|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 20, 2002 14:31:20 GMT -5
Let's do the next best thing. Trade Perreault, in a package or otherwise. When you think about it, the main reason Perreault has as many goals as he does is that he pots the rebounds and converts the set ups. He's a goalscorer, rather than a true centerman. When Gilmour's on his wing it's Gilmour who makes the plays, and Perreault's the finisher. Well, we have other finishers who could do that. Czerkawski comes to mind. Give Gilmour the second line, with Mckay on the left and Czerk on the right, and I bet you that Czerk will quickly start to replace Perreault's goalscoring. I'd be looking for a defenceman to come back. In the meantime, these would be the top three lines:
Kilger/Koivu/Zednick Mckay/Gilmour/Czerk Bulis/Juneau/Dackell
We could also move Dackell as well:
Kilger/Koivu/Zednick Bulis/Gilmour/Czerk Lindsay/Juneau/Mckay
Then deal quietly with Audette in the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 20, 2002 15:24:18 GMT -5
Hey buds, you just pointed out that Killer and Yanic play pretty well together. Why bust them up now? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Yanic under a no-trade clause.
Just curious, but how would you deal with Audette in the off-season?
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on Dec 20, 2002 15:38:05 GMT -5
Sorry, but I have to disagree with putting McKay on the second line. As much as Randy has done, he has alot of hard miles on the odometer. He isn't a spring chicken anymore and I don't think he would handle the minutes a second line guy gathers. Randy has been very effective on the third line with occasional power play time. If he has to do more it wouldn't surprise me if he broke down.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 20, 2002 15:48:34 GMT -5
Perreault is our most productive offensive player for a second straight season and he's the best faceoff men of the NHL. He has a great attitude, never complains and cost less then 3mil. Trade him in order to give more icetime to Chow who does nothing but whine plenty... I don't think so. With or without Gilmour, Perreault delivers. IMO Yannic does at least as much for Gilmour then Gilmour does for him. They now work good togeter so I wouldn't touch that duo like I wouldn't touch the Koivu/Zed duo.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 20, 2002 16:05:36 GMT -5
Trade him in order to give more icetime to Chow who does nothing but whine plenty... Yup. All Czerk has done is wonder out loud why he was brought here if they weren't going to use him. Fair question. Perreaut and Czerkawski are fundamentally the same player. Do you think Perreault's scoring more goals because he hustles more than Czerk? Because he does the dirty work? Give Czerk the pp time and he'll deliver. And meanwhile, we get to use one of the few older guys with some trade value. I am not very attached to Perreault and I don't think many fans of the club should be too attached to him either. He's not that good a player.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 20, 2002 16:09:43 GMT -5
Randy has been very effective on the third line with occasional power play time. If he has to do more it wouldn't surprise me if he broke down. Mckay has spent almost no time on the third line. But maybe that'd be the answer. Bulis to the second and Mckay to the third.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 20, 2002 16:18:16 GMT -5
Perreault is our most productive offensive player for a second straight season and he's the best faceoff men of the NHL. He has a great attitude, never complains and cost less then 3mil. Trade him in order to give more icetime to Chow who does nothing but whine plenty... I don't think so. With or without Gilmour, Perreault delivers. IMO Yannic does at least as much for Gilmour then Gilmour does for him. They now work good togeter so I wouldn't touch that duo like I wouldn't touch the Koivu/Zed duo. Doc: I'm with you 200%. Perrault Koivu Theodore and hackett are producing for us. Trading our good guys to give a chance to our problem children makes no sense. Who got us Czerkawski and Audette anyways? (to be fair, Savard didn't slice Audette's arm. Savard can't be faulted for the fact that Audette's shot is slower than an Iraqui policeman leading a UN arms inspector.)
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 20, 2002 16:29:32 GMT -5
Doc: I'm with you 200%. Perrault Koivu Theodore and hackett are producing for us. Trading our good guys to give a chance to our problem children makes no sense. Who got us Czerkawski and Audette anyways? (to be fair, Savard didn't slice Audette's arm. Savard can't be faulted for the fact that Audette's shot is slower than an Iraqui policeman leading a UN arms inspector.) Frankly I don't care about Audette and Czerkawsky anymore. We're winning plenty with them being non-factors, why try and mess things up for these guys... Both trades were mistakes (as was Berezin), let's not make things worst by trading the good performers and be stuck with having to count on these guys.
|
|
Nai
Rookie
Posts: 8
|
Post by Nai on Dec 20, 2002 16:53:39 GMT -5
I'm 100% with you Doc!
So far Czerk and Audette have not been a factor. Who win the games? Your top 5-6 players. And actually both of them don't fit in our Top 6...
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 20, 2002 17:18:32 GMT -5
JV, can you please tell me why you always want to trade Perreault? First of all...Perreault is more valuable to the Habs than what he can bring in a trade. Not alot of teams are ready to pay 2.8 million$ per year for a 2nd line center. Perreault's trade value, IMO, is probably not much at all. 2nd of all, Perreault does have a no-trade clause and 3rd, the guy only has 16 goals...
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 20, 2002 18:14:03 GMT -5
JV, can you please tell me why you always want to trade Perreault? First of all...Perreault is more valuable to the Habs than what he can bring in a trade. Not alot of teams are ready to pay 2.8 million$ per year for a 2nd line center. Perreault's trade value, IMO, is probably not much at all. 2nd of all, Perreault does have a no-trade clause and 3rd, the guy only has 16 goals... You've said he has a no-trade clause about twenty times. I've asked at least 4 times for someone to show me the story where that was reported. Until I see it in writing, I don't believe it. And besides, if he was given a no trade clause, it probably woudn't be for all 3 years. But again, I've never seen that reported in the press or confirmed by the team. Never. I don't like Perreault's game. Never did. Zholtok gave us goals in 99 too. Didn't like him. I never liked Rucinsky. Perreault's weak defensively. He doesn't pay the price. He's not a good playmaker. I mean, what's to like about Perreault? His 15 goals are nice, but Czerk would have a dozen by now given Perreault's pp time. Perreault's scoring goals because he has a left winger who's a playmaker. I say, use the playmaker as a center, switch one goal scorer for another (Czerk for Perreault) and trade the guy who has some value to help the team, either in the short term or the long term. Why does everybody think this is so radical?
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Dec 20, 2002 18:21:28 GMT -5
then we're left with no second line centre for next season once gilmours gone. i dont think bulis is ready to centre the second line, nor do i think kilger is ready. we need perreault, he's a great second line centre aside from his lack of defensively play, and as marc said he's not really worth all that much im guessing
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on Dec 20, 2002 18:26:43 GMT -5
I am sure I read about this no trade clause in the hockey news. It seems to me that it was no trade for the first two years of the deal, but I really don't expect you to believe me either. I am with you however when it comes to Perreault's game. Any player who shys away from physical contact really irritates me. Perreault has great hands and instincts but is such a wuss in the corners. If his hands werent so good he would be in the AHL. His faceoffs are good, but the majority are offensive zone draws. His defensive game just isn't good enough to take the chance on letting him take important defensive draws. To bad such a talent has to be such a suck physicaly. Don't even get me started on Jerkoffsky...
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 20, 2002 18:35:56 GMT -5
You've said he has a no-trade clause about twenty times. I've asked at least 4 times for someone to show me the story where that was reported. Until I see it in writing, I don't believe it. And besides, if he was given a no trade clause, it probably woudn't be for all 3 years. But again, I've never seen that reported in the press or confirmed by the team. Never. will you listen to me?...... first thread: habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=general&thread=1028567360&action=display&start=15article from Brunet in LaPresse: www.cyberpresse.ca/reseau/chroniqueurs/mbrunet/mbru_101120048124.html''En outre, Meehan a réussi à faire inclure une clause de non-échange pour les deux premières saisons du contrat, de 2002 à 2004. Brisebois est donc assurément à Montréal pour les trois prochaines années. Le seul autre joueur à détenir une clause de non-échange s'appelle Yanic Perreault, pour les deuxième et troisième années de son contrat signé cet été. ''
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Dec 20, 2002 18:35:59 GMT -5
JV, doesn't Perreault have a no trade clause? Hehe, just kidding.
I'm with JV on this one. Absolutely -- Killer belongs at center on that line, not Perreault. And Perreault is a non factor in any game against a big or fast (or both) team. He's not creative with the puck either. He cashes in rebounds..let's use a spare part to that and trade for someone else we could use, maybe a winger with some size.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 20, 2002 19:16:49 GMT -5
Leafs thought Perreault was easy to replace but many fans will tell you now that they'd gladly take him back since they could never get their 2nd line center position solidly figured out since he left.
Perreault is doing his job which is not to provide grit or defensive play but come up with some offense. Unfortunately for him, he is a finess player and the type is not well liked these days.
Still, trade a guy who's on pace for a 40g 70 points year...
...because we want to play Czerkawski... Sorry but I can't follow this at all. We'll have zero gain in the grit or defensive play department which is the main knocks people have against Yannic and we would take the risk of actually getting less offense... So what if Gilmour is doing the playmaking from the wing, it works.
29 organizations decided not to pick Czerkawski for free off waivers 3 weeks ago, that should give us an indication of how much time we should invest in this guy.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 20, 2002 19:31:28 GMT -5
JV, doesn't Perreault have a no trade clause? Hehe, just kidding. I'm with JV on this one. Absolutely -- Killer belongs at center on that line, not Perreault. And Perreault is a non factor in any game against a big or fast (or both) team. He's not creative with the puck either. He cashes in rebounds..let's use a spare part to that and trade for someone else we could use, maybe a winger with some size. I don't guys. If it ain't broken let's not try to fix it. Gilmour on the wing and one of the best faceoff men in the game at centre works for me. As for rebounds and the like, I think I see both Yanic and Dougie going to the net on just about every highlight reel. Hey, it worked even with Oleg on the line ... let's leave them alone. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 20, 2002 19:38:59 GMT -5
With or without Gilmour, Perreault delivers. IMO Yannic does at least as much for Gilmour then Gilmour does for him. They now work good togeter so I wouldn't touch that duo like I wouldn't touch the Koivu/Zed duo. Right! During last year's playoffs, the Koivu/Audette tandem worked well, while the Gilmour/Zednik combo did the trick as well. When you have two combos that are working as well as these two did then, it didn't matter who started the game. The opposition's checking line can only cover one at a time. That left more ice for the line that didn't have to face them. Right now both the Koivu/Zednik and Gilmour/Perreault combos seem to be working out as the other combos did last year. Changing something now would be counterproductive. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 20, 2002 19:43:01 GMT -5
In part, this whole idea was driven by the need to do something about Czerk or Audette. So, far MT's attempts to deal with the Audette situation haven't helped the team or Audette. That's part of why I chose Czerk. The answer I came up with (actually, my brother came up with) was to move Perreault, make DG the number 2 center, and make Czerk his righth winger.
I understand the people who say "if it ain't broke", and i don't think Gilmour/Perreault is broke, but having a healthy Czerk sitting around when he's capable of scoring goals just as well as Perreault is, that is broke....
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 20, 2002 19:52:21 GMT -5
it's pretty clear to me Czerk is not even close to being in MT's mind these days.
He is simply not part of ''the plan''. As soon as there is a taker...it's goodbye!
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 20, 2002 20:10:15 GMT -5
In part, this whole idea was driven by the need to do something about Czerk or Audette. So, far MT's attempts to deal with the Audette situation haven't helped the team or Audette. That's part of why I chose Czerk. The answer I came up with (actually, my brother came up with) was to move Perreault, make DG the number 2 center, and make Czerk his righth winger. I understand the people who say "if it ain't broke", and i don't think Gilmour/Perreault is broke, but having a healthy Czerk sitting around when he's capable of scoring goals just as well as Perreault is, that is broke.... Well, the thing is I thought Czerkawski was legitimately going to contribute this year. I honestly haven't seen the games I would have liked AGAIN this year, but I honestly thought he would have been putting up better numbers. Anyway, if I remember correctly didn't Czerkawski have a 4-point night earlier in the season? Someone can probably fill me in, but I thought he had 4 assists in one game while playing with Koivu. Still, I see what you're trying to solve here, JV. I'll be darned if I can figure it out. If I could I wouldn't be in my present job. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 20, 2002 20:13:55 GMT -5
Anyway, if I remember correctly didn't Czerkawski have a 4-point night earlier in the season? Someone can probably fill me in, but I thought he had 4 assists in one game while playing with Koivu. . 3 against the Leafs in TO. 3 assists.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 20, 2002 20:28:31 GMT -5
The only good it did Czerk to rack up 7 points in 5 games was to be benched for it so that MT could try to jumpstart Audette's season. And he's still trying to jumpstart it. And Czerk's still sitting because of it.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 20, 2002 21:09:49 GMT -5
Yanic essentially saved our bacon last season, since he was our #1 center until Dougie got back into shape. Why trade him ? He is essentially our only sure thing at center, with Koivu being fragile over the years, and Juneau and Gilmour aren't spring chickens anymore.
Between Perreault and Ribeiro we have absolutely no one - to me Kilger is a winger.
Yanic has a no-trade clause, we need him to keep on producing, and you want to trade him to help get a malcontent back on track ?
If Yanic got hurt and Chow were back on-track I might agree in principle, but right now I wouldn't want to bet even more on Chow without him showing us more (or rather, MT letting him show us more)
Why throw good money after bad ? Asham and a pick for Chow is bad enough, do we really want to give up Perreault too in the hopes of getting Chow to work out ?
In a way I see your point JV, Perreault is a center but plays a wingers game, and his being a non-playmaker makes it that much harder to get our scoring wingers on their game. All that being said, Yanic is working out pretty well, and the team is getting back to where it should be, so trading a key piece right now would be a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 20, 2002 21:34:45 GMT -5
The difference is you can get something for Perreault, and I for one think Czerk can get you just as much production.
Otherwise, you sit with Czerk and Audette, playing them sporadically in roles or for periods of time that guarantee they'll continue not to produce (though in fairness, Audette really has had his chances and failed, while Czerk has had many fewer and has shown signs of success). So what do you do? Hang on to both all year? Offer to pay most of their salaries to move them?
|
|
|
Post by smorsy on Dec 20, 2002 21:47:29 GMT -5
Whats the matter with u guys? Why would u even think about trading perrault or mixing up that second line. this line is getting us goals. lets not talk about czerkawski and audette anymore, trade them seperatly for picks or young players...we wont get much but u don't need audette on the 4th line making 3 mil. and u don't need czerkawski in the press box making almost the same. have a ribeiro ward petrov line. the lines are playing well and we shouldn't be talking about mixing them up. if it aint broke don't fix it!
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 20, 2002 21:58:23 GMT -5
The problem Smorsy is that we probably won't be able to get anything for Czerkawski or Audette, we couldn't even give Czerk away for noting. Nobody wants to take on those salaries for players that aren't producing.
Which is the reason for JVs suggestion but I agree with hanging onto Perreault. Besides scoring I think winning faceoffs in the offensive zone is pretty important for a small team like the Habs, especialy on the PP. That Czerkawski can't do.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 20, 2002 22:14:32 GMT -5
It's a tough situation all-around, I can't agree on trading Perreault being the solution, but I very much see the logic in it.
The Audette situation can be blamed on injury, but it's Chow I just don't get - AS goes out and gets him, and he never really gets much of a chance. Forget Asham and the pick, even if we'd just signed Chow as a UFA reject I'd expect him to get more of a chance for the kind of dough he's making.
|
|