Confirmed with Link: [MTL/FLA] Mike Weaver to MTL in exchange for 5th round pick in 2015

[JLP]

I almost want the Habs to trade for another small depth defenseman just to see the reaction here.

Or Gerber. Gerbe lol

 

[SB164]

Or Gerber.

We have enough Gerber babies as it is.

I think you mean Nathan Gerbe.

 

[JoelWarlord]

But then you get players like Bourque that have size and skill but doesn't seem to know how or want to use it. I'd rather a team of Weavers at 5'10" 183 that actually make an effort physically than Bourques at 6'2" 215 that doesn't seem to put the effort in.

Agreed, size is a tool. It's a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

 

[macavoy]

and cammalerri .......imagine they get traded for each other again lol

Burke did say in his presser that he is looking for a player that can play now and is willing to take on cap space for a player that can speed up the rebuild.


Please god one time

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Or Gerber.

 

[JLP]

But then you get players like Bourque that have size and skill but doesn't seem to know how or want to use it. I'd rather a team of Weavers at 5'10" 183 that actually make an effort physically than Bourques at 6'2" 215 that doesn't seem to put the effort in.

My point isn't to argue against that being larger makes it easier to be tougher but that can we at least look at how a player plays and uses his size rather than look only at the size and assume that he can't be physical in the NHL because of it.

I don't think Bourque has good heart or hockeyIQ. And yes agree there are bigger players like Bourque who don't use their size as effectively as they might.

But generally speaking and other factors equal, I have to believe size is an asset when countering a competing force on ice, it's physics. It's how the other NHL teams approach the game and fill their rosters. MB's moves go against this somewhat.

 

[Hoople]

I love how everyone loves to act defensive (whether subconsciously or not) and assume I'm, or anyone that is inferring really, referring to manhood when that comes up. Since you always concentrate on height, in fact your off-season ridiculous cutoff was 6'3" last summer for new players on our team, I was curious where you actually stood in that regard. Ever heard of "Short Man Syndrome"? I was just wondering if you, as the loudest of the nondiscriminatory "Too Small" campaign fit the bill, or what other reason you might have to directly equate height with toughness and grit.

As for the Kings, the DD line skated circles around them but had little finish combined with Quick's great play. Apart for Gionta and Bourque there really wasn't much in the sense of getting out-muscled. The Kings are definitely a better puck possession team and also have a good system defensively. Although the Kings have more muscle than the Habs, last night was an example of running into a team with a much better system that know what they are doing than it was a case of lack of strength.

The two goals came from defensive breakdowns, one on the rush and one in the circle for a one-timer, which are two areas extra bulk won't help.

You are backtracking now (bolded). You know what you meant and if that is on your mind, good on you. Works for you, not for me.

Montreal's average height is 72.2 inches and 201.7 lbs.

I am at the average height and 3 pounds over the average weight of the Habs. And I do not play in the NHL. What's your point?

There is no correlation between the size of fans and the ability of larger physical teams to outplay and outmuscle the Habs.

 

[Hoople]

But then you get players like Bourque that have size and skill but doesn't seem to know how or want to use it. I'd rather a team of Weavers at 5'10" 183 that actually make an effort physically than Bourques at 6'2" 215 that doesn't seem to put the effort in.

My point isn't to argue against that being larger makes it easier to be tougher but that can we at least look at how a player plays and uses his size rather than look only at the size and assume that he can't be physical in the NHL because of it.

Only an idiot would believe that having a team full of large players with no talent would be a good idea.

Is that what you think of when people want a team that is bigger and more physical? If so, then I understand the disconnect.

Bourque is a ****ing lazy ass who does not deserve to wear the Habs sweater. There are good examples of bigger players with talent. Moulson is one that Bergevin should be going after. Tinordi is a great example of one on our team.

 

[WG]

Never have enough depth on D.

Well we seem to be trying to break that axiom.

Subban, Markov, Gorges are guaranteed spots.

Three more spots to Emelin, Murray, Tinordi, Cube, Weaver, Beaulieu, Pateryn, Drewiske.

The trade itself is fine. A 5th for a legit NHL defenseman is very reasonable, except we have no need for a depth defenseman. Our cup runneth over with such types. And if the team is not really a serious Cup contender, then I would rather see one of the young guys getting NHL icetime.

Now if Gorges is hurt for a week or more (and he seemed to be favoring his hand after blocking a shot) then this is a pretty clever move by MB, we bandaid the need for a stay at home D at very low cost and Weaver or Murray sits when Gorges is back.

If tomorrow's roster has Murray/Weaver on the bottom pair and Tinordi in the press box then this is kind of useless, like buying an extra spare tire and tossing it in the trunk with the other two you already had.

 

[V13]

Agreed, size is a tool. It's a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

That's not what she said

 

[habitue*]

Well we seem to be trying to break that axiom.

Subban, Markov, Gorges are guaranteed spots.

Three more spots to Emelin, Murray, Tinordi, Cube, Weaver, Beaulieu, Pateryn, Drewiske.

The trade itself is fine. A 5th for a legit NHL defenseman is very reasonable, except we have no need for a depth defenseman. Our cup runneth over with such types. And if the team is not really a serious Cup contender, then I would rather see one of the young guys getting NHL icetime.

Now if Gorges is hurt for a week or more (and he seemed to be favoring his hand after blocking a shot) then this is a pretty clever move by MB, we bandaid the need for a stay at home D at very low cost and Weaver or Murray sits when Gorges is back.

If tomorrow's roster has Murray/Weaver on the bottom pair and Tinordi in the press box then this is kind of useless, like buying an extra spare tire and tossing it in the trunk with the other two you already had.

How many of them are really NHL caliber d-men at this very moment ?

Beaulieu and Patteryn are unproven, and Drewiske is a borderline AHL-NHL guy.

If injuries occur, I prefer to have guys like Weaver or Bouillon on board.

 

[Grant McCagg]

Dudley knows Weaver better than anyone from his time in Atlanta....obviously he likes him. I'd class this as a 'Dudley deal".

 

[otto bond]

Diaz's replacement?Subtract the offense and to add defense? Same size but Weaver is stronger. At the end of the day, the habs needed another RHD and they got one.

Not sure if I like the choice. The price seems very low and it may look like this;

Weaver-Markov
Weaver-Emelin
Weaver-Gorges
Weaver-Murray

 

[WG]

How many of them are really NHL caliber d-men at this very moment ?

Beaulieu and Patteryn are unproven, and Drewiske is a borderline AHL-NHL guy.

If injuries occur, I prefer to have guys like Weaver or Bouillon on board.

Beaulieu looked fine in his games before the break. You don't like DD or Pateryn, that's fair (though based on reports from Hamilton I think he has been good enough to warrant a shot).

This still leaves Emelin, Murray, Tinordi, Bouillon and Beaulieu for three spots.

I'm sure Weaver will be serviceable but he still seems redundant. And I'd reiterate that in the event of injuries I'd rather give a young D the shot. If the injury is Markov or Subban, we're toast anyway. Gorges out a long time, the team would certainly feel that. If the injury is anybody else I don't see a huge drop off if you gave (example) Murray's minutes to Cube or NB.

 

[PsychoticHab]

You are backtracking now (bolded). You know what you meant and if that is on your mind, good on you. Works for you, not for me.

Montreal's average height is 72.2 inches and 201.7 lbs.

I am at the average height and 3 pounds over the average weight of the Habs. And I do not play in the NHL. What's your point?

There is no correlation between the size of fans and the ability of larger physical teams to outplay and outmuscle the Habs.

Oh good, on top of all knowing aspiring GM you are also a mind reader. No backtrack, simply a mislead most people assume with the original comment.

The correlation I was curious for was not in the ability of the player compared to the size of the fan as you pointed out but the mentality of the fan to demand size in their favorite team's roster. You're the one that has drawn an arbitrary line (6'3" if I recall correctly/feel free to correct me/it's somewhere in the "Do the Habs need an Enforcer" thread).

If you are a smaller team and try to run through a larger team then that is one thing (MT has the wrong system currently) but we were even smaller under JM (with no enforcer) and yet managed a run in the playoffs under a system that suited our players better and didn't put them in position to have to run literally through the opposition. Team systems should suit the team that is using it.

Would it be great to have a team of big talented players? Sure. (especially if MT is here for the long run) But the way you and the rest of the "Get Bigger" party make is sound as if these players are a dime a dozen and every team is just looking to get rid of big and talented players. Sometimes you just have to compromise somewhere in the middle to players that are at least willing to be physical even if they have to work harder at it. Especially, as it is in this case, that one of the players Weaver is possibly going to replace is the ultimate case of size for the sake of size in Murray. I won't defend Gionta or DD (neither belong to MB) but a signing like Briere is an example of poor market and having to settle for talent even if the size may be missing as Clowe and Clarkson were the only 2 big names with some talent and neither were worth the price that was set forth.

If you haven't noticed we are on the same side of the need more toughness argument. (Although I don't include fighting into the argument and it sounds like you do) However, I'm not willing to dismiss a more talented player with toughness simply for his size especially when his larger counterpart lacks almost all talent.

You also pointed to Tinordi as a great example of size and talent and I agree but how many players are there similar to Tinordi in the league and would any of them have a reasonable price tag for us to get? (That's if their GM is even willing to move them at all)

 

[sampollock]

To many d on this team

 

[calder candidate]

I just don't see how this make us a better team...
I don't really care about the size I just don't see what he brings or why MB gave any kind of asset of him we could of had someone Klesla off waiver ealier this year...

MB says he will build with the draft he as giving 2 5th round pick (which isn't much but he giving them away since he is getting nothing in return) for fringe or rental 3rd pairing D. looking at our 10 last 5th rounders I see 2 top 6 fw and 2 guys which could still have a shot of have a impact in the NHL and one fringe NHLer...

Charles Hudon
Darren Dietz
Brendan Gallagher
Gabriel Dumont
Maxim Trunev
Joe Stejskal
Andrew Conboy
Pavel Valentenko
Mathieu Aubin
Mikhail Grabovski

We have young guys likeTinordi, Pateryn, Beaulieu, Nygren, Dietz, Ellis, Thrower I rather one of them getting the ice time and taking my chances with a 5th round pick than getting a guy that will play as a 5-7th for less than 20 games...

 

[Kriss E]

I don't blame Bergevin it's been this way what, 20 years now. It has to be the owner influencing these type of deals. Playoffs = big money. Molson can't miss out on the golden goose.

Molson wouldn't be in business if he didn't understand that building this team into a cup contender and winner would be more fruitful to him than being complacent at just making the POs. As much as people may dislike him, you aren't running a multi-million company by being a dumbass.

 

[Bullsmith]

MB strikes me as the kind of GM who will make a splash trade at some point, if not this draft say the by the nest. But I don't see much coming tomorrow. Just my expectation.

 

[Phil Parent]

Molson wouldn't be in business if he didn't understand that building this team into a cup contender and winner would be more fruitful to him than being complacent at just making the POs. As much as people may dislike him, you aren't running a multi-million company by being a dumbass.

Yeah and in the same way making the playoffs is big money, making it to the finals and winning the cup means even more money.

I mean can you imagine how much derivative crap they could sell to celebrate a Habs cup in this day and age?

Shirts, posters, special edition magazine, a DVD set...

 

[Lucky Luke]

Mike Who?

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Molson wouldn't be in business if he didn't understand that building this team into a cup contender and winner would be more fruitful to him than being complacent at just making the POs. As much as people may dislike him, you aren't running a multi-million company by being a dumbass.

He has the good fortune of having been born in the right family. Yeah, he has an MBA from a small US school (not Harvard or Wharton or MIT), but does that make him an elite analytical talent? Not in my eyes. Would Molson be anywhere near as successful if his last name were not Molson? Of course he wouldn't. As a result, I wouldn't read too much into his corporate success.

 

[Capitano]

To many d on this team

Yep

And instead of giving our young D some very valuable experience we put stiffs on the ice.

 

[Kriss E]

He has the good fortune of having been born in the right family. Yeah, he has an MBA from a small US school (not Harvard or Wharton or MIT), but does that make him an elite analytical talent? Not in my eyes. Would Molson be anywhere near as successful if his last name were not Molson? Of course he wouldn't. As a result, I wouldn't read too much into his corporate success.

Well I'm pretty sure someone that has a MBA from the crappiest school can still understand that building a cup winning team would generate a crap load more cash over a longer period than sitting on his ass and being content with a team just making the POs and not competing much in them.
Let's not freaking exaggerate here.

 

[Stoneburg]

So we send a 5th round pick for a marginal depth D and fans here go on and on about it being a "slap in the face" and a terrible move. Note to fans: GM's often prefer an experienced payer, even a marginal one, to a inexperienced D in the playoffs. A 5th is a small price to pay. We are extremely unlikely to get a player who plays even one game in the NHL in the 5th.