|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 11, 2002 23:00:17 GMT -5
And that's the perfect example of why some people are still waiting for little green guys to come out of flying saucers and reveal the secrect of the universe to them... You keep referring to this master plan or this great franchise that Savard is coming up with from under his hat, when in fact all he's doing is what many GMs in his position would: use the money a willing owner has, to patch up a team with as much NHL depth as possible in order to secure playoff revenue, which is what his boss is after. That's it. Look at what Savard was doing when Molson was the owner and look at what he’s been doing with GG as the owner: Totally different direction so puh-leaase spare us “The Grand Scheme”, “Big Picture” and all the rest of that BS. Until we clearly see that Savard has something else in mind then to continually use GG's cash to fill up his roster with average NHL depth, then you're idea of Savard's masterplan is just a fiction with no basis in reality. "From under his hat"?? Where did I say that? He's doing it the only way you can do it: by hanging on to the quality youth that he and Houle before him drafted. The secret (I'll let you in on it) is that there is no secret. There is no secret. Write it down. We never had the money or the pull to get Guerin, Holik and Lapointe to show up, so that rules out one approach. What's the other? To draft well and bring enough plumbers that you can have a shower in the meantime. Granted these are expensive plumbers, but let's look at the alternative. Let's say that there's no Quintal, no Perreault, no Gilmour, no Juneau and no Dackell. Let's stick to last year. Let's say that we moved Rosie for Malhotra and Savage for, well, let's say someone like Savard. What do we have? Remember, this is last year so there's no Koivu: Petrov/Bulis/Zednik Kilger/Savard/Asham Ward/Malhotra/Poulin Simpson/Darby/Odjick Brisebois/Dykhuis Rivet/Markov Robidas/Souray So now what have you got? Bulis is your first line center. Or do you want to hang on to Linden? But you can't do that because that's how you got Bulis. right? Who else are you going to get by moving Zholtok, Linden and Zubrus? Who else is there? So you've given up on the idea of going to the playoffs, right? That's okay, cause you're rebuilding, and it doesn't matter if the attendance drops to 17,000 in a 21,000 seat building. No harm there. What about the youth? Who else makes the squad? You've already got Asham Ward, Bulis and Malhotra in the lineup. Who else? You want to add Ribeiro? Okay. Watch him get crushed and booed mercilessly by the pigeons at the Molson Center who've paid $110 for a seat. Or do you want to rush Hossa, Hainsey and Balej into the fray? Get the point? Ther secret is there is no secret. Write it down. Put it on your fridge.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 11, 2002 23:46:40 GMT -5
Let's be fair. Savard is a big improvement over Houle. Our high payroll doesn't come out of my pocket either, but it's not a good example of good management. It doesn't make it easier for the players who are paid less and producing more to see players getting more for doing less. Bad team chemistry. No Gretzky or Lemieux is sarcasm on my part that must have missed the mark. We also don't have an Iginla or Holik or Kariya or even Speeza or Hossa. (Well actually we have a Hossa the way Vancouver has a Kariya.) We don't even have a player in the top 53 in scoring. We are outshot nine nights out of ten and only our outstanding goaltending keeps us at .500. Our record is better than our intrinsic performance. Savard has improved the team at the expense of our future. We aimed for mediocre and hit the mark. Our production is coming from our forwards who are all over 30 and in the declining years of production. We are too small. We can't clear the zone or the slot. We can't keep the puck and pressure in the opponents zone. We are not getting better with young guns who are about to step up to the next level. We got better with retread veterans who are getting ready to retire or be pushed out to pasture. Markov, Hainsey, and Komisarek will be good (how good we are not sure). We used to think that Chouinard and Ward would be good too. Close only counts in Horseshoes and Handgrenades. We are renting present mediocrity and not building with youth. Perrault, Audette and McKay are not likely to improve much in the next five years. Theodore and Hackett are playing as well as they ever will. Our defense is deep with mediocre journeymen. Traverse is as good as he's gonna get. And Savard extends MTheads contract? Where is the next Stanley Cup contender going to come from? Damn I'm still trying to get used to this site. I had a book of a reply but when I tried to post it, it wouldn't let me saying it was over 5000 characters, so I got pissed turned off the computer and watched the Pho/TB and Chi/Flo games, yawn! No way am I redoing it, but I'll try a shorter verison. Ok Savard better then Houle thats an understatement, but true. Our payroll is out of hand, but getting experienced hired guns, when the salaries are way outa wack, is costly. I prefer the 3M Audette to the 200K Bashkirov's, Lind's, Whitehall's of the world, thats just me. I do think Savard went overboard with Theodore's contract, way to much money their, but I can't do anything about that. Rivet's is a tad high as well, but he's just hitting his prime (hopefully), so I will wait and see what he does over the course of the big bucks, but I like Brezzy's salary for the most part, its a little high at first, but unless the CBA does somthing about salary, it will not be that high compared with others of his age/skill.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 12, 2002 0:32:10 GMT -5
Page 2. I'm not taking any chances with losing my post, cause I'm lazy and hate to retype stuff. Sorry I missed the sarcasm about Grez and Mario. Your right we don't have any high end prospects, but a lot of depth. "We don't have a player in the top 53 in scoring" well not a good example cause it's only 14 games in, so give it a few more weeks for the scoring race to thin out. But we don't have a top notched scorer, we have balance (Perreault, Koivu, Markov all 11pts, then Zednik, Chow, and Brezz all with 9 pts, which is 60 pts combined, not to shabby). Hopefully we have a bunch of 20 goal scorers instead of one 40 goal scorer. Guys like Zednik, Koivu, Perreault, Audette, Chow, Petrov, have the ability to get 20+ goals. So they wont be in the top 20 in scoring, but hopefully most of them get 20 or more. But since you brought it up, I'll through some numbers out. Markov is 2nd in the league in ES scoring for defencemen (7pts, 1 pt behind Lindstrom), and Markov is 5th in the league for defencemen scoring (11pts, 3 pts behind Lidstrom) so that sounds better then top 53. Now as for being outshot 9 out of 10, well I'm not concerned with that number. I don' care if we give up 50 shots a game (as long as 49 stay out ) its how many scoring chances, and how we control the play. Right now we are still giving up a lot of shots, but most of them are from outside the box (or sweet spots) but what does worry me is that we can't control the game. Our passing is giving us trouble and so is our work along the boards. But I agree with you we are too small, and don't clear the slot which is very bad. Hopefully Souray can help in this area, and Quintal wakes up. I also have a problem with our 2nd line, as they don't look very good out there. Something has to be done about Gilmor and Petrov. Perreault isn't the best player, but he does put up points. Gilmor looks slow and his shots aren't going to get to many goals, and Petrov well no one works harder with nothing to show for it. I like the spins and all, but I like goals a whole lot better. Got off track alittle. Now the last chunk of your post is where it gets ugly. I don't know where to start. You say Savard has improved the team at the expense of the future? I dont understand. Do you mean he's traded away our future, cause that doesn't fly. Or do you mean that our future players cant get icetime due to the players Savard has brought in? Well we have Markov 23, Bulis 24, Ribeiro 22, and we tried the Hainsey experiment and that didn't work, he got outplayed by Traverse. We can only have so many young players in the lineup at one time, so having only 3 guys under 25 isn't all that bad, IMO. But when you say that we are getting our production from forwards all over 30??? What? Koivu 28, 11pts, Perreault 31, 11pts, Zednik 26, 9pts, Czerkawski 31?, 9pts and I think Bulis is next with 7pts, but so far our leading scorers are 26-31 so only half are over 30 and by 1 year (i think, not sure about Chow) Perreault is coming off a career year along with Zednik (who leads the team in goals) so I don't understand why you say our production is from forwards over 30 on the downside of their career. Also, you say we are not building for the future? How so, it's not Savard's fault that Hainsey didn't do a good job, its Ron Hainsey's fault. He's only 21 and in his 2nd year of pro hockey, he will get better. There's a lot of talent with Hainsey, Komisarek, and hopefully someone out of Archer, Linhart, Shasby, Glenn, Korneev, can step onto the blueline in 3-5 years. Then there's Hossa, Ribeiro, Milroy, Higgins, Perezhogin, and maybe some longshots like Plekanec, Balej, Eneqvist, Selig, Ferland, Lambert, can improve their game and make the team down the road. There's no homerun (maybe, maybe not) prospects, but thats a solid group of young talent, and several should make an impact for our team. No one knows what our prospects can do, but I would rather have the group we have then just about every other team out there. Yes it would be great to have a Spezza/Nash type prospect, but I think its better to build for a great team then a go for a great player.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 12, 2002 1:24:46 GMT -5
Plekanec, imo, is no longshot. This guy will play in the NHL. Whether he'll be a third line checking center or a decent #2 playmaker is a fair question, but the guy skates too well, has too good a head for the game, and passes the puck too well not to end up in the NHL.
To me, the whole thing is people are so burned out and jaded by years of bad drafting that it's like an automatic response. They hear the names and they say "yeah, well, I heard that about Terry Ryan and Michale Ryder, I heard it about Chouinard and Ribeiro, and Jamieson and Ward, so what's to say these guys are any different?" Well, I didn't see or follow those guys but from everything I've seen (and I've seen a fair bit) I'd say the following guys are considerably more likely to make it to the show than not:
Hainsey (a lock) Komisarek (a lock) Hossa (a lock) Balej (a good bet) Plekanec (a very good bet) Perezhogin (so far, a good bet) Higgins (it's too early, but the basic skills are there and his head is right) Milroy (a very good bet)
That's the first tier. I may be forgetting one guy, but I think that's it. Personally, I think the first tier will produce 5 and possibly 6 regular NHLers. Whether and to what degree they excel is another matter, but these guys are not going to wash out. Not even half of them will be wash-outs. There's not one among them that can't skate. Milroy's the worst among them and I've read mixed reports on his skating. Aside from Balej they're all sound players who play both ends of the ice. Many of the forwards are leaders and play multiple roles including penalty killing. All of them have good puck-handling skills (I've seen Balej, Plekanec, Hossa and Milroy) They're all decent size without being remarkably big. Aside from Hainsey and Komisarek, they probably average about 6 feet, 190 lbs right now. Most of them will be 200 lbs or more by the time they're 20 or 21. Balej is among the leanest of them and he's up around 6-1, 185. So there are no Ribeiros (small, slow) and no Chouinards, Wards or Ryans (big but sub-par skating). These guys are good to excellent prospects. Make no mistake about it. Savard certainly hasn't.
When Savard took over you can bet the sharks smelled blood. My guess is that he received calls inquiring about the availability of one or more of the guys listed above. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he had some tempting offers for the likes of Hainsey and Komisarek, and perhaps for Markov as well. There doubtless would have been decent NHLers available to him (and probably more appealing than Perreault and Quintal, or Berezin and Audette) had he been willing to part with some youth. A Markov here, a 2nd round pick there, then a prospect and a third, -- he could have used these assets to assemble a better looking and younger group of players than he has, and at a lower payroll than he now has. But he didn't. The guys he wanted to move were Zholtok, Linden (not so much), Rucinsky and Savage. We saw what you can get if you add Zubrus to the Linden deal (it doesn't happen otherwise) and he easily could have brought back more in the Rucinsky and Savage deals had he been prepared to add someone more desirable in the long-term. But he didn't. It's not true, as people have claimed, that he could've traded those players for picks or Manny Malhotra type prospects> He couldn't really do that because he certainly had a mandate to improve the team's competitiveness immediatiely. Manny wouldn't have fit the bill. But he has understood (and said) since day one that there were no shortcuts available in terms of restoring the organization's depth on the farm. You could try and add Hull or Lapointe to put people in the seats and make the playoffs a reasonable goal, but you cannot look to free agents as a way of restoring the franchise's health. You can't do it that way. That takes time. And Juneau, Perreault, Gilmour and Quintal are buying the Habs time. Each one of these guys is despised by a portion of Habs fans. Some Habs fans despise them all. But they're serving a purpose. About that I have no doubt. And when the guys listed above start to turn 20 and 21, and have shown that they're ready, they'll start taking places that the UFAs have occupied. It'll be gradual. But all good things take time.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 12, 2002 1:47:49 GMT -5
To me, the whole thing is people are so burned out and jaded by years of bad drafting that it's like an automatic response. And when the guys listed above start to turn 20 and 21, and have shown that they're ready, they'll start taking places that the UFAs have occupied. It'll be gradual. But all good things take time. Drafting in Houle's last year, 2000, and 2001 was good. 2002 is still too new to tell. Lots of disagreement over playing the kids. I think most are where they should be. There are 2 exceptions. Hainsey should be with the Habs and playing 15-20 minutes a game. The reason he played 'poorly' (if indeed he has played poorly) is that MT played mindgames with him because the kid beat him at cards too often. Similar to Markov, huh?, and look how Markov is now. Problem with that argument is that Markov improved by playing in the NHL, not the AHL. Hainsey spent more time on the farm team than Markov. He's good enough to be up in the show. But he's 'honing his skills' in Hamilton. He's too good for Hamilton. That's where someone has to slap Therrien in the head and say "Play him, or face the consequences". Play him if he makes 5 mistakes a game, or 10 mistakes (he won't). Build his confidence. Boston, because they had such pathetic material otherwise, played Nick Boynton despite his mistakes and he's turning out ok. Well, we have our own share of cannon fodder. Sit them, no matter what their salaries are, and play Hainsey. Next....after Christmas, bring up Hossa and play him 10-15 minutes a game. Unless he's an outdoor biffy in disguise, he'll be fine. Suddenly, we get bigger and stronger and younger. Next year another couple of guys...Plekanec and Komisarek. You have to give kids a chance. Delaying only hurts their development, not helps it. Of course, getting rid of MT would solve a lot of development problems.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 12, 2002 2:45:24 GMT -5
Well, I hear you on Hainsey. I don't like it either. But I take the long view. Hainsey's going to be a Hab for a long time, so whether he plays 40 or 70 games in Montreal this year is hardly a burning issue. And it's worth remembering that Hainsey missed most of last season with an injury. I don't think he played 50 games last year. As for Hossa, this'll be his first year in the AHL, so unless he burns it up (relative to the ice time he gets there) then it seems to me he'd be just as well off there as here, and maybe better off.
Hainsey is 21. Hossa is 20. Ribeiro is 22 going on 23. Both of Hainsey and Hossa are closer to being the kind of player we want and need than is Mike Ribeiro. And that should tell us something. With Markov being the freakish late-round exception, the rule has been that the prospects were simply no good. Chouinard, Ward, Ribeiro, Jamieson, Ryder, et al are part of the group of something like 30 or more draft picks from the first three rounds that simply produced far too few legit NHL prospects. Ribeiro is proving to be the best of them (which is sad, sad, sad). To me, the general rule is that players require two more years of junior hockey and at least a year in the A. It's rare that a kid will jump straight from junior to the pros and the group of eight I listed above should be no exception to the rule. The bottom line is that a large gap was created and we can't expect it to be filled in less than the three years that it lasted. Give or take a little, that will mean Hainsey this year (hell be back), Komisarek and Hossa next year, and two of Plekanec, Milroy, Higgins, Perezhogin and Balej the year after that.
There's no reason to rush. And in fact there are lots of reasons not to. Not that Hainsey being here now would be rushing -- it wouldn't -- but where Hossa and the rest are concerned it would be.
Last, on the question of whether it's too early to tell about the picks from 2000 and 2001, I disagree. It's too early to say for sure they'll be pros, or how good they'll be (just as it's too early to tell what kind of career Markov will have). But it's not too early to tell whether these are quality picks in the sense that they're significantly more likely to pan out than Chouinard, Ward and many others. There is one thing that has scuttled more players than anything else -- not counting an absence of desire -- and that is skating. Guys with good hands, with size, grit, etc have floundered on account of their skating. That won't happen to this bunch. I saw Plekanec, Hossa and Balej three times each this fall, and they can all skate. That's why Balej had 4 points in 4 games, and Plekanec had 3 points. That's why they didn't look out of place, while Ward and Chouinard did.....
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 12, 2002 3:07:17 GMT -5
Audette, small, 33 years Brisebois, 31 yrs Czerkawski, 30 Dackell, small, 30 Dykhuis, 30 Gilmour, small, 90 yrs. Hackett, 34 Juneau, 34 McKay, 35 Perrault, small, 31 Petrov, sml, 31 Quintal, 34
These guys are getting the ice time and they are getting older, not better like Molson's beer not Petrus wine. This is not the Detroit Redwings!
We have some very good young players in Hamilton, (make that prospects and not players.)
I have to forget about the annual parades of the sixties, It's never going to happen again.
My real concern is that the production is coming from a bunch of cheap little guys that we rented until the drafts picks come up. We don't have any Speeza's or even high draft picks coming up. Ottawa, Quebec, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, and Boston built with low first round picks. We haven't had any low picks for years and the ones we had were squandered. Can't fault Savard fo that but I think he (along with 29 other GM's) missed Hudler. Savard could have stockpiled more youth and played younger guys instead of all of the above who will be gone in three years. Sticking with MThead was/is a big mistake and he can't fire him and come out blameless. Is Savard terrible? No. Is he great? Again, no. Could we find better? Absolutely. Young prospects may or may improve. Thirty year old smurfs won't improve. We won a few games and have much more depth, but we're sinking with the greater depth. We bought time and filled a few seats but the team is outgunned most nights. We go home happy when we win a game (steal a game), but have we really improved and are we continuing to improve?
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 12, 2002 3:32:53 GMT -5
Montreal, here is some advice.
Never write a large post on the board window. Use Word or equivalent. Then when your post is ready, enter it and if it is larger then 5000 spaces then scroll down, cut it in half, enter the first half then immediately reply and enter the second half in another post.
You lost a huge post? Welcome to TolstoiRus and my friend and that was your initiation.
Here is some more advice on posters and their styles.
LA: is very sarcastic. Liberally uses extreme examples.
Doc: Defends his point of view in a straight forward manner. Somewhat short tempered with “some” posters and thus he gets exaggerated and a touch edgy.
JohnnyVerdun: (JV) Opinionated and staunch defender of his point of view. Occasionally edgy, particularly when trying to quit smoking. Terrific at painting a word canvas.
BadCompany(BC): Moderate and even keeled. Not aggressive with his opinion but will defend it with at length. Walks on water (when frozen). Very kind to bipedal kittens.
HabsAddict (HA): Moderate and even keeled. Will defend a point of view by presenting facts as if appealing to a jury. Prone to sarcasm. Story teller. Personally, I never listen to him.
PTH (Paul): To the point and will debate by braking up a post into a “counter” post.
HabWest (HW): Moderate and even keeled.
Seventeen (17): Tends not to get into “extreme debating”. Probably because he has better things to do in his life. Wicked sense of humour.
MPLABBE (Marc): More into commenting then extreme debating.
Most of the other posters will present a point of view but they will not enter into multiple responses and extreme debating. They are the smart ones.
A lot of us know each other for a long time and we know where everyone stands on a subject. Nevertheless, because of the inherent nature of this forum, debates about a certain subject break out every time.
Bahh………we are full of hot air……………<br>
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 12, 2002 8:27:39 GMT -5
"From under his hat"?? Where did I say that? He's doing it the only way you can do it: by hanging on to the quality youth that he and Houle before him drafted. The secret (I'll let you in on it) is that there is no secret. There is no secret. Write it down. We never had the money or the pull to get Guerin, Holik and Lapointe to show up, so that rules out one approach. What's the other? To draft well and bring enough plumbers that you can have a shower in the meantime. Granted these are expensive plumbers, but let's look at the alternative. Let's say that there's no Quintal, no Perreault, no Gilmour, no Juneau and no Dackell. Let's stick to last year. Let's say that we moved Rosie for Malhotra and Savage for, well, let's say someone like Savard. What do we have? Remember, this is last year so there's no Koivu: Petrov/Bulis/Zednik Kilger/Savard/Asham Ward/Malhotra/Poulin Simpson/Darby/Odjick Brisebois/Dykhuis Rivet/Markov Robidas/Souray So now what have you got? Bulis is your first line center. Or do you want to hang on to Linden? But you can't do that because that's how you got Bulis. right? Who else are you going to get by moving Zholtok, Linden and Zubrus? Who else is there? So you've given up on the idea of going to the playoffs, right? That's okay, cause you're rebuilding, and it doesn't matter if the attendance drops to 17,000 in a 21,000 seat building. No harm there. What about the youth? Who else makes the squad? You've already got Asham Ward, Bulis and Malhotra in the lineup. Who else? You want to add Ribeiro? Okay. Watch him get crushed and booed mercilessly by the pigeons at the Molson Center who've paid $110 for a seat. Or do you want to rush Hossa, Hainsey and Balej into the fray? Get the point? Ther secret is there is no secret. Write it down. Put it on your fridge. Since the Zednik deal, Savard went on to get Juneau, Perreault, Gilmour, McKay, Quintal, Dackell, Van Allen, Audette, Berezin, Lindsay, Chow, Blouin and Fiset... Only vets. That is 13 straight. Shouldn't there be one or 2 prospects in there... Maybe even just ONE... Youth? We're not talking about having to rush too many of them, we're talking about having difficulty bringing in your top dmen prospect and eventually chosing to play Traverse instead of him. Lack of money? We're in the top tier in salary so don't try to present this as an issue. You justify Savard's choices by trying to show me the other end of the spectrum and what it would look like if we had picked NO vets and would have brought in TOO MANY kids.... That's not where we are, that's not what happened and that's what we're desperatly trying to show you... We did not need to get ALL those vets and we could have brought in SOME kids along the way. The fact that we did not, worries some of us. That's it. You say there was no way to avoid bringing in that slew of vets and there was no way to bring a few kids and the simple fact that Savard isn't dealing away all of our prospects is enough to make you confident that this team is getting solidly built, well good for you. Call me an herretic 'cause I can't make that leap of faith right now.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 12, 2002 9:05:01 GMT -5
Let's say that there's no Quintal, no Perreault, no Gilmour, no Juneau and no Dackell. Let's stick to last year. Let's say that we moved Rosie for Malhotra and Savage for, well, let's say someone like Savard. What do we have? Yeah, what Doc said. At first, Savard looked like he had a real plan, and when he got veterans, they were to plug immediate and necessary holes, that could not be plugged by any other means. Juneau and Dackell were obtained because they had killed penalties together, and Savard wanted them to do it here as well. He came right out and said it. Everyone knew why they were here, and what their role was. Ditto Kilger. When he was obtained, Savard said he was a 3rd liner who would supply grit and size, which was lacking. It was clear, and defined, and there was nobody in the system who could provide what he provided. Same thing for Yanic Perrault. Montreal had no second line center, after they traded Linden, so he went out and got a 2nd line center. It was a clear move, designed with a purpose, that everyone recognized and understood. Gilmour was signed AFTER Koivu went down, and he was only signed BECAUSE Koivu went down. What bothers me, anyways, and perhaps others, is the moves that don't appear to have any real plan behind them. Acquiring Czerkawski seemed redundant with acquiring Audette. Did he know already that Audette wasn't going to pan out? Petrov, Audette, Savage, Rucinsky, Berezin, Czerkawski - they are all more or less, the same player. Hence my sarcastic references to acquiring Shawn McEachern - same guy. Why get Reid Simpson, when we had Asham? Why dump Francis Belanger, but then trade for Sylvain Blouin? Why send Hainsey to the minors? Why not live with his mistakes? What is he going to learn in the AHL? At the beginning of the year, I posted that the lineup was set, and barring an injury, there would be no kids. People told me I was wrong, and that Hossa would make the team, and that Balej had a shot, and that Komisarek had a shot, and so on. They didn't. Hossa, by the way, is in his 2nd year in the AHL (last year was Chouinard's 2nd year in the AHL, as an aside) and Plekanec has been a healthy scratch. The only kid who had a shot at making the NHL, was Hainsey, and that was probably only because Souray was hurt. Ribeiro "made" the team not because of his fantastic training camp, but because they didn't want to lose him on waivers. Nobody is advocating the wholesale youth movement you keep saying we want. But when I look at veterans who were past their prime to begin with, and who are redundant with kids we already had, I wonder why? Why Reid Simpson over Arron Asham? Sure, they are marginal role players, but doesn't that just strengthen my argument? We weren't going to depend on Asham or Simpson to carry us to the playoffs, so why pick up the veteran? Same thing for Bill Lindsay - Lindsay played an essential role down the stretch and into the playoffs, and he did exactly what he was picked up for. It was a very good move by Savard, who picked him up to play a specific role, it was a move made with a clear and obvious plan behind it. By why keep Lindsay in the press box this year? Why not just cut him loose? Its not like a Bill Lindsay type player won't be available later in the season. Why not give the spot to Hossa, or Ward, or Gratton? Would this team look worse than it does with Hossa on Perrault or Gilmour's wing? Mike Cammalleri was called up by the Kings the other day, and they put him between Ziggy Palffy and Adam Deadmarsh. Jason Spezza played with Marian Hossa. Stephane Robidas is playing with Richard Matvichuck. Mike Ribeiro is going to play with Bill Lindsay and Sylvain Blouin. Hossa last year played with Juneau and Dackell, played well, but then got shipped out. Why? Hainsey was paired with our two worst defencemen. We are the 4th oldest team (perhaps older, now that Garon and Hainsey are in the minors) and we have the 10th highest payroll. Would it have killed us to go with Gratton or Ward over Lindsay? Hossa over Audette? Hainsey over Traverse or Quintal? That's where the concern is; we have players who could, and perhaps should, be in the NHL RIGHT NOW, but they aren't. Instead, we have safer, more reliable veterans, who while playing marginally better at the moment, don't offer the hope for the future. In the meantime, our kids play at levels where they don't improve, and they slowly slide into the bust category, either in our minds, the coaches minds, or their own minds. Mathieu Garon has come right out and said that he believes the organization has given up on him. Asham felt the same thing, and I would think Gratton and Ward are in the same boat. Are there others?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 12, 2002 9:19:18 GMT -5
Drafting in Houle's last year, 2000, and 2001 was good. 2002 is still too new to tell. Lots of disagreement over playing the kids. I think most are where they should be. There are 2 exceptions. Hainsey should be with the Habs and playing 15-20 minutes a game. The reason he played 'poorly' (if indeed he has played poorly) is that MT played mindgames with him because the kid beat him at cards too often. Similar to Markov, huh?, and look how Markov is now. Problem with that argument is that Markov improved by playing in the NHL, not the AHL. Hainsey spent more time on the farm team than Markov. He's good enough to be up in the show. But he's 'honing his skills' in Hamilton. He's too good for Hamilton. That's where someone has to slap Therrien in the head and say "Play him, or face the consequences". Play him if he makes 5 mistakes a game, or 10 mistakes (he won't). Build his confidence. Boston, because they had such pathetic material otherwise, played Nick Boynton despite his mistakes and he's turning out ok. Well, we have our own share of cannon fodder. Sit them, no matter what their salaries are, and play Hainsey. Next....after Christmas, bring up Hossa and play him 10-15 minutes a game. Unless he's an outdoor biffy in disguise, he'll be fine. Suddenly, we get bigger and stronger and younger. Next year another couple of guys...Plekanec and Komisarek. You have to give kids a chance. Delaying only hurts their development, not helps it. Of course, getting rid of MT would solve a lot of development problems. haven't you heard? we've got that ''stud'' Patrick Traverse who must play and that Karl Dykhuis is so huge to our blueline Seriously, why does everyone assume ''if going to the minors worked for Markov...it will work for Hainsey''? like you said, Markov never had a full AHL season like Hainsey did last year. He is too good for the AHL and they should have told MT ''play him on the PP, give him 10-15 minutes per game, scratch him against the powerhouse Wings but PLAY him''. They played mindgames with him after one bad game(where Quintal stunk it up as well) and told him to stop playing Ron Hainsey kind of hockey....arghh....
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 12, 2002 9:41:34 GMT -5
Yeah, what Doc said. What bothers me, anyways, and perhaps others, is the moves that don't appear to have any real plan behind them. Acquiring Czerkawski seemed redundant with acquiring Audette. Did he know already that Audette wasn't going to pan out? Petrov, Audette, Savage, Rucinsky, Berezin, Czerkawski - they are all more or less, the same player. Hence my sarcastic references to acquiring Shawn McEachern - same guy. Why get Reid Simpson, when we had Asham? Why dump Francis Belanger, but then trade for Sylvain Blouin? Why send Hainsey to the minors? Why not live with his mistakes? What is he going to learn in the AHL? Nobody is advocating the wholesale youth movement you keep saying we want. But when I look at veterans who were past their prime to begin with, and who are redundant with kids we already had, I wonder why? Why Reid Simpson over Arron Asham? Sure, they are marginal role players, but doesn't that just strengthen my argument? We weren't going to depend on Asham or Simpson to carry us to the playoffs, so why pick up the veteran? Same thing for Bill Lindsay - Lindsay played an essential role down the stretch and into the playoffs, and he did exactly what he was picked up for. It was a very good move by Savard, who picked him up to play a specific role, it was a move made with a clear and obvious plan behind it. By why keep Lindsay in the press box this year? Why not just cut him loose? Its not like a Bill Lindsay type player won't be available later in the season. Why not give the spot to Hossa, or Ward, or Gratton? Would this team look worse than it does with Hossa on Perrault or Gilmour's wing? Mike Cammalleri was called up by the Kings the other day, and they put him between Ziggy Palffy and Adam Deadmarsh. Jason Spezza played with Marian Hossa. Stephane Robidas is playing with Richard Matvichuck. Mike Ribeiro is going to play with Bill Lindsay and Sylvain Blouin. Hossa last year played with Juneau and Dackell, played well, but then got shipped out. Why? Hainsey was paired with our two worst defencemen. We are the 4th oldest team (perhaps older, now that Garon and Hainsey are in the minors) and we have the 10th highest payroll. Would it have killed us to go with Gratton or Ward over Lindsay? Hossa over Audette? Hainsey over Traverse or Quintal? That's where the concern is; we have players who could, and perhaps should, be in the NHL RIGHT NOW, but they aren't. Instead, we have safer, more reliable veterans, who while playing marginally better at the moment, don't offer the hope for the future. In the meantime, our kids play at levels where they don't improve, and they slowly slide into the bust category, either in our minds, the coaches minds, or their own minds. Mathieu Garon has come right out and said that he believes the organization has given up on him. Asham felt the same thing, and I would think Gratton and Ward are in the same boat. Are there others? I could of said it better myself if it wasn't for this damn lisp.......... My line-up would have: Ward instead of Lindsay: Ward has the size to do damage but I did not see that much aggressiveness and his skating is serviceable (at best). I think he can do it. Hainsey instead of Quintal or Travesty: This goes without saying. We need a transition game instead of the trough plays that Q-ball and Travesty play. Hossa is a question mark in my mind. When I saw him this season he looked kind of blasé and went through the motions. Hopefully I will see him again and soon. Garon? Don’t know. Boullion? In a pinch. Komi? In our dreams. Gratton? Midget 3rd liner. Balej? Two years away. Plak? A year away as a third liner. Chouinard? Beer sales in two years (just kidding). I have not seen him in two years. My main gripe against Savard centers around him keeping MThead and giving away minor picks like they were candy. Use to rate him an A though and now he is a firm B in my books. One good trade (steal) and I am willing to give him more slack. On the other hand, if he hired Hitchcock or Lemaire I would mow his lawn, walk his dog, wash his windows, the usual slave to master things.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 12, 2002 10:38:11 GMT -5
Plek...3rd liner? You see him replacing Juneau?
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 12, 2002 11:40:08 GMT -5
Since the Zednik deal, Savard went on to get Juneau, Perreault, Gilmour, McKay, Quintal, Dackell, Van Allen, Audette, Berezin, Lindsay, Chow, Blouin and Fiset... Only vets. That is 13 straight. Shouldn't there be one or 2 prospects in there... Maybe even just ONE... Youth? We're not talking about having to rush too many of them, we're talking about having difficulty bringing in your top dmen prospect and eventually chosing to play Traverse instead of him. Lack of money? We're in the top tier in salary so don't try to present this as an issue. You justify Savard's choices by trying to show me the other end of the spectrum and what it would look like if we had picked NO vets and would have brought in TOO MANY kids.... That's not where we are, that's not what happened and that's what we're desperatly trying to show you... We did not need to get ALL those vets and we could have brought in SOME kids along the way. The fact that we did not, worries some of us. That's it. You say there was no way to avoid bringing in that slew of vets and there was no way to bring a few kids and the simple fact that Savard isn't dealing away all of our prospects is enough to make you confident that this team is getting solidly built, well good for you. Call me an herretic 'cause I can't make that leap of faith right now. Listen up doc, if I say "money and pull", don't read it as though i said "money" alone, allright? The point was, either because they wanted too much dough or didn't really want to be in Montreal, Hull, Holik and others weren"t really on the menu for Savard. Got it? "Why can't we have just one prospect"?....Quit your yimmering. We all pissed and moaned last year about Markov (who's 2 years older than Hainsey) and it seems they didn't go too far wrong. We'll never know if Markov could've developed 3 months faster than he has, but who gives a flying funk? So Hainsey spends two or three "extra" months in Hamilton? You want me to accept this as a sign that Savard is destroying our youth? Get a freaking perspective, dude. In the last paragraph above you start into the "you say this, and you say that", but I can't respond. I can't (I won't) respond until you learn to quote people accurately. It's a terrible habit you have. Everyone does it occassionaly, but you do it as a matter of method. And last, I might add tht you are such a complainer. It's unbelievable. You like it. You probably complain about politicians, too, but don't vote, and you're probably not well-informed in that sphere either. What do you want from me? Go ahead. Complain and whine and yimmer all you like. I've had it trying to reason with you. It's like dealing with someone who likes to be unhappy. Kvetch, complain, criticize, moan, yimmer, piss, go ahead, knock yourself out.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 12, 2002 12:25:37 GMT -5
This argument again???
I still think this is much ado about nothing. Yes, it's possible that Savard did not have to go out and get Czerkawski, or decide not to bring Gilmour back, in which case you might see a Marcel Hossa in the lineup instead. Maybe he did overreach a bit in the way on grabbing too many veterans without appreciating how it was all going to work together (esp since we have a bonehead of a head coach).
But the fact remains that we still have these prospects and at this point in their careers I don't think spending time in the AHL is a bad thing. Maybe a guy like Hossa will be a year late, given that the roster was basically set before training camp, and the payroll is higher than it would otherwise be. But is that such a bad thing? He's still only 20 for God's sake, and it's not like he's SO good that he has nothing left to learn. Maybe Hainsey should be allowed to work out his problems in MTL instead of Hamilton, but let's not lose our heads and use that as an example of Savard's gross mismanegement.
Savard had few options when he arrived and he said so. "We need to rebuild the farm system, which is going to take time, and we need to bring in some established talent in the meantime." Plain and simple, and I think everyone on the board agrees with the basic sentiment.
The we're having is more tactical and not worth getting folks all fired up, IMO . Maybe Savard tacked too hard in the direction of getting vets and didn't leave enough room for the kids. Maybe. Personally I would have passed on Gilmour and not bothered with the Czerkawski deal. But it doesn't make me concerned about whether or not Savard can get us there in the end. Not yet, anyway. I don't think he's a genius either, and BC and Doc have valid points about some of Savard's more quesionable moves. But I think we're all pretty much on board with what Savard is trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 12, 2002 13:48:39 GMT -5
Listen up doc, if I say "money and pull", don't read it as though i said "money" alone, allright? The point was, either because they wanted too much dough or didn't really want to be in Montreal, Hull, Holik and others weren"t really on the menu for Savard. Got it? "Why can't we have just one prospect"?....Quit your yimmering. We all pissed and moaned last year about Markov (who's 2 years older than Hainsey) and it seems they didn't go too far wrong. We'll never know if Markov could've developed 3 months faster than he has, but who gives a flying funk? So Hainsey spends two or three "extra" months in Hamilton? You want me to accept this as a sign that Savard is destroying our youth? Get a freaking perspective, dude. In the last paragraph above you start into the "you say this, and you say that", but I can't respond. I can't (I won't) respond until you learn to quote people accurately. It's a terrible habit you have. Everyone does it occassionaly, but you do it as a matter of method. And last, I might add tht you are such a complainer. It's unbelievable. You like it. You probably complain about politicians, too, but don't vote, and you're probably not well-informed in that sphere either. What do you want from me? Go ahead. Complain and whine and yimmer all you like. I've had it trying to reason with you. It's like dealing with someone who likes to be unhappy. Kvetch, complain, criticize, moan, yimmer, piss, go ahead, knock yourself out. To paraphrase someone who just recently was on the recieving end of your sarcasms and personnal attacks:
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 12, 2002 13:58:54 GMT -5
Just a quick reply, BC:
"What bothers me, anyways, and perhaps others, is the moves that don't appear to have any real plan behind them. Acquiring Czerkawski seemed redundant with acquiring Audette."
When Savard got Czerk I think he knew it was going to be one or the other. He probably had the goods on Audette's backstabbing MT, or he was just prepared to let them fight it out. Czerk is an upgrade, in any event. He's bigger, he skates better, he's younger (slightly). Time will tell if Savard gets stuck with both. I don't think it'll be for long.
"Petrov, Audette, Savage, Rucinsky, Berezin, Czerkawski - they are all more or less, the same player. Hence my sarcastic references to acquiring Shawn McEachern - same guy."
Well, Savage and Rucinsky were pending UFAs. They may be the same "type" but that doesn't speak to the wisdom of getting one or both of Audette and Czerkawski. Why you include Petrov in there is beyond me.
"Why get Reid Simpson, when we had Asham?"
These are not comparable players. They were advising Asham to drop weight to improve his speed, which he did. They didn't envision him as a "heavyweight". Simpson was a serviceable heavyweight who was signed when Odjick's status was uncertain.
"Why dump Francis Belanger, but then trade for Sylvain Blouin?"
This is just bad analysis. It's not a proper question. Francis Belanger was always a marginal goon prospect who we acquired for nothing. He's not now in the NHL for a reason: because he can't skate fast enough to hit anyone unless they stop to drop their gloves. Plus, something like 18 months separates these moves. Blouin was acquired because Odjick is done. Plus, don't you think this is a sad, desperate stretch to make your case? I mean, does it really matter whether you pay Belanger or Blouin? It's not like you're developing your talent by having Belanger in there, is it? So why mention it? Cause you're hoping that nobody will notice how bad an example it is and you don't have a better one?
"Why send Hainsey to the minors? Why not live with his mistakes? What is he going to learn in the AHL?"
I don't know what he'll learn in the NHL. But he's probably not going there for the whole year. By the way, remember all the whining about how MT and Green were going to ruin Markov's offensive game? About how this prospect was being wasted? Well, he's now our leading scorer and he's defensively sound. Want to eat a little crow?
"The only kid who had a shot at making the NHL, was Hainsey, and that was probably only because Souray was hurt. Ribeiro "made" the team not because of his fantastic training camp, but because they didn't want to lose him on waivers."
So what? That tells you a lot about Ribeiro, is what. Hainsey's the only one who's really ready. And even then, he's on the cusp. A few dozen games (or more) in the AHL will not hurt this kid. And anybody who says he can't learn anything there is full of sh#t. He's 21 for cryin' out loud. He was hurt for a good part of last year. He plays he learns. The Habs aren't off to a stellar start, they feel Traverse has more poise and is more reliable (it's looking to be the case) so why stress everyone out? Hainsey's going to be here for a long time.
"Why Reid Simpson over Arron Asham?"
Repeating an argument or example over and over again in the same post is bad, but when it's a bad example it becomes worrisome. Don't you got anything better?
To be continued....
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 12, 2002 13:59:49 GMT -5
Part II:
"Why not just cut him loose? Its not like a Bill Lindsay type player won't be available later in the season. Why not give the spot to Hossa, or Ward, or Gratton?"
This gets tiresome after a while. Why must I explain everything? Hossa is not being groomed for the 4th line. That's number one. Number two, he gets more benefit from playing 20 minutes a night in the AHL than he would playing 7 minutes in the NHL. Got it? Second, Ward sucks. Ward doesn't skate as well as Bill Lindsay. Lindsay has a ton of NHL experience. Lindsay can kill penalties. Lindsay can hit. Ward has never even done these things consistently in the pre-season.
"Would this team look worse than it does with Hossa on Perrault or Gilmour's wing?"
My exhaustion groweth. Now you want to just pop Hossa into a top 6 role? Well, the answer to your question is, Hossa might be able to suck the way that Gilmour has so far. That I'll grant you. But again, there's nothing wrong with the approach that says that when they are really, really ready, bring them up. This team will be in the hunt for a playoff spot. If (as expected) this team cracks the top 8, that'll be two years in a row. I'd rather bring Hossa and the others into that kind of a "tradition" than the one that was developing when Savard took over. It's worth it, with that in mind, to go with the vets. With the Rags, Isles and Buds sucking, a top 8 finish is very, very realistic.
"Would it have killed us to go with Gratton or Ward over Lindsay? Hossa over Audette? Hainsey over Traverse or Quintal?"
Gratton is a smallish, pesky center. Why would you mention him as a potential replacement for Bill Lindsay. As for Ward, he sucks. I thought I explained that to you?
"That's where the concern is; we have players who could, and perhaps should, be in the NHL RIGHT NOW, but they aren't."
Names dude, names. Gratton? Ward? Those aren't good examples of players whose development is being screwed up by the Habs. They don't matter. When are you going to realize that? The guys that are matter are all younger. Hossa, among the forwards, is the most ready, and he's by no mean wasting on the vine. You're talking about a difference of six months or a year in the development of a guy we hope will be part of the team for a decade! Where's your perspective?
"Instead, we have safer, more reliable veterans, who while playing marginally better at the moment, don't offer the hope for the future.In the meantime, our kids play at levels where they don't improve, and they slowly slide into the bust category, either in our minds, the coaches minds, or their own minds. Mathieu Garon has come right out and said that he believes the organization has given up on him. Asham felt the same thing, and I would think Gratton and Ward are in the same boat. Are there others?"
This is just a sad mish-mash of bad examples cobbled together in the service of fear-mongering nonsense. But now we have the names! Ward (I saw him twice this fall, dude, and we ain't missing anything) Gratton (a depth player and likely career AHLer who's on nobody's radar screen but yours when it comes to developing "our future",), and Hossa, a real prospect who's developing nicely and who Savard's chosen not to push. But you know better!
BC, all I can say is that I'm not impressed. If you're going to take the time to type for 20 minutes or more, find better material to work with. Gratton? Ward? Belanger? Dude, that's some sad, sad sh#t....
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on Nov 12, 2002 14:01:55 GMT -5
This argument again??? But the fact remains that we still have these prospects and at this point in their careers I don't think spending time in the AHL is a bad thing. Maybe a guy like Hossa will be a year late, given that the roster was basically set before training camp, and the payroll is higher than it would otherwise be. But is that such a bad thing? He's still only 20 for God's sake, and it's not like he's SO good that he has nothing left to learn. Maybe Hainsey should be allowed to work out his problems in MTL instead of Hamilton, but let's not lose our heads and use that as an example of Savard's gross mismanegement. Savard had few options when he arrived and he said so. "We need to rebuild the farm system, which is going to take time, and we need to bring in some established talent in the meantime." Plain and simple, and I think everyone on the board agrees with the basic sentiment. . This is a great point. Perhaps we have to many high priced veterans who are too expensive for the contribution they make, but the fact is we need someone to put in the lineup while the kids develop. Their spending time in the minors is definatly not a bad thing in my estimation. John Davidson came right out and said (on last weeks satallite hotstove) that his being rushed into the NHL straight out of junior WAS detrimental to his development when he began his pro career. Exactly why is holding a player back to develop detremental to him. I understand that it can be dissapointing to them and may have a small impact on their confidence for a short time, but that also serves its purpose. If a player has any charachter at all they will try their darndest to prove that the GM or coach that sent them down was wrong. If the players have a charachter flaw they will respond by pouting and whining and playing like crap. Keep in mind, Hainsey is a defenceman. It takes d-men longer to develop. Look at Pronger, Chris Phillips and Eric Brewer. They all had problems when they first broke in. Hell, Brewer spent his second pro season in the minors after spending his rookie year on Long Island. Phillips spent time playing forward. Just because Hainsey is in the minors now dosen't mean he is gonna stay there. He just has a few kinks to work out. When he comes back, I'll put money on his success. He will want to prove that he belongs. And the orginazation will win, we as fans will win and Hainsey himself will win. It's not like the bleu, blanc et rouge have a blueline that will be tough to crack. It will be just that much better when he comes back with a burr up his ass and chance to prove himself. I for one can't see that as mismanagement. In the meantime we have Traverse...*sigh*
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 12, 2002 18:09:28 GMT -5
Drafting in Houle's last year, 2000, and 2001 was good. 2002 is still too new to tell. Lots of disagreement over playing the kids. I think most are where they should be. There are 2 exceptions. Hainsey should be with the Habs and playing 15-20 minutes a game. The reason he played 'poorly' (if indeed he has played poorly) is that MT played mindgames with him because the kid beat him at cards too often. Similar to Markov, huh?, and look how Markov is now. Problem with that argument is that Markov improved by playing in the NHL, not the AHL. Hainsey spent more time on the farm team than Markov. He's good enough to be up in the show. But he's 'honing his skills' in Hamilton. He's too good for Hamilton. That's where someone has to slap Therrien in the head and say "Play him, or face the consequences". Play him if he makes 5 mistakes a game, or 10 mistakes (he won't). Build his confidence. Boston, because they had such pathetic material otherwise, played Nick Boynton despite his mistakes and he's turning out ok. Well, we have our own share of cannon fodder. Sit them, no matter what their salaries are, and play Hainsey. Next....after Christmas, bring up Hossa and play him 10-15 minutes a game. Unless he's an outdoor biffy in disguise, he'll be fine. Suddenly, we get bigger and stronger and younger. Next year another couple of guys...Plekanec and Komisarek. You have to give kids a chance. Delaying only hurts their development, not helps it. Of course, getting rid of MT would solve a lot of development problems. I don't agree that Hainsey should be playing 15-20 mins. He looked good in preseason (which means nothing) but since then he has looked lost and confused, running around out of position. He didn't play well, he can be sent down, so he was. Although, I thought he did seem to be playing better towards the end, its a numbers game. We needed room for Quintal and Ribs, so Hainsey was sent packing. Your right Markov was in a different situation. He was playing in a much tougher league, RSL (top defencemen) whereas Hainsey has 1 year of pro hockey under his belt. "He's too good for Hamilton", well in his first game this year, he struggled in his own end, (announcers words) so I would wait a few games to see if he really is "too good" for Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 12, 2002 18:28:11 GMT -5
haven't you heard? we've got that ''stud'' Patrick Traverse who must play and that Karl Dykhuis is so huge to our blueline Seriously, why does everyone assume ''if going to the minors worked for Markov...it will work for Hainsey''? like you said, Markov never had a full AHL season like Hainsey did last year. He is too good for the AHL and they should have told MT ''play him on the PP, give him 10-15 minutes per game, scratch him against the powerhouse Wings but PLAY him''. They played mindgames with him after one bad game(where Quintal stunk it up as well) and told him to stop playing Ron Hainsey kind of hockey....arghh.... Traverse is in the lineup cause he outplayed Hainsey pure and simple. Hainsey was running around out of position, whereas Traverse is playing the best hockey I have ever seen from him (doesn't say much). Now Dykhuis has been struggling, but I would think they are giving him some time to get it together (since he was our +/- leader 2 yrs running). Markov is in a different situation. He played in maybe the best league outside of the NHL (maybe the SEL is as good or better, I really don't know) and Markov was the top defencemen in the RSL playing a full season. Hainsey played 2 years in the NCAA playing 35 games a season, and 1 year in the AHL were he did miss a chunk of time due to injury and he did look slugish towards the end of last year. As for Hainsey being too good for the AHL, I don't agree at all, he is very young and has a lot to learn for many years still, so getting more icetime in the AHL can't hurt at all, as opposed to sitting the bench or playing 7 mins. a game. There's no way any single player we have in Hamilton is "TOO" good to be there. Hainsey I think is the closest to be NHL ready, but I think he can learn a thing or two in the AHL still.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 12, 2002 18:33:04 GMT -5
This is a great point. Perhaps we have to many high priced veterans who are too expensive for the contribution they make, but the fact is we need someone to put in the lineup while the kids develop. Their spending time in the minors is definatly not a bad thing in my estimation. ...... OK, but do we really need expensive veterans ? I mean, why don't we have a couple of spare parts around who we can send down/dump if needed ? This team IMO has too many players with large egos and too few role players. Where are the spare parts on offense who could be sent down if needed ? The kids might not have been ready to make the team, but fact is they never had a chance in any case, with the contracts ahead of them. Haven't seen enough of Hainsey this year to really have an opinion on him, but as BC says, seeing him sent down shouldn't be a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 12, 2002 18:54:43 GMT -5
This argument again??? I still think this is much ado about nothing. Yes, it's possible that Savard did not have to go out and get Czerkawski, or decide not to bring Gilmour back, in which case you might see a Marcel Hossa in the lineup instead. Maybe he did overreach a bit in the way on grabbing too many veterans without appreciating how it was all going to work together (esp since we have a bonehead of a head coach). But the fact remains that we still have these prospects and at this point in their careers I don't think spending time in the AHL is a bad thing. Maybe a guy like Hossa will be a year late, given that the roster was basically set before training camp, and the payroll is higher than it would otherwise be. But is that such a bad thing? He's still only 20 for God's sake, and it's not like he's SO good that he has nothing left to learn. Maybe Hainsey should be allowed to work out his problems in MTL instead of Hamilton, but let's not lose our heads and use that as an example of Savard's gross mismanegement. Yeah the argument seems to come up about twice per month. LOL! I fully believe BC and Doc are saying they wanted youth acquired. They aren't talking about our kids we drafted. They wanted us to get more Kilger's and Zednik's and Bulis's instead of the Quintal's and the Czerkawski's and the Audette's..
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 12, 2002 19:00:50 GMT -5
Traverse is in the lineup cause he outplayed Hainsey pure and simple. Hainsey was running around out of position, whereas Traverse is playing the best hockey I have ever seen from him (doesn't say much). Now Dykhuis has been struggling, but I would think they are giving him some time to get it together (since he was our +/- leader 2 yrs running). Agreed. Still, they should have given MT and Green the mission of developping Hainsey this year. Would playing Hainsey instead of Traverse or Dykhuis cost us a playoff spot? I doubt it But let's put it another way; would Hainsey learn more up here or down there? that's really what it should be about IMO. If the Habs think Hainsey will learn more down there, fine, good decision sending him down. But if they sent down ONLY to have Traverse play and to get rid of Hainsey and the ''rookie'' mistakes he will make, then, IMO, they made a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 12, 2002 20:58:34 GMT -5
This is just a sad mish-mash of bad examples cobbled together in the service of fear-mongering nonsense. But now we have the names! Ward (I saw him twice this fall, dude, and we ain't missing anything) Gratton (a depth player and likely career AHLer who's on nobody's radar screen but yours when it comes to developing "our future",), and Hossa, a real prospect who's developing nicely and who Savard's chosen not to push. But you know better!
I have to agree with JV on this point. Guy's, those who have not seen our prospects up close with in all of their glorious shortcomings are at a disadvantage. You have to see Ward and his skating, Komi and his mistakes, Boullion and his short shortcomings, Gratton bouncing off people, Hossa without fire, Balej with his head down and on and on. We DO NOT have people who are better. Maybe, just maybe they can perform at the magic 80% level that I expect before they displace a veteran. I am repeating myself but there are only TWO people that have a chance to push veterans. Hainsey and Ward. Of those two, Ward does not really fit into Savards plans. Hossa will not be brought up to be fourth line material. He is NOT a second liner yet and may or may never be. Do you want him to play on the second line and produce even worse? To many people rank our prospects from what they read in the paper or the internet. BIG MISTAKE. We read about how great Garon is and yet NO ONE wanted him on waivers. NO ONE. Go see them yourselves and then make judgments. It’s an eye opener, it really is. We are not talking marginal plays, we are talking prospects making plays that make you scratch and tilt your head.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 12, 2002 21:13:58 GMT -5
We are not talking marginal plays, we are talking prospects making plays that make you scratch and tilt your head. sounds like what we see every time the current Habs play!!
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 12, 2002 21:38:55 GMT -5
I could of said it better myself if it wasn't for this damn lisp.......... What lithp? You got no lithp. Cleft palate maybe. I gotta lithp. Donth you jutht hate BTheee when he thays it tho nithely? (Apologies to anyone with a real lisp)
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 12, 2002 21:54:17 GMT -5
I don't agree that Hainsey should be playing 15-20 mins. He looked good in preseason (which means nothing) but since then he has looked lost and confused, running around out of position. Once again....who's fault was that? He gets paired with Quintal on one of his typical "Duh, where am I?" days, covers his man and watches Quintal sniffing his opponents butt instead of knocking him on it. Hainsey plays a solid all-around game and if MT and Greensleaves let him play it, he'd be ok.He didn't play well, he can be sent down, so he was. Although, I thought he did seem to be playing better towards the end, its a numbers game. We needed room for Quintal and Ribs, so Hainsey was sent packing. Yep, and who painted themselves into that corner? No one on HabsRus. We've been (to quote JV) whining about this for some time. Too many players who look like ducks, walk like ducks, quack like ducks and we wish were DucksYour right Markov was in a different situation. He was playing in a much tougher league, RSL (top defencemen) whereas Hainsey has 1 year of pro hockey under his belt. "He's too good for Hamilton", well in his first game this year, he struggled in his own end, (announcers words) so I would wait a few games to see if he really is "too good" for Hamilton. He was too good for Hamilton by the end of last year. When your confidence has been subjected to a 9.8 quake on the Therrien scale, it's going to take time to recover. So if this announcer (who I wouldn't know from the proverbial hole in the wall) says he's struggling, and if he is, it's understandable. It won't last long.Hainsey is the one young guy who should be playing, for now and for the future. The reason he's been shaky (only in my opinion and those of multudinous others on this board) is that he's been put in a position to fail. That's one of the big reasons we question this organization. Why do others manage to put their kids with good vets and they pan out? We stick ours with our version of the pool cleaner. (That's for your reference, HFLA) Gotta run. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 12, 2002 22:52:08 GMT -5
Hainsey is the one young guy who should be playing, for now and for the future. The reason he's been shaky (only in my opinion and those of multudinous others on this board) is that he's been put in a position to fail. That's one of the big reasons we question this organization. Why do others manage to put their kids with good vets and they pan out? We stick ours with our version of the pool cleaner. (That's for your reference, HFLA) Gotta run. Cheers. Yeah, that's the point. You look around the league, and wonder why all these teams are able to bring in guys who weren't all that highly thought of, stick them on their 1st or second lines, and watch them blossom. Brendan Morrow, from tonight, was drafted 25th overall, spent 9 games in the IHL, came up, played with some quality linemates, and is now an emerging star. Alex Tanguay, 14th overall, played his first NHL game beside Joe Sakic at the age of 19. Simon Gagne, drafted, what? 25th overall? Played with Mark Recchi. Camalleri, Fisher, Havlat. So on, and so on. These kids weren't perfect, they had flaws, they made mistakes, but they learned from them, and they had good enough linemates to cover for them. Can anyone reasonly explain to me why Bill Lindsay played tonight, instead of Chad Kilger? Bill Lindsay, with his 2:27 of ice time? This illustrates the point perfectly. There is absolutely zero reason for doing this. None. And yet we do it. How is Kilger going to develope this way? Answer? He isn't. And then we will wonder how it all went wrong, and say that Kilger was never any good to begin with. I have seen many of the prospects play. Much more than anyone with even an iota of a life. Doesn't make me a qualified scout, but it does give me the right to give my opinion. Is Marcel Hossa a perfect NHL player? Of course not. He floats too much, in an Eric Chouinard like fashion, he has mediocre acceleration, and he watches the play way too much. But last year, he came up, played with Juneau and Dackell (i.e quality linemates), had four points in 10 games, and was +2. That translates into a 32 point season, which I think most people would think is great for a rookie player. Yet we demoted him. Is he going to learn as much playing with Benoit Gratton? Yes, he made mistakes and yes, he had flaws - but so what? Ron Hainsey played with Quintal and Traverse, and when he looked bad, he paid the price. Well guess what, Stephane Robidas looked absolutely brutal playing with Quintal last year, and he's doing all right playing with Matvichuk and Sydor this year. Markov made tremendous gains playing with Rivet, who is probably the best leader from the blueline, why not give Hainsey the same opportunity? It didn't matter one bit what any prospect did this year in camp; the lineup was set. Marcel Hossa could have scored 10 goals, he wasn't going to make the team. There was just no room, and no desire to make room. Why is it that a Stanley Cup contender, like the Colorado Avalanche, can make room for rookies every year, but we can't? They flashed a stat up on the screen tonight - Detroit's average age is 29.9, ours was 29.8. Doesn't that frighten anyone else? That we are just as old as Detroit??
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 12, 2002 23:20:12 GMT -5
"Doesn't that frighten anyone else? That we are just as old as Detroit??"
Not me. In two years the bulk of the lineup will be made up of guys between 21 and 29 years. Koivu (29), Zednick (28), Bulis (26), Theo (27), Kilger (28), Rivet (29) Komisarek (22), Hainsey (23), Markov (25), Hossa (22), plus maybe two of Plekanec, Milroy and Higgins (21) and so on. As many as 6 of the current old bunch will be gone, inlcuding Gilmour, Hackett, Quintal, Juneau, Audette, Mckay and maybe (hopefully) Perreault. Our average age in two years will probably be around 27 or so.
|
|