|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 30, 2002 10:09:21 GMT -5
Way to miss the point.
Obviously I didn't mean build the team around Ribeiro specifically. I meant build a team encompassing elements of what Ribeiro brings.
Any real hockey man will build his team based on a concept. Different GMs have different concepts. Bobby Clarke, for example, will take size over all else. In Phoenix on the other hand, they aren't so concerned with size, and have centers like Daymond Langkow and Steve Sullivan. Does anyone think Bobby Clarke will ever trade for Steve Sullivan, no matter how many points he puts on the board? No, he won't. Because that is not the type of team he wants to build. The question is, does Ribeiro fit Savard's "team concept." Is there room for Ribeiro's superior playmaking skills on a Savard team? Or is Bulis more in line with what Savard wants to build? For some teams, size and speed are not as big an issue, which is why Adam Oates, Yanic Perrault, Josef Stumple and a host of other players who don't fit your "skate and take the body" ideal are still hanging around the NHL. Is Ribeiro that kind of player? I don't know. Maybe Ribeiro isn't the type of player who can thrive in the Eastern Conference. Or maybe he'll pull a McCauley in a couple of years. Who knows?
But the point is, if Savard believes that in order for his team to succeed, then his centers have to be big and fast (even if they can't score - see Chad Kilger and Shaun Van Allen), then Ribeiro will not have a spot. If Savard believes that puck control, a heavy trap, and slowing down the game is the way to win (the New Jersey/Dallas approach) then Ribeiro can still make it.
As for the Savard "being a ninny" crack that was a little un-called for. We all know Savard prefers players he is familiar with - he said he scouted Bulis in junior and liked him then, he said he liked Juneau and Dackell in Ottawa, which is why he re-united them, and he said he thought Traverse played well for him, also in Ottawa. Throw in Shaun Van Allen to boot, and can you seriously tell me Savard doesn't prefer to go with known commodities, if he has the chance?? Before being hired by the Montreal Canadiens, how many times do you think he scouted Mike Ribeiro? Did he look at him and say "nope, too small, can't skate, not my kind of guy?" And then just ignore him? I mean, working for the Senators, why would he continue to scout a Montreal prospect he didn't like in the first place?
He then comes to Montreal. Everyone tells him he is a great drafter and evaluator of young talent. Everyone tells him Montreal can't draft and evaluate young talent. He has an idea for what his team should look like, and he has all these young kids who don't exactly fit the mold of the team he wants to build. Who do you think is going to bend? Is Savard going to change his idea for the team, meld it to what he has? Or is he going to get his own players, and incorporate them in to the team he wants to build? Isn't that "favoritism?"
Some of these guys may not be getting shots because Savard doesn't like what they bring to the table for his team. He may be right, and he may be successful. As fans, we are allowed to debate that. I'm sorry if you feel that is gibberish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 30, 2002 10:25:34 GMT -5
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?
Well, Robidas played himself off the roster, so what do you want? We didn't have Souray and they didn't want to rush Hainsey, so they tried and tried with Robidas, DESPITE THE FACT THAT he was a Houle pick.
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.
"Others" being? Among defencemen? Among smallish, puck-moving defencemen? Sorry, BC, you've got to do better than that.
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.
You keep twisting things to make your case. Simpson was acquired because Odjick's health wasn't certain. Simpson is a heavyweight (though not a great one) while Asham is not. They weren't really after the same job. At the same time as Simpson was filling in for Gino, Asham was being encouraged NOT to get bigger and tougher but to improve his skating, which he did in part by dropping about 7 pounds.
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?
Uhh, please get real. When Savard arrived, the first thing he did was take a long hard look at the guys in the system. Nothing would have been more pleasing to him than to find guys he thought could help (no?). What you're seeing is a much superior evaluator of talent looking at a bunch of guys drafted by a much less capable evaluator of talent, and finding a mere handful of the twenty-five or so guys in the system. None of the guys you mention are likely to be even 4th lineres or a 6th d-man. It's desperate. Dyment is the one question mark in my mind, but the kid was 22, they'd had a good long look at him, and they said, "No, thank you, we'll put our energies into other players." But you'll use Dyment -- and Jamieson!- to try to cobble together your case that Savard is purging guys from the system who were drafted by others and that his vision is clouded (that is what you're suggesting, after all).
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 30, 2002 10:35:23 GMT -5
He has an idea for what his team should look like, and he has all these young kids who don't exactly fit the mold of the team he wants to build. Who do you think is going to bend? Is Savard going to change his idea for the team, meld it to what he has? Or is he going to get his own players, and incorporate them in to the team he wants to build? Isn't that "favoritism?" No. In a word, it is not. It is not favoritsim, "Favoritism" is giving the job to your brother-in-law even though the "other guy" is just as good, or even a little bit better. It is not "favoritism" to decide you want someone who is going to do the job better, or according to your specifications. As for the gibberish thing, it's not the debate itself that's problematic. It's a case of people charging Savard with something that amounts to making decisions (partly) on an improper basis. Thankfully, we've managed to get the charges downgraded from "conspiracy" or the "purge" to "favoritism", burt it seems that'll have to be abandoned as well. All I'm asking is that people think seriously about whether it really makes sense. to me, the charge makes no sense at all, because there's way too much that doesn't fit.... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 30, 2002 11:20:00 GMT -5
Well, Robidas played himself off the roster, so what do you want? We didn't have Souray and they didn't want to rush Hainsey, so they tried and tried with Robidas, DESPITE THE FACT THAT he was a Houle pick.
Markov had to literally force his way onto the roster, while others seemed to be given chance after chance.
"Others" being? Among defencemen? Among smallish, puck-moving defencemen? Sorry, BC, you've got to do better than that.
You forget that Robidas wasn't even on the roster until Savard and Therrien took over. It was at that point that Markov's ice time - always high under Vigneault - declined severely in favor of Robidas, who has played for Therrien for years. What do you mean, "among smallish, puck-moving defencemen?" Cause I meant Traverse (who plays small), Robidas and Bouillon, the first two more than the last. Given my choice of those three, or Markov, I would have gone with Markov all the way. Savard and Therrien disagreed. They even tried Jarventie (drafted 3 months earlier) before Markov.
You keep twisting things to make your case. Simpson was acquired because Odjick's health wasn't certain. Simpson is a heavyweight (though not a great one) while Asham is not. They weren't really after the same job. At the same time as Simpson was filling in for Gino, Asham was being encouraged NOT to get bigger and tougher but to improve his skating, which he did in part by dropping about 7 pounds.
Uh, no, no he wasn't. Gino Odjick was fine to start the season. He wasn't hurt at all. And Asham was in direct competition with Simpson, or at least felt like he was. Its unfortunate that we don't have the exhibition records, but Asham and Simpson fought each other about 5 times during training camp, and I distinctly remember Dino Sisto saying during an exhibition game that Asham felt like he had to beat Simpson out of a job, said right after Asham got into a fight. As far as I can remember, Asham never fought Odjick, and Simpson never fought Odjick. Because Odjick was guaranteed a spot on the roster, while the other two weren't. Its the only reason I keep bringing up the lamentable Reid Simpson.
Uhh, please get real. When Savard arrived, the first thing he did was take a long hard look at the guys in the system. Nothing would have been more pleasing to him than to find guys he thought could help (no?). What you're seeing is a much superior evaluator of talent looking at a bunch of guys drafted by a much less capable evaluator of talent, and finding a mere handful of the twenty-five or so guys in the system. None of the guys you mention are likely to be even 4th lineres or a 6th d-man. It's desperate. Dyment is the one question mark in my mind, but the kid was 22, they'd had a good long look at him, and they said, "No, thank you, we'll put our energies into other players." But you'll use Dyment -- and Jamieson!- to try to cobble together your case that Savard is purging guys from the system who were drafted by others and that his vision is clouded (that is what you're suggesting, after all).
Why is this so difficult for you? You have already questioned Dyment, you have questioned Hanchuk, you have questioned Asham. You've probably questioned Markov as well. That's at least 3 players you yourself can't figure out. Throw in Chvojka, who is in the same boat as Hanchuk. You have the same questions as we do, only we have them for other players as well. Why were they let go? Why were they not given a chance? Personally, I don't like hiding behind the "Savard must know what he is doing, more than us" argument. If we are going to have such blind faith in the team, why bother posting at all?
No. In a word, it is not. It is not favoritsim, "Favoritism" is giving the job to your brother-in-law even though the "other guy" is just as good, or even a little bit better. It is not "favoritism" to decide you want someone who is going to do the job better, or according to your specifications.
Now you are arguing semantic. Whatever the reasons are, Savard seems to favor some players over others. I thought Asham was "just as good, or even a little better" than Simpson. Same for Markov vs Traverse/Robidas/Bouillon/Jarventie (who started the season with the team after all, while Markov was in the AHL). I see no reason why Savard would be concerned about a 22 year old college player plateauing, after he had drafted a 26 year old defenceman (Jarventie), and a 29 year old forward (Unjick). To me, that sounds like he is willing to give Jarventie more of a chance, and Unjick (if he had of signed) more of a chance, than guys like Markov or Ward or even Asham. And there was no real clear proof that they are, or were better. Is that 5th round pick going to be better than Dyment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 30, 2002 12:43:21 GMT -5
BadCompany wrote:
Uh, no, no he wasn't. Gino Odjick was fine to start the season. He wasn't hurt at all. And Asham was in direct competition with Simpson, or at least felt like he was. Its unfortunate that we don't have the exhibition records, but Asham and Simpson fought each other about 5 times during training camp, and I distinctly remember Dino Sisto saying during an exhibition game that Asham felt like he had to beat Simpson out of a job, said right after Asham got into a fight. As far as I can remember, Asham never fought Odjick, and Simpson never fought Odjick. Because Odjick was guaranteed a spot on the roster, while the other two weren't. Its the only reason I keep bringing up the lamentable Reid Simpson.
Gino had missed 37 games the preceding season and it was not at all clear that he would be able to play the role for a whole season. In fact the wrist injury that kept him out last year is the same one that prevented him from dropping his gloves this year (or a recurrence)
If we are going to have such blind faith in the team, why bother posting at all?
Well, it's hardly blind faith on my part if I've questioned two or three of those moves, is it? But while I may question them I don't make the leap from "I don't understand this" to "Savard doesn't give Houlian picks a fair shake". Why not? Because I know about one 20th as much about these players as he does. As between Asham and Simpson I can have a more or less informed view, but as soon as we get into the decision to let go of Hanchuk or Jamieson or Dyment, I'm out of my depth. And so are you, quite frankly. From where most of us sit, the much, much more reasonable conclusion is that Savard assessed and watched and listened and --on a purely hockey, Habs first basis -- said "no thanks". You can deride it all you like, but it makes a lot more sense than suggesting that he's got it in for guys who aren't "his".
Now you are arguing semantic. Whatever the reasons are, Savard seems to favor some players over others. I thought Asham was "just as good, or even a little better" than Simpson. Same for Markov vs Traverse/Robidas/Bouillon/Jarventie (who started the season with the team after all, while Markov was in the AHL). I see no reason why Savard would be concerned about a 22 year old college player plateauing, after he had drafted a 26 year old defenceman (Jarventie), and a 29 year old forward (Unjick). To me, that sounds like he is willing to give Jarventie more of a chance, and Unjick (if he had of signed) more of a chance, than guys like Markov or Ward or even Asham. And there was no real clear proof that they are, or were better. Is that 5th round pick going to be better than Dyment?
Quickly, Jarventie was near NHL ready ands was a fair gamble. May srtill pay off. As for Dyment, there's no question that Savard was in a position to say with some confidence whether Chris was a year or more away (probably) or maybe even that he'd never make it. If he's a year or two away we'll have Markov, Hainsey and possibly Komisarek in as young D-men. More likely, though, he just decided that Chris was unlikely to make it here and wasn't really needed anyway, so why not have the pick? <br>
Your sentence above, starting with "to me,..." is typical and frustrating as hell. "To me, that sounds like he is willing to give Jarventie more of a chance, and Unjick (if he had of signed) more of a chance, than guys like Markov or Ward or even Asham." You mention a guy who never even signed and then speculate on what "might've happened" in order to convince me?Asham is with the club, Markov is with the club. Landry was called up late in preference to Hossa. Jarventie is in the minors. What more do you want as evidence that if a Houle guy has the stuff he'll get to play? And that if a Savard pick isn't playing well enough, or if it's not best for the club, he'll sit? He'll sit like Berezin, Bulis and Traverse, or he'll be released like Simpson, or he'll stay in the minors, like Jarventie...
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 30, 2002 12:51:23 GMT -5
As for the gibberish thing, it's not the debate itself that's problematic. It's a case of people charging Savard with something that amounts to making decisions (partly) on an improper basis. Thankfully, we've managed to get the charges downgraded from "conspiracy" or the "purge" to "favoritism", burt it seems that'll have to be abandoned as well. All I'm asking is that people think seriously about whether it really makes sense. to me, the charge makes no sense at all, because there's way too much that doesn't fit.... Savard is human, he makes decision that people have the right to agree with or not. But every time someone questions a move or a decision done by Andre you feel the need to put on your war gear and defend him like if we were gonna hang him on Ste-Catherine. You wanna proxy your brain in favor of Savard's that's fine but don't expect it from the whole community. There are no "charges" or "accusation" or what have you. You say other poster's argument don't make any sense but you obviously do not care for them aside then to establish in your mind what has to do with winning or loosing an argument, that being the ultimate reason why you join a discussion at this point. Frankly I do not get why you've become such an antagonist. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 30, 2002 13:23:26 GMT -5
Savard is human, he makes decision that people have the right to agree with or not. But every time someone questions a move or a decision done by Andre you feel the need to put on your war gear and defend him like if we were gonna hang him on Ste-Catherine. You wanna proxy your brain in favor of Savard's that's fine but don't expect it from the whole community. <br> There are no "charges" or "accusation" or what have you. You say other poster's argument don't make any sense but you obviously do not care for them aside then to establish in your mind what has to do with winning or loosing an argument, that being the ultimate reason why you join a discussion at this point. Frankly I do not get why you've become such an antagonist. I don't really understand what you're saying. As BC pointed out, I questioned the Hanchuck move, the Dyment move and others. I didn't think the Berezin deal was all that hot (at the time), I was never thrilled about Traverse, I wanted Asham to play more, I wish he'd fire Therrien and i can't see how Odjick really helps the team. So how am I a Savard apologist? ...Take your time. What I don't get is how people patch all the many moves into their little computers and come up with the conclusion that "Savard doesn't really give Houle's picks a fair shake". It's not about the nature of the moves, per se, but about the motivating factors. That's the difference. I'm not defending the moves and decisions wholesale (far from it) but I am saying the charge (and it is a charge) that Savard doesn't give Houles picks the same shot just doesn't hold water. In fact, the closer you look at it the less water it holds....unless you believe that all players in the system of similar vintage or stats or who were picked in the same round deserve the same ice time at this level, which would be ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 30, 2002 13:53:06 GMT -5
Somebody should send this thread to Chris Dyment - it's probably the most press he is ever going to get in his life! ;D
|
|
dd
Rookie
Posts: 49
|
Post by dd on May 30, 2002 14:22:31 GMT -5
BC, Savard did extensive scouting of Ribeiro in 1998, and took Mike Fisher ONE selection ahead of Montreal in the second round.I'd say that was an excellent choice, wouldn't you?The criteria he and other fine scouts of talent look at are: skating ability, puck skills, hockey sense, and physical presence.The 1st rd selection shouldn't have a glaring weakness in any one category, or he isn't a first round pick, and some deficiencies can be overcome with work, experience and training.But having heavy feet and poor competitive drive will kill more careers than anything else.Savard, from what I've looked at in his picks both in Quebec and Ottawa, is he likes well rounded players, that possess a physical edge.Guys like him, when he played the game.If they can't skate they won't make it, so if he thinks a guy can't skate with the big boys, that's good enough for me.I'll take his opinion over Reggie's on this matter anyday. I find it comicical that some think a purge of Houle prospects is being done soley out of spite.To do so is unprofessional and a poor use of available resources.I'd say it's evident that Savard has been well trained by Pierre Gauthier in getting value for assets, and part of that is cutting bait on losing players and maximizing one's capital allocations.Savard has a logical and orderly mind and doesn't telegraph his punches, so it makes him a formidable horse trader and a skilled negotiator.He inked players to deals far faster than Houle ever could, getting that aspect of uncertainty under control and leaving him room to plot and scheme.The progress he's made in but 18 months is extraordinary, and it makes him a rising star among GM's. As to Dyment, well, to the brass, he wasn't going to cut it.Big deal.Move on.Hainsey and Hossa had progressed and gotten stronger, smarter and more dominating as time went on, yet Dyment stalled.Find another kid that can cut it instead and aim the resources that a way. Ward and others may not make it, and why the hell should any of us care? They can't help the team, so why worry about them? I'll let the pros make these decisions and I am confident they will do what is in the best interest of the CH and nothing less. It's good to have grown ups in charge once more.  |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 30, 2002 14:33:53 GMT -5
That's along the lines of what I was thinking BC. We've stretched this to 7 pages and I believe that's the longest for any single topic. Raise a glass to Chris Dyment. How could he not become a player after this?
I have a different theory to explain Savard's chucking of Houle guys, and it actually makes sense (I think). We all know that if there's one aspect to the game that AS chooses above all others, it's skating. And we know that to Reggie, that often wasn't a big deal. We could have our own parade with his 'Gang that couldn't skate straight" (Stevenson, Vallis, Chouinard, Ribs [sorry Doc] etc.). I would speculate that many of the guys Savard has torpedoed or not signed have skating issues. The one guy Savard has picked who can't skate A+ (Milroy) has excellent hands and Savard commented that he couldn't pass up those hands. Also, Milroy isn't far off being a decent skater. While I've never seen Jamieson or Tyler Hanchuk (Hanchuk?, hey maybe he could go 8 pages), it wouldn't surprise me to find out skating is not their strong suit.
PS. JV, I enjoy your posts and your often contrary opinion. Some of your recent ones have had an 'edge' to them, enough so that I'm glad you weren't responding to me (so here I am giving you a clear shot). I think Savard's going to be a pretty good GM, but he's still learning. Unlike the rest of us, who are very experienced arm chair GM's and don't understand why Andre doesn't follow more of our advice.
Pssst. Andre...change the coach sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 30, 2002 14:51:02 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. <br> 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. Here comes reply number 100  ;D I agree, except for one thing. IF you are going to sit a kid in the pressbox for no reason and play a mediocre veteran instead, send him to the minors. That was the disgusting part of the Markov being scratched thing. He wasn't being scratched because we had 6 good or great d-man who were better than him on the team, he was being scracted so PATRICK TRAVERSE AND STEPHANE ROBIDAS could play. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 30, 2002 15:01:17 GMT -5
Reply 101! Must be a HabsRus record ;D
After reading the whole JV-PTH-BC-Doc debate on our youngsters, there is nothing more to add.
Valid points were made.
I hope someone brings this thread up in a couple of years. We'll see what the kids AS got rid of have done, what the ''Houle boys'' are doing for us(if they are not gone) and how AS's picks are looking.
|
|
|
|
Post by habwest on May 30, 2002 18:40:05 GMT -5
Hey BC, great idea. Anybody know if Dyment's got an email address? LOL. I think that we've pretty well beat this one to death. You sure can tell the troops need some more news to talk about. They're chaffing at the bit, pawing the ground and snortin' like mad.
Let's see...about, what, 3-4 weeks until the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 30, 2002 19:29:37 GMT -5
Overall, this debate winds up being very similar to the kids vs vets one, simply because just about all the kids we have who are even close to being NHL ready are from the Houle era. It's hard to tell if the current management team is not too interested in kids, or in Houle's kids, since the two subsets largely coincide.
I wish I'd shut up and let BC make the point I was trying to make, only much clearer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on May 30, 2002 21:08:00 GMT -5
Just my .02$... While there does seem to be some form of favoritism going on when it comes to Savard vs. Houle men in the Habs organization, it should be noted that Andre Savard has gone on record as saying both Mike Ribeiro and Eric Chouinard (two Houle guys) are going to be NHL players, and to the best of my knowledge Savard has always spoken highly of Andrei Markov (yet another Houle guy). That said, it does seem strange to me (and clearly i'm not alone with this) that we are dropping so many b-prospects (Hanchuk, Dyment, Jamieson, etc...) so early. Is this due to limits on the number of players an organization can have under contract at one time? I was dissapointed to hear Dyment was dealt for basically nothing, but when it comes down to it, i have confidence in our GM (and his staff), and seeing as though i've never actually seen Dyment play, i didn't lose any sleep over this move. I suppose only time will tell if this was a wise move by AS, but i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As for Ribeiro...we'll as much as the kid is lacks alot of the "skills" we all like to see in prospects (ie. size, speed), i still see him being a player. IMO, he's got a greater skillset to current Hab Yanic Perreault, and Ribeiro actually seems much more willing to take a hit, and occasionally play the body. Remember that game in Philadelphia earlier in the year when Ribeiro was trying to hit everything in site? I guess the kid really won me over during that game. I think we will have to be patient with him, but i see Ribeiro as eventually becoming a slightly better NHL'er than Perreault. He probably wont be a full timer in Montreal until the Habs manage to bulk up their top 3 lines. With Perreault and (hopefully) Gilmour in the top 9 for next season, Ribeiro gives us one too many small, slow forwards. For the most part though, this has been a pretty great thread, and i must say the quality of this discussion is one of the main reasons why i love coming to this board for my daily dose of Habs ramblings. Keep it up guys! |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Verdun on May 30, 2002 22:38:23 GMT -5
I agree, except for one thing. IF you are going to sit a kid in the pressbox for no reason and play a mediocre veteran instead, send him to the minors. That was the disgusting part of the Markov being scratched thing. He wasn't being scratched because we had 6 good or great d-man who were better than him on the team, he was being scracted so PATRICK TRAVERSE AND STEPHANE ROBIDAS could play.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on May 31, 2002 15:18:57 GMT -5
True, maybe the benching did Markov some good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 4, 2002 10:33:34 GMT -5
If Dyment actually does something with his NHL career, this could become the longest post in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jun 4, 2002 15:40:18 GMT -5
And even if he doesn't do anything it will re-appear ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 4, 2002 15:53:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 4, 2002 19:38:58 GMT -5
Given the Wild suspect defense, I don't think it's gonna take long for us to see what Dyment can do at the NHL level.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jun 5, 2002 16:11:03 GMT -5
Actually, for an expansion team, the Wild have a decent defence:
Kuba, Mitchell, Schultz are 3 decent, young guys.
Sekeras, Benysek, Marshall are solid veterans
Add Brown and Bombardir...not great, but not horrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 6, 2002 14:51:56 GMT -5
Dyment already is the most talked about player on the Minnesota Roster and he hasn't played a game for them. I wish him luck. He'll need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gord on Jun 6, 2002 16:46:19 GMT -5
Die, thread, die!! I'm so sick of seeing updates!  |
|
|
|
Post by Lupien on Jun 7, 2002 7:45:52 GMT -5
Just wanted to be part of this record thread.
There. Done.
Lupe
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 7, 2002 19:01:10 GMT -5
Absolutely positively the last addition to this thread (maybe).
Quote from Mrs. Dyment, mother of the famous hockey player;
"Chris who?"
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jun 7, 2002 19:20:48 GMT -5
PLEASE PEOPLE STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD!!!!!
THANK YOU! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jun 8, 2002 5:25:04 GMT -5
You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 8, 2002 9:09:50 GMT -5
This thread is like the people who get stranded on an island. If we didn't have it we might turn on each other................HabsRus version of Lord of the Flies..............only we would call it.....................Lord of the Hab's Posting Fleas................... Another bit of eye twitching wisdom........................  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 8, 2002 12:54:52 GMT -5
All this being said, I wish we had some reporters with some brains following the Habs, who could list off which players the Habs have under contract - most reporters don't even know half as much as any of us does.
Maybe Savard is at 49 players signed and I have a point, or maybe he is at 42 and I'm out of it..... but this kind of info is very hard to come by, especially when you can't know who's under contract to the farm team and who's under contract to the NHL team and is being sent down.
*sigh*
|
|
