TSN: McKenzie's Take On The Habs

[Lshap]

a big part of Detroits sustained success, long after they had been a conistent contender without the benefit of restocking with quality picks, was the way they brought along guys like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Flipula, Kronwall.

Plekanec, imo, is exactly the type of veteran you want to have around when bringing a stud like Gally or Collberg into the fold. Good enough to be a leader by virtue of his play/performance, meticulously committed to details in all areas of his game, consistent work ethic & willingness to play whatever role the team wants.

Absolutely right. Plekanec just turned 30. He could remain in his prime for years and be a big part of our rebuilt team as it ascends, for all the reasons and examples you mentioned. Lafleurs Guy is right that the Habs screwed themselves by losing opportunity after opportunity to add great prospects. But sacrificing everything in the present for the uncertain future of prospects is just as shortsighted. Much better to build a team around the talent and ethic of Plekanec than use him as a bargaining chip.

 

[Monctonscout]

Absolutely right. Plekanec just turned 30. He could remain in his prime for years and be a big part of our rebuilt team as it ascends, for all the reasons and examples you mentioned. Lafleurs Guy is right that the Habs screwed themselves by losing opportunity after opportunity to add great prospects. But sacrificing everything in the present for the uncertain future of prospects is just as shortsighted. Much better to build a team around the talent and ethic of Plekanec than use him as a bargaining chip.

I see no logical reason to move Plekanec unless we get a ridiculous offer. That doesn't mean a 1st and a B prospect from a playoff team.

 

[habtastic]

Absolutely right. Plekanec just turned 30. He could remain in his prime for years and be a big part of our rebuilt team as it ascends, for all the reasons and examples you mentioned. Lafleurs Guy is right that the Habs screwed themselves by losing opportunity after opportunity to add great prospects. But sacrificing everything in the present for the uncertain future of prospects is just as shortsighted. Much better to build a team around the talent and ethic of Plekanec than use him as a bargaining chip.

Double agree. Since Koivu, my favourite player (apart from the "magie" of Kovy or scoring of Cammy...which was all talent) has been Plekanec. I've seen him go from farm team to big team and work his ass off every single game including after he got his contract. All the little girl stuff was so overblown and he shows fight more than ever in recent times. That and he is loyal to the CH, a great PKer, passer, fast skater, feeds his wingers amply, backchecks -- all the things I respect in a player's tenacity and ability. He's also a great locker room guy in that he thinks team first, not buddy buddy. I hate reading stuff about trading him cuz it would be in the same emotional wheelhouse as when Saku left/was not kept (for me, personally). And you're right about him mentoring Gally, as he's already provided some advice for him. Thing is, I also like DD and I am a huge believer in Eller being a very big force in the NHL a few years from now. It's hard when you get attached to certain players. Of course it's all about the front of the jersey, but that paradoxically means you really appreciate the players that display that mentality.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You mean Gauthier lusted after Bourque? I naively assumed that he wanted to get rid of Cammalleri. Of course, the prospect and draft pick obtained in the deal were mere driftwood. Same for the return for Gill and Kostitsyn.

Gauthier was an idiot. The broadcasters the day after his rant were talking about the returns we could get on Cammy... when the trade went down they were shocked and then several GMs commented that they had no idea about the deal.

PG was a piss poor GM who grasped at straws to make the playoffs. Make no mistake that was a short term move designed to try to make the playoffs and save face from Cammy's comments. The timing of the deal (which made absolutely no sense) confirm this. Everyone knows this and Bob McKenzie himself said you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Cammy's comments didn't have something to do with this.

Just another example of the dumb, dumb management we've had in recent years.

So why have the Habs been mediocre (and at times worse than that) since 1993? It's difficult to explain two decades in one gulp. I could point to a fewl things: the parsimonious outlook of the old Molson ownership, the appointment of Houle and Tremblay (and later of Carbonneau), the dumping of Koivu, the Gomez trade, and errors in drafting (incliuding, IMO. the selection of Leblanc instead of Kreider). No doubt other posters could add to the dossier.

How about the fact that we sign the leftovers from other clubs and never drafted high? How about the fact that rather than rebuild (which we should've done an infinite number of times) we went for 8th place?

8th place and making the playoffs became the target for success and many people here became satisified with it. That was the problem.

You choose to close your eyes to the acquisition of quite a few prospects (besides Galchenyuk) who could help the Habs pull themselves out of the mire in a few years. I'm sure you could name them, so I won't bother.

I think acquiring prospects is great. I just think we should do a whole lot more of this...

while I agree in part, do you not see the value in the team having/retaining some quality veteran players, even while focusing on building toward a long term target of roster success?

Veteran presence is great. But not at the expense of picking up young talent. Nobody had to show Yzerman how to play. Nobody had to show Subban or Price. Good players will develop no matter what. In fact, when you build with a bunch of kids it's probably even better because they grow up together.

And we have vets that we can keep. Hal Gill was supposedly a good vet, Josh Gorges can fill that role. We don't need to turn down good opportunities for the sake of keeping a vet. Markov is woth a hell of a lot more to us as trade bait than he is as a veteran leader.

I know a whole bunch of people are going to freak out on this but it's true. We just never seem to learn this lesson.

it's not just about having enough players to ice a team, or picking up scrap veterans off of the UFA pile to make do while waiting for top picks/prospects to take over... it's also about making sure that those up & coming players get exposed to the right culture within the organization every step of the way.

a big part of Detroits sustained success, long after they had been a conistent contender without the benefit of restocking with quality picks, was the way they brought along guys like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Flipula, Kronwall.

Plekanec, imo, is exactly the type of veteran you want to have around when bringing a stud like Gally or Collberg into the fold. Good enough to be a leader by virtue of his play/performance, meticulously committed to details in all areas of his game, consistent work ethic & willingness to play whatever role the team wants.
Gionta, and it seems cole, also fit that billing, though of the three I'd argue Pleks to be the most useful in the "lead by example/performance" pov.


all this isn't to say you don't move him for the right deal, but moving him just for the sake of adding a 13th overall pick in a draft class that wasn't particularly deep/talented? no thanks... pass.

You wouldn't deal Markov for Filip Forsberg? Why not?

Who do you think will be the better player in two years or three years? How long do you think Forsberg will be in the league? And even if he flops... what are we losing here? And if he's great... what do we gain?

How the hell is this not worth the risk?

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Lafleurs Guy what you're ignoring is that we pay money to watch the team ENTERTAIN us.

Beyond cups, prospects, talent and stats it's fundementally mindless entertainment for the masses. It doesn't make sense to go so deep into strategic long-term tanking as success that way is not only NOT guaranteed but a lack of talent is a sure way to turn off fans, ruin club image and devalue it completely.

No one will argue that picking up studs isn't really, really awesome. But that's not the point: As slightly obsessive hockey fans we go back and forth over a little turf in the realm of possibilities - long term tanking is just NOT going to happen. Not with a new owner who doesn't want to devalue the franchise, not when the market is (or was pre-lockout) white hot, not when there are foundations in the organization that can expedite talent development, not when tickets are so expensive, not when the team is finally attractive to UFAs, etc.

It just won't happen and the concept is an insult to the fans who pay an awful lot to watch the team perform. You have spent a lot of text over the years arguing the same principles but you still don't seem to acknowledge that you can't guarantee success by tanking and that sports are to entertain, first, win second.

For us obsessives, we were okay (begrudgingly) with losing last year but by and large it sucked for everyone involved from team to management to fans. It's awful to lose and to suck and I know that the Habs are too traditional to even consider selling off their prime assests.

Markov is a Hab from his first game, he's not trade bait and also his value is unknown since he has so many cobwebs. Why even bring him up?

Plekanec removed from the squad would expose guile-less (amongst other things) set of centres with little defensive acumen. This is the kinda shiz that gets you scored on, ruins games and fouls up seasons. Which as I argued before, will not be part of anybody's strategic plan.

 

[Lshap]

How about the fact that we sign the leftovers from other clubs and never drafted high? How about the fact that rather than rebuild (which we should've done an infinite number of times) we went for 8th place?

8th place and making the playoffs became the target for success and many people here became satisified with it. That was the problem.

I think acquiring prospects is great. I just think we should do a whole lot more of this...

We already have solid prospects. Prospects are great, but not at the expense of emptying the cupboard of everyone over 30 years old. Dumping developed talent for developing talent isn't a ticket to the Cup, it just creates an aura of anticipation for a future that may never pay off. Defer, defer, defer. All you've done is mask the problem with youth, which is the flip side of masking the problem with aging vets. The Habs have been guilty of the latter; you're suggesting we switch to the former. You need a balance, which is why every Cup winner has a mix of youth, prime and vets.

Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, Tinordi, Collberg -- all will begin making an impact in about three years. What better veteran presence at that time than a 33 year-old Plekanec?

As to an already-older Markov, I agree, I would deal him for Forsberg for all the reasons you mentioned. I'd guess most of us would. But Washington wouldn't. And there's the problem. All this talk about prospects really comes down to TOP prospects, which are much, much harder to land. I mean, Eller and Nokeleinen were 1st-rounders, as was AK, but that didn't bring us closer to a Cup. Let's see if a first-round pick from Columbus or the Islanders is even on the table before we debate who we'd trade away. I doubt it is.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Lafleurs Guy what you're ignoring is that we pay money to watch the team ENTERTAIN us.

Beyond cups, prospects, talent and stats it's fundementally mindless entertainment for the masses. It doesn't make sense to go so deep into strategic long-term tanking as success that way is not only NOT guaranteed but a lack of talent is a sure way to turn off fans, ruin club image and devalue it completely.

It absolutely DOES make sense. Whether we suck or not this year you'll still watch. Why? Because you'll want to see how Galchenyuk is developing, you'll want to watch Subban...


We had a horrendous season last year and yet here we all are on the Habs forum. You're not going anywhere man. And I don't know about you, but I love watching up and coming talent lacing up for us. I've loved watching Price and Subban and Max... I'll watch no matter what and so will you.

This is just another tired excuse for not rebuilding.

No one will argue that picking up studs isn't really, really awesome. But that's not the point: As slightly obsessive hockey fans we go back and forth over a little turf in the realm of possibilities - long term tanking is just NOT going to happen. Not with a new owner who doesn't want to devalue the franchise, not when the market is (or was pre-lockout) white hot, not when there are foundations in the organization that can expedite talent development, not when tickets are so expensive, not when the team is finally attractive to UFAs, etc.

Whether or not rebuilding will happen is an entirely different story. But it SHOULD happen because its the best way to develop a team for the long term and our best bet at a cup.

Our only hope is that Molson realizes this and actually wants to win.

It just won't happen and the concept is an insult to the fans who pay an awful lot to watch the team perform.

BS. Go smell what you're shovelling.

Were you insulted when we drafted Galchenyuk?

I'll tell you what was insulting... getting Bourque and Kaberle in some stupid desperate attempt at making 8th. THAT was insulting. It's been insulting for the last 20 years as we've watched 8th place become the gold standard and baffiliing that guys like you continue to defend this philosophy as virtuous.

You have spent a lot of text over the years arguing the same principles but you still don't seem to acknowledge that you can't guarantee success by tanking and that sports are to entertain, first, win second.

You can't guarantee success no matter what...

What's your point here? We shouldn't go after the best talent? We shouldn't try to win? Because there's no guarantees we should just give up? What colour is the sky in your world dude?

Top picks on average produce the best players. That is FACT. It only makes sense to get as many as you can and build with them.

For us obsessives, we were okay (begrudgingly) with losing last year but by and large it sucked for everyone involved from team to management to fans. It's awful to lose and to suck and I know that the Habs are too traditional to even consider selling off their prime assests.

The building will still be full. The cash will still flow. YOU will still watch and you will still post here. That's how it is.

We have the advantage of being able to rebuild without any real consequence to the financials. Other teams can only dream of this.

Markov is a Hab from his first game, he's not trade bait and also his value is unknown since he has so many cobwebs. Why even bring him up?

Are you freaking serious?

Go read the reasoning behind it. It's crystal clear. Makes no more sense to keep him than it did Koivu.

Plekanec removed from the squad would expose guile-less (amongst other things) set of centres with little defensive acumen. This is the kinda shiz that gets you scored on, ruins games and fouls up seasons. Which as I argued before, will not be part of anybody's strategic plan.

Who cares?

We aren't winning anything anyway. Who cares if we're more exposed? You care about 8th... I don't. I care about cups and that's the difference between you and me. I couldn't care less about going for 8th and not winning anything.

We already have solid prospects. Prospects are great, but not at the expense of emptying the cupboard of everyone over 30 years old. Dumping developed talent for developing talent isn't a ticket to the Cup, it just creates an aura of anticipation for a future that may never pay off.

Dealing Markov, Pleks and Cole will bring us closer to a cup. I realize this is a hard concept to get... but sometimes a step back means two steps forward. Those guys aren't going to win anything with us. Makes sense to trade them.

Defer, defer, defer. All you've done is mask the problem with youth, which is the flip side of masking the problem with aging vets. The Habs have been guilty of the latter; you're suggesting we switch to the former.

You have things backwards. Sticking wtih vets who will never win anything for you is defer defer defer and that's what we've done for 20 years.

How do you not understand this yet?

You need a balance, which is why every Cup winner has a mix of youth, prime and vets.

No kidding. The players we add now will be better in three years. By that time guys like Subban, Price, Emelin, Max and Gorges will be vets. As we get better and actually become contenders THEN we can deal away picks for more vets and we can go after whatever FAs are available to help.

We've tried to do it backwards and it hasn't worked.

Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, Tinordi, Collberg -- all will begin making an impact in about three years. What better veteran presence at that time than a 33 year-old Plekanec?

Are you kidding?

As to an already-older Markov, I agree, I would deal him for Forsberg for all the reasons you mentioned. I'd guess most of us would. But Washington wouldn't. And there's the problem. All this talk about prospects really comes down to TOP prospects, which are much, much harder to land. I mean, Eller and Nokeleinen were 1st-rounders, as was AK, but that didn't bring us closer to a Cup. Let's see if a first-round pick from Columbus or the Islanders is even on the table before we debate who we'd trade away. I doubt it is.

Washington wouldn't? Maybe you're right. But they'd might do it for Pleks. Or maybe it's a combination of vets... Let Timmins guide us on which prospects to go after. We should trust his judgement. If Forsberg is a real building block, then do it. Now you've got Forsberg, Galchenyuk plus whatever else we get in the draft... THAT's how you build teams.

If Washington is in the hunt and we can give them the final piece, they might give up Forsberg. And I find it hilarious that the same folks last season who said they'd never deal Markov for that pick are now turning around and saying Washington would never trade Forsberg for Markov...

Funny how those picks turn into good prospects.

 

[Miller Time]

Veteran presence is great. But not at the expense of picking up young talent. Nobody had to show Yzerman how to play. Nobody had to show Subban or Price. Good players will develop no matter what. In fact, when you build with a bunch of kids it's probably even better because they grow up together.

and Yzerman made it out of the first round twice in his first 11 years...

go figure that the Wings started their run of dominance in the mid-90's with veteran guys like Coffey, Ciccarelli, Fetisov & Vernon playing big roles.

Of course, Yzerman was 29 by then, but if you ever hear him speak about his hockey education, he credits many of those veteran players with helping him mature & become the kind of leader he needed to be to be a winner.

Big difference btw coming in and scoring lots of points, and coming in and becoming the kind of team leader that "carries" a team into championship territory... Case in point, Alex Ovechkin.

It's not just about developping on the stat sheet, it's about becoming a winner... and not every good player is a "winner" (just like not every player who wins a ring is a key part of that team).

And we have vets that we can keep. Hal Gill was supposedly a good vet, Josh Gorges can fill that role. We don't need to turn down good opportunities for the sake of keeping a vet. Markov is woth a hell of a lot more to us as trade bait than he is as a veteran leader.

I know a whole bunch of people are going to freak out on this but it's true. We just never seem to learn this lesson.

It's not just about having a veteran player around, or even a "good vet" from a locker room pov. It's important to have some veteran leadership/maturity in players who contribute in larger roles.

not "necessary", but important... and probably more now then ever as the current generation of young people/athlete were raised with far less instruction/maturity than previous generations... talent & skill is one thing, but being able to lead a group and make those around you better/elevate their games is a whole other skill.
Teams with star players with that kind of ability, are the ones who make the most of their opportunities. you want to build a culture in your team whereby the young talent you assemble learns who to excel in that way, not just in "getting mine".

You wouldn't deal Markov for Filip Forsberg? Why not?

Who do you think will be the better player in two years or three years? How long do you think Forsberg will be in the league? And even if he flops... what are we losing here? And if he's great... what do we gain?

How the hell is this not worth the risk?

now that argument getting a little silly...

would i trade Markov for Forsberg today? Probably yes... and I'd be shocked if the Capitals accepted.

Markov is a huge ? to play a full season, let alone contribute anywhere close to where he used to.

Would i trade Plekanec for Forsber? Absolutely not. Forsberg looks good, but so have many young players yet to make their mark at the pro/NHL level. Plekanec is money in the bank, and is the kind of veteran leader who will rub off positively on any young player actually interested in learning (as the current camp observations with regards to Gally make abundantly clear).

If you made every trade based on speculation of "who will be better in 2-3 years", you'd be the Islanders or Oilers... stocked with young talent, which is nice, but devoid of "ready" talent.

By that logic, what stops you from trading talented 24-25 -26 year old players for the "next great prospect"?

no use taking an argument into absurd territory, does nothing but give the appearance of grasping at straws...

and for the most part, I do agree with long-term vision in building a roster, but extremmes in either direction are just as unproductive.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

and Yzerman made it out of the first round twice in his first 11 years...

Doesn't matter. Even when losing and surrounded by the DeadThings he was still a star. He didn't need anyone to show him how to be a star. Ditto with Lemieux and tons of others...

And Yzerman didn't have Carey Price as a teammate not to mention Subban etc...

go figure that the Wings started their run of dominance in the mid-90's with veteran guys like Coffey, Ciccarelli, Fetisov & Vernon playing big roles.

Of course, Yzerman was 29 by then, but if you ever hear him speak about his hockey education, he credits many of those veteran players with helping him mature & become the kind of leader he needed to be to be a winner.

Absolutely. You need a team to win. Not sure what your point is here though.

Yzerman developed just fine... it wasn't his fault that he was on a bad team. Dealing Pleks, Cole and Markov isn't going to kill this team for years and years man. It will just accelerate the rebuild and help us down the road.

The kids we get now in three years will be better than those vets. And by then we'll have Price, Subban, Max, Gorges and tons of others who will be vets.

What's the problem here?

Big difference btw coming in and scoring lots of points, and coming in and becoming the kind of team leader that "carries" a team into championship territory... Case in point, Alex Ovechkin.

It's not just about developping on the stat sheet, it's about becoming a winner... and not every good player is a "winner" (just like not every player who wins a ring is a key part of that team).

The way to become a winner is to start with the best talent.

And you're talking like EVERY single one of our players will be in diapers and that's not the case.

It's not just about having a veteran player around, or even a "good vet" from a locker room pov. It's important to have some veteran leadership/maturity in players who contribute in larger roles.

We already have those guys. We're not going to deal every vet man. We've got Gorges, we've got Gionta we've got Price... Yeah, Carey Price. Believe it or not even though he's only 25 he's been in the league five years.

We can deal tons of vets away and we'll still have some old guys.

Again, young talent for us at this stage is more important than experience.

not "necessary", but important... and probably more now then ever as the current generation of young people/athlete were raised with far less instruction/maturity than previous generations... talent & skill is one thing, but being able to lead a group and make those around you better/elevate their games is a whole other skill.
Teams with star players with that kind of ability, are the ones who make the most of their opportunities. you want to build a culture in your team whereby the young talent you assemble learns who to excel in that way, not just in "getting mine".

There are tons of teams that started in shambles and built winners. You're overplaying this big time.

And again, we already have vets and they'll be older by the time the prospects we get now develop. Your argument is a non-starter.

now that argument getting a little silly...

would i trade Markov for Forsberg today? Probably yes... and I'd be shocked if the Capitals accepted.

Okay. Would you have dealt him last season for the pick before you knew it was Forsberg? Most said no. To me, that's crazy.

Markov is a huge ? to play a full season, let alone contribute anywhere close to where he used to.

I know. As I said IF the Caps consider themselves in the hunt and it pre-supposes Markov playing well. Markov could be great. He could also get hurt on his first shift...

Would i trade Plekanec for Forsber? Absolutely not. Forsberg looks good, but so have many young players yet to make their mark at the pro/NHL level. Plekanec is money in the bank, and is the kind of veteran leader who will rub off positively on any young player actually interested in learning (as the current camp observations with regards to Gally make abundantly clear).

Money in the bank?

For what? We're not winning this year or next. Meanwhile Pleks gets older. Best we can hope for is that we're contenders in three years (we hope) and by that time Forsberg might even be a better player than Pleks. And in five years he definitely will be.

So again... not sure why you wouldn't do this unless you don't believe in Forsberg (which is fine.) Like I said, I'd defer to Timmins to decide on which prospects to go after.

If you made every trade based on speculation of "who will be better in 2-3 years", you'd be the Islanders or Oilers... stocked with young talent, which is nice, but devoid of "ready" talent.

Except that this isn't the case and you know it. We have Subban, Max, Emelin, Price, Galchenyuk etc...

By that logic, what stops you from trading talented 24-25 -26 year old players for the "next great prospect"?

Math.

The fact is that I don't see us being legit contenders for at least another three years. In three years that 24 year old would be 27. Perfect. In three years Pleks will be 34... we'd be better off with a player who would be 21.

Make sense? It should.

no use taking an argument into absurd territory, does nothing but give the appearance of grasping at straws...

and for the most part, I do agree with long-term vision in building a roster, but extremmes in either direction are just as unproductive.

Not sure what you mean by extreme.

Was it extreme when I suggested Souray and Koivu for a young Bobby Ryan and some picks? Well, it's five years later and Ryan is in his mid 20s now. People said I was extreme back then too.

A few years ago I talked about Markov for JVR and somebody else suggested Claude Giroux... we were laughed out of the room. Well, how about now?

Do the math. It's simple mathematics man. Look at the age of these guys and add three years. Who's going to be better then? Who's going to be better in five years when we (really hope) that we're contenders.

And again, we lost Souray and then Koivu. The sky didn't fall. It won't fall if we deal these other players either. We'd be far better off in the long run.

I'm asking you to take emotion out of it and be practical. I've been proven right time and again. Hell, look at Rivet for the 1st that turned into Max. We should be making MORE of those kinds of deals. They won't all yield a Pacman but we'd still be better off.

And NOW is the time to do this. Actually the time to do this was 15 years ago but I'll settle for now.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

Gauthier was an idiot. The broadcasters the day after his rant were talking about the returns we could get on Cammy... when the trade went down they were shocked and then several GMs commented that they had no idea about the deal.

PG was a piss poor GM who grasped at straws to make the playoffs. Make no mistake that was a short term move designed to try to make the playoffs and save face from Cammy's comments. The timing of the deal (which made absolutely no sense) confirm this. Everyone knows this and Bob McKenzie himself said you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Cammy's comments didn't have something to do with this.

Just another example of the dumb, dumb management we've had in recent years.

How about the fact that we sign the leftovers from other clubs and never drafted high? How about the fact that rather than rebuild (which we should've done an infinite number of times) we went for 8th place?

8th place and making the playoffs became the target for success and many people here became satisified with it. That was the problem.

I think acquiring prospects is great. I just think we should do a whole lot more of this...


Veteran presence is great. But not at the expense of picking up young talent. Nobody had to show Yzerman how to play. Nobody had to show Subban or Price. Good players will develop no matter what. In fact, when you build with a bunch of kids it's probably even better because they grow up together.

And we have vets that we can keep. Hal Gill was supposedly a good vet, Josh Gorges can fill that role. We don't need to turn down good opportunities for the sake of keeping a vet. Markov is woth a hell of a lot more to us as trade bait than he is as a veteran leader.

I know a whole bunch of people are going to freak out on this but it's true. We just never seem to learn this lesson.




You wouldn't deal Markov for Filip Forsberg? Why not?

Who do you think will be the better player in two years or three years? How long do you think Forsberg will be in the league? And even if he flops... what are we losing here? And if he's great... what do we gain?

How the hell is this not worth the risk?

Sure I would make the trade, but you're being extremely unrealistic and can't be taken seriously. Can you name a GM who would offer a highly rated first round pick for Markov? Of course you can't, so please don't offer us preposterous scenarios. You can do better than that.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Sure I would make the trade, but you're being extremely unrealistic and can't be taken seriously. Can you name a GM who would offer a highly rated first round pick for Markov? Of course you can't, so please don't offer us preposterous scenarios. You can do better than that.

You won't get a top 1st rounder for Markov. I would never say otherwise.

A mid to late 1st? It would depend on the state of the team we're trading him to and how well Markov is doing. Absolutely that is realistic and we should be all over it if it happens. Hell, Craig freaking Rivet got us a 1st. You don't think a healthy Markov could? Of course he could and it would probably be more than just the 1st.

 

[Miller Time]

Doesn't matter. Even when losing and surrounded by the DeadThings he was still a star. He didn't need anyone to show him how to be a star. Ditto with Lemieux and tons of others...

And Yzerman didn't have Carey Price as a teammate not to mention Subban etc...

Absolutely. You need a team to win. Not sure what your point is here though.

Yzerman developed just fine... it wasn't his fault that he was on a bad team. Dealing Pleks, Cole and Markov isn't going to kill this team for years and years man. It will just accelerate the rebuild and help us down the road.

The kids we get now in three years will be better than those vets. And by then we'll have Price, Subban, Max, Gorges and tons of others who will be vets.

What's the problem here?

The way to become a winner is to start with the best talent.

And you're talking like EVERY single one of our players will be in diapers and that's not the case.

We already have those guys. We're not going to deal every vet man. We've got Gorges, we've got Gionta we've got Price... Yeah, Carey Price. Believe it or not even though he's only 25 he's been in the league five years.

We can deal tons of vets away and we'll still have some old guys.

Again, young talent for us at this stage is more important than experience.

There are tons of teams that started in shambles and built winners. You're overplaying this big time.

And again, we already have vets and they'll be older by the time the prospects we get now develop. Your argument is a non-starter.






Okay. Would you have dealt him last season for the pick before you knew it was Forsberg? Most said no. To me, that's crazy.


I know. As I said IF the Caps consider themselves in the hunt and it pre-supposes Markov playing well. Markov could be great. He could also get hurt on his first shift...

Money in the bank?

For what? We're not winning this year or next. Meanwhile Pleks gets older. Best we can hope for is that we're contenders in three years (we hope) and by that time Forsberg might even be a better player than Pleks. And in five years he definitely will be.

So again... not sure why you wouldn't do this unless you don't believe in Forsberg (which is fine.) Like I said, I'd defer to Timmins to decide on which prospects to go after.

Except that this isn't the case and you know it. We have Subban, Max, Emelin, Price, Galchenyuk etc...


Math.

The fact is that I don't see us being legit contenders for at least another three years. In three years that 24 year old would be 27. Perfect. In three years Pleks will be 34... we'd be better off with a player who would be 21.

Make sense? It should.


Not sure what you mean by extreme.

Was it extreme when I suggested Souray and Koivu for a young Bobby Ryan and some picks? Well, it's five years later and Ryan is in his mid 20s now. People said I was extreme back then too.

A few years ago I talked about Markov for JVR and somebody else suggested Claude Giroux... we were laughed out of the room. Well, how about now?

Do the math. It's simple mathematics man. Look at the age of these guys and add three years. Who's going to be better then? Who's going to be better in five years when we (really hope) that we're contenders.

And again, we lost Souray and then Koivu. The sky didn't fall. It won't fall if we deal these other players either. We'd be far better off in the long run.

I'm asking you to take emotion out of it and be practical. I've been proven right time and again. Hell, look at Rivet for the 1st that turned into Max. We should be making MORE of those kinds of deals. They won't all yield a Pacman but we'd still be better off.

And NOW is the time to do this. Actually the time to do this was 15 years ago but I'll settle for now.

even though you're taking the time to separately quote each point, it appears you didn't even read them???

step down from the pulpit, have a real conversation, which requires "listening" (or in this case, reading), and then respond to what is actually said as opposed to spouting off stuff that is has nothing to do with what was said...

or don't

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

even though you're taking the time to separately quote each point, it appears you didn't even read them???

step down from the pulpit, have a real conversation, which requires "listening" (or in this case, reading), and then respond to what is actually said as opposed to spouting off stuff that is has nothing to do with what was said...

or don't

I replied to everything you said man. I go point by point because there are different arguments made in each post. I address them one by one so that I can get to them. There's nothing wrong with the response I gave you.

Again, do the math. Are we contenders now? No right? Will we be next year? No right? The year after that? Hopefully... maybe... And we hope that that will be the start of a run where we can ice some competitive (truly competitive, not the crap we've seen for the past two decades) teams year after year. Isn't that the goal?

So... do the math. If we're not winning anything for at least three years (likely longer) then it makes sense to deal away older players who won't be here for that success. And it makes sense to do it now so that these prospects will be in their early 20s at the start of our (hopeful) run.

Hanging onto them doesn't make sense now because we won't win. It doesn't make sense because the longer we hold onto them, the less they'll be worth because they are a deminishing return. And hanging onto to them also doesn't make sense because by not getting the prospects now, we're delaying the development of whatever we get in return.

Think about it.

 

[MasterDecoy]

another hockey season, lafleur's guy still talking about the saaaaaaaaame thing...

 

[Lshap]

Dealing Markov, Pleks and Cole will bring us closer to a cup. I realize this is a hard concept to get... but sometimes a step back means two steps forward. Those guys aren't going to win anything with us. Makes sense to trade them.

Within the tiny window of years an athlete has, the four year difference between 30-year-old Pleks and 34-year-old Cole and Markov is relevant. In three or four years when the Habs rebuild starts giving fruit, Cole and Markov may still be useful, but I agree we'd get more by dealing them sooner while their stock remains high(ish). So no argument with you there. On the other hand, in three years Plekanec will have just turned 33 -- still prime. Not only is he a huge asset, he's the perfect leader-by-example. He is our Yzerman.

Knowing which pieces to KEEP is as important as knowing which ones to trade. Plekanec, IMO, is a keeper.

You have things backwards. Sticking wtih vets who will never win anything for you is defer defer defer and that's what we've done for 20 years.

How do you not understand this yet?

You misunderstood. I have zero interest in pursuing vets. Bouillon is a perfect example -- great for a one-season bridge but useless in the long run. Bergevin seems to get this concept and hasn't saddled us with any crippling contracts to older guys. He understands this, I understand this, everyone understands this. My point was that we shouldn't fall into the reverse trap of being in a chronic restocking mode.

At some point, you have to stop filling the tank and start driving.

No kidding. The players we add now will be better in three years. By that time guys like Subban, Price, Emelin, Max and Gorges will be vets. As we get better and actually become contenders THEN we can deal away picks for more vets and we can go after whatever FAs are available to help.

We've tried to do it backwards and it hasn't worked.

Agree with this. I think our only contentious player is Plekanec. I want to give this guy a ring and pledge my undying love, you want to use him as arm-candy when you walk into the pickup bar.

Are you kidding?

About Plekanec being the perfect vet for our future team? No. I have no sense of humour. I never kid.

Washington wouldn't? Maybe you're right. But they'd might do it for Pleks. Or maybe it's a combination of vets... Let Timmins guide us on which prospects to go after. We should trust his judgement. If Forsberg is a real building block, then do it. Now you've got Forsberg, Galchenyuk plus whatever else we get in the draft... THAT's how you build teams.

If Washington is in the hunt and we can give them the final piece, they might give up Forsberg. And I find it hilarious that the same folks last season who said they'd never deal Markov for that pick are now turning around and saying Washington would never trade Forsberg for Markov...

Funny how those picks turn into good prospects.

Hey, I'd love to grab Forsberg and Grigorenko, then find a way to poach this year's picks like Drouin, Jones or McKinnon. But as that request finds its place among the queue with 29 other teams who want the same thing, it should become clear the chances of doing that are zero. It ain't the horse-thievin' days of Sam Pollock. I just don't think it's possible to build a team by poaching a bunch of top picks. We're much better than we were a couple of years ago -- a ton of cap space set to come off the books after 2013/14 and no aging vet commitments weighing us down after that. We have a prospect pool that -- on paper -- appears to be among the league's best. The rebuild is underway.

The tank's as full as it's going to be. Bergevin's operating the GPS and Therrien's steering. Let's start driving somewhere.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

another hockey season, lafleur's guy still talking about the saaaaaaaaame thing...

That's right. But hey, enjoy watching Galchenyuk this year. And when he starts to produce, maybe you'll realize that I've been right.... for a long time.

Do you ever stop to look at our best players and think about what I've said? Price is a top five (we got lucky or we wouldn't even have him), Max and Gorges were got via a rebuild move and now we have Galchenyuk.

Hmmm... weird how those players seem to be among our best. Yeah, let's not do more of that. This team needs more Gomez type deals.

Within the tiny window of years an athlete has, the four year difference between 30-year-old Pleks and 34-year-old Cole and Markov is relevant. In three or four years when the Habs rebuild starts giving fruit, Cole and Markov may still be useful, but I agree we'd get more by dealing them sooner while their stock remains high(ish). So no argument with you there. On the other hand, in three years Plekanec will have just turned 33 -- still prime. Not only is he a huge asset, he's the perfect leader-by-example. He is our Yzerman.

I disagree. And if he's our Yzerman... (even leadership wise) man we're in serious trouble.

Knowing which pieces to KEEP is as important as knowing which ones to trade. Plekanec, IMO, is a keeper.

Can't Gionta be the vet? Can't Gorges? I'm sorry but I don't see how this guy can't be traded...

You misunderstood. I have zero interest in pursuing vets. Bouillon is a perfect example -- great for a one-season bridge but useless in the long run. Bergevin seems to get this concept and hasn't saddled us with any crippling contracts to older guys. He understands this, I understand this, everyone understands this. My point was that we shouldn't fall into the reverse trap of being in a chronic restocking mode.

At some point, you have to stop filling the tank and start driving.

Sure. And we could try to go with what we've got. Go for 8th this year, stick with the roster.

Look, maybe we have enough already to win down the road. That's a possibilty. We've got great players at each position. It might be good enough and I hope it is. But if we add to that core I really don't see how we aren't REAL contenders in four years. You add another top five and some other prospects to what we have now... we're in amazing shape. But we should be doing this now.

Yeah, we can drive with what we've got... I just think we're a few pieces away and we're not good enough to win now anyway. So bite the bullet and get it over with. If we'd done it long ago we'd be further ahead now.

Agree with this. I think our only contentious player is Plekanec. I want to give this guy a ring and pledge my undying love, you want to use him as arm-candy when you walk into the pickup bar.

About Plekanec being the perfect vet for our future team? No. I have no sense of humour. I never kid.

Okay well, I disagree with you on this. Like I said, maybe we will be good enough with what we've got. That's not outside the realm of possibilty. Again though I just see us as being so close... just a little more rebuild and we're in awesome shape going forward. Pleks has the most value so he's who I'd want us to deal.

Hey, I'd love to grab Forsberg and Grigorenko, then find a way to poach this year's picks like Drouin, Jones or McKinnon. But as that request finds its place among the queue with 29 other teams who want the same thing, it should become clear the chances of doing that are zero. It ain't the horse-thievin' days of Sam Pollock. I just don't think it's possible to build a team by poaching a bunch of top picks. We're much better than we were a couple of years ago -- a ton of cap space set to come off the books after 2013/14 and no aging vet commitments weighing us down after that. We have a prospect pool that -- on paper -- appears to be among the league's best. The rebuild is underway.

The tank's as full as it's going to be. Bergevin's operating the GPS and Therrien's steering. Let's start driving somewhere.

We won't get McKinnon. Only way we'll probably get a top pick is to finish low enough ourselves. Again though if we dealt our vets we'd probably get a high pick (we might anyway) and we'd get whatever else in the returns.

 

[DAChampion]

We are a very different team NOW, but 16 months ago we were pretty similar to the previous season. We lost Hamrlik and Wiznewski, but we gained Eric Cole, Emelin and Diaz. Spacek, Gill, Cammy, Kostitsyn, Jacques Martin were all there. Read the HF boards from last year -- the Habs board AND the general board -- almost everybody felt the Habs were a legit playoff team as we'd been the past few years, many people saying we'd finish even higher. ON PAPER, the Habs had question marks on defense but overall appeared at least as strong.

But my point actually wasn't even about the Habs, it was about the general habit of putting too much stock in last year's standings when it comes to predicting this year's standings. Just because a team WAS stronger or weaker last year often has little bearing on how they'll actually do now, which is why the only guarantee is that a couple of solid teams will drop (as the Habs did last year) and hereafter be viewed as 'weak', while a handful of weak/bubble teams will come outta' nowhere (LA, NJ) and re-brand themselves as strong teams.

The best predictor of next year's standings is always last year's standings. Check out the standings from year-to-year, they are extremely correlated.

 

[Lshap]

The best predictor of next year's standings is always last year's standings. Check out the standings from year-to-year, they are extremely correlated.

So the guys in red jerseys playing Los Angeles in the finals last season were the Habs? Because, after all, we made the playoffs in 2011 and New Jersey didn't. Seriously now, how many examples would you like me to throw at you to totally disprove your correlation theory?

 

[Gally11]

The best predictor of next year's standings is always last year's standings. Check out the standings from year-to-year, they are extremely correlated.

That only makes sense with a similar team. Habs have a very different team than last year.. Too much is different for people to use last year as evidence for this year.. New coaching staff, gionta and markov, a lot of first defensemen after more experience now (Diaz, Emelin), a more well rounded bottom six and Gally can be a wild card. No Gomez being useless as well

 

[Monctonscout]

another hockey season, lafleur's guy still talking about the saaaaaaaaame thing...

I find it's a waste of time arguing with him.

He believes the NHL exists in a vacuum where a new GM taking over has 8 years to try and win a cup at the expense of giving the fans a good product to watch or the owner making money on their huge investment. It also assumes that a team can suck for 3-4 years and it will have no effect on the atmosphere around the team or the players here(especially young).

Imagine yourself in Price, Pacioretty or Deshanais' shoes and your GN dumps a pile of veterans for kids and picks...and does it for 3 straight years...all 3 years you know the team will suck and you have no chance at the playoffs? Do you think those guys would want to hang around? Do you think they would be "winners" in 4-5 years? The best thing taht happened to Pittsburgh Chiacgo as teams taht won after sucking for like 5 straight years is the vast majority of the roster wasn't around and they all arrived at once...plus Pit won the Crosby Lottery and lucked out also with a guy like Malkin at 2. Most years you don't get guys like that at #1.

Edit. Lafleurs Guy you seem like an intelligent person, but you are being really narrow minded on this topic. Your stance is not a realistic one for a guy like Bergevin, not as of today for sure. If the team ***** the bed, then maybe dump a bunch of vets at the deadline, but next summer you need to spend to close to the cap and add other veterans(to change the "culture"). You can't just go bare bones and spend to the cap floor for 2-3 years.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I find it's a waste of time arguing with him.

He believes the NHL exists in a vacuum where a new GM taking over has 8 years to try and win a cup at the expense of giving the fans a good product to watch or the owner making money on their huge investment. It also assumes that a team can suck for 3-4 years and it will have no effect on the atmosphere around the team or the players here(especially young).

Imagine yourself in Price, Pacioretty or Deshanais' shoes and your GN dumps a pile of veterans for kids and picks...and does it for 3 straight years...all 3 years you know the team will suck and you have no chance at the playoffs? Do you think those guys would want to hang around? Do you think they would be "winners" in 4-5 years? The best thing taht happened to Pittsburgh Chiacgo as teams taht won after sucking for like 5 straight years is the vast majority of the roster wasn't around and they all arrived at once...plus Pit won the Crosby Lottery and lucked out also with a guy like Malkin at 2. Most years you don't get guys like that at #1.

Edit. Lafleurs Guy you seem like an intelligent person, but you are being really narrow minded on this topic. Your stance is not a realistic one for a guy like Bergevin, not as of today for sure. If the team ***** the bed, then maybe dump a bunch of vets at the deadline, but next summer you need to spend to close to the cap and add other veterans(to change the "culture"). You can't just go bare bones and spend to the cap floor for 2-3 years.

If we'd done this five years ago would we be further ahead now? Be honest...

Of course we would. For years I've told you we've been going down the wrong path. For years people have opposed me. And all the while we've wasted our time. And in the few instances of where we've done what I've said (rebuild and top five moves) it's paid off.

Yes, it's the same argument over and over. But the team has been doing the same things over and over and I've been right. You've been too blind to see it. Go look at when the Gomez and Gionta moves were made. Go look at the people defending those moves. I said they'd set us back five years and that's exactly what's happened. Be honestwith yourself.. did you like those moves? Did you defend them? If so, do you still defend them or can you acknowledge that I was right? If you can't... that's on you.

I think things are better now as we got lucky with Price, made a rebuild trade that got us Max and Gorges and now we have Galchenyuk. Throw in a fantastic steal in the 2nd round with Subban and we're better than we've been in a long time. Maybe even good enough to win something someday.

I just think if we add to what we already have we could become a powerhouse. We're so close. Add in another couple of good prospects and maybe a high pick this year... we're set.

As for me being repeating myself (which I proudly admit that I have) I've done so because the team itself has been a broken record. The solution has been there the whole time and we've avoided it. We've FINALLY gone down the rebuild path a little bit and look at the results.

All I'm saying is to do a little bit more.

 

[Monctonscout]

If we'd done this five years ago would we be further ahead now? Be honest...

Of course we would. For years I've told you we've been going down the wrong path. For years people have opposed me. And all the while we've wasted our time. And in the few instances of where we've done what I've said (rebuild and top five moves) it's paid off.

Yes, it's the same argument over and over. But the team has been doing the same things over and over and I've been right. You've been too blind to see it. Go look at when the Gomez and Gionta moves were made. Go look at the people defending those moves. I said they'd set us back five years and that's exactly what's happened. Be honestwith yourself.. did you like those moves? Did you defend them? If so, do you still defend them or can you acknowledge that I was right? If you can't... that's on you.

I think things are better now as we got lucky with Price, made a rebuild trade that got us Max and Gorges and now we have Galchenyuk. Throw in a fantastic steal in the 2nd round with Subban and we're better than we've been in a long time. Maybe even good enough to win something someday.

I just think if we add to what we already have we could become a powerhouse. We're so close. Add in another couple of good prospects and maybe a high pick this year... we're set.

As for me being repeating myself (which I proudly admit that I have) I've done so because the team itself has been a broken record. The solution has been there the whole time and we've avoided it. We've FINALLY gone down the rebuild path a little bit and look at the results.

All I'm saying is to do a little bit more.

Of couse if we did a lot of other things in hindsight we would be better off, but the facts were the same for Gainey as for Bergevin. Your solution was no more a realistic one for him than for Bergevin. Even teams like Pit and Chi that sucked and got lots of early picks never planned on doing so, it just ended up that they were so bad they ended up there, in both cases poor ownership/lack of funds played a part which is a non factor here.

Saying we keep doing the same things is off base, we drafted like crap in the 90's, this has been a non issue the last 10 years or so. Right now I believe we have more NHL players darfted or signed by us than any other franchise. Player development was an issue the last 5 years, Bergevin has spent a lot of time and energy trying to fix this. Don't forget taht there are 29 other taems trying to win the cup and it's not one flick of a switch that gets you a cup. It's putting together a pile of building blocks. Even after you build a great "house" you still need breaks to go at the way and win it all.


Fact remains that being a GM of an NHL team in the cap world means you won't have a job very long if you finish last more than once, so GM's won't go that direction and end up fired. In order for your "plan" to work a GM has to plan to suck and do so badly enough that his owner, fans and players know it, he would probably get fired LONG before his plan came to fruition.


Let's be clear, if we are 8 points from the playoffs near the deadline I'm for dumping multiple veterans and stocking up the "cupboards" with picks and young players. That to me isn't "tanking" it's good asset management unlike say, trading Plekanec today for a pick and a junior player.

 

[GordonGraham]

what was the consessus on the habs last night in the TSN season preview

I only saw the western conference part of the show

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Of couse if we did a lot of other things in hindsight we would be better off...

Some of us don't need hindsight. Some of us have been right all along.

Yet you still don't see it.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

If we'd done this five years ago would we be further ahead now? Be honest...

Of course we would. For years I've told you we've been going down the wrong path. For years people have opposed me. And all the while we've wasted our time. And in the few instances of where we've done what I've said (rebuild and top five moves) it's paid off.

Yes, it's the same argument over and over. But the team has been doing the same things over and over and I've been right. You've been too blind to see it. Go look at when the Gomez and Gionta moves were made. Go look at the people defending those moves. I said they'd set us back five years and that's exactly what's happened. Be honestwith yourself.. did you like those moves? Did you defend them? If so, do you still defend them or can you acknowledge that I was right? If you can't... that's on you.

I think things are better now as we got lucky with Price, made a rebuild trade that got us Max and Gorges and now we have Galchenyuk. Throw in a fantastic steal in the 2nd round with Subban and we're better than we've been in a long time. Maybe even good enough to win something someday.

I just think if we add to what we already have we could become a powerhouse. We're so close. Add in another couple of good prospects and maybe a high pick this year... we're set.

As for me being repeating myself (which I proudly admit that I have) I've done so because the team itself has been a broken record. The solution has been there the whole time and we've avoided it. We've FINALLY gone down the rebuild path a little bit and look at the results.

All I'm saying is to do a little bit more.

Well, we had a horrendous year and lucked out with some high end picks, namely Galchenyuk and Collberg. But with guys like PK (if he ever signs), Price, Pacioretty, even Eller, Tinordi and Beaulieu can be added to that; we have a solid youthful core. While I agree that we should try and add more youth there, we don't have to "tank" to do it. A shrewd trade or two would be enough without sacrificing the chances of progressing that young talent with some playoff expereance.

To varying degrees, guys like Pleknec, Gionta, DD, Moen, Markov even Bourque could fetch some of what you mention. But all that is dependant on the progression of the prospects moving up. As an example, can Eller be able to replace what Pleks brings? Possibly. If he does, Pleks become expendable and can be moved for some really helpful pieces. Same with Gio and Gallagher. The list goes on.

Let's not forget that we have 4 picks in the top 60 this year. We see a prospect we really must have, why not put a roster player or redundant prospect with a pick to move up?

There's different ways of doing the "rebuild". The problem is that many times we've taken some horrific lowball offers simply to move a "bad apple" knowing full well the talent we'd given up.