Where would you rather the Montreal Canadiens finish this year?

[BaseballCoach]

Nope, I’m just answering the question to the poll.....or did you forget about that??

I’m sure you did since your asking me questions as though I thought we’d actually be finishing last.

Sorry if my questions misled you. What I was actually trying to do was figure out your logic regarding how finishing in the bottom-5 is preferable, not where you thought they would finish. It's like me, I prefer they finish with 115 points, would be happy if they finished with 95-100 but actually believe it will be closer to 85-88. But this thread is about what we prefer, about what we "would rather".

So you are saying you would rather get a high draft pick that yields a top 6 center. However in this preference scenario, the top 6 center is added to a lousy team that finishes around 70 points. My observation of 70 point teams is that they are much weaker than the teams that finish with 95+ points, especially if the playoff team does so organically, without trading picks for rentals. or doing other things that would hurt the future.

So let me ask you this: if you KNEW that the GM would not use the proximity to making the playoffs to abort a good deal that moves an expendable player for likely better futures, and that the coach would not start playing it safe and cutting back the kids' ice time for fear of a mistake, would you still prefer that the players be bad, that Domi proves he is not a top 6, that Drouin is more often zero than hero, that Armia is no better than Smith-Pelley, that Kotkaniemi's skating is the problem some people thought it might be, that Juulsen is highly flawed, that Reilly turns out be as bad in his own zone as Beaulieu, but with fewer points? I ask this because I think the only way we finish bottom-5 is if we have 7-8 holes in our lineup, and therefore that in addition to the top-6 C, the LHD and the scoring winger you think we need, we would also need a second top-3 D, another good C, another top-line winger and another middle-6 winger and at least one more bottom-3 D?

I think a 70-point season this year would be a disaster because it would mean that all the players we added this year and are counting on for the future will have shown they are unable to make any difference, and that we are just as bad as last year.

Why would you prefer that? I mean if it happens, I want the best possible new player too, but I can't see how Cozens or Dach or even Quinn or Kakko, instead of a 17th pick (for example) will be able to single-handedly make up for all the other setbacks that a 70 point season would likely result from.

So, to sum up, if you knew that management and coaches would continue to build with total focus and not be derailed by the short-term goal of making the playoffs, would you still PREFER the team to be just as crappy as last year's team was?

 

[BaseballCoach]

I mean... reading all the responses you've got on this thread, that reasoning has been totally elaborated upon, you probably should get it by now.

I take it back. You're not obsessed, not one bit. No sir-ee.

As for Jaffy, seems I was right, he was simply answering the OP, but keep fishing. Maybe one day, we'll all be converted to your way of thinking, we'll all cherish hard-working upstarts that lose with dignity in the first round and everything will fall in line for Molson as we'll all be sheepishly buying into the great plan of always making the playoffs. It's such an original solution. Like we haven't tried that one over the last 25 years.

Reading your reply, it seems that you are worried that if the additions we made this year get us to the playoffs, that it would mean endorsing hard work at the expense of talent, endorsing short-term thinking at the expense of proper building, endorsing Jeff Molson and Marc Bergevin and others you (and I by the way) don't think should keep the roles they are in. Is this correct? Are these your fears? Because I do share them. This is why I have stated over and over again that the team should be managed AS IF we need more talent, with more focus on creative talent over hard-working safe vets who are afraid to make a mistake. I am just saying that I "would rather" that this process be working instead of finding out that all the changes since last year are doing nothing for us and we stink just as bad.

If benching Plekanec and Alzner, moving Drouin back to wing, bringing in Max Domi, adding Joel Armia without giving up a roster player or pick, replacing "Casperetty" as some call him with a more positive guy who produces more than Max to boot (plus getting two big pieces for the future!!), moving on from Galchenyuk and some of his weak habits and tendencies, cutting back the over-reliance on Andrew Shaw and giving more ice time to young talent, giving Juulsen the opportunity to show he is better than Schlemko, Benn, Alzner, etc., giving Mike Reilly the nod over Jerabek and the aforementioned veterans, getting Danault off the PP - if ALL OF THIS proves to be useless and we are as bad as last year, why would you "rather" it be that way?

 

[BaseballCoach]

I don't like to participate in these fictional trade proposals. All I know is I'm willing to offer pretty much anything. We don't have enough talent, let's stop pretending like it's okay and we can just patiently wait for the perfect offer or free agent. It won't happen, and then it'll be too late. That's what happened when Bergevin took over. Didn't want to overpay for free agents, didn't want to give out youngsters or picks for trades.
We are in a good position to dangle some guys now. We are doing fine without Weber. He could be valuable to move. Price is doing well too, I'm sure some teams could be desperate for him. Buffalo could be great fit, same with Colorado. If Avs could add Price without giving up one of their current key skates, would be huge for them.
If not those two, we could totally package Petry and Byron +picks.

If not, then we could move a guy like Poehling that is an interesting prospect + picks.

Needless to say, we have assets to move. We do not have to tank to add high end talent. But if we're not going to sell, or buy, just twiddle our thumbs, it's going to lead to nowhere again.

It's been a good exchange of ideas with those willing to make the effort. Thanks Kriss. I actually agree with most of what you said. If we are fortunate that adding Domi, Armia, Juulsen, Reilly and Ouellett while downplaying Plekanec and Alzner, cutting Shaw's and Deslauriers' ice time and moving on from Patches and Chucky and Froese has significantly improved the team- we should indeed consider trading Weber and Price if the return would help us continue building. It would also free cap space to acquire one or two young, still productive UFAs who would be happy to join this up and coming team.

 

[Kriss E]

It's been a good exchange of ideas with those willing to make the effort. Thanks Kriss. I actually agree with most of what you said. If we are fortunate that adding Domi, Armia, Juulsen, Reilly and Ouellett while downplaying Plekanec and Alzner, cutting Shaw's and Deslauriers' ice time and moving on from Patches and Chucky and Froese has significantly improved the team- we should indeed consider trading Weber and Price if the return would help us continue building. It would also free cap space to acquire one or two young, still productive UFAs who would be happy to join this up and coming team.

We need to operate with the mindset that we want to be serious contenders in about 3 years. Our plans should be in synch with this idea. It's been 14 games this year. Let's yank the reality chains back a bit and not act like we all good, in need of just couple tweaks.
If we keep our eyes on the prize, well then we won't worry so much about the impact of our decisions on the present team.
We need to get more high end talent to our team, that's the bottom line. If you won't do it via tanking, you need to figure out another way.

 

[DAChampion]

We need to operate with the mindset that we want to be serious contenders in about 3 years. Our plans should be in synch with this idea. It's been 14 games this year. Let's yank the reality chains back a bit and not act like we all good, in need of just couple tweaks.
If we keep our eyes on the prize, well then we won't worry so much about the impact of our decisions on the present team.
We need to get more high end talent to our team, that's the bottom line. If you won't do it via tanking, you need to figure out another way.

They are hoping that the team is already pretty good, and that an improving Kotkaniemi, the return of Weber, and the additions of Brook, Suzuki, Poehling and maybe Fleury and Evans will put it over the top.

 

[Kriss E]

They are hoping that the team is already pretty good, and that an improving Kotkaniemi, the return of Weber, and the additions of Brook, Suzuki, Poehling and maybe Fleury and Evans will put it over the top.

Which is a foolish idea at this point in time.

 

[DAChampion]

Which is a foolish idea at this point in time.

I'm pro-tank, but I admit that they may have a valid point. The Habs might be fortunate enough to have a few prospects overachieving at the same time.

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

There is a notable near-exception to the rule of tanking teams winning Cups: Nashville. They made a Cup final where they played to a competitive 6 games, they lost in game 7 of the second round the following year, and this year they're favorites again. Though they have not won, they are a credible contender, and building a credible contender is the best that anybody can reasonably ask for.

Part of the Nashville model though, involves what may be difficult to replicate: David Poile ripped off George McPhee with the Erat for Forsberg trade. It is fair to expect one's GM to not make stupid trades, but it is not fair to expect other GMs to make stupid trades, the latter depends on luck. However, is pulling off a miracle trade like Erat for Forsberg that much more of a random blessing than drafting Matthews or Eichel?

Further, there is a possibility that Bergevin has also pulled off such a trade, by ripping off George McPhee in the Pacioretty-for-Suzuki trade. We don't know yet, but it's possible. Given that top-10 picks are not guaranteed to succeed, and that few of us were expecting a blue chip prospect for Suzuki, it's the case that the Pacioretty trade reduces the expected rebuilding need by 1 year.

 

[Saundies]

Cheering for the tank is fruitless. I'd understand if we had an old core and we were employing a middle of the pack strategy that it would be better to blow things up and go for a high pick.

But we have the second youngest team in the league, and they're laying the building blocks for teams to come by playing the right way and actually winning. Losing, and losing badly, can do just as much damage to the development of young players and teams as a whole. They get used to it and lose their drive if they feel it's a forgone conclusion. Look at the Oilers. Look at the Coyotes. Look at the Blue Jackets. Tanking has done nothing for the success of these teams.

You can point at Pittsburgh, Chicago, and even the Leafs (though they haven't won a damn thing yet) and say "Well, tanking works. Look how good they are now." But it's not like they were really bad for 2 years and then they were good to go. They were terrible organizations for years and years on end. As much as I would accept a bad season, especially from a young team like this, I wouldn't accept years and years of failure just for a slimmer of hope that would could turn it around some day.

I understand if we're losing to brush it off as "ah well, we'll get a good pick at least." But to actively cheer against the team playing well and winning? Don't understand it, and never will.

 

[Kriss E]

I'm pro-tank, but I admit that they may have a valid point. The Habs might be fortunate enough to have a few prospects overachieving at the same time.

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

There is a notable near-exception to the rule of tanking teams winning Cups: Nashville. They made a Cup final where they played to a competitive 6 games, they lost in game 7 of the second round the following year, and this year they're favorites again. Though they have not won, they are a credible contender, and building a credible contender is the best that anybody can reasonably ask for.

Part of the Nashville model though, involves what may be difficult to replicate: David Poile ripped off George McPhee with the Erat for Forsberg trade. It is fair to expect one's GM to not make stupid trades, but it is not fair to expect other GMs to make stupid trades, the latter depends on luck. However, is pulling off a miracle trade like Erat for Forsberg that much more of a random blessing than drafting Matthews or Eichel?

Further, there is a possibility that Bergevin has also pulled off such a trade, by ripping off George McPhee in the Pacioretty-for-Suzuki trade. We don't know yet, but it's possible. Given that top-10 picks are not guaranteed to succeed, and that few of us were expecting a blue chip prospect for Suzuki, it's the case that the Pacioretty trade reduces the expected rebuilding need by 1 year.

The Preds built their contender on the back of an insane top 4 D. What they have on defense is the equivalent of other powerhouses have on offense.

People suggesting we can do that are assuming a whole lot of things about our youngsters and prospects. Right now we have guys that are overperforming and the idea is they would keep this up. To them, you add the new comers you mentioned who should also all hit their top ceiling.
I dont view this as a realistic expectation.

 

[Kriss E]

Cheering for the tank is fruitless. I'd understand if we had an old core and we were employing a middle of the pack strategy that it would be better to blow things up and go for a high pick.

But we have the second youngest team in the league, and they're laying the building blocks for teams to come by playing the right way and actually winning. Losing, and losing badly, can do just as much damage to the development of young players and teams as a whole. They get used to it and lose their drive if they feel it's a forgone conclusion. Look at the Oilers. Look at the Coyotes. Look at the Blue Jackets. Tanking has done nothing for the success of these teams.

You can point at Pittsburgh, Chicago, and even the Leafs (though they haven't won a damn thing yet) and say "Well, tanking works. Look how good they are now." But it's not like they were really bad for 2 years and then they were good to go. They were terrible organizations for years and years on end. As much as I would accept a bad season, especially from a young team like this, I wouldn't accept years and years of failure just for a slimmer of hope that would could turn it around some day.

I understand if we're losing to brush it off as "ah well, we'll get a good pick at least." But to actively cheer against the team playing well and winning? Don't understand it, and never will.

I'm curious...what do you believe blow things up is? This team is being lead by youngsters, so who would they trade that would blow the whole team up?

 

[Habs Halifax]

Bottom 10
vs
Middle 11
vs
Top 10

Chances are the Habs finish in the middle 11 and if we manage to get into the playoffs, we try but struggle to score with even more less time and space. Hey, I could be wrong but a lot has to go our way for us to even make the playoffs and get a good match-up in the 1st round. Imagine if this team reaches the 2nd round. I know, it's not probable but this team is proving many of us wrong.

- I'd be happy with a wild card spot and a very competitive 1st round series where we manage to find ways to score and have a good defensive team. This would be a good positive direction but we still lack a top prospect or two and hard to predict what kind of pick we would get. Also hard to predict if we are buyers at the deadline too?

- I will not be happy with a bottom 10-15 finish. Bad news and I hope it does not happen! What's the difference from a 10-15 pick vs a 15-20 pick? Not much

- I will be happy if we get a top 5-10 pick with a decent lottery shot win. The top 10 in the next draft looks stacked! We will have to see how the season goes and how these kids do.

 

[Saundies]

I'm curious...what do you believe blow things up is? This team is being lead by youngsters, so who would they trade that would blow the whole team up?

Right now, outside Price and Weber, not a lot. I'm saying that if we did have a core full of older players, being an obvious middle of the pack team wouldn't be a good thing and I'd be on team tank. But with the young guys leading us and playing so well, I don't see any value in being terrible just for a slim chance at another great talent.

 

[Kriss E]

Right now, outside Price and Weber, not a lot. I'm saying that if we did have a core full of older players, being an obvious middle of the pack team wouldn't be a good thing and I'd be on team tank. But with the young guys leading us and playing so well, I don't see any value in being terrible just for a slim chance at another great talent.

I'm just saying...the ''team tank'' has not suggested ridding the Habs of their kids, which seem to be the guys leading us anyways.
So...who would you be against trading? Weber hasn't played a game and we seem to be doing fine. Against trading him? What about flipping Tatar? You really want to keep him moving forward?

The ''tankers'' are suggesting trading more of the older guys. What we don't mind is if moving Tatar and Weber makes us drop down in the standings. So be it.
Nobody ever suggested to trade away youngsters or bench them or sabotage their game with weird usage.

The question of this thread though is what you'd rather, a PO birth or a bottom finish. Given the make up of this team and obviously not being a contender, not sure why anyone would prefer to make the POs over getting another top 5 pick.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'm pro-tank, but I admit that they may have a valid point. The Habs might be fortunate enough to have a few prospects overachieving at the same time.

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

There is a notable near-exception to the rule of tanking teams winning Cups: Nashville. They made a Cup final where they played to a competitive 6 games, they lost in game 7 of the second round the following year, and this year they're favorites again. Though they have not won, they are a credible contender, and building a credible contender is the best that anybody can reasonably ask for.

Part of the Nashville model though, involves what may be difficult to replicate: David Poile ripped off George McPhee with the Erat for Forsberg trade. It is fair to expect one's GM to not make stupid trades, but it is not fair to expect other GMs to make stupid trades, the latter depends on luck. However, is pulling off a miracle trade like Erat for Forsberg that much more of a random blessing than drafting Matthews or Eichel?

Further, there is a possibility that Bergevin has also pulled off such a trade, by ripping off George McPhee in the Pacioretty-for-Suzuki trade. We don't know yet, but it's possible. Given that top-10 picks are not guaranteed to succeed, and that few of us were expecting a blue chip prospect for Suzuki, it's the case that the Pacioretty trade reduces the expected rebuilding need by 1 year.

Good points about the Preds. But if I'm building a contender, it's the Tampa model. A few top 5 picks and a shit load of picks in a 4 or 5 year span where you hit here and there. Grow a core similar in age. Habs at the moment have too many pieces to tank year after year. But I do support selling assets like Petry, Byron, Tatar, Schlemko, Shaw and have Price/Weber lead a young and improving core moving forward.

The Price/Weber with a improving young core is a short window due to Weber being around for 4 or maybe 5 more years from age 33-36/37. It would interesting to gauge how good we are in that span and if we are not where we want to be, we then consider trading them to interested teams for more futures. Regardless, most of us agree we still need 2 or 3 more grade A prospects. What's the plan on how we are acquiring them without top 5 or top 10 picks?

The strategy to be a middle of the pack team with hopes of overachieving is an easy decision and for fools. The hard decisions is to look 2 or 3 years down the road and sell assets you have emotional ties to (Petry, Byron, Tatar for example) now before their term/trade value runs out. The Wings trading Tatar for 3 picks and the Blues being sellers (trading Stastny) while being in a playoff hunt are examples. Rangers coming out and telling their fans they are heading into a rebuild. These are smart GM's cause they realize middle of the pack strategy is no mans land.

 

[DAChampion]

I suspect that Price has very little trade value.

Weber, however, might, but on the other hand he may be perceived as good to have around. He won't help the team win, but being his defensive partner might be a good development environment for any future puck-moving dman.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I suspect that Price has very little trade value.

Weber, however, might, but on the other hand he may be perceived as good to have around. He won't help the team win, but being his defensive partner might be a good development environment for any future puck-moving dman.

- Lets forget about how much Price is being paid at the moment. Who would you draft between Price and Bob if you were building a contender?

- Now lets think about what Bob gets as a potential UFA this summer? Does he get $9M AAV? Now lets gauge how much trade value Price would have if we retain $1.5M bringing it down to $9M?

- Now lets factor in if we even trade him, most of his salary would have been paid. July of 2021 (3 seasons completed in his 8 year deal), he gets $50.75M of his $84M contract. $33.25 for 5 more years from age 33-38. Not many teams can fit him in today but that will change in 2 or 3 seasons from now. It's the same thinking about the Leafs with Nylander. They think he is not worth $6M but his agent is focused on cap growth. The cap is going to grow and it's projected to increase more than the previous $2M yearly average. $4.5M jump last year was a big deal!

Best time to trade Price is when he is age 33 and gets past the negative black cloud that has followed him around for 2 of the last 3 years. If Price has 3 good seasons in a row, people forget about the propaganda that we know today. He just needs to stay healthy

 

[BaseballCoach]

The Preds built their contender on the back of an insane top 4 D. What they have on defense is the equivalent of other powerhouses have on offense.

People suggesting we can do that are assuming a whole lot of things about our youngsters and prospects. Right now we have guys that are overperforming and the idea is they would keep this up. To them, you add the new comers you mentioned who should also all hit their top ceiling.
I dont view this as a realistic expectation.

And I am taking a middle view, and cheering for the best result this year but while continuing to execute a building strategy, not wasting any picks, amassing more where we can, and being willing to trade veterans, even Weber and Price if the return is good.

 

[DAChampion]

And I am taking a middle view, and cheering for the best result this year but while continuing to execute a building strategy, not wasting any picks, amassing more where we can, and being willing to trade veterans, even Weber and Price if the return is good.

Would you be willing to trade Weber to a contender for a Pacioretty-Like return?

If so, your prescription is actually not that different from that of the rebuilding crowd.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Would you be willing to trade Weber to a contender for a Pacioretty-Like return?

If so, your prescription is actually not that different from that of the rebuilding crowd.

If you mean by "a Pacioretty-like return", a younger D who is cheaper on the cap hit but productive and full of energy, who is signed for 3 years, plus a recent first round pick having a good season in Junior, plus a second round pick, where do I sign?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

If you mean by "a Pacioretty-like return", a younger D who is cheaper on the cap hit but productive and full of energy, who is signed for 3 years, plus a recent first round pick having a good season in Junior, plus a second round pick, where do I sign?

Well, that's rebuilding. It is also partly a strategy for tanking.

I think a lot of people are getting ahead of themselves with how the team is playing. The October cup can be very misleading.

No matter if we add Weber in a month or so, I see painful periods ahead of us, and losing more won't change the fact that we do have a lot of good young players, even if they hit 70 again.

I think 80 points is more likely, and that will still give us an excellent pick at around the top 10 mark.

 

[teamfirst]

I think a lot of people are getting ahead of themselves with how the team is playing. The October cup can be very misleading.

I think a lot of people are just happy to be able to watch their team playing good hockey again, atleast i am

 

[Belial]

They'll finish where they'll finish! This whole tank talk made no sense the whole way.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think a lot of people are just happy to be able to watch their team playing good hockey again, atleast i am

It's very possible to play entertaining hocking, showing promise, and still get a top 10 pick IMO. But I will never jump on any Habs fan who cheers for us to do the best they can year after year. However, my focus is what we need to do to win a cup in the next decade. If we don't draft in the top 5 or top 10, how are we getting the 2 or 3 impact pieces we need?

- UFA's?
- Hitting with mid to late 1st round picks?
- Hitting with 2nd round + type picks?

Last season didn't bother me cause I had my eye on the prize... Kotkaniemi. Another 2 or 3 grade A prospects (Goal scoring winger or two, Another 1C potential, and a stud at LD). If we don't draft them, how are we acquiring them?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

They'll finish where they'll finish! This whole tank talk made no sense the whole way.

Funny how you said the same thing last season.....

 

[BaseballCoach]

I'm just saying...the ''team tank'' has not suggested ridding the Habs of their kids, which seem to be the guys leading us anyways.
So...who would you be against trading? Weber hasn't played a game and we seem to be doing fine. Against trading him? What about flipping Tatar? You really want to keep him moving forward?

The ''tankers'' are suggesting trading more of the older guys. What we don't mind is if moving Tatar and Weber makes us drop down in the standings. So be it.
Nobody ever suggested to trade away youngsters or bench them or sabotage their game with weird usage.

The question of this thread though is what you'd rather, a PO birth or a bottom finish. Given the make up of this team and obviously not being a contender, not sure why anyone would prefer to make the POs over getting another top 5 pick.

I would explore trading Weber or Petry (but not both), Price, Tatar, Byron, Shaw plus of course Benn, Schlemko, Plekanec and Alzner.

The criteria for trade would be whether the return is going to get us assets that are likely going to contribute more in the relevant Cup window we hope to have 2-6 years from now. And if we get a good enough return, I don't mind if it depresses our finish in the standings this year or next year.

That being said, I still "rather" we finish as high as possible as this means that the young players we have are very good by and large!