Frolov to Habs

[HFTO]

Via HIO on hockey30.com D'Agostini O'Byrne and Stewart for Frolov???
That'd be a no brainer considering he played with Camelleri would the Kings consider it definitely improves their depth at low salaries and doesn't clear much space for us though?..and then we still need that centre.
Loving all the Hab speculation if there's smoke there has to be some fire ...haven't heard so many rumours in a very long time.
Time will tell,regardless lets hope somehow some way we can move some salary to make us even stronger.

HFTO

[blny]

IMO he's a younger Kovalev. An interesting rumour. Would seem to me though a lopsided trade for us.

[jkr]

He only has a year left on his deal. Ufa at teh end of the season.

[buzz]

According to CKAC and TEAM990 in Montreal, the LA Kings and the Montreal Canadiens are in talks and it seems that Bob Gainey is interested in Alexander Frolov. A possible return would involve a package of the Kostitsyn brothers including a young roster player. LA would also be parting with draft picks and/or young prospects.
While this rumor is unverified, it seems it has all the components to be real. This was taken off a french website and was not made up by any of the staff on HockeyBums.

hockey-bums.com/archives/1212

www.hockey30.com/magazine/rumeur-frolov-a-montreal/

[Deleted]

Size, skill, proven goal-scorer. You would have to give up quite a bit to get him, although I'd rather keep the likes of D'agostini and Stewart. Kostitsyn brothers I'm still not sure.

[CrocRob]

Isn't this an Eklund rumour?

[blny]

One year and a UFA? Alex has had two 30g seasons, but never put up more than 71pts. He's a good left winger though. He's got size, but I don't know about his speed. IMO, Akost can be the player Frolov is, and maybe even a bit more. He'd be cheaper to re-sign next summer too. Unless Frolov signs an extension I'd be leery of making this move.

[franko]

Did our GM retire at the end of the season? Has he been replaced without anyone knowing?

Where is the "I don't make a move without thinking long hard and seriously about it forever Bob"?

[cheap imagery redux]

[Gogie]

Aug 1, 2009 19:26:41 GMT -5 blny said:

One year and a UFA? Alex has had two 30g seasons, but never put up more than 71pts. He's a good left winger though. He's got size, but I don't know about his speed. IMO, Akost can be the player Frolov is, and maybe even a bit more. He'd be cheaper to re-sign next summer too. Unless Frolov signs an extension I'd be leery of making this move.

This!!!

Personally I wouldn't trade AK straight up for Frolov. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think AK will end up being the better player. Sure, he's been a work-in-progress, but I've watched him since his first days in Hamilton and he's got certain skills that just can't be taught (not the least of which is a wrist shot that is second to none).

[blny]

It's entertaining, sort of, to see how fans value "their" players. Fans of the hfboard seem to think Frolov is worth a hell of a lot more than the TWO Kostitsyns, Obi, etc.

I honestly think that at his ceiling, Andrei Kostitsyn is easily as good as Frolov. In the last 4 seasons, Alex has averaged 74.75 games, 27.75 goals (if he holds to pattern he's up for a sub 25 goal season), and 62.75 points. That's hardly elite, and hardly worth BOTH tits. Andrei has put up more points in his first two seasons than Alex did in his.

[blny]

hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=20634100&posted=1#post20634100

Above is the Kings' forum thread re. the rumour. My post is #19.

"It's always interesting to see how fans value the players on their respective teams.

Scouting report on Frolov is as follows:

www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/p...xander_Frolov/

Scouting report on Andrei Kostitsyn:

www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/p...rei_Kostitsyn/

Frolov has averaged over the last four season 74.75 games, 27.75 goals (if he holds to pattern he's up for a sub 25 goal season), and 62.75 points. That's hardly elite, and bases solely on that is hardly worth BOTH Kostitsyns in my opinion.

If you look at Alex's first two seasons, Andrei (in his first two full seasons) has more points and goals in comparison. The argument could easily be made that Andrei's upside is higher. He has an elite shot, and is still learning to unleash it (despite scoring 23 and 26 goals in the last two years).

Frolov has one year at $4 million and then he's a UFA. Andrei has two years left at $3.25 million and he's still an RFA after that. That's a large discrepancy.

As for the sensationalistic 'journalism' of La Presse that linked the brothers and Roman Hamrlik to this entity, all you need to do is consider the source. La Presse's credentials for covering the team were rescinded last year. They're not allowed to travel with, or participate in media scrums at the Bell Centre. In fact, they're not allowed in the Bell Centre. They're as bad as a British tabloid. They fabricated a story based on the coincidental fact that the players and this entity happened to live in the same building. No one denies the players know of this person, but their relationship with the person has never been substantiated. Also, ask yourself why the story was released? Coincidence? I think not. They were the only publication to release it. They did it because they were barred by the team. They did it when the team was down.

I'm not here to say Frolov is a bad hockey player. I think he's a fine player. On a great team he's likely a second line player. On a good team he's a first liner. Elite talent doesn't make an elite player, and I don't believe he can be considered the latter - yet.

If the Kings were able to get both Kostitsyn players for Frolov, and nothing else, I would argue that they fleeced the Canadiens. Given their contract status, performance, age, etc, an argument could be made for a straight up deal of Andrei Kostitsyn for Alexander Frolov. In reality, Kostitsyn and a draft pick between the 3rd and 6th rounds would be reasonably fair. If Frolov would sign long term for what he's making now, I'd consider upping the ante - if I was truly interested. I'm not though.

I think Kostitsyn will be every bit as good as Frolov. Perhaps better. Given that he's younger, cheaper, and locked up for two more seasons and still has one more contract before becoming a UFA, I think his value to a team is VERY high."

[HFTO]

The deal I relayed is lopsided for sure and I didn't think it was enough for Frolov although sometimes quantity in depth pays of especially if you are lurking for bigger fish or are trying to get as much a return in possible for a player you may not sign.
Anyways I'd suspect it would take more but I too wouldn't trade A Kots if he can get in his head to shoot shoot shoot he'has potential to be a regular 30 plus guy,especially without Kovy around.
This is a big year for A Kots hopefully he comes through.

HFTO

[cigarviper]

Aug 1, 2009 21:33:53 GMT -5 blny said:

hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=20634100&posted=1#post20634100

Above is the Kings' forum thread re. the rumour. My post is #19.

"It's always interesting to see how fans value the players on their respective teams.

Scouting report on Frolov is as follows:



Scouting report on Andrei Kostitsyn:

www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/p...rei_Kostitsyn/

Frolov has averaged over the last four season 74.75 games, 27.75 goals (if he holds to pattern he's up for a sub 25 goal season), and 62.75 points. That's hardly elite, and bases solely on that is hardly worth BOTH Kostitsyns in my opinion.

If you look at Alex's first two seasons, Andrei (in his first two full seasons) has more points and goals in comparison. The argument could easily be made that Andrei's upside is higher. He has an elite shot, and is still learning to unleash it (despite scoring 23 and 26 goals in the last two years).

Frolov has one year at $4 million and then he's a UFA. Andrei has two years left at $3.25 million and he's still an RFA after that. That's a large discrepancy.

As for the sensationalistic 'journalism' of La Presse that linked the brothers and Roman Hamrlik to this entity, all you need to do is consider the source. La Presse's credentials for covering the team were rescinded last year. They're not allowed to travel with, or participate in media scrums at the Bell Centre. In fact, they're not allowed in the Bell Centre. They're as bad as a British tabloid. They fabricated a story based on the coincidental fact that the players and this entity happened to live in the same building. No one denies the players know of this person, but their relationship with the person has never been substantiated. Also, ask yourself why the story was released? Coincidence? I think not. They were the only publication to release it. They did it because they were barred by the team. They did it when the team was down.

I'm not here to say Frolov is a bad hockey player. I think he's a fine player. On a great team he's likely a second line player. On a good team he's a first liner. Elite talent doesn't make an elite player, and I don't believe he can be considered the latter - yet.

If the Kings were able to get both Kostitsyn players for Frolov, and nothing else, I would argue that they fleeced the Canadiens. Given their contract status, performance, age, etc, an argument could be made for a straight up deal of Andrei Kostitsyn for Alexander Frolov. In reality, Kostitsyn and a draft pick between the 3rd and 6th rounds would be reasonably fair. If Frolov would sign long term for what he's making now, I'd consider upping the ante - if I was truly interested. I'm not though.

I think Kostitsyn will be every bit as good as Frolov. Perhaps better. Given that he's younger, cheaper, and locked up for two more seasons and still has one more contract before becoming a UFA, I think his value to a team is VERY high."

Solid post. After watching this video today, I dream of aKost putting all together for a full season this year on the right wing.

[blny]

Thanks CV. I just don't think you can honestly give up on AKost at this point. He's not really done anything to warrant being given up on. He's had two good, but not great, seasons. He's in the same draft class as Parise, and I think that some are looking at Parise's success and saying that Akost is a failure.

I think this is the turning point season. Either Akost shows he's going to take the next step, or he doesn't. If mgt honestly feel he won't, then you move him now before he shows he can't take the next step. I think he can though. I also think he will.

[Doc Holliday]

Aug 1, 2009 21:33:53 GMT -5 blny said:

hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=20634100&posted=1#post20634100

Above is the Kings' forum thread re. the rumour. My post is #19.

"It's always interesting to see how fans value the players on their respective teams.

Scouting report on Frolov is as follows:

www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/p...xander_Frolov/

Scouting report on Andrei Kostitsyn:

www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/p...rei_Kostitsyn/

Frolov has averaged over the last four season 74.75 games, 27.75 goals (if he holds to pattern he's up for a sub 25 goal season), and 62.75 points. That's hardly elite, and bases solely on that is hardly worth BOTH Kostitsyns in my opinion.

If you look at Alex's first two seasons, Andrei (in his first two full seasons) has more points and goals in comparison. The argument could easily be made that Andrei's upside is higher. He has an elite shot, and is still learning to unleash it (despite scoring 23 and 26 goals in the last two years).

Frolov has one year at $4 million and then he's a UFA. Andrei has two years left at $3.25 million and he's still an RFA after that. That's a large discrepancy.

As for the sensationalistic 'journalism' of La Presse that linked the brothers and Roman Hamrlik to this entity, all you need to do is consider the source. La Presse's credentials for covering the team were rescinded last year. They're not allowed to travel with, or participate in media scrums at the Bell Centre. In fact, they're not allowed in the Bell Centre. They're as bad as a British tabloid. They fabricated a story based on the coincidental fact that the players and this entity happened to live in the same building. No one denies the players know of this person, but their relationship with the person has never been substantiated. Also, ask yourself why the story was released? Coincidence? I think not. They were the only publication to release it. They did it because they were barred by the team. They did it when the team was down.

I'm not here to say Frolov is a bad hockey player. I think he's a fine player. On a great team he's likely a second line player. On a good team he's a first liner. Elite talent doesn't make an elite player, and I don't believe he can be considered the latter - yet.

If the Kings were able to get both Kostitsyn players for Frolov, and nothing else, I would argue that they fleeced the Canadiens. Given their contract status, performance, age, etc, an argument could be made for a straight up deal of Andrei Kostitsyn for Alexander Frolov. In reality, Kostitsyn and a draft pick between the 3rd and 6th rounds would be reasonably fair. If Frolov would sign long term for what he's making now, I'd consider upping the ante - if I was truly interested. I'm not though.

I think Kostitsyn will be every bit as good as Frolov. Perhaps better. Given that he's younger, cheaper, and locked up for two more seasons and still has one more contract before becoming a UFA, I think his value to a team is VERY high."

Don't want to revisit this sad episode but I wanted to clarify and correct a few things:

Don't want to defend LaPresse but they did not invent the story. There was a police investigation on a Montreal mafia member and yes, the K brothers and Hammer were in contact with that person. In the end no accusation were launched against the players but the fact remain that they were in contact with him, multiple times, enough so for them to be investigated. LaPresse did botch the coverage on it I agree but most media took the story and ran with it, adding their own little twist to it. Demers calling it the "darkest day in HABS history" without even knowing the details of what was about to be released is an example.

As well, LaPresse did not get their press credential revoked nor are they barred from the team. Brunet, Gagnon, Tremblay and Co. are still around the team (for good or bad). However, one of Gainey's first decision when he took over was to remove every media members for the team's flight.

The K brothers did have a tough time last year both on an off the ice. Like most youngsters mind you. The lack of structure, disciplin and guidance had horrible effects. I've never been a huge fan of AK personally (off-ice stories aside) but I really liked what I was seeing of SK on his first year. However I don't consider any of them untouchable on this team. IF (big IF) Gainey feels their attitude was detrimental to the team than I hope he finishes up the cleaning contract he started so that we can finally see a team that's focus on hockey.

[blny]

Hey Doc. Appreciate clarification. My understanding is that at some point during the season La Presse was banned, and it was before the story came out. I can't recall where I read it, but noted that the source of the information seemed credible.

WRT to the players being investigated, I think the fact they were high profile people not only drew interest from the mob figure, but the police as well. IF the players were spending too much time in the presence of this guy, hopefully they learned their lesson. I have my doubts they were truly buddy buddy with him though.

[The New Guy]

Aug 3, 2009 8:15:25 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

Don't want to defend LaPresse but they did not invent the story. There was a police investigation on a Montreal mafia member and yes, the K brothers and Hammer were in contact with that person. In the end no accusation were launched against the players but the fact remain that they were in contact with him, multiple times, enough so for them to be investigated. LaPresse did botch the coverage on it I agree but most media took the story and ran with it, adding their own little twist to it. Demers calling it the "darkest day in HABS history" without even knowing the details of what was about to be released is an example.

But see, they did invent the story. They did make the proverbial tempest in the teapot (or mountain of the molehill, if you prefer). As I pointed out at the time, how many of us know people with a criminal background? If it's not close to one hundred percent, then some of us are really ignorant about the people we know.

What was at issue was how often the Kostitsyn brothers were in contact with our (incredibly small time) mobster. This is also easily explained. Two brothers, stuck in a place where they don't speak the language, where they don't know the customs, thousands upon thousands of miles away from their homeland and more money than common sense can easily find their way into trouble. It does not mean their bad. It does not mean that they're guilty of anything. It does not mean they deserve to have their names dragged through the mud. This small-time crook probably set himself up as a good friend of the pair. He probably looked out for them. Helped them buy cars and whatever else it is that they enjoy doing in their spare time. Why? Because it's always good to have someone with money owe you a favour. Especially when you're a criminal.

It happens. You get in with the wrong crowd, you get associated with the wrong people and you might not even know it. Ask any number of Hall of Famer's if they knew Alan Eagleson was a crook. Ask Craig Leipold and Gary Bettman if they knew if Boots Del Baggio was a crook (and that was a business deal - they should've done a little something called due diligence and known better). People get swindled all the time. But for these two kids it becomes not only an incident, not only on the front page of the newspapers, but the "darkest day in Canadiens history".

Sorry - if La Presse had stopped to think instead of rushing this story to print (IMHO they did this because they had been slighted by Gainey who was trying to keep the media away from his players) then nothing would have happened.

You know something? Two people were fired in New Brunswick when a newspaper decided to blow up a similar non-story about Harper and the communion host. La Presse, sadly, doesn't have the decency to own up to their mistakes.

[Doc Holliday]

Aug 3, 2009 12:19:56 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Aug 3, 2009 8:15:25 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

Don't want to defend LaPresse but they did not invent the story. There was a police investigation on a Montreal mafia member and yes, the K brothers and Hammer were in contact with that person. In the end no accusation were launched against the players but the fact remain that they were in contact with him, multiple times, enough so for them to be investigated. LaPresse did botch the coverage on it I agree but most media took the story and ran with it, adding their own little twist to it. Demers calling it the "darkest day in HABS history" without even knowing the details of what was about to be released is an example.

But see, they did invent the story. They did make the proverbial tempest in the teapot (or mountain of the molehill, if you prefer). As I pointed out at the time, how many of us know people with a criminal background? If it's not close to one hundred percent, then some of us are really ignorant about the people we know.

What was at issue was how often the Kostitsyn brothers were in contact with our (incredibly small time) mobster. This is also easily explained. Two brothers, stuck in a place where they don't speak the language, where they don't know the customs, thousands upon thousands of miles away from their homeland and more money than common sense can easily find their way into trouble. It does not mean their bad. It does not mean that they're guilty of anything. It does not mean they deserve to have their names dragged through the mud. This small-time crook probably set himself up as a good friend of the pair. He probably looked out for them. Helped them buy cars and whatever else it is that they enjoy doing in their spare time. Why? Because it's always good to have someone with money owe you a favour. Especially when you're a criminal.

It happens. You get in with the wrong crowd, you get associated with the wrong people and you might not even know it. Ask any number of Hall of Famer's if they knew Alan Eagleson was a crook. Ask Craig Leipold and Gary Bettman if they knew if Boots Del Baggio was a crook (and that was a business deal - they should've done a little something called due diligence and known better). People get swindled all the time. But for these two kids it becomes not only an incident, not only on the front page of the newspapers, but the "darkest day in Canadiens history".

Sorry - if La Presse had stopped to think instead of rushing this story to print (IMHO they did this because they had been slighted by Gainey who was trying to keep the media away from his players) then nothing would have happened.

You know something? Two people were fired in New Brunswick when a newspaper decided to blow up a similar non-story about Harper and the communion host. La Presse, sadly, doesn't have the decency to own up to their mistakes.

And again I want to stress out the LaPress did not "invent" anything. There was a police investigation going on (which the police themselves commented on btw) on these 3 players and that is precisely what they reported. They did not accuse them of anything, in fact it was even written in the article that no charge were yet pressed. Should the story have been covered? Maybe but hockey players in Montreal have waaaay too much visibility for such a story to remain covered. I mean, Hainsey non-payment of his rent made the news so ties with a notorious criminal had no chance of staying quiet IMO. I certainly would agree with anyone that the story came out as sensationalism especially the hours preceeding the publication where every media outlet were talking about a bomb that would shake the fundation of the HABS... Most of them doing so without any kind of details...

Now did the story print because Gainey cut the bridges between the team and the media? Well, let's just say that Bob can't expect any kind of favors... But that's his call. ...Pat Burns was saying, how, in his time in Montreal, very often journalists would actually talk to them when player xyz was in some kind of trouble before printing anything. Obviously that kind of "agreement" was a 2-way street.

[The New Guy]

Aug 3, 2009 13:30:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

And again I want to stress out the LaPress did not "invent" anything. There was a police investigation going on (which the police themselves commented on btw) on these 3 players and that is precisely what they reported. They did not accuse them of anything, in fact it was even written in the article that no charge were yet pressed. Should the story have been covered? Maybe but hockey players in Montreal have waaaay too much visibility for such a story to remain covered. I mean, Hainsey non-payment of his rent made the news so ties with a notorious criminal had no chance of staying quiet IMO. I certainly would agree with anyone that the story came out as sensationalism especially the hours preceeding the publication where every media outlet were talking about a bomb that would shake the fundation of the HABS... Most of them doing so without any kind of details...

Don't take this the wrong way Doc - I'm not trying to imply anything negative about you personally - but that's exactly the way La Presse wants you to see it. They didn't "invent" any facts. They didn't lie. What they did, however, was present the truth in such a way that the teeming masses read for more into it then what was there.

Have you ever heard that (very true) story about Dihydrogen Monoxide? Essentially a young lad in California (I think) decided he'd do an experiment in social engineering for his high school science project. So he started a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Now, DHMO, if you're not familiar with it, does a lot of bad things. Gaseous DHMO causes severe burns, while prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause severe tissue damage as well. It leads to the corrosion and oxidation of many metals. It is found in pre-cancerous tumours.

It's also water.

Not one of the above facts about water is a lie. But it's certainly not even remotely noteworthy. Anyone who talked about banning water would be laughed at. But rename it and you've got a perfect, honest piece of journalism. At least according to the standard of La Presse.

Consider yourself. Let's say I see you at the bar with a couple buddies. You get up from your table and go to the bar where this pretty young thing, who might not even be legal to be in the bar, is getting drinks for her friends - a crowd of similar-aged young people who are sitting around doing whatever it is barely legal young people do these days. Because you're a bit tipsy and naturally clumsy you knock over one of her drinks, but you're a gentleman so you buy her a new one. I take a picture of this, caption it with the headline "Doc buys drink for young, hot teenager" and run it in the local newspaper, which your wife sees. Suddenly you've got some explaining to do, yet nothing I wrote was a word of a lie.

Journalists - at least respectable ones - do not worry only about the "facts". When they write (or appear on the radio or television or what have you) they must also be aware of what the imply with their words. The La Presse article and the entire hullabaloo clearly ignore that. They are interested only in twisting the facts to support their story. That type of writing belongs only in the tabloids, which in turn belongs only in the trash. It is not true journalism, it is not truly the news. It is the refuse of society.

[Gogie]

Aug 4, 2009 8:14:23 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Aug 3, 2009 13:30:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

And again I want to stress out the LaPress did not "invent" anything. There was a police investigation going on (which the police themselves commented on btw) on these 3 players and that is precisely what they reported. They did not accuse them of anything, in fact it was even written in the article that no charge were yet pressed. Should the story have been covered? Maybe but hockey players in Montreal have waaaay too much visibility for such a story to remain covered. I mean, Hainsey non-payment of his rent made the news so ties with a notorious criminal had no chance of staying quiet IMO. I certainly would agree with anyone that the story came out as sensationalism especially the hours preceeding the publication where every media outlet were talking about a bomb that would shake the fundation of the HABS... Most of them doing so without any kind of details...

Don't take this the wrong way Doc - I'm not trying to imply anything negative about you personally - but that's exactly the way La Presse wants you to see it. They didn't "invent" any facts. They didn't lie. What they did, however, was present the truth in such a way that the teeming masses read for more into it then what was there.

Have you ever heard that (very true) story about Dihydrogen Monoxide? Essentially a young lad in California (I think) decided he'd do an experiment in social engineering for his high school science project. So he started a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Now, DHMO, if you're not familiar with it, does a lot of bad things. Gaseous DHMO causes severe burns, while prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause severe tissue damage as well. It leads to the corrosion and oxidation of many metals. It is found in pre-cancerous tumours.

It's also water.

Not one of the above facts about water is a lie. But it's certainly not even remotely noteworthy. Anyone who talked about banning water would be laughed at. But rename it and you've got a perfect, honest piece of journalism. At least according to the standard of La Presse.

Consider yourself. Let's say I see you at the bar with a couple buddies. You get up from your table and go to the bar where this pretty young thing, who might not even be legal to be in the bar, is getting drinks for her friends - a crowd of similar-aged young people who are sitting around doing whatever it is barely legal young people do these days. Because you're a bit tipsy and naturally clumsy you knock over one of her drinks, but you're a gentleman so you buy her a new one. I take a picture of this, caption it with the headline "Doc buys drink for young, hot teenager" and run it in the local newspaper, which your wife sees. Suddenly you've got some explaining to do, yet nothing I wrote was a word of a lie.

Journalists - at least respectable ones - do not worry only about the "facts". When they write (or appear on the radio or television or what have you) they must also be aware of what the imply with their words. The La Presse article and the entire hullabaloo clearly ignore that. They are interested only in twisting the facts to support their story. That type of writing belongs only in the tabloids, which in turn belongs only in the trash. It is not true journalism, it is not truly the news. It is the refuse of society.

TNG - you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply referring Doc to any issue of the National Enquirer. That's an excellent example of "sensationalism" (as opposed to "journalism"). I'm sure most of the time the Enquirer is full of "facts" but I certainly don't think too many people place any stock in the "stories". I don't read La Presse (and couldn't even if I wanted to - I can't read French) but I suspect along the sensationalsim-journalism spectrum it lies much closer to the left than the right, at least with respect to this particular topic.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Seems the majority of trade rumours circle around the Habs. If it isn't the Habs dealing directly, they're involved on the side as a third party.

HFTO, why don't you publish a book, or start a thread, or both, on "Waiting for the Great Pumpkin"? It would deal with Habs trade rumours exclusively. Me thinks both would probably be pretty successful and the thread won't go away even in the off-season.

Cheers.

[Doc Holliday]

Aug 4, 2009 8:14:23 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Aug 3, 2009 13:30:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

And again I want to stress out the LaPress did not "invent" anything. There was a police investigation going on (which the police themselves commented on btw) on these 3 players and that is precisely what they reported. They did not accuse them of anything, in fact it was even written in the article that no charge were yet pressed. Should the story have been covered? Maybe but hockey players in Montreal have waaaay too much visibility for such a story to remain covered. I mean, Hainsey non-payment of his rent made the news so ties with a notorious criminal had no chance of staying quiet IMO. I certainly would agree with anyone that the story came out as sensationalism especially the hours preceeding the publication where every media outlet were talking about a bomb that would shake the fundation of the HABS... Most of them doing so without any kind of details...

Don't take this the wrong way Doc - I'm not trying to imply anything negative about you personally - but that's exactly the way La Presse wants you to see it. They didn't "invent" any facts. They didn't lie. What they did, however, was present the truth in such a way that the teeming masses read for more into it then what was there.

Have you ever heard that (very true) story about Dihydrogen Monoxide? Essentially a young lad in California (I think) decided he'd do an experiment in social engineering for his high school science project. So he started a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Now, DHMO, if you're not familiar with it, does a lot of bad things. Gaseous DHMO causes severe burns, while prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause severe tissue damage as well. It leads to the corrosion and oxidation of many metals. It is found in pre-cancerous tumours.

It's also water.

Not one of the above facts about water is a lie. But it's certainly not even remotely noteworthy. Anyone who talked about banning water would be laughed at. But rename it and you've got a perfect, honest piece of journalism. At least according to the standard of La Presse.

Consider yourself. Let's say I see you at the bar with a couple buddies. You get up from your table and go to the bar where this pretty young thing, who might not even be legal to be in the bar, is getting drinks for her friends - a crowd of similar-aged young people who are sitting around doing whatever it is barely legal young people do these days. Because you're a bit tipsy and naturally clumsy you knock over one of her drinks, but you're a gentleman so you buy her a new one. I take a picture of this, caption it with the headline "Doc buys drink for young, hot teenager" and run it in the local newspaper, which your wife sees. Suddenly you've got some explaining to do, yet nothing I wrote was a word of a lie.

Journalists - at least respectable ones - do not worry only about the "facts". When they write (or appear on the radio or television or what have you) they must also be aware of what the imply with their words. The La Presse article and the entire hullabaloo clearly ignore that. They are interested only in twisting the facts to support their story. That type of writing belongs only in the tabloids, which in turn belongs only in the trash. It is not true journalism, it is not truly the news. It is the refuse of society.

¸

...you sure could say that my opinion is indeed influenced by multiple troubling external off-ice factors compounded with troubling on-ice performances. Is it a less educated (or more manipulated) opinion than to actually discard and disregard any facts because of a front page title that was sensationalist? Who'se being manipulated those who feel that these were "troubling facts" or those who feel that nothing is going on because of the way the news got delivered and treated.

[The New Guy]

Aug 4, 2009 12:35:25 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

Aug 4, 2009 8:14:23 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Don't take this the wrong way Doc - I'm not trying to imply anything negative about you personally - but that's exactly the way La Presse wants you to see it. They didn't "invent" any facts. They didn't lie. What they did, however, was present the truth in such a way that the teeming masses read for more into it then what was there.

Have you ever heard that (very true) story about Dihydrogen Monoxide? Essentially a young lad in California (I think) decided he'd do an experiment in social engineering for his high school science project. So he started a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Now, DHMO, if you're not familiar with it, does a lot of bad things. Gaseous DHMO causes severe burns, while prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause severe tissue damage as well. It leads to the corrosion and oxidation of many metals. It is found in pre-cancerous tumours.

It's also water.

Not one of the above facts about water is a lie. But it's certainly not even remotely noteworthy. Anyone who talked about banning water would be laughed at. But rename it and you've got a perfect, honest piece of journalism. At least according to the standard of La Presse.

Consider yourself. Let's say I see you at the bar with a couple buddies. You get up from your table and go to the bar where this pretty young thing, who might not even be legal to be in the bar, is getting drinks for her friends - a crowd of similar-aged young people who are sitting around doing whatever it is barely legal young people do these days. Because you're a bit tipsy and naturally clumsy you knock over one of her drinks, but you're a gentleman so you buy her a new one. I take a picture of this, caption it with the headline "Doc buys drink for young, hot teenager" and run it in the local newspaper, which your wife sees. Suddenly you've got some explaining to do, yet nothing I wrote was a word of a lie.

Journalists - at least respectable ones - do not worry only about the "facts". When they write (or appear on the radio or television or what have you) they must also be aware of what the imply with their words. The La Presse article and the entire hullabaloo clearly ignore that. They are interested only in twisting the facts to support their story. That type of writing belongs only in the tabloids, which in turn belongs only in the trash. It is not true journalism, it is not truly the news. It is the refuse of society.

¸

...you sure could say that my opinion is indeed influenced by multiple troubling external off-ice factors compounded with troubling on-ice performances. Is it a less educated (or more manipulated) opinion than to actually discard and disregard any facts because of a front page title that was sensationalist? Who'se being manipulated those who feel that these were "troubling facts" or those who feel that nothing is going on because of the way the news got delivered and treated.

What are the facts Doc? That they had a bad season?

Andrei scored .31 GPG last season, quite comparable to his .33 GPG the season before (that's about two extra goals over the course of a season). Hell, his best season in the AHL he only scored .42 GPG. His points and assists were down (assists went from .24 from .34 - a total of just over 8 assists in a season) but consider that his most frequent linemates went from .35 to .25 (Plekanec - just over 8 goals) and from .42 to .33 (just over 7 goals). Plekanec's decreased production alone accounts for Kostitsyn's drop in assists. Serge is similar. He played 56 games this year and had 5 less points than he had the previous year in 52 games. That's pretty comparable.

There were a number of players who underperformed last season. The Kostitsyn's were not among them (for candidates I present to you Plekanec, Higgins, Koivu (whose numbers were weaker than 07-08 which many had called his worst season and which saw him lose the mantle of number one centre), Komisarek, Hamrlik, Gorges, O'Byrne, Price and Halak).

So the myth of a poor season being dispelled, what other facts are there? That they had a number of phone conversations with a criminal. And I once again suggest that of you have never had a phone conversation with a criminal then you don't know everyone you've had a phone conversation with. Yes, they had a lot of phone conversations with a small time gangster, but I hardly see it as being even remotely noteworthy.

Had something come of the RCMP or NHL investigations that would be one thing, but this is clearly a case of La Presse printing "facts" with more innuendo than truth and letting the public - who are feverishly looking for someone to crucify for a lousy centennial season and 16 seasons of not winning the Cup - blame two more or less blameless young men.

Gogi is right. That rag is no better than the National Enquirer. In fact, it's worse than the Enquirer because at least the Enquirer presents itself as a farce rather than a real news paper.

[Doc Holliday]

yeah, the bad season is a myth, the Kostitsyns had wonderful years, over 2000 phone calls to a notorious criminal is of no concerne whatsoever and LaPresse is a useless piece of thrash.

There.

You are 100% right.

[CrocRob]

I'm not sure what the accusation was meant to be. That they were throwing their seasons?

[franko]

Aug 4, 2009 15:01:58 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

over 2000 phone calls to a notorious criminal is of no concern whatsoever and LaPresse is a useless piece of thrash.

Well, one out of two . . .

You are 100% right.

Shouldn't that be 110%?

[franko]

Aug 4, 2009 10:44:24 GMT -5 Disgruntled70sHab said:

Seems the majority of trade rumours circle around the Habs. If it isn't the Habs dealing directly, they're involved on the side as a third party.

HFTO, why don't you publish a book, or start a thread, or both, on "Waiting for the Great Pumpkin"? It would deal with Habs trade rumours exclusively. Me thinks both would probably be pretty successful and the thread won't go away even in the off-season.

Cheers.

It would certainly knock "the thread about that guy" into second place in posts.

[The New Guy]

Aug 4, 2009 15:01:58 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

yeah, the bad season is a myth, the Kostitsyns had wonderful years, over 2000 phone calls to a notorious criminal is of no concerne whatsoever and LaPresse is a useless piece of thrash.

There.

You are 100% right.

(a) Who said the catastrophe at the end of last season was a myth?
(b) The kids didn't have wonderful years, but they didn't have bad seasons either.
(c) The 2000 phone calls is a myth. The police report, if you had bothered to read it, said they were mentioned by the drug dealer - I'm sorry, I mean notorious criminal (who by the by, sells sporting goods when he's not running the Montreal underground) in 2000 conversations.
(d) If La Presse was better than a useless piece of trash they would have fired the idiots responsible for that piece. Sadly they just buried a confession in their paper some months later as a lame apology.

[Doc Holliday]

The Post, the Gazett, Canoe, radio stations, TV stations, a huge majority of media outlets ran the story, some of them going as far as saying Hammerlik was a coke addict or that the Kosts were using the guy to get them women. But no, it's all LaPresse and how THEY are the bad guys while in fact they published that none of them are suspected of criminal activities...

Why insist that there is no concern when Gainey himself said that it was concerning, When the NHL, via a by Bill Daily, said they would conduct an investigation.

Why try to pass as Magnolia as a "small time criminal" when the guy is linked to drug trafficking, prostitution and extortion. Does he have to be Al Capone to raise your level of concern?

Why not simply acknowledge the obvious that there were concerning discipline and control issues around the team that prompted corrective actions including sending SK to the minors, getting Gainey to mentor Price personally, changing about half the team and all coaching staff over the summer...

...I find that dumping it all on LaPresse is oversimplification but if it makes you feel better that way, than great. Personally I know for sure that this management got a lesson and they'll be way more hands on with their players.

So...

...how about that Frolov hey?

[The New Guy]

Aug 4, 2009 16:04:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

The Post, the Gazett, Canoe, radio stations, TV stations, a huge majority of media outlets ran the story, some of them going as far as saying Hammerlik was a coke addict or that the Kosts were using the guy to get them women. But no, it's all LaPresse and how THEY are the bad guys while in fact they published that none of them are suspected of criminal activities...

Because if you cut off the root the tree will die. La Presse was the root of this problem, and continues to be the root of many of the problems this team has with the media.

But you want me to be fair? Fine. The entire sports media in Montreal, with a few exceptions, should be banned from journalism for life. They're all guilty - if not in this case then in another - of pandering to the masses to drive sales and hits. Of dragging people's name through the muck to make their money. That's disgusting.

Aug 4, 2009 16:04:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

Why insist that there is no concern when Gainey himself said that it was concerning, When the NHL, via a by Bill Daily, said they would conduct an investigation.

Right. Conduct an investigation. Which found nothing.

The allegations were concerning. Just like it'd be concerning if someone accused a player of raping them. Does that mean we call them a rapist? That we abandon the sacred principle of innocence until proven guilty?

Aug 4, 2009 16:04:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

Why try to pass as Magnolia as a "small time criminal" when the guy is linked to drug trafficking, prostitution and extortion. Does he have to be Al Capone to raise your level of concern?

Why try an pass him off as a notorious criminal? He was selling sporting equipment on the side for God's sake. That means he wasn't making enough in his life of crime to support himself.

Here's a question. Would anyone outside a few court-watchers know Maginola if he hadn't been associated with the Kostitsyns? Or would he have been just another prisoner in jail. That's the definition of notoriety right there.

Aug 4, 2009 16:04:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

Why not simply acknowledge the obvious that there were concerning discipline and control issues around the team that prompted corrective actions including sending SK to the minors, getting Gainey to mentor Price personally, changing about half the team and all coaching staff over the summer...

When did I ever say anything about any of this? Concerning discipline and control issues? Sure. Carbonneau had clearly lost the room by mid February. But, one wonders, if Maginola was such a negative influence on the players involved with him - and their relationship goes back to earlier than just mid-January (where the roots of the collapse were sown)... well... why didn't the collapse happen earlier.

Maybe the two were unrelated?

Aug 4, 2009 16:04:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

...I find that dumping it all on LaPresse is oversimplification but if it makes you feel better that way, than great. Personally I know for sure that this management got a lesson and they'll be way more hands on with their players.

Again, why is it an oversimplification? Because I believe La Presse to be the root of many problems? It was the La Presse promise of a bombshell that led to the wild speculation and the sorry sight of Demers crying on television. Perhaps that is. But if La Presse were to clean up their act maybe I'd move on to another mule to beat. As it is, I will stick to haranguing that newspaper until I'm blue in the face, even if it seems stupid to do so - perhaps I'll convince somewhere out there to save their money and buy a real paper.

Or maybe it's an over-simplification because you put words into my mouth. You seem to think that by defending the brothers I deny that there were problems. But how many of those problems, I wonder, were caused by the media attention that this story drew. You make a point about Sergei being relegated to the minors after this story broke. You assume it was because of discipline problems. Perhaps, just perhaps, it was to shield him from the brunt of this debacle? Andrei had to grin and bear it - he's too important to our team to be sent to the minors, and he'd have to go through waivers to boot.

Or maybe it's an oversimplification because you want to believe that the brother's are guilty. Like many you want a scape goat to blame for last season.

Aug 4, 2009 16:04:36 GMT -5 Doc Holliday said:

So...

...how about that Frolov hey?

Love to have him, but not at the price I'm seeing above.