|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Nov 25, 2002 14:52:46 GMT -5
I have been reading so many posts about how Montreal has to get rid of the older players and play the kids that I took it upon myself and did some research. I checked hockeydb.com and found how old the following Montreal players were before they had a regular job in the NHL. Regular I mean more then 1/2 a season, I have no way of knowing of how much ice time they got or if the saw third line duties but here it goes:
Robinson - 22 Gainey - 21 Dryden - 24 S. Savard - 22 Chelios - 22 Lafleur - 21 Shutt - 21 Lemaire - 22
All of these are either in the hall of fame or will be soon. If you consider the three top prospects are: Hainsey (21), Hossa (21) and Komisarek (20) are projected to be soild NHL players but probably not HOF players what is the rush in getting them to the NHL???
As for Andre Savard not using kids...Zednick, Bulis, Markov, and Ribero are all basically just becoming proven NHL players with long careers ahead of them and are all 25 or younger. Theodore is an old 26? Let the Audettes, Gilmours, and Quintals take the pressure of the NHL and Montreal media while prospect develop and mature as players and people.
and one more thing,
Chris Dyment stats:
Season Team Lge GP G A Pts PIM 1998-99 Boston University NCAA 25 1 5 6 18 1999-00 Boston University NCAA 42 11 20 31 42 2000-01 Boston University NCAA 37 1 10 11 38 2001-02 Boston University NCAA 38 7 17 24 24 2002-03 Houston Aeros AHL 10 1 0 1 14
When he does something note worthy...then complain that Montreal let him go.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 25, 2002 15:21:38 GMT -5
LOL at the Dyment shot
Now on to your comment...those players were trying to make the rosters of teams LOADED with talent, not the roster we have now.Plus alot of them got experience the year before in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Nov 25, 2002 15:28:00 GMT -5
I'm sure at the time the same critisism was made that a Gainey was better then a Terry Harper or Robinson better then Don Awrey, and in time they proved they were and those players were moved to make room for the young talent. Over the next year or two the Gilmours and Audettes will also be moved for a worthy younger replacement, just not right now
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 25, 2002 15:35:01 GMT -5
Probably but I doubt it was a case of having a defence with talents like Quintal, Traverse and Dykhuis on it. Maybe there was one guy like that, but not 3...
Like JV says...why can't we just fast forward 2 years from now...
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Nov 25, 2002 15:45:54 GMT -5
because if you play Hainsey and Hossa now they could end up being Serge Boisvert and Dan Daoust in two years
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 25, 2002 17:03:16 GMT -5
those 2 must have really suck...I have no idea who the heck they are
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Nov 25, 2002 20:20:07 GMT -5
I have been reading so many posts about how Montreal has to get rid of the older players and play the kids that I took it upon myself and did some research. I checked hockeydb.com and found how old the following Montreal players were before they had a regular job in the NHL. Regular I mean more then 1/2 a season, I have no way of knowing of how much ice time they got or if the saw third line duties but here it goes: Robinson - 22 Gainey - 21 Dryden - 24 S. Savard - 22 Chelios - 22 Lafleur - 21 Shutt - 21 Lemaire - 22 All of these are either in the hall of fame or will be soon. If you consider the three top prospects are: Hainsey (21), Hossa (21) and Komisarek (20) are projected to be soild NHL players but probably not HOF players what is the rush in getting them to the NHL??? As for Andre Savard not using kids...Zednick, Bulis, Markov, and Ribero are all basically just becoming proven NHL players with long careers ahead of them and are all 25 or younger. Theodore is an old 26? Let the Audettes, Gilmours, and Quintals take the pressure of the NHL and Montreal media while prospect develop and mature as players and people. and one more thing, Chris Dyment stats: Season Team Lge GP G A Pts PIM 1998-99 Boston University NCAA 25 1 5 6 18 1999-00 Boston University NCAA 42 11 20 31 42 2000-01 Boston University NCAA 37 1 10 11 38 2001-02 Boston University NCAA 38 7 17 24 24 2002-03 Houston Aeros AHL 10 1 0 1 14 When he does something note worthy...then complain that Montreal let him go. Too bad not many people think like me and you.. Good post.. Savard is the man.. and will be here for a loooooonnnnnng time, hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 25, 2002 21:04:37 GMT -5
and one more thing, Chris Dyment stats: ..... When he does something note worthy...then complain that Montreal let him go. OK, and when he does do something, then people will say "well you didn't care then, did you ? !!" - so I'm caring now. To be honest, I really, really don't care about Dyment himself. But it's the trend that's disturbing. Throwing away kids and picks as if they didn't matter - and in fact, the occasionnal dump doesn't matter, but when it's a consistent trend, it gets to be a worry. Over time, it'll have an effect. Lose 2-3 picks a year, and it means that you lose half a player a year on average, since you hope to get a player out of the later rounds each year. How will you feel, when Zdardo Cvekulski, picked in the 7th round with the pick we gave up for Blouin, when he becomes a top-line power center ?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 25, 2002 21:22:22 GMT -5
How will you feel, when Zdardo Cvekulski, picked in the 7th round with the pick we gave up for Blouin, when he becomes a top-line power center ? He obviously won't... Savard is so omnicient that he knew from the get go that no picks from that round will ever make it so it doesn't matter if he traded it or not. I mean c'mon PTH. Savard doesn't trade picks, he maximizes picks of low value to the team by turning them into usefull utility players and, PTH, Savard doesn't drop prospects, he cleans the farm to insure a proper grooming environment for the real valuable prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 25, 2002 21:36:01 GMT -5
Where is that extensive draft review that showed how many many picks from the later rounds turn into gems on average if i remember correctly just as many solid nhler's come from the later rounds as the early ones.
You make a good point Doc but i'd much sooner see alot of quantity versus slimmer pickings regarding drafting. We all know that the more picks you have especially in the later rounds (because to get more low picks tends to be pricey) the better chances you have of finding diamonds in the ruff.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 25, 2002 22:50:34 GMT -5
I have been reading so many posts about how Montreal has to get rid of the older players and play the kids that I took it upon myself and did some research. I checked hockeydb.com and found how old the following Montreal players were before they had a regular job in the NHL. Regular I mean more then 1/2 a season, I have no way of knowing of how much ice time they got or if the saw third line duties but here it goes: Robinson - 22 Gainey - 21 Dryden - 24 S. Savard - 22 Chelios - 22 Lafleur - 21 Shutt - 21 Lemaire - 22 First, except for Dryden, if these players were prospects right now, they'd be able to make our team out of bantam.. Secondly as PTH and I have said, it is never these individual moves that we question. Czerkawski for Asham, fine. Audette for Rucinsky, fine....it is the combination of the moves and the big picture. Take a step back guys...way back, look at the big picture. What some of us have been saying is that the direction is disturbing. Would we be any worse with Hainsey (and perhaps Hossa or Ward) in the line-up than Quintal, Traverse or Dykuis? The lynch mob is saying no we wouldn't. I don't want Plekanec, Komisarek, Balej, Chouinard, Milroy, or Korneev in the line-up. They're not ready. Hainsey is, Ward and Hossa perhaps. But we keep hearing the argument that you can't sit these highly paid veterans. Yes you can, but you have to have the gonads (to quote the illustrious Alliance MP from these here parts) to do it. What we're seeing is some moves that have gone awry and then a reluctance to change when it is fairly clear the problems exist. And when we agree with the corner the team is painted into, the fact is that it's existing management that has done it. Savard has had 2 years now to set the direction of this team. Do you like it? It seems yes. I don't. Can he change it? You bet, but it's not happening. Ok he deserves some time to allow him to pull the trigger at the right moment, but I'd feel much more confident if some of his moves appeared to have some cohesive point to them. What really bugs me the most is his steadfastness at his coaching staff. Anyway, I know I'm going to hear the "We're over .500 argument". Let's have this chat again in January.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 25, 2002 23:01:54 GMT -5
Secondly as PTH and I have said, it is never these individual moves that we question. Czerkawski for Asham, fine. Audette for Rucinsky, fine....it is the combination of the moves and the big picture. Take a step back guys...way back, look at the big picture. What some of us have been saying is that the direction is disturbing. Would we be any worse with Hainsey (and perhaps Hossa or Ward) in the line-up than Quintal, Traverse or Dykuis? The lynch mob is saying no we wouldn't. I don't want Plekanec, Komisarek, Balej, Chouinard, Milroy, or Korneev in the line-up. They're not ready. Hainsey is, Ward and Hossa perhaps. But we keep hearing the argument that you can't sit these highly paid veterans. Yes you can, but you have to have the gonads (to quote the illustrious Alliance MP from these here parts) to do it. What we're seeing is some moves that have gone awry and then a reluctance to change when it is fairly clear the problems exist. And when we agree with the corner the team is painted into, the fact is that it's existing management that has done it. Savard has had 2 years now to set the direction of this team. Do you like it? It seems yes. I don't. Can he change it? You bet, but it's not happening. Ok he deserves some time to allow him to pull the trigger at the right moment, but I'd feel much more confident if some of his moves appeared to have some cohesive point to them. What really bugs me the most is his steadfastness at his coaching staff. Anyway, I know I'm going to hear the "We're over .500 argument". Let's have this chat again in January. exactly the additional payroll and acquisition of marginal talent's that don't fit into the Team concept are something of major concern what makes one believe that the obvious lack of planning that is going on will change in the future ?? if we continue to draft well that's fine but if the team does not become cohesive with all it's puzzle pieces working in unison what's the point. The ranger's have been trying to buy a team for a long time but they lack chemistry and balance. while we haven't been trying to buy a team (or have we considering the increase in payroll with zero results) we still are no different than the rags a team on the playoff bubble.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 26, 2002 2:55:58 GMT -5
OK, and when he does do something, then people will say "well you didn't care then, did you ? !!" - so I'm caring now. To be honest, I really, really don't care about Dyment himself. But it's the trend that's disturbing. Throwing away kids and picks as if they didn't matter - and in fact, the occasionnal dump doesn't matter, but when it's a consistent trend, it gets to be a worry. Over time, it'll have an effect. Lose 2-3 picks a year, and it means that you lose half a player a year on average, since you hope to get a player out of the later rounds each year. How will you feel, when Zdardo Cvekulski, picked in the 7th round with the pick we gave up for Blouin, when he becomes a top-line power center ? Well what the Wild do with their pick means nothing. Cause I don't care about them, and there's no way of knowing who we would have taken with that pick. I can put the same spin on it. How will you feel, when we pick Zdardo Cvekulski (Im guessing he's not real) with the Wild's 5th round pick this year? As for moving picks and players, it's not something Savard does often. A 3rd for Berezin (yuck), a 7th for Blouin , a 8th for Dackell (great move), a 8th and our 1st for Oilers 1st, our 4th and 5th for Flames 4th. Did I miss any? thats 6 picks, in 2 years. And 2 of those should wipe out, since we got a equal pick in return (1st for 1st, 4th for 4th). So then its 4 picks we lost, to get Berezin (who gets us a 4th in '04), Dackell, Blouin, Higgins, Lambert. PTH, what's the big deal here? Yes we might of gotten a great pick out of those 4 or 6, but you make it sound like Savard is moving prime picks left and right. One 3rd rounder was wasted, IMO, and a 7th that seems a bit uneccessary, but minor. As for young players. Lets see, there's Belanger, Guren, Razin, both Desile's, Asham, Zubrus, Bashkirov, Dyment, Sean Dixion, damn I can't think of his name but he's with the Sharks now, and was in a trade with Eric Himelfarb over the summer. Who on this list do you miss? Zubrus, but it was worth it, IMO. Asham, I liked, but lets not get carried away. Dyment, I don't know much about. But why the worries that Savard is giving the farm away, I just dont' see it. He has to free up room down there. We have a lot of depth at the prospect level, and there's no way we can keep them all due to the 50 contracts rule.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 26, 2002 3:07:23 GMT -5
He obviously won't... Savard is so omnicient that he knew from the get go that no picks from that round will ever make it so it doesn't matter if he traded it or not. I mean c'mon PTH. Savard doesn't trade picks, he maximizes picks of low value to the team by turning them into usefull utility players and, PTH, Savard doesn't drop prospects, he cleans the farm to insure a proper grooming environment for the real valuable prospects. Doc, I like your last statement about him cleaning the farm for the real valuable prospects. I don't know if you were trying to be funny or serious. But that's what I beleive 1000%. I just posted a thread above this showing who Savard has moved off the farm. Take a look and tell me who you or anyone here would have kept and why? Now think this over. We have this kids left. Gratton, Landry, Bouillon as overagers but still on the farm. Chouinard, Ward, Descoteaux, Beauchemin, Anger, Staal, Buturlin, Tarasov, Garon, Mikkola, Jarventie, as prospects that are hitting the now or never age, and will either stick around or have to be shipped off, its a business and we can only have so many under contract. Then theirs Hainsey, Hossa, Komisarek, Balej, Perezhogin, Milroy, Higgins, Plekanec, Puurula, Michaud, Korneev, Ferland, Himelfarb, Archer, Linhart, Deveaux, Eneqvist, Shasby, Glenn, Selig, Marois, Thinel, Lambert, Larrivee. All these are recent picks, and since we' have seen what the now or never guys have been doing, it's clear that some more will have to go, cause there's a lot of talent in the core of Hainsey, Komisarek, Hossa, Higgins, Plekanec, Milroy, Ferland, Lambert, Eneqvist, Puurula.
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Nov 26, 2002 5:09:14 GMT -5
I think we're getting away from the heart of it. It doesn't seem that everyone wants "all" the old guys out, they just want some of the glut taken care of. I don't think that this in any way involves trading picks or prospects. Acquiring Blouin was needed in my opinion as there is no enforcer type player in the stables(O'Dette is a d-man). The general idea seems to be to that we have such a glut of similar player's with high saleries sitting in the pressbox that there is no room to give a guy like Ward for example a look. I agree with Viper the big picture is a little crowded and needs to be zoomed in. Having too much depth can be a good thing if this was an overall team thing but it's all in the forwards. It's totally unacceptable to have 1rst and 2nd line wingers sitting in the pressbox when there's 2-3 d-men out on the ice that should be wearing orange helmets for all thier effectiveness. Unfortunatly AS's hands are tied right now when there are only so many teams(and they know it) that are capable of making the 2 or 3 decent player's for 1 good player deal with the saleries involved. Some might say that AS should take the hit anyway but unless we go on a long losing streak I think we know that he has not and probably will not operate that way. My opinion is we're stuck, the price on deals right now is too high because pretty much everyone is in the "race" and untill there's a drop off this won't change. All we can do is hope and pray that when the better deals start becoming available that we are STILL in the "race". It sucks but welcome to hockey as a business in the 2000's.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 26, 2002 7:14:39 GMT -5
Well what the Wild do with their pick means nothing. Cause I don't care about them, and there's no way of knowing who we would have taken with that pick. I can put the same spin on it. How will you feel, when we pick Zdardo Cvekulski (Im guessing he's not real) with the Wild's 5th round pick this year? As for moving picks and players, it's not something Savard does often. A 3rd for Berezin (yuck), a 7th for Blouin , a 8th for Dackell (great move), a 8th and our 1st for Oilers 1st, our 4th and 5th for Flames 4th. Did I miss any? thats 6 picks, in 2 years. And 2 of those should wipe out, since we got a equal pick in return (1st for 1st, 4th for 4th). So then its 4 picks we lost, to get Berezin (who gets us a 4th in '04), Dackell, Blouin, Higgins, Lambert. PTH, what's the big deal here? Yes we might of gotten a great pick out of those 4 or 6, but you make it sound like Savard is moving prime picks left and right. One 3rd rounder was wasted, IMO, and a 7th that seems a bit uneccessary, but minor. As for young players. Lets see, there's Belanger, Guren, Razin, both Desile's, Asham, Zubrus, Bashkirov, Dyment, Sean Dixion, damn I can't think of his name but he's with the Sharks now, and was in a trade with Eric Himelfarb over the summer. Who on this list do you miss? Zubrus, but it was worth it, IMO. Asham, I liked, but lets not get carried away. Dyment, I don't know much about. But why the worries that Savard is giving the farm away, I just dont' see it. He has to free up room down there. We have a lot of depth at the prospect level, and there's no way we can keep them all due to the 50 contracts rule. Savard said that he wanted to build through the draft, and that he wanted to get into the Ottawa habit of having one 19-20 year old on the team every year. Said it brought youthful enthusiasm to the team. Well, we know how well that is going. As for the draft picks, last year Montreal had 6 draft picks, which is well below the league average of 9. Indeed, only Carolina had fewer picks, meaning Montreal was 29th in terms of number of players drafted. The year before, Montreal had 8 picks, which is better (though still below the league average), but isn't quite as good as it looks, because of those 8 picks, 2 were overagers that didn't pan out - 30 year old Victor Unjick, and 26 year old Martie Jarventie. So in reality, he only drafted 6 prospects. He has already traded away a pick for next year, to acquire a guy who plays every 3rd or 4th game, 2 minutes a game, who has one fight? And just as an aside, O'Dette plays both forward and defense. "Play" in the loosest sense of the word. He could do what Blouin does, no problem. So the league average over the last 2 years is 18 picks. Savard has had 12-14, depending on how you view the Jarventie and Unjick picks. Yes, we micro-manage here.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Nov 26, 2002 14:20:30 GMT -5
Isn't it true that Savard was offered two middle round picks from St Louis for Hackett? I'm sure that he could get a fourth or fifth any day of the week for Petrov, or Audette. But then I'm sure nobody in their right mind would say ...wow, we have picks for the future now. If Savard moves a late pick this year and gets a player that can play now, or trades someone for a pick in the future it all ends up being a wash. In what is projected as a weak draft year such as last year then giving up a 4 or 7 rounder is no big deal. You are talking about the 200 + guy in a weak draft. Sure the occassional guy jumps up from the bottom to become a star, but its very rare.
Savard was not given a team that needed to be tinkered to make competetive but a team that needed to be rebuilt starting with the farm team. Most of the players under contract were not going to be in the NHL for longer then a few games and are being replaced with ligitimate prospects. Not all things go as well all the time as with any job but I believe that Savard needs about 4 years to see how the team is progressing not 2 as he has so far.
If after 2004 this team does not have a competitive team with a solid core of young players mixed with veterans like Theodore, Koivu and Zednick then I will gladly lead the parade to the gallows.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 26, 2002 18:54:44 GMT -5
Isn't it true that Savard was offered two middle round picks from St Louis for Hackett? This year? I heard the Blues offered a mediocre draft pick for Hackett but what is competitive in your mind? we are competitive now...
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Nov 26, 2002 19:36:13 GMT -5
Marc you know what's funny about Dan Daoust ? The Habs decided to keep Guy Carbaneau over him before they shipped Daoust to the Leafs.A great call I'd say! We could use a few more of those right now. HFTO
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Nov 27, 2002 11:03:49 GMT -5
There's no big deal with what Savard do.
He traded a 7th pick for Blouin ? Big deal, he can get it back anytime he wants.
This summer, he traded Berezin for a 4th round pick.. and with this year's draft which is much deeper than the last one, it will compensate for the 3rd one lost last year..
At least, Savard TRIES.. which is a good thing.
And another thing, the more Savard tries to improve his team short term wise while trying to build with picks demonstrate one thing.. he has tremendous confidence in his judgement of talent, in Martin Madden and in his scouts.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 27, 2002 15:28:34 GMT -5
There's no big deal with what Savard do. He traded a 7th pick for Blouin ? Big deal, he can get it back anytime he wants.. WTF it's a completely useless waste of time to make the trade in the first place when the resources to do what blouin does exist. Already we had O'dette to do that why can't you see how obviously this is just a completely senseless and redundand waste of time. wether or not he gets the trade back or not has no bearing on the subject what matter's is he never had to make the move in the first place. It's a trade made just for the sake of looking busy. This summer, he traded Berezin for a 4th round pick.. and with this year's draft which is much deeper than the last one, it will compensate for the 3rd one lost last year.. At least, Savard TRIES.. which is a good thing. .. He also lost a pick acquiring cerkawski another resource that the team did not need it's another trade that was made just to look busy because we did not need Cerkawski it only creates problems with our lineup because now we have to many one dimensional right winger's. If he's gonna make an acquisition using asham and a pick get something that will be filling a hole in the lineup possibly a left winger considering we had zero i repeat zero natural left winger's at the time of the trade for cerkawski. You preach about having patience well why is it savard didn't have the patience to wait until something useful came along. And at least he tries well big fat deal if he does it doesn't mean because he tried he got it right i'm sure houle was trying did that make him any good ? And another thing, the more Savard tries to improve his team short term wise while trying to build with picks demonstrate one thing.. he has tremendous confidence in his judgement of talent, in Martin Madden and in his scouts. Short term fixes would be appropriate role player's and missing pieces to the puzzle until the kids are ready looking at the deformation we call our lineup he is doing nothing that even resembles that as of late. Not to mention as already outlined a team that is building through the draft does not trade away it's picks it stockpiles them. It has been already explained by BC that we fall very short on that whole theory. Do me a favour if you reply to this post reply to it specifically rebutting the points i have specifically made. I would kindly ask you to stick to the topic at hand instead of jumping around the hoops i've seen you use in the past. I really enjoy debating points but it is very difficult to do that when people don't stay on topic. Cheer's Habsolutely Viper.
|
|