Out of Town Thread: Pre-Pre-Season Edition

[DAChampion]

Imagine Subban-Karlsson as a pairing.

 

[JianYang]

Imagine Subban-Karlsson as a pairing.

I think you gotta try it, just because the immense potential in it, but ultimately, I think they would be better off on separate pairings.

There's only one puck out there.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Imagine Subban-Karlsson as a pairing.

on the powerplay, two righties

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I think you gotta try it, just because the immense potential in it, but ultimately, I think they would be better off on separate pairings.

There's only one puck out there.

And that's what would be scary, almost 60 minutes of play with either one of the top pmds in the game, two of which who tilt the ice the most.

Keep Subban, Ekholm and Karlsson at all cost, sacrifice Josi later on for a need, or keep him if there's still space left, which is a possibility all depending what happens with their netminder situation.

 

[PaulD]

I like fighting. More of it back in the game would be good.

 

[Adam Michaels]

 

[WG]

And I was coming here to post about it. Good deal for both parties. But let's not pretend Ellis at that cap hit is some sort of bargain.

With star defensemen signing for $8M-$11M recently, $6.25M seems like a bargain. But it's Ellis and no OEL or Doughty or Burns we're talking about. Ellis get added close to $4M in raise so he's got himself a good deal.

Preds will be able to extended Josi next off-season.

As for the NMC's, a lot of GMs stamp them on a bunch of contracts. Poile is one of the smart ones staying away from those. But Bergevin is good with that also. Preds are first in the league with fewest NMC's, but Habs are up there, too. If not second, then third. They have only three players with clauses (Price, Petry, and Alzner). But Petry and Alzner have modified clauses. So they can still be traded to any number of teams.

Put another way, Alzner money + Schlemko money = Ryan Ellis contract with enough left over to take the whole team out for pizza and ice cream after every game.

 

[DAChampion]

Put another way, Alzner money + Schlemko money = Ryan Ellis contract with enough left over to take the whole team out for pizza and ice cream after every game.

But you need to draft Ellis first.

Other than McDonagh, Subban, and Sergachev, when gave the Habs drafted a great dman?

 

[Adam Michaels]

Put another way, Alzner money + Schlemko money = Ryan Ellis contract with enough left over to take the whole team out for pizza and ice cream after every game.

Ellis could only dream if he can reach the level of Alzner + Schlemko.

 

[Mrb1p]

But you need to draft Ellis first.

Other than McDonagh, Subban, and Sergachev, when gave the Habs drafted a great dman?

Isnt that enough?

 

[Peanut]

Damn he was such an "important" cog in the Oilers PP 2 years ago how will they ever survive.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Yup, even though the Habs lost that series, they went down fighting.

Unlike the series against Philadelphia in 2008, Boston in 2009, Philadelphia in 2010, Ottawa in 2013, New York in 2014, Tampa Bay in 2015, and New York in 2017.

In most cases, when the Habs go out in the playoffs, they go out with a whimper. In the examples above, it was primarily because the offense couldn't score, and usually against not-so-great teams, though the 2010 Flyers were genuinely great. In contrast, when they lost to Boston on lucky bounces, they lost against an incredible team that went on to win the Cup.

It really changes the meaning of "playoff choker" for me. Around the NHL, guys like Joe Thornton and (previously) Alex Ovechkin have been seen as weak playoff players because they have many game 7 losses. Auston Matthews is now seen as a playoff choker too lol. However, it's totally different with the Habs. Guys like Plekanec and Pacioretty ... when they lose in the playoffs, they typically lose badly, against middling teams, and they don't lose in game 7.

The idea that the Habs didn't go down fighting in 2014 or 2015 is ridiculous. They couldn't score but they came to play. They certainly took it to the Bolts in 2015. Just putrid finish. But they were playing well throughout the series and didn't deserve to go down 3-0.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Isnt that enough?

Lol yeah..

"They've drafted three top end D men in the last 10 seasons, like come on guys!"

 

[Mrb1p]

Lol yeah..

"They've drafted three top end D men in the last 10 seasons, like come on guys!"

The list could also go further if you lower the line a bit or think Juulsen/Mete have higher potential too.

 

[Censored Toad]

I like fighting. More of it back in the game would be good.

I disliked the staged fights... when you'd have the two goons going at each other for no reason other then to fight.

I like the fights that are spontaneous, and speaking from experience.. when the defensman cross checks you over and over in the lower back in front of the net.. right where you have no padding... I start seeing red.

I like that the emotion takes over and you see the raw passion. At the end of the scrap you have two exhausted players who have mutual respect for each other.. I like that.

However I will not ignore the down side of players careers maybe ending or heads smashing into the ice so it does have its risks.


The current state of fighting... I dont really care for it. I mean its against the rules now to remove the helmit? So guys basically just wreck their hands on hitting a helmet. Dumb. I mean I understand they want to remove the head injuries in fighting... but when you consider the instants of how many players got seriously injured during a fight..... I feel like your going to have many more minor hand injuries (say 50:1) vs one serious head injury as a result of fighting.

Fights have a place, its very limited and that is ok. I do not think it should be mandatory for the players to keep the helmets on. If the player wants to take the risk in fighting, they should also be allowed to take the helmet off as well... they choose.

Of course one could say that looking back after a fight once the emotions gone, players may have wished they kept the helmet on but didnt in the heat of the moment....

I am rambling and debating myself here....

 

[Laurentide]

The idea that the Habs didn't go down fighting in 2014 or 2015 is ridiculous. They couldn't score but they came to play. They certainly took it to the Bolts in 2015. Just putrid finish. But they were playing well throughout the series and didn't deserve to go down 3-0.

Again, all we're arguing about here are degrees of failure. Fans don't pay hundreds of dollars for tickets to watch this team "try" to win. They pay those hundreds of dollars to watch this team actually win. If they don't then they're not doing their jobs and people need to get fired. I couldn't care less about how hard they tried. They failed, full stop.

Maybe some flavor of the month sunbelt expansion team can get over with its fan base simply by "trying", but this is the Montreal Canadiens we're talking about. F*** "trying". Just f***ing DO IT!

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Again, all we're arguing about here are degrees of failure. Fans don't pay hundreds of dollars for tickets to watch this team "try" to win. They pay those hundreds of dollars to watch this team actually win. If they don't then they're not doing their jobs and people need to get fired. I couldn't care less about how hard they tried. They failed, full stop.

Maybe some flavor of the month sunbelt expansion team can get over with its fan base simply by "trying", but this is the Montreal Canadiens we're talking about. F*** "trying". Just f***ing DO IT!

What in the world does this have to do with my post? I was arguing DAchampion's point that the Habs went down weakly. They didn't. Whether this should lead to firings/is acceptable/shows major flaws within the team is immaterial.

 

[Laurentide]

I disliked the staged fights... when you'd have the two goons going at each other for no reason other then to fight.

I like the fights that are spontaneous, and speaking from experience.. when the defensman cross checks you over and over in the lower back in front of the net.. right where you have no padding... I start seeing red.

I like that the emotion takes over and you see the raw passion. At the end of the scrap you have two exhausted players who have mutual respect for each other.. I like that.

However I will not ignore the down side of players careers maybe ending or heads smashing into the ice so it does have its risks.


The current state of fighting... I dont really care for it. I mean its against the rules now to remove the helmit? So guys basically just wreck their hands on hitting a helmet. Dumb. I mean I understand they want to remove the head injuries in fighting... but when you consider the instants of how many players got seriously injured during a fight..... I feel like your going to have many more minor hand injuries (say 50:1) vs one serious head injury as a result of fighting.

Fights have a place, its very limited and that is ok. I do not think it should be mandatory for the players to keep the helmets on. If the player wants to take the risk in fighting, they should also be allowed to take the helmet off as well... they choose.

Of course one could say that looking back after a fight once the emotions gone, players may have wished they kept the helmet on but didnt in the heat of the moment....

I am rambling and debating myself here....

I agree. I have no use at all for the staged fight between designated goons. "Fights" such as those do nothing to change the flow of the game. They are merely an interruption and are forgotten about as soon as the combatants go to the box. You can see that even the fighters themselves have no passion for what they're doing. They're just there to do a job; to be a one-minute sideshow attraction. Once they serve their penalties they go back to the end of their respective benches and are never seen or heard from again. And once the playoffs start these guys don't even dress, let alone play.

What I absolutely love, however, are fights that are born out of blind, all-c0nsuming rage. Those scraps can absolutely have an impact on the outcome of a game and prior to the adoption of the instigator rule you would even see full-blown multi-player scraps in the Finals.

Bobby Orr had around 50 fights during his short career even though he was not thought of as a goon by any stretch of the imagination. But Orr only fought when he saw red and became enraged. That's why, despite his size, he didn't lose many fights. If you got Orr mad enough to drop his gloves he was likely to drop you. Hard. When he fought, you could see, even through the TV screen, that he wasn't trying to fight his opponent; he was literally trying to beat him to death. That kind of passion is well worth the price of admission, if you ask me.

A lot of people remember the time that Pat Quinn, then of the Leafs, caught Orr with his head down and broke his nose. But what many don't know is what happened the next time the Leafs and Bruins got together. Orr found Quinn behind the net, got him down on his back and proceeded to beat the living crap out of him even though Quinn was a much bigger physical specimen than Orr. Unlike Gretzky, Orr never needed a Dave Semenko or a Marty McSorley to fight his battles for him.

And that's what's wrong with the game today. Player A cross-checks Player B but Players A and B don't fight. They go to the bench and at the next whistle, the teams send out Designated Goon A to fight Designated Goon B in a proxy war to avenge the earlier cross-check. This kind of thing does nothing to curtail the reckless behavior of Player A and doesn't keep him from delivering cheap shots to Player B. And why would it? It's not Player A who has to pay for his own actions. He's got a surrogate employed to take his lumps for him.

Back when players actually fought their own battles, the notion of deterrence was actually a thing. You didn't have punks like Brad Marchand skating around unscathed. They were made to pay the piper. There were no invitations sent and no rules about heavyweights not fighting middleweights or any of that crap. If you messed around you had to answer the doorbell when the other team's enforcer showed up to collect the bill. Not fighting him was not an option he would give you. If you didn't put up your dukes he'd just start punching you in the face until you reacted. And the ref and linesman wouldn't do a damn thing because they knew how the system worked. Everything you did had an associated cost. That's what kept players honest. You could only do as much as your body could afford to pay for.

The absolute best game I ever watched live wasn't in the finals, although I've attended 3 Cup Finals games in my lifetime. My best ever game was and remains April 20th, 1984: the Good Friday game against the Nordiques. When Louis Sleigher sucker punched Jean Hamel (ending Hamel's career, as it turned out) the Habs weren't just going to let it go and the fact that it was a playoff game didn't enter into the equation. Sleigher and the Nordiques were going to be made to pay, not next season, but right friggin' now. And pay they did. The Habs beat them up, and after the dust settled they pumped 5 goals past Dan Bouchard in the third period and eliminated them. That was back when you had to be a man to play this game.

Unfortunately, with litigation being what it is today, there's no possible way that the NHL could get rid of the instigator rule and not be sued. So once the designated enforcer becomes extinct for good, the only thing you'll ever see are cheap shots followed by retaliatory cheap shots. And unfortunately it will be the elite level players who will end up on the receiving end of most of these blows.

 

[Laurentide]

What in the world does this have to do with my post? I was arguing DAchampion's point that the Habs went down weakly. They didn't. Whether this should lead to firings/is acceptable/shows major flaws within the team is immaterial.

My argument is that it doesn't matter how strongly they resisted or how meekly they conceded. As far as I'm concerned, if they lost at all then by definition they went down weakly.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

My argument is that it doesn't matter how strongly they resisted or how meekly they conceded. As far as I'm concerned, if they lost at all then by definition they went down weakly.

Sounds like some weird platitude from a 1950s military dad. This isn't very interesting and essentially false.

 

[Whitesnake]

Ex-Habs scout suddenly died today. Frank Jay.

 

[Laurentide]

Sounds like some weird platitude from a 1950s military dad. This isn't very interesting and essentially false.

It's called "having standards". If you don't demand better, you never get better. The biggest problem with this organization today is that their stated goal every season isn't to win the Cup but merely to make the playoffs and then "anything can happen". Sorry. Not good enough. Not nearly good enough for the preeminent franchise in the sport. There is only one acceptable standard for this team: championships. Anything less than that is a pathetic failure. You don't aim for the middle. They did that last season and they wound up 4th from the bottom. You always aim for the top. As Vince Lombardi used to say, you aim for perfection, knowing all the while that you'll never achieve it. But in the effort of chasing perfection you will catch up to excellence.

When was the last time this franchise even tried to be excellent? 25 years at least.

 

[ArtPeur]

I disliked the staged fights... when you'd have the two goons going at each other for no reason other then to fight.

I like the fights that are spontaneous, and speaking from experience.. when the defensman cross checks you over and over in the lower back in front of the net.. right where you have no padding... I start seeing red.

I like that the emotion takes over and you see the raw passion. At the end of the scrap you have two exhausted players who have mutual respect for each other.. I like that.

However I will not ignore the down side of players careers maybe ending or heads smashing into the ice so it does have its risks.


The current state of fighting... I dont really care for it. I mean its against the rules now to remove the helmit? So guys basically just wreck their hands on hitting a helmet. Dumb. I mean I understand they want to remove the head injuries in fighting... but when you consider the instants of how many players got seriously injured during a fight..... I feel like your going to have many more minor hand injuries (say 50:1) vs one serious head injury as a result of fighting.

Fights have a place, its very limited and that is ok. I do not think it should be mandatory for the players to keep the helmets on. If the player wants to take the risk in fighting, they should also be allowed to take the helmet off as well... they choose.

Of course one could say that looking back after a fight once the emotions gone, players may have wished they kept the helmet on but didnt in the heat of the moment....

I am rambling and debating myself here....

While I agree on some points, mostly the "remove helmet part", I don't like the part with hand injuries. Even if it is 50-1, your hands will probably heal faster than heads' injuries, especially concessions. It is very hard to recover from multiple concussions. That's why there are so many studies out there.

I also have a cousin who had multiple little concussions and she now has problems sleeping at night

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It's called "having standards". If you don't demand better, you never get better. The biggest problem with this organization today is that their stated goal every season isn't to win the Cup but merely to make the playoffs and then "anything can happen". Sorry. Not good enough. Not nearly good enough for the preeminent franchise in the sport. There is only one acceptable standard for this team: championships. Anything less than that is a pathetic failure. You don't aim for the middle. They did that last season and they wound up 4th from the bottom. You always aim for the top. As Vince Lombardi used to say, you aim for perfection, knowing all the while that you'll never achieve it. But in the effort of chasing perfection you will catch up to excellence.

When was the last time this franchise even tried to be excellent? 25 years at least.

You're making a false equivalence. Recognizing that the Canadiens played well in 2014 and 2015 despite the losses does not mean that it's " acceptable " or that a fan who can see that doesn't have any standard and is fine with just making the playoffs. They have nothing to do with the other really.

 

[DAChampion]

@Laurentide,

It is important to aim for the Cup, but it's also important to be realistic. I recognize that a team can be well-built, well-managed, and never win the Cup. That is because there are 31 teams in the league, several other teams will always be well-managed, and there are always factors such as lucky bounces and injury luck. If you go down fighting, you can hold your head high and be proud.

As such, my threshold for a good team is not one that wins the Cup, but one that genuinely competes for the Cup. I don't think that the Ovechkin-era Capitals suddenly improved this season. They did add Eller and subtract Alzner but they've had other changes before. In my opinion, they have been a strong and competitive team the entire team.

And on that note, I'll say that the Habs have not only not won a Cup since 1993, they simply have not competed for one at all. When they lost, they lost badly. I admit that they could have competed with small changes, but the truth is that they did not compete.