|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 28, 2002 10:37:16 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". ... Please be cautious with this subject. Why is this a "sensitive" subject? Why can't I say that I think so and so is on roids? Wasn't there a suggestion above that Tucker is on roids? So what if it's incapable of being established one way or another? Why do we have to be "cautious"? Are we concerned about advertising revenue, or defamation lawsuits (that would be a joke) or something more mysterious? Are we "part" of the NHL now? Do we (or does somebody we know) now have an interest in the league's good reputation as a clean, family-oriented, fun product? An interest that we have to be "careful" not to compromise? There's just no good reason for us to be "cautious" about this. Consider yourself overruled. I think people should say exactly what they think about this and indeed we should have a "Who's on roids contest". You may disagree. You may say "No, JV, you're wrong," but whatever you do, do it in public, do it in writing and please give reasons. You're taking your job on the beat a little too serious, HA....Do us a favor, and get your sense of humour back from the dry cleaner, why don't you? By the way, Nazarov, Thornton (Scott), Brashear and about 80 other guys are on roids. That's a fact and we here at Habsrus should scream it from the rooftops and stand by the story. I can tell by their syntax and word-finding difficulties, though there are doubtless other signs.... |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 28, 2002 15:30:46 GMT -5
Wheee, I love these touchy subjects!  First...a disclaimer. I have absolutely no knowledge of any NHL player taking steroids and would not want anyone to have the slightest impression that I fervently believe that to be the case.  I read recently that one Major league baseball player stated that 80% of ball players take steroids. Truth? Lies? Who knows, but my... don't we have a lot more home runs that we used to? The recent Winter Olympics pointed out how much of it is going around, though I am suprised some of these guys were caught. And did the organizers just decide to skip testing the hockey players? Or were they all clean? What I can see is that the stakes in making a professional career for oneself are very high. The difference in net worth between an AHL'r and an NHL'r is probably in the millions. If your team keeps telling you that you have to get faster and stronger and it doesn't seem to be happening for you, I would guess the temptation to help matters along with a few 'supplements' can be irresistable. There are two losers in the equation...those who don't take anything, because they're not on a level playing field and those who do, because they could be shortening their lives considerably. The fans benefit from faster, stronger athletes (at a cost these days in 'supplementing' those salaries) and the teams management and owners benefit from a more competetive, more fan attractive product. Until everyone is taking them and then there's no difference anymore. But, this is like the proverbial spilt milk. It won't change unless the players themselves make an issue of it and that's not likely to happen. To finish up, I don't think all NHLr's take steroids...some are just naturally strong, good skaters and skilled. Thank god. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 28, 2002 15:41:57 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. How can Chouinard's agent have the guts to ask for a trade? the guy has trouble scoring in the AHL on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 28, 2002 15:48:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 28, 2002 21:45:37 GMT -5
How can Chouinard's agent have the guts to ask for a trade? the guy has trouble scoring in the AHL on a regular basis. Because it doesn't matter if he scores or not, the roster is totally clogged and he'll get no chance to make it, plain and simple. I'm not saying Chouinard is the best thing since Guy Lafleur, but in today's NHL, when at the age of 22, only a dozen NHL games get invested in a high first rounder, there is, IMO, a problem. Almost every team today are bringing along their prospects and it's not because they are all superstars in the AHL or offer formidable performances in their first NHL year. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 28, 2002 21:58:59 GMT -5
You know the Habs are out of the playoffs when a thread about an unheralded, unsigned college player being traded for a pick can generate over 60 responses ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 28, 2002 22:09:46 GMT -5
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. Chvojka, Hanchuk, Buturlin, Dyment (and they were others, too) when you add this to how some prospects get absolutely no chance (Ward, Chouinard) or barely get one (Asham), it just adds up HA. Savard is slowly but surely letting go of every prospects drafted before him just as he got rid, in 18 months, of almost every forwards on the team aside from Koivu and Petrov. Savard wants his men, his way or no way, it's pretty evident. While a purge was certainly needed on the big team (though not every moves were brilliant), his purge of the farm is somewhat scary. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 28, 2002 23:06:24 GMT -5
Chvojka, Hanchuk, Buturlin, Dyment (and they were others, too) when you add this to how some prospects get absolutely no chance (Ward, Chouinard) or barely get one (Asham), it just adds up HA. Savard is slowly but surely letting go of every prospects drafted before him just as he got rid, in 18 months, of almost every forwards on the team aside from Koivu and Petrov. Savard wants his men, his way or no way, it's pretty evident. While a purge was certainly needed on the big team (though not every moves were brilliant), his purge of the farm is somewhat scary. Agree all the way. Markov really had to prove clearly that he belonged, and it seemed like the team gave him a chance half-heartedly. For the rest, AS is changing players around at high speed. I don't mind that, but I do mind seeing practically none of our kids getting some kind of a chance - a guy like Ward was highly rated back when he was drafted, and has done well enough at the NHL level to deserve a shot. After all, how many kids are "obvious" NHLers, and how many need to get a chance so that we know whether or not they are going to make it. Chouinard, Ward and the like obviously aren't going to be as good as the guys we know wished we had drafted (Gagné and Marian Hossa ), but they could nevertheless be useful NHLers. Or not. But they have to get a chance here so that we can know. That's why I'm leery as to Savard's approach, I think we're overall going to lose out big time when the current gang of kids matures outside of town (some failing, but some probably making it), and with our UFA-laden lineup, we'll be unable to get high-level players since we'll be spending tens of millions on marginal 3d liners and 7th defensemen. (Quintal, Dykhuis, Odjick, Lindsay) After Lindsay ahead of Ward, anyone ahead of Markov (until Markov had proved to even the most casual fan that he belonged), Audette ahead of Malhotra (we could have gotten an equivalent player to Manny instead when we traded Rosie), Quintal ahead of several kids who could probably have sufficed, soon it'll be Fiset instead of Tarasov or Garon.... Hainsey and Hossa seem to fall within Savard's group of players he considers "his".... how those guys get treated will say a lot about Savard's actual fairness. If Hossa fails to impress more than Chouinard did, will he get more of a chance ? I'm willing to bet he will. |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on May 29, 2002 0:07:46 GMT -5
On this so-called "conspiracy" theory.
Why would Savard cut off some guy's career just because Houle drated him? Why, if someone has talent, would he relegate him to the minors, when bringing him up and giving him a chance might improve the club and therefor enhance Savard's job security? Conversely, if he kept shipping out guys who blossomed into good players with other teams while his team was short of such, it would seem to me that he would simply be putting himself in a position to be fired. Now I'm not claiming that Savard is a genius as a GM but, please, he's not stupid- which is what he would be if he were "conspiring" against all Houle players, including the good ones, thereby making his team worse in the process.
Points:
-Ward's career has been hampered by injuries more than anything else. He was able to play this past season healthy with an NHL center which did him a lot of good. Hopefully he will have a good camp this year; I don't think he did much to impress last fall.
-Asham not playing after been called up ( and I think he should have been but I have hopes for this year) is a coaching decision, especially when the team does a lot better than expected. Plus if Savard were seen to be openly making coaching decisions he would be in the position of taking the heat if the team were to not do well, while if he's hands off the coach takes the heat and he fires the coach. I seem to have to keep repeating this but, again, Therrien is the fill in coach destined to be fired at the right time, unless he undergoes a sudden transformation for the better. So Savard isn't going to jeapordize his safety valve by directly meddling. That isn't a conspiracy, that's smart organizational politics, and it's better for the team too. The only evidence that I know of where Savard interceded with Therrien was in suggesting that Bulis be tried at LW with Juneau and that proved to be successful.
-a further point on who was played. It seems clear to me that Therrien prefers to play veteran players. Further Savard may be reinvigorating the old Habs practice of bringing along prospects slowly, not putting high expectations on them right away and so taking a chance of ruining a good prospect.
- Hainsey was drafted under Houle- How come he's not on Savard's sh*t list?
-Hossa-ditto.
-Markov-ditto (yes, I know, some thought, including myself until mid season, that Markov wasn't going to make it with this teasm. But he did, and I didn't see Savard running out onto the ice and screaming "hey Markov get off the ice 'cause I didn't draft you". I also saw Green quoted saying he was concerned about ruining Markov's confidence by throwing him into the deep end and only knew that things were starting to come along when Markov finally started asking him questions. Sounds sensible, come to think of it.)
-Ribiero was given plenty of chances but besides some skill he has some pretty glaring deficiencies, lack of strength and toughness plus poor defensive play being foremost. Frankly, in a strong organization I don't even think last year's Ribiero would have made it to the big club.
So please, give the conspiracy accusations a rest and save them for something where there is some real evidence.
harumph, grumble, mutter.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 29, 2002 16:05:38 GMT -5
Because it doesn't matter if he scores or not, the roster is totally clogged and he'll get no chance to make it, plain and simple. I'm not saying Chouinard is the best thing since Guy Lafleur, but in today's NHL, when at the age of 22, only a dozen NHL games get invested in a high first rounder, there is, IMO, a problem. Almost every team today are bringing along their prospects and it's not because they are all superstars in the AHL or offer formidable performances in their first NHL year.  go talk to guys like Nathan Dempsey who have been stuck in the minors for 8 years despite posting excellent numbers. When you are a player like that, when you get a chance, you gotta take advantage of it. Chouinard had a golden chance(1st line time with Koivu) and did pretty much nothing with it. He'll be in the minors for a long time if he doesn't impress when(or if) he gets another call to the NHL. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 29, 2002 16:07:02 GMT -5
You know the Habs are out of the playoffs when a thread about an unheralded, unsigned college player being traded for a pick can generate over 60 responses ;D lol, this is what we needed to get the board going again. I hope we'll get well over a 100 when the Teemu signing is announced ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 29, 2002 16:11:53 GMT -5
On this so-called "conspiracy" theory. Why would Savard cut off some guy's career just because Houle drated him? Why, if someone has talent, would he relegate him to the minors, when bringing him up and giving him a chance might improve the club and therefor enhance Savard's job security? Conversely, if he kept shipping out guys who blossomed into good players with other teams while his team was short of such, it would seem to me that he would simply be putting himself in a position to be fired. Now I'm not claiming that Savard is a genius as a GM but, please, he's not stupid- which is what he would be if he were "conspiring" against all Houle players, including the good ones, thereby making his team worse in the process. Points: -Ward's career has been hampered by injuries more than anything else. He was able to play this past season healthy with an NHL center which did him a lot of good. Hopefully he will have a good camp this year; I don't think he did much to impress last fall. -Asham not playing after been called up ( and I think he should have been but I have hopes for this year) is a coaching decision, especially when the team does a lot better than expected. Plus if Savard were seen to be openly making coaching decisions he would be in the position of taking the heat if the team were to not do well, while if he's hands off the coach takes the heat and he fires the coach. I seem to have to keep repeating this but, again, Therrien is the fill in coach destined to be fired at the right time, unless he undergoes a sudden transformation for the better. So Savard isn't going to jeapordize his safety valve by directly meddling. That isn't a conspiracy, that's smart organizational politics, and it's better for the team too. The only evidence that I know of where Savard interceded with Therrien was in suggesting that Bulis be tried at LW with Juneau and that proved to be successful. -a further point on who was played. It seems clear to me that Therrien prefers to play veteran players. Further Savard may be reinvigorating the old Habs practice of bringing along prospects slowly, not putting high expectations on them right away and so taking a chance of ruining a good prospect. - Hainsey was drafted under Houle- How come he's not on Savard's sh*t list? -Hossa-ditto. -Markov-ditto (yes, I know, some thought, including myself until mid season, that Markov wasn't going to make it with this teasm. But he did, and I didn't see Savard running out onto the ice and screaming "hey Markov get off the ice 'cause I didn't draft you". I also saw Green quoted saying he was concerned about ruining Markov's confidence by throwing him into the deep end and only knew that things were starting to come along when Markov finally started asking him questions. Sounds sensible, come to think of it.) -Ribiero was given plenty of chances but besides some skill he has some pretty glaring deficiencies, lack of strength and toughness plus poor defensive play being foremost. Frankly, in a strong organization I don't even think last year's Ribiero would have made it to the big club. So please, give the conspiracy accusations a rest and save them for something where there is some real evidence. harumph, grumble, mutter. excellent post. |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on May 29, 2002 16:43:07 GMT -5
Thanks, MPL. Nice to see the odd person actually reads the sermons I post. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 29, 2002 17:12:13 GMT -5
MP was right, for once: it was an excellent post. This is what we need more of: the careful dismantling of poor arguments by demonstrating that they're cobbled together with everything and anything that helps the case but never make any mention of the all the evidence that had to be thrown out because it was "inconvenient". This whole "Houle Picks get the short end of the stick" thing is a perfect example.
By the way, Markov's handling, in retrospect, hasn't been that bad. There was a critical point there, back in December, where a reasonable person would've thought the "tough love" thing was getting out of hand, but they brought him back in before he lost his will to stick with it.
I like the new approach. I like the idea that Asham's twitching and feels he's ready to take on a regular role. Markov, then Asham, then Hainsey, Hossa and Milroy. Nobody is handed a job. The Cits are always there, and everybody knows if Savard'll leave Darby and Poulin there at a combined 1.6 million a year, he won't blink about sending you there either. Or leaving you there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 29, 2002 17:27:34 GMT -5
Because it doesn't matter if he scores or not, the roster is totally clogged and he'll get no chance to make it, plain and simple. I'm not saying Chouinard is the best thing since Guy Lafleur, but in today's NHL, when at the age of 22, only a dozen NHL games get invested in a high first rounder, there is, IMO, a problem. The problem is not systemic. It's player specific. Choucroutte is the problem. He's gotten the 12 games that Ryan NEVER got, which is about right. I don't care if he was drafted 2nd overall, if it was a mistake it was a mistake -- you admit it and move on -- and you don't try to bend space and time back on eachother to try and make it work. Chouinard needs to bust his nuts and earn a shot -- or a longer stay in the NHL --just like everybody else. Just like Hainsey. I don't care where Hainsey was drafted, he's got to outperform Jarventie and Razin and a few other guys to earn a shot. Doc, you've got to start laying the responsibility at the proper feet. In this case it's either Eric's or Houle's. If Chouinard has it but isn't bringing it, it's his fault. If he doesn't have it, it's Houle's fault for drafting him. If you really believe Chouinard might be a player who can get it done in the NHL, then ask yourself this: How come a guy who's on a winning team, who's playing with talented linemates, and who's got everything to gain, just isn't getting it done in a league a step or more slower? |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 29, 2002 17:33:13 GMT -5
On this so-called "conspiracy" theory. Why would Savard cut off some guy's career just because Houle drated him? Why, if someone has talent, would he relegate him to the minors, when bringing him up and giving him a chance might improve the club and therefor enhance Savard's job security? Savard knows he isn't passing on anyone with a star-studded future, but he's simply not giving a chance to just about anyone from the Houle era, other than the 2000 draft class for which he somehow winds up taking credit in a lot of fans' minds, even though he hadn't been hired yet. It's not being drafted by Houle, it's being signed by him that hurts a guys career. I don't think conspiracy is the right word. I think it's just favoritism. Why did Bulis get so many chances, why did Traverse get a fat contract, etc, etc, Savard makes sure "his" guys get chances to do well, while the vast majority of Houle guys simply don't get a chance. This is largely because Houle sucked at drafting players, but some definitely deserved to get shots, if only a couple of games. You could also claim that Savard keeps on Therrien because Therrien doesn't have the means to stop him from meddling. There was also the decision to send down Gratton, and Savard got Juneau and Dackell which basically imposed them as a PK pair on Therrien... Then again, how many kids did MT really have available, and how much control did AS and the rest of the coaching staff have ? They always claimed they work as a team, which means AS and MT share responsibility for the good and the bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 29, 2002 17:34:00 GMT -5
And by the way, the idea that "it doesn't matter" if he scores because our system is clogged is just ridiculous. From our point of view, if he was tearing it up we'd be forced to do something (either find room or trade him while his value is high), and from hi spoint of view, he's going to have to perform well in the AHL before any team gives him a serious shot, If he goes to the Wild in November, they'll assign him and watch him, just like Savard and Jodoin are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 29, 2002 18:06:06 GMT -5
Savard knows he isn't passing on anyone with a star-studded future, but he's simply not giving a chance to just about anyone from the Houle era...
I don't buy that at all. The guys drafted (or signed) by Houle don't have to do anything but play well when they play. The favourite counter-example, of Traverse, doesn't prove anything. Traverse sat all through the playoffs (but for one game I think) and for most of the final 15 games of the season. Likewise with Berezin, who would naturally be a "favorite" according to the theory because Savard acquired him. Well, it didn't work out, and Berezin played himself out of the lineup and watched most of the playoffs. But for Zednik's crash and burn routine (I think he faked it) Berezin wouldn't have seen ANY action in the playoffs. So much for your "favoritism" based on the criterion of "how acquired and by whom"
I don't think conspiracy is the right word. I think it's just favoritism. Why did Bulis get so many chances, why did Traverse get a fat contract, etc, etc, Savard makes sure "his" guys get chances to do well, while the vast majority of Houle guys simply don't get a chance.
Bulis, whether you like it or not, has potential to be the kind of player Savard likes and the kind the team needs. Even so, he lost his spot when he was injured and it was not given back to him when he returned. Like Traverse, he sat for most of the playoffs (not even dressed). "Favoritism" is absolutely the rifght word: Savard favors the players he thinks are now and are going to be able to help the team. Get used to it. Get over it. "He's not fair"! Well, he only wants to win, we can question some of the decisions, but trying to make a case that he bases his decisions on anything other than the club's best interests (considering both the short and longer term) is just despearte and doomed to failure. Get a new hobby.
You could also claim that Savard keeps on Therrien because Therrien doesn't have the means to stop him from meddling.
Good plan. For the meantime.
There was also the decision to send down Gratton, and Savard got Juneau and Dackell which basically imposed them as a PK pair on Therrien...
What a crime! To "impose" one of the season's bestPK duos on a rookie coach!
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 29, 2002 18:56:42 GMT -5
"Good plan. For the meantime. "
But it's also a plan that puts a lot more blame on AS for all of our bashing.
". So much for your "favoritism" based on the criterion of "how acquired and by whom" "
It's not like Asham or Ward got ice time, Berezin got scratched for other AS acquisitions.
"Even so, he lost his spot when he was injured and it was not given back to him when he returned"
Bulis was doing squat, and had the easiest slot in the whole lineup to play in - Kilger and Hossa did well there too, and I'm sure just about any other player who can play on LW will look pretty good there, too. IMO Bulis is a failure, and should be traded or dumped. Of course, that would mean AS would be admitting to a serious mistake, since it would make the WAS trade look like a tie, at the very best. Expect to see Bulis back, wasting terrific opportunities that should be given to others. The only way Bulis might fade away is if a AS signee comes in and takes his job - Hossa being the obvious candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 29, 2002 20:52:56 GMT -5
And by the way, the idea that "it doesn't matter" if he scores because our system is clogged is just ridiculous. From our point of view, if he was tearing it up we'd be forced to do something (either find room or trade him while his value is high), and from hi spoint of view, he's going to have to perform well in the AHL before any team gives him a serious shot, If he goes to the Wild in November, they'll assign him and watch him, just like Savard and Jodoin are doing. Earlier on you debate that doing well in the AHL means squat for Ribeiro because Sevigny did well and it amounts to nothing and now not being a star of the AHL is a factor against Ward. You're evaluation obviously lies strictly on who you like and who you don't and you'll use whatever argument suit you best at the moment. And BTW, Hossa did not break anything in the AHL this year, which, according to your criteria could be a good or a bad sign. Somehow, I'm guessing you'll pick good sign. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 29, 2002 22:17:03 GMT -5
Earlier on you debate that doing well in the AHL means squat for Ribeiro because Sevigny did well and it amounts to nothing and now not being a star of the AHL is a factor against Ward. You're evaluation obviously lies strictly on who you like and who you don't and you'll use whatever argument suit you best at the moment. You're conflating two quite distinctly different things for the sole purpose of trying to undermine a perfectly valid point: first, the fact that putting up points in the AHL is not a sufficient basis on which to promote someone who is lacking in other respects; and second, that the absence of big numbers doesn't necessarily spell doom for a player's future. The fact is that a proper assessment of a player's future development and prospects of success in the NHL has to be made on the basis of a variety of factors. Ward was pegged early on in his career as highly unlikely to be a very productive player in terms of scoring. His potential upside was scaled back stage by stage so that now he'll be considered a success if he could play a role something similar to the one now filled by Chad Kilger, minus the penalty killing and perhaps with a bit more finish. He is not and will not be assessed in terms of his numbers alone, but on his willingness and ability to take the body, to skate and to play sound positionally. If he puts those three elements together on a consistent basis and shows the kind of fight Jodoin and Savard are looking for, he'll have a shot. He'll HAVE a shot -- not that he'll necessarily GET a shot -- at playing in Montreal. <br> Just because a guy doesn't get a twenty or thirty game stretch in the NHL doesn't mean he hasn't had a shot. All it means is that he hasn't done the things he needs to do (as judged by Savard and Jodoin) to merit that kind of a trial run at the NHL level. They may be wrong from time to time, but anybody who complains that these players aren't getting a shot is missing a very important point: these players are watched more closely at the AHL level by the suits than we watch the guys playing in Montreal. Absolutely. When was the last time anyone bothered to sit down with a video machine and run the shifts of a particular player back and forth in slow motion for a few hours? Or had the chance to watch them in practice day in and day out? Who crunches their numbers as part of the analysis but only as a part of it? Who here even knows throughout the year who Ward is playing with? "My evaluation" does not lie soley on who I like. Not in this debate. It's about whether the guys who are not seeing NHL ice "deserve" to. In my view, (and of course I can't say I know because I've seen as little of them as you have) the guys who are not getting the ice have one or more fatal flaws to their game that haven't been straightened out. To me that's clearly Savard's view, and I can't see how anyone here has an opinion based on even one tenth as much exposure to the player in question, not to mention experience in assessing talent and general hockey smarts. Ward's case is a bit different because he's been injured so much that it's been tough (for us at least) to get a read on him. Chouinard and Ribeiro aren't tough cases at all, in my opinion, and it seems to me perfectly right for Savard not to lose a moments sleep over leaving both of them exactly where they are for the moment. Asham's slowly expanding role makes perfect sense to me, as does Markov's increased ice time (both drafted and signed by Houle). Hossa made as good a case for staying as any rookie I've seen in the last few years by scoring in two of his three games, by playing hard along the boards and by hustling like a demon on the backcheck, but I didn't complain when he was sent back. He's a good prospect and there's time, and if Jodoin and Savard see his game evolve and see him doing the little things that you need to do to be successful in the NHL he'll be back. Same goes for Ribeiro and Chouinard, except for them the adjustments they need to make seem to be more fundamental.... I actually saw Chouinard play three times in Quebec last year and he was pretty much invisible. I have no reason to dislike Eric, and in fact there was a time not too long ago where I (like others here) thought maybe he was going to be a real player. I hope it happens, but it's seeming more and more unlikely, and it's got nothing to do (as far as I can tell) with the fact that our system is "clogged". You can't shuffle through an AHL season without hitting anybody, without skating hard, without playing well without the puck and expect that you're going to have a chance to show your stuff in the NHL just because you're the third leading scorer on your team, cause it ain't gonna happen. <br> |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 29, 2002 22:38:35 GMT -5
It's not like Asham or Ward got ice time, Berezin got scratched for other AS acquisitions. Now you're reaching, PTH. Berezin, a high profile Savard acquisition, gets his butt scratched for the very period he was brought in -- the stretch, when we needed scoring -- and for the playoffs, but you continue to peddle this preposterous idea that Savard's not operating objectively! And then you lamely assert that he (Berezin) was scratched for other Savard acquisitions (which isn't even true) so somehow it's not a fair indicator of what AS is really up to.....Wow. And just so it's clear, Berezin was scratched because he played worse than anybody could have predicted (except those who despise him) and later because both Koivu and Audette came back and showed more than anybody had a right to expect. So, while Audette and Koivu and Gilmour and Zednik were providing the offence it only made sense to leave Berezin in the pressbox, NO MATTER HOW BADLY IT MIGHT MAKE ANDRE SAVARD LOOK. Ponder that. And ponder it before you persist with this cranky, irresponsible and insupportable charge that Savard is wedded to the guys he brings in and can't wait to sit or trade or humiliate the guys he inherited from HouleBulis was doing squat, and had the easiest slot in the whole lineup to play in - Kilger and Hossa did well there too, and I'm sure just about any other player who can play on LW will look pretty good there, too. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 29, 2002 23:01:55 GMT -5
Now you're reaching, PTH. Berezin, a high profile Savard acquisition, gets his butt scratched for the very period he was brought in -- the stretch, when we needed scoring -- and for the playoffs, but you continue to peddle this preposterous idea that Savard's not operating objectively! And then you lamely assert that he (Berezin) was scratched for other Savard acquisitions (which isn't even true) so somehow it's not a fair indicator of what AS is really up to.....Wow. And just so it's clear, Berezin was scratched because he played worse than anybody could have predicted (except those who despise him) and later because both Koivu and Audette came back and showed more than anybody had a right to expect. So, while Audette and Koivu and Gilmour and Zednik were providing the offence it only made sense to leave Berezin in the pressbox, NO MATTER HOW BADLY IT MIGHT MAKE ANDRE SAVARD LOOK. Ponder that. And ponder it before you persist with this cranky, irresponsible and insupportable charge that Savard is wedded to the guys he brings in and can't wait to sit or trade or humiliate the guys he inherited from Houle I'm not saying AS wants to humiliate Houle-era players, but he's never cutting them any kind of slack, whereas his own acquisitions get as many chances as possible. I'm not claiming any kind of an absolute vendetta by AS against Houle players, but he's clearly giving up on the whole lot of them and bringing in his own cast of no-names, which IMO is an expensive mistake. Filling up the roster with UFAs means spending precious $$$ on role players rather than top liners. Interestingly enough, this is the same mistake as Houle made, overpaying upper tier role players like Corson and Linden and thereby blocking the cash to get a real star. |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on May 29, 2002 23:46:36 GMT -5
Let me take this one, Doc. First I agree with JV when he said that if someone is going to make an argument on Savard's predispositions the word "favouratism" is the correct term rather than "conspiracy".
Second, some players do in fact do quite well in the minors but just can't reach the same level of performance when they get a try out in the NHL. From what I've read I gather Sevigny is such a player but that's all second hand. You might know better than I what, if any, chance he had to crack the big team. If he did it was presumably under the Houle regime so you can't hang what happened then on Savard.
As to JV's argument on doing well in the the AHL I would restate it this way. In most cases a player needs to do well in the AHL to be considered for a crack in the NHL. Now if he doesn't do well in his NHL chances then those AHL accomplishments remain precisely that, relevant to the AHL but not to the NHL. See Sevigny.
Respecting Ribiero, he did well in the AHL and he got his chance in the NHL, because of that and because he performed very well in camp and during the exhibition season. However, despite good spurts, he did in the end have difficulty with the NHL's intensity level and the "close checking" of the regular season.
Ward has never had a decent season in the AHL until this past year, mainly, I gather due to injuries. In 99/00 he played 40 games with 26 points. In 00/01 it was 23 & 19. In 01/02 it was 78 and 57 but with no points in the playoffs. He didn't did much in last fall's training camp but with a decent year I would think that if he performs in camp he just might get a crack. That likely means that he will have to show more than a veteran. If he doesn't bring it with him he won't, and won't deserve to, get a chance at cracking the regular line up. One final point on Ward.
Hossa played 50 games for the Cits this year, and had 17 goals and 32 points, with nothing in the playoffs. Not as good as Ward this year and about even with Ward in his first year if you prorate the points. This year Ward probably had the best center on the team while Hossa did show pretty good in a few games with the Habs and this was his first year in pro hockey compared to Ward's third. Personally I think that Hossa might benefit from more time with the Cits but, again, if he has an excellent camp, better than a vet, he may make the team.
In short there doesn't seem to be much to pick between these two except that Ward will be entering his 4th year of pro hockey and so will be expected to start showing something at camp if he's ever going to get a chance. Having said all of that he'll only be 23 but the longer a guy is around the more likely he will fall down the prospect list. I think that's something that happens with all organizations, in and out of hockey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 29, 2002 23:55:56 GMT -5
I'm not saying AS wants to humiliate Houle-era players, but he's never cutting them any kind of slack, whereas his own acquisitions get as many chances as possible. I'm not claiming any kind of an absolute vendetta by AS against Houle players, but he's clearly giving up on the whole lot of them and bringing in his own cast of no-names, which IMO is an expensive mistake. Filling up the roster with UFAs means spending precious $$$ on role players rather than top liners. Interestingly enough, this is the same mistake as Houle made, overpaying upper tier role players like Corson and Linden and thereby blocking the cash to get a real star.
Second, nobody here can make anything approaching a convincing case that Ribeiro, Chouinard or Ward are really solid young prospects, and in fact the evidence is almost all to the contrary. Ward might yet be the best, but the other two have glaring, huge problems with their games. These problems are so staggering that, judged each on its own merits, the decisions not to bring them up or keep them here seem entirely sensible. I just don't get what it is that makes people believe that Savard, Jodoin and Madden are just all (collectively) missing something or, worse, are deliberately overlooking something. I just don't get it.
As for your second front, I don't have the time or energy to get back into it (again). I will say that I share some of your concerns but I don't think the situation is anywhere near as bad as you might believe. I see Hainsey needing a spot. No problem. I see Asham needing a spot. I see Hossa -- possibly -- needing a spot, but he'll probably benefit from a year in Hamilton or wherever the Cits will play. I do not see how Savard has stocked the team with a bunch of "no-names" who can neither help nor be moved.
They had the money last year to make serious runs at Hull and Lapointe. They'll be after UFAs Holik and Selanne this year and I wouldn't be surprised to see a trade for Turgeon. The future is way, way, way brighter than it was when Savard took over. It's actually a good time to be a Habs fan. I guess that's tough to take when you've cut your teeth on being a critic. There's still stuff to jump on, no doubt, but there's a lot less and it's dwindling all the time. I'm optimistic about the draft, about our picks over the last two years, and about Savard's ability to keep the transition on track. The word "rebuilding" was actually used by Savard in an interview (so I heard) about a week ago, and it's the right term. Between the Habs and the Cits we'll have something like eight or nine really good young prospects by next year, and possibly more than that, and I have every reason to be more confident that the new guys coming in will be better prospects than Ribeiro and Chouinard. Clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 30, 2002 0:17:36 GMT -5
Let me take this one, Doc. First I agree with JV when he said that if someone is going to make an argument on Savard's predispositions the word "favouratism" is the correct term rather than "conspiracy". ... As to JV's argument on doing well in the the AHL I would restate it this way. In most cases a player needs to do well in the AHL to be considered for a crack in the NHL. Now if he doesn't do well in his NHL chances then those AHL accomplishments remain precisely that, relevant to the AHL but not to the NHL. See Sevigny.
As for the part about "doing well in the AHL", all I was saying is that numbers aren't everything. Far from it. Landry scores in the AHL, as does Asham, but what they want from these two in the NHL are skating and grit and sound positional play and the odd contribution offensively. It's entirely possible that Asham would be with the Habs even if he didn't put up decent numbers in Quebec. Likewise, the fact that Ribeiro or Ward do a fair bit of scoring in the AHL doesn't put them at the top of the list of potential call-ups: if they don't play solidly in the other ways that matter they won't impress, and they won't get called up. That's as it should be. And even if someone's a pure scorer in the AHL, he'll have to have the kind of skills that translate into NHL success, as you point out, in order to persuade anyone that he'll be able to get it done in the NHL. |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on May 30, 2002 7:47:04 GMT -5
Yes, understand and agree on your favouritism comments JV. Also a good elaboration on "doing well in the AHL" and expectations of prospects in the NHL.
Also pretty much agree with your response to PTH. I see these sweeping generalizations on "favouritism" being levelled at Savard but when you get down to specifics there's not much there.
Berezin- played in 29 games and 6 playoff games. Only had 10 and 2 points respectively but they had to find out what he could do for the club. Why else would they trade for him? He had been pretty successful in the past and had played with Perreault. Still he was sat at times.
Asham- 35 games, 3 playoff games, 9 & 1 points. Not much difference. If Berezin played more down the stretch and in the playoffs remember Therrien likes veteran players. I think that he has his foot in the door for next year though. He will need a good camp come this fall.
Ward- he might have been called up instead of Asham but realistically no room for both. Remember this team was trying to make the playoffs, it wasn't playing for next year and given everything it seems to me that they exceeded expectations and everybody was pretty happy, including everyone here on the board. Also Ward's first decent AHL year was this season. That, combined with a really good training camp, good enough to beat out a vet, might get him onto the roster next year. I think he's earned a good look at training camp but he has to prove he belongs. It'll be up to him and he has to do better than last fall when his camp was pretty average.
Hossa didn't put up the numbers Ward did although he was hurt and also called up for a few games. I think that he could benefit from more time in the AHL and will have to impress in camp to make it onto the roster at the beginning of next year.
Bulis, had a great camp/preseason then tailed off badly only to recoup when placed on LW with Juneau. Never regained his form or confidence after his injury. He's young though, decent size, fast, good shot and even started to play with a bit of grit before getting hurt. He's shown he can play at the NHL level but has to stay healthy and produce on a consistent basis. Deserving of another chance, probably more so than Ward or Asham.
One other factor. For many players to make it, especially those without an abundance of talent, chance and luck- timing- play a significant role. Ward one year started out well with the Habs but then soon got hurt. If he'd stayed healthy he might be an established regular by now. But things didn't work out that way. Further, the longer that prospects stay around without really impressing (and that means staying healthy enough to impress) the more likely it will be that they will fall down the prospect list; other newer players will begin to garner attention. That's true of any organization in or out of hockey.
So I don't see much evidence for favouratism here.
Anyway, my last words on this much beat about topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 30, 2002 8:23:52 GMT -5
Guys, lets try and keep some of the personal slurs out of this. We are degenerating here. Remember, by definition, an opinion can never be wrong.
I don't think anybody really believes that "conspiracy" is the right word. But favoritism probably is. Its probably not even a conscious decision, but only natural. If your superior gets fired, and you take his position, isn't it going to be in your best interests to play up everything you have done, while playing down everything your (fomer) superior did? You probably won't even realize you are doing it, but chances are you will.
I think Savard does favor his own players. Again, that is only natural. He acquired them for a specific reason, to build his vision of what he thinks the team should look like. Every GM does that. And its a lot easier to see the things you want to see in your own players, than it is in others. Cognitive dissonance - you will justify any move you make, just to reconcile it your own mind. Therefor, a guy like Jan Bulis will play in more games than a guy like Mike Ribeiro, even though the two have the exact same number of points. Because in Savard's mind, he acquired Bulis for a reason - he saw him play in junior, he liked him then, he has decent size, he skates extremely well. He can see where Bulis fits into the team. He doesn't know where Ribeiro fits into the team, because he didn't acquire him. He doesn't know what Houle's plans were for him (if any), what kind of team needs to be built around Ribeiro, what kind of style the team needs to play in order for Ribeiro to succeed. As a result, Ribeiro bounced around the lineup, playing center, left wing, right wing and the point on the powerplay. Bulis started off at center, played there until it was clear it wasn't working, and then Savard moved him to left wing, where he played the rest of the year. Savard figured that would be a good way to use him, because he knows Bulis as a player. He doesn't know how to use Ribeiro, and Ribeiro hasn't helped himself by adapting to Savard's style.
I do think there is favoritism. We talk about Markov getting his shot, but we conviently forget that Markov started the year in the AHL even though he was clearly too good for it (10 points in 12 games, +14), and was a healthy scratch up until February, while Traverse and Therrien favorite Robidas played. If Andrei Markov was -25, would he still have played as often as Robidas did? Markov had to literally force his way onto the roster, while others seemed to be given chance after chance. Savard has also tried to trade Markov at least once, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he is traded this summer. Asham also started the year in Quebec, losing his roster spot to the great Reid Simpson, who Savard signed late in the summer. I watched the training camp carefully, and while I didn't attend any of the practices, from everything I gathered, read and heard (including the exhibition games) Asham played just as well, if not better than Simpson. Wasn't Gino Odjick Savard's first acquisition? Then there are the other moves: Hanchuk, Chvojka being released one year early. DeWolf being let go. Dusty Jamieson (#6 in OHL scoring) being let go. Dyment traded for nothing. Buturlin back in Russia. It would have cost us absolutely nothing to keep these guys, and yet we didn't. Why? Is Savard so confident in his scouting and talent analysing abilities that he doesn't need to see these guys in the AHL? That he can release two 18 year olds after one year of junior play? Or is it because he doesn't know these guys, and would rather go with the players he knows?
We are fans, more rabid than most, and the fact that we have enough knowledge to debate at this level is both amazing, and well, pretty pathetic. We all need lives. Personally, I listened to a lot of Citadelle games on the internet, just so I could have these debates, proving just how pathetic my life is. Having said that, I don't know if there is a "right" or "wrong" answer here, and nobody should assume they have it. Lets just try and keep it clean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 30, 2002 8:58:58 GMT -5
You think this is bad? I am waiting with abated breath to see if they are moving to Hamilton or somewhere within yelling distance. Then we can have debates on wood versus graphite sticks. Best way in taping the stick and is white tape better then black. Which brand? Hey, we are Hab’s fans, that gives us the right to be eccentric and critical. Besides Mr. BC, we do have lives, my cave is decorated with the latest Marylyn Monroe posters. Debating a subject never includes the words ”you’re wrong” or “I win”. And whatever variation of those words. If they are said in jest, make sure you know what that person is like and that he (they) know that you are joking. In fact, I just got my humour back from the dry cleaners and I am ready to go.  Conspiracy…….bahhh…..humbug………. Ribiero........protein shakes……..wind sprints......... Markov.......needed a bit of b*tch slapping...... Odjick....Fight Club water boy........mows Therribles lawn….. St. Savard......candles......hope....... Komi.........pain......much pain........ Therrible…….gives heartburns….indigestion…….. Mirror on wall…….tells me truth……. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 30, 2002 9:46:38 GMT -5
....He can see where Bulis fits into the team. He doesn't know where Ribeiro fits into the team, because he didn't acquire him. He doesn't know what Houle's plans were for him (if any), what kind of team needs to be built around Ribeiro, what kind of style the team needs to play in order for Ribeiro to succeed. As a result.... Ribeiro bounced around the lineup, playing center, left wing, right wing and the point on the powerplay... He [Savard] doesn't know how to use Ribeiro, and Ribeiro hasn't helped himself by adapting to Savard's style. You make Savard sound like a ninny, if that's a word. He doesn't know how Ribeiro fits because he didn't draft him or trade for him? Excuse me? Am I missing something? The guy is a hockey player, not a farm tool from the 5th century. What's the mystery? Skate, hit, shoot. Do it well and do it consistently. Savard didn't acquire Petrov but he's figured out that he can help and how to use him. Same with Dykhuis, Brisebois, Theodore, Souray, Markov and Rivet, among others. Savard can't figure out what kind of team needs to be "built around Ribeirio" You're joking, right? You don't build a team, or even a line, around a guy until he's shown that he can be a real player in the NHL. Cripes, if people in Detroit or Colorado knew we were talking about Mike Ribeiro like this they'd piss themselves laughing. It's tragicomedy, is what it is, and thank heavens Savard has no time for it. All this "let's hold hands and agree to dfisagree" stuff is fine, by the way, and I'm all for being civil, but people be posting some serious gibberish on this topic as far as I'm concerned. You want me to believe that if the Habs were coached by a perfectly objective, emotionless, scrupulously fair machine (say, Bowman) that Ribeiro would be getting a better "shot" Don't think so. If Bowman were coach and GM here, Ribeiro wouldn't have seen a quarter of the ice he did.... Favoritism. Yeah, he favours guys who can skate and take the body....What a madman. |
|
First...a disclaimer. I have absolutely no knowledge of any NHL player taking steroids and would not want anyone to have the slightest impression that I fervently believe that to be the case. 
go talk to guys like Nathan Dempsey who have been stuck in the minors for 8 years despite posting excellent numbers. When you are a player like that, when you get a chance, you gotta take advantage of it. Chouinard had a golden chance(1st line time with Koivu) and did pretty much nothing with it. He'll be in the minors for a long time if he doesn't impress when(or if) he gets another call to the NHL.
