|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 12, 2002 23:23:21 GMT -5
BTW, it occurs to me that most of these fears are well-founded with respect to Toronto, which has as many ugly contracts with ageing vets as we have, except that they don't have the depth on the farm that we do. They have Boyes, Coca cola (or whatever they call him) and Andropov. After that, it gets mighty thin. We have players in the pipe. In Toronto they should be panicking. Not here.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 12, 2002 23:36:52 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> HA! Outstanding analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the contributers. If MT had 10% of your insight we would be doing a lot better. Everyone on the board is wrong most of the time except HabsFaninLA. Even he makes some mistakes. Last time he was wrong it was his analysis of the Leclair trade to Philly. Oops, I forgot about his mistake about Theo last year. Oops, I forgot about his mistake on this post seconds ago!
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 13, 2002 1:00:54 GMT -5
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. Well, its not that easy. You can say you want him to stay up all season, but if struggles then send him down, let him get some confidence and bring him back up when he plays better. I don't care about rookies being in the lineup, I want the best lineup out there that we can ice. So why put out Hainsey over Traverse who has outplayed him? Thats hurting the team. Dykhuis, I think will bounce back somewhat. I would have liked to see Dykhuis benched for a game or two, but Hainsey had to be sent down for Quintal/Ribs to be put back on the roster. As for Hainsey learning more up here as opposed to down there, well it's not that easy either. Lots of our prospects would be better off up here, but there's no room, and in Hainsey's case, the best thing is to play lots of good hockey in Hamilton get his confidence back, instead of sitting out games/ playing 7-8 minutes a game. I think they put Traverse in the lineup cause Hainsey didn't play well and Traverse did.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 13, 2002 1:10:19 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. Well thats just sticking up for Hainsey. Its easy, he didnt play well from the start. Our defence is struggling, we can't hold Hainsey's hand and let him make lots of mistakes and lose his confidence totally. I just don't buy that he's been put into a position to fail. He had a job to do, and he didn't do it very well. One of his main assets is his calm play with the puck, and he was anything but calm. Not saying he sucks, cause I've seen him play much better (last year) and if not for the numbers game, I think he would be still with the team. Who knows how long he goes down for. If he plays a couple of weeks in Hamilton and gets his confidence back playing real good, then call him up and see what happens. As for sticking him with our verison of the pool cleaner. Yes Quintal has not played well at all, but saying him being paired with Hainsey was a handicap to Ron, isn't fair. Before the season started, no one knew what to expect. Quintal was maybe our best defencemen in the playoffs/end of the season last year, so it's not far fetched to thing he could come back this year, and pickup where he left off. It didn't happen, changes had to be made.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 13, 2002 1:20:36 GMT -5
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?? Well I think that its easier to bring up rookies when you have a better supporting cast like the Avs, wings, stars, flyers, then we have. Lindsay over Kilger? Don't ask me ask the coach, but what difference does it make 2-3 mins? Hossa didn't play that good in camp, he had to beat out players and he didn't. I don't buy that if he scored 10 goals or just played a lot better then he did that he would have been sent down reguardless. As for Robidas, he was benched for the last few games before tonights homecoming. And Markov has played well with Rivet, I would think thats why they don't want to split them up.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 13, 2002 1:43:27 GMT -5
Well thats just sticking up for Hainsey. Its easy, he didnt play well from the start. Our defence is struggling, we can't hold Hainsey's hand and let him make lots of mistakes and lose his confidence totally. I just don't buy that he's been put into a position to fail. He had a job to do, and he didn't do it very well. One of his main assets is his calm play with the puck, and he was anything but calm. Not saying he sucks, cause I've seen him play much better (last year) and if not for the numbers game, I think he would be still with the team. Who knows how long he goes down for. If he plays a couple of weeks in Hamilton and gets his confidence back playing real good, then call him up and see what happens. As for sticking him with our verison of the pool cleaner. Yes Quintal has not played well at all, but saying him being paired with Hainsey was a handicap to Ron, isn't fair. Before the season started, no one knew what to expect. Quintal was maybe our best defencemen in the playoffs/end of the season last year, so it's not far fetched to thing he could come back this year, and pickup where he left off. It didn't happen, changes had to be made. I suspect that if we gave Ron some rope, he wouldn't hang himself. I haven't played much hockey, but many, many years of soccer, a similar game as far as positioning and passing goes. I've played with good guys and really bad guys. I always play better with good players, because I can predict what they're going to do, where they're going etc. When I'm with dopeheads, I'm always out of position because they do the dumbest things, I know they're going to screw up and I try to cover more than I should. That's the life of Quintal's defense partner. The funniest physical comic group I ever saw was not the 3 stooges, it was Malakhov and Quintal. Hilarious. You gotta partner Hainsey with someone with some grey cells. Why not Brisebois? That way, Hainsey knows he can play conservatively because PB has the puck skills to move the puck (most of the time). We all agree on one thing. The youngsters are in Hamilton because the Inn in Montreal is full. I would have kept a few rooms available, just in case. But Andre obviously has other things in mind (or does he?).
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 13, 2002 1:53:52 GMT -5
Outstanding analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the contributers. If MT had 10% of your insight we would be doing a lot better. Of course it was. LA, I am not making any negative comments or “rating” posters. All I am trying to do is give an outsider some heads up when reading posters.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 13, 2002 2:26:49 GMT -5
BC wrote: 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 develop 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.
If they did not play Kilger then how do you expect them to play someone like Ward? Or even Hossa? Notethe word "them", them as in Therrein AND Savard.
BC wrote: 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?
Sneaky little crosscheck to my "you have to see our prospects play". Good thing I wore my Darth Vader helmet and didn't hit my head on the glass. Yes BC, I know that you know your hockey and came make valid observation. On the other hand, I am tired of reading from others how Komi is only a step away from the NHL or Ward is kept down by some evil conspiracy (HW head snaps back) or Gratton is kept back by an itchy jockstrap. By the way, you don't believe in conspiraciess, do you?
BC wrote: 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?
So is Savard keeping the kids down in the farm because he thinks that their development will be more complete?
Bring the kids up and they learn from who? Q-ball and Travesty? Get the winning attitude from The Polish Prince? How to play in a system from Therrien? How to play defense at a high level from coach'potatoe Green? Who is helping our kids and at what level? Did Markov succeed despite obstalces in Habland?
Does anybody see a problem here? The prospects are not learning how to refine their play to an elite level in the farm and there is no people in big club to help them either. Does it not make you feel better about our future?
I am repeating myself, saying it again, writing it everywhere, muttering it in my sleep, stabbing rolls of toilet paper in anger, saying it over and over and over and over. Bring in a coach that can develop a system and the youngsters. A real coach, not a imitation of a coach who is only concerned is about winning (thus playing all the "safe bet" vets).
Prepare for an earth shattering statement:
If Savard does not get a much better coach then Savard will fail. Then he should be fired after all, the buck stops at his office..
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 13, 2002 8:39:45 GMT -5
As for Hainsey learning more up here as opposed to down there, well it's not that easy either. Lots of our prospects would be better off up here, but there's no room, and in Hainsey's case, the best thing is to play lots of good hockey in Hamilton get his confidence back, instead of sitting out games/ playing 7-8 minutes a game. I think they put Traverse in the lineup cause Hainsey didn't play well and Traverse did. there is no room? you see this is our problem...like BC said it takes an UNBELIEVABLE performance by our young kids(Theodore and Markov come to mind) for management to give them a regular spot on the team. Even if our kids do well in training camp, usually we don't even keep them up because the team is loaded with contracts you can't clear. It takes an injury or an unbelievable performance by those kids(like Hainsey this year) to keep them up and if they don't produce after not even 10 games...down they go... Why can DALLAS make room for Kapanen this year, Morrow the past few years? why can DETROIT make room for Zetteberg, Bykov, Kuznetsov this year, Datsyuk last year? why can LOS ANGELES make room for Frolov this year and Cammalleri on the TOP line the last week? why can the FLYERS have a Seidenberg and a Brendl join their team and have Gagne's and Williams' make their team the past 2-3 years? and we can't even find room for the 20th best prospect in the league trying to crack a mediocre(at best) blueline??!! Teams that are MUCH better than we are find time to play the kids.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Nov 13, 2002 11:46:01 GMT -5
Just read through this thread - gasp- and I guess I agree pretty much with the sentiments expressed by Boston Hab. As a GM Savard is a work in progress, just like the team is, but all in all he's done OK although there are some legit questions that PTH, Bad Co and Doc etc have raised. I've been mulling over the idea of a plan as it applys to a hockey team and I've come to the conclusion that I, at least, have been thinking about this in too specific a manner - I think that JV makes some good points in respect to this. It probably isn't really possible to construct an "ideal team" in a more or less linear fashion. I'm sure Savard would prefer big fast guys who were somewhat skilled at least and good two way players. But you can't always order up such desirable flesh. I think Savard's "plan" was/is: - clean out the guys in the minors who didn't have enough talent and speed to make room for new picks who did; - while this talent was developing, replace border line NHLers on the Habs with players who had at least demonstrated more talent in the past so as to get the team into the playoffs in the interim. Not making a pretty obvious attempt to do this just isn't an option. In doing this he's defintely used the luxury of GG's walet. - he took a gamble on Audette which may not pay off due in great part to Audette's injury which was beyond his control; - I think that he realized that Audete might not recover fullly from his injury so when the chance to grab Czerkowski as insurance came along he took it; - he took a flyer on Quintal, hoping his desire to play in Montreal, size and willingness to be physical would outweigh his failings; - he might have overpaid on Brisebois, to make sure that he had a dman to run the power play; - he paid a lot for Rivet, fearing to lose him to free agency; - he took a flyer on resigning Gilmour- with his age and the center "glut" you never knew what might happen. He could lose his effectivenss or become a problem pretty quickly (has he already?). Some of these moves paid off more than others. As to youth, besides Markov he's added Bulis and Zednik, although he gave up youth in Zubov to get them. I would like to see sometime this year: - another young player added this year in Hainsey. I would be mildly disappointed if he didn't return this season. If he does we are left with one problem, however, and that is breaking him in with Quintal as his partner. I'm not so sure that will work out so well. I don't think that Hossa demonstrated the agressiveness, the desire, in preseaon that he needs to so I wasn't surprised to see him sent down although Bad Co is probably right in that if, and until, a move is made there just isn't room for him right now. Ribiero I'm not keen on but if there's a need for a center later he's there. I don't think that he's part of the long term solution but I could be wrong. - Audette gone. It appears AS is working on it but peddling apparently still damaged goods with an attitude problem won't be easy. I wish him luck. - a left winger with some size and scoring ability (sorry Kilger) to replace Gilmour. Maybe Hossa is the guy. I hope he burns up the AHL so that if the Gilmour situation comes to a head he'll be ready to come up. That would be young player #2 for the year. - Kilger being used as the 4th line center with that line getting decent ice time. Roll 4 lines. - a new head coach who can install a real system and convince the players to use it. Bring the shots for/against into equilibrium. Well, one can always hope.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 13, 2002 12:21:15 GMT -5
The other thing I would add to all this (which we've of course discussed before) is that although JV's vision of the next 2 years sounds great with guys like Hossa, Balej, and Komisarek replacing Juneau, Perreault, and Quintal is that we still lack and will lack the star power of the elite teams to compete at the highest level.
I like Savard's plan, but at some point ultimate success will be to add some real size and skill, especially up the middle, but ideally on the wing as well. However, I just don't believe any of our forward prospects project to be real difference-makers, although Balej could possibly grow into a Valeri Bure type player. That means a MAJOR trade will be the last piece of the puzzle, since UFA signings have proven extremely difficult. This where Savard will ultimately make or break. So in many ways all this talk about whether or not Savard should have played more kids or veterans is academic, since neither choice is going to be the road to ultimate success.
Jack Todd was right in his column today when he said we just don't have the horses like we did when Turgeon, Recchi, and Damphousse provided some real guts up front. You look at Dallas with Modano, Turgeon, Guerin and Arnott, or even Boston with Thornton, Samsonov, and Murray and we probably have one of the weakest "Top 3" forwards in the league, and I don't see where it's going to get a whole lot better (although I admit I have never seen Hossa or Balej in person).
It looks like Savard isn't going to do anything big this year, but at some point he's going to have to unload some of our prime talent (Markov, Hainsey, Komi.... Theo???) to make the ultimate leap.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 13, 2002 12:33:25 GMT -5
Boston:
You're probably right about that. Balej is the only pure offensive threat in the system, though I'd say his top-end is higher than Valerie Furry's is . He's still a dodgy prospect (boom or bust). But in any case, to make the kind of trade you're envisioning you have to have the depth on the farm to be able to waive bye-bye to two or three good-looking young players at one time, even though none of them have superstar written all over them. If we continue to make good use of our first three picks each year, we'll be in that kind of position within 2 years. The other thing is that a good young team, with lots of talent and good coaching, has a better chance of attracting free agents (see Phoenix and Amonte) than a team like the current one or those of the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 13, 2002 16:59:52 GMT -5
I think what Boston wants is a Hossa+Balej for great player kind of deal.
If the player is like 25-28 years old, I would do it in a flash.
Or one could argue the star power will be in goal, on defence and on the 1st line with Koivu and Zednik
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 13, 2002 18:05:45 GMT -5
there is no room? you see this is our problem...like BC said it takes an UNBELIEVABLE performance by our young kids(Theodore and Markov come to mind) for management to give them a regular spot on the team. Even if our kids do well in training camp, usually we don't even keep them up because the team is loaded with contracts you can't clear. It takes an injury or an unbelievable performance by those kids(like Hainsey this year) to keep them up and if they don't produce after not even 10 games...down they go... Why can DALLAS make room for Kapanen this year, Morrow the past few years? why can DETROIT make room for Zetteberg, Bykov, Kuznetsov this year, Datsyuk last year? why can LOS ANGELES make room for Frolov this year and Cammalleri on the TOP line the last week? why can the FLYERS have a Seidenberg and a Brendl join their team and have Gagne's and Williams' make their team the past 2-3 years? and we can't even find room for the 20th best prospect in the league trying to crack a mediocre(at best) blueline??!! Teams that are MUCH better than we are find time to play the kids. And what do Dallas, Detroit, Philly and a lesser extent LA have in common. Well the first 3 are the top teams in the league and are LOADed with top end talent. We are not, we are an average team, that used to be a sucky team, were moving up the ladder, but only one step at a time. We could still suck, but we don't. Its almost impossible to go from sucking to being fully loaded with top end talent.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 13, 2002 20:42:14 GMT -5
fine let's look a teams that don't have a great supporting cast and are similar to us:
-Buffalo has Kotalyk and Tallinder
-Calgary has Kobasew and Leopold(bad example though as they really needed those two baddly)
-Carolina found room for Vasicek and Tanabe when they were a mediocre team and late last year, Svoboda
-Boston(who at the start of the year were considered a 2nd tier team) have Huml and Girard
-Chicago finds room for Calder and Bell last year, Arnason this year
and on and on and on..
I really don't think most of those guys(except for CGY's) are MUCH better than our kids.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 13, 2002 21:04:49 GMT -5
fine let's look a teams that don't have a great supporting cast and are similar to us: -Buffalo has Kotalyk and Tallinder -Calgary has Kobasew and Leopold(bad example though as they really needed those two baddly) -Carolina found room for Vasicek and Tanabe when they were a mediocre team and late last year, Svoboda -Boston(who at the start of the year were considered a 2nd tier team) have Huml and Girard -Chicago finds room for Calder and Bell last year, Arnason this year and on and on and on.. I really don't think most of those guys(except for CGY's) are MUCH better than our kids. Boston and the Hawks had to replace their big guns. They took a chance that the rookies could get them through. Canes, I thought Tanabe didn't play much? I don't know. And the Flames/Sabers are in a different situation. They are not playoff teams, so I think there's less pressure to put the kids in. But you could also say -Habs, Markov 23 Ribeiro 22 Hainsey 21. So we got some youth over the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 13, 2002 21:07:40 GMT -5
Markov: has been with the team since 2000-01 really with 2 short stints in the minors
Ribeiro: would probably be in Hamilton if he wasn't forced to go through waivers
Hainsey: in the minors
My stance could change though..if Hainsey comes back soon and plays more than 7 minutes per game and Ribeiro gets some nice PP time and about 10-12 minutes per game.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 13, 2002 21:16:43 GMT -5
Markov: has been with the team since 2000-01 really with 2 short stints in the minors Ribeiro: would probably be in Hamilton if he wasn't forced to go through waivers Hainsey: in the minors My stance could change though..if Hainsey comes back soon and plays more than 7 minutes per game and Ribeiro gets some nice PP time and about 10-12 minutes per game. Markov started last season in Quebec, and is young no matter how you put it. We can only have so many young guys, and he's one of them. Ribeiro. I can't say anything about Ribs yet. His last game is friday, then he gets called up. So if he plays, will it be cause he can't go through waivers also? I thought he was very good in the preseason, and not so bad last year. He's young and talented, and I looke forward to see what he does. Hainsey, yes he's in the minors, and his play put him there where he belongs for now.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 13, 2002 21:32:33 GMT -5
no doubt Markov is young. But he is not a rookie anymore. That's the distinction I am trying to make
Ribeiro like Hainsey was very good in the pre-season and deserves a look because of it IMO.
It's a shame we are so small...the creativity a Ribs can bring could really help us(if he played 20 minutes per game...)..
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 14, 2002 0:09:09 GMT -5
fine let's look a teams that don't have a great supporting cast and are similar to us: -Buffalo has Kotalyk and Tallinder -Calgary has Kobasew and Leopold(bad example though as they really needed those two baddly) -Carolina found room for Vasicek and Tanabe when they were a mediocre team and late last year, Svoboda -Boston(who at the start of the year were considered a 2nd tier team) have Huml and Girard -Chicago finds room for Calder and Bell last year, Arnason this year and on and on and on.. I really don't think most of those guys(except for CGY's) are MUCH better than our kids. Uhh, MP, most of those guys are like 22 or 23 years old. Calder's 23, Tanabe's 22, Girard is 22 (and played most of last year in the AHL), Tallinder is almost 23, Kotalyk's 22, etc. All of these guys are basically Mike Ribeiro's age. Only Bell (I think) played the whole year in the NHL last year. Only Huml is 21 (Hossa's age). In other words, the vast majority of the guys you've listed have taken about the same time to get to the NHL as we project for Hossa. That is, after a full year or more of life in the AHL. As for Carolina finding room for Vasicek and Tanabe last year, it's worth remembering that because Carolina was well atop the southeast conference they had kind of a free ride to the playoffs. In a different division they'd have been in the battle, but as it was they were sure of a 3rd seed in the conference pretty early on because of washington's meltdown. In any case, the main point is that most of the guys you've listed are the peers of Chouinard and Ribeiro, not Hossa. And in any case, there's nothing wrong with Hossa playing more minutes, in crucial roles, in the AHL rather than the NHL. To me, Hainsey is the only "development issue" right now, and it's kind of a detail. He'll do the "I'm all humble now thing", he'll play well in Hamilton, and he'll (I hope) be recalled sometime relatively soon. But even if he's not recalled, it just won't retard his learning as much as some people fear, if at all.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 14, 2002 0:53:19 GMT -5
So we got some youth over the last few years. But what do we do with our "youth?" Markov had to jump through hoops to earn a regular spot, and its debatable whether or not his "stint" in the minors helped him at all. Bulis, after having such a great start to the season, played a mere 10 minutes last game, and practiced today with Blouin and (I think) McKay on the 4th line. Kilger, our only young forward with size - indeed, aside from McKay, our only forward with size - has been benched on a regular basis of late, to make room for Bill Lindsay. Hainsey is in the minors, after being paired with Quintal and Traverse and seeing no powerplay duty. As an aside, Hainsey was +5 after Quintal got hurt. Ribeiro will play, in all likelihood (if he plays) on the 4th line, with scrubs. Garon is on his way out. Plekanec has been a healthy scratch two games in a row, in Hamilton. Chouinard, despite posting better numbers than Marcel Hossa, through two injury riddled AHL campaigns, has been banished to Utah. Asham, last year, would play great for a shift or two, then get benched for the rest of the game. Eventually traded. Robidas, after playing great one year here, and being named to Canada's World Championship team (where Gretzky said he was the best player) is pushed over onto his wrong side, and kept there, because even though he was bad, Quintal was worse. Currently playing 10-15 minutes a game in Dallas, with either Richard Matvichuk, or Darryl Sydor (and contrary to popular belief, Robidas has only missed 3 games). Just seems like Montreal makes it much, much more difficult for themselves, when it comes to developing young players. We can blame the poor drafting all we want (and thats a weak excuse) but what about guys like Bulis, and Kilger, and Asham? Who were, or are, good enough, and who could have important roles for the future, but who are being railroaded? If Montreal had a history of carefully developing and nurturing prospects, of working kids into the lineup in a safe and sound manner, then I wouldn't be complaining at all. But the history isn't there, and from where I sit, safe and comfortable in the annonymity of my internet chair, guys like Kilger, Bulis, and Hainsey are being poorly handled. As I said before, when talking about Kilger, how is he supposed to develope into a 3rd line checking center/winger, if he is sitting in the stands? The answer is he isn't. And when we dump him for nothing, we will all wonder where it went so wrong, and ultimately we will decide he just wasn't good enough. But that's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 14, 2002 2:08:31 GMT -5
BadCompany, well I disagree with most of what you said.
Markov. Well it wasn't like he was playing so good, and the big bad meanies of management said off to Quebec we don't need you right now. No Markov was making some mistakes in his own end, he could be sent down, so he was. Then the next year he wasn't that great in camp (if memory is working) so he started down on the farm, where he was the best defencemen on the team. He didn't stay long cause he was playing very good. Then he stepped it up in the playoffs last year, and continued where he left off this season so far.
Bulis. Last night I didn't understand why he was not getting any ice time in the 3rd. But we were down and needed offence. Bulis isn't that gifted on offence, so it makes a little bit of sense. Next game, who knows. I don't see that much in Bulis, but he has played well with Juneau/Dackell just like he did last year. Can he play on one of the top lines? I don't think he has the skill.
Kilger. Yes he does have good size, speed and skating. I don't think he's played that well this year. But I don't understand why he was benched last game. He's a 3rd liner, but there's no room on the 3rd line. I like Kilger, but I did expect a better game from him after being benched for 4 games. Maybe his days in Habland are coming to an end. Good on the PK but hands of stone. I hope he plays in NJ, and comes out fired up hitting everything. He needs to better so good that Therrien has to play him.
Hainsey. I have to say, I was disappointed in his play. But I did think he was starting to get better, then he got sent down. He didn't play with confidence at all, and he wasn't getting much time (it's not like he was playing great, and they just said we wont play him) If Hainsey played better, I think he'd still be here. If he does good in Hamilton, then maybe he gets the call. If not, I can't see how this is hurting the 21 year old defencemen that has played some 70 games in the AHL/NHL.
Ribeiro. Got sent down last year, cause he struggled all season long in his own end, and when he got into a scoring slump he became useless. He worked hard over the summer, played very good in camp, and was considered to be the 4th line center. I don't see him beating out Koivu, Perreault on the top lines, so the 4th line makes sense. If he has worked on his game, then he hopefully will get more icetime, if not then he should sit out or be sent down. I think Ribs has improved every year since he's been drafted. Hopefully he continues this trend. I like Ribs and can't wait to see what he can do.
Garon. Got a shot last year, didn't play well at all. I can still remember the game he played against the Ducks. His angles were way off and he went down to early. The Ducks eat him up. Then he went down, and in the playoffs, was bad. This year though, I thought he had a very impressive camp. The problem for Garon. Jose Theodore is the leagues best goalie and the leagues most valueable player. Then you got Hackett the teams MVP from a few years ago. There's a lot of talent for poor Garon to overcome, its just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who knows what will happen to his future. If Hackett gets moved, Garon is the backup, and I think that was the plan. I don't think Savard really wanted to have 4 goalies that are all good. Both Hackett and Fichaud haven't lost yet, and Garon has 1 loss, and was great tonight getting 1st star in a shutout win with 36 saves.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 14, 2002 3:08:41 GMT -5
Part II.
Plekanec. Ribs was sent down, somebody has to sit from our side. Ribs last game is friday, then I would think Pleks is back in.
Chouinard. Yes Chewy outscored Hossa. Thats a bad example. Hossa was a rookie who just came out of the CHL, whereas Chewy has more experience. He hasn't worked hard, or put forth an honest effort. So he doesn't play. I think Utah was a message to him, get it together soon, or your out. No big loss. He's got the skill, but doesn't bring the effort. Maybe he will turn it around, but I wouldn't hold my breath on the one.
Asham. You got it right. He would play great a shift or two then he would be benched. But you left out the important part. Its what he would do after those good shifts and thats not much of anything. One game he would come out fired up hitting everything, drop the gloves and maybe get an assit. Then next game he doesn't finish his checks, and doesn't show up with the energy that he has to bring to the table. I do think they made a mistake with Asham though. IMO, he was brought up way to early. He was the leading scorer in Quebec, and then got the call early and just wasn't ready. He showed up some nights, but he has to show up every night, and that wasn't the case.
Robidas. I like Robidas and he was one of our best defencemen 2 years ago. (although he was paired with Wienrich, i think, who is a decent blueliner) then they made the mistake of putting him on the left side, and it failded completely. Well everyone will make mistakes, and putting Robidas on the left was one of them. How big a loss is it? Well Traverse Robidas or Traverse Quintal doesn't sound that much better. As for him only missing 3 games, well I have NHL center ice and during the Stars/Leafs game the Stars annoucners said that he hasn't played well lately and thats why he was sitting out that game and some others.
As for poor drafting being a bad excuse? What, IMO thats the biggest reason. Do you want to see Ward skating like he's stuck in mud. Or Chouinard floating around with his big body that somehow finds a way not to run into anything. Or maybe Matt Higgins and his goal scoring prowess would look good out there. We haven't played many of our prospects, cause most of them suck. We made poor decisions, and now we are paying the price from the 90's. And Kilger, Bulis and Asham as our future? Who's gona score the goals. There's only so many spots for 3rd liners. Asham got moved, and Bulis/Kilger fought it out for a spot on the 3rd, Bulis won. Now Kilger has to come out and play better, hitting everything. Its not like our prospects have been playing so great, yet management decided that they would be better off down on the farm.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 14, 2002 7:24:23 GMT -5
Uhh, MP, most of those guys are like 22 or 23 years old. Calder's 23, Tanabe's 22, Girard is 22 (and played most of last year in the AHL), Tallinder is almost 23, Kotalyk's 22, etc. All of these guys are basically Mike Ribeiro's age. Only Bell (I think) played the whole year in the NHL last year. Only Huml is 21 (Hossa's age). In other words, the vast majority of the guys you've listed have taken about the same time to get to the NHL as we project for Hossa. That is, after a full year or more of life in the AHL. True, but what I am pointing out is teams that are far from being ''elite'' contenders are using kids in key spots. Regardless of if they are 22 or 23, they are still kids IMO. Both Vasicek and Tanabe were already in Carolina at the start of last year. In 2000-01 when they battled for a playoff spot with the Bruins until the end, they were being added to the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 14, 2002 7:25:57 GMT -5
Bulis, after having such a great start to the season, played a mere 10 minutes last game, and practiced today with Blouin and (I think) McKay on the 4th line. what? MT breaking up the checking line?
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 14, 2002 8:48:30 GMT -5
BadCompany, well I disagree with most of what you said. Markov. Well it wasn't like he was playing so good, and the big bad meanies of management said off to Quebec we don't need you right now. No Markov was making some mistakes in his own end, he could be sent down, so he was. Then the next year he wasn't that great in camp (if memory is working) so he started down on the farm, where he was the best defencemen on the team. He didn't stay long cause he was playing very good. Then he stepped it up in the playoffs last year, and continued where he left off this season so far. The point was that he was too good for the AHL, and he had nothing to learn there. He had played with, and dominated men in what you yourself might be the 2nd or 3rd best league in the world, and while he wasn't the greatest thing to hit Montreal since Schwartz's smoked meat, he wasn't the worst thing either. He was replaced by Patrick Traverse, Stephane Robidas (on his wrong side) and Martie Jarventie. All of whom started the year in Montreal. Montreal wasn't willing to live through Markov's growing pains, so they demoted him. Bulis. Last night I didn't understand why he was not getting any ice time in the 3rd. But we were down and needed offence. Bulis isn't that gifted on offence, so it makes a little bit of sense. Next game, who knows. I don't see that much in Bulis, but he has played well with Juneau/Dackell just like he did last year. Can he play on one of the top lines? I don't think he has the skill. There are those who would disagree with your top-two line statement, but lets assume you are right. But if Montreal was indeed looking for more offense, why did Joe Juneau and Randy McKay play more than him? Donald Audette still doesn't have a point and Bulis is outscoring Doug Gilmour. We keep saying that if a player shows he can play, he will play, but that is not the case. Instead, we are trying to jump start veterans who have little to no future with the team, and its entirely possible that we are actually hurting the team in the short term. How much longer are we going to keep giving Audette prime minutes? Kilger. Yes he does have good size, speed and skating. I don't think he's played that well this year. But I don't understand why he was benched last game. He's a 3rd liner, but there's no room on the 3rd line. I like Kilger, but I did expect a better game from him after being benched for 4 games. Maybe his days in Habland are coming to an end. Good on the PK but hands of stone. I hope he plays in NJ, and comes out fired up hitting everything. He needs to better so good that Therrien has to play him. Nobody understands Kilger's role, including, I would assume, Kilger himself. Because he has hands of stone (only once, during his draft year, has he ever scored more than 17) I would groom him for eventually taking over Joe Juneau's 3rd line center spot. We saw how focussed and effective he can be last year, shadowing Joe Thornton, why not groom him for that permanent position. Keep him as 4th line center, use him as your second penalty killer. Give him 12-14 minutes a game in exclusive defensive situations, and in two years he's ready to be your checking center. Like you said, he's big enough, and fast enough, and strong enough. He just needs a role. But he's being benched, and as you said, possibly on his way out. Another kid who wasn't used properly, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 14, 2002 9:04:44 GMT -5
Hainsey. I have to say, I was disappointed in his play. But I did think he was starting to get better, then he got sent down. He didn't play with confidence at all, and he wasn't getting much time (it's not like he was playing great, and they just said we wont play him) If Hainsey played better, I think he'd still be here. I was disappointed in Hainsey's play as well, but I still think he could have been handled better. He was great during the pre-season, playing against top AHL players and borderline NHLers, and he was fine during that first win against the Rangers. Then, the team got hammered, 6-2, back to back, and Hainsey looked bad. But so did Quintal, and Dykhuis (especially Quintal, in my opinion). Of the 6 defensemen out there, I would argue that Hainsey was 5th, or maybe even 4th. While that's not saying much, given how poorly as a unit they were playing, its still something. He wasn't the worst, but he paid the price anyways. They then went public, and told reporters that he was "too offensive, took too many risks" - at what point they suggested he was too harded, and refusing to pay attention to his own zone. Surprise, surprise, after sitting three games, Hainsey comes back tentative, nervous, taking no offensive risks (his game) and banging the puck off the glass to get it out (Green's game). He doesn't play the powerplay, is afraid to take any offensive risks for fear of being benched, and concentrates on playing a total Rick Green game. All the while playing with our worst defensemen. Instead of trying to beat him into Rick Green submission, they should have done like they are doing with Robidas in Dallas and like they did with Robidas and Weinrich - play him 10-13 minutes a game, give him powerplay time, pair him with an experienced vet, ease him into the NHL so that when he plays he is confident, and secure. Instead, they threw him into the fire, and then complained that he got burnt. Ribeiro. Got sent down last year, cause he struggled all season long in his own end, and when he got into a scoring slump he became useless. He worked hard over the summer, played very good in camp, and was considered to be the 4th line center. I don't see him beating out Koivu, Perreault on the top lines, so the 4th line makes sense. If he has worked on his game, then he hopefully will get more icetime, if not then he should sit out or be sent down. Again, this is the crux of the debate though. Other teams find room for their top prospects on their top two lines, but we can't? Last year, they had him as 4th line center, then left winger, then right winger, even playing the point on the powerplay. Like Kilger, they seem unsure where they see Ribeiro in the future. Maybe they don't see a future for him, I don't know. Therrien is not very good at line matching, or at rolling four lines, so having Ribeiro play 4th line center isn't going to get him a lot of ice time. Garon. Got a shot last year, didn't play well at all. I can still remember the game he played against the Ducks. His angles were way off and he went down to early. The Ducks eat him up. Then he went down, and in the playoffs, was bad. This year though, I thought he had a very impressive camp. The problem for Garon. Jose Theodore is the leagues best goalie and the leagues most valueable player. Then you got Hackett the teams MVP from a few years ago. There's a lot of talent for poor Garon to overcome, its just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who knows what will happen to his future. If Hackett gets moved, Garon is the backup, and I think that was the plan. I am not a big Garon fan, so I won't go too far into this. But it kind of fits the general trend - a top prospect who for whatever reason, just can't get a chance. I know the reasons, Hackett and Theodore, but there should be some sort of effort being made to get something for Garon before he walks as a UFA at the end of the year. Jose Theodore was the Hart and Vezina trophy winner, is young, and signed long term. At best, absolute best, Garon is going to be his backup. He will never, barring a complete Jim Cary like disaster (and if Savard thought that was possible, why sign Theodore long-term for big bucks?) be anything more than that. So moving him in the offseason, when they thought he had value, would have been a smart move.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 14, 2002 9:27:49 GMT -5
Chouinard. Yes Chewy outscored Hossa. Thats a bad example. Hossa was a rookie who just came out of the CHL, whereas Chewy has more experience. Actually, I was referring to Chouinard's first year in the AHL. That year, coming out of the CHL (like Hossa) Chouinard played 48 games, had 12 goals, 21 assists, 33 points and was -7. Hossa, his first year in the AHL, played 50 games, had 17 goals, 15 assists, 32 points, and was -5. Virtually identical numbers. Chouinard then had decent numbers last year (his second in the AHL) but was considered to be a bust. Now don't get me wrong, I think Hossa is a much better prospect than Chouinard, and you may be right in that it is a question of effort, but that is also the knock on Hossa. If he puts up similar numbers to Chouinard's second season in the AHL (42 points in 65 games) will the organization give up on him too? Asham. You got it right. He would play great a shift or two then he would be benched. But you left out the important part. Its what he would do after those good shifts and thats not much of anything. I do think they made a mistake with Asham though. That's where I disagree. In my opinion, Asham would play great for a shift or two, and then not play for the rest of the game. He never had the opportunity to do "not much of anything" because he wouldn't be playing. Its not like he would play great in the 1st period, suck in the 2nd, and get benched in the 3rd. He would play great for the first half of the 1st, and not play the rest of the game. Robidas. I like Robidas and he was one of our best defencemen 2 years ago. (although he was paired with Wienrich, i think, who is a decent blueliner) then they made the mistake of putting him on the left side, and it failded completely. Well everyone will make mistakes, and putting Robidas on the left was one of them... As for him only missing 3 games, well I have NHL center ice and during the Stars/Leafs game the Stars annoucners said that he hasn't played well lately and thats why he was sitting out that game and some others. Well, I think Robidas has played 15 of the Stars 18 games, so he ain't sitting out a whole lot. He too, is a young defenseman, and sometimes they are going to play badly. When they do, you sit them out for a game or two, then bring them back, pair them with someone who can cover for them, work them into the lineup, and hope they recover. Dallas has designs on winning the Cup this year, and not only are they playing Robidas almost every game, but they traded to get him to do so. We couldn't do the same thing with Hainsey? As for poor drafting being a bad excuse? What, IMO thats the biggest reason. We haven't played many of our prospects, cause most of them suck. And Kilger, Bulis and Asham as our future? Who's gona score the goals. There's only so many spots for 3rd liners. Asham got moved, and Bulis/Kilger fought it out for a spot on the 3rd, Bulis won. Now Kilger has to come out and play better, hitting everything. Actually, Montreal has the second highest number of draft picks over the last decade or so to make the NHL, its just that they don't tend to be high picks, and they tend to make it elsewhere. You are also right that Kilger, Bulis and Asham weren't going to be the goal scorers. But as far as I am concerned, your 3rd line (in particular) and your 4th line are just as important to your team as your first two. Having Kilger and Bulis set, trained and experienced as defensive specialists for the 3rd line, is just as important in my mind, as having Hossa, or Plekanec, or Balej scoring all those goals. Yes, we all wish that our prospects would come in here, and light it up, and force management to trade away our superstar veterans, but the truth is most players nowadays have to be broken in, and developed over time. We all know the list of players who went on to excell elsewhere, because Montreal gave up on them, no need to repeat it here. I am not saying guys like Kilger, or Asham, or Bulis are going to be superstars, but they could have been important pieces to the puzzle, both now and in the future. But we prefer to go with older veterans instead, even though there production is only marginally, if at all better. Then our young players stagnate, get shipped out, or end up having their careers fall apart. And again, we wonder where it all went wrong, and say they weren't any good to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 14, 2002 9:53:52 GMT -5
BC,
Great and fine and all good points that I "mostly" agree on.
My constant contention is that the coach is not smart enough and good enough to coach in the NHL. All the problems with the kids stem from his fear of losing, thus he always goes with the veterans. Therriens actions are approved by Savard thus he is also responsible for them. Period.
So my question to you is:
Do you agree that Therrien should have been replaced in the summer?
Do you agree that given the Hab's play so far this year and the way the kids are handle, Therrien's career should be executed with a blunt, rusted axe by as early as tomorrow?
Bottom line, is your butt firmly planted in the bandwagon with the blood red FIRE THERRIEN banner on top?
And last but not least. If this continues for another year or so, will you get on the "FIRE SAVARD" bandwagon whose form is now starting to take shape?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 14, 2002 10:37:33 GMT -5
I was disappointed in Hainsey's play as well, but I still think he could have been handled better. He was great during the pre-season, playing against top AHL players and borderline NHLers, and he was fine during that first win against the Rangers. Then, the team got hammered, 6-2, back to back, and Hainsey looked bad. But so did Quintal, and Dykhuis (especially Quintal, in my opinion). Of the 6 defensemen out there, I would argue that Hainsey was 5th, or maybe even 4th. While that's not saying much, given how poorly as a unit they were playing, its still something. He wasn't the worst, but he paid the price anyways. They then went public, and told reporters that he was "too offensive, took too many risks" - at what point they suggested he was too harded, and refusing to pay attention to his own zone. Surprise, surprise, after sitting three games, Hainsey comes back tentative, nervous, taking no offensive risks (his game) and banging the puck off the glass to get it out (Green's game). He doesn't play the powerplay, is afraid to take any offensive risks for fear of being benched, and concentrates on playing a total Rick Green game. All the while playing with our worst defensemen. Instead of trying to beat him into Rick Green submission, they should have done like they are doing with Robidas in Dallas and like they did with Robidas and Weinrich - play him 10-13 minutes a game, give him powerplay time, pair him with an experienced vet, ease him into the NHL so that when he plays he is confident, and secure. Instead, they threw him into the fire, and then complained that he got burnt. Well said and it should be noted in that home opener Quintal was playing after getting tomahawked to the head by Lindros the night before so to draw conclusions on Hainsey after that game was absolutely ridiculous. One of these days, one of our kids will get the treatment Markov got and Hainsey is getting and because of it he will NOT make it back to the NHl..
|
|