|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 16, 2004 19:27:20 GMT -5
Actually the 8th guy is Dykhuis, then either Cote or Archer. Too depressing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 16, 2004 19:27:56 GMT -5
Didn't Beauchemin, Hainsey and Hossa have to clear waivers to play in Hamilton this year? We know Hainsey in playing in the OSHL, but what of Hossa? He must be staying in Habs land this year if there is Hockey. If there is no hockey, he must be staying home, and playing there. Don't think NHl and NHLPA have an agreement that certain players do not have to clear waivers? (Spezza, Bouwmeester, etc) |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 21, 2004 15:31:55 GMT -5
It appears that Columbus may have big plans for Beauchemin and the Habs won't get to reclaim him. The Blue Jackets' farm club, Syracuse Crunch, released their training camp roster and Beauchemin wasn't on it.
More news on this hot story as it developes.
Go Dogs Go!
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Sept 21, 2004 16:04:50 GMT -5
Don't think NHl and NHLPA have an agreement that certain players do not have to clear waivers? (Spezza, Bouwmeester, etc) They do have an agreement, players on their rookie contract don't have to clear waivers to play in the AHL. Players that have to clear waivers had to do so already. |
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Sept 21, 2004 16:09:06 GMT -5
Hmmm, been mulling over Beauchemin's hitting the road. He had to be put on waivers and pass to make it to Hamilton. My understanding is that Columbus must now either keep him on their NHL roster or put him back on waivers. If the latter then the Habs have first crack at him, and since he has already been put on waivers he can safely be sent to Hamilton. Have the Habs abd Columbus worked out a scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-your's deal? Time will tell. * My bad. I'm a day late and many words too long. habit posted these very thoughts much more succinctly at the top of this page. I don't think there was some sort of deal between the Habs and Jackets. I personally think that the Jackets saw a chance to get a cheap depth defensemen, while making the Crunch better. How does it make the Crunch better, they just took away the top team in their division's #1 defensemen. The Dogs and Crunch had some tough battles this year, and not having Beauchemin on the blueline will surely hurt the Dogs in some way which serves to help the Crunch. Savard did the same thing when he picked up Benoit Gratton from st john's, who at the time was one of the best players and a rival to the Citadelles. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 21, 2004 16:19:16 GMT -5
I don't think there was some sort of deal between the Habs and Jackets. I personally think that the Jackets saw a chance to get a cheap depth defensemen, while making the Crunch better. How does it make the Crunch better, they just took away the top team in their division's #1 defensemen. The Dogs and Crunch had some tough battles this year, and not having Beauchemin on the blueline will surely hurt the Dogs in some way which serves to help the Crunch. Savard did the same thing when he picked up Benoit Gratton from st john's, who at the time was one of the best players and a rival to the Citadelles. Excellent point with the Gratton analogy. However, I still have my suspicions.  |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2004 20:11:11 GMT -5
How does it make the Crunch better, they just took away the top team in their division's #1 defensemen. That might be a stretch. Dykhuis was pretty solid for the Dogs. I'll concede that Beauchemin was in the top 3 on Hamilton. When I've watched him play, he's been mediocre and that's probably my fault for jinxing him. This year? Komisarek is down there and there's no way Francois is ahead of Mikey. Cote impressed me quite a bit, and if Hainsey takes that step up, the Dogs will be fine on the backline. They would have been stronger with Beauchemin, but he deserves a shot at the NHL and his chances with the Habs weren't that great. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2004 20:15:50 GMT -5
Still working on a way to combine Q's brain and heart into Hainsey's body and skill set. These experiments keep failing in my Acme Lab. Darn it, back to the lab I go. Whoooohahahaha. Ouch, wrong organ to emphasize on Q. Lots of heart for the CH, yes.....but woeful in the smarts department. I still haven't stopped laughing at clips of Q teamed up with Malakhov. They took turns having pucks bounce off them into the net, and playing Alphonse and Gaston when they needed to play George Patton. If either one had Markov's head, they'd be stars. I take that back, Q would need Markov's head and Niedermayer's legs, but then you might as well sign Niedermayer. Nope, Q was all heart.....ALL heart. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 22, 2004 20:44:02 GMT -5
The case of Stéphane Quintal is different. The Canadiens released him to make room for young defensemen. As of September the team will not be able to return Ron Hainsey (a first round choice in 2000) and François Beauchemin to the American League without waiving them. Gainey thus chose to sacrifice Quintal in order to avoid the risk losing these two young players without getting anything in return.
"It was necessary to give Ron Hainsey a chance at the NHL", mentions Gainey. "François Beauchemin is in the same situation. They will be in competition against each other. The emergence of Mike Komisarek also changed the equation. What I saw of him at the end of the season helped me to make my decision. I finally saw the defenseman that was described to me on my arrival."- Mathias Brunet, La Presse, June 26, 2004Hainsey was kept on the Canadiens' active roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Sept 22, 2004 21:56:47 GMT -5
That might be a stretch. Dykhuis was pretty solid for the Dogs. I'll concede that Beauchemin was in the top 3 on Hamilton. When I've watched him play, he's been mediocre and that's probably my fault for jinxing him. This year? Komisarek is down there and there's no way Francois is ahead of Mikey. Cote impressed me quite a bit, and if Hainsey takes that step up, the Dogs will be fine on the backline. They would have been stronger with Beauchemin, but he deserves a shot at the NHL and his chances with the Habs weren't that great. Dykhuis was solid but not their #1 guy. The top pairing was Beauchemin and Komisarek, then Beauchemin Hainsey. Beauchemin did it all. He was the top PKer, top PP (Hainsey was the shooter, but Beauchemin was good at setting up the play) and the guy that would be on the ice late in the game to hold a lead. I was only at/saw 11 games but I listened to almost every game on the net. I don't think too many would say Beauchemin wasn't the top guy since Komisarek wasn't there very long and Hainsey was way too inconsistent. Dykhuis was solid for sure, and was on the 2nd paring. Cote also was solid on the 3rd pairing (thanks leafs for letting him walk) Beauchemin led the team in shots, with only Plekanec and Perezhogin even close to his 230+ shots. As for the Jackets, it's not so much they wanted to take our #1, but that they get a cheap depth defensemen, that was Hamilton's top defensemen and the loss of him will surely hurt, as we have only 2 full time defensemen returning, with Komisarek seeing less then half the season and Archer not getting much ice time. I don't mean to say that the Jackets were out to screw us, just as I don't think Savard wanted to screw St John's, but I would think that it was taken into consideration, that they are getting a top player from their farm teams rival, with both teams either headed for the playoffs, or expected to make the playoffs (Hamilton more so then the Crunch, as the AHL goes back to the regular 16 playoff team format, over last years 20 team format I believe) |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2004 23:38:37 GMT -5
You certainly saw (and heard) him a lot more than I did. I could be underrating him. I liked him a lot his 2nd year out of juniour, but then he seemed to level off. His size is also in that nether region, not really small, but not big enough either.
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Sept 23, 2004 13:35:55 GMT -5
You certainly saw (and heard) him a lot more than I did. I could be underrating him. I liked him a lot his 2nd year out of juniour, but then he seemed to level off. His size is also in that nether region, not really small, but not big enough either. He's not big but he has a solid frame and uses his body well. If Hainsey was paying attention, he could learn how to use that big frame more effect then just pinning a guy along the boards. Beauchemin did ok back with the Citdelles, but at that time he was trying to hit everything and often put himself out of posiiton (which is why he spent some time in the ECHL from what I understand) It was his time in Hamilton that his game really came together. I'm still shocked he never got a sniff of NHL action (1 game, he deserved more then that just for all his hard work over 2 years imo) In Hamilton he could do it all, and played with a ton of heart. I was sitting right behind the bench at one game where he made a bad play and a goal was scored, when he got back to the bench he was kicking the bench and seemed really down on himself. I don't know how he will fare in the NHL but in Hamilton he was the top pairing guy and a big part of the defense. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 23, 2004 16:13:41 GMT -5
The Bulldogs will have a largely inexperienced defense without Beauchemin, Dykhuis, Hainsey, and Traverse. I expect Danis and Ellis to have to stop a lot of shots and to expect that their rebounds will often go to the opponents. I wouldn't count on their finishing first in their division.
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Sept 23, 2004 18:06:20 GMT -5
The Bulldogs will have a largely inexperienced defense without Beauchemin, Dykhuis, Hainsey, and Traverse. I expect Danis and Ellis to have to stop a lot of shots and to expect that their rebounds will often go to the opponents. I wouldn't count on their finishing first in their division. But the defense, while not used to each other shouldn't be too bad most likely. Jarvis seems to be able to get his players to play in a good system. I'm very glad he's not going up to the Habs, cause the Dogs will really need him. If they go with a Daley Komisarek combo as the top pairing, that should be a quality pairing, since Daley is very good offensively leaving Komisarek to handle more of the defensive side of things. Plante is a decent defensemen as well, as he isn't great in any on area, but he's solid all round and has good AHL experience. Cote only has 70+ games under his belt, but he played well last year. The rest is a tough call. Shasby is a bit shaky in his own end, but can move the puck well and has good offensive abilites. Archer hopefully improves his play a lot, as he is solid in his own end but hasn't shown much offensive upside. Tough to say how he will fare, but I would expect him to improve, he looked very sharp at the development camp imo. Then there's a chance of one of the 3 tryouts also getting a look and the RFA from the Stars has good AHL experience from what I recall. Then there's Ivanans and Carpentier, both with AHL experience that can playe D or LW. But the real trick is in nets. If Danis can play the way he did at Brown, and Elis brings his A game, the Dogs will likely be in good shape, as they should be a strong offensive team with Higgins, Plekanec, Kostitsyn, Ott, Milroy, ect.. I am concerned about our defense and goaltending, but hopefully it won't be a major problem. I just wish the damn season would start already! I know I'm going to the Dogs-Phantoms game next month, boy is a month a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 23, 2004 20:24:45 GMT -5
If they go with a Daley Komisarek combo as the top pairing, that should be a quality pairing, since Daley is very good offensively leaving Komisarek to handle more of the defensive side of things. Not sure I would like that pairing (though admittedly, I know nothing about Daley). Komisarek, while still needing some polish in his own zone, would be much better served in my opinion, if he were given free reign to explore his offensive abilities. He can handle AHL forwards pretty well, and while he needs to work on his footwork against the speed of NHL players, that ain't going to happen this year. So I'd rather have him paired up with a defensive guy (Archer? Cote?) and told to "go Mikey, go." He need not abandon his defensive completely, of course, but if he is paired with an offensive guy right from the get-go, I fear that might limit his offensive opportunities (tough to join a rush, if your defense partner is leading it). |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 23, 2004 22:58:33 GMT -5
It appears that Columbus may have big plans for Beauchemin and the Habs won't get to reclaim him. The Blue Jackets' farm club, Syracuse Crunch, released their training camp roster and Beauchemin wasn't on it. More news on this hot story as it developes. Go Dogs Go! The Blue Jackets have big plans for Beauchemin, so they didn't put him on the Syracuse roster. Do the big plans include paying him nothing during the lockout rather than a minor league salary?  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 24, 2004 3:46:51 GMT -5
The Blue Jackets have big plans for Beauchemin, so they didn't put him on the Syracuse roster. Correct. If they want to send him to Syracuse they must put him on waivers. If they do so Montréal has dibs on claiming him. By keeping him on their active roster Columbus is saying that they want him with the big team and do not want to risk losing him. Since he won't be playing in the AHL he will collect no salary, like many other NHL players. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 24, 2004 8:07:26 GMT -5
Beauchemin to his family:
The good news, I'm a major leaguer at last.
The bad news, can you lend me some money? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Sept 24, 2004 19:59:08 GMT -5
Not sure I would like that pairing (though admittedly, I know nothing about Daley). Komisarek, while still needing some polish in his own zone, would be much better served in my opinion, if he were given free reign to explore his offensive abilities. He can handle AHL forwards pretty well, and while he needs to work on his footwork against the speed of NHL players, that ain't going to happen this year. So I'd rather have him paired up with a defensive guy (Archer? Cote?) and told to "go Mikey, go." He need not abandon his defensive completely, of course, but if he is paired with an offensive guy right from the get-go, I fear that might limit his offensive opportunities (tough to join a rush, if your defense partner is leading it). Archer is a RD, so they won't be togther. Hainsey could be a good option though. It would be interesting to see them play together. Hopefully Komisarek rubs off on Hainsey and not the other way around. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Habit on Sept 25, 2004 13:44:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 25, 2004 14:51:30 GMT -5
Like many posters, it seems that Beauchemin himself saw no future with Montréal. |
|
