The state of the Habs Rebuild - The Next step

[OneSharpMarble]

Seriously?

You were, in fact, wondering if we are the best team in the NHL?

Well not so much the best team in the NHL but able to compete with the best. After being so dominant it's not hard to believe that the team had turned a corner.

 

[McGuires Corndog]

Well not so much the best team in the NHL but able to compete with the best. After being so dominant it's not hard to believe that the team had turned a corner.

All it took to look this bad was a bad night from Hutson and a normal night at the office from Montembeault.

The teams success goes through Hutson. If Hutson has one of his usual “masterclass” games, and Dobes is in net, last nights game does not end the way it did.

 

[Archijerej]

Well not so much the best team in the NHL but able to compete with the best.

What does this mean?

Are we among NHL's elite and on the cusp of competing for the cup? No, we aren't.

Are we capable of winning against the best teams on any given night? Yes, we are. Last night's loss does not change that.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

What does this mean?

Are we among NHL's elite and on the cusp of competing for the cup? No, we aren't.

Are we capable of winning against the best teams on any given night? Yes, we are. Last night's loss does not change that.

We're a team on the rise. I think that's been made abundantly clear.

We were already improving and started winning games after that horrible start. Then we got healthier and added Carrier. We were all dreading this portion of the schedule and all we did was go out and beat the last four cup winners in their own rinks. It's very clear that this team is improving as we go.

Are we going to finish at this pace? Absolutely not. We'll cool down and I still think it'll be really tough to make the playoffs. It hasn't gone as many of us predicted but we're right where most of us thought we'd be at the start of the year.

Next year we'll add more players. And more the year after that. We've stockpiled so much talent that we've got several great players who'll be competing for a spot in the coming years. Hughes has said he wants to create a team where you don't know which line is number one. We're well on our way to doing that. And I can't wait to see RB with Hutson. That's going to be awesome.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Losing both Armia and Evans would be a huge blow for next season..we would definitely regress if that happens. Ideally Gallagher and Dvorak are out so Beck and maybe another rookie can be slotted.

Despite being green, Demidov and Beck (and probably Kapanen) will be quite sufficient to replace whoever's going out. Demidov alone should mitigate Evans's loss, although it's no certainty that Jake will be gone.

It's gonna be somewhat of a give and take between adding and losing next summer. We'll lose some key players, but guy like Demidov might displace and send down the lineup a guy like Newhook, which will certainly help a 3rd line.

Key to getting anywhere next year is moving on from Matheson and finding a RD partner for Hutson. It's going to be tricky though. Need to find one before getting rid of Matheson, but also need to be very circumspect with contractual commitment as Reinbacher should eventually be able to take that spot. Although if the much coveted RD can be a prize, a miracle trade or UFA signing, it might just mean Carrier's the one we move on from once Reinbacher is ready.

 

[salbutera]

The Habs can be argued to be tight on surplus grade A assets.

When the Kings started their dynasty, they traded Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, Jack Johnson, Colton Teubert, and (two?) firsts for Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, and Dustin Penner.

Could the Habs pull that off?

The present day surplus of Mesar, Roy, Engstrom, Mailloux, etc are arguably grade B assets.

Simmonds was a 4th liner for LAK and throw in when trade happened w Philly

 

[nhlfan9191]

Simmonds was a 4th liner for LAK and throw in when trade happened w Philly

Wayne Simmonds had a lot of value back then.

 

[SlafySZN]

Demidov and Reinbacher are not being traded away so they're not surplus assets.

But Hage, Fowler, and all the 1sts, are more plausible.

Not plausible at all. Why would they do that?

 

[Sorinth]

We’re referring to competitive sports. Results matter most, everything else falls in line behind results.

There will be instances where a judgement has to be made about long vs short term outcomes and assets have to be managed. A good GM would seek a balance, a bad GM like Bergevin would constantly defer to an uncertain future and refuse to “mortgage” against it even with a superstar on his roster who desperately needs some additional firepower.

In case you needed confirmation: this is my opinion, you can disagree with it and it is perfectly fine.

The point I'm making is that those two positions are contradictions. If everything is supposed to fall in line behind results, then trying to acquire assets for Evans/Armia is one of those things that are supposed to be less important then results.

And it's worth noting that this whole discussion has stemmed from an anti one more tank comment, and the pro one more tank people will say the exact same thing about judgements around long vs short term outcomes, asset management, balance, not mortgaging the future, need for more firepower, etc... So it very much looks like you want to use results matter the most as a cudgel to beat down those arguments and to justify your early criticism of Hughes/MSL but then ignore it whenever it no longer lines up with what you want to do.

“Unsurprisingly”

Another display of discourtesy and rudeness. What’s the point of engaging in conversation if you’re seeking to bicker? Ignore my comments if they bother you so much.

I think we’re short of the assets (value) necessary to acquire multiple big name players. That’s the only thing I’m saying and you are desperately trying to disagree with it. Be my guest. If you actually think that the Habs can acquire a top6 C and a top-pairing D with only futures (and not too many futures so to disrupt our pipeline) and replaceable roster players I would love to see it.

I think we need more assets because those players are not easily acquired. Many more thought the exact same when they insisted the rebuild wasn’t over and the tank was on this year.

If you're such a victim put me on your ignore list because I can just as easily say what's the point in engaging in conversation when you make presumptions/assumptions that would've taken you 90s to validate if you didn't believe.

But ok, how does acquiring an at best late 1st and 3rd round pick give us the assets to acquire multiple big name players? Because as pointed out we already have that stuff and as you've said it isn't good enough.

 

[ReHabs]

Not plausible at all. Why would they do that?

Not plausible at all? So which prospects and futures are plausible to trade?

It goes to prove my point (incuriously called a "schtick") that it does not seem we have sufficient assets we can readily or plausibly, trade away if we want to make an immediate roster upgrade. Say they want to acquire (as an example) JT Miller or Elias Pettersson or MacKenzie Weegar or Rasmus Andersson -- what could the Habs plausibly give up without wrecking the roster?

Hage, Reinbacher, and Demidov are must-keeps imo and will help sustain the pipeline of ELC high-end talent to the Habs in the years to come. Fowler is too highly regarded to be thrown aside. Other prospects we have: Roy, Mailloux, Mešar, etc. are simply not sexy enough as trade . @DAChampion is completely correct in their perspective.

 

[expy]

Still need a real #1 starter goalie. Dobes can be the backup.

 

[SlafySZN]

Not plausible at all? So which prospects and futures are plausible to trade?

It goes to prove my point (incuriously called a "schtick") that it does not seem we have sufficient assets we can readily or plausibly, trade away if we want to make an immediate roster upgrade. Say they want to acquire (as an example) JT Miller or Elias Pettersson or MacKenzie Weegar or Rasmus Andersson -- what could the Habs plausibly give up without wrecking the roster?

Hage, Reinbacher, and Demidov are must-keeps imo and will help sustain the pipeline of ELC high-end talent to the Habs in the years to come. Fowler is too highly regarded to be thrown aside. Other prospects we have: Roy, Mailloux, Mešar, etc. are simply not sexy enough as trade . @DAChampion is completely correct in their perspective.

Not plausible in the fact that they’re not trading for guys like Miller or Andersson anyway or any bigger roster upgrade for the short term. They’re rebuilding.

 

[Miller Time]

Top 5 U25 group
Top 5 prospect group
Top 1-2 draft capital over next two drafts


To suggest we have anything short of an excellent collection of "tradeable" assets is ridiculous.

The only question is how well they leverage this impressive war chest to move the roster into contender tier & if their approach opens up a long or short contention window.

Asset management effectiveness through the first 3 years of this management group bodes very well for us doing both. Patience isn't for everyone, but fortunately KH & co. appear to have both patience and opportunistic aggression.

Future is bright

 

[ReHabs]

The point I'm making is that those two positions are contradictions. If everything is supposed to fall in line behind results, then trying to acquire assets for Evans/Armia is one of those things that are supposed to be less important then results.

If you've can't grasp what a compromise is, or how competitive teams often have to make these compromises because of the contradictions, I don't know what to tell you. I think you're just arguing to argue because, for instance, I've said in this very thread if the Habs are in the playoff picture they shouldn't sell Evans or Armia. Be honest and the conversation will flow better.

And it's worth noting that this whole discussion has stemmed from an anti one more tank comment, and the pro one more tank people will say the exact same thing about judgements around long vs short term outcomes, asset management, balance, not mortgaging the future, need for more firepower, etc... So it very much looks like you want to use results matter the most as a cudgel to beat down those arguments and to justify your early criticism of Hughes/MSL but then ignore it whenever it no longer lines up with what you want to do.

It's perfectly fine and encouraging to see discussions about the merits and faults of "one more tank" etc. It's a discussion board. I'm anti-tank by nature, some are pro-tank by nature. It's a typical dynamic for sports talk.

I criticised MSL for apparently not having the team ready -- the Habs started way worse than they were last year, and so it was 100% valid to criticise the performances and results. Any honest fan would admit the Habs underperformed to expectations. I didn't call for MSL to be fired, I said he's doing a bad job. If the cudgel to which you refer is the criticising of bad performances when they're bad, and the praising of them when they're good, you don't know the figurative or literal meaning of the word cudgel.

I didn't have too much to criticise Hughes for other than him not making a move to shake the team awake -- and in fact it was his jettisoning of the bust Barron that many refer to now as the milestone and inflection point. My interpretation seemed valid enough to me. I also wanted him to acquire Laine and Laine's the other revelation who's changed our game. I didn't call for Dach to be waived or traded, or even Newhook, or whatever. I said they should play better -- they should play better. I wanted Primeau sent off, he got waived. So I'm not sure what you think I'm walking back. I feel like I've been contributing pretty sober and clear-eyed takes so far this season so your strange comment doesn't make sense to me.

Want to talk about "results matter"? Happily. You know I'm always game.

If you're such a victim put me on your ignore list because I can just as easily say what's the point in engaging in conversation when you make presumptions/assumptions that would've taken you 90s to validate if you didn't believe.

I think you have interesting comments and won't ignore your posts. I learn things from many commentators here. I don't understand why so many of you are so hostile to my comments and my person since I rarely, if ever, make personal shots or comments.

But ok, how does acquiring an at best late 1st and 3rd round pick give us the assets to acquire multiple big name players? Because as pointed out we already have that stuff and as you've said it isn't good enough.

I think we lack the quantity to spare and would like to have a surplus of tradable assets since I don't want to trade Hage, Fowler, Demidov, or Reinbacher. I think we are optimal if we upgrade over Dach-at-2C and still retain Dach if possible and also to upgrade the top-pairing while still retaining Matheson. How do you get those pieces without trading the above mentioned prospects? Let's see.

Not plausible in the fact that they’re not trading for guys like Miller or Andersson anyway or any bigger roster upgrade for the short term. They’re rebuilding.

You don't figure "rebuilding" teams ever make trades to upgrade their NHL roster?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Still need a real #1 starter goalie. Dobes can be the backup.

Fowler's one of the best goaltending prospects in the world. And honestly, Dobbes might wind up being the starter. Montie could be the guy...

Lots of time to figure this out.

 

[Sorinth]

If you've can't grasp what a compromise is, or how competitive teams often have to make these compromises because of the contradictions, I don't know what to tell you. I think you're just arguing to argue because, for instance, I've said in this very thread if the Habs are in the playoff picture they shouldn't sell Evans or Armia. Be honest and the conversation will flow better.

It's perfectly fine and encouraging to see discussions about the merits and faults of "one more tank" etc. It's a discussion board. I'm anti-tank by nature, some are pro-tank by nature. It's a typical dynamic for sports talk.

I criticised MSL for apparently not having the team ready -- the Habs started way worse than they were last year, and so it was 100% valid to criticise the performances and results. Any honest fan would admit the Habs underperformed to expectations. I didn't call for MSL to be fired, I said he's doing a bad job. If the cudgel to which you refer is the criticising of bad performances when they're bad, and the praising of them when they're good, you don't know the figurative or literal meaning of the word cudgel.

I didn't have too much to criticise Hughes for other than him not making a move to shake the team awake -- and in fact it was his jettisoning of the bust Barron that many refer to now as the milestone and inflection point. My interpretation seemed valid enough to me. I also wanted him to acquire Laine and Laine's the other revelation who's changed our game. I didn't call for Dach to be waived or traded, or even Newhook, or whatever. I said they should play better -- they should play better. I wanted Primeau sent off, he got waived. So I'm not sure what you think I'm walking back. I feel like I've been contributing pretty sober and clear-eyed takes so far this season so your strange comment doesn't make sense to me.

Want to talk about "results matter"? Happily. You know I'm always game.


I think you have interesting comments and won't ignore your posts. I learn things from many commentators here. I don't understand why so many of you are so hostile to my comments and my person since I rarely, if ever, make personal shots or comments.

I think you're the one struggling to grasp what a compromise is, giving up something you value for something you value either more or equally is a compromise. So if you are sacrificing results for assets, it's because you value those assets more then you value the results you are giving up, and if you do that then results aren't the most important thing, they were in this particular case worth less then the assets.

If you can't admit that results aren't the most important thing while simultaneously suggesting we sacrifice results for "futures" then it's you who isn't being honest. I'm not sure I actually believe the whole "I don't know why everyone is mean to me because I'm level headed and clear-eyed" but the answer is hypocrisy and condescension. It doesn't bother me in the slightest and I don't take it personally, and frankly don't care to continue that line of discussion.

I think we lack the quantity to spare and would like to have a surplus of tradable assets since I don't want to trade Hage, Fowler, Demidov, or Reinbacher. I think we are optimal if we upgrade over Dach-at-2C and still retain Dach if possible and also to upgrade the top-pairing while still retaining Matheson. How do you get those pieces without trading the above mentioned prospects? Let's see.


You don't figure "rebuilding" teams ever make trades to upgrade their NHL roster?

Quantity for quality is often very hard trade to make when the dropoff in quality is big. And the dropoff from top pairing D to late 1st round pick is huge. Getting a late 1st and 3rd from trading Evans/Armia isn't going to allow us make a package for the things you say we need unless we get extreme amounts of luck.

 

[ReHabs]

If you can't admit that results aren't the most important thing while simultaneously suggesting we sacrifice results for "futures" then it's you who isn't being honest.

Selling Armia and Evans when outside of the playoff picture is not "sacrificing results". That's your framing imposed on the argument, a framing which I find faulty.

The sacrifice (compromise) is weakening the roster after the TDL when they could, instead, remain more competitive and play higher quality hockey. There are upsides to being more competitive (and yet remain out of the playoff picture) and there are upsides to weakening the roster and cashing in on the UFAs. Both are valid approaches, hence the compromise.

Quantity for quality is often very hard trade to make when the dropoff in quality is big. And the dropoff from top pairing D to late 1st round pick is huge. Getting a late 1st and 3rd from trading Evans/Armia isn't going to allow us make a package for the things you say we need unless we get extreme amounts of luck.

The late 1st and 3rd (arbitrary assets you pulled out of the ether) are simply additional assets to help our aggregate asset base.

Trades are hard to make for sure but pending RFAs and UFAs and wantaway players usually do go for a "package" that looks like [NHL roster player] + [prospect] + [draft pick]. I don't need to dwell on this, you know perfectly well what I mean by this. If we had more interesting prospects like Hage, we could afford to trade some of them. As it stands I don't think we should or could trade the likes of Fowler, Hage, Reinbacher, or Demidov. The prospects we have after these four are significant drop-offs. This is my opinion. No cognitive dissonance here now, I hope it is clear.

 

[CHfan1]

Still need a real #1 starter goalie. Dobes can be the backup.

I don’t watch the AHL, so I’ve only seen Dobes play in these 4 games (obviously he’s played well but I doubt teams have a good scouting report on him yet) . Why do you think he can’t be a #1 starter in the NHL?

And if he can’t be why can’t Fowler be that #1 starter for Montreal in the future.