Will habs ever be successful if they keep Price/Weber?

[Burke the Legend]

ownership doesn't have to agree with it....all they need to do is keep MB as GM and we will be there without even trying....that is the road we are currently on

Well yeah that's the question too. Can the Canadiens really improve?

There's 2 scenarios, the optimist:
-The Habs aren't really as bad as this past season. Price's dismal year with his quack naturopath induced "chronic fatigue" (or whatever sleazy rumour you prefer) followed by concussion, then Weber missing all season. High number of overall injuries (Habs #2 worst after Anaheim in man-games and also same but multiplied by cap hit). They'll all come back healthy and in high form. Then MB can actually land a fish like Tavares or Stastny that would really fill in that hole for the next 3-5 years.

The pessimist would be that we can't land any FAs, the team goes into next year with a lot of cap space and the same low talent roster, and Price continues to struggle to find his all-star form. In this scenario we're going to be drafting high for a while and vets will be traded for more futures who will take 3-5 years to start making a NHL impact.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Price at 36 and Weber 38? No, not even close to a comparison.

5 years, not 6

Price: 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. Far from being done even at 36

Weber: 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. He’s not melting away. Burns is the same age.

5 years is a long time. It’s not next season. If we can continue to add grade A prospects this year and next and maybe a impactful UFA here and there, it can turn around quick.

We can retool without burning it down. If the prospects don’t show promise, unload Price and Weber before they reach 35 for solid futures return! They will want out anyways

 

[LyricalLyricist]

What they should do and what they will do are 2 very different things.

They want to make the playoffs next year and they really don't care if they are the 2nd Wildcard or a legit contender. So where does Weber/Price/Max fit into that? If one or all of them are going to be traded it's going to be for roster players. Realistically, the guy they are really burning to move is Galchenyuk and it won't be for picks either, expect the return to be a... hmm... more "mature" player, and one of the kind that fit right in their ideology.

The rest is business as usual, operate around short term gains and hope to strike gold with the picks from 2017&18 to fill the blanks as they go. It's actually not that different than the last 6 years really...

Galchenyuk has been pending trade call for about 3 years now lol

I’m sure he won’t be a lifetime hab but I’ve eased off that pedal a bit. When it happens it happens.

 

[nhlfan9191]

5 years, not 6

Price: 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. Far from being done even at 36

Weber: 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. He’s not melting away. Burns is the same age.

5 years is a long time. It’s not next season. If we can continue to add grade A prospects this year and next and maybe a impactful UFA here and there, it can turn around quick.

We can retool without burning it down. If the prospects don’t show promise, unload Price and Weber before they reach 35 for solid futures return! They will want out anyways

If we do a proper retool, I really don’t see these players playing a big part that far down the road. I expect 36 to be around the age Price starts considering retirement and his body will have a ton of miles on it. Heck, it already does. I want to see what happens with Weber after this surgery. My gut tells me he’s going to start to deteriorate and not be near as reliable as the past. I’m hoping I’m wrong on that.

 

[OnTheRun]

Galchenyuk has been pending trade call for about 3 years now lol

I’m sure he won’t be a lifetime hab but I’ve eased off that pedal a bit. When it happens it happens.

3 dog years maybe, 2.5 months per year x3 = ~7.5 months. Yeah the maths kinda works plus it fit the theme.

He's been on the block since last June, it's just a matter of Bergie getting what he want for Galchenyuk.

 

[habsgirl5000]

5 years, not 6

Price: 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. Far from being done even at 36

he could be done now......

in all honesty, i dont think Price will even be playing hockey anymore at the age of 36

 

[Habs Halifax]

If we do a proper retool, I really don’t see these players playing a big part that far down the road. I expect 36 to be around the age Price starts considering retirement and his body will have a ton of miles on it. Heck, it already does. I want to see what happens with Weber after this surgery. My gut tells me he’s going to start to deteriorate and not be near as reliable as the past. I’m hoping I’m wrong on that.

Last years picks and this years picks will be age 20-22 range in 2/3 years from now. That’s when we find out if we can win with Price and Weber and the young core behind them. As long as we don’t over commit in term with Alzner type depth moves, it’s no major problem 3 years from now

That’s the critical point with our current situation IMO

 

[Habs Halifax]

he could be done now......

in all honesty, i dont think Price will even be playing hockey anymore at the age of 36

That’s 6 seasons from now. Not against trading him but he is far from over

 

[swimmer77]

Bergevin needs to build after the Vegas model. He needs to examine each team in the league and pretend there is another expansion draft. Then he needs to figure out the player(s) each team would discard. Hopefully he can find a team that would offer up a Schmidt and Karlsson + for Weber. Heck maybe he even would have some cash leftover for something else. I know it's a lot to think about but that's his job, right? Same thing with Price.

Oh..........then hire Gallant. Watching the Bruins since CJ left has me wondering about his value as a coach.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

3 dog years maybe, 2.5 months per year x3 = ~7.5 months. Yeah the maths kinda works plus it fit the theme.

He's been on the block since last June, it's just a matter of Bergie getting what he want for Galchenyuk.

Nah, TSN speculated he was but Bob kept saying "I hear nothing" afterwards.

He's been rumored for years to be traded for an aging vet but he's been signed, played, still here.

With 5 NHL seasons under his belt I'd argue Galchenyuk is now a young vet in the NHL, no longer a prospect by any stretch. So we'll see how everything goes but ideally they gotta put him back at C, they just have to.

In my fantasy world:

Drouin-Tavares-Gallagher
Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Byron/Lehkonen/Shaw/Hudon/etc...

as top 6. Danault as #3 C taking defensive roles, as is #4C. Tavares can play vs #1 lines. Pacioretty can help protect Galchenyuk.

I don't think habs do it though, I don't think they trade him this off-season either.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Bergevin needs to build after the Vegas model. He needs to examine each team in the league and pretend there is another expansion draft. Then he needs to figure out the player(s) each team would discard. Hopefully he can find a team that would offer up a Schmidt and Karlsson + for Weber. Heck maybe he even would have some cash leftover for something else. I know it's a lot to think about but that's his job, right? Same thing with Price.

Oh..........then hire Gallant. Watching the Bruins since CJ left has me wondering about his value as a coach.

CJ is a good coach but I didn't like the hire because he's too similar to MT. He's old school, a better communicator but also more annoying. The way he whined about embellishment when he had the rat on his team rubbed me wrong way.

They would never hire this guy and he has a job already but if habs want to get offense out of players they need a guy like Boudreau, not guys obsessed with the whole big d-man model.

 

[Bryson]

Nah, TSN speculated he was but Bob kept saying "I hear nothing" afterwards.

He's been rumored for years to be traded for an aging vet but he's been signed, played, still here.

With 5 NHL seasons under his belt I'd argue Galchenyuk is now a young vet in the NHL, no longer a prospect by any stretch. So we'll see how everything goes but ideally they gotta put him back at C, they just have to.

In my fantasy world:

Drouin-Tavares-Gallagher
Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Byron/Lehkonen/Shaw/Hudon/etc...

as top 6. Danault as #3 C taking defensive roles, as is #4C. Tavares can play vs #1 lines. Pacioretty can help protect Galchenyuk.

I don't think habs do it though, I don't think they trade him this off-season either.

I hate to point out the obvious but Galchenyuk is only signed for 2 more years. Less than that if Bergevin wants to get any value for the player before he leaves for nothing. Habs had every opportunity to play Galchenyuk at center even when Drouin was struggling hard, Galchenyuk never stopped competing. They could have put him at center and developed him there without any pressure when it was clear early on that the season was lost. One of many missed opportunities with this franchise.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

I hate to point out the obvious but Galchenyuk is only signed for 2 more years. Less than that if Bergevin wants to get any value for the player before he leaves for nothing. Habs had every opportunity to play Galchenyuk at center even when Drouin was struggling hard, Galchenyuk never stopped competing. They could have put him at center and developed him there without any pressure when it was clear early on that the season was lost. One of many missed opportunities with this franchise.

I know but players leave for UFA all the time. I mean, we'll see what happens. Like I said, if we trade him, we trade him. If we don't, we don't. I'd look good asset management regardless though. Either you retain him or get something for him.

To be honest, I can understand not wanting Galchenyuk at C but to go around and put Drouin, Byron and who else there is laughable. If Galchenyuk loses his C spot it's because there's a true natural C there, not an experiment...nonsensical.

 

[OnTheRun]

Nah, TSN speculated he was but Bob kept saying "I hear nothing" afterwards.

He's been rumored for years to be traded for an aging vet but he's been signed, played, still here.

With 5 NHL seasons under his belt I'd argue Galchenyuk is now a young vet in the NHL, no longer a prospect by any stretch. So we'll see how everything goes but ideally they gotta put him back at C, they just have to.

In my fantasy world:

Drouin-Tavares-Gallagher
Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Byron/Lehkonen/Shaw/Hudon/etc...

as top 6. Danault as #3 C taking defensive roles, as is #4C. Tavares can play vs #1 lines. Pacioretty can help protect Galchenyuk.

I don't think habs do it though, I don't think they trade him this off-season either.

You are confusing what you read on HFHabs for rumors and intend.

He was made available last summer (not before), which is by itself not uncommon, and it certainly doesn't mean he was to be traded to the first caller. IE: they want to move him but they won't trade him for a bag of pucks.

For forward they probably want a straight up north-south guy with a "comparable" (adjusted by intangibles/two-ways game) offensive output, maybe a bit older but not 10 years older.

Bergevin is a idiot, but not the lunatic kind of idiot, just a plain old backward thinking kind of idiot.

 

[Bryson]

I know but players leave for UFA all the time. I mean, we'll see what happens. Like I said, if we trade him, we trade him. If we don't, we don't. I'd look good asset management regardless though. Either you retain him or get something for him.

To be honest, I can understand not wanting Galchenyuk at C but to go around and put Drouin, Byron and who else there is laughable. If Galchenyuk loses his C spot it's because there's a true natural C there, not an experiment...nonsensical.

Of course players leave for UFA all the time so why did Bergevin paint himself into a corner and lock him up for only 3 years instead of a long term favourable contract like he gave Drouin? MB always tries to negotiate from a position of weakness like when he gave Subban the bridge deal instead of giving him a longterm deal at a much lower caphit only to get screwed over when he won the Norris. Like when tried to bully Radulov and Markov through the media because he had no leverage. Could have had Radulov locked up longterm from the start. He wanted Subban and Radu to prove themselves first but when they did he was too cheap to pay up. But then he has no problem giving longterm contracts to marginal players like Emelin, Desharnais, Alzner, Shaw because the rest of the league was just waiting in line to sign these guys!

What boggles the mind is why are they devaluing the player? MB doesn't like the player? Fine. But he produces better at center, why wouldn't they let him rack up as many points as possible before trading him, especially if Galchenyuk can manage to succeed at center that will drive his value through the roof! A good center is a valuable commodity. Look at what Joe Sakic got for Duchene. Or that it cost Nashville Seth Jones to acquire 54 points Ryan Johansen. Galchenyuk can put up 54 points in his sleep! You don't get paid 8 million for 8 years unless you are valuable commodity. It doesn't matter if you can't play defense. Most of the cup contenders have norris dmen and vezina caliber goalies. The notion that Galchenyuk was being kept from playing center because he couldn't play defense is ludicrous and asinine.

Marc Bergevin is a special kind of stupid.

 

[Miller Time]

Gonna have to disagree here. Habs will need a few years to rebuild, they can't retool, they need big changes so we aren't talking about a retool here.


Can agree here. Habs need to focus on getting prospects and finish in the bottom again.



I think there is a massive difference in direction taken if you keep Price-Weber or trade them.
Personally, I think Habs should look to move those guys asap. I don't believe the opinion around these boards that we would find no takers for Price right now. NHL is a league based on reputation. Price, despite his recent struggles, is still talked about as a premiere goalie. If he became available, I have no doubt in my mind the Flyers would dish out a lot to get him.

Get rid of those guys, don't commit to any big UFAs unless there are some young solid ones available depending on how our prospects are coming along.

Disagree with RNH. I want no part of him. If we trade Patches, we should look to bring in solid prospects and picks, of youngsters with very high upside.
I don't think RNH is going to hit another stride. He's been in the league for 6 years..It's like Galchenyuk, he isn't going to now become a beast. That ship has sailed.
Even if RNH did have that possibility, I see no reason why the Oilers would trade him for Patches, who's a year away from UFA. We would have to package in a Dman, when we are already extremely weak.
We are just not good trading partners with the Oilers unless we are talking about sending them Price or Weber, and if we're going to do that, better to just tank and get prospects/picks in return.

Honestly, I don't think this is a decent skeleton. It's very weak with tons of holes. It can be pretty decent if everyone plays up to par, which never happens.

I think that would be a terrible team. I mean, sure, if all the kids play awesome and develop into solid players, then we could be decent, but given how things have went over the past few years, I have no reason to believe that.

Kuznetsov, Schenn, Karlsson, Trochek, Marchessault...

1/4 of the top 20 C's in the league this year (from a scoring perspective), are the same age (+/- 1 yr) as RNH and have been LESS productive NHLers overall in their careers thus far.

Plus, RNH is quite arguably a far more complete C than each of them.

Dismissing him as "done" at 25 is silly... especially considering he just had his most productive PPG season this past year, despite being #2 to McJesus (and, while +/- is a misleading stat, worth still noting that he finished with his best rating thus far despite the Oilers struggles).

Wether or not the Oilers will trade him, or if Patches would get it done, is another matter... there are a bunch of reasons why that as a basis would be a good fit for both teams.


Re. the direction as a whole... I disagree strongly with the idea that we need multiple years of "tanking" or "re-building". With the picks we have this year, the young talent we have in place, and another year of focus on acquiring picks/prospects, we'd have more than enough young talent to work from.

Multiple years of high picking is no guarantee of success... those unknown young assets are no certainty to be as good as , so you are still depending on prospects panning out/hitting potential no matter how many years you take.

the current group of under 30 players:
Petry/Gallagher/Danault/Drouin/Galch/Mete/Juulsen/Lekhonen/Hudon/Scherbak/JDR, are all known commodities as far as floor, and in some cases, ceiling. I'd argue that there is enough talent there to make up a very solid supporting cast, especially when you add this year's top 60 picks, + Poehling/Ikonen/Vejdemo, +, in my scenario, another year of multiple top 60 picks.

From that, wether you keep Price/Weber, or use them as trade bait to target elite young talent (in the form of top 10 picks/top prospects or young players), or not is debatable... either way, you need to ensure you have 2-4 elite level players in the top-6/top-4/nets role.

maybe lingren shows enough to move price, if not, I'd probably keep him.
maybe you get a premium offer for Wever, if not, he's still got at least 2-4 years of being a top 20 #1 dman in him (we hope).


scorched earth approach is not necessary in our situation, far from it imo.

 

[habsgirl5000]

I hate to point out the obvious but Galchenyuk is only signed for 2 more years. Less than that if Bergevin wants to get any value for the player before he leaves for nothing.

im sure AG is probably crossing every day off his calendar as they go by.....

and the last day of his contract on his calendar reads in big bold letters the word "FREEDOM!!!!!"

 

[LyricalLyricist]

im sure AG is probably crossing every day off his calendar as they go by.....

and the last day of his contract on his calendar reads in big bold letters the word "FREEDOM!!!!!"

What stops him from asking for a trade now...?

 

[Kriss E]

Kuznetsov, Schenn, Karlsson, Trochek, Marchessault...

1/4 of the top 20 C's in the league this year (from a scoring perspective), are the same age (+/- 1 yr) as RNH and have been LESS productive NHLers overall in their careers thus far.

Plus, RNH is quite arguably a far more complete C than each of them.

Dismissing him as "done" at 25 is silly... especially considering he just had his most productive PPG season this past year, despite being #2 to McJesus (and, while +/- is a misleading stat, worth still noting that he finished with his best rating thus far despite the Oilers struggles).

Wether or not the Oilers will trade him, or if Patches would get it done, is another matter... there are a bunch of reasons why that as a basis would be a good fit for both teams.

Shall I bring up the list of players who don't go into major improvements in their 7th season? Out of the names you mentioned, only Brayden Schenn did it. It's not just their age, it's how long they've been playing in the NHL. It's not impossible, but highly unlikely.
Also, I'd argue playing behind McDavid is precisely why RNH had a better year. Weaker competition, less pressure, that helps. Just like Plekanec's two career year came from having other decent-good centers to share tough assignments with in Gomez-Koivu.

Re. the direction as a whole... I disagree strongly with the idea that we need multiple years of "tanking" or "re-building". With the picks we have this year, the young talent we have in place, and another year of focus on acquiring picks/prospects, we'd have more than enough young talent to work from.

Even if you want to argue we have enough good young talent, it will still take multiple years for them to become good NHL regulars. Take Mete, who I particularly like. He should have stayed in juniors last year, this upcoming year he should do a full season in AHL. The following season, maybe he becomes a regular NHLer, and he should start on the bottom pair.
If we want to properly develop our young talent, we shouldn't make them skip any steps just because they show a bit of promise. That is exactly why we keep screwing those guys up. Patience.
The guys we are drafting this year, aside from maybe Zadina, won't be ready before 3-4 years.
The guys we already have in place, I don't think have much upside except for maybe Scherbak.

Multiple years of high picking is no guarantee of success... those unknown young assets are no certainty to be as good as , so you are still depending on prospects panning out/hitting potential no matter how many years you take.

I don't get it. You just argued how the unknown young assets we are about to add are going to help us, on top of the young talent we already have (who btw isn't all that promising, no blue chip), but now you are arguing that if we did it for multiple years, it wouldn't guarantee??
Well ya...there is no guarantee. Doesn't that apply to this year too?? the point is to do it for a few years specifically because there is no guarantee. If you do it for multiple years, you increase your chances of getting more talent.

the current group of under 30 players:
Petry/Gallagher/Danault/Drouin/Galch/Mete/Juulsen/Lekhonen/Hudon/Scherbak/JDR, are all known commodities as far as floor, and in some cases, ceiling. I'd argue that there is enough talent there to make up a very solid supporting cast, especially when you add this year's top 60 picks, + Poehling/Ikonen/Vejdemo, +, in my scenario, another year of multiple top 60 picks.

From that, wether you keep Price/Weber, or use them as trade bait to target elite young talent (in the form of top 10 picks/top prospects or young players), or not is debatable... either way, you need to ensure you have 2-4 elite level players in the top-6/top-4/nets role.

maybe lingren shows enough to move price, if not, I'd probably keep him.
maybe you get a premium offer for Wever, if not, he's still got at least 2-4 years of being a top 20 #1 dman in him (we hope).

Again, I go back to your ''no guarantee from picking high''. Whoever we pick this year is completely unknown to begin with. After that, we don't even know how far off they will actually be. The same applies to Poe-Iko-Vej. They are complete unknown.
Arguing all these prospects are going to be good isn't realistic in my book and they are quite a few years away for us to even find out.

scorched earth approach is not necessary in our situation, far from it imo.

I think there is no chance we build a legit contender if we just go back to picking late rounds and trying to find our way with UFAs and have RNH as our top center.

 

[Miller Time]

Shall I bring up the list of players who don't go into major improvements in their 7th season? Out of the names you mentioned, only Brayden Schenn did it. It's not just their age, it's how long they've been playing in the NHL. It's not impossible, but highly unlikely.
Also, I'd argue playing behind McDavid is precisely why RNH had a better year. Weaker competition, less pressure, that helps. Just like Plekanec's two career year came from having other decent-good centers to share tough assignments with in Gomez-Koivu.


Even if you want to argue we have enough good young talent, it will still take multiple years for them to become good NHL regulars. Take Mete, who I particularly like. He should have stayed in juniors last year, this upcoming year he should do a full season in AHL. The following season, maybe he becomes a regular NHLer, and he should start on the bottom pair.
If we want to properly develop our young talent, we shouldn't make them skip any steps just because they show a bit of promise. That is exactly why we keep screwing those guys up. Patience.
The guys we are drafting this year, aside from maybe Zadina, won't be ready before 3-4 years.
The guys we already have in place, I don't think have much upside except for maybe Scherbak.


I don't get it. You just argued how the unknown young assets we are about to add are going to help us, on top of the young talent we already have (who btw isn't all that promising, no blue chip), but now you are arguing that if we did it for multiple years, it wouldn't guarantee??
Well ya...there is no guarantee. Doesn't that apply to this year too?? the point is to do it for a few years specifically because there is no guarantee. If you do it for multiple years, you increase your chances of getting more talent.


Again, I go back to your ''no guarantee from picking high''. Whoever we pick this year is completely unknown to begin with. After that, we don't even know how far off they will actually be. The same applies to Poe-Iko-Vej. They are complete unknown.
Arguing all these prospects are going to be good isn't realistic in my book and they are quite a few years away for us to even find out.


I think there is no chance we build a legit contender if we just go back to picking late rounds and trying to find our way with UFAs and have RNH as our top center.

How long they've been in the league is completely irrelevant. If anything, that factor only supports my assessment of RNH & the odds of him having another progression step in him.

As for the rest of your essay, there is little value in purposely misconstruing a post to make a point, it only makes your entire argument that much less compelling & defeats any purpose of actually discussing different viewpoints.

 

[Kriss E]

How long they've been in the league is completely irrelevant. If anything, that factor only supports my assessment of RNH & the odds of him having another progression step in him.

You think being in the league for 1 year vs 7 is irrelevant?? Euh, okay.
And again, I did not say it was impossible. Unlikely is more like it, and given the absolute piss poor job we are at creating offense, I think RNH would probably struggle more than blossom.
The chances of a player showing another gear diminish the longer he's been in the NHL once he's over the initial few years to start his career.

As for the rest of your essay, there is little value in purposely misconstruing a post to make a point, it only makes your entire argument that much less compelling & defeats any purpose of actually discussing different viewpoints.

What did I misconstrue? You are betting on the current prospects like Scherbak, Mete, DLR, Hudon, Lek, to name a few, in hoping they progress and become good complimentary players to guys like Drouin-RNH-Galch and whoever else the habs can sign but are complete unknown at this point.
To those guys, you also add the picks we will chose this summer and next year, which again, are complete unknown.

We are agreeing up to here.

Where we disagree is you think that will be enough to build on, we should look to add free agents and make trades. Personally, considering Price-Weber's age, considering the lack of firepower up front and that whoever we draft will be a few years away, I think we should look to move those guys. Given that, I think it's pointless to go after a guy like RNH, who isn't even a surefire 1st line center.
I don't see the point in clinging onto Price-Weber and hoping that RNH becomes our solution down the middle. I don't believe they can lead us anywhere significant.

Now, we don't need to sell everything this summer. If we draft Zadina or Schev, and they prove to be totally capable NHLers next year hovering around the 50pt mark. If Drouin becomes that premiere winger he was drafted as. If Galch is moved to center and finally excels. If Mete steps in as a solid top pairing D. If Price bounces back. Well then okay, maybe there is a team to salvage here, but as you can see, that is based on a lot of ''ifs''.
So time will tell. As of today, to me, it doesn't look good.

PS: Spare me the condescending act. We've been here long enough, if you feel I misconstrued something, you can simply tell me what I misunderstood and we can move on. No need to get into a pissing match of no value this no value that.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Let's see here. We've practically hit rock bottom as a franchise. We lack a #1 Dman who has point-producing potential and passing puck skills.
We've got wingers playing center and the one center prospect we have playing wing. So, it seems that this team has three LWs worth a damn. One of those LWs is playing center because...we don't have a real one.

I say that it takes 3 drafts just to acquire those players.
Then add in a couple years of seasoning those guys and hopefully landing some depth from the farm....
Then their first playoff run...which will end in a boot to the golf course.

It'll be 5-6 years before the new corps of stars, if any can stick here, mature to the point where they are "contenders". By then, both Weber and Price will decline to some level that is NOT their prime...

 

[BLONG7]

Maybe the question should be..............Can the Habs ever have success with MB at the helm?

Price and Weber are hardly our concern, compared to a clown in da drivers seat...

 

[WickedPegJets]

Price and Weber shouldn’t be considered long-term players for the Habs when both are north of 30 years old and they are not likely to get better with age. They are here to justify the high ticket prices. They would fit a win now team which Les Canadiens are not. In the case of Weber, Nashville insisted that Bergevin take Weber off their hands in exchange for the much younger PK Subban. Resigning Price at 8-years max at $10.5M per was a big mistake. If he wouldn’t resign for a reasonable 6-year, $7.5M per deal, then trade him.

Though Bergevin said his team is tweaking the lineup, he is really rebuilding by getting a very good Draft Pick No. 3, most likely Zadina who is a very good goal scorer. Trading Patches for two high draft picks (one will be a centerman and the other a left shooting defenceman) will make the team younger. Both picks will need at least two years’ seasoning in Laval before being called up to the parent club. This team may not be a Stanley Cup contender for 4 years.

 

[WeThreeKings]

The Habs will never be successful when they continue to prioritize people like Lernout, Tinordi, Crisp, Pezzetta in the draft.. over players with question marks but undeniable talent.

Sven Andrighetto, Martin Reway.. those two guys paid off, if Reway didn't get that illness, we would have seen what he could have done.