Location: The Island of Falling Bridges, QC Joined: 08.09.2010
Jun 17 @ 1:51 PM ET
not 100% sure about how "huge" this return would've been... - Pat1993
I guess it depends on the definition of huge, but I'm pretty sure a 1st-line-center-potential or a 1D-potential rookie could have been had. Add some pieces left and right, other players, picks, it could have been a defining moment. Instead, we kept to the same strategy of over-relying on our goalie, which just doesn't work. I still think that keeping Halak and having something better than a third center in Eller would have worked out better for the Habs...
That was last year, I'm talking about 2 years ago.
- BashCH
Oh right!! Huge save to keep the Habs within a goal in the 2nd period of a very important pre season game, almost forgot all about that clutch performance
I guess it depends on the definition of huge, but I'm pretty sure a 1st-line-center-potential or a 1D-potential rookie could have been had. Add some pieces left and right, other players, picks, it could have been a defining moment. Instead, we kept to the same strategy of over-relying on our goalie, which just doesn't work. I still think that keeping Halak and having something better than a third center in Eller would have worked out better for the Habs... - YodaOldBoy
I think this is why that trade didn't happen, they wanted an established franchise player in return, which teams usually want to keep, and not just potentially acquiring one. While it could've been a great trade and defining moment, it also could've been the Roy debacle part II (very different situations I know, but still)
Oh right!! Huge save to keep the Habs within a goal in the 2nd period of a very important pre season game, almost forgot all about that clutch performance - obie
Location: The Island of Falling Bridges, QC Joined: 08.09.2010
Jun 17 @ 2:07 PM ET
I think this is why that trade didn't happen, they wanted an established franchise player in return, which teams usually want to keep, and not just potentially acquiring one. While it could've been a great trade and defining moment, it also could've been the Roy debacle part II (very different situations I know, but still) - Pat1993
I would argue that Price, at the time, was also a potential exceptional goalie, and not just a given. Maybe you don't trade him for the 17 year old player that just got drafted (unless he was one of the first three picks and sure to suceed), but maybe for that 21 year old who has established himself, but is not yet a star 1C/1D. You're never going to get an established 1C/1D for a potential star-goalie, that would be insane.
But if you never take risks, you're also never going to get anywhere, and that's what the Habs have been doing for years: trading dead weight for has-beens, drafting safe "good-without-the-puck" instead of offensive potential, signing middling free agents... And it's always the same: trades are hard and good players aren't on the market, drafting is an imprecise science and free agents decided to go elsewhere. How about we don't dare trade good assets for other potentially better/more useful assests, we just don't have the right draft mentality and we don't offer good enough contracts for FAs? I'll point out that not going all-in on FAs is not necessarily a bad thing though, since those contracts tend to be crazy. Of course, to trade, you need assests, and we have been insanely short on those... so it all goes back to drafting and how poop that has been.
I would argue that Price, at the time, was also a potential exceptional goalie, and not just a given. Maybe you don't trade him for the 17 year old player that just got drafted (unless he was one of the first three picks and sure to suceed), but maybe for that 21 year old who has established himself, but is not yet a star 1C/1D. You're never going to get an established 1C/1D for a potential star-goalie, that would be insane.
But if you never take risks, you're also never going to get anywhere, and that's what the Habs have been doing for years: trading dead weight for has-beens, drafting safe "good-without-the-puck" instead of offensive potential, signing middling free agents... And it's always the same: trades are hard and good players aren't on the market, drafting is an imprecise science and free agents decided to go elsewhere. How about we don't dare trade good assets for other potentially better/more useful assests, we just don't have the right draft mentality and we don't offer good enough contracts for FAs? I'll point out that not going all-in on FAs is not necessarily a bad thing though, since those contracts tend to be crazy. Of course, to trade, you need assests, and we have been insanely short on those... so it all goes back to drafting and how poop that has been. - YodaOldBoy
yeah I guess we definitely agree on the drafting part... drafting good players may actually be a hard thing to do, but to have failed so many times at it you gotta wonder what went wrong there loll
Location: I like to wash women's feet -Pat1993 Joined: 08.07.2018
Jun 17 @ 2:24 PM ET
yeah I guess we definitely agree on the drafting part... drafting good players may actually be a hard thing to do, but to have failed so many times at it you gotta wonder what went wrong there loll - Pat1993