|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 13:45:01 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 24, 2002 13:45:01 GMT -5
besides Garon (possibly ), Hackett and Gilmour who is a pending UFA at season's end that may get shipped for picks a the deadline as a rental ??
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 14:08:10 GMT -5
Post by Psycorp on Oct 24, 2002 14:08:10 GMT -5
I think only Petrov become UFA this year
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 14:10:44 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 24, 2002 14:10:44 GMT -5
is that it psycorp you mean the old vet's are signed for at least the next season after this one when are we gonna find room for the young guys and how
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 14:15:57 GMT -5
Post by Psycorp on Oct 24, 2002 14:15:57 GMT -5
Well, you know Gilmour won't be back i think, real retirement has come.
so that's a place for someone like Ribeiro
I also think Quintal will see his role graetly reduced with Komisaurus making the team next year.
I also expect some trade will be made along the year ;D
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 14:44:12 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 24, 2002 14:44:12 GMT -5
gilmour okay that's one spot
Quintal reduced role I won't be holding my breath on that one that's for sure.
and a trade better happen big three 4 one deal to get a big center not nesasarily a super good one but an average big center to clog the front of the net on the PP so skilled winger's like Audette and cerk can posssibly do something.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 14:58:51 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 24, 2002 14:58:51 GMT -5
Lindsay as well
Petrov: not too sure he will sign with the way he is playing and how he looks not even close to the same Petrov with no Zed on his line
Doug: Rocking chair awaits
Quintal: I pray he retires
Hackett: gone for sure
No one else I am affraid
so...
Petrov goes we have Hossa Gilmour goes we have Ribs Quintal goes we have Komisarek Hack goes we have Garon
Not that is how you make a team younger..and some would argue even better
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 15:45:14 GMT -5
Post by PTH on Oct 24, 2002 15:45:14 GMT -5
Lindsay as well Petrov goes we have Hossa Gilmour goes we have Ribs Quintal goes we have Komisarek Hack goes we have Garon Not that is how you make a team younger..and some would argue even better Changing 4 of 20 roster players for kids is also a good way to go through some major growing pains all at once. But that's next year, and AS doesn't seem to care or even plan for farther than right now...
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 16:10:03 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 24, 2002 16:10:03 GMT -5
Changing 4 of 20 roster players for kids is also a good way to go through some major growing pains all at once. But that's next year, and AS doesn't seem to care or even plan for farther than right now... Not really. Growings pains would be bringing in 5-6-7 of them. 4, with one of them being a backup goalie and 2 others already having some NHL experience wouldn't be that drastic IMO. An example? Ottawa...Volchenkov, Schastlivy, Prusek and tonight Spezza have all been added and the team has not missed a beat
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 17:15:46 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 24, 2002 17:15:46 GMT -5
Not really. Growings pains would be bringing in 5-6-7 of them. 4, with one of them being a backup goalie and 2 others already having some NHL experience wouldn't be that drastic IMO. An example? Ottawa...Volchenkov, Schastlivy, Prusek and tonight Spezza have all been added and the team has not missed a beat Well Said MP and if the management team had the proper foresight this year would have seen Hossa playing instead of Cerkawski and Hainsey as well after this year it would be 2 sophomore's a backup goalie and a rookie or 2 in Komisarek and possibly Balej if Petrov leaves. Working 2 guys into the linup every season out of the 8 or more picks we get is about average which would mean every 12 to 15 year's the 23 man roster get's replaced. I constant stream of youth being introduced Savard is great at drafting but i have one question. Does it make sense to draft "the best player available" or the "Most qualified possibility." If next year's Best available is a defensemen will that be the appropriate desicion considering our lack of abilities up the middle.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 17:46:32 GMT -5
Post by PTH on Oct 24, 2002 17:46:32 GMT -5
Not really. Growings pains would be bringing in 5-6-7 of them. (sarcasm on) Oh of course, bringing in 4 is completely different from bringing in 5, even though there would also be Hainsey who'll still be quite raw, and that the veterans left won't include much leadership wise. (sarcasm off) Is it really good management to bring in 4 or 5 one year after barely bringing in one the year before ? (Hainsey is only here because of Souray's injury after all) You could see this coming miles and miles away Marc, when you aren't blinded by st-savard glasses it's actually been hard not to see this problem coming from a long time back.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 17:53:32 GMT -5
Post by Psycorp on Oct 24, 2002 17:53:32 GMT -5
If next year's Best available is a defensemen will that be the appropriate desicion considering our lack of abilities up the middle.
I think Savard is'nt afraid to move up or down in the draft to grab the players he really want, he showed it this year
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 17:55:36 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 24, 2002 17:55:36 GMT -5
Is it really good management to bring in 4 or 5 one year after barely bringing in one the year before ? (Hainsey is only here because of Souray's injury after all) You could see this coming miles and miles away Marc, when you aren't blinded by st-savard glasses it's actually been hard not to see this problem coming from a long time back. First of all, I must say I was just thinking of who from within could replace those UFA's or players retiring. That doesn't mean it will happen that way. We all know Petrov will probably sign a 4 year 10 million$ deal or something like that. So that would make it 3 rookies on the team With one of those 3 being a backup goalie playing about 15 games per year. Doesn't sounds like too big of a deal to me.. Besides, you keep saying we are an old team, don't you want a few kids in the lineup?
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 18:08:15 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 24, 2002 18:08:15 GMT -5
(sarcasm on) You could see this coming miles and miles away it's actually been hard not to see this problem coming from a long time back. this is so true AS has overshot his efforts to build depth and created a huge imbalance of spare parts. In The efforts to plug holes over the last couple season's the organization has forgotten to develop it's youngster's along the way. The goalie situation we have today would not exist had hack been dealt back when he and Theo we're "sharing" the number one role and hack's value was at a career high. (hindsight is 20 20 i know but the fact the organization didn't hand the reigns to theodore a few year's back was a mistake i've screamed about for a long long time now and unfortunately i was not around here at the time to dig up the proof.) The moves to bring in all the forwards over the year's have made it virtually impossible to give guy's like Hossa and Ribiero solid chances at cracking the lineup. Hopefully things change soon we need to start bringing more kids in and getting old guy's out. We have a huge logjam and if the organization doesn't change it's ways soon regarding it's youth development the problem is only gonna escalate into something worse than it already is. The thing that i want to point out PTH is that if we don't have one year where we move a bunch in we are eventually gonna have to trade our prospect's for more veteran's who we later lose as ufa's or retirement and that is definately much worse management than bringing in 4 or 5 in one year
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 18:45:43 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 24, 2002 18:45:43 GMT -5
In The efforts to plug holes over the last couple season's the organization has forgotten to develop it's youngster's along the way. The goalie situation we have today would not exist had hack been dealt back when he and Theo we're "sharing" the number one role and hack's value was at a career high. (hindsight is 20 20 i know but the fact the organization didn't hand the reigns to theodore a few year's back was a mistake i've screamed about for a long long time now and unfortunately i was not around here at the time to dig up the proof.) I agree...in 1999-2000 Hackett's value was at it's highest while Theodore was starting to dominate but since the Habs went on that late season run for the playoffs they decided to not trade Hackett and it has been a bad decision if you look at his value. But hindsight is always 20 20 as you said
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 24, 2002 20:09:23 GMT -5
Post by PTH on Oct 24, 2002 20:09:23 GMT -5
this is so true AS has overshot his efforts to build depth and created a huge imbalance of spare parts. .... The thing that i want to point out PTH is that if we don't have one year where we move a bunch in we are eventually gonna have to trade our prospect's for more veteran's who we later lose as ufa's or retirement and that is definately much worse management than bringing in 4 or 5 in one year No. You're wrong. There is nothing inevitable about this imbalance, it's a direct consequence of AS's signings and decisions. Of course you need to be bringing in kids at times, but 4 or 5 in a year is getting risky. By signing this meany veteran UFAs to contracts that finish over a short time span, AS created this problem from nothing. He's acquired something like 12 straight 30+ players, that's the kind of decision that can come back and haunt you. This is the old kids-veterans debate that's been around for a long time and you really should read up about if you want to jump in like this.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 25, 2002 20:25:20 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 25, 2002 20:25:20 GMT -5
No. You're wrong. There is nothing inevitable about this imbalance, it's a direct consequence of AS's signings and decisions. Of course you need to be bringing in kids at times, but 4 or 5 in a year is getting risky. By signing this meany veteran UFAs to contracts that finish over a short time span, AS created this problem from nothing. He's acquired something like 12 straight 30+ players, that's the kind of decision that can come back and haunt you. This is the old kids-veterans debate that's been around for a long time and you really should read up about if you want to jump in like this. what do you mean I'm Wrong i agree that we have too many veteran's in the lineup and need to bring in youth but if we don't start doing it more effectively we are gonna have a bunch of youth that have no place to play because the roster will be full of overpaid vet's. eventually something has to give wether it be we start bringing in more kids or we start trading them away for better veteran's one or the other. If you we're doing your own reading before coming down so hard on me you'd realize i feel it makes more sense to bring in only a couple young guy's a year rather than 4 or 5 I did state that earlier in the thread but by hampering youth development as we have because of savard's overshot in finding depth we now have a problem on our hands. If it is not corrected soon we will have even more youth and no place to put them. Then what do you propose we do. That's when the firesale happens if you ask me. And why the hate what did i say that was so offensive to draw that kind of response
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 25, 2002 20:51:30 GMT -5
Post by seventeen on Oct 25, 2002 20:51:30 GMT -5
Tone down that V-10, vipe. PTH just gets ornery occasionally (usually after waking up). Until AS sees the light of day and gets the paint thinner out so he can walk out of the corner, PTH will not forgive him. Actually it sounds to me that you're both making the same point but from different directions. Go figger.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 25, 2002 20:58:48 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 25, 2002 20:58:48 GMT -5
well ya i know which is why the response caught me off guard
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 25, 2002 22:56:17 GMT -5
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 25, 2002 22:56:17 GMT -5
Actually, they're both wrong.
We've got a bit of a situation on our hands but it's not grave by any means. Of the following six players, probably four and perhaps five will be gone by the time camp breaks in October 2003:
Hackett (a lock) Gilmour (a lock) Lindsay (a lock) Petrov (50/50) Audette (60/40) Dykhuis (70/30)
Hainsey is not here just because Souray is injured. They knew he was ready. If he hung out as the number 7 guy (Traverse down to Hamilton) and played well over the first few months, one of Dykhuis or Markov would've been moved.
People who are worried that we won't be able to move Audette or Dykhuis or Petrov are worried over nothing. We don't have to get anything of significant value for these guys because we didn't give up anything of significant value to get them.
Audette? We gave up pending UFA Rucinsky for the guy. Rucinsky didn't attract a single serious offer until October and he's working for almost half what he was paid last year. The 10 points that we got from Audette in the playoffs was alone worth Marty.
Dykhuis? Has some value but again we don't need to play hardball because it's just to make space. A guy like Karl would be scooped up by any one of about 8 or more teams in a heartbeat.
Petrov? Again, assuming we don't sign him, what do we have to hold out for in the way of compensation? If someone offers us a 4th rounder at the deadline off he goes.
So Hackett's gone and Garon assumes the back-up role.
Dykhuis goes and Hainsey works the left side along with Souray and Markov. Or, if Markov has to be moved to bring back a real player, Dykhuis stays. I can live with it either way.
Two of Audette, Petrov and Czerkawski go and Balej and Hossa step in.
Gilmour goes and Plekanec gets a legit shot at the 4th or 3rd center spot.
Hossa and Balej make the team. Komisarek comes up in January.
We start the season with one sophomore (Hainsey) and two real rookies: Hossa and Balej. Plekanec makes some noise but goes back. Komisarek does the same but they both join the team in the new year. So what's the problem?
Czerk/Koivu/Zednik Bulis/Perreault/Balej Kilger/Juneau/Dackell Hossa/Plekanec/Mckay
Presto! Seven forwards under the age of 28 and 3 of them under the age of 23. Balej, Hossa, Bulis, Zednik, Kilger, Mckay, Czerk are all 200 lbs or more.
On defence, by the new year, we look like this:
Souray/Brisebois Markov/Rivet Hainsey/Quintal
Komisarek
Presto! A defence with three guys under the age of 23 and four under the age of 28. The shrimp, Markov, is 200 lbs.
In goal, our average age will be 25.
So what's the problem? We're good sized, fast, and a lot younger. What AS is dealing with now is an inconvenience, not a crisis. Now I have to get back to studying.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 25, 2002 23:25:13 GMT -5
Post by Viper on Oct 25, 2002 23:25:13 GMT -5
Actually, they're both wrong. We've got a bit of a situation on our hands but it's not grave by any means. Of the following six players, probably four and perhaps five will be gone by the time camp breaks in October 2003: Hackett (a lock) Gilmour (a lock) Lindsay (a lock) Petrov (50/50) Audette (60/40) Dykhuis (70/30) Hainsey is not here just because Souray is injured. They knew he was ready. If he hung out as the number 7 guy (Traverse down to Hamilton) and played well over the first few months, one of Dykhuis or Markov would've been moved. You are not proposing we fill all these spots with rookies next season are you that is the point PTH is making too many too soon. People who are worried that we won't be able to move Audette or Dykhuis or Petrov are worried over nothing. We don't have to get anything of significant value for these guys because we didn't give up anything of significant value to get them. The thing that i question JV is why we're the acquisitions of Cerkawski and Audette nesacary when we could have let Hossa take on that role. this would have made the transition smoother for the youth without adding to much at a given time. Audette? We gave up pending UFA Rucinsky for the guy. Rucinsky didn't attract a single serious offer until October and he's working for almost half what he was paid last year. The 10 points that we got from Audette in the playoffs was alone worth Marty. Dykhuis? Has some value but again we don't need to play hardball because it's just to make space. A guy like Karl would be scooped up by any one of about 8 or more teams in a heartbeat. Petrov? Again, assuming we don't sign him, what do we have to hold out for in the way of compensation? If someone offers us a 4th rounder at the deadline off he goes. So Hackett's gone and Garon assumes the back-up role. I don't expect big return's but i somehow doubt that the movement of these player's is going to happen as you say it will to make way for younger leg's if it we're going to i believe it would havge already. We start the season with one sophomore (Hainsey) and two real rookies: Hossa and Balej. Plekanec makes some noise but goes back. Komisarek does the same but they both join the team in the new year. So what's the problem? Czerk/Koivu/Zednik Bulis/Perreault/Balej Kilger/Juneau/Dackell Hossa/Plekanec/Mckay Presto! Seven forwards under the age of 28 and 3 of them under the age of 23. Balej, Hossa, Bulis, Zednik, Kilger, Mckay, Czerk are all 200 lbs or more. On defence, by the new year, we look like this: Souray/Brisebois Markov/Rivet Hainsey/Quintal Komisarek so opening night roster will have the following rookies Hossa, Plekanec, Komi, Balej the following sophomore's Hainsey, bulis, and a third year guy in Markov. this is a total U-turn from the current approach MNGMNT seems to be using and seems higly unlikely to me. The only point i'm trying to make is this transition should have been smoother last year we started to break in Hossa and Markov when the summer roled around we picked up cerk when hossa could have stepped in. 2 rookies this year 3 if you count Markov. next year do that again with Balej or plekanec and Komi the year after that 2 more etcetera etcetera until you develop a solid core of homegrown talent then the free agent market and possible minor deal's here and there fill your holes on the way to contention and possible championship.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 1:13:03 GMT -5
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 26, 2002 1:13:03 GMT -5
You are not proposing we fill all these spots with rookies next season are you that is the point PTH is making too many too soon. Not all of them. Just two to start the year: Hossa and Balej plus the sophomore, Hainsey. Plekanec and Komisarek by the half-way markThe thing that i question JV is why we're the acquisitions of Cerkawski and Audette nesacary when we could have let Hossa take on that role. this would have made the transition smoother for the youth without adding to much at a given time. Audette was acquired because we couldn't score any goals with Koivu and Savage out and with Rucinsky sucking. Audette looked to be working out well and I suspect AS was confident that he could be moved later on if he didn't fit in. I expect he will start to get it done on the pp (his crossbar the other night was a gorgeous one-timer that a lot of players can never hope to make) and that he will be able to be moved if only for a mid-round pick. Hossa is not a right-handed shot, he was a raw recruit at the time and far from a proven NHL scorer. Plus, his long-term development was rightly viewed as a more important consideration than the very uncertain benefit he or the team could derive from throwing him into the heat of a playoff run in a role for which he wasn't then and probably still isn't suited. I don't expect big return's but i somehow doubt that the movement of these player's is going to happen as you say it will to make way for younger leg's if it we're going to i believe it would hav [happened] already. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because our better picks haven't been ready. They're now starting to ripen. For all the talk of Manny Malhotra the fact is that good young talent, especially offensive talent (something Malhotra does not have) is rarely acquired in exchange for ageing UFAs. As a result, AS went out and got tier two scorers under contract at little cost rather than rush our young guys or trade them for bona fide real deal players. Again, the guys coming of age have been underwhekming or downright depressing (Chouinard, Ward, Ribeiro, Jamieson et al)So opening night roster will have the following rookies Hossa, Plekanec, Komi, Balej No. Just Hossa and Balej. the following sophomore's: Hainsey, bulis, and a third year guy in Markov. Yup. Except that Markov will be entering his third year as a pro and Bulis his fourth or fifth. Bulis is past due, but he's showing a lot of what it was that Savard liked in his game from his days in Barrie (I believe) and Washington. this is a total U-turn from the current approach MNGMNT seems to be using and seems higly unlikely to me. No. Not a u-turn at all. This is what he's been planning from the start. It only looks like a u-turn because he's been getting older guys (at little cost in terms of picks and prospects) and now he's going to start dumping them as the quality picks ripen on the vine down in Hamilton. The only point i'm trying to make is this transition should have been smoother last year we started to break in Hossa and Markov when the summer roled around we picked up cerk when hossa could have stepped in. 2 rookies this year 3 if you count Markov. Markov was already being broken in last year. Hossa looked good in his 10 games last year and had a good camp. The kind of transition to the NHL that Savard wants to see is like Hainsey's. That's the model. Granted, Hainsey is an elite talent, but the idea is that if they can still benefit from the AHL and make the transition more smoothly (even if later) then that's the thing to do. I like that way of thinking. They may be trying to make sure Ron doesn't get too big a head and lose his focus (on learning) by sitting him down for a few games, but to me it's a detail. What AS and MT know is that this guy is ready to play at this level. It's actually smoother this way. What makes things complicated is when you have guys who're on the NHL roster but they don't have the confidence yet and you don't have the confidence in them to play them steadily, so they watch from the pressbox, etc, etc. That's not going to be the Ron Hainsey story and it shouldn't be the Hossa or Komisarek stories next year. Balej is also a very good bet to be ready next year and (to me) that applies to Plekanec as well.
This has actually been a well conceived and executed plan for keeping the team competitive (2nd round of the playoffs, albeit in large measure due to Theodore's play, while allowing the solid picks from the last three years to develop away from the freaking circus that is pro hockey in Montreal. All you have to do is consider the hysteria after a couple of blowouts (6 games into the season) to recognize that it's a good thing to be solid on your skates when you arrive in town.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 9:23:47 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 26, 2002 9:23:47 GMT -5
Hackett (a lock) Gilmour (a lock) Lindsay (a lock) Petrov (50/50) Audette (60/40) Dykhuis (70/30) And you forgot Quintal who HAS to retire after this year. I mean this can't go on!!! Good point. This is the problem I have. I doubt Plekanec would be able to do that much on a 4th line with grinders. After seeing the ''hi ho silver'' approach fail this year, you can be assued AS will stick with the ''2 offensive lines, 1 checking line,1 grind/bump line'' approach. January next year(2004)? Looks good... Replace Q with Komi and I have no problem with it ;D and it's 2 guys under 23 but what the heck But what worries me IS WILL THEY FINALLY GIVE THE FREAKIN KIDS A SHOT!
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 11:12:59 GMT -5
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 26, 2002 11:12:59 GMT -5
They're not in the business of giving people "shots" at the NHL, at least not in the sense that they should be tossing kids into the NHL lineup to "see" if they can get it done. They're in the business of developing talent that will succeed at the NHL level. That takes talent plus time. Hossa, for example, is not going to "get a shot", he's going to come to camp next year with a solid foundation of professional experience and with his game where it needs to be to take a roster spot. Savard will expect him to make the team. Same with Komisarek. Same with Balej and Plekanec. If Plekanec and Balej need another year in Hamilton, that's what they'll get. I say Komisarek by January 04 because my guess is he'll be a little slower than Hainsey to develop, but again, I have to ask "who cares?". When he's really ready to step in, when he can get in their and not just tread water and try to stay afloat but is actually ready, physically, technically and mentally, that's when he'll join the team and take a spot. These guys could be foundations for the team for the next 10 years, at least Komisarek and Hainsey could be, and there is every reason to take our time rather than to rush them in because we see Quintal drop the ball once a game (memo to hockey fans: there are only about a dozen defencemen in the conference who don't make "a mistake" at least once a night).
These young guys -- the four or five we've been talking about -- are talented. They're good prospects and I for one can wait. And when they come up and meld right in to the lineup a lot of people will be surprised, the way Hainsey has been a surprise to people who don't follow the Habs that closely. But to us he's not a surprise at all. I watched him in camp last year and twice in Quebec, and through this board a lot of us followed his development, and it wasn't a surprise at all when he played as well as he did in camp this year. Because he was ready. That's the way to do it. Savard knows what he's doing when it comes to developing these kids. This is not Columbus. It is not Nashville or even Minnesota. A prospect can get crushed in Montreal more easily. Much more easily.
By the way, the only reason Ribeiro was with the team was his status vis a vis waivers. We actually have no use for him here. That's not going to change, either. Plekanec will be a regular with this team before Mike Ribeiro. You heard it here first.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 11:49:14 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 26, 2002 11:49:14 GMT -5
By the way, the only reason Ribeiro was with the team was his status vis a vis waivers. We actually have no use for him here. That's not going to change, either. Plekanec will be a regular with this team before Mike Ribeiro. You heard it here first. Well you are wrong. Because Ribeiro, once he is healthy, will be a ''regular'' with this team because he can't be sent down. What you should say is, Plekanec will be a bigger contributor for this team than Ribeiro will be.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 12:36:19 GMT -5
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 26, 2002 12:36:19 GMT -5
When Mike Ribeiro puts together a streak of 40 or so games where he is dressed and actually plays, I'll consider him a regular player, even if only temporarily. The fact that a guy can't be sent down doesn't mean anything. Garon is "here" too, or will be again soon after his conditioning stint. Is he a "regular player"?
I think until we notify you otherwise, you should not use the word "wrong" when addressing me or most of the other more senior (though less prolific) posters. PTH, BadCo, Doc et al can use the term "wrong". You are only authorized to advise us that we might have "forgotten" a particular fact.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 13:52:40 GMT -5
Post by seventeen on Oct 26, 2002 13:52:40 GMT -5
[quote author=JohnnyVerdun link=board=general&thread=1035485101&start=22#1 date=1035648779 [/quote]
They're not in the business of giving people "shots" at the NHL, at least not in the sense that they should be tossing kids into the NHL lineup to "see" if they can get it done. They're in the business of developing talent that will succeed at the NHL level. That takes talent plus time.
No argument. Where I've differed with Savard is at the speed of which this should take place. I saw Hainsey and Hossa as being ready to contribute more than some of the existing 'vets' earlier than this October. Savard's been juggling the 'gotta make the playoffs', with the 'develop a good future team' goal. He has to because the revenues require some playoff dates. I see the expiry date on some of our vets (Quintal, Dykhuis and possibly Brisebois, plus a few forwards) as having been passed and that the growing pains of a young guy would be made up for by their enthusiasm and energy.
I say Komisarek by January 04 because my guess is he'll be a little slower than Hainsey to develop, but again, I have to ask "who cares?". When he's really ready to step in, when he can get in their and not just tread water and try to stay afloat but is actually ready, physically, technically and mentally, that's when he'll join the team and take a spot.
Ideally, yes. If he's improved by Christmas, I'd bring him up. The last couple of games against the Flyers really highlighted the total lack of respect for our team by a bigger team. He's not a Quintal. He will learn. Ten to 15 minutes a game and put up with his mistakes.
(memo to hockey fans: there are only about a dozen defencemen in the conference who don't make "a mistake" at least once a night).
It's the 12 times a night I find troubling in Quintal's case. I could pick out poor positioning or poor decision making on his part on every shift.
While I understand Savard's predicament, he has not helped his cause by focusing on individual parts instead of how they fit into the team picture. You stated that Audette's acquisition didn't cost us anything. Well, my opinion of Rucinsky was pretty poor, so in that sense, yes, giving him away was an improvement. We needed scoring and Audette fit the bill. In hindsight, I'd rather have Malhotra because he fits our team picture better. We need a big, checking centre to neutralize the Lindros' and Primeaus of the world. Or Doug Jarvis to come out of retirement. At the time, Savard needed scoring, so I'm not bothered by the Audette trade. If you recall, I was furious at the Czerkawski deal, though. Mostly because I thought Asham had the cojones and skills to add something to our 'team' concept. Well, we got rid of a 4th liner for another, albeit larger, Audette and now it's biting us. Who would be more welcome right now, Asham or Czerkawski?. Heck, Asham has twice as many points as Czerk. (that sounds really good, but it's only 4 vs 2). I would cheer for Asham's toughness now. We have a team that treads very lightly. If the logistics allowed, I'd have Hossa and Odette up immediately. All the other kids need more seasoning. I'd be playing Hainsey, Rivet and Markov a lot. Quintal, Brisebois and Dykhuis less, until they got the message. For all my criticism of MT, his choices are limited, because of contracts and player numbers. A few more losses and the pressure will really pile on AS. It's then that he has to hunker down and wait for a decent deal and not succumb. His next deal may be very interesting and tell us a lot about the man.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 14:20:06 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 26, 2002 14:20:06 GMT -5
When Mike Ribeiro puts together a streak of 40 or so games where he is dressed and actually plays, I'll consider him a regular player, even if only temporarily. The fact that a guy can't be sent down doesn't mean anything. Garon is "here" too, or will be again soon after his conditioning stint. Is he a "regular player"? Fine. 40 or so games. Didn't he do that(or close to it) last year from early December to early March?
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 14:41:40 GMT -5
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Oct 26, 2002 14:41:40 GMT -5
MP: Well, not to me. Not when they're forced to play him on the wing (even with Saku out of the lineup, so while we were presumably in need of a centerman), not when they use him for stretches as a pp specialist, not when he eventually ends up in the pressbox.
Seventeen: I was talking about January 2004for Komisarek.
I agree about Czerk. I was one of Asham's most vociferous supporters and I still think a third line of Kilger/Juneau/Asham would be a blast to watch.
We're getting bit by the Czerk thing but is only 7 games in after all.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 17:02:53 GMT -5
Post by seventeen on Oct 26, 2002 17:02:53 GMT -5
MP: Seventeen: I was talking about January 2004for Komisarek. I know. I think he's bright enough that he'll be adequately prepared by Jan 2003. It also indicates how weak I think our current defense group still is. One small advantage Komi has over Hainsey in development time is simply physical. Komi doesn't have to get any stronger...just wiser. Give him 2 more months. If not, then whenever he's ready, I guess.
|
|
|
UFA's
Oct 26, 2002 17:53:28 GMT -5
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 26, 2002 17:53:28 GMT -5
you are forgetting one thing 17
The only man blocking a spot from Komi is signed for next year at a huge salary.
This guy has been atrocious this year at a glorious -6 yet keeps on getting playing time
This guy is a francophone veteran who couldn't crack 50% of the teams in this league and yet we ''had'' to get him back
The only thing this guy brings to the table is his ability to fight.
|
|