Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by steveayres35, Sep 9, 2019.
Why did the Predators become much superior only after removing Weber and adding Subban?
Why did Montreal improve from 82 to 103 points after removing Subban and adding Weber?
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 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.
You want context but you fail to mention Carey Price missed the entire season for Subban's last year? That Subban missed games? And that Subban was having a very good offensive season? If you actually want to add context you're not doing a great job. I'm not saying Nashville made the finals just because of Subban, hockey is a team sport, it is utterly ridiculous to say its a "complete coincidence." Also kinda presumptuous to suggest Weber would have no problem scoring at his best offensive rate in the playoffs ever. You want context but you ignore that Weber had years to get further with Nashville, notably ****ing the bed in his last playoffs game there, and you want context but you ignore the Canadiens team was better with Subban for years. Yes, there are a lot of factors, Montreal was trending down and Nashville was trending up, 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.
Also are you saying Subban wasn't accountable for Nashville's failures? He's one year removed from being a Norris finalist, he got traded and everyone thinks he's done.
I'm just glad you're trying to make an argument. Oh wait...
Back to vague naive comments.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
With Taylor Hall, Edmontons best season was 74 points.
First season they trade him, they explode for 103 points, make the playoffs for the first time in over a decade and come within 1 game of the WCF, meanwhile he goes on to NJ where he wins a total of 1 playoff game in 3 seasons.
Going by the logic I'm reading in this thread, Edmonton won that trade fairly easily.
A lot of it is based on what age Weber retires at
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.
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.
Predators easily won. Subban was 3rd in Norris voting in 2018, Nashville made a finals run (and who knows what happens in the SCF with Johansen) and lost a tight series the next year vs the Jets with a Rinne blow-up in game 7. Weber's missed half his games since joining the Canadiens, and they've played in a total of 6 playoff games.
I was definitely too bearish on Weber at the time of the trade and he's been much better than I expected. I think he's still overrated but he's a very solid 1st pair dman and I think he'll maintain a 1st pair level for a while. The contract stuff is also overblown, people freak out about 7 years but the final 3 years are at 1M and he'll go on LTIR when the salary drops so it's silly to act like he's going to be playing for a million bucks at 40.
Setting aside the direct comparison between the players I still think it was a huge mistake from a cap management/window standpoint which is my fundamental issue with the trade. Even if you accept the premise that Subban needed to be traded it would have made far more sense for the Canadiens to trade him for futures or a center than a direct 1 for 1 roster replacement who's 4 years older. Now they've gone through a 3 year "retool" and remain a bubble team that's trying to build for the future around a 34 year old 1D.
They went to the finals, which is further than they ever went with Weber.
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.
I find it hard to see how the Habs won the trade, too. I've said as much in this thread.
I just do not accept the lazy explanation that the preds won because they went further with pk than they did with Weber.
You or I wouldn't accept that explanation for the Hall, Seguin, or Thornton trades and I won't accept it for the subban trade.
Idk if anyone posted it but I did not remember if Markov and Weber played together, so I looked up the trade and found this funny website!
PK Subban Tracker
If you look through the individual RS, 2017-2018 is the season to blame for everyone who still thinks Nashville won the trade by a margin. Weber was injured most of the season, Subban had an awesome year offensively and the Habs finished in the bottom of the rankings while the Preds played in the Finals.
If you look at 2016-2017 and 2018-2019, it's a wash offensively, though everyone knows that Weber is much more responsible defensively. A very quick look shows that +/- supports that idea too, as Weber beats Subban in those 2 years (I know its a dumb stat, but Subban played with one of the best top 4 in the league on a contender team while Weber on a bottom-feeder team).
In fact, I believe 2017-2018 is actually the year that can't be used against the Habs management, as this was by far the worst Habs season since Weber's arrival, when he was absent, which could indicate he is somewhat important to the team (there is more than that, but missing your best skater doesn't help).
To complete, Weber is supposedly a true leader and example for young players, which is exactly what Montreal needs now and going forward. Subban would be completely wasted here.
From my point of view, this trade had a positive effect on the team overall. I do believe Nashville also saw a positive effect from the trade as Subban is such an electrifying player
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.
Now if we're comparing GMs, Nashville beat Montreal in team building. Not because of the Weber for Subban trade, but for Nashville's far superior drafting and overall roster quality.
HF Boards won.
We agree on that, no doubt. Keep in mind, however, that this was more than on-ice related. Bergevin thought the team's culture was extremely poor (which I agree with) -- he wanted to bring in a leader to help push them in the right direction. Weber has absolutely made that impact, but at a heavy cost. If it was me, I would have went younger and brought in other veteran leadership. But Subban or Weber player for player -- not team success or opportunity cost -- to me, Weber has been the better player. A lot of years left for both, however.
Nashville won the trade.
Weber - 162 games out of a possible 246; 37 Goals, 54 assists for 91 points (0.56ppg);
Subban - 211 games out of a possible 246; 35 Goals, 95 assists for 130 points (0.62ppg);
It really depends on whether you believe the injury is a factor in evaluating the trade or not.
Is it bad luck? Or is it a predictable risk for an older player?
Separate names with a comma.