"Massive failure" is a gross exaggeration of the trade. I don't think the Habs were ever winners in this deal because they made a trade that was based on things unrelated performance on the ice. So any gain made from this trade, wouldn't come in the form of on-ice performance.
But to say it's a "massive failure" is pushing it.
We traded a franchise defenseman entering his prime for an aging, worse, defenseman that is exiting his prime.Weber is still an effective defenseman, but we did not get nearly enough for our franchise D man. Personally, I'd say that's a massive failure. Differing opinions on that obviously.
Maybe...but considering most were convinced Desharnais was on the brink of signing an 8yr extension, I'd say it had more consequence than what you're suggesting here.
He wasn't on the verge of signing that extension though, let alone any extension. That's like saying me stepping on an ant was a lot more consequential than it sounds because a cult of basket weaving tin foil hatters believed that ant was the antichrist.
Just because they believed that, didn't make it reality. You and me both know those DD tin foilers were talking nonesense.
The Lehkonen we saw in September and the Lehkonen who finished the playoffs as our best forward, IMO, was completely different. I'd argue he did a fair bit of 'developing' here in North America WITH the Habs.
Okay? I agree. That's not what was being argued though. We were talking about Bergevin's additions. Lehkonen was a good addition, but it's not like Bergevin had anything to do with his development. He was a draft pick that rose through the ranks. Bergevin played very little role in Lehkonen's case as compared to other aquisions.
For the record, Lehkonen is awesome. Love him. He's a top 6 forward IMO. But it's not like MB traded for him or even signed him as a UFA. Trades and signings of impact players are how Bergevin must improve the team this summer. I don't see the aquision of Lehkonen as evidence in favour of Bergevin's ability to do either of those things.
Stop minimizing the trade because it's not convenient to your argument...3rd liner or not, this was a fantastic trade.
I said it was a good deal. He is a third liner. Not sure what else you want here man. My argument was that third line aquisions are not what is going to propel the Habs into contender status, and those deals are mostly what Bergevin has done so far.
I'm not sure you understand what is being argued here. I think you just saw me criticising Bergevin and thought I was dumping on this additions? Not sure. I'm not arguing that these were bad moves or that they weren't good moves at all. Some of his moves have been really good. I'm explaining my reasoning for having low optimism about Bergevin's ability to acquire the impact players that are needed to propel the Habs into contender status.
Danault and Byron are great players, but they are not the kind of impact players Bergevin has to target this summer. I look at MBs trade history and besides 30 or so games of Vanek, I don't see too much for Top 6 forwards via the trade route.
Again, more dishonest arguments...Paul Byron was a waiver pick up, he's rewarded MB's faith with 33 goals and 61pts in 143 games spread over 2 seasons.
For a waiver pickup...
I mean come on...
I'm not sure what's dishonest about what I said. I said it was a good addition. Again, I see him as a high end 3rd liner on a contending team.
That's fair...Bergevin doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I may be more optimistic than you are but only because I'm that way by nature.
Nothing wrong with that. If everyone shared the same opinion this place would be boring as hell.