Confirmed with Link: [VAN/MTL] Dale Weise for Raphael Diaz part III - the #FireTherrien edition

[417]

While Murray and Parros aren't the only problems facing the Habs, they're important for two reasons:

1- depth players do matter. If the bottom of opposing lineups is crushing yours, that's not any better than if the top of their lineup was crushing yours. You just end up being beat by third-liners. And when guys like Murray start in the offensive zone and end up being hemmed in in the defensive zone, it makes life harder for everyone else, too, even once he comes off the ice.

2- they're symptoms of the root problem: the organization's philosophy of team-building and hockey systems is broken. Murray is the rattling noise in the engine that tells you you have a crack in the engine block.

You'd be hard pressed to find a team or fans who don't think their #6dman or 13th forward aren't horrible and liabilities on the ice.

You can choose to focus and over analyze a common problem amongst ALL NHL which is, poor #6dmen and/or #13th forwards. It's easy to complain about Murray and Parros, it's the 'low-hanging fruit'. I get it...

I guess it helps gloss over the real problems on this team...

 

[Runner77]

If you do a Weise-for-Diaz clunker once in a while but have other good moves to show for it, it's a loss, obviously, but you can make up for it. But Weise-for-Diaz after signing Briere, Parros, Murray... well, that's not a good streak.

What clunker? What more could they have obtained for Diaz? It's just a depth move involving a player that they couldn't afford to extend, probably on account of salary demands incompatible with his role and potential contributions. There is no clunker move when you're dealing with a UFA that you're going to lose for nothing.

I have no illusions about Weise but he still represents a viable asset -- can always be flipped for a 4th or 5th round pick down the line -- something that a Diaz was not likely to get you. We were all complaining about how past administrations failed to convert pending UFAs. MB has done so but no, it's never enough.

Also, the issue that a team that had a crying need for a right-side defensemen traded one away to add, ahem, "size and grit". Or the issue that the team may not have been able to recognize what they had in Diaz.

That's not even the issue. When you're about to lose a player for nothing and all the market is offering you is Weise, you take the 25-year old toolsy RFA, who may fill a need as he's still young enough to take his game to another level and allow you to move older assets of similar profiles on your team, that are costing you a lot more cap space.

Based on the above, it's a win/win, since the trade also allows us to contemplate a follow-up move.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

You'd be hard pressed to find a team or fans who don't think their #6dman or 13th forward aren't horrible and liabilities on the ice.

You can choose to focus and over analyze a common problem amongst ALL NHL which is, poor #6dmen and/or #13th forwards. It's easy to complain about Murray and Parros, it's the 'low-hanging fruit'. I get it...

I guess it helps gloss over the real problems on this team...

I totally agree about the low-hanging fruit thing, btw. Not that it means there's never room for criticism because of their relative roles, but there should definitely be perspective kept on just how much they're expected to, and/or be responsible for, influenc(ing) game results/team fortunes. And sometimes there simply is a triangle out there to fit what looks like a circular hole, it must be said.

When it comes to changing the pieces, though, there's always the expectation that action (i.e. trades) is at least somewhat governed by priorities ("biggest weaknesses", so to speak) and, in these days, a relatively high level of analysis. The more I think about this the more I really have to know where MB is going with it, and wish there could have been a way of avoiding making Diaz go from looking like the #4 defenseman he had to be with us for at least 100 games or so (disproportionate role to his $1.2 million price tag, in any event), to a guy who we should apparently feel lucky to get Weise in exchange for.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

When you're about to lose a player for nothing and all the market is offering you is Weise, you take the 25-year old toolsy RFA, who may fill a need as he's still young enough to take his game to another level and allow you to move older assets of similar profiles on your team, that are costing you a lot more cap space.

Based on the above, it's a win/win, since the trade also allows us to contemplate a follow-up move.

Not saying it's the case in our particular scenario, but where your logic breaks down "in general", is that it glosses over evaluation of the "strategy" or "needs" behind any moves, and simply judges the moves on whether or not they are perceived to addressed them; without addressing "priority" or possibly even "better" alternatives, depending on the strategy.

 

[MathMan]

Except you're complaining about a player who is probably one of our best defensemen right now

Murray's been a liability at even-strength all year and that hasn't changed recently. He remains a serious candidate for the worst D-man in the league, let alone the Habs.

As for Parros, he's a liability when he plays. It's true that it's relatively rare, but it's still too much. There's never a reason to ice a sub-replacement player over a better one.

 

[MathMan]

What clunker? What more could they have obtained for Diaz?

Ideally more than a fourth-liner. But the reason it's a clunker is this: the Habs were already short a right defenseman, and instead of adding one, they traded one away. They had a hole in their lineup and made it deeper.

That's not even the issue. When you're about to lose a player for nothing and all the market is offering you is Weise, you take the 25-year old toolsy RFA

Or you could, I dunno, play the right-handed D-man who fills a need in your lineup and is far and away better than some of the guys you use regularly.

 

[habaholic]

Murray's been a liability at even-strength all year and that hasn't changed recently. He remains a serious candidate for the worst D-man in the league, let alone the Habs.

As for Parros, he's a liability when he plays. It's true that it's relatively rare, but it's still too much. There's never a reason to ice a sub-replacement player over a better one.

According to you maybe.

 

[MathMan]

You'd be hard pressed to find a team or fans who don't think their #6dman or 13th forward aren't horrible and liabilities on the ice.

Not at all. The 2012-2013 Habs come immediately to mind.

Bouillon is no world-beater, but he's a solid #6. Armstrong is vastly better than Parros. Neither of them is a very good player and no one would want to have them any higher in the lineup, but at the same time they can handle the soft minutes without being run over or -- in Armstrong's case -- do a decent job when handed tough defensive minutes.

You can choose to focus and over analyze a common problem amongst ALL NHL which is, poor #6dmen and/or #13th forwards.

The thing is, Murray and Parros are both much worse than the average 6th D/13th forward. No one expects your #6 D to be a world-beater, but you also don't expect him to get constantly run over by weak competition despite being started in the offensive zone more than anyone on the club.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

Ideally more than a fourth-liner. But the reason it's a clunker is this: the Habs were already short a right defenseman, and instead of adding one, they traded one away. They had a hole in their lineup and made it deeper.



Or you could, I dunno, play the right-handed D-man who fills a need in your lineup and is far and away better than some of the guys you use regularly.

The trouble with your argument is that the only way to retain Diaz would have been to extend him. I don't think much of that idea. The Habs need freshening at D and to do it they have to clear out the old growth that's blocking out the sunlight.

 

[habaholic]

Ideally more than a fourth-liner. But the reason it's a clunker is this: the Habs were already short a right defenseman, and instead of adding one, they traded one away. They had a hole in their lineup and made it deeper.



Or you could, I dunno, play the right-handed D-man who fills a need in your lineup and is far and away better than some of the guys you use regularly.

How so? Is there a quota they must have? Wings currently play with 6 LHD and they've already won a cup doing so. Many teams play with 1 RHD so I don't understand the issue here.

 

[MathMan]

I took a straw poll..decided to post this interesting strawman stat -

If you know it's a straw man, why do you post it?

Now that he is playing better however...why is it that the MB's..or Murray Bashers...will not even concede that his play has improved?

Murray has not improved. His plus/minus improved because he's gotten luckier and he's gotten more sheltered, but he's still getting outplayed 5-on-5. Because he is getting Marc-Andre Bergeron level sheltering, everyone else has to face tougher competition and more defensive zone starts, meaning that everyone suffers for having to pick up after him.

Since he's started playing regularly and gotten into better condition...he really hasn't been the liability some are proclaiming. Not sure why some of you cannot acknowledge that.

Because he hasn't improved. He's still getting outchanced and outpossessed (I'd quote numbers, but I don't have them handy and you'd just dismiss them anyway) pretty much as much as before. He's gotten Price to make more saves behind him though, and he's finally managed to be on the ice for some goals for, so his plus/minus (a terrible stat, BTW) is higher.

 

[Jesse Alexander]

According to you maybe.

He's extremely close to being the worst 5-on-5 Defenseman in the NHL.

 

[Jesse Alexander]

The Habs need freshening at D and to do it they have to clear out the old growth that's blocking out the sunlight.

Then clear out Murray.

 

[Hoople]

I took a straw poll..decided to post this interesting strawman stat -

Since the start of 2014, when Murray became a regular as Diaz was finally being scratched...Murray is -1. Since Jan. 4, Subban is -9. Since Dec. 29 Emelin is -7 and Markov is -9. The team's goal differential in 2014 so far is -9..yet the guy who gets blamed more than anyone is Murray.

The Murray defenders..or MDs if you will...do not profess that he was good when he first returned from injury..in fact up until the New Year there weren't many complaining when he was scratched.

Now that he is playing better however...why is it that the MB's..or Murray Bashers...will not even concede that his play has improved?

Yes it DOES matter that he missed training camp. When you're 34, slow to begin with and 240 pounds, it takes awhile to get in game shape...quite awhile.

Yes it DOES matter that when he was in the lineup he was often paired with Bouillon, and also found himself playing, while still not in game shape, with Parros and AHLers.... for reasons only Therrien could explain.

Since he's started playing regularly and gotten into better condition...he really hasn't been the liability some are proclaiming. Not sure why some of you cannot acknowledge that. Merely stating that he's crap isn't an argument.

Great post. Well said. Murray has improved his play tremendously.

 

[Runner77]

Not saying it's the case in our particular scenario, but where your logic breaks down "in general", is that it glosses over evaluation of the "strategy" or "needs" behind any moves, and simply judges the moves on whether or not they are perceived to addressed them; without addressing "priority" or possibly even "better" alternatives, depending on the strategy.

Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that absent a better offer than Weise, you would have rather seen the Habs hold Diaz through the end of the season?

 

[MathMan]

The trouble with your argument is that the only way to retain Diaz would have been to extend him.

It'd have been fine to extend him if you really wanted to -- after all, Murray and Bouillon won't be here next year, we hope, so there'd have been a free spot in the defense for freshening up. But simply playing him 'till the end of the season would have been a possibility. If you really need a Dale Weise in the meantime, trade a 5th-round pick for one; someone at the deadline ought to be willing to unload one.

 

[Runner77]

Ideally more than a fourth-liner. But the reason it's a clunker is this: the Habs were already short a right defenseman, and instead of adding one, they traded one away. They had a hole in their lineup and made it deeper.

They have Pateryn who is NHL-ready. Also, should they have obtained a right handed defenseman before trading Diaz? I guess such a move might have been contemplated were Diaz more than a depth asset.

Or you could, I dunno, play the right-handed D-man who fills a need in your lineup and is far and away better than some of the guys you use regularly.

So have his contract expire and end up with nothing at the end.

 

[habaholic]

He's extremely close to being the worst 5-on-5 Defenseman in the NHL.

That's just your opinion, not a fact.

 

[Gomez91]

Really this trade needs three pages lol "Proud papa" deserves 3 pages not this nothing trade!

 

[Runner77]

Your feathered friend is thanking some of you for your contributions:

Grant McCagg ‏@grantmccagg Feb 3
Certain faction of demented Hab fans perplexed Bergevin couldn't get back 30-goal scorer for future HOFer Diaz.

 

[PricePkPatch*]

Really this trade needs three pages lol "Proud papa" deserves 3 pages not this nothing trade!

You mean, three threads?

 

[MathMan]

They have Pateryn who is NHL-ready.

I'm not convinced that Pateryn is NHL-ready. But even if he is, so what? You can always make room later.

Also, should they have obtained a right handed defenseman before trading Diaz? I guess such a move might have been contemplated were Diaz more than a depth asset.

Diaz wasn't really a depth asset, though the org made the mistake of thinking of him as one. But the Habs have been needing a RD since the off-season, someone who can get Emelin to play on his correct side and push Murray out of the lineup. Now they need two. Though I suppose using one of Emelin or Beaulieu at RD is a decent stopgap, but that still leaves you leading one. The Habs have too many D-men playing out of position as it is.

So have his contract expire and end up with nothing at the end.

Montreal's supposed to be a competitive team. They're presumably trying to win games. Trading a player you can use now for low-end futures, or for a dime-a-dozen grinder, doesn't really improve you much better than "nothing", considering you're deepening an existing hole in your lineup for a season you presumably want to make the playoffs in.

Of course, if the goal is to tank, well, good job, but I don't think that's a sensible approach with the roster in the state it's in.

 

[Hoople]

Not at all. The 2012-2013 Habs come immediately to mind.

Bouillon is no world-beater, but he's a solid #6. Armstrong is vastly better than Parros. Neither of them is a very good player and no one would want to have them any higher in the lineup, but at the same time they can handle the soft minutes without being run over or -- in Armstrong's case -- do a decent job when handed tough defensive minutes.



The thing is, Murray and Parros are both much worse than the average 6th D/13th forward. No one expects your #6 D to be a world-beater, but you also don't expect him to get constantly run over by weak competition despite being started in the offensive zone more than anyone on the club.

Ottawa vs the Habs. Neil shoving Gallagher and Chucky around. Intimidation and we had no answer since Prust was injured. Did Colby stand up to Neil? Diaz?

Your ideal of the game of hockey works very well on a computer. Meanwhile, the real game is played for real on the ice.

Good luck in your NHL 14 playoff pool.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

Then clear out Murray.

I'm not against that. He's not exactly Larry Robinson.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The trouble with your argument is that the only way to retain Diaz would have been to extend him. I don't think much of that idea. The Habs need freshening at D and to do it they have to clear out the old growth that's blocking out the sunlight.

Guess a sign and trade would take too much imagination. After all, they "never" happen.

In a parallel world where Diaz asks for, say, the same contract as Gorges (in terms of $4.1 mil/year, expires in '17/18), does having him signed to that contract actually make him worth less than a guy like Dale Weise in the off season? I mean, there's still a FA period, a draft, a waiver, and an off season to go through before next season starts off. Is Diaz on a similar contract to Gorges right now actually worth less than Diaz right now, months away from UFA? I find that hard to believe.

And "worst" case scenario is you get "stuck" with him as expensive "insurance"/depth. Or are forced into tough decisions involving guys like Markov, Gorges, Emelin, etc. But I'd like to know if Diaz's demands were even that high (~4x$4 million), because signing him to "the right deal" (even 4x$3 doesn't seem very high in a $71 mil cap world, really) could have actually increased his value as well, if his numbers hadn't changed appreciably by the end of the season and the team enjoyed the kind of record they had while he was in the lineup, as opposed to out. It will be interesting to see if his performance at the Olympics affects anyone's judgement of him, too.