Drifting
Registered User
- Apr 15, 2012
- 120
- 36
Why did the Predators become much superior only after removing Weber and adding Subban?That's what happens when you have a much superior team.
Why did the Predators become much superior only after removing Weber and adding Subban?That's what happens when you have a much superior team.
Why did Montreal improve from 82 to 103 points after removing Subban and adding Weber?Why did the Predators become much superior only after removing Weber and adding Subban?
Why was Subban 3rd in Norris trophy voting the year afterwards while Weber's mom was nursing his boo boo? Why have the Habs been out of the playoffs and a joke for the past two years.Why did Montreal improve from 82 to 103 points after removing Subban and adding Weber?
Why was Weber 6th in Norris voting in 16-17 while Subban was nursing his boo-boo?Why was Subban 3rd in Norris trophy voting the year afterwards while Weber's mom was nursing his boo boo? Why have the Habs been out of the playoffs and a joke for the past two years.
Without context it is completely irrelevant. The year Nashville made it to the SCF these were the players statlines:
Weber (6th in Norris voting)
Subban (No Norris votes)[TBODY] [/TBODY]
78GP 17G 25A 42PTS +20
And in the playoffs:[TBODY] [/TBODY]
66GP 10G 30A 40PTS -8
Weber:
Subban:[TBODY] [/TBODY]
6GP 1G 2A 3PTS +1
So you'll have me believe that Weber couldn't have done the role that Subban did, which was to take the heavy defensive assignments paired with Ekholm while scoring 1G and 8A in 16 games in rounds 2,3 and 4?[TBODY] [/TBODY]
22GP 2G 10A 12PTS +5
What if I were to tell you that its completely coincidence that Nashville made the finals the year after the trade, just like its a mere coincidence that Montreal improved from being an 82 point team the last year Subban was on the roster to being a 103 point team the first year with Weber?
What if I was to say that the same logic that gives credit to Subban for helping Nashville make the finals is the same logic that would hold him accountable for the teams failure in subsequent years?
Why did Montreal improve from 82 to 103 points after removing Subban and adding Weber?
you are actually doing this. Explain why Nashville made it so far in 2017 but failed in 2018 with a better roster? Explain to me why Subban doesn't make the finals every year if he is so good?but if you want to completely ignore what actually happened on the ice in the real world than I don't know what you're doing on a hockey forum.
Nah, you're changing your logic to suit your narrative, which is wrong. Its nothing more than a coincidence that Nashville made the playoffs as an 8th seed in 2017 - if it wasn't a coincidence they certainly would have made it as the presidents trophy winners the following year.Back to vague naive comments.
What's lame is that you are going back to 11-12 and 15-16 which were before the tradeWhy was Weber 6th in Norris voting in 16-17 while Subban was nursing his boo-boo?
Habs were a joke in 11-12 and 15-16, what was wrong with Subban? (What actually is wrong with Subban and his mystery injuries?)
Lame arguments get lame replies.
I'm poking obvious holes in your ridiculous logic that the player makes the team, or that team success is representative of who is the better player.What's lame is that you are going back to 11-12 and 15-16 which were before the trade
but hey if you want to mix-in pre and post trade then:
Weber 6th in Norris voting; Subban 3rd in Norris voting ... hmm which one is better?
Subban 7 years with Habs 5 years in playoffs; Weber 3 years with Habs 1 year in playoffs ... hmm which one is better?
Subban 96 playoff games in 10 seasons; Weber 65 playoff games in 14 seasons ... hmm which one is better?
Subban 10 seasons 1 Norris trophy win 3 times Norris trophy finalist; Weber 14 seasons 0 Norris trophies 3 times Norris trophy finalist ... hmm which one is better?
Except that's not my logic. However, what's clear to me is that before the trade Subban reached a personal level that Weber could not attain and that after the trade the Predators and Subban have had more success that the Habs and Weber.I'm poking obvious holes in your ridiculous logic that the player makes the team, or that team success is representative of who is the better player.
Its clear from 11-12 and 15-16 that a roster can suck, even with Subban on it.
Except that's not my logic. However, what's clear to me is that before the trade Subban reached a personal level that Weber could not attain and that after the trade the Predators and Subban have had more success that the Habs and Weber.
The same logic does not apply to the Hall-Larsson or Seguin trades and the both my first and second points are relevant to the trade. With the trade Nashville acquired a younger player who had previously attained a higher level than the older player the Habs acquired. After the trade both Nashville and Subban have had more success (i.e. the team collectively and the player individually) than the Habs and Weber. This situation does not apply to the Hall-Larsson or Seguin trades. Objectively I find it hard to see how the Habs won this trade.First point is debatable but I'll concede as it really has nothing to do with the trade.
Second point can't be argued, agree 100%, but it really has nothing to do with the trade, either. We wouldn't use this logic to justify the Hall-Larsson or Seguin trades, would we?
But that assumes that with the "better fit" the team will do better (than they would with the player where there is the lesser fit) and there is no evidence to support that. I would argue that winning is better than fitting in.This site gets so caught up in winning trades.
The point of the trade is to make your team better, not to get the better player, it's to get the better fit.
They went to the finals, which is further than they ever went with Weber.This isn't the biggest loser where the biggest loser wins.
You just don't go anywhere with players like Subban. Nashville was smart to figure that out.
I didn't realize that they hadn't built a from strong drafting and player development team for over a decade to only make it to the finals because of Subban. Thank you for informing me.They went to the finals, which is further than they ever went with Weber.
I find it hard to see how the Habs won the trade, too. I've said as much in this thread.The same logic does not apply to the Hall-Larsson or Seguin trades and the both my first and second points are relevant to the trade. With the trade Nashville acquired a younger player who had previously attained a higher level than the older player the Habs acquired. After the trade both Nashville and Subban have had more success (i.e. the team collectively and the player individually) than the Habs and Weber. This situation does not apply to the Hall-Larsson or Seguin trades. Objectively I find it hard to see how the Habs won this trade.
Subban is younger, however he's had chronic injury problems, which may negate that advantage. Weber had one injury with a longer recovery, but a more complete one. Player to player, Weber's performance edges out Subban, however, if Subban recovers his health and speed he could end up better -- albeit for New Jersey.The same logic does not apply to the Hall-Larsson or Seguin trades and the both my first and second points are relevant to the trade. With the trade Nashville acquired a younger player who had previously attained a higher level than the older player the Habs acquired. After the trade both Nashville and Subban have had more success (i.e. the team collectively and the player individually) than the Habs and Weber. This situation does not apply to the Hall-Larsson or Seguin trades. Objectively I find it hard to see how the Habs won this trade.
One of the big issues people had with the trade was that the canadiens wouldn't be competitive while weber was still elite. They were right.
Moving on from subban wasn't necessarily the wrong thing - it's the return that was wrong.
Likewise, a team ready to compete taking on weber might have been a good option.