Speculation: Let's face the truth, this is not a good team.

[Lafleurs Guy]

Even against the Pens right now we send out Markov - Subban against Crosby which is great but that leaves Gorges - Emelin to go up against Malkin. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. If a team has only 1 offensive line, then sure Markov/Subban makes some sense but chances are they are not that good of a team to begin with if they only have one productive line.

I'm not sure what's the bigger need, a big forward or a big #3 blueliner. The fact that we didn't address either one in the offseason though really hurts. I really feel like we missed a good opportunity here.

 

[sandysan]

I'm not sure what's the bigger need, a big forward or a big #3 blueliner. The fact that we didn't address either one in the offseason though really hurts. I really feel like we missed a good opportunity here.

for me its a big forward. I think that soon our D corps will be big and more mobile ( tinordi/beaulieu) so that need is at least addressed if not solved. I dont think that either of these two guys are gonna close the gap immediately but they could get there eventually.

Up front I am way less optimistic. My guess is that at the end of the year we wade into the UFA waters and sign a good player but one who does not address the persistent need ( i.e Vanek) who has talent but it will be another case of getting something that might help while failing to address the lack the persistent deficiency that sens up packing,

And even if we let a lot of of the littleuns go at the end of their contracts, I am not at all convinced they will be replaced with players of size. these guys will, again, be too expensive, tie up too much cap so we will go to plan B or plan C to look like we tried to do something, and when we start next season with a still undersized roster, the appologists will, again, say " give them a chance it might just work out this time".

 

[Sorinth]

I'm not sure what's the bigger need, a big forward or a big #3 blueliner. The fact that we didn't address either one in the offseason though really hurts. I really feel like we missed a good opportunity here.

for me its a big forward. I think that soon our D corps will be big and more mobile ( tinordi/beaulieu) so that need is at least addressed if not solved. I dont think that either of these two guys are gonna close the gap immediately but they could get there eventually.

Up front I am way less optimistic. My guess is that at the end of the year we wade into the UFA waters and sign a good player but one who does not address the persistent need ( i.e Vanek) who has talent but it will be another case of getting something that might help while failing to address the lack the persistent deficiency that sens up packing,

And even if we let a lot of of the littleuns go at the end of their contracts, I am not at all convinced they will be replaced with players of size. these guys will, again, be too expensive, tie up too much cap so we will go to plan B or plan C to look like we tried to do something, and when we start next season with a still undersized roster, the appologists will, again, say " give them a chance it might just work out this time".

I'd say the defenceman is more important. The team will go as far as Price can carry them and that doesn't change even if we get a PWF. So doing what we can to help Price out should be the top priority.

 

[Habsterix*]

for me its a big forward. I think that soon our D corps will be big and more mobile ( tinordi/beaulieu) so that need is at least addressed if not solved. I dont think that either of these two guys are gonna close the gap immediately but they could get there eventually.

Up front I am way less optimistic. My guess is that at the end of the year we wade into the UFA waters and sign a good player but one who does not address the persistent need ( i.e Vanek) who has talent but it will be another case of getting something that might help while failing to address the lack the persistent deficiency that sens up packing,

And even if we let a lot of of the littleuns go at the end of their contracts, I am not at all convinced they will be replaced with players of size. these guys will, again, be too expensive, tie up too much cap so we will go to plan B or plan C to look like we tried to do something, and when we start next season with a still undersized roster, the appologists will, again, say " give them a chance it might just work out this time".

Agreed that a forward is more important, for the simple fact that the Canadiens don't have anyone imminently ready in the system at this point, for at least 3-4 years.

On defense, we know that both Tinordi and Beaulieu are very close to step in and while we can take guesses as much as we want, the fact remains that we don't know when they'll be able to step in and have an impact. Each year is different in their development, with their learning curve (look at Subban, Gallagher).

 

[Marc-E-]

I'd say the defenceman is more important. The team will go as far as Price can carry them and that doesn't change even if we get a PWF. So doing what we can to help Price out should be the top priority.

I'm with you on that. As long as I love how Gorges played, I'm not considering a top 4 dmen. He's the best you could get at #5. To be a top 4, you have to move the puck extremely well and able to make plays by a good first pass and able to play on the 2nd PWP unit. Sadly, he's an expendable asset for a trade because of his contract (He doesn't possesses a NTC) Also, we all know our lack of size. Maybe it's time to change the guard of the core (Plekanec, Markov, Gorges, Desharnais, Pacioretty, Bourque, etc.) and the face of the franchise. You have to give something to get something and the only players I want to build around that new identity is: Galchenyuk, Subban, Price and Gallagher.

 

[Lshap]

for me its a big forward. I think that soon our D corps will be big and more mobile ( tinordi/beaulieu) so that need is at least addressed if not solved. I dont think that either of these two guys are gonna close the gap immediately but they could get there eventually.

Up front I am way less optimistic. My guess is that at the end of the year we wade into the UFA waters and sign a good player but one who does not address the persistent need ( i.e Vanek) who has talent but it will be another case of getting something that might help while failing to address the lack the persistent deficiency that sens up packing,

And even if we let a lot of of the littleuns go at the end of their contracts, I am not at all convinced they will be replaced with players of size. these guys will, again, be too expensive, tie up too much cap so we will go to plan B or plan C to look like we tried to do something, and when we start next season with a still undersized roster, the appologists will, again, say " give them a chance it might just work out this time".

Bergevin wouldn't dare trade for anyone under 5'11". Seriously, if he adds another contract with an undersized player I will buy you dinner. I'd love to have Vanek. Our number-one persistent need is scoring depth, which he brings. Size doesn't win games -- rather, it's a chronic LACK of size that loses it. A 5'11" or 6' guy is big enough to keep possession of the puck and do something with it in the O-zone. I'd take Vanek over Evander Kane in a heartbeat (and I like Kane), but I doubt we'd come close to getting him.

 

[Andy]

Bergevin wouldn't dare trade for anyone under 5'11". Seriously, if he adds another contract with an undersized player I will buy you dinner.

Never say never. I thought this would be the case last june, but low and behold, he signed Daniel Freaking Briere

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Never say never. I thought this would be the case last june, but low and behold, he signed Daniel Freaking Briere

Honestly, once Briere was signed... anything is possible. Never in a million years did I think MB was going to get him. He specifically said that we were too small and Briere was coming off concussions and bad seasons...

 

[sandysan]

I'd take Vanek over Evander Kane in a heartbeat (and I like Kane), but I doubt we'd come close to getting him.

straight up and ignoring what precisely goes the other way, I chose kane 11 times out of 10 over vanek ( who IS good talent but what we lack is a good FIT).

We arent getting kane, or backes or Stewart. As much as I like Simmonds, I dont think he's going to be donning the CH anytime soon. I completely admit that I might be looking through nostalgia glasses but irrespective of the lack of beef we currently have, Its been so long that we had a guy who could jam the front of the net, I'm not sure I can remember it. its like the forbidden fruit, because we have not had it for so long, and were denied it it just seems all that more appealing ( its possible a PF might not be the straw that stirs the drink). I dont care anymore, Its so bad that I had to sit thought our own fanbase touting Eric freaking Cole as a prototypical power forward and people still call patches one ( I understand the formal definition of PF is somewhat amorphous, but its not THAT ambiguous that patches makes the cut).


I dont know the future trajectory of tinordi or bealieu but what I've seen I'm pretty optimistic and its not like we need a #1 or #2 right away. The can fill in the #4 and lower spots. if we could get a beastly SAH D by hook or by crook I wouldnt turn my nose up at it, but for the love of god if we sign another soft small forward, I'm gonna lose it.

 

[Kriss E]

I'm not sure what's the bigger need, a big forward or a big #3 blueliner. The fact that we didn't address either one in the offseason though really hurts. I really feel like we missed a good opportunity here.

To me it's clearly a Dman. It doesn't matter if we get a great PF in here, unless he's on the ice with PK and Markov, he won't be creating much offense because our Dmen pairings beyond them have a very tough time getting the puck out of the zone decently.
I'm really not a fan of the Emelin-Gorges pairing, especially not with Emelin on RD. They are lost out there. And well, any pairing with Murray on it shouldn't expect much of a breakout.

In the same sense that Emelin helped just by pushing Murray or Bouillon out of the line up, well, having a top 3 would help us tremendously pushing the other bad half out.

We have enough depth up front. We can manage without that big PF. It may not be the best balanced group, but we can score goals.

Offense starts from the back. It's obvious that Defense is the way to go imo.

 

[Adriatic]

What a waste that 4 million on Briere was, I understand maybe we could not have a found a big scoring forward with that money, but at the very least we seriously could have upgraded our defense with that kind of money and found a real #3. We did neither!

 

[Runner77]

What a waste that 4 million on Briere was, I understand maybe we could not have a found a big scoring forward with that money, but at the very least we seriously could have upgraded our defense with that kind of money and found a real #3. We did neither!

That's cause Bervagin needs more lackeys.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

To me it's clearly a Dman. It doesn't matter if we get a great PF in here, unless he's on the ice with PK and Markov, he won't be creating much offense because our Dmen pairings beyond them have a very tough time getting the puck out of the zone decently.
I'm really not a fan of the Emelin-Gorges pairing, especially not with Emelin on RD. They are lost out there. And well, any pairing with Murray on it shouldn't expect much of a breakout.

In the same sense that Emelin helped just by pushing Murray or Bouillon out of the line up, well, having a top 3 would help us tremendously pushing the other bad half out.

We have enough depth up front. We can manage without that big PF. It may not be the best balanced group, but we can score goals.

Offense starts from the back. It's obvious that Defense is the way to go imo.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here other than it being a clean cut move. A big dynamic scorer (not easy to find obviously) would make a huge difference to us. The asking price on Bobby Ryan for example was said to be extremely steep, but I can't help but wonder how good he would've been instead of Briere if we could've gotten away with dealing picks and prospects for him. Unlikely but man what a difference that would've been and imagine how good it would've been for somebody like Eller to play with that guy. Jagr, well there's another story...

The D? Still feel like we missed the boat there too. Even if we'd just addressed one area in the offseason this deadline would be so much more exciting. Now it's more like a dilemma. Being stuck with Briere probably means we can have one or the other whereas I think if we didn't sign him we'd have had a shot at addressing both. Who knows though, speculation on my part.

 

[Kriss E]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here other than it being a clean cut move. A big dynamic scorer (not easy to find obviously) would make a huge difference to us. The asking price on Bobby Ryan for example was said to be extremely steep, but I can't help but wonder how good he would've been instead of Briere if we could've gotten away with dealing picks and prospects for him. Unlikely but man what a difference that would've been and imagine how good it would've been for somebody like Eller to play with that guy. Jagr, well there's another story...

The D? Still feel like we missed the boat there too. Even if we'd just addressed one area in the offseason this deadline would be so much more exciting. Now it's more like a dilemma. Being stuck with Briere probably means we can have one or the other whereas I think if we didn't sign him we'd have had a shot at addressing both. Who knows though, speculation on my part.

I understand what you're saying, having a guy like Ryan (Neal was a guy I always hoped we could have back then and was disappointed to here he was dealt to Pittsburgh) would certainly help. But I think even with a Ryan or Neal, we'd still struggle with our current defensive group.

Maybe I'm biased because I think defense is so much more important than offense (unless you have a team like Chicago but that is very far from being a norm). But my point is that having a better top three would not only solidify our defense a lot more, but it would also help all our forwards. Our defensive coverage would improve, our transitional game also, and our offense would likely also improve from that.
So, improve the defense, you improve the whole team.
On flip side though, you can add whoever you want up front, if the puck is stuck in our zone and we have Dmen that are always stuck chasing and dumping it out, then our forwards won't create that much more.
We still need another good big player, but I feel our team as a whole would benefit a lot more from improving the D.

 

[LePoche69]

I understand what you're saying, having a guy like Ryan (Neal was a guy I always hoped we could have back then and was disappointed to here he was dealt to Pittsburgh) would certainly help. But I think even with a Ryan or Neal, we'd still struggle with our current defensive group.

Maybe I'm biased because I think defense is so much more important than offense (unless you have a team like Chicago but that is very far from being a norm). But my point is that having a better top three would not only solidify our defense a lot more, but it would also help all our forwards. Our defensive coverage would improve, our transitional game also, and our offense would likely also improve from that.
So, improve the defense, you improve the whole team.
On flip side though, you can add whoever you want up front, if the puck is stuck in our zone and we have Dmen that are always stuck chasing and dumping it out, then our forwards won't create that much more.
We still need another good big player, but I feel our team as a whole would benefit a lot more from improving the D.

I agree with your view on the importance of the D for offense, and I'm not necessarily talking about another Subban.

We could be surprise how with better d-men at getting the puck out of the zone with actual passes, we wouldn't need a pure scorer that much. I would prefer to add a complete #3 d-man, Hamrlik-like, and a 15-20 goals grinder with size than a 40 goals scorer. But that's personnal, I guess.

 

[otto bond]

Well another nail biter. Anyone watching LA? Like him or not, Brunet was talking about what I have seen all to much this year. No transition and speed coming in the neutral zone.
It seems that the only time they get something going is in a middle of a change. the problem there is dump and no one to chase.
The puck rarely fallows from the dman to the center/winger. To often last night, I saw wingers standing stile in the neutral zone cutting this team's strenght...speed.

 

[Andy]

Well another nail biter. Anyone watching LA? Like him or not, Brunet was talking about what I have seen all to much this year. No transition and speed coming in the neutral zone.
It seems that the only time they get something going is in a middle of a change. the problem there is dump and no one to chase.
The puck rarely fallows from the dman to the center/winger. To often last night, I saw wingers standing stile in the neutral zone cutting this team's strenght...speed.

I agree with Brunet. I didn't watch RDS last night so I didn't know he said this, but I wrote a similar schtick in reaction to what Therrien said on 24CH that the habs were a north-south meat and potatoes dump team. It wasn't long ago that the habs were an excellent transition team.

 

[overlords]

Well another nail biter. Anyone watching LA? Like him or not, Brunet was talking about what I have seen all to much this year. No transition and speed coming in the neutral zone.
It seems that the only time they get something going is in a middle of a change. the problem there is dump and no one to chase.
The puck rarely fallows from the dman to the center/winger. To often last night, I saw wingers standing stile in the neutral zone cutting this team's strenght...speed.

Even when we're dumping and chasing, we're not doing it with any speed. Everyone is just posted up on the blue line waiting for someone to chip it in.

 

[Andy]

Even when we're dumping and chasing, we're not doing it with any speed. Everyone is just posted up on the blue line waiting for someone to chip it in.

Except Bournival. Man can he skate. He tracks down that puck on the dump like it's nobody's business.

 

[overlords]

Except Bournival. Man can he skate. He tracks down that puck on the dump like it's nobody's business.

Better scratch him for Parros!

 

[otto bond]

Better scratch him for Parros!

It's always easier to scratch a rookie then a vet. Also, in Bournival's case, its good to sit a game here and there.

 

[overlords]

It's always easier to scratch a rookie then a vet. Also, in Bournival's case, its good to sit a game here and there.

That just seems like one of those hockey sayings that isn't grounded in reality. Unless he's playing badly (he's not) or you have someone better to replace him with (we don't), scratching him doesn't do any one any good.

 

[otto bond]

That just seems like one of those hockey sayings that isn't grounded in reality. Unless he's playing badly (he's not) or you have someone better to replace him with (we don't), scratching him doesn't do any one any good.

U are probebly correct but he did take a puck to the skate and did get bang up(no call hit to the head) a bit. It's not like MT has many option and must keep all player playing the most possible. Add that Gionta can't play with anyone but Plekanec and DD with Patches.

 

[poetryinmotion]

U are probebly correct but he did take a puck to the skate and did get bang up(no call hit to the head) a bit. It's not like MT has many option and must keep all player playing the most possible. Add that Gionta can't play with anyone but Plekanec and DD with Patches.

And before that Gionta couldn't play with anyone but Gomez. Is this is last year contract wise or does he have an other? It's such a shame that he is our captain or else there would be as much pressure to move him as there was on DD before he exploded offensively sarcasm.

 

[DJ Breadman]

That just seems like one of those hockey sayings that isn't grounded in reality. Unless he's playing badly (he's not) or you have someone better to replace him with (we don't), scratching him doesn't do any one any good.

people trust what they know, that goes for all aspects of life, you know what you are getting with a vet(usually) and you don't know what your gettting with a rookie(stupid mistakes). Not saying it's right or wrong