The state of the Habs Rebuild - The Next step

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I got it wrong (thought Sergy was 2017 and Caufield 14th OA, but you were cunning in your delinations!) but I don't think you even need to argue that the rebuild started with HuGo's hiring -- that much is plainly obvious. It shouldn't even be up for debate.

A more interesting debate is if Caufield, Suzuki, and Guhle (+) counts as a good, normal, or bad initial position of a rebuild's asset bank.

It's highly insufficient and the people banking on them to uplift the team in the intervening years of the rebuild are living in lala land. 1/3 of a top6F and 1/4 of a top4D won't get you far. Even though we have some vets to fill those positions in the meantime, they are vets with a lot of shortcomings.

 

[Benstheman]

Reinbacher, Laine and Demidov coming in next season.

Fowler, Beck, Hage, 2025 1st pick and McKenna coming in the season after.

Then time to contend.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Dumping is not rebuilding since you're stripping away. You rebuild by adding, not stripping.

Potato potatoe

Tanking is an obligatory first step to rebuilding. One can't be dissociated from the other. When you dump, you tank, you start the rebuild.

The more related term is roster turnover. Roster turnover ---> tanking ---> rebuilding.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Yup. Preaching to the choir. Only one voice insists otherwise and I don’t think it should be allowed to distract an otherwise interesting discussion.

I like January 2022 because it is before the TDL and the draft. So far Hughes has helmed three trade deadlines and three off-seasons.

The rebuild is definitely not over but I don’t see any evidence they planned to tank this year. Do you think planned tanking is over?

If banking on the youngest D in the league isn't a sign for you... Don't drink the kool-aid.

 

[ReHabs]

If banking on the youngest D in the league isn't a sign for you... Don't drink the kool-aid.

Acquiring Laine is an anti-tank move even if it was a gamble.

I don't think they planned a tank, I think they thought Barron & Friends would step-up.

 

[rik schau]

What's the definition of a rebuild, if that's what people are calling this, in this case? trying to tank and collect draft picks?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Acquiring Laine is an anti-tank move even if it was a gamble.

I don't think they planned a tank, I think they thought Barron & Friends would step-up.

Really, no. It was an in-between move and that move can't be qualified yet because its outcome is still uncertain.

For one Laine is of the same age group as Suzuki and Caufield, two, he missed extensive time not playing and would need time to get back to form, three we got him for a song and a dance. Even better, we got paid a second rounder to take him. That was a move where our cap space was weaponized. Using cap space to acquire picks, just like with Monahan. The latter paid off two first round picks. The former might do close to the same 15 months from now. The problem here imo, is that you make it a foregone conclusion that Laine will still be with us after trade deadline 2026. I'm not so sure.

Lastly, our biggest hole is on D and Hughes did nothing to fix that. Laine was an opportunity to add to our asset base, one way or another, by having Laine joining the team long-term or selling him off next year.

In retrospect, doing nothing to make our biggest hole better, our D, even furthermore, banking on mostly players 23 or under, is not a move you make to be dans ze mix.

 

[417]

Potato potatoe

Tanking is an obligatory first step to rebuilding. One can't be dissociated from the other. When you dump, you tank, you start the rebuild.

The more related term is roster turnover. Roster turnover ---> tanking ---> rebuilding.

Of course not...but it's important to make a distinction, IMO.

Tanking does not imply the part where you're trying to get rid of assets that your predecessor left you handcuffed with.

The Habs didn't need to move anyone to tank, they were already the worst team in the league when they took over lol

Either way, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, I think we're both on the same page. I just think it's important to couch this discussion about the Habs rebuild that it's very much in its infancy.

 

[417]

Acquiring Laine is an anti-tank move even if it was a gamble.

Yet Laine played on a team that finished with even less points than the Habs.

Laine was an opportunity, a move designed to help the current team be more competitive. But no one thought this was a ceiling raising move, more of a floor raising move.

I don't think they planned a tank, I think they thought Barron & Friends would step-up.

No one really plans a tank, that's just fan fabricated nonsense.

There are people's careers at stake here. Very few times throughout the history of the league has a team entered an offseason with the goal of being as bad as possible ahead of the next season.

 

[ReHabs]

No one really plans a tank, that's just fan fabricated nonsense.

Selling players off is a tank move.

I don’t think it’s productive to squabble over semantics. I prefer to use commonly held definitions to engage in discussions.

 

[417]

Selling players off is a tank move.

I don’t think it’s productive to squabble over semantics. I prefer to use commonly held definitions to engage in discussions.

Teams don't typically do this BEFORE a season begins, it's rather a reaction to being a bad team, which it then just becomes logical to trade players, especially those who aren't signed beyond that a season.

This is not a squabble over semantics.

The Habs have several UFAs next year, they're all going to be traded...a planned tank would be the Habs trading even Suzuki or Caufield or Guhle.

Things like that rarely happen.

 

[expy]

Acquiring Laine is an anti-tank move even if it was a gamble.

Giving Mtb a 3 year contract was a sign of at least tanking until that contract ends (as it ends with Gallagher and the rest of Bergevin's mess-ups).

 

[Trabdy2]

Seems we're well on our way to a bottom 5 finish. Last in league at xGF% 5 on 5 right now.

Our team looks really confused and disorganized. We could change our coach to try to stay a bit more in the mix, or stay the course for a pick like Martone or Misa.

I'm a bit concerned that a losing culture is starting to permeate. We seemed way more competitive late last year and there weren't really that many changes in the offseason since then.

 

[Tyson]

Seems we're well on our way to a bottom 5 finish. Last in league at xGF% 5 on 5 right now.

Our team looks really confused and disorganized. We could change our coach to try to stay a bit more in the mix, or stay the course for a pick like Martone or Misa.

I'm a bit concerned that a losing culture is starting to permeate. We seemed way more competitive late last year and there weren't really that many changes in the offseason since then.

Stay the course...this roster is horrendous and is 3 more years away (if everything works right)

 

[LaP]

Acquiring Laine is an anti-tank move even if it was a gamble.

I don't think they planned a tank, I think they thought Barron & Friends would step-up.

Acquiring Laine is not a winning move either or else the cost would not have been so low. It was a hail mary pass. It did not cost anything and we got value for Harris.

 

[ReHabs]

Really, no. It was an in-between move and that move can't be qualified yet because its outcome is still uncertain.

For one Laine is of the same age group as Suzuki and Caufield, two, he missed extensive time not playing and would need time to get back to form, three we got him for a song and a dance. Even better, we got paid a second rounder to take him. That was a move where our cap space was weaponized. Using cap space to acquire picks, just like with Monahan. The latter paid off two first round picks. The former might do close to the same 15 months from now. The problem here imo, is that you make it a foregone conclusion that Laine will still be with us after trade deadline 2026. I'm not so sure.

It was a move that, as planned, didn't detract from the team's on-ice performance. I would count anything that goes in the other direction (ie selling talents) as tank moves, so this was not that.

Lastly, our biggest hole is on D and Hughes did nothing to fix that. Laine was an opportunity to add to our asset base, one way or another, by having Laine joining the team long-term or selling him off next year.

In retrospect, doing nothing to make our biggest hole better, our D, even furthermore, banking on mostly players 23 or under, is not a move you make to be dans ze mix.

A comment on this: they had a log-jam of young defenders they felt good about. I think they took a risk to start the season with them and hope it goes well. Selling one or two early and buying a more steady/veteran dman would've been a win-now move. Not sure they felt like it was worth the downside risk (ie. Barron is cut loose and puts it together elsewhere).

Teams don't typically do this BEFORE a season begins, it's rather a reaction to being a bad team, which it then just becomes logical to trade players, especially those who aren't signed beyond that a season.

This is not a squabble over semantics.

The Habs have several UFAs next year, they're all going to be traded...a planned tank would be the Habs trading even Suzuki or Caufield or Guhle.

Things like that rarely happen.

Some teams have firesales in the off-season. Chicago did... because they knew they would continue to be a bad team after 2022. They didn't need to wait for the season to begin. The Habs didn't sell player this past summer, and instead took a swing at a high-upside player.

Point being: I don't suspect they thought they'd be worse this season than the previous one.

Giving Mtb a 3 year contract was a sign of at least tanking until that contract ends (as it ends with Gallagher and the rest of Bergevin's mess-ups).

Retaining a player who over-performed his analytics isn't a tank move in my opinion.

Acquiring Laine is not a winning move either or else the cost would not have been so low. It was a hail mary pass. It did not cost anything and we got value for Harris.

Yup, it was not a 'buy' (assets for present-day help) but rather a sort of cap-leveraged swing like Monahan was.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

It was a move that, as planned, didn't detract from the team's on-ice performance. I would count anything that goes in the other direction (ie selling talents) as tank moves, so this was not that.

Moving goalposts. I never called it a tanking move. YOU called it an anti-tanking move and my arguments were all torwards establishing that it wasn't an anti-tanking move. I even stated it's in-between.

 

[417]

Some teams have firesales in the off-season. Chicago did... because they knew they would continue to be a bad team after 2022. They didn't need to wait for the season to begin. The Habs didn't sell player this past summer, and instead took a swing at a high-upside player.

Point being: I don't suspect they thought they'd be worse this season than the previous one.

I think it's normal they wanted to be better than the previous year and to be honest, that's still not out of the question. I think people are getting way too caught up in early returns. The progress will be measured when an entire season has gone by and can be compared to the previous one.

But I don't think management or anyone in the organization had any illusions that they'd be a playoff team. The roster barely changed and their defense is the most inexperienced in the NHL.

I think people took that "in the mix" comment too literally.

Let's not forget they've been marketing that whole "Rebuild" show all year, I think they know exactly where they are.

 

[ReHabs]

I just think it's important to couch this discussion about the Habs rebuild that it's very much in its infancy.

THIS... is probably the consensus with which we should work going forward. I wouldn't call it infancy, maybe toddlerhood, but it's been c. 3 years (3 TDLs, 3 drafts, and 3 off-seasons) and the roster had a lot of gaps and the hockey ops office had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Now how about this:

It's 100% fair to believe the 'rebuild' should go on for longer but at some point you cannot hold both of the following positions without at criticising the execution of at least one:

1) the Dach and Newhook buys were worthwhile efforts
2) the rebuild was always going to take 5 or more years

I think our cupboard would've looked much better if we retained the 13OA 2022, 31OA 2023, and 37OA 2023. Dach might've been a worthwhile one-off strike at gold but Newhook makes the pattern look like they were trying for speed up the rebuild.

Moving goalposts. I never called it a tanking move. YOU called it an anti-tanking move and my arguments were all torwards establishing that it wasn't an anti-tanking move. I even stated it's in-between.

Different paradigms. You see a spectrum, I proposed a binary one because we're firmly still 'rebuilding' but upon reflection you're right that it could be an in-between move.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I'm a bit concerned that a losing culture is starting to permeate. We seemed way more competitive late last year and there weren't really that many changes in the offseason since then.

A lemon can only be squeezed for so much.

Instead of realizing MSL had them playing at their max and Monahan was the difference between 65 and 75 points, people overvalue the players we have and expect too much.

Despite having CC, Suz, Slaf, Dach, Guhle ans Hutson, we still have a roster with many major holes.

 

[ReHabs]

But I don't think management or anyone in the organization had any illusions that they'd be a playoff team. The roster barely changed and their defense is the most inexperienced in the NHL.

I think people took that "in the mix" comment too literally.

As WeThreeKings said, I think they felt they'd end up around 10th OA at the draft, rather than 5th OA. That's fair enough to mean 'In The Mix' for me. I agree, there was no illusions of them being a playoff lock.

 

[HabsCode]

As WeThreeKings said, I think they felt they'd end up around 10th OA at the draft, rather than 5th OA. That's fair enough to mean 'In The Mix' for me. I agree, there was no illusions of them being a playoff lock.

Hughes expressed wanting to be in the mix until April. Whatever that mix means (we can assume he was talking about playoffs), it surely wasn't in the mix for 10th overall pick.

It might have been a PR move motivated by Molson urge to see the team become somewhat competitive again.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

THIS... is probably the consensus with which we should work going forward. I wouldn't call it infancy, maybe toddlerhood, but it's been c. 3 years (3 TDLs, 3 drafts, and 3 off-seasons) and the roster had a lot of gaps and the hockey ops office had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Now how about this:

It's 100% fair to believe the 'rebuild' should go on for longer but at some point you cannot hold both of the following positions without at criticising the execution of at least one:

1) the Dach and Newhook buys were worthwhile efforts
2) the rebuild was always going to take 5 or more years

I think our cupboard would've looked much better if we retained the 13OA 2022, 31OA 2023, and 37OA 2023. Dach might've been a worthwhile one-off strike at gold but Newhook makes the pattern look like they were trying for speed up the rebuild.


Different paradigms. You see a spectrum, I proposed a binary one because we're firmly still 'rebuilding'.

Man, just concede it's not an anti-tanking move instead of not so subtely trying to box the debate so you can avoid admitting the distinction I affored.

If Laine garners us several picks in the end, it will certainly not have been the kind of move you make when you want to compete.

Laine had serious questions around his health and capacity to come back to his previous level, all while carrying a big paytag. He got traded for peanuts. He was a cap dump, through and through.

 

[ReHabs]

Hughes expressed wanting to be in the mix until April. Whatever that mix means (we can assume he was talking about playoffs), it surely wasn't in the mix for 10th overall pick.

It might have been a PR move motivated by Molson urge to see the team become somewhat competitive again.

PR or not, I think it's perfectly reasonable because I also wanted the Habs to play meaningful games past the Trade Deadline. To me, not being functionally eliminated from the playoffs before the New Year and not mathematically eliminated until April are important milestones.

Man, just concede it's not an anti-tanking move instead of not so subtely trying to box the debate so you can avoid admitting the distinction I affored.

I edited my comment after posting to specifically concede the point. Calma, calma.

You didn't respond to my lengthy reply a few days ago to not so subtly avoid your own concession. We notice.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Hughes expressed wanting to be in the mix until April. Whatever that mix means (we can assume he was talking about playoffs), it surely wasn't in the mix for 10th overall pick.

It might have been a PR move motivated by Molson urge to see the team become somewhat competitive again.

Teams that are in the mix can pick around 10. Those 8th spots are very rarely hunted by only 2 teams.