though we didn’t get a great result. The outcome wasn’t what it should be but that’s hardly the GM’s fault.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

One point I’d reiterate (it was raised by someone here earlier) I don’t think you should just look at outcomes.

The Kirby Dach trade for example was a great move. No, it hasn’t worked out for us because he’s been injured. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great move at the time.

Imagine for example if we traded Suzuki for McDavid. Great trade right? Now imagine McDavid gets hit by a bus before he ever plays a game with us. Is it still a great trade? I’d say it is even though we didn’t get a great result. The outcome wasn’t what it should be but that’s hardly the GM’s fault.

The difference is that Dach was hurt a few times before the trade. There was some risk at the time of the trade. Probably worth the risk but they needed to decide if the injuries were flukes or due to a brittle body. McDavid hasn't missed much time. No way to predict a serious injury or accident for him.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The difference is that Dach was hurt a few times before the trade. There was some risk at the time of the trade. Probably worth the risk but they needed to decide if the injuries were flukes or due to a brittle body. McDavid hasn't missed much time. No way to predict a serious injury or accident for him.

And if he’s hurt his wrist again this would be a valid point. But it’s not what happened. He hurt his leg in a fluke accident that was completely unpredictable.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

And if he’s hurt his wrist again this would be a valid point. But it’s not what happened. He hurt his leg in a fluke accident that was completely unpredictable.

No it's worse. That usually means he is brittle. And most of his injuries appear to be plays that don't normally not result in a significant injury.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No it's worse. That means he is brittle. And most of his injuries appear to be plays that don't normally not result in a significant injury.

It means nothing of the sort. Fluke injury can happen to any player.

The Hawks mismanaged Dach’s writs issues. He was brought back too early. Back and forth in the lineup. Chicago messed up. Hughes saw a high value underpriced player and jumped.

No way to predict that kind of injury.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

It means nothing if the sort. Fluke injury can happen to any player.

The Hawks mismanaged Dach’s writs issues. He was brought back too early. Back and forth in the lineup. Chicago messed up. Hughes saw a high value underpriced player and jumped.

No way to predict that kind of injury.

Dach and his brother missed a lot of games in junior. Runs in the family. That is either an indicator the body won't be up to higher levels of hockey or that they are getting into too many dangerous situations (like Lindros).

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Dach and his brother missed a lot of games in junior. Runs in the family. That is either an indicator the body won't be up to higher levels of hockey or that they are getting into too many dangerous situations (like Lindros).

It runs in the family?

What?

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

It runs in the family?

What?

Do you not understand genetics and environment.

 

[Anardil]

One point I’d reiterate (it was raised by someone here earlier) I don’t think you should just look at outcomes.

The Kirby Dach trade for example was a great move. No, it hasn’t worked out for us because he’s been injured. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great move at the time.

Imagine for example if we traded Suzuki for McDavid. Great trade right? Now imagine McDavid gets hit by a bus before he ever plays a game with us. Is it still a great trade? I’d say it is even though we didn’t get a great result. The outcome wasn’t what it should be but that’s hardly the GM’s fault.

From a certain point of view yes, but pro sports is results driven, ultimately, so outcomes do matter.

I have to admit though, that I do use your logic/argument when discussing the Chelios trade.

Optically, it is awful for the Habs, but I throw this little factoid to the haters:

Cups with Savard/Chelios? Habs:1, Hawks: 0. So from a certain point of view, the Habs won the trade.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Do you not understand genetics and environment.

Okay, let’s just leave it there.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

From a certain point of view yes, but pro sports is results driven, ultimately, so outcomes do matter.

I have to admit though, that I do use your logic/argument when discussing the Chelios trade.

Optically, it is awful for the Habs, but I throw this little factoid to the haters:

Cups with Savard/Chelios? Habs:1, Hawks: 0. So from a certain point of view, the Habs won the trade.

The Dach trade still has an excellent chance of working out. Let us pray.

 

[Beer and Chips]

One point I’d reiterate (it was raised by someone here earlier) I don’t think you should just look at outcomes.

The Kirby Dach trade for example was a great move. No, it hasn’t worked out for us because he’s been injured. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great move at the time.

Imagine for example if we traded Suzuki for McDavid. Great trade right? Now imagine McDavid gets hit by a bus before he ever plays a game with us. Is it still a great trade? I’d say it is even though we didn’t get a great result. The outcome wasn’t what it should be but that’s hardly the GM’s fault.

So we are giving A grades because "it was a good idea at the time" . I had to read this three times to make sure.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

The Dach trade still has an excellent chance of working out. Let us pray.

It has a chance. Probably 50-50.

 

[StreetHawk]

The Dach trade still has an excellent chance of working out. Let us pray.

End of the day Montreal traded Romanov for Dach. Romanov has been the better player since because he's been available, whereas Dach has had injuries. To use the old football expression, "your greatest ability is your availability".

But, with the left side of the D being crowded with Harris, Struble, Guhle, Hutson, (Matheson as the Veteran) having Romanov still doesn't really help the Habs vs having a big body C does. But, the key is Dach's health. If he can't stay healthy, it's going to be a problem for them. He's missed 104 games for the Habs so far. Romanov just 7 for the Isles.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So we are giving A grades because "it was a good idea at the time" . I had to read this three times to make sure.

We are in the early stages of a rebuild. Most guys that will be playing for us in three years aren’t even in the lineup yet.

Have we assembled a deep pool of strong prospects? I’d say we have. That’s why he gets an A.

If you want to give him an F because we missed the playoffs though, you do you.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

We are in the early stages of a rebuild. Most guys that will be playing for us in three years aren’t even in the lineup yet.

Have we assembled a deep pool of strong prospects? I’d say we have. That’s why he gets an A.

If you want to give him an F because we missed the playoffs though, you do you.

I assume he is talking about acquiring Dach which was a good idea if they were convinced he is not injury prone and probably a worthwhile gamble in any event.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Okay, let’s just leave it there.

Will revisit after the season or when he suffers another injury. Hopefully after the season.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I don’t agree with all Hughes moves, but considering the shit hole he was left with by MB I’ll say a solid B+ or A-. He’s acquired additional 1st round picks, used them as currency to get what he wants. Signed some team friendly contracts and hasn’t made a significant blunder yet.

He’s clearly a bright man with a plan. There isn’t a grade low enough for MB.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I assume he is talking about acquiring Dach which was a good idea if they were convinced he is not injury prone and probably a worthwhile gamble in any event.

It applies to Dach as much as all those other players. It is very early days.

All you can do is evaluate how the GM has done given his circumstances. The results will come later. Some moves won’t work out and some will.

But I think criticizing a move because the player got injured after the fact is nonsensical.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

It applies to Dach as much as all those other players. It is very early days.

All you can do is evaluate how the GM has done given his circumstances. The results will come later. Some moves won’t work out and some will.

But I think criticizing a move because the player got injured after the fact is nonsensical.

If the player had never been injured before then you can't criticize the move. If he has been injured more than once you have to decide why that is. Could be injury prone. For a big player like Dach it could be that he hasn't learned to protect himself because he has always been bigger than the players he is playing with. Or they are fluke injuries. Dach was worth the risk because it was too early in his career to even tell if he was injury prone.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

If the player had never been injured before then you can't criticize the move. If he has been injured more than once you have to decide why that is. Could be injury prone. For a big player like Dach it could be that he hasn't learned to protect himself because he has always been bigger than the players he is playing with. Or they are fluke injuries. Dach was worth the risk because it was too early in his career to even tell if he was injury prone.

Once again, if it had been his wrist? Sure. But this was a fluke injury and not predictable.

 

[Rapala]

A lot of comments on Hughes directly but the rebuild is being directed by a two headed monster.
The very first thing to look at is how drastically the structure and foundation of the organization has changed.
That starts with Gorton and is by far our most significant move to date.
Get that wrong and you have little to no hope of improving on the ice.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

A lot of comments on Hughes directly but the rebuild is being directed by a two headed monster.
The very first thing to look at is how drastically the structure and foundation of the organization has changed.
That starts with Gorton and is by far our most significant move to date.
Get that wrong and you have little to no hope of improving on the ice.

True since Gorton was the one who got Hughes on board.

 

[HuGort]

That should be good team. With three high picks in a row and one first overall. Plus Bergevin left core of this team, Suzuki, Caufield, Guhle, Etc... That's 6 high end players.