Post-Game Talk: Under-manned Habs lose 5-2 to Florida (UPD: Bennett suspended 3 games for head hit to Paquette)

[Dick Duff]

Your close. New York Rangers beat the Red Wings 9-5 in an afternoon game forcing Montreal to win, tie or score at least 5 goals against the Black Hawks that fateful evening to make the playoffs.

Ah, yes. You are totally correct with your memory, sir. Had to look it up. I do, however, remember listening to that game on the radio. It was madness, listening to those empty-net goals score against us in that game, but I did understand the coaches' (Scotty or Claude?) tactics. So good to communicate with you!

 

[Spring in Fialta]

No man, the point is most of successful teams have gone through a form of tank/rebuild. Pretty irrelevant to point out plenty of teams have also tried and failed. What's important is to realize most contenders usually have gone through that process.

My point is that it's not purposeful - just like the Habs this year. Most teams who did that purposefully have stayed trash cans (Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona and Detroit remains to be seen). Pittsburgh and Washington did do so purposefully for cash flow but ended up with the best two players in the past 30-35 years (and it still took Washington 13 years to win!). Nobody is denying the usefulness of top picks. Just how they were acquired. People seem to think every winner did it intentionally. They didn't. They tried to win - and made moves to do so - and just lost without jeopardizing their pick. Which is normal as shit.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Ah, yes. You are totally correct with your memory, sir. Had to look it up. I do, however, remember listening to that game on the radio. It was madness, listening to those empty-net goals score against us in that game, but I did understand the coaches' (Scotty or Claude?) tactics. So good to communicate with you!

Only good comes to one who honours Dick Duff. Have a safe and happy new year to you and all other posters on this board.

 

[Kriss E]

My point is that it's not purposeful - just like the Habs this year. Most teams who did that purposefully have stayed trash cans (Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona and Detroit remains to be seen). Pittsburgh and Washington did do so purposefully for cash flow but ended up with the best two players in the past 30-35 years (and it still took Washington 13 years to win!). Nobody is denying the usefulness of top picks. Just how they were acquired. People seem to think every winner did it intentionally. They didn't. They tried to win - and made moves to do so - and just lost without jeopardizing their pick. Which is normal as shit.

Chicago also did it and they became a Dynasty. Toronto, while disappointing in the POs, have also rebuilt their team into a pretty solid one.
I don't believe people think every winner went into a purposeful 3-5 year tank. If you look at most winners though, they pretty much all had high end picks and prospects, the easiest way to get that is via tank. Finish low draft high, move veterans for picks/prospects, be competitive later on. That's it.

 

[dinodebino]

Habs will finish low for two seasons. Through development and some astute signings, they will be a better squad come 2023-2024. Before that, fans here and in the Habs fan base will need to accept the reality. And stop complaining about kids making mistakes. And going too high or too low with prospects and suspects. Shit will happen.
This organisation is at a very important turning point. Montreal got the best man available to build this. We finally acted like the Yankees. Gorton will be bulding a sructure that should be around for at least 5-10 years. Including choosing a GM who might replace him one day. Exciting times ahead. This season is our ‘ground zero’.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Chicago also did it and they became a Dynasty. Toronto, while disappointing in the POs, have also rebuilt their team into a pretty solid one.
I don't believe people think every winner went into a purposeful 3-5 year tank. If you look at most winners though, they pretty much all had high end picks and prospects, the easiest way to get that is via tank. Finish low draft high, move veterans for picks/prospects, be competitive later on. That's it.

You're wrong. Chicago didn't try to tank. I went over this before but they signed high-priced veterans in 2005 to try and make the playoffs (Khabibulin off a Cup win, Aucoin). Then, after drafting 3rd overall, they immediately traded for futures and sent them to Ottawa for 5-6 year veteran Martin Havlat (though I don't think this was a bad risk). They lost anyways and got Toews and Kane out of it.

 

[Kimota]

This is what being a bizarre franchise is. We have a dumb, schizophrenic board but I'd seriously challenge anyone to find a team that has as weird competitive history as ours post-2001. The only team I can think of is the Philadelphia Flyers.

Weak rosters boosted by ghosts of the past is the reason it resulted in giving us miraculous runs. That's all I could come up with.

 

[loudi94]

Come on guy.... you can't be surprised thus team is bad. 20 regulate out of tje line up man, come on!

We have Perennial AHLers and some ECHLers playing against a top tier team.

You really are shocked at the result?

What exactly do you expect from them?

I’m shocked we can’t even be last.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You're wrong. Chicago didn't try to tank. I went over this before but they signed high-priced veterans in 2005 to try and make the playoffs (Khabibulin off a Cup win, Aucoin). Then, after drafting 3rd overall, they immediately traded for futures and sent them to Ottawa for 5-6 year veteran Martin Havlat (though I don't think this was a bad risk). They lost anyways and got Toews and Kane out of it.

Does it matter if a team tries to tank though? What matters is that it works.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Does it matter if a team tries to tank though? What matters is that it works.

I think so. Intentionally losing tends to ruin organizational culture. Mind you, doesn't mean I'm advocating for short-term fixes. Just that setting everything on fire isn't it.

 

[Not The One]

It's still difficult for me to believe that there are lots of people who consider that fake season a reference for anything.

As opposed to THIS season with 3/4th of the roster being sick or injured?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I think so. Intentionally losing tends to ruin organizational culture. Mind you, doesn't mean I'm advocating for short-term fixes. Just that setting everything on fire isn't it.

Is it really intentional losing? I don’t see it that way.

If you know you’re not good enough you trade away vets for picks and prospects. You’ll fall in the standings but that’s not the same thing as trying to lose.

What we should be doing is giving you her players like Caufield the best linemates we can and sheltered minutes to help them get better. That way they will improve during the rebuild period.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Is it really intentional losing? I don’t see it that way.

If you know you’re not good enough you trade away vets for picks and prospects. You’ll fall in the standings but that’s not the same thing as trying to lose.

What we should be doing is giving you her players like Caufield the best linemates we can and sheltered minutes to help them get better. That way they will improve during the rebuild period.

I mean, I guess it depends. I agree with your post but that's just the base. Would you argue that Arizona isn't trying to lose this year? Edmonton and Buffalo in '15?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I mean, I guess it depends. I agree with your post but that's just the base. Would you argue that Arizona isn't trying to lose this year? Edmonton and Buffalo in '15?

I don’t think coaches tell their teams to lose games. It’s happened on rare occasions where teams really did try to lose (Pittsburgh in 84) but it’s not the norm.

I think realizing you’re not good enough to win and making rebuilding trades is not the same thing as an intentional loss.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don’t think coaches tell their teams to lose games. It’s happened on rare occasions where teams really did try to lose (Pittsburgh in 84) but it’s not the norm.

I think realizing you’re not good enough to win and making rebuilding trades is not the same thing as an intentional loss.

No one has argued that coaches - or players for that matter - lost intentionally. I don't think that'd ever happened, even for a single game. I do think there's been management who have gone out of their way to gut their team to tank for picks. We're seeing it this year with Arizona and they're not the first to do it. I think it's the low road, I think it's toxic and I think it's what a lot of posters here advocate for.

 

[GrandmaCookie]

You're wrong. Chicago didn't try to tank. I went over this before but they signed high-priced veterans in 2005 to try and make the playoffs (Khabibulin off a Cup win, Aucoin). Then, after drafting 3rd overall, they immediately traded for futures and sent them to Ottawa for 5-6 year veteran Martin Havlat (though I don't think this was a bad risk). They lost anyways and got Toews and Kane out of it.

I don't think the Hawks deliberately tanked since they made a push with some vets around 2005 (they did had to reach the new cap floor tho which could explain some signing) but the didn't just traded futures for Havlat if you consider the whole story.

In 2005-2006, Kyle Calder, Mark Bell and Tyler Arnason were the top 3 scorer in Chicago. None of them were back in 2006-2007, the year the BlackHawks had a bad season and ended up drafting Kane. The Chicago owner of the time was cheap and holded on Calder contract. They traded Mark Bell for Josh Hennessy and Tom Preissing, pieces used to aquire Havlat.
They traded Arnason for Bochenski, which they traded 1 year later for a conditional 5th and Versteeg. Traded Calder for Handzus.

That's why the aquisition of guys like Handzus(injured in 2006-2007) and Havlat had a lateral effect for the most part since they lost the same year their 3 best scorer.
And each time they realized they weren't competitive, they selled some good vets instead of selling more future in an attempt to make the playoff. The year Hawks drafted Toews, they traded Jaroslav Spacek in January who was a top pair defenseman for them for rights to a prospect. At the trade deadline of 2006-2007, they traded Brian Smolinski who was among their best scorer for a pick.

The Habs don't need to deliberately tank anyway, a high pick is secure for this season, they just have to think long term and not trade valuable young assets or sign UFA to boat anchor contract like Hoffman or Savard , sell some vets and another high pick in 2022-2023 will be a side-effect of all this. This team isn't turning into a playoff contender as soon as next season. Hopefully we can get as lucky as the Hawks and fall back to back on two game changing talent.

 

[Doc McKenna]

The Cinderalla thing was a Covid outcome (meaning of course that they would have never made the playoffs if it weren’t for the weak Canadian Division they were in), nothing more. Amazing how Bergevin’s incompetence is only realized now by some (not you).

And given a few more games we would have missed the playoffs.

Habs are on pace to win 17 games at their current rate. Safe to say the season is done like dinner.

Or, put it this way, this years team is current tied for 10th all-time in fewest wins in an NHL season. It's THAT bad. Oh you want the list?

NHL Records

And most of those are an entirely different era. Ari and Sens are on the list with us. In the top 20 only the mid 70's caps are in the running for being awful. The 3 bottom team this season are on another level from many on that bad list. No salary cap back then for 'parity' either. You could just have a really bad club. I went to a junior B game And the Belle River(now Lakeshore) Canadiens were 18-0 and it showed. The town I now live in was an OK team stats wise, but got manhandled. Currently Lakeshore is 21-0 and our team 4th of 9 is 11 and 11. Found myself cheering for the other team because its a habs style jersey.

Cannot think of a better example of team unintentionally trying to not tank yet doing it so well , it’s astonishing really

Sens as well. They actually don't have a club as bad as ours given all our injuries...yotes...well its garys wet dream to get them some more talent and since its still the NHL's club They are not worried about icing a proper team.

people saying this season has been horrible haven't seen anything yet. We are capable of being as bad next year as well!! I want Bedard on this team (so does his dad)

With some roster moves, once we have a GM, I can't even see us getting worse. It was some of the injured guys that seemed to not be motivated anyway. Chairot is the only thing we may miss-sorta. I don't even know how much better a fully healthy club would be.

Lets hope we get a decent late round 1st(from moving players) and have a scouting and development group that can turn that player into something in 3 years time. Would be nice to find the next Pasta in the later picks.

 

[Doc McKenna]

My point is that it's not purposeful - just like the Habs this year. Most teams who did that purposefully have stayed trash cans (Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona and Detroit remains to be seen). Pittsburgh and Washington did do so purposefully for cash flow but ended up with the best two players in the past 30-35 years (and it still took Washington 13 years to win!). Nobody is denying the usefulness of top picks. Just how they were acquired. People seem to think every winner did it intentionally. They didn't. They tried to win - and made moves to do so - and just lost without jeopardizing their pick. Which is normal as shit.

Not really. You can also see how things are different in a cap era where talent(at least star level) moves far less than even the era where Pitt and Wash got their gen talents from. Argue all you want but in a 32 team league you simply have to be bad to get better, OR have top 5 scouts and development group in the league with heaps of luck.

Just because you draft low doesn't mean you can still be an idiot management wise. You still need a good development group because we have seen how the habs under bargain bin was even able to throw away top 3 picks. We have been "trying to win" for a decade of MB all it did was give us lousy draft picks. Maybe you don't try to make the playoffs each year with castoff vets as your core like MB does.

Check our roster from year to year after MB jettisoned the core he was left with, our only 'good' 3 year stretch. Those first 3 years are pretty stable. The last 7 years while trying to win we move 30-40 percent of the roster every year! You need young (great) talent cheap and you don't get it from trying to win. You need to tank, but still have good management. If you don't its easy to highlight a poorly done rebuild. Finding the right combination of players and salary management is important in the mix, but its damn hard to do so without talent. Where do you get that talent from since its harder and harder to trade for quality young assets.

Even MB said you need to build through the draft, he just sucked at it. A lot easier with a more likely to hit early pick than a 10th or later.

Maybe you don't have the same definition of what a "tank" entails. No one has their team go out to lose, but you can get some young kids playing, don't play vets in a lockdown system, evaluate said kids to see where to help them, or move them if you think its worthwhile. We are tanking because Dom is still coaching. Any other coach would have been removed by now. And just maybe he was given directives to not play the most efficient lineups. Cause I can't imagine making these choices otherwise. For the love of gawd send down CC. He is getting lots of NHL icetime, but his confidence is shot. Guy is overcoached and overthinking his shot at this point.

 

[WG]

What were they doing from 2006-2010? Multiple top 5 picks, multiple first round picks. Multiple picks in a non playoff position.

Dare I say it, rebuilding?

Simple answer to the simple question of cup teams that did not follow the Pittsburgh/Chicago tanking model. StL had two high picks, Erik Johnson in 2006 and Pietrangelo in 2008. Johnson did not have any bearing on the Cup team, AP was obviously a key component. The Blues drafted Schwartz and Taresenko at #14 and #16 overall in 2010 and have not drafted that high since. I just would not put them in the same bucket as Pit, Chi, Kings etc.

 

[swimmer77]

I didn't watch but they scored two goals. That's good, right?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don't think the Hawks deliberately tanked since they made a push with some vets around 2005 (they did had to reach the new cap floor tho which could explain some signing) but the didn't just traded futures for Havlat if you consider the whole story.

In 2005-2006, Kyle Calder, Mark Bell and Tyler Arnason were the top 3 scorer in Chicago. None of them were back in 2006-2007, the year the BlackHawks had a bad season and ended up drafting Kane. The Chicago owner of the time was cheap and holded on Calder contract. They traded Mark Bell for Josh Hennessy and Tom Preissing, pieces used to aquire Havlat.
They traded Arnason for Bochenski, which they traded 1 year later for a conditional 5th and Versteeg. Traded Calder for Handzus.

That's why the aquisition of guys like Handzus(injured in 2006-2007) and Havlat had a lateral effect for the most part since they lost the same year their 3 best scorer.
And each time they realized they weren't competitive, they selled some good vets instead of selling more future in an attempt to make the playoff. The year Hawks drafted Toews, they traded Jaroslav Spacek in January who was a top pair defenseman for them for rights to a prospect. At the trade deadline of 2006-2007, they traded Brian Smolinski who was among their best scorer for a pick.

The Habs don't need to deliberately tank anyway, a high pick is secure for this season, they just have to think long term and not trade valuable young assets or sign UFA to boat anchor contract like Hoffman or Savard , sell some vets and another high pick in 2022-2023 will be a side-effect of all this. This team isn't turning into a playoff contender as soon as next season. Hopefully we can get as lucky as the Hawks and fall back to back on two game changing talent.

You're not signing Khabibulin in 2005 for cap floor reasons. He was very much viewed as a gamebreaking workhorse at the time. As for the rest, I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Havlat was very much perceived as a clear upgrade on either of Bell, Calder or Arnason, the latter of which no one took very seriously (he was benched in the playoffs that year and could only get a one-year contract after that. Was out of the league a couple of years after that) while Havlat was perceived as a star and elite player at the time of the deal. And yes, the Hawks sold some vets. Every team that ends up in the basement does that. And no one is advocating for them not to do this. So I'm not sure I'm getting the point. I'm just pushing back on terrible examples people use for rebuilding clubs. Like, WTK mentioned St.Louis between 2006 and 2010 as a rebuilding club, which was just a staggering assertion made carelessly. If he'd been a Blues fan at the time, he'd have been shrieking about how dumb they were and that they need to burn it down instead of acquiring Legace or re-signing Keith Tkachuk.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Not really. You can also see how things are different in a cap era where talent(at least star level) moves far less than even the era where Pitt and Wash got their gen talents from. Argue all you want but in a 32 team league you simply have to be bad to get better, OR have top 5 scouts and development group in the league with heaps of luck.

Just because you draft low doesn't mean you can still be an idiot management wise. You still need a good development group because we have seen how the habs under bargain bin was even able to throw away top 3 picks. We have been "trying to win" for a decade of MB all it did was give us lousy draft picks. Maybe you don't try to make the playoffs each year with castoff vets as your core like MB does.

Check our roster from year to year after MB jettisoned the core he was left with, our only 'good' 3 year stretch. Those first 3 years are pretty stable. The last 7 years while trying to win we move 30-40 percent of the roster every year! You need young (great) talent cheap and you don't get it from trying to win. You need to tank, but still have good management. If you don't its easy to highlight a poorly done rebuild. Finding the right combination of players and salary management is important in the mix, but its damn hard to do so without talent. Where do you get that talent from since its harder and harder to trade for quality young assets.

Even MB said you need to build through the draft, he just sucked at it. A lot easier with a more likely to hit early pick than a 10th or later.

Maybe you don't have the same definition of what a "tank" entails. No one has their team go out to lose, but you can get some young kids playing, don't play vets in a lockdown system, evaluate said kids to see where to help them, or move them if you think its worthwhile. We are tanking because Dom is still coaching. Any other coach would have been removed by now. And just maybe he was given directives to not play the most efficient lineups. Cause I can't imagine making these choices otherwise. For the love of gawd send down CC. He is getting lots of NHL icetime, but his confidence is shot. Guy is overcoached and overthinking his shot at this point.

What exactly is this meant to argue? You said 'Not really' and then proceeded to write paragraphs about things I never argued.

 

[Licou]

Wait, I didn't get to catch the game but I just saw a quick replay of the hit to Paquette and nobody even faked trying to jump Bennet! Wtf?

Is this because of the short replay and things got nastier later?

I don't like this kind of attitude from a team, even if you are a bottom feeder.

 

[LaP]

My point is that it's not purposeful - just like the Habs this year. Most teams who did that purposefully have stayed trash cans (Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona and Detroit remains to be seen). Pittsburgh and Washington did do so purposefully for cash flow but ended up with the best two players in the past 30-35 years (and it still took Washington 13 years to win!). Nobody is denying the usefulness of top picks. Just how they were acquired. People seem to think every winner did it intentionally. They didn't. They tried to win - and made moves to do so - and just lost without jeopardizing their pick. Which is normal as shit.

Why do people focus on the reason a team is at the bottom is beyond my understanding. It has become a dialogue of the deaf around here. Every time someone say we should manage our assets properly and sell some players you have guys who jump on them saying we can't tank and Edmonton and bla bla bla It has become so ridiculous. It's like we should not ever sell an old player anymore ever because ... EDMONTON. Doesn't make any sense as an argument. Tank is just a word. A word that as different meaning for about every fans. At the end of the day this word (and Edmonton) should not prevent a team from managing its assets properly and try to maximize their value. Losing players for nothing is justifiable only if you are close to be a contender. Obviously trading old players instead of losing them for nothing means losing more games and getting better picks. If some guys want to call this tanking fine i could not care less. If they want to argue we should not do it because EDMONTON then i'll show up every time to strongly disagree.

 

[peate]

Remember the 1976-77 Habs, 60-8-12?> That one. We're headed for an identical record, in reverse.12-60-8