|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 11, 2002 21:38:43 GMT -5
Interesting quotes by AS in Pedneault's column in the Journal de MTL....translated:
''Let's say the league adopts a 40 million$ salary cap(hmmm..a little inside info there Andy?), what will I do? I won't be able to re-sign everyone we have now(yeah baby ;D). I will have to make some choices to see in which direction we are going and the only way to eliminate the salary cap problem(get ready for this guys you will like it)...is by giving our kids, who are doing so well in the developmental program we have established, a chance to help this team out''
Then he talks about why Dan McGillis isn't a Hab, says Flyers weren't interested in dealing him here. Then says there are no physical d-man available and ''we must look at what we have in the minors'' (? is he talking about Komi? I hope not...kid needs time)
And then the article ends with......''Now, Savard is just about ready to start the 2nd part of his plan to get the Habs back to where they belong: Start adding young players to the lineup. It may not happen this year, but certainly next fall''
Sounds like Savard is ready to do some house cleaning and reduce the payroll in the coming months.
Like we have said many times...now AS's job gets tougher...he must make make choices among the veterans he brought in, get more productivity out of his payroll, bring in youngsters AND the team has to progress in the standings...
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 11, 2002 22:04:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the translation Marc. You're right, it starts to get hard. Which ever side of the argument you're on regarding AS, we should all be able to agree that this transition will prove to be the making or unmaking of Savard as a good GM. So far he's made some good moves and some not so good moves (how many and how serious is a matter of debate but he certainly isn't perfect and that comes from one who's in the "support AS" camp right now). One thing Savard's comments do, I think (if reflected correctly), is reinforce the argument of those who have maintained that AS has had a plan and that he's generally stuck to it. It hasn't been a nice neat linear course with no bumps (In the reality of the NHL it's unlikely that any plan would unfold in such an orderly fashion) and some may not agree with it but there has been a course and it has been followed with some purpose. It's just that there's been some tacking necessitated every now and then. Ahemm.
|
|
|
Post by KR on Dec 11, 2002 22:41:39 GMT -5
I'll believe it when I see it when it comes to Savard injecting some youth into the lineup. Just because Pedneault says it, doesn't make it so. There has been very little indication to this point that AS has any intention of giving Hossa, Hainsey or Ward a shot. He will have his work cut out for him making roster room. He'll have to take on picks or prospects for the likes of Czerkawski, Hackett or Audette.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 11, 2002 23:53:40 GMT -5
I'll believe it when I see it when it comes to Savard injecting some youth into the lineup. Just because Pedneault says it, doesn't make it so. There has been very little indication to this point that AS has any intention of giving Hossa, Hainsey or Ward a shot. He will have his work cut out for him making roster room. He'll have to take on picks or prospects for the likes of Czerkawski, Hackett or Audette. Well I don't have a problem with him not putting youth in the lineup just yet. They were ready. Hossa didn't have a strong camp, and only scored 17 goals in his 1st pro year. Hainsey got a shot and looked bad, so he got sent down to work on somethings, which should be good for him. Ward, no one expected him to be 2nd in the AHL in scoring this year (helps to play for the Red Wings of the AHL) and he has played one healthy season so far and that was last year. It still remains to be seen if he can stay healthy all season, if he keeps this up, I think he will get a contract over the summer, and a chance to make the team next year (maybe). I don't think next year we will see a lot of rookies in the lineup. Hossa and Hainsey and Garon would be my picks. The year after is when a few more might make it. Hopefully Komisarek, Perezhogin, Higgins, will be knocking on the door. Next year Hamilton should get a good group of talent. Hopefully, Milroy, Michaud, Himelfarb, Archer, Shasby, Higgins, Ferland, Jarventie all join the team with Balej, Komisarek, Plekanec, Beauchemin. If not since Hamilton will be our team fully, we might need to sign a FA overager out of the QMJHL or other leagues. From the Q, maybe Linglet, Fillion (Ferland's centerman), Brett Luttes (Lambert's teamate), or bring someone over from Euro leagues, Staal, Anger maybe.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 12, 2002 0:19:01 GMT -5
I'll believe it when I see it when it comes to Savard injecting some youth into the lineup. Just because Pedneault says it, doesn't make it so. There has been very little indication to this point that AS has any intention of giving Hossa, Hainsey or Ward a shot. He will have his work cut out for him making roster room. He'll have to take on picks or prospects for the likes of Czerkawski, Hackett or Audette. Agree..... only Chow and Audette won't even fetch picks. I think Pedneault is feeding a lot of his own thinking into all of this. I know that I like to hear press conferences, live, things sound so different later on when reporters have filtered it all through their own faulty preconceptions. I know I got the Linden trade and the salary we were paying from the live interview with AS, and basically never saw any of it explained decently in any paper.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 12, 2002 0:34:40 GMT -5
Agree..... only Chow and Audette won't even fetch picks. I think Pedneault is feeding a lot of his own thinking into all of this. I know that I like to hear press conferences, live, things sound so different later on when reporters have filtered it all through their own faulty preconceptions. I know I got the Linden trade and the salary we were paying from the live interview with AS, and basically never saw any of it explained decently in any paper. Well I have to disagree here. Since neither one of us are GM's or know what the future holds, we can't say if Chow/Audette would fetch a pick or whatever, as we can only speculate. But the thing about the waivers, is that situations changes, things come up. Bure might be out all year, so maybe Slather panics, and makes a move. Just cause Chow clears waivers doesn't mean he can't be traded for something. Chow cleared waivers, cause to pick him up, you have to add 2.6M of salary to our team. But maybe a desperate team starts thinking that they need a soft one way lazy player, and if we pick up say 1M of his contract, then Chow at 1.6M looks better then the Chow that was on waivers at 2.6M when said team didn't really need that player. Same goes for Audette, and other teams that may run into injury problems down the road.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 12, 2002 1:42:40 GMT -5
Agree..... only Chow and Audette won't even fetch picks. I think Pedneault is feeding a lot of his own thinking into all of this. Negative, negative, negative. Why is it such a stretch to think that Pednault, in referring to "his [Savard's] plan", was accurately communicating the gist of what Savard said to him on this occasion or others? I mean, this is obviously the plan, after all. It's the only plan that makes sense, even to you. You may think Savard's fallen down in executing it because he hasn't done it fast enough for your taste, or because he shouldn't have traded for or signed a couple of the guys on the roster because it compromises his flexibility, but the plan that Pednault attributes to Savard is hardly something that doesn't add up acccording to common sense or based on his actions to date, taken as a whole. Savard, quite obviously, wants the young guys to have time. Savard, quite obviously, had to buy some of that time. Savard, quite obviously, sees that the time has worked its magic because people are developing nicely in Hamilton. Savard, quite obviously, wants the transition to happen but won't rush it, although the new CBA may factor in to things. So how is Pedneault guilty of "projecting" his own fantasies and wishes on to Savard? Oh, and by the way, the other day you made a comment about how Kilger's goal in Colorado was a fluky one from a bad angle. I saw the highlight last night and I was really impressed with the hands that Kilger displayed in dealing with a bouncing buck on the fly, with a defenceman on him, and it was his ability to gather it in and get it on net that gave him a chance to score. It's not that it wasn't a weak goal -- it surely was -- but it seem to me that you're (again) really determined to see the negative in everything, or to discount the good stuff when it happens. Instead of seeing (or at least commenting) on how much skill Kilger displayed, you focused instead on how bad the goaltending was. I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 12, 2002 1:56:15 GMT -5
From the camera angle I saw, behind and to Kilger's left, the boards blocked the puck and I couldn't tell if he missed the pass to start with and then corralled it alittle late, or had a bouncing puck go over his stick and then made a good play to grab it. My first impression was the former, but on reflection you could be right too.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 12, 2002 2:12:29 GMT -5
Whether it was a recovery or not, it showed me something and it was positive. He stayed with it and as soon as he got it organized he turned hard and went straight to the net.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 12, 2002 3:13:25 GMT -5
I'm still on the positive side with you JV. Your first para pretty well outlined my thoughts too, although I can't really comment on the reliability of Pedneault's column, just don't know enough about him. I guess I've seen enough of the best laid plans suffering from a fair amount of friction so I've not yet reached the point of cynicism with Savard. Stuff happens and things don't turn out exactly like you want sometimes but things often get ironed out in the long run if you just keep at it with the goal in mind. The way I see it AS is trying to maximize the chances for success and I think he's done a fair job of that so far. He's undoubtedly learning as he goes. Perhaps what's really kept me on the positive side is that my expectations have been much more modest than many. I never expected to see the Habs reach a point where we might call them "good" until 2004/05. It takes a long time to turn a franchise around when you have to retool from top to bottom while at the same time always facing the pressure of having to make the playoffs. One final thing, I'm not really a proponent of a lot of young kids learning on the job; I keep thinking of the years of Islander's futility. So if we get 3 more established by the end of next season from Hossa, Hainsey, Ward and Garon, that would be great. Might as well add Ribiero to that list as he hasn't yet really established himself. If that were to happen we would have 2 youngsters, or players just entering their primes, on Defence (maybe 1 more in Souray or a replacement), 2 in goal, and 4, maybe 5, among the forwards. That would 8, maybe 10, out of a roster of 23. About a third. You've also got rid of some grey beards and marginals so the overall age average of the club comes down. Then you add in a few more the following year and we just might have a really competitve club with a nice mixture of youth, players in their prime and vets, many of whom will be reasonably young. That's my positive scenario. Things could happen to turn it into mush of course. But I don't worry about that. No point in getting yourself all depressed if you don't have to. There are enough real problems that I have to face without getting fussed over the Habs before I really have to.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 12, 2002 10:06:11 GMT -5
I'll believe it when I see it when it comes to Savard injecting some youth into the lineup. Just because Pedneault says it, doesn't make it so It's Savard's quote.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 12, 2002 15:52:39 GMT -5
Savard also said the day he got hired that he intended to build from the farm and, like the Sens, insert 18-19 yrs old in the lineup and bring them along in the NHL. Great intention, but didn't do it. I'm like KR and PTH on it. I'll believe it and be happy about it when I see it....
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 12, 2002 16:58:38 GMT -5
Savard also said the day he got hired that he intended to build from the farm and, like the Sens, insert 18-19 yrs old in the lineup and bring them along in the NHL. Great intention, but didn't do it. I'm like KR and PTH on it. I'll believe it and be happy about it when I see it.... well what kids would you have rushed to make the team at that age? Hainsey? oh wait when Savard took over he was 19 already... Komisarek? not ready yet Perezhogin? still in Russia Hossa? needed time No point in rushing a kid if he isn't ready. Guys like Hossa, Havlat, Redden and company they showed they were ready when they made the Sens as 19 year olds...
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Dec 12, 2002 18:32:24 GMT -5
Marc,
The fact they may not of been ready isn't the point the fact he said it and never followed through is if i'm reading correctly what Doc is saying. Not to mention that his overshot on all these overpaid bums like Audette and Cerk and Mckay doesn't do much to coincide with the thought process of bringing guys along in the bigs like in Ottawa.
I'm on the fence. I'll believe it when i see it, It might happen i'm not saying it won't but i won't be selling the farm that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 12, 2002 18:41:38 GMT -5
I know, but my point is Savard saw those guys weren't ready to make the team as 18 or 19 year olds and that's why they ain't on the team.......yet.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 12, 2002 18:45:46 GMT -5
Marc, The fact they may not of been ready isn't the point the fact he said it and never followed through is if i'm reading correctly what Doc is saying. Not to mention that his overshot on all these overpaid bums like Audette and Cerk and Mckay doesn't do much to coincide with the thought process of bringing guys along in the bigs like in Ottawa. I'm on the fence. I'll believe it when i see it, It might happen i'm not saying it won't but i won't be selling the farm that's for sure. But the point is, they weren't ready. Who cares what he said, would you rather he put in players and risk their development just cause he jumped the gun and said he wanted to put 19-20 year olds into the lineup? I would be more worried if he did put them in when they weren't ready, just to cover himself. Hainsey got a shot, and if he played better he might be here now. If Hossa had a better camp, who knows. If Ward had been doing this good for the last two years, there would have been no need to sign McKay. But thats not the case. You can't just assume that after 1 season of healthy play, Ward is going to be able to get the job done. We needed some size and physical play, others teams wanted McKay as well, so Savard signed him. Not a bad move, if you ask me. When Savard got Audette, our only sniper was Perreault at the time, so getting a former 80 pt player for a soon to be UFA, and someone headed for retirement, was a good move at that time. His slow start is really hurting the team, but no one was complaining when he got 6 goals in the playoffs. Chow, well he's been in the all star's and gotten 35 goals. Its a mystery to me how this guy ever scored 35 goals, as he never ever seems to skate hard. I'd have to say Savard's worst move, but a minor deal, that has little effect on the team. There's just no way, any GM can avoid making some mistakes here and there, as any human will make errors. Savard has made his, and thankfully, they haven't been major ones to set us back, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 12, 2002 23:43:41 GMT -5
You can't talk to these people: they can't or won't understand that somebody looked at the farm and said "we need three years". Then they looked at the roster and said "we need some help". Then they went and signed some guys, some good and some not so good. Next year, the three years is up. There are a couple of guys who are very, very close to being ready now, or who are ready, and next year there'll be more. The time is upon us. The hour is near. But these people still insist on saying "I'll believe it when I see it" as though it doesn't add up. As though mgmt hasn't said it (even though it's obvious). And as though it wasn't obviously the plan all along. I guess it's just fashionable to doubt everything, no matter how much it makes sense. I think it's the pernicious influence of French philosophy....
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 13, 2002 1:20:22 GMT -5
I know, but my point is Savard saw those guys weren't ready to make the team as 18 or 19 year olds and that's why they ain't on the team.......yet. As some of us have been saying for months now (and you agree/disagree depending on if the Habs just won or lost), the fact is the kids had no chance to make the team with the garanteed long-term multi-million contracts AS likes to hand out like candy. Ward could have had the best camp of anyone at camp, but with Petrov, Chow, Audette, Dackell and McKay signed, would it have changed anything ? Kids need to have at least some hope of making the team....
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 13, 2002 1:39:01 GMT -5
As some of us have been saying for months now (and you agree/disagree depending on if the Habs just won or lost), the fact is the kids had no chance to make the team with the garanteed long-term multi-million contracts AS likes to hand out like candy. Ward could have had the best camp of anyone at camp, but with Petrov, Chow, Audette, Dackell and McKay signed, would it have changed anything ? Kids need to have at least some hope of making the team.... You say that like it is set in stone. Thing is Ward did't have the best camp, neither did Hossa. Hainsey did, got a shot (I know Souray was out, but Traverse wasn't brutal in camp, and Hainsey beat him out, until the season started, and it went the other way). Your blind hate for Savard is affecting your judgement. All those long term contracts he gives out. Ok Gilmor, 1 year, Koivu, 1 year, Kilger, 1 year, Ribeiro, 1 year, Garon, 1 year, Gratton 1 year, O'Dette 2 years, Souray 2 years, Dackell 2 years, Zednik 2 years, McKay 2 years. Unless 2 years is long term. Then there's Brisebois 4 years, Rivet 4 years, Theodore 3 years, Dykhuis 2-3 years, Traverse 3 years, Juneau 3 years, Perreault 3 years. Yea I see what you mean, he does give them out like candy, to our defence. So thats 6 1yr deals. 5 2yr deals. 2 4yr deals. 5 3yr deals. That I count. With the exception of Dykhuis and Traverse, I think those deals are good.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 13, 2002 1:53:24 GMT -5
Add to that the contracts he acquired - Quintal, Chow and Audette. Especially Audette.
I don't hate AS, I just don't see him as having done anything special - he went out and got us a lot of NHL level players, just like any competent GM with cash would do.
The trades he's made have been of the very safe variety, and I'm not sold on the Linden deal yet.
As to his drafting, let's wait until someone he drafts actually has an impact....
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 13, 2002 1:54:44 GMT -5
Hainsey (despite Montreal's opinion, IMO) was ready. Good year last year, 2nd good camp in a row, 1 mediocre game and Therrien black lists him. And, it seems, until next year, he won't be ready, almost no matter how poorly our other defensemen play. I agree JV, that Hainsey's probably our only youngster who is ready, but it is true that Savard made it a self fulfilling prophecy by choosing that route before trainng camp and signing established vets who can't be moved. I guess it's unfortunate that Audette, Czerkawski, Traverse, Dykuis, Quintal and Petrov all chose this year to take a big step back in performance. Now he has to adjust and it's proving difficult (duh). This possibility didn't come out of the twilight zone. PTH warned about it in the spring and while I agreed that it would limit Savard's options, I didn't imagine it would prove to be as restricting as it has. I can understand that he made an educated guess and sometimes it just doesn't work. What really irks, is the fact that despite all of Savard's talk, his actions tell a different story. He won't play a 19 year old, or a 20 year old, and not even a 21 year old.
Back in 1972, Sam Pollock brought up a 21 year old defenseman, who scored about 6 points in 35+ games. The other Habs d-men were Guy Lapointe, Serge Savard, Jaques Laperriere, Bob Murdoch (a solid player) and Pierre Bouchard (marginal). That, of course, was Larry. Hainsey will not be another Robinson, but then again, he has Traverse and Dykhuis playing ahead of him. What's wrong with this picture? Are those 2 "ready"? They never were and they never will be. Give Hainsey the experience and improve the team. Get him on the ice. He does that and more of my criticism will disappear (I'm sure he needs that desparately, and can't face the world without my seal of approval).
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 13, 2002 6:59:40 GMT -5
As some of us have been saying for months now (and you agree/disagree depending on if the Habs just won or lost), the fact is the kids had no chance to make the team with the garanteed long-term multi-million contracts AS likes to hand out like candy. PTH, it would be nice of you to go a day or 2 without taking a cheap shot or two at me for a change. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 13, 2002 8:37:33 GMT -5
If I can chime in with my 2 drachmas worth..............
Other then Hainsey, the others are NOT ready. Ward? He is fourth line material. Maybe third line. I don't know if he can take his "skills" to the next level. Remember, he is getting most of his success from very hard work, IN THE AHL. You wont scratch your head at any at his moves or shot.
Hossa has shown nothing but a "Euro" game without the eliter skills.
Komi? Do you want him destroyed?
Gratton? He is an undersized grinder.
Ward? Over who?
Who? Who are these rookies that Savard is burying? Me? *bones creak*
Blame Savard for getting underperforming veterans. Blame him for keeping MThead. Don't blame him for the kids because they are NOT ready.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 13, 2002 10:16:33 GMT -5
and you can add Plekanec and Balej to that list..
Although Hossa certainly has been producing as of late(1 point per game pace)
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 13, 2002 10:43:26 GMT -5
If I can chime in with my 2 drachmas worth.............. Other then Hainsey, the others are NOT ready. Ward? He is fourth line material. Maybe third line. I don't know if he can take his "skills" to the next level. Remember, he is getting most of his success from very hard work, IN THE AHL. You wont scratch your head at any at his moves or shot. Hossa has shown nothing but a "Euro" game without the eliter skills. Komi? Do you want him destroyed? Gratton? He is an undersized grinder. Ward? Over Hack? Who? Who are these rookies that Savard is burying? Me? *bones creak* Blame Savard for getting underperforming veterans. Blame him for keeping MThead. Don't blame him for the kids because they are NOT ready. Well, to me, the question is how much more will they learn in the AHL, and do we have better players ahead of them? Hainsey? I agree, Hainsey looked bad at times, and probably wasn't anything better than our 6th or 7th defenseman, but I think he would have been better served by playing in the NHL, every second game, for say 10-12 minutes a game, and practicing with NHL players, and learning what it takes to be an NHL player, than by feeling sorry for himself in the AHL. If he had of stayed in Montreal, been handled with kid gloves, he would have made some mistakes, maybe cost us some games, but by February he would have been our #4 defenseman. Traverse and Dykhuis after all. Ward a 4th liner? Yeah? So? Isn't that what he is supposed to be? We aren't asking him to replace Richard Zednik, we want him to replace Bill Lindsay, Sylvain Blouin, and All Star fourth liners Mike Ribeiro, Mariusz Czerkawski, Donald Audette and Oleg Petrov. Who is Ward's competition? Hossa has showed a Euro game? So what? Seems to me we could use a little more speed, and skill in the lineup. Hossa would be taking Czerkawski, Audette, Petrov, McKay, Gilmour - those are some the "skill" wingers we have right now. Gratton? Undersized grinder? As opposed to Ribeiro, our current undersized grinding 4th liner? To me, you have to look at whether a player is going to learn more in the AHL, or in the NHL. Komisarek will learn more in the AHL, because he was clearly not ready, and is mis-matched even at that level (at the moment). Hainsey, on the other hand, was an All Star last year down there, one of the best rookies, and arguably Quebec's best defenseman. How much more is going to learn? Detroit took Jiri Fischer, decided he was too good for the AHL or junior, and kept him with the big club and let him learn, slowly, in the NHL. He didn't play big minutes, and was scratched a lot, but it seems to have worked for them. Ward? How much more is he going to learn down there? Gratton? I don't buy this "they aren't 100% ready" thing myself. No prospect is going to be 100% ready, that's just a fact. Are all they prospects Ottawa keeps breaking in at 19 "100% ready?" Havlat? Fisher? Hossa? Redden? Phillips? Volchenkov? How about Simon Gagne in Philadelphia? Was he 100% ready, or did the Flyers pair him with two outstanding vets (Recchi... can't remember the second)? Tanguay? Was he 100%, or did playing with Joe Sakic as an 18 year old help? Scott Gomez? Question is, are they learning in the AHL, or are they just coasting? Ward is not learning. Now obviously we don't have the stars that some of these other teams have, and I am not saying we need to stick all kids in, all the time, but even when we have an opportunity, we seem to waffle. Hainsey did not get one second of powerplay time, and he played with Quintal and Traverse. As an aside, Hainsey was +5 when his minutes were cut, and when Quintal was injured. Could we have not kept that going? Brisebois and Hainsey? Rivet and Hainsey? Build up his confidence, instead of telling him how bad he was, and shattering it? Maybe its just me, and my personal bias, but the team seems much more fun to watch, more exciting, now that Kilger plays 20 minutes, Markov plays in all situations, and Bulis is given an important role. Along with Zednik and Koivu, those are the most exciting and productive Montreal Canadiens. They also happen to be the youngest... Would this be a bad lineup? Kilger - Koivu - Zednik Gilmour - Perrault - McKay Bulis - Juneau - Dackell Lindsay - Gratton - Ward Ribeiro, Petrov (for the "skill" games, in place of Ward and Gratton) Hainsey - Brisebois Markov - Rivet Traverse - Quintal Dykhuis Alternate Dykhuis, Traverse and Hainsey. No major changes, just our top 3 AHL players on the roster, occassionally replacing Audette, Czerkawski, Traverse, Dykhuis, Lindsay and Blouin...
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 13, 2002 11:56:27 GMT -5
Well said Like you said...funny how most of the best players on this team are players in their early/mid 20's....hmmm...I wonder why.....
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stanley on Dec 13, 2002 12:32:43 GMT -5
Hey guys.. I have been reading your posts for quite some times but it's my first post here and I will try to keep up with you guys... So, I think our only youngster that's ready is Hainsey but he still has things to learn in the D zone. The problem is, who will show him??? Therien?? The non-technical coach Jodoin?? hahahahaha Green?? I wouldn't even let him teach my dog.. My point is that Ottawa has Jacques Martin, which is a great technician and a great teacher to show these kids how to play at this level. Minnesota: You think JM bouchard is ready to play at the NHL Level. No. The only reason he stayed with the club is that Lemaire wants to teach the kid how to get it done himself..he doesn't trust anyone else, he knows that if he goes back in the Q he would probably pick up some bad habits..(can you blame him??) Second point is that even if it was Marrian instead of Marcel, he would probably still be in the AHL..It's not about talent, it's about how they learn and who is there to teach'em...We have the gems but no one to polish them.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 13, 2002 13:25:36 GMT -5
I agree JV, that Hainsey's probably our only youngster who is ready, but it is true that Savard made it a self fulfilling prophecy by choosing that route before trainng camp and signing established vets who can't be moved. I guess it's unfortunate that Audette, Czerkawski, Traverse, Dykuis, Quintal and Petrov all chose this year to take a big step back in performance. First of all, and as Gillet pointed out the other day, with this team's recent history of injuries more depth rather than less was the preferred route. Second, a couple of young players have exceeded anyone's reasonable expectations. Ward, in particular, is doing much, much more in Hamilton than anyone could've guessed. But in any case, we're only talking at most about Ward and Hainsey. As for your list of underperformers, I think it's a bit over-inclusive. But in any event, who would you suggest that could've been brought up from our system to supplant Traverse, Dykhuis and Quintal? Hainsey's the only one that's ready, and frankly I'd rather watch Dykhuis struggle and suffer than Hainsey. He'll likely be back up this year, but I see no problem at all with him having as limited a role as possible in his first year. And incidently, if Quintal's struggling so much, and is your third guy on the right side, then that's the guy Hainsey's going to be partnered with, which is perhaps not ideal. But it's the only thing to do unless you're prepared to have Hainsey step in and play 22 minutes a night as opposed to 17. In the end, the whole theory that our system is horribly clogged up and the team would've been better off with 3 or 4 roster spots open for rookies is complete hogwash. It's half-baked and cooked up with facts discovered afterwards, like people shrieking about Gratton or Ward as if it were anything other than improbable that one or both of them would be ready to help. To take your list, just as an example, we've already seen that there is only one possible substitution from the farm for 3 guys whose play has been underwhelming (Hainsey). Among the forwards, Gratton is certainly a better fit than Ribeiro (an even younger guy) on the 4th line. But after that, who would you suggest was likely to be ready to take over for Czerk, Audette and Petrov? Was Hossa going to step into the first or second line and help the team on a consistent basis? There are some who think he's just now getting on track in the AHL for crying out loud, and it's not because his heart was broken when he was cut from the Habs. So who else? Balej? Chouinard? I mean, this whole argument is a perfect example of a claim that has some measure of plausibility only so long as you don't think about it carefully.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 13, 2002 13:35:04 GMT -5
Would this be a bad lineup? Kilger - Koivu - Zednik Gilmour - Perrault - McKay Bulis - Juneau - Dackell Lindsay - Gratton - Ward Ribeiro, Petrov (for the "skill" games, in place of Ward and Gratton) Hainsey - Brisebois Markov - Rivet Traverse - Quintal Dykhuis Alternate Dykhuis, Traverse and Hainsey. No major changes, just our top 3 AHL players on the roster, occassionally replacing Audette, Czerkawski, Traverse, Dykhuis, Lindsay and Blouin... You see? This is what I mean. All the pissing and moaning and verbiage, and what does it amount to? Insert a 27 year old AHL regular and waiver wire pick-up (Gratton) on the 4th line with Jason Ward, a guy who looked like crap as recently as September 25th. That's what it amounts to. This isn't worth a post-card, let alone the torrents of words that these nay-saying, whining critics have poured into the cause. Jason Ward. Benoit Gratton. I mean, Hainsey you can argue about. Play him here. Play him in Hamilton. It's not a clear cut case. It's not clear cut that he'd be better off here (in terms of his development) and neither is it clear cut that the team would be better off with him here. But after that? Ward and Gratton? Does this warrant the references to prospects like Fisher, Redden, Phillips, Volchenkov and Havlat? I mean, when you stop and think about it, it's a joke.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 13, 2002 14:02:32 GMT -5
Hey guys.. I have been reading your posts for quite some times but it's my first post here and I will try to keep up with you guys... So, I think our only youngster that's ready is Hainsey but he still has things to learn in the D zone. The problem is, who will show him??? Therien?? The non-technical coach Jodoin?? hahahahaha Green?? I wouldn't even let him teach my dog.. My point is that Ottawa has Jacques Martin, which is a great technician and a great teacher to show these kids how to play at this level. Minnesota: You think JM bouchard is ready to play at the NHL Level. No. The only reason he stayed with the club is that Lemaire wants to teach the kid how to get it done himself..he doesn't trust anyone else, he knows that if he goes back in the Q he would probably pick up some bad habits..(can you blame him??) Second point is that even if it was Marrian instead of Marcel, he would probably still be in the AHL..It's not about talent, it's about how they learn and who is there to teach'em...We have the gems but no one to polish them ?? Welcome to the board. That's a very good point. Without good - or heck, adequate - coaching, the team is really at a disadvantage, regardless of whether they are trying to break in prospects, or use established veterans. Its sort of a Catch-22; * Therrien can't risk going with kids, because his NHL creditials aren't solid enough, and he will take the fall if it doesn't work out. This will end his NHL coaching career. He knows this. So he has to go with what he feels is his best chance at winning, and that's by going the "safe" route with the veterans. Hence, his reliance and confiding in Doug Gilmour all the time, and his seemingly bizarre trust in "proven" NHLers, Quintal, and Traverse, and Odjick, and McKay. * Savard can't risk going with kids, or trading for kids, because his GM creditials, while somewhat more solid than Therrien's coaching creditials, are still new. He has NHL hockey experience, at all levels, but no GM experience. This could hurt him not only in the eyes of the new owner, but in the old-boys network that is the NHL GM fraternity. So if he shows any weakness, any sign that he is holding a fire sale of any sort, the vultures will swarm. So he tells anyone who will listen that he doesn't want to trade Linden, that Therrien is his man, that the team is going to try for - and make - the playoffs. I would bet that was at least part of the reason he went up to $5 million for Martin Lapointe - he had to prove that he could be just as stubborn and stupid as the others. Probably why he traded Eric Weinrich to Boston to, after St. Louis screwed around with him, trying to make him blink first. Or Linden to Washington, after Brian Burke made a big show of not wanting Linden, even though he did. "You don't want Linden and Weinrich? Fine. They'll go someplace else, even if its for less, that what you ultimately would have offered. I'm not going to play your games, begging you to take my players." If he had of fired Therrien right off the bat, and Theodore doesn't turn in a Vezina season, the Habs miss the playoffs, and suddenly Savard's halo slips a lot earlier than it did. But instead, he succeeds beyond his wildest dreams, not only making the playoffs, but winning a round, and now his job with Gillette is secure. But he still has this lame duck coach lying around, that he can't get rid of without a season-jeapordizing 7 game losing streak. But since the coach is doing just enough to hang on, Savard can't implement any kiddie program. Neither Savard nor Therrien have, or had, the reputation, the force of personality, or the creditials to say "this is how it is going to be, regardless of how many games we lose - this is my plan, deal with it." Like a Pat Burns, or Mike Keenan, or Scotty Bowman could have done. If Montreal flops last year, if Theodore isn't Joe Superstar, both Therrien and Savard could have been not out of their Montreal jobs, but out of their NHL careers as well. So they play the half and half game, trying to stay afloat with mediocre pieces until their so-called plan comes together. Its too bad. With a coach who wasn't so afraid of losing his dream, we probably would have had a much different looking team, even if the players were the same. But Therrien, and to a lesser extent, Savard, can't rock the boat too much, because they aren't established enough...
|
|