Player Discussion Shea Weber Part II

[Kriss E]

I hear you and understand your uneasiness with temporary improvement.

I personally think that the problem was that the 2012-13 improvement was not followed up properly, NOT that improvement was a bad thing per se.

Bergevin is not the right GM for the job, in my opinion. Letting him take the next steps is in my opinion "the mistake we should not make twice."

I was listening to TSN 690 this morning. One of the guests, a writer whose name was stated before I turned on the station, said that he asked Marc Bergevin in Toronto the day of the season opener if the team was doing well prior to the deadline, would he move away from the reset strategy and trade assets for short-term help. Bergevin did not say NO.

Ominous sign that he will not take the proper steps. Hopefully he is replaced, or his poor vision is overwhelmed by either his boss or the consensus of his staff.

Bergy scares me, truly.

I don't believe in this buffoon at all. We have seen more than enough to know he has no vision, or plan, or structure. It's just random building.

 

[Habs Icing]

I missed the pages about Weber being traded but I saw a very posts.

Realistically...what would he gather? My guess is whatever you think you'd be getting wouldn't be worth it unless you go full scale rebuild.

No bottom 5 teams are trading 1st round picks for a 33 year old d-man.

So it will just be late 1sts and stuff like that. Not terrible assets but unless we're going full scale rebuild I don't see the benefit.

Although I wouldn't necessarily trade Weber, you don't have to move him to a bottom 5 team to get a great pick. Example Colorado........has Ottawa's 1st round. There might be similar situations. I'm not up to date on those matters.

 

[BaseballCoach]

While I also think MB should be fired...when has he ever traded valuable assets for short term help?

Vanek? And a few of the 4th line acquisitions in King, Ott, etc...

Petry, Drouin, Weber etc... are all still here and don't classify as short term help.

It's much ado about nothing.

Of course, the Weaver, King, Flynn, Mitchell and Otto deals. But ABSOLUTELY, the Vanek deal too. It came out later that we knew he would not re-sign in Montreal, and we did not even try to make an offer. It was a pure rental and thus a mistake.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

I'd be looking at Stl's top pick to pry from the Sabres, assuming it isn't protected.

Yeah but why would Sabres give it? I get they're on the rise but that's a high pick.

Besides, what happens if Buffalo says 'no thanks', is that our single option? Usually when you have one option it's not a very good sign.

 

[Habs Icing]

While I also think MB should be fired...when has he ever traded valuable assets for short term help?

Vanek? And a few of the 4th line acquisitions in King, Ott, etc...

Petry, Drouin, Weber etc... are all still here and don't classify as short term help.

It's much ado about nothing.

I agree with your point. I don't think MB's problem is with his trades. I think it's either a matter of having the vision of how to build a winning team or he has the vision but lacks the resolve to get the missing pieces.

Since this past February he has accumulated a string of good moves. Now were they a result of dumb luck or astute planning? Stay tuned.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Although I wouldn't necessarily trade Weber, you don't have to move him to a bottom 5 team to get a great pick. Example Colorado........has Ottawa's 1st round. There might be similar situations. I'm not real uptodate on those matters.

When Colorado got Ottawa's 1st in the Duchene trade Ottawa was under the impression they'd do better, not worse. It's kind of a fluke.

Of course, the King, Flynn, Mitchell, Otto deals. But YES, the Vanek deal too. It came out later that we knew he would not re-sign in Montreal, and we did not even try to make an offer. It was a pure rental and thus a mistake.

Mitchell was traded for an AHLer and a 7th round pick but played parts of 4 seasons with us...

Flynn was traded for a 5th and played parts of 3 seasons with us...

I don't think those 2 count as rentals nor was the trade expensive.

Vanek had went from Buffalo to NYI to MTL. Everyone knew he was signing in Minnesota that's why both teams gave up on him and that's why he was such a cheap rental given his stature. Vanek+5th for Collberg+2nd. We got more by trading Flash and Weise for Danault and a 2nd. The trade was actually pretty good for a rental.

I hardly consider these alarming. I find getting King to have been a major waste but it was a conditional 4th round pick. I have no idea what the condition was but wouldn't be surprised if we didn't hit it.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

I agree with your point. I don't think MB's problem is with his trades. I think it's either a matter of having the vision of how to build a winning team or he has the vision but lacks the resolve to get the missing pieces.

Since this past February he has accumulated a string of good moves. Now were they a result of dumb luck or astute planning? Stay tuned.

I've said it before that all of MBs moves look acceptable(not necessarily wins or losses) in a vacuum. The trades look fine but the direction is questionable.

I'm more concerned MB trades say Petry for another equivalently talented winger than I am of him losing a trade or selling the future. My concern is more about his strategy to build a winner than the value of the trades themselves.

 

[BaseballCoach]

When Colorado got Ottawa's 1st in the Duchene trade Ottawa was under the impression they'd do better, not worse. It's kind of a fluke.



Mitchell was traded for an AHLer and a 7th round pick but played parts of 4 seasons with us...

Flynn was traded for a 5th and played parts of 3 seasons with us...

I don't think those 2 count as rentals nor was the trade expensive.

Vanek had went from Buffalo to NYI to MTL. Everyone knew he was signing in Minnesota that's why both teams gave up on him and that's why he was such a cheap rental given his stature. Vanek+5th for Collberg+2nd. We got more by trading Flash and Weise for Danault and a 2nd. The trade was actually pretty good for a rental.

I hardly consider these alarming. I find getting King to have been a major waste but it was a conditional 4th round pick. I have no idea what the condition was but wouldn't be surprised if we didn't hit it.

Flynn cost us a fifth, and whatever he played for us was utterly replaceable.

King cost a fourth.

Vanek was a wrong move. THAT rental is how you stall a rebuild.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Flynn cost us a fifth, and whatever he played for us was utterly replaceable.

King cost a fourth.

Vanek was a wrong move. THAT rental is how you stall a rebuild.

But the 5th traded for Flynn played zero games...I think you're overvaluing 5ths.

As for Vanek, how was it the wrong move? Why were we rebuilding? We finished top 4 in the conference and hit conference finals before Price got injured.

We can't be rebuilding for the sake of it. Getting Vanek was the right move, we were playing well that season and the cost was affordable. I'm shocked you can think when we finished top 4 in the conference we should've been rebuilding. It's not like MB went all out, he got 1 player.

 

[Lshap]

How did that work for us in 12-13 and moving forward?

The team is better than a lot of us thought. Great. That doesn't make them into contenders. Our defense is still pathetic, Price still is an issue. And if you're talking about becoming a contender in 2-3 years, where you want this sustained for an extra 3-4 years....well you need to plan for that. Don't get distracted because OMG..couple guys are better than we thought!
Especially considering we literally just went through it not too long ago.

I don't see anybody saying we've leaped from terrible to contender. "Better than we thought" doesn't mean we've arrived; it just means we're a couple of steps ahead on the journey. That's good news. How else does a team become a contender if not by incremental steps? We were terrible; now we're decent/good. Next step is good, followed by contender.

Yeah, I know we need top end talent to get to those levels. That's why I've been pushing the idea of trading up in the draft. It's the only way I think we can get top-end talent, because the reality is that we're probably not going to finish low enough to get it organically. Like it or not, the Habs aren't a bad team. So instead, I'm advocating selling vets along with our 1st for a higher 1st. Forget the trade deadline -- the only buyers are playoff teams with late picks. I'm suggesting waiting for the off-season and reaching out to teams who are stocked with prospects and need some success. Teams like Philadelphia, Edmonton, Arizona, New Jersey, St Louis (Buffalo), etc -- those GMs are done with rebuilding and want to win. They might be open to trading their 1st-round pick for ours if they can also add Petry, Weber, or even Byron and Tatar to their roster.

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

Flynn cost us a fifth, and whatever he played for us was utterly replaceable.

King cost a fourth.

Vanek was a wrong move. THAT rental is how you stall a rebuild.

Trading a bust prospect and the 57th overall pick stalls a rebuild?

 

[Belial]

Trading a bust prospect and the 57th overall pick stalls a rebuild?

Sometimes I read some posters and I'm like, I agree, I agree, I agree, I agree and then there's always the WTF moment?

 

[japhi]

I don't think finishing as a bubble team is necessarily bad considering the roster. If this team was full of vets, it would be a disaster but this is a really young team and playoff experience would be great for them. We have a good prospect pool already and tons of cap space. It would also up the value of our veteran players who could be used to acquire younger assets. Obviously, drafting high is the best way to ensure you get a quality player but it's not the only way. Also, finishing as a bubble team would put us in position to get Suzuki which would be pretty nice.

This is where my heads at, a young team making a run for the playoffs is much different then an old team trying to stay relevant. As much as I hate the idea of just missing then playoffs, I hate the idea of killing a young teams will by intentionally trying to lose. I played for a former NHLr that always said losing breeds losers and I believe it.

I just hope that MB doesn’t go all in, but based on his history I don’t see that happening. He has always held on to picks so I can’t imagine he moves a first now. I would like to see him bring in a nhl d man on the left side.

 

[1909]

This is where my heads at, a young team making a run for the playoffs is much different then an old team trying to stay relevant. As much as I hate the idea of just missing then playoffs, I hate the idea of killing a young teams will by intentionally trying to lose. I played for a former NHLr that always said losing breeds losers and I believe it.

I just hope that MB doesn’t go all in, but based on his history I don’t see that happening. He has always held on to picks so I can’t imagine he moves a first now. I would like to see him bring in a nhl d man on the left side.

We all do, but they are very hard and rare to get. Carolina "seems" to have some extra good d-men. We certainly don't need another bottom pairing d-man.

 

[Lshap]

I hear you and understand your uneasiness with temporary improvement.

I personally think that the problem was that the 2012-13 improvement was not followed up properly, NOT that improvement was a bad thing per se.

Bergevin is not the right GM for the job, in my opinion. Letting him take the next steps is in my opinion "the mistake we should not make twice."

I was listening to TSN 690 this morning. One of the guests, a writer whose name was stated before I turned on the station, said that he asked Marc Bergevin in Toronto the day of the season opener if the team was doing well prior to the deadline, would he move away from the reset strategy and trade assets for short-term help. Bergevin did not say NO.

Ominous sign that he will not take the proper steps. Hopefully he is replaced, or his poor vision is overwhelmed by either his boss or the consensus of his staff.

Bergy scares me, truly.

Bergevin's mindset scares the **** outta me because none of us have a clue what he's really aiming for. He's got a track record that suggests he'll go this way, but a more recent track record that says he's changed course. And with his steering goes the team. He's either the crack-addict who sells anything for a cheap playoff high, or he's converted to Reconstructionism and is committed to higher picks and a better future. It's like watching a suspense film with no idea how it ends.

 

[japhi]

Yeah but why would Sabres give it? I get they're on the rise but that's a high pick.

Besides, what happens if Buffalo says 'no thanks', is that our single option? Usually when you have one option it's not a very good sign.

That pick is protected anyways.

 

[Lshap]

Flynn cost us a fifth, and whatever he played for us was utterly replaceable.

King cost a fourth.

Vanek was a wrong move. THAT rental is how you stall a rebuild.

Surprised to hear you say that about Vanek. Getting him after leaping back to respectability turned the Habs into a legit contender. It was a worthwhile risk, IMO, which took us to the ECF, ending in large part because Price was taken out after one period.

Not to mention that the pick Bergevin traded away (Collberg) amounted to nothing.

 

[Habs Halifax]

When Colorado got Ottawa's 1st in the Duchene trade Ottawa was under the impression they'd do better, not worse. It's kind of a fluke..

Sens made a critical mistake with the direction of their team. Middle of the pack team thinking Duchene puts them over the top. Why? Cause they had a magical run the season before. Making moves like this should be for teams that are already cup contenders or very close to it. Sens were not.

Habs need to be careful with making moves too soon. Don't be the Sens please

 

[1909]

Surprised to hear you say that about Vanek. Getting him after leaping back to respectability turned the Habs into a legit contender. It was a worthwhile risk, IMO, which took us to the ECF, ending in large part because Price was taken out after one period.

Not to mention that the pick Bergevin traded away (Collberg) amounted to nothing.

Vanek was very good after being acquired and until the end of that season. But not so great in the Playoffs. MT was asking him to play on RW, and he was not used to that.

 

[Lshap]

Vanek was very good after being acquired and until the end of that season. But not so great in the Playoffs. MT was asking him to play on RW, and he was not used to that.

Maybe one day we'll look back on Therrien's Cubist coaching style and realize he was way ahead of his time.

Or not.

 

[Habs]

Save a Weber trade for the Alexis Lafrenière draft. This team needs that kid, this franchise needs that kid.

 

[japhi]

Bergevin's mindset scares the **** outta me because none of us have a clue what he's really aiming for. He's got a track record that suggests he'll go this way, but a more recent track record that says he's changed course. And with his steering goes the team. He's either the crack-addict who sells anything for a cheap playoff high, or he's converted to Reconstructionism and is committed to higher picks and a better future. It's like watching a suspense film with no idea how it ends.

I’m not going to argue he is a good GM but he’s never gone all in, in fact I think thats a big knock against him. He has always been either one for one trade, or mid late round picks going both ways. We can hate him, but he has been pretty consistent with asset management,wether you agree with his moves or not. Every draft we have hit with most or more picks in place.

His history says he holds and makes a small move to marginally improve the team. Which in the context of the team this year I support.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Vanek was very good after being acquired and until the end of that season. But not so great in the Playoffs. MT was asking him to play on RW, and he was not used to that.

Vanek was injured after he got smashed by PK.

 

[japhi]

Sens made a critical mistake with the direction of their team. Middle of the pack team thinking Duchene puts them over the top. Why? Cause they had a magical run the season before. Making moves like this should be for teams that are already cup contenders or very close to it. Sens were not.

Habs need to be careful with making moves too soon. Don't be the Sens please

And thats thats also the problem with dealing with a middle of the pack team, you are gambling that the Sens fail. If they do go on a run that pick is 20, not 2. Almost impossible to get a lottery pick that is anything close to being guaranteed. Would be a tragedy IMO to trade Weber for what ends up being the 20th OV.

 

[Habs Halifax]

And thats thats also the problem with dealing with a middle of the pack team, you are gambling that the Sens fail. If they do go on a run that pick is 20, not 2. Almost impossible to get a lottery pick that is anything close to being guaranteed. Would be a tragedy IMO to trade Weber for what ends up being the 20th OV.

We are not trading Weber. He is our captain. If that day comes, it's not going to be for cheap.