|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2002 1:32:46 GMT -5
Quite the rant. I only quoted a bit of it, because frankly, I tend to tune out when the old folks start raving. Just for that, I want all the books I loaned you on the Kama Sutra back. Why didn't any other club offer something else? How about I flip it on you - why didn't anybody offer more than Patrick Traverse for Eric Weinrich?? Eh tough guy? By your logic, Traverse was only worth Weinrich, cause obviously somebody would have offered more, right? RIGHT?? Okay Grasshopper, I am missing something. What does Traverse and Weinreich have to do with this? Nevertheless I will answer this. At the time, Traverse appeared to have the potential to become a top six defenseman. I even read on the board a poster that could not sing his praises in alto well enough. Because I am such a magnanimous kind of guy, I will not name names. What did St. Savard and this anonymouse poster see at the time? Real potential. It is not their fault that Traverse blew a tire. Would you not agree? Look at your list of defencemen there. Of the 17 you listed, TEN were signed by SAVARD in the LAST YEAR!! Hasn't that been the debate all along? Why keep getting these mediocre players, at the expense of our younger players? You keep saying Dyment isn't worth much - why then, pray tell, did Martin Madden, Andre Savard's right-hand man, his Chief Scout, his assistant GM, why did he, as a representitive of the Savard regime, name Dyment the TENTH best Montreal prospect?? Top-ten baby. Not 17, or 18, or bag of pucks. Better than seven members of your illustrious list of all-star mediocre defencemen. They liked him. Higher than Jason Ward, higher than Arron Asham, higher than Vadim Tarasov, higher than Martie Jarventie, Mathieu Descoteaux, Remi Royer, Matt O'Dette and Marc-Andre Thinel. Again, they liked him. Are you talking about those mediocre players that help establishe this team back to respectability? Are you talking about those mediocre players that raised what was at one point the LAST placed team. Did I say LAST place, just checking. I expect the Patron Saint to get rid of the garbage as the new blood comes along. Lets face it, George expects to make money on this club and to do that he needed a few rounds of playoffs. Thanks to the brilliant wisdom of our Hab's saint and his King Solomon type foresight, he managed to sign all those MEDIOCRE players that gave him those result. Did you expect that George is doing this so as to bring tranquility to his ying-yang? What about this Martin Maden? When did he make this statements and where? At Dyments grandmothers house? I like to have the entire article/statement and the contex and place it was made. And then what? Prospects are supose to progress. That is why they are prospects. Did Dorion expect this from Dyment and did not see it? After all, HE is a PROFFESIONAL scout. You're right, there is a limit to the amount of players you can have under contract. That was my point in my original post - there just isn't enough room. Savard has clogged up the system with guys who gave us an immediate chance at winning - depth - and it worked admirably last year, resulting in two playoff rounds for our team. But it cost us Dyment, it will probably cost us Garon, and who knows who else it will or may have cost us. . Sooner or later St. Savard will use some Drano and unclog the system with a multiple player deal. One thing we know about this guy, he takes his time. Let us not conjecture on what he 'cost" us when it had not happened yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2002 1:32:59 GMT -5
As your argument that college players need to move onto the AHL in order to improve, why doesn't that argument apply to Dyment? You quote Dorion, who says Dyment has plateau, and wasn't improving, but doesn't that simply mean he should have been moved to the AHL?? He was very good for the NCAA, and if he plateau there, isn't that simply because of your "they need the AHL to improve" logic? By your logic, Dyment wasn't a stalled prospect, but simply needed the tougher competition of the AHL in order to improve. Aren't you falling on your own sword here? <br> Do you really want to give ice time to Komi, Hainsey, O'Dette, Razin, Jarventie and Robidas or do you want Dyment in there? Has anyone actually seen Dyment play to even make a judgment on "potential'? From what we read and heard, and most likely they are the exact same sources, we can only surmise the first six are better then Dyment. At least I do. Where has my logic failed me? And why have I fallen on my rubber sword? In the opinion of Savard and his scouting staff, Dyment was not worth the effort. They probably saw that he stalled in development before and he was likely to do it again. No coaching staff want to have a player who goes one step forward and two steps back the following year. Snatch the puck from my hands, young Grasshopper…………………. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 26, 2002 2:48:41 GMT -5
In the opinion of Savard and his scouting staff, Dyment was not worth the effort. Essentially, your only argument is that Savard knows what he's doing. I'm starting to have some major doubts. Chvojka and Hanchuk were let go for free, and now Dyment as well... Savard keeps up his pattern of letting go Houle acquisitions, yet hanging onto those of his era. Was Dyment let go because of a lack of potential ? Possible. But it could also be that he was one of the guys we could move easily, since we weren't going to be able to sign him anyhow, given the number of contracts this team has. Right now on D we can expect kids (other than Komi and Hainsey) to have to wait a long, long time, given that Brisebois and Quintal are locked up, same with Traverse and Dykhuis, and Rivet and Souray are next. I think Dyment should normally have gotten a chance at the AHL level, you really never now for sure how a guy can play the pro game..... and he definitely has more potential to improve than most of our current AHL D. Dyment's being dumped might be a consequence of the lack of a farm team for next year though - why sign marginal prospects when you can't even be sure of having somewhere to play them. If ever we're sharing a team with Edmonton, we can't really have a full roster of developing players anymore, and maybe Dyment just had no room in our top 10 prospects - and it's only our top 10 guys that we can expect to play in the AHL. I think AS might be playing favourites though, and not giving Houle the chance to get any credit at any point along the way. I'm starting to have some major doubts about AS.... I think a strong case can be made that he's a below-average GM at this point. He's succeeded when given plenty of cash and favourable circumstances.... but nothing more than that. Maybe MT isn't the problem, but AS is. Houle was a beer rep in over his head as a GM, and it showed, fast, that Houle wasn't a hockey man. Maybe AS is an assistant coach in over his head as a GM, but given that he's a hockey man he can hide it, at least for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 26, 2002 2:58:18 GMT -5
Sooner or later St. Savard will use some Drano and unclog the system with a multiple player deal. One thing we know about this guy, he takes his time. Let us not conjecture on wht he 'cost" us when it had not happened yet. Contracts aren't easy to move these days in the NHL, especially fairly major ones for big bucks over a few years. Guys like Traverse and Dykhuis are here for a while, same for Audette even as he grows older and more frail.... so we either have to find a way to move contracts without getting any back, for players who are of no real use to anyone, or we'll have to move useful depth players just to be able to sign our prospects in time. I'm sure we'll all be thrilled when Asham and Tarasov are let go to make it possible to sign Komisarek and Perezhogin.... we'll be thrilled, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2002 9:40:21 GMT -5
Essentially, your only argument is that Savard knows what he's doing. I'm starting to have some major doubts. Well yeah, that and a thousand words on my take as to why. When it really boils down to it. No one on this board has seen him play. Even if they did, are they qualified to make that analysis? Esentially, as is the HabsRus way, we just chopped down the cyber rain forest to argue over a very "narrow" subject matter. I'm starting to have some major doubts about AS.... I think a strong case can be made that he's a below-average GM at this point. He's succeeded when given plenty of cash and favourable circumstances.... but nothing more than that. Maybe MT isn't the problem, but AS is. Houle was a beer rep in over his head as a GM, and it showed, fast, that Houle wasn't a hockey man. Maybe AS is an assistant coach in over his head as a GM, but given that he's a hockey man he can hide it, at least for a while. "The art of deception in warfare is to fool the enemy and make them think you are doing one thing while you are doing something else." Of course PTH, I agree with you...................as he sharpens the Damascian sword............... |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 26, 2002 10:05:23 GMT -5
Why didn't any other club offer something else? How about I flip it on you - why didn't anybody offer more than Patrick Traverse for Eric Weinrich?? Eh tough guy? By your logic, Traverse was only worth Weinrich, cause obviously somebody would have offered more, right? RIGHT?? Probably AS thought Traverse was fair value for Weinrich?  |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 26, 2002 10:12:44 GMT -5
Essentially, your only argument is that Savard knows what he's doing. I'm starting to have some major doubts. Chvojka and Hanchuk were let go for free, and now Dyment as well... Savard keeps up his pattern of letting go Houle acquisitions, yet hanging onto those of his era. Who and where are Chvojka and Hanchuk? did they have decent potential? what's there age? where are they now? Do you REALLY think Traverse is going to block Hainsey and Komi? I mean come on PTH. And all those d-man are all injury prone and have had serious injuries in the past. So Hainsey and Komi will get their chance. I fail to see how AS is more of a problem than MT. And why are we looking for ''who is the problem?''..what went wrong this year? we made the playoffs(the only objective set by the organization) and we beat the mighty Bruins in the 1st round! we gave the Canes a good run for their money, again why are we looking for the ''problem?'' I think you guys are going way overboard here. It's not like we traded Milroy or Plekanec here. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2002 10:40:23 GMT -5
I fail to see how AS is more of a problem than MT. And why are we looking for ''who is the problem?''..what went wrong this year? we made the playoffs(the only objective set by the organization) and we beat the mighty Bruins in the 1st round! we gave the Canes a good run for their money, again why are we looking for the ''problem?'' I think you guys are going way overboard here. It's not like we traded Milroy or Plekanec here. Remind me to send you my little St. Savard voodoo doll. FOR FREE................  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 26, 2002 12:30:11 GMT -5
Okay Grasshopper, I am missing something. What does Traverse and Weinreich have to do with this? What does Traverse for Weinrich have to with anything? It was a mistake, that's what it has to do with anything. In fact, I betcha that poster you quoted had been reading too many "St. Savard" posts, and that is why he figured Traverse was going to be something. Most other people figured Traverse was a bum, but this poster probably figured "hey, if Savard likes him, then he must be good..." He isn't. Savard blew it. Others were ready and willing to offer more, but Savard made a mistakeand jumped on the first offer. Are you talking about those mediocre players that help established this team back to respectability? No. I am talking about Remi Royer, Matt O'dette, Patrick Traverse, Louis Debrusk (briefly), and Gennady Razin. These guys are nothing. Wastes of roster space. They brought nothing to the NHL team, and they brought precious little, if not nothing, to the AHL team. One could make the same argument for Martie Jarventie, Francis Bouillon and Stephane Robidas as well, but they get the benefit of the doubt because they have potential, and can sort of play in the NHL. Royer, O'Dette, Razin, Debrusk, Fillipowizc - where's Christian Laflamme? Barry Richter? Same scale. Sadly, Royer, O'Dette, and Traverse will be back next year. What about this Martin Maden? When did he make this statements and where? At Dyments grandmothers house? I like to have the entire article/statement and the contex and place it was made. I would like to direct the court's attention to the 14th Annual Hockey News Future Watch edition, dated March 1st, 2002. 3 monthes ago. Talking about the multitude of free agent signings by Andre Savard: "We needed those types of players to bring immediate help while giving our younger guys more of a look in Quebec." said assistant GM Martin Madden. His list: 1) Mike Komisarek 2) Ron Hainsey 3) Marcel Hossa 4) Alexander Perezhoughin 5) Eric Chouinard 6) Mathieu Garon 7) Duncan Milroy 8 ) Jozef Balej 9) Tomas Plekanec 10 Chris DymentUnder Dyment's name: D, Boston U. (HE), 21, 6'0, 194, 27-6-9-15-20. Has played better in senior year; must improve reads, hockey sense. Acquired: 1999 entry draft, 97th overall. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 26, 2002 12:31:07 GMT -5
If it pleases the court, I would like to introduce the 13th Annual Hockey News Future Watch issue, dated March 30th, 2001. "There are some players I thought were better, and some I thought were worse," said assistant GM Martin Madden. "But I think definetely there are some prospects. Some players will play and will be able to help the organization." Under Dyment (ranked 8th): 21, 6'3, 201, 37-1-10-11-38 (apparently he shrunk, lost weight and didn't age in one year): Performance has picked up in second half. Plays physical game. I got the 12th annual edition too, if you want. Dyment was ranked 5th that year. By Madden's own admission, Dyment played great in 2000, played poorly at the beginning of 2001, but picked it up in the second half, and continued to play well into 2002. Doesn't sound like stagnating to me. Sooner or later St. Savard will use some Drano and unclog the system with a multiple player deal. One thing we know about this guy, he takes his time. Let us not conjecture on what he 'cost" us when it had not happened yet. Chris Dyment for a 5th rounder. That sounds like a throw-away to me. It has "cost" us something. Do you really want to give ice time to Komi, Hainsey, O'Dette, Razin, Jarventie and Robidas or do you want Dyment in there? O'Dette is nothing. He'll be 27 years old when the season starts next year, and he is still looking for his first NHL game. Minor league goon, not quite good enough to be Reid Simpson. Yeah, I want Dyment before him. Razin ain't much farther ahead - 6'4 defencemen with 9 points and 14 PIM in 75 games do not excite me all that much. Razin has been in North America for 6 years, so there is no "adjusting" to be done anymore. Dyment before him too. Jarventie is 26. He may adjust to the NHL game, but he certainly isn't going to get more talented or "learn" anything new. I'd call it a toss-up between him and Dyment, with Jarventie winning the tie-breaker. But Jarventie is more or less an exact clone of Stephane Robidas, and I don't see the point of having two Stephane Robidas' on the team. So of your list (Komi, Hainsey, O'Dette, Razin, Jarventie, Robidas), I would have put Dyment 4th, behind Komi, Hainsey and Jarventie, but ahead of Robidas (switch Robidas and Jarventie if you like) and miles ahead of Razin and O'Dette. Where has my logic failed me? And why have I fallen on my rubber sword? In the opinion of Savard and his scouting staff, Dyment was not worth the effort. They probably saw that he stalled in development before and he was likely to do it again. No coaching staff want to have a player who goes one step forward and two steps back the following year. Where has your logic failed you? In the opinion of Savard and the scouting staff Dyment was not worth the effort? Savard also thought Traverse was worth Weinrich, so he is not infalliable my friend. But did they really think he wasn't worth the effort, or did they not have the resources (i.e roster space) to give him the effort? You rant and rave (to your grave) about "pushing the prospects" and yet here you have a kid who played one of year of college, broke out in his second year, slumped for half a season (in which he was injured, but I have no source for that, so...), improved over the latter half of the season, and then improved again over his final season, in which he was co-captain of his team. All this by Martin Madden's own admission. You should see what Pierre Dorion was saying about him in 2000. Accolades galore. He took 4 steps forward, and 1 step back. I'd take that risk with a prospect anyday, especially if my alternatives are O'Dette, Royer, Fillipowizc, Razin, Traverse and company. Anyday. What are the probabilities of Savard finding a prospect as good as Dyment in the 5th round of a weak draft year? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 26, 2002 12:37:10 GMT -5
Who and where are Chvojka and Hanchuk? did they have decent potential? what's there age? where are they now? Chvojka and Hanchuk were players drafted by Houle in 2000. Hanchuk in the 3rd round, Chvojka in the 6th. Savard released them in 2001. The kicker here is that Savard didn't have to release them. You have two years to sign junior draft picks. Savard released them after one. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. He could have kept them for one more year, let them play in junior (costs us nothing) and then let them go back into the draft. But he released them after one year. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 26, 2002 12:40:20 GMT -5
Who and where are Chvojka and Hanchuk? did they have decent potential? what's there age? where are they now? They were a couple of guys picked in the 2000 draft, and the Habs renounced rights by the 2001 draft. You usually have 2 years to sign a player, but after 1 year you have to have offered them a contract (which is practically never accepted). It's really just paperwork, usually. But this time Savard let these 2 guys go, for nothing. Even if they weren't developing to his liking, GMs almost always keep their players for the 2 years they are allowed to before deciding not to sign them, ultimately. Why did he do this ? Just to dump more Houle drafted players ? Please re-read my quote - I was saying that Hainsey and Komi would be OK, but that any other young D will suffer from the plethora of players and especially contracts ahead of him. Will a guy like Razin or Descoteaux ever really get a chance, with guys like Traverse ahead of him ? With the kind of contracts AS hands out to any passing NHL player, you get into a situation where you can't afford to let the kids get a chance because you can't justify having all that salary in the sidelines/minors. His asset management, contract handling and overall record is far from perfect. Just watch him give Berezin a 4 year, 14 million dollar contract, just watch him ! If they even made the playoffs it was due to the emergence of Theo, and given that Hackett got the first start of the year, it's clear that even management didn't expect so much from him, so let's not think that the playoffs were expected. And they shouldn't be expected for next season, either. The Bruins were ripe for the picking, a young team that hadn't made the playoffs in a while and with an iffy goalie. Interesting take, since we traded a guy of that level - Dyment was a 97th overall pick, Plekanec 71st overall, Hanchuk 79th overall (right after Balej, btw), Chvojka 182nd. Maybe Dyment just sucks..... but I wonder if Savard isn't signing too many players and painting himself into a corner. He gets himself out of it by dumping mediocre prospects, but at some point one of Dyment, Hanchuk, Chvojka or some other kid who was let go discreetly might come back and make him pay. Maybe next year it'll be Archer's turn ? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2002 13:23:42 GMT -5
What does Traverse for Weinrich have to with anything? It was a mistake, that's what it has to do with anything. In fact, I betcha that poster you quoted had been reading too many "St. Savard" posts, and that is why he figured Traverse was going to be something. Most other people figured Traverse was a bum, but this poster probably figured "hey, if Savard likes him, then he must be good..." He isn't. Savard blew it. Others were ready and willing to offer more, but Savard made a mistakeand jumped on the first offer. Okay Squiggly, try blaming other for your sins. How ‘90’s of you. You never where a St. Savard bandwagon jumper so to claim that you were influenced by other posters then my mind control does work or you are blaming it on the Big Bang aftereffects. Me no buy it. As for St. Savard making the mistake. And? You think Sammy didn’t make any? It’s Sunday and you still take the Hab’s Saviours name in vain. There no end to your Hab’s blasphemy, is there Mr. Beelzebub? I am going to lay a BIG trap for you and see if you want to step into it. Now I need you to answer without the any backdoors left open and bars firmly placed on the windows. How do you rate the AHL and College hockey for developing professional hockey players? Is it: 1. Same 2. Collage 50% or lower as good for developing prospects. 3. I can see were that snake HA is going with this and I will not answer this due to lack of sufficient escape routes. Chose your words carefully because you know where I am going with this and I know you know. Now you know that I know that you know. You know……………<br> As Kasparov said to me after three moves........Check…………  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 26, 2002 14:41:12 GMT -5
HA, looks like you want to bring Komi-boy into this, I just don't see the point.
The way I see it, there's a strong link between Traverse and Dyment.
Had AS not signed Traverse to a long-term deal, he might just have been able to keep Dyment, leaving all other things even. (because he'd have more money available, and one more free spot in the list of 50 players under contract you're allowed.)
I don't mind AS making mistakes. I do mind seeing him sign his mistakes to 3 year contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 26, 2002 15:26:56 GMT -5
So of your list (Komi, Hainsey, O'Dette, Razin, Jarventie, Robidas), I would have put Dyment 4th, behind Komi, Hainsey and Jarventie, but ahead of Robidas (switch Robidas and Jarventie if you like) and miles ahead of Razin and O'Dette. ....What are the probabilities of Savard finding a prospect as good as Dyment in the 5th round of a weak draft year? I agree. I think we have a problem here. To me, it looks like a great deal for Minnesota because they're getting a guy who has shown something more than the vast majority of 5th rounders ever do. He's no lock to make it to the NHL as a capable fourth or fifth d-man but he's no 20-1 shot either. As for the Habs, it makes no sense to dump Dyment while maintaining Razin, O'dette, Belanger, Darby, Poulin and a host of others under contract. I appreciate that Savard can't cut guys loose at will, but to sign your way into a box where you feel compelled to ship a guy like Dyment before he's had a year in the AHL to show his stuff just seems to me to be bad planning. As for the AHL vs NCAA question, it's a bit of a red herring. Dyment is only 22 years old. We used a draft pick to bring Jarventie over at age 25 because we believed that if he could rise a level and get his footing in North America, he could help for as many as 4, 5 or 6 years, if not longer. So what's the big deal if Dyment could've developed faster in the AHL? If he has it in him he'll get to where he needs to be by age 23 and a half rather than 22. How good does a guy have to be in college to justify some optimism that he can make the jump to the AHL? What if Komisarek isn't "a dominating force" next year at Michigan (assuming he plays there)? Does that tell us that he doesn't have it or merely that his development hasn't been as quick as it otherwise might have been? Isn't it possible that if Dyment had "plateaued" in the NCAA that he could still get back on track (developmentally speaking) in the AHL after an adjustment period? I just think we gave up on him before enough evidence was in. We've waited and waited and waited with guys like Chouinard and Descoteaux (among others) but we couldn't give Dyment a season with the Cits to see what he could do? I won't be shocked to see Dyment resurface with the Wild a season or so from now and show some real ability. The guys over there in St. Paul aren't exactly dummies. If, as BC and PTH suggest. this whole thing is a result of the numbers game, then I agree it's cause for concern because it looks like bad management. And by the way, I didn't like or understand the way Hanchuk was let go either. |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on May 26, 2002 18:27:56 GMT -5
A piece of info from Twincities.com/Pioneer Press says:
"Although Dyment is a solid college player, word among scouts inside and outside of Montreal is that Dyment's talents are still unrefined, but his size could allow him to be a No. 4 defenseman in the NHL."
If you look at the younger dmen and prospects the list that many would agree on would be:
Rivet
Souray (by Bad Co especially but even the doubters like myself are willing to give him more time after the playoffs) <br>Markov
Hainsey
Komisarek
That leaves Shasby and Archer, and maybe Razin, to compete for the last two spots, not to mention a greybeard, such as Brisebois or Dykhuis, who likely will be kept on for leadership. These are the players Dyment probably was being measured against. If Dyment's role, if he makes it, is to be a dman with size I don't think that he had anything on the foregoing three. For instance, during the Memorial Cup finals Archer was described as very strong for his size at about the same size as Dyment with Archer saying he was intending to put on another 15 pounds of muscle, something which the older Dyment has neglected to (or cannot) do so far. Perhaps it was such an attitude which separated Dyment out. Who really knows.
Personally I would have preferred to have Dyment in the mixture instead of Jarventie but as someone has already noted you can only have so many players under contract ( and quite possibly so many dman prospects) and with Dyment graduating he may just have ran out of time and got caught in the numbers game.
So it might have come down to something as simple as having to make a choice and from a longer term perspective Dyment was deemed to have less potential than the others. (Yes I know that Madden picked him as #10 on our prospect list but that was a snapshot made on that particular day, not an assessment of what things might look like in two years time based on the development curves that other players were showing)
Anyway we'll see. Somebody remember to raise this in the summer of 2005 'cause us geezers might not.
PS- To those who might say that the problem is that Savard signed too many unneeded players, I would just say that it was only a year ago that virtually all were lamenting the lack of depth on the team what with injuries and all. So Savard went out and got some depth. Now I'm not saying that he hasn't made some moves which , with hindsight and with future developments, may be dubbed mistakes. But that simply makes him human instead of being a wizard with a crystal ball who can foresee the future.
After all, even Sammy Pollock made mistakes. So unless Dyment turns into a star player, or a solid dman while Shasby and Archer and Razin are complete flops, I don't think that I'll be on Savard's case. If either of those two things happen, though, I think that Savard would be open to fair criticism on this trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2002 1:08:19 GMT -5
There you go HW. You and me sitting on our desks, two commoners dressed in spiffy white and looking like distinguished gentleman. Presenting our points to the jury with humour and fact. On the other desk, you have these young whipper snappers, lawyer types, like BadOne and his MiniMe's. All dressed in red with pointed shoes and greased back hair, emanating this slightly burnt odour like they came from somewhere deep and hot. I wonder why they keep their teeth clenced? Is it because we might see their forked tongues? Hmm? Lawyers.......bahhhhh....... The White Knights of Truth, Justice and Clean Sex versus those slick back Dark Knights of the Anti-Savard and the Second Guessing Order. Ladies and Gentleman of the Cyber Court, whom do you believe?
P.S. I thought we had that Foghorn Leghorn on our side but he seems to run back and forth between the tables like some mangy cock-a-many Rooster. Remind me to slip some laxatives in his corn. . ![]() members.tripod.com/~oceanwisher/police/yosemite_sam.gif [/img] |
|
|
|
Post by Gord on May 27, 2002 13:41:45 GMT -5
I'll go ahead and throw my hat into the ring on this one.. I'm a little disappointed to see Dyment go. He was, ostensibly, a promising prospect who was let go for a fifth round selection in a weak draft year.
I'm confused about the reasoning behind it, but I will go on record as saying it wasn't because of roster space. If it were that tight, and they really wanted him, they could have bought out the contract of one of the many pions and made room.
One can only assume he was let go because his salary demands were beyond what Savard thought he was worth, which would be difficult to imagine. But I mean, how much could a guy like that really demand in his position? *shrug*
It can also be assumed that they weren't really impressed, for whatever reason, with his development and figured he was expendable. <br>
Unless his demands were completely unrealistic, I don't see how money would have been a real factor.. And isn't 22 too early to give up on a prospective defenceman? <br>
It's dubious move, and only time will tell if it was the right one, but I raise a suspicious eyebrow on this one..
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 27, 2002 14:59:18 GMT -5
Remind me to send you my little St. Savard voodoo doll. FOR FREE................ IF he gets rid of MT, gets a few young power forwards and signs Theo to a nice, long term deal. Send it! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 27, 2002 15:01:35 GMT -5
Chvojka and Hanchuk were players drafted by Houle in 2000. Hanchuk in the 3rd round, Chvojka in the 6th. Savard released them in 2001. The kicker here is that Savard didn't have to release them. You have two years to sign junior draft picks. Savard released them after one. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. He could have kept them for one more year, let them play in junior (costs us nothing) and then let them go back into the draft. But he released them after one year. Thanks! did another team draft them or sign them? how are they doing now? |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 27, 2002 15:07:30 GMT -5
Please re-read my quote - I was saying that Hainsey and Komi would be OK, but that any other young D will suffer from the plethora of players and especially contracts ahead of him. Will a guy like Razin or Descoteaux ever really get a chance, with guys like Traverse ahead of him ? With the kind of contracts AS hands out to any passing NHL player, you get into a situation where you can't afford to let the kids get a chance because you can't justify having all that salary in the sidelines/minors. Ooops, sorry about that, my eyes fail me sometimes  No doubt about it, but MT's record is far from perfect too. They shouldn't be expected, but they will be expected. We'll see... |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 27, 2002 17:30:13 GMT -5
Ooops, sorry about that, my eyes fail me sometimes Hey, I'm old, I know what bad eyesight can do. Don't stress about misreading something of mine, and sorry if the comeback seemed harsh... it was just a friendly reminder to re-read what I'd written, nothing more ! |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 27, 2002 20:54:27 GMT -5
Indeed Dyment is a good prospect which is why we obtained a 5th for him, a guy that never played in the NHL nor the AHL. You'd probably not even get that for Robidas, Traverse or Bouillon and certainly wouldn't get that for whatever dmen in our AHL team right now (except Hainsey). The return on him is, IMO, pretty good at this point.
As to why Savard traded him, well if Dyment's agent was not sleeping on the switch he knew darn well that his boy would never get anywhere on this team and probably asked AS to move him so he can get his chance on another team. Garon's agent is rumored to be doing the same thing right now, Tarasov signed in Russia and if I'm the agent of either Ward, Ribeiro, Chouinard or Asham I'd be moving heaven and earth to get my client out of Montreal too. Montreal's roster is totally clogged at every position and their commitment towards their own prospect is quite low. Savard can pound his chest all he wants about not wanting to trade his prospects but to leave them rot in minor circuits is not all that better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 27, 2002 23:28:59 GMT -5
...if I'm the agent of either Ward, Ribeiro, Chouinard or Asham I'd be moving heaven and earth to get my client out of Montreal too. If you were the agent for Ward, Ribeiro and Chouinard, I'd say you were in need of some new clients. Asham has a future here. Ward's chances of getting steady work in the NHL are probably one in five; Chouinard's about one in four; and Ribeiro's about one in five. Face it, Doc, these guys are all longshots, and it's got a lot more to do with what they bring and how they bring it than with the Habs player development programme. Hossa is a prospect. Asham's developing into a real useful player, Milroy looks like a real prospect, Hainsey and Komisarek are real prospects. Savard and Madden and Jodoin look at these guys and can picture them playing very real roles on this team down the road. But when they look at Choucroute, and Ribs and Ward, they're not convinced...far from it. I see what they see. And while I'm at it, any suggestion that there are different standards for evaluating Houle draftees and Savard draftees is just flat-out absurd. If these guys (Savard, Madden, Jodoin) think a guy fits and can help, he's staying unless traded for value, no matter who drafted him. It's not their fault that Houle drafted guys in the first two rounds who didn't have what's required (like, duh, skating ability). |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2002 23:45:36 GMT -5
And while I'm at it, any suggestion that there are different standards for evaluating Houle draftees and Savard draftees is just flat-out absurd. If these guys (Savard, Madden, Jodoin) think a guy fits and can help, he's staying unless traded for value, no matter who drafted him. It's not their fault that Houle drafted guys in the first two rounds who didn't have what's required (like, duh, skating ability). I agree with you on this. It is one thing to joke around about a "conspiracy", it is a whole different matter if we discuss this in a serious tone. I will never buy the idea that Savard and company will get rid of someone based on who drafted them. "Absurd" would be a pretty accurate word. It absolutely bafles me that guys in their early twenties will not bust their chops to get better at what they do. How hard is it to hit the gym three hours a day, every second day in order to get stronger. They have millions upon millions of reasons to do that. Could it be that they are pumped up all their young lives as to how "good" they are that they believe in their own press clippings? "Why would little BillyJoe Gagne have to hit the gym", the agent says, "look what he accomplished already". Bull. BTW, I watched the Avs/Wings series and I cried. We have 5 players that can make it in those teams. Maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 28, 2002 1:25:43 GMT -5
It absolutely bafles me that guys in their early twenties will not bust their chops to get better at what they do. How hard is it to hit the gym three hours a day, every second day in order to get stronger. They have millions upon millions of reasons to do that. Could it be that they are pumped up all their young lives as to how "good" they are that they believe in their own press clippings? "Why would little BillyJoe Gagne have to hit the gym", the agent says, "look what he accomplished already". Bull. BTW, I watched the Avs/Wings series and I cried. We have 5 players that can make it in those teams. Maybe. Unfortunately, in today's professional sports, I think the true decision is not just whether to pump iron or not, but do they pump iron and ingest steroids. Regarding the Avs and Wings, remember that both teams are very well coached and that can make mediocre players look better than they are. The poorer players on those teams don't try and do more than they're expected and don't have to, because there are stars around to look after the hard stuff. Greg DeVries was an average d-man for Edmonton, but he's playing like a Norris trophy winner now. And he doesn't have any outstanding attributes. He's not bigger than average, he's not an outstanding skater. But he plays well in the system and plays intelligently. About the conspiracy, either most of Houle's drafts were truly poor (and a convincing argument could be made that way), or Savard really dislikes something about him. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but you have to wonder at the volume of Houle drafts who are either disposed of or mishandled. We all agree that Asham has a place on this team, but how much ice did he get in the playoffs? How many times did we rise in protest over how Markov was handled? Savard or Therrien? We'll see about Dyment, but I agree with an earlier post that given a choice between Dyment at 22, and a 5th round choice in a weak draft, I'd go the Minnesota route and take Dyment. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 28, 2002 2:01:01 GMT -5
It absolutely bafles me that guys in their early twenties will not bust their chops to get better at what they do. How hard is it to hit the gym three hours a day, every second day in order to get stronger. They have millions upon millions of reasons to do that. Could it be that they are pumped up all their young lives as to how "good" they are that they believe in their own press clippings? "Why would little BillyJoe Gagne have to hit the gym", the agent says, "look what he accomplished already". Bull. BTW, I watched the Avs/Wings series and I cried. We have 5 players that can make it in those teams. Maybe. In fairness to Mikey, I recall BC's post a while back in which he cited some authority who said that Ribeiro had put on some upper body muscle but couldn't keep it on. The idea was that he was "just one of those guys". I hear you on the Wings/Avs talent level, but we could be looking at a very fine team indeed in about 4 years or so if a few chips fall our way. As for the suggestion -- not yours -- about the widespread use of Roids as a means to get strong and stay strong, I'd be shocked if even 20% of NHLers used them. My guess would be between 5 and 10%. The fact is that these guys can get strong enough with conventional training methods, and the extra muscle is not going to make you a better skater (in terms of skill)or a smarter hockey player, which are still the two most important things. Most of these guys are working with frames around 6 feet or bigger to begin with, and can easily carry the 200 to 220 pounds they need to hold their own. The difference between the guys who make it and the guys who don't is skill and smarts. It's not like football, thanks be to Jesus....Tucker may be a lot bigger now than he was at age 19, but it's entirely possible that the added size is a result of the work in the weight room, diet and age. But maybe I'm just naive. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 28, 2002 7:59:04 GMT -5
We are touching an extremely sensitive subject. If we are going to discuss it, the moderators have to watch that it does not get out of hand by someone coming in and accusing so and so is on "roids". My opinion is that some are, to a certain degree. How many? It is impossible to know. Perhaps they are doing it to gain strength, but, it would not make sense. From my experience. In one year of CEGEP, I gained 20 lbs working 1.5 hour, 3 times a week. And I was not trying to get "huge". Just bored. BTW, as you get older, it's hard to stay in shape and that muscle becomes well marbled  . Why can't these guys do it who have much taller frames? They are PAID to be strong and in top shape. Why can't 6 foot Markov get into the 210-215 range? He HAS to in order to be a defenseman. As far as skating is concerned, I am certain that the Hab's would hire a dozen skating coaches for these guys. But, all to often, a lot of these guys think that they are really good and they don’t have to. As far as drugs. Like I said, steroids may not be common practice, but pain killers must be given out by the metric ton. Can anyone really ignore the pain of a puck in the face? Or is a little localized anesthetics is de rigueur in these cases. Playing with broken ankles? Does anyone realize the pain in this? Does anyone believe that they don't live with strong doses of pain killers. Are they addicted to them? Probably not. By varying the doses and the type, plus doctors supervision should keep this in check. If I was a manager, I would be more concerned about illegal drugs then these guys getting addicted to pain killers. After all, pain killers will last as long as the pain. These are MY opinions and do not reflect board. Please be cautious with this subject. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 28, 2002 8:21:05 GMT -5
I don't know too much about steroids, so I can't really comment on it all that much. I do know, or I have an awful lot of confidence in my sources, of at least one current NHLer who used to take steroids while playing Major Junior, often right in the dressing room, but I do not know if that player still takes them. He is, however, the kind of person you would expect to be taking them. As an aside, I have never liked him, and would never want him to play for the Montreal Canadiens. Whether that represents widespread use, I do not know. Nuff said on that. On the pain killers issue, Micheal Farber, formerly of the Gazette (the Gazette's sports section started its long, slow death the day he left), currently with Sports Illustrated, wrote an award winning article several years back, I think just before the Nagano Olympics, about the widespread use of Sudafed. Fascinating article. From here, it is not a huge leap to think players are taking other, more serious medications on a routine basis. sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1998/weekly/980202/nhlstory.htmlAs for "6'0 players not being able to put on weight" please keep in mind that for many of these players - in particular the smaller players - their listed heights and weights to do not in any way, shape or form reflect their actual heights and weights. I would bet good money Andrei Markov is not 6'0. Theo Fleury is a lot closer to 5'2, than he is to 5'6, and Saku Koivu, Richard Zednik, Stephane Robidas and a host of others probably benefit from an extra inch or two on their bios. So when we look at Mike Ribeiro, and say "gee, he's 5'11, why doesn't he weigh more?" keep in mind that he is probably 5'11 on skates, and more like 5'9 in real life. When you meet some of these guys, you are actually surprised at just how small they are. Not all of them, but definetely the smaller guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 28, 2002 8:43:15 GMT -5
I never read that article. Thanks BC.
Steroids are a dime a dozen. Friends gave them away like so much popcorn even in a CEGEP gym in the middle '70's. I never was curious enough to find out what they cost, but I am sure it was not much if some fellow students could easily afford them. The people who took them did have character problems. You would not like to sit in a restaurant with them fly into a rage because their beer had too much head. Scary.
As to the height issue. BC. You listed Dyment as 6' and 6'3". What makes me think that he is the lesser height. It is unusual for anyone to grow 3 inches at 22. Unless of course they are getting growth help. I am not saying that he did and it is meant in "half" a humorous way. More likely, the PR department of the clubs have an automatic height increasing software that gives everybody 2 to 3 inches on their bios.
These "drug" posts are a freaken minefield.
|
|
.