|
Post by Haburgher on Dec 11, 2002 21:11:18 GMT -5
The worst thing Savard could do is trade Audette becuase of his sub-par start. When transactions such as that occur it usually turns out badly. Have a little patience Audette is a goal scorer something we do not have many of. So the question is trade him to dump salary if you can, or let him try to play his way out of the slump?
|
|
snap
Rookie
Posts: 93
|
Post by snap on Dec 11, 2002 21:18:36 GMT -5
Normally I would agree with you. Let a player play out of his slump. But right now, we have so many people who can take his place that it's just not worth it. He is not a superstar so there shouldn't be any extra treatment, and chow and petrov has the same role he does. Mind you, Chow hasn't had much of a chance, but other players have stepped up. 14 goals in the last 3 games, I would say thats okay, wouldn't you? And how much of that did Audette help in?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 11, 2002 21:28:22 GMT -5
No one wants Audette
|
|
snap
Rookie
Posts: 93
|
Post by snap on Dec 11, 2002 21:36:20 GMT -5
And neither do I.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 11, 2002 21:43:21 GMT -5
Am I the only guy here who thinks that Audette's slump is due simply to his not having recovered sufficiently from the arm injury and that he never will? That he's permanently damaged goods? Am I out to lunch, flogging a dead horse? (Jeez, somebody's gotta take a swing after that opening) Or does anybody agree with me.
I'm interested in other views to see where the majority opinion lies since, as usual, I could be all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Dec 11, 2002 21:46:14 GMT -5
That maybe part of it but he takes way too many games off.For a guy who is trying to stay in the lineup you'd think he'd give you a more consistent effort. Then again you could say that about 3/4's of the team. HFTO
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 11, 2002 22:16:40 GMT -5
Yes, but when he does get the shots (and there have been games when he's gotten quite a few) can he still put them in like he used to? He himself has said that his arm is 90% and will never get any better. Has that 10% made the difference in his ability, or inability, to get off a quick hard wrist shot or quick slapper with enough mustard on it ,and enough accuracy, to give him the edge he needs to continue to be a scorer?
In other words, what are his shooting mechanics like now as compared to before? As good as or worse? In my mind this is a really big question. If he has lost his edge then all the "give him time" arguments, whether directed at keeping him or trading him, are fruitless. Is there any point in even playing the guy again, ever? I see this as a very big decision for Savard, and ultimately GG as he's footing the bill.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 11, 2002 22:18:25 GMT -5
I agree with HW. The guy looks like he is damaged goods.When was his last good wrist shot? Not his fault but like Phil says you gotta give more effort and he didn't..
...plus he whines so much...
|
|
|
Post by KR on Dec 11, 2002 22:36:49 GMT -5
He didn't seem to have any trouble finding the back of the net in the playoffs last year and his arm wasn't even the 90% he claims it is now. I see it as lack of consistent effort and a little bad luck. He'll break out eventually. Petrov could be the key. If he can't be re-signed, he should be traded now and his ice-time can go to Audette. I would certainly keep Audette over Czerkawski. Here's a suggestion: now that Gilmour appears to be picking up his game, why not try Audette with him? He clearly needs a playmaker to work with Kilger has the spot with Koivu and Zednik for the time being. Gilmour won't take any floating either.
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Dec 12, 2002 2:05:39 GMT -5
He'll break out eventually. Geez not a good choice of words concerning audette!
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 12, 2002 10:04:41 GMT -5
Many of his wrist shots in the playoffs were, IMO, shots that should have been stopped by DaHole and Weekes.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Dec 12, 2002 12:08:51 GMT -5
I think that a problem with Audette and Chow are that they both are and have always been streaky scorers. Lots of these guys can go 10-15 games without a goal and the 8 in 10 games. Both need lots of time to let them play and find that "groove"
I really don't think Audette's injury plays a major part in it. The problem is that with both playing the same position, and neither scoring, neither can get a flow going. One has to be traded (which I will leave to Savard) and let the other guy play on the second or third line with some pp and if he finished the year with 20+ goals everyone one would be happy.
Right now, neither can have much confidence and are probably "squeezing the stick too hard" when they do play.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 12, 2002 12:48:44 GMT -5
Yes, but when he does get the shots (and there have been games when he's gotten quite a few) can he still put them in like he used to? He himself has said that his arm is 90% and will never get any better. Has that 10% made the difference in his ability, or inability, to get off a quick hard wrist shot or quick slapper with enough mustard on it ,and enough accuracy, to give him the edge he needs to continue to be a scorer? In other words, what are his shooting mechanics like now as compared to before? As good as or worse? In my mind this is a really big question. If he has lost his edge then all the "give him time" arguments, whether directed at keeping him or trading him, are fruitless. Is there any point in even playing the guy again, ever? I see this as a very big decision for Savard, and ultimately GG as he's footing the bill. I am a big supporter of hard work, effort, and loyalty. Audette gave his right arm for the team and we have to stick with loyalty. You dance with who brung you! IFF (big if) he is working hard in the gym and there is a possibility or his returning to form, we keep him and wait patiently. If not we thank him and wish him well. I'm not in the gyn or holding a radar gun on the ice and I'm reluctant to trust Therrien's opinion, but for now I give Audette time and cut him some slack. I don't judge the situation on the few seconds of ice time Donald gets on the fifth line. We have four guys in Hamilton who would gladly volunteer to pitch in until Audette is ready to return. The addition of two forwards over 6'2" may not hurt the team.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 12, 2002 14:08:30 GMT -5
The worst thing Savard could do is trade Audette becuase of his sub-par start. When transactions such as that occur it usually turns out badly. Have a little patience Audette is a goal scorer something we do not have many of. So the question is trade him to dump salary if you can, or let him try to play his way out of the slump? Disagree very strongly. If he could do it, he absolutely would and should do it. It is turning out badly right now, as we have a soft, unhappy, unproductive scorer who's being paid a lot of money to watch from upstairs, and there's no reason to think we're going to want tor need him in the lineup two months from now. The only thing keeping Audette in Montreal is the fact that there's zero demand for him. Even if Savard is prepared (as he probably is) to pay 40% of Audette's salary to be rid of him, it'll still be hard to find even one interested team.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 13, 2002 1:23:29 GMT -5
Disagree very strongly. If he could do it, he absolutely would and should do it. It is turning out badly right now, as we have a soft, unhappy, unproductive scorer who's being paid a lot of money to watch from upstairs, and there's no reason to think we're going to want tor need him in the lineup two months from now. The only thing keeping Audette in Montreal is the fact that there's zero demand for him. Even if Savard is prepared (as he probably is) to pay 40% of Audette's salary to be rid of him, it'll still be hard to find even one interested team. Agree through and through. We owe Audette 8 million bucks and he isn't doing squat... How could we NOT want to see him taken out and shot ?
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 13, 2002 23:03:51 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't shoot the guy. But why not get with the insurance company, if his contract is insured, as someone suggested. Then, with or w/o the insurance company, try and work out some offer to Audette that's fair, which would after all be in the region of several million US$. Offer him job in the organizaion. In other words, treat him fair for his loyalty or whatever you want to call it like LA says but minimize your losses and create the situation to play Czerk full time to try to get him on a streak like Habitual says (at least we know for sure he's not damaged goods); then we either keep him or trade him.
We should also keep in mind that Audette's 33 and he should be willing to recognize that he may be approaching the end of his career, especially after that injury. Both he and the Habs should be realistic.
If Audette refuses then ship him to Hamilton where the coach can sit him in the stands and we can all forget about him. If he refuses ban him from the team and turn the lawyers loose on him.
I'm prepared to be reasonable and fair but if a player throws it back at me then I figure play hard, play to win and play for keeps. No prisoners.
Long live Sammy Pollock.
|
|
|
Post by Habdul on Dec 14, 2002 0:40:30 GMT -5
I thought Audette did a good job of getting himself in a scoring position, only to fan, shoot wide, break a stick or have the puck bounce oddly off his stick. Now I don't know if Marc is right, that he has a bum wrist and it's ruined his shot, but it was not for lack of effort. I thought he was pretty effective in the offensive zone; He seemed forcheck pretty well, and play with some emotion. But the goals didn’t come. The problem with Audette is that he had to step up his defensive game. If he's not scoring, he should be a back checking demon. At least he'd be contributing to the team in some way, until he starts potting some goals.
The other factor, is the rumours of him being "the rat". At this point all I know, is that what the press has said. So until I know more than what the papers say, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Chow is another matter all together. After winning the life-time achievement award for being the most invisible player to his team, he has the gall to publicly demand a trade. I’ve never seen a player play with such little desire or emotion. Not to mention the gliding around every shift. I see 85 year people that move their legs more than Mariusz.
|
|
|
Post by legaspesien on Dec 16, 2002 16:00:15 GMT -5
from TSN
The Daily Herald Times reports that Blackhawks D Boris Mironov remains a holdout while awaiting a trade and that it’s believed the Montreal Canadiens offered RW Donald Audette in exchange for the defenceman. With two more years remaining on Audette’s contract, the deal appears unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 16, 2002 16:02:31 GMT -5
Boy.
And I was proposing Chow for Bobo Mironov...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 16, 2002 16:26:34 GMT -5
Didn't we already have Bo Mironov? Oh no wait, that was Malakhov...how the heck did I get those two mixed up? A big NO THANK YOU as far as I'm concerned. Depending on who you listen to we have enough problems in the room already, no need to add that. Let the Rangers pick him up, or the Leafs, just keep him away from here. Give Markov and Hainsey whatever ice time you'd offer to Bo.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 16, 2002 16:29:36 GMT -5
Ryan,
Mironov is a UFA after this year...to get rid of Audette's 6 million, I'd be ready to live with Mironov's laziness for a few months...
|
|
|
Post by Ged on Dec 16, 2002 17:32:15 GMT -5
Hitchcock is a grade A A-hole. That is why he is successful. Like Keenan and Bowman, you either buy into his system or you don't play and eventually get moved. Audette couldn't play for Hitchcock, so that tells me he is simply not a team player. You play and do what is best for the team, for the chance to raise the holy grail. That comes first and foremost, before personal goals.
As for Bo-Bo, being from Alberta I watched him play for the Oil for many years. No thanks. He's a defensive nightmare, with limited offensive upside. And we already have one of them. He goes by the name Bo-Bo Brisebois.
|
|