Post-Game Talk: TRADE DEADLINE 2024

[Lafleurs Guy]

Suzuki started on the 4th line, worked his way up.

It didn't take long. He got the opprtunity to move up. That wasn't the case for previous prospects. And again, we really didn't have an alternative.

Agree to disagree on Galchenyuk and LeBlanc. I wouldn't call them busts (maybe LeBlanc), but I wouldn't call them good picks either. I agree that their development wasn't perfect, but they were both also lacking important qualities themselves, and as a result ended up being poor picks. And Galchenyuk will keep falling down that scoring list, so enjoy that line while you can (in fact, I think he's already 5th now, and will be by passed some more unless he makes it back to the NHL). 2012 was a good year for defensemen.

Galchenyuk was badly misused and wasn't given the opportunity he should've. That's a fact. One that can easily be backed up by numbers. For a long time he was the highest scoring pick from the draft. There's just no way to say it was a bad pick. If you want to discuss him further, I'm happy to chat with you in the former player thread. But there is just no way to justify his usage.

Leblanc, I'd encourage you to read his essay on why he quit hockey. It mirrors the stories of Terry Ryan and a whole slew of others who played in the Habs system over the years. Apart from the Andre Savard/Gainey generation, it's been a total wasteland.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

If I were to wager a guess, I don't think Mr. Glasses on Forehead will be high on him. But fair enough. I haven't been able to follow lists too much lately.



I'm kind of tired of the "Oh well, let's be positive and it MIGHT happen" approach. That's been our approach for 30 years. People were touting everyone from KK to Scherbak to Louis Louis Louis. Competent organizations circumvent the maybes and ensure success.



I don't think it's a fact at all. I think it's a big question mark. Again, people thought we had excellent talent pools forever and nothing panned out.


They could be doing better. As I said, they look like they're headed for Detroit, not Pittsburgh, Colorado, Tampa, etc.



Just based on ownership's general behavior and their refusal to actually use the word rebuild, I'm not as optimistic as you on this. I'm not sure how much they're willing to sacrifice in the short term for long term gain.

During the Bergevin years, I think casual fans got their dopamine hits enough that the uproar was never too loud, even though the hardcores hated him. He only got canned when things went to absolute Hell. Look at this board now. Even here you have super impatient people that want this to be the last year of the tank or didn't want to tank at all.

You bring good points. I don't agree with everything and I agree on many things. Even when I read a post I disagree, if the documentation is accurate and if the ideas are presented with logic and not just emotions, I read it and enjoy the opposite view. This is democraty. I could say the same about the poster you respond, he's very stubborn and put all the blame on the previous management. I think Timmins destroyed that team more than anybody else. When he missed Getzlaf, Carter, Giroux, Kreider, Aho and Tkachuk I knew the Habs would suffer a long long time after that. And no Kopitar, Henrique, Bergeron. But heh, we had Ben Maxwell, Corey Urquart, Alex Avtsin, David Fisher, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Sherbak and McCarron.

I think that time is over, Timmins away and his bunch of incompetents (Shurla) make me beleive the sun is coming back. Of course developpment had improved but the first spark is drafting.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

You bring good points. I don't agree with everything and I agree on many things. Even when I read a post I disagree, if the documentation is accurate and if the ideas are presented with logic and not just emotions, I read it and enjoy the opposite view. This is democraty. I could say the same about the poster you respond, he's very stubborn and put all the blame on the previous management. I think Timmins destroyed that team more than anybody else. When he missed Getzlaf, Carter, Giroux, Kreider, Aho and Tkachuk I knew the Habs would suffer a long long time after that. And no Kopitar, Henrique, Bergeron. But heh, we had Ben Maxwell, Corey Urquart, Alex Avtsin, David Fisher, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Sherbak and McCarron.

I think that time is over, Timmins away and his bunch of incompetents (Shurla) make me beleive the sun is coming back. Of course developpment had improved but the first spark is drafting.

Thanks, brother. I'm all for a healthy debate. I guess the thing is that, in my view, we had horrible management before, and now I think we have "ok" management. Ideally, I'd want the best management that doesn't make a bunch of unforced errors or maintain some of the terrible failed philosophies of the past (ie: The culture thing, which replaces the character thing, which replaces the good in the room thing, which is an excuse for not having talent).

too add to Lafleur's Guy argument:

Literally no one expected Pacioretty to be more than a 3rd liner. No one even described him as a goal scorer. He was seen as a playmaker. No one would have predicted he'd be one of the top scoring left wingers in the game during his time with the habs.

patience.

The fact that Patches is our high water mark for star players is part of the problem. Patches is not a star player. He never hit 40 goals or 70(!) points.

But it’s going well so far. It’s okay, you can say so. Like we said, it’s early but it looks good now.

Eh, I'm not convinced.

You take what the draft gives you. He went right where he was expected.

You then live with the results of those decisions. picking someone where they're projected doesn't absolve you of failing.

And again, the question wasn’t whether he had huge upside or not, it’s about development. If you felt he didn’t have a high ceiling that’s fine it doesn’t mean he wasn’t a safe pick or went where he was supposed to. And most importantly- he STILL didn’t make the NHL because our development was worst in the league.

Fluke injuries aren’t predictable. See my Crosby example (of course it would never happen) that underlies the point here. It’s a good trade regardless.\

Every trade needs to be evaluated individually. The Crosby example does not apply.

Okay

At best these three points are nitpicky stuff. I disagree on Newhook and Allen. Anderson, in retrospect they’d have taken whatever they could. But this is not the kind of mistake that’s concerning.

It's the death by 1000 cuts that I think only makes this management good and not great, which is better than terrible, obviously. but still not where I want it to be.

I’m looking at results that we can see and measure. The players we’ve drafted since 2019 have been developing really nicely. That’s based on what we know now.

What we don’t/can’t know is how good they’ll be as NHL players.

We can project forward based on toolsets. It's not like players exist in cocoons. They usually end up as better versions of what they currently are.

I have zero problems losing. If I did, I wouldn’t be for rebuilding.

They needed to be losing more.

But when you have a young team like this it makes sense to have a couple of vets to help with development and sheltering. Having a Savard in the lineup takes the heat off of younger players and improves development. It’s not going to hurt your rebuild and he remains a tradeable asset as well.

It hurts us if he helps us bank unnecessary points.

No matter what he should have more goals than he does.

Not if he's laboring with his shot, which is his primary weapon.

Meh… this is not worth listing.

Death by a thousand cuts.

Don’t make me hurt you.

Don't quote the man if you want to avoid comparisons

How is “showcasing” Allen going to help when he was consistently bad? Better off just hiding how bad he’s been.

It's not really to showcase him, though playing someone can get them out of their funk. It's to lose more games. And to develop Primeau, because Monty's a weird, fundamentally unsound goalie that's doing better than he should.

Again, by all means lose. Nobody disagrees with this. Btw, we’re doing a great job of losing again this year.

Not good enough, in my opinion.

You’re missing the point again. NONE of those guys were obvious superstars either. You have to wait for it to emerge.

They had the tools and you could project what they could be. I don't see that in our talent pool (which I listed).

Moreover, I already gave you reasons why we may have a date in our lineup already.

You can only take what the draft gives you. In 2022 it’s looking like we got the best player in the draft - maybe the two best from that draft. We have three young players/prospects who were winning titles or setting records. I’m not sure how you can discount that and say - ‘well I don’t see any stars’… you have to have some patience man.

I see potential stars. I don't see dominant gamebreakers.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You bring good points. I don't agree with everything and I agree on many things. Even when I read a post I disagree, if the documentation is accurate and if the ideas are presented with logic and not just emotions, I read it and enjoy the opposite view. This is democraty. I could say the same about the poster you respond, he's very stubborn and put all the blame on the previous management.

Sorry bud, stubborn is clinging to a position that is unsupported. I back up everything I've written. Our previous management was horrific and that's general accepted around the league. Want me to agree with you? Make a better argument.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Eh, I'm not convinced.

Not convince they're stars? Cool. Neither am I.

But that's different than saying they're developing well. CC has the all time goal record and scored 48 in his first 82 here with the new regime. Roy won a scoring title and probably would've won a second if healthy. Hutson has also set an NCAA scoring record.

There's really not much more you can ask for it terms of how they're developing.

You then live with the results of those decisions. picking someone where they're projected doesn't absolve you of failing.

Totally agree. But the question is... who's to blame? And I'd say that very clearly falls on development. And we have several examples of this. If it was a one time thing, maybe I'd agree with you but it's not. It was a consistent pattern of behaviour that repeated itself here.

Every trade needs to be evaluated individually. The Crosby example does not apply.

The Crosby example is done to highlight that you can make the right trade and get the wrong result. Trading for Crosby would be a great trade whether he was hit by a bus or not.

It's the death by 1000 cuts that I think only makes this management good and not great, which is better than terrible, obviously. but still not where I want it to be.

Death by a thousand cuts? Uh... no. You've cited minor things that you can blame mgmt for. Not trading away a player is way far down on the list of bad mgmt.

We can project forward based on toolsets. It's not like players exist in cocoons. They usually end up as better versions of what they currently are.

Right. And I gave you three examples of guys who won scoring titles or broke records. Not sure what more you want from your prospects.

They needed to be losing more.

Too many good players already in the lineup. We're not going to lose more than we are. And 1st, 5th, 7th (or whatever we are this year) is right in line with where most rebuilds wind up.

It hurts us if he helps us bank unnecessary points.

See above.

Not if he's laboring with his shot, which is his primary weapon.

If his shoulder was a big deal I wouldn't expect his underlying numbers to be as good as they are. And he's going into the corners hitting guys... His shoulder can't be that bad.

Death by a thousand cuts.

Nah.

Don't quote the man if you want to avoid comparisons

I'll quote him - but not in a complimentary way. If I quote him in that fashion, then you can call me Bergie. Btw, that's not going to happen.

It's not really to showcase him, though playing someone can get them out of their funk. It's to lose more games. And to develop Primeau, because Monty's a weird, fundamentally unsound goalie that's doing better than he should.

Again, these are minor things.

Not good enough, in my opinion.

That's the thing with rebuilds, they end when your team improves. Our team is already better than those other bottom feeding clubs. We could trade away Suzuki and CC... and yeah, we'd lose more games. But it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

They had the tools and you could project what they could be. I don't see that in our talent pool (which I listed).

Two records and a scoring title. How can you not see it?

I see potential stars. I don't see dominant gamebreakers.

See above.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Sorry bud, stubborn is clinging to a position that is unsupported. I back up everything I've written. Our previous management was horrific and that's general accepted around the league. Want me to agree with you? Make a better argument.

We bring you examples of players who did well under that previous regime. We can count at least 10 of them and it doesn't include players who came from other teams or drafted previously.

We have arguments of players under more toxic teams who did well.

There has been a 10 years in a row of bad drafting prospects. You can blame all you want the developpment but McCarron, Tinordi and Sherbak were bad picks to start with. Galchenyuk was a bad pick too and Leblanc too.

I'm not a pro scout and I wanted Carter or Getzlaf and I would have been be ok with Parizé, Phaneuf and Perry at that time. Kostitsyn was picked, that was ignoring top skill 6 foot and + from NA playing center. Kost and his bro and Grabovsky almost destroyed the entire team with their partying and association with mob downtown Mtl. Even Price was going to sink with them. He was saved just in time and Bergevin best move ever was to bring Stephane Waite. I had infos at the time of what was going on. A pro scout picking bums like the Kost bro must be stupid when Carter and Getzlaf are first class hockey pros and available. And then Giroux was available and TT picked Fisher. The list can go on and on.

There is no excuse to be bad at this point. Everybody on the working market would tell you such incompetence would lead an employee to be fired. I stopped trying to know who Habs would pick after that, I was so upset and I knew TT was stubborn picking 2-way 200 feet players who in reality were in the mold of Chipchura. The narrative or the excuse to pick a sh*t load of mud. The only thing he was good was picking D and not all the time. He did picked good players at the very end, because there was 200 microphones and cameras pointed on him and the management, they had no choice of not missing anything. But the team was destroyed and a good clean-up finally came. First Bergevin, secondly TT. In the years of TT, Slaf would never be picked, same for Rein. They are too skilled and too tall.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

You bring good points. I don't agree with everything and I agree on many things. Even when I read a post I disagree, if the documentation is accurate and if the ideas are presented with logic and not just emotions, I read it and enjoy the opposite view. This is democraty. I could say the same about the poster you respond, he's very stubborn and put all the blame on the previous management. I think Timmins destroyed that team more than anybody else. When he missed Getzlaf, Carter, Giroux, Kreider, Aho and Tkachuk I knew the Habs would suffer a long long time after that. And no Kopitar, Henrique, Bergeron. But heh, we had Ben Maxwell, Corey Urquart, Alex Avtsin, David Fisher, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Sherbak and McCarron.

I think that time is over, Timmins away and his bunch of incompetents (Shurla) make me beleive the sun is coming back. Of course developpment had improved but the first spark is drafting.

The blame is on BargainBin. He allowed those picks to be made or chose those players himself. If they were Timmins and his scouts picks they should all have been fired.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

We bring you examples of players who did well under that previous regime. We can count at least 10 of them and it doesn't include players who came from other teams or drafted previously.

We have arguments of players under more toxic teams who did well.

There has been a 10 years in a row of bad drafting prospects. You can blame all you want the developpment but McCarron, Tinordi and Sherbak were bad picks to start with. Galchenyuk was a bad pick too and Leblanc too.

I'm sorry but no. You can't just throw out names without any backup and say they were the wrong pick.

Galchenyuk in particular is a very bad example for you to use. And I've demonstrably shown you this in the other thread. Leblanc went right where he was predicted. And he was deemed a safe pick. We have his testimony in the form or an essay as to how bad his development was. Moreover, it mirrors the stories of many others that we've seen over the years. This was not a one off.

And most importantly, we have the history of before and after MB. Before - we were able to generate NHL quality players even with low picks. And we landed a few superstars along the way. MB takes over and almost every single pick underpeforms or busts out. MB leaves and those late Timmins picks are panning out again.

This is verifiable, demonstrable evidence. It's not opinion, it's fact.

That doesn't mean we didn't make bad picks. Yep, we did. But even in the case of a bad pick you'd think we could've salvaged something out of it but we couldn't even do that. Guys just busted out altogether.

I'm not a pro scout and I wanted Carter or Getzlaf and I would have been be ok with Parizé, Phaneuf and Perry at that time. Kostitsyn was picked, that was ignoring top skill 6 foot and + from NA playing center. Kost and his bro and Grabovsky almost destroyed the entire team with their partying and association with mob downtown Mtl. Even Price was going to sink with them. He was saved just in time and Bergevin best move ever was to bring Stephane Waite. I had infos at the time of what was going on. A pro scout picking bums like the Kost bro must be stupid when Carter and Getzlaf are first class hockey pros and available. And then Giroux was available and TT picked Fisher. The list can go on and on.

Are you seriously trying to cite 'darkest day' here? Really?

Grabovsky btw, did not get along with the Kostystyns. It's a big reason why he was dealt. And again... Grabovsky was a GREAT pick. We got him in like the 100th round and he turned into a quality NHL player. Another example of what we were able to do before MB got here.

We used to churn out NHL players at a high rate. Not all were stars of course but they at least became NHLers: Price, Subban, Streit, Max, Halak, Grabovsky, McDonnaugh, Latendresse...

And yes, I'd agree that A Kostytsyn was a poor pick - relative to what was available. But we more than made up for it in the years up to 2008 and then... we drop like a stone. All of a sudden we couldn't produce players anymore.

Why is that? Why do we suddenly drop off a cliff?

There is no excuse to be bad at this point. Everybody on the working market would tell you such incompetence would lead an employee to be fired. I stopped trying to know who Habs would pick after that, I was so upset and I knew TT was stubborn picking 2-way 200 feet players who in reality were in the mold of Chipchura. The narrative or the excuse to pick a sh*t load of mud. The only thing he was good was D and not all the time. He did picked good players at the very end, because there was 200 microphones ans cameras pointed on him and the management, they had no choice of not missing anything. But the team was destroyed and a good clean-up finally came. First Bergevin, secondly TT. In the years of TT, Slaf would never be picked, same for Rein. They are too skilled and too tall.

Wipe away the MB years. How'd we do if we just look at 2003-07 and 2019-21? It looks pretty freaking good.

Price, Roy, Subban, Caufield, McDonnaugh, Streit, Guhle, A Kostystysn, S Kostystyn, Latendresse, White, Weber, Paccioretty, Pinard, Struble, Halak, Emelin, Grabovski...Not bad for eight drafts.

Bonus: We traded away Sergachev. He was drafted while MB was here but developed very nicely elsewhere. Strange that the guy we traded away probably went on to be the best player we drafted in that period.

I will omit Mailloux as he was gotten in a funky (I'd argue unethical) way but he's very likely an NHLer at least. Obviously there are guys like Farrell and Trudeau who are too young but may become NHLers down the road.

Look at that list. It's a mix of late pick NHL players, stars and superstars. Now compare it to the barren wasteland while MB was here. And even when we did have a player who produced - Galchenyuk for example - they didn't reach their potential. Almost all of them underperformed and tons busted out altogether. The only real success stories I can think of from that era are Brendan Gallagher and Lekonen. But ask me if we made the right picks with Leblanc and Chuck, it's an absolute 'yes.' We just f***ed it up.

So what happened? Timmins just forgot how to draft while MB was here? Or was there something else going on? Weird also that the guy we traded away went on to become the best player we drafted under MB.

Hmmm... what could it be?

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Thanks, brother. I'm all for a healthy debate. I guess the thing is that, in my view, we had horrible management before, and now I think we have "ok" management. Ideally, I'd want the best management that doesn't make a bunch of unforced errors or maintain some of the terrible failed philosophies of the past (ie: The culture thing, which replaces the character thing, which replaces the good in the room thing, which is an excuse for not having talent).



The fact that Patches is our high water mark for star players is part of the problem. Patches is not a star player. He never hit 40 goals or 70(!) points.


Eh, I'm not convinced.


You then live with the results of those decisions. picking someone where they're projected doesn't absolve you of failing.

Every trade needs to be evaluated individually. The Crosby example does not apply.



It's the death by 1000 cuts that I think only makes this management good and not great, which is better than terrible, obviously. but still not where I want it to be.


We can project forward based on toolsets. It's not like players exist in cocoons. They usually end up as better versions of what they currently are.



They needed to be losing more.


It hurts us if he helps us bank unnecessary points.


Not if he's laboring with his shot, which is his primary weapon.


Death by a thousand cuts.


Don't quote the man if you want to avoid comparisons


It's not really to showcase him, though playing someone can get them out of their funk. It's to lose more games. And to develop Primeau, because Monty's a weird, fundamentally unsound goalie that's doing better than he should.


Not good enough, in my opinion.


They had the tools and you could project what they could be. I don't see that in our talent pool (which I listed).



I see potential stars. I don't see dominant gamebreakers.

Wrong on Patches. He was headed towards being a star player until that piece of gabage Chara cheapshotted him.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

Not convince they're stars? Cool. Neither am I.

But that's different than saying they're developing well. CC has the all time goal record and scored 48 in his first 82 here with the new regime. Roy won a scoring title and probably would've won a second if healthy. Hutson has also set an NCAA scoring record.

Cool. Now we need that to translate to actual consistent success in the NHL.

There's really not much more you can ask for it terms of how they're developing.

Totally agree. But the question is... who's to blame? And I'd say that very clearly falls on development. And we have several examples of this. If it was a one time thing, maybe I'd agree with you but it's not. It was a consistent pattern of behaviour that repeated itself here.

Ownership is to blame. They have final say. The same ownership we have now.

The Crosby example is done to highlight that you can make the right trade and get the wrong result. Trading for Crosby would be a great trade whether he was hit by a bus or not.

Death by a thousand cuts? Uh... no. You've cited minor things that you can blame mgmt for. Not trading away a player is way far down on the list of bad mgmt.

Death by a thousand cuts is many tiny mistakes that will keep you from longterm success because you're competing against 32 other teams and some of them will bat closer to 1000 than you.

Right. And I gave you three examples of guys who won scoring titles or broke records. Not sure what more you want from your prospects.

Who do we have that has the tools of a Kucherov or Chara? Michkov had gamebreaker tools. No one in our system does, in my opinion. Not even close.

Too many good players already in the lineup. We're not going to lose more than we are. And 1st, 5th, 7th (or whatever we are this year) is right in line with where most rebuilds wind up.

Well, our rebuild will be worse than ones that are actually tanking legit. If Chicago gets Celebrini this year, who's in better shape, us or them?

See above.

If his shoulder was a big deal I wouldn't expect his underlying numbers to be as good as they are. And he's going into the corners hitting guys... His shoulder can't be that bad.

Blunt force trauma is different than inability to have full range of motion.

Nah.

I'll quote him - but not in a complimentary way. If I quote him in that fashion, then you can call me Bergie. Btw, that's not going to happen.

It was a joke, Bergie.

Again, these are minor things.

That's the thing with rebuilds, they end when your team improves. Our team is already better than those other bottom feeding clubs. We could trade away Suzuki and CC... and yeah, we'd lose more games. But it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

Yes, but you can fail a rebuild by not acquiring sufficient top-end talent. Look at Detroit. It's like looking into a mirror. Larkin, Debrincat... We don't even know if Reinbacher can be a Seider. Do those players remind you of anyone. Do you think Detroit's a future elite team or a perpetual bubble team going forward? This happened to them because the didn't suck enough, didn't draft low enough, and are now Mid.

Two records and a scoring title. How can you not see it?

See above.

Caufield can be Richer-esque, but he's one dimensional, and he still hasn't shown he can be that guy consistently. Again, hockey is results-based, not underlying-nerd-statistics-based. I think Suzuki is a more valuable player than Caufield and I still view him as a second line center on a cup contender.

Hutson can be Adam Fox-esque, which would make him a star but not a dominant gamebreaker. I see that as his ceiling, unless he drastically improves his skating and/or gets bigger. Roy had a scoring title in the worst league in the CHL by far, and his tools are Toffoli tools. That makes his ceiling to 6 but not fricking 100-point dynamo.

Wrong on Patches. He was headed towards being a star player until that piece of gabage Chara cheapshotted him.

Speculation. We'll never know, unfortunately.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Cool. Now we need that to translate to actual consistent success in the NHL.



Ownership is to blame. They have final say. The same ownership we have now.



Death by a thousand cuts is many tiny mistakes that will keep you from longterm success because you're competing against 32 other teams and some of them will bat closer to 1000 than you.


Who do we have that has the tools of a Kucherov or Chara? Michkov had gamebreaker tools. No one in our system does, in my opinion. Not even close.



Well, our rebuild will be worse than ones that are actually tanking legit. If Chicago gets Celebrini this year, who's in better shape, us or them?



Blunt force trauma is different than inability to have full range of motion.



It was a joke, Bergie.



Yes, but you can fail a rebuild by not acquiring sufficient top-end talent. Look at Detroit. It's like looking into a mirror. Larkin, Debrincat... We don't even know if Reinbacher can be a Seider. Do those players remind you of anyone. Do you think Detroit's a future elite team or a perpetual bubble team going forward? This happened to them because the didn't suck enough, didn't draft low enough, and are now Mid.


Caufield can be Richer-esque, but he's one dimensional, and he still hasn't shown he can be that guy consistently. Again, hockey is results-based, not underlying-nerd-statistics-based. I think Suzuki is a more valuable player than Caufield and I still view him as a second line center on a cup contender.

Hutson can be Adam Fox-esque, which would make him a star but not a dominant gamebreaker. I see that as his ceiling, unless he drastically improves his skating and/or gets bigger. Roy had a scoring title in the worst league in the CHL by far, and his tools are Toffoli tools. That makes his ceiling to 6 but not fricking 100-point dynamo.



Speculation. We'll never know, unfortunately.

No it isn't really speculation. Pacioretty was a power forward before the injury (and the bad hit HE made). Not so much after that.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Cool. Now we need that to translate to actual consistent success in the NHL.

Glad we agree.

Ownership is to blame. They have final say. The same ownership we have now.

Fair. But as per above, you've already said you agreed that development is better. And we can also see that the new mgmt group they hired is completely different than the past.

Death by a thousand cuts is many tiny mistakes that will keep you from longterm success because you're competing against 32 other teams and some of them will bat closer to 1000 than you.

No, these kinds of things don't qualify.

A bad trade qualifies. A bad signing or contract qualifies. Not trading a guy who you could've gotten a pick for does not. Those are minor things that happen all the time with every team and we don't know the circumstances behind it. It's nitpicking and doesn't really count as a legit criticism.

Who do we have that has the tools of a Kucherov or Chara? Michkov had gamebreaker tools. No one in our system does, in my opinion. Not even close.

Why do you keep asking this? Once again... we have TWO players who've broken records in the minors and another who won a scoring championship. We also have another guy who has improved by leaps and bounds this year and was a first overall. So YES the potential is there for one/some of these guys to become star players.

You're comparing vets (in some cases retired) players to guys who are just starting their careers. Two guys broke records - what the hell else do you want them to do?

Well, our rebuild will be worse than ones that are actually tanking legit. If Chicago gets Celebrini this year, who's in better shape, us or them?

What if we get Cellebrini? What if neither of us get him but we get Eiserman?

Let's wait until the draft actually happens.

Blunt force trauma is different than inability to have full range of motion.

Neither of us knows. You are making a speculative argument here and I don't accept it.

It was a joke, Bergie.

Fighting words.

Yes, but you can fail a rebuild by not acquiring sufficient top-end talent. Look at Detroit. It's like looking into a mirror. Larkin, Debrincat... We don't even know if Reinbacher can be a Seider. Do those players remind you of anyone. Do you think Detroit's a future elite team or a perpetual bubble team going forward? This happened to them because the didn't suck enough, didn't draft low enough, and are now Mid.

Yep. We might fail. That could absolutely happen.

But we're not even into our third draft yet. We had 26 picks in the last two drafts and 24 in the next two. That's an insane number of prosepects. At a minimum it's a hell of a lot of trade currency.

Caufield can be Richer-esque, but he's one dimensional, and he still hasn't shown he can be that guy consistently. Again, hockey is results-based, not underlying-nerd-statistics-based. I think Suzuki is a more valuable player than Caufield and I still view him as a second line center on a cup contender.

Suzuki is a more complete player. I'd argue Caufield has way more potential. But yeah, this year did not go as I expected. On the plus side it looks like Nick may have levelled up. Next year we'll have a better idea on both players.

Hutson can be Adam Fox-esque, which would make him a star but not a dominant gamebreaker. I see that as his ceiling, unless he drastically improves his skating and/or gets bigger. Roy had a scoring title in the worst league in the CHL by far, and his tools are Toffoli tools. That makes his ceiling to 6 but not fricking 100-point dynamo.

Tyler Tofoli never came close to winning a scoring title in the minors. Roy was a late birthday pick and would've won two if healthy. He also lit up the AHL right away on a bad club. His ceiling is significantly higher than Tofoli's.

Does that mean he's a superstar in waiting? Absolutely not and I'm not predicting him to be. I think he'll be a solid top sixer. But the potential is there for him to be better than that.

Again... we have to wait. You're writing guys off way too early. We aren't going to know how good this team is for years. I don't get how people still don't understand this.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

Glad we agree.

Fair. But as per above, you've already said you agreed that development is better. And we can also see that the new mgmt group they hired is completely different than the past.

Sure, but again... there's a lot of ground between f***ing atrocious and the best.

No, these kinds of things don't qualify.

Yes they do. You're competing against 32 organizations that are no slouches. It's a game of inches.

A bad trade qualifies. A bad signing or contract qualifies. Not trading a guy who you could've gotten a pick for does not. Those are minor things that happen all the time with every team and we don't know the circumstances behind it. It's nitpicking and doesn't really count as a legit criticism.

Why do you keep asking this? Once again... we have TWO players who've broken records in the minors and another who won a scoring championship. We also have another guy who has improved by leaps and bounds this year and was a first overall. So YES the potential is there for one/some of these guys to become star players.

You're comparing vets (in some cases retired) players to guys who are just starting their careers. Two guys broke records - what the hell else do you want them to do?

I want Hutson to be 6'4" and to have respectable skating. I want Roy to have decent skating. You're conflating potential stars with gamebreakers. I told you why I'm concerned about both Hutson and Roy.

What if we get Cellebrini? What if neither of us get him but we get Eiserman?

Let's wait until the draft actually happens.

I feel like if Demidov and Lindstrom are off the board, Glasses is gonna go weird and try to be the smartest guy in the room again.

Neither of us knows. You are making a speculative argument here and I don't accept it.

Fighting words.

Yep. We might fail. That could absolutely happen.

But we're not even into our third draft yet. We had 26 picks in the last two drafts and 24 in the next two. That's an insane number of prosepects. At a minimum it's a hell of a lot of trade currency.

This draft will tell us a lot. I don't foresee Celebrini if we keep playing like we're playing and Coach Bombay plays Monty for 15 of the last games.

Suzuki is a more complete player. I'd argue Caufield has way more potential. But yeah, this year did not go as I expected. On the plus side it looks like Nick may have levelled up. Next year we'll have a better idea on both players.

No argument.

Tyler Toffoli never came close to winning a scoring title in the minors. Roy was a late birthday pick and would've won two if healthy. He also lit up the AHL right away on a bad club. His ceiling is significantly higher than Tofoli's.

I have no doubt he can be a top 6. I just don't see gamebreaker with his skating. Which gamebreaking NHL player has lower than average skating in today's league?

Does that mean he's a superstar in waiting? Absolutely not and I'm not predicting him to be. I think he'll be a solid top sixer. But the potential is there for him to be better than that.

Again... we have to wait. You're writing guys off way too early. We aren't going to know how good this team is for years. I don't get how people still don't understand this.

Saying someone's ceiling isn't Patrick Kane or Kucherov is not the same as writing them off. I can almost guarantee Josh Roy will have an NHL career. I just think it'll be on a second line at best. Saying Lane can't skate like Quinn Hughes, is severely undersized is just a fact. There's nothing wrong with constructive, critical evaluation of your prospects and their skills. That's not writing them off. As they improve, I will reevaluate.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

The blame is on BargainBin. He allowed those picks to be made or chose those players himself. If they were Timmins and his scouts picks they should all have been fired.

The blame goes to Molson who hired Bergevin and that Bergevin who kept Timmins for too long. Something tells me that Timmins was protected by Molson. There was a clique there, it wasn't just Bergevin.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

We used to churn out NHL players at a high rate. Not all were stars of course but they at least became NHLers: Price, Subban, Streit, Max, Halak, Grabovsky, McDonnaugh, Latendresse...

Just becoming nhler is enough for you? 18 years and no center at all when Getzlaf, Carter, Kopitar, Bergeron, Giroux, Henrique, Zajak, Aho and Point were available. None of them, zero plus zero plus zero equal ZERO !!!

Price, Roy, Subban, Caufield, McDonnaugh, Streit, Guhle, A Kostystysn, S Kostystyn, Latendresse, White, Weber, Paccioretty, Pinard, Struble, Halak, Emelin, Grabovski...Not bad for eight drafts.

No this is bad for 18 years. Anyone including dices or animal food bowl pick would have the same results if not better. Half of your list are barely nhlers and you have the arrogance pretending you are right. Look at teams like Boston, Bolts, Avalange and Kings to compare in this 18 years.

I think the center position is primary important. Where is the center in your list? WHERE ?

ps : Chipchura is not the right answer, lol.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Sure, but again... there's a lot of ground between f***ing atrocious and the best.



Yes they do. You're competing against 32 organizations that are no slouches. It's a game of inches.

I want Hutson to be 6'4" and to have respectable skating. I want Roy to have decent skating. You're conflating potential stars with gamebreakers. I told you why I'm concerned about both Hutson and Roy.



I feel like if Demidov and Lindstrom are off the board, Glasses is gonna go weird and try to be the smartest guy in the room again.







This draft will tell us a lot. I don't foresee Celebrini if we keep playing like we're playing and Coach Bombay plays Monty for 15 of the last games.


No argument.



I have no doubt he can be a top 6. I just don't see gamebreaker with his skating. Which gamebreaking NHL player has lower than average skating in today's league?



Saying someone's ceiling isn't Patrick Kane or Kucherov is not the same as writing them off. I can almost guarantee Josh Roy will have an NHL career. I just think it'll be on a second line at best. Saying Lane can't skate like Quinn Hughes, is severely undersized is just a fact. There's nothing wrong with constructive, critical evaluation of your prospects and their skills. That's not writing them off. As they improve, I will reevaluate.

I will sum up this way. It takes time for stars to emerge. You’re sitting there comparing guys whose careers are either in their prime or complete and then trying to compare it to guys who aren’t even in the league yet.

It takes time for talent to emerge. This is what rebuilding looks like. You asked for it, here it is. Whether you like it or not, you’re going to have to remain patient. The good news is that this team has several players who may emerge and a whack of picks more on the way. I don’t see how anyone can say we’re not at least headed in the right direction here.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Thanks, brother. I'm all for a healthy debate. I guess the thing is that, in my view, we had horrible management before, and now I think we have "ok" management. Ideally, I'd want the best management that doesn't make a bunch of unforced errors or maintain some of the terrible failed philosophies of the past (ie: The culture thing, which replaces the character thing, which replaces the good in the room thing, which is an excuse for not having talent).

Hi bro. I see what you mean. That culture or character thing was an excuse, for sure. It's not wrong in a way because if we analyse the top players and leaders, they all have strong character and are good in a room, ex : Sakic, Yserman, Crosby, Bergeron, Kopitar, etc. But without their skills and talent, they would be average 3rd liners like we had for so many years. Chipchura was drafted under this metric and so was 3 dozens of no names in habs history.

We have a full time staff in the medias (tv, radio, podcats) and social medias (here) working full time convincing folks with "character things" and stuff like this. Like in politics and tv audience, people in power beleive the ordinary dude is stupid and will beleive any bullsh*t. And it woks sometimes, and it doesn't work some other times. I see more and more people who are not interrested in hockey at all. And I see hockey fans having another team to cheer than the Habs. I could understand. Who is masoshist enough to cheer for a loser team since 1993. This team who have the most winning titles has become the farce of the league. This team is among great professional teams in history like Real Madrid, United Manchester and Yankees of NY. And look at the mess today. It's a burlesque show, it's like watching Mr Bean or Benny Hiil.

You and I have some serious questions about this team. I can resume this with a famous song by the Who : Won't get fooled again.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Just becoming nhler is enough for you? 18 years and no center at all when Getzlaf, Carter, Kopitar, Bergeron, Giroux, Henrique, Zajak, Aho and Point were available. None of them, zero plus zero plus zero equal ZERO !!!

YES! Getting NHL players out of late round picks is a very good thing. You shouldn’t expect anything much beyond even the first round. And regularly churning out NHLers at a good clip is the sign of a good scouting/drafting team.

Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous to cherry pick later picks who went many picks or rounds later. You want to argue we should’ve taken Brady Tkachuk? Cool. He went one pick later, that I have zero issue with. But cherry picking guys who went five or ten picks later is really stupid.

No this is bad for 18 years. Anyone including dices or animal food bowl pick would have the same results if not better. Half of your list are barely nhlers and you have the arrogance pretending you are right. Look at teams like Boston, Bolts, Avalange and Kings to compare in this 18 years.

In eight drafts we pulled at least two superstar players, several star players, some quality NHLers and some guys who made the show with very late picks. And some of those late picks are just starting out and may graduate to star/superstar grade. That’s a good draft record by any measure.

And it’s significantly better than when MB comes in and we drop off a cliff. All of a sudden we can’t even produce NHLers with first round picks anymore. Our late picks without MB are largely better that’s our first under MB. That’s insane and shouldn’t happen. But it did. Why?

You didn’t answer my question. Why is that? And why is it that the best player to come out of those years was traded and developed elsewhere?

I think the center position is primary important. Where is the center in your list? WHERE ?

ps : Chipchura is not the right answer, lol.

Galchenyuk and Leblanc would be the two best centers he drafted. Guess what happened to them.

This also leads to a side conversation btw. Was KK drafted for need? Was that an MB decision over Timmins? No way to know. But MB clearly couldn’t trade for one. He’d f***ed up on the two that Timmins had gotten who should’ve panned out. Or maybe Timmins just thought he could be a Kopitar - big center late pick value. I don’t know.

KK started off really well and then tanked. I don’t think we did a good job with him either. Rushed then benched. Then used sparingly. New coach came in, gave him ice again, he played better then he got benched again… brutal. But then he went to the Canes and had every opportunity and has flopped. So as much as I think he was mismanaged I don’t see how that can’t just be seen as a bad pick. Especially when we could’ve taken Tkachuk right there.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

Hi bro. I see what you mean. That culture or character thing was an excuse, for sure. It's not wrong in a way because if we analyse the top players and leaders, they all have strong character and are good in a room, ex : Sakic, Yserman, Crosby, Bergeron, Kopitar, etc. But without their skills and talent, they would be average 3rd liners like we had for so many years. Chipchura was drafted under this metric and so was 3 dozens of no names in habs history.

We have a full time staff in the medias (tv, radio, podcats) and social medias (here) working full time convincing folks with "character things" and stuff like this. Like in politics and tv audience, people in power beleive the ordinary dude is stupid and will beleive any bullsh*t. And it woks sometimes, and it doesn't work some other times. I see more and more people who are not interrested in hockey at all. And I see hockey fans having another team to cheer than the Habs. I could understand. Who is masoshist enough to cheer for a loser team since 1993. This team who have the most winning titles has become the farce of the league. This team is among great professional teams in history like Real Madrid, United Manchester and Yankees of NY. And look at the mess today. It's a burlesque show, it's like watching Mr Bean or Benny Hiil.

You and I have some serious questions about this team. I can resume this with a famous song by the Who : Won't get fooled again.

Exactly. At this point, they're guilty until proven innocent for me, particularly with this ownership and their culture-based organizational philosophy. Want to get off the hook? Draft talent.