|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jun 8, 2002 15:58:07 GMT -5
Well, makes this 9 pages now  PTh, have you tried the Habs web site? maybe they have the whole roster under contract there. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 10, 2002 23:40:11 GMT -5
Well, makes this 9 pages now PTh, have you tried the Habs web site? maybe they have the whole roster under contract there. I doubt it..... I think what I need is the THN depth charts.... or to go through Habs property myself and go from memory and press releases to figure out who is under contract. That could take forever though. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jun 12, 2002 21:10:10 GMT -5
Let's do our own list.
We can start with the following:
01.Hackett
02.Theodore (rfa)
03.Garon
04.Fiset
05.Tarasov
06.Brisebois
07.Dykhuis
08.Quintal
09.Souray
10.Rivet
11.Markov
12.Traverse
13.Robidas
14.Hainsey
15.Bouillon
16.Descoteaux
17.Razin
18.Jarventie
19.O'dette
20.Audette
21.Berezin (rfa)
22.Petrov
23.Kilger
24.Koivu
25.Zednick
26.Bulis
27.Lindsay
28.Dackell
29.Juneau
30.Asham
31.Gilmour (option)
32.Hossa
33.Ribeiro
34.Chouinard
35.Ward
36.Poulin (ufa july 1)
37.Odjick
38.Larrivee
39.Balej
40.Thinel
41.Belanger (?)
42.Landry
43.Gratton
44.Bertrand
45.Darby
46.Van Allen (UFA)
47.Ryder (?)
48.Beauchemain (?)
49.
50.
Obviously, this isn't 100% accurate. There are perhaps a few guys here who are not under contract, and I've probably missed a few guys who are. Fill in the blanks. Is Michaud under contract? How about Marois? Other guys who come to mind are Shasby (just finishing college), Beauchemain and Ryder. We're obviously at or near the limit, though. No question about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 13, 2002 8:26:27 GMT -5
Good list JV.
A couple of things I am pretty sure of;
* Add Timo Vertala to your list. Also add Tomas Plekanec
* the team has an option on Fiset next year, and unless he takes a significant pay cut, he will become a UFA. They might sign him then, but either way, his contract, as it is, is up.
* Michaud is under contract. If he wasn't, I believe he would be going into the draft this year. Plus, he needed to have one in order to play that game out west.
* I don't think Poulin is a UFA. I believe he still has at least one more year on his contract.
* Marois is under contract.
* Ward's contract is up this summer
* Xavier Delisle and Benoit Gratton are both Group VI UFAs this summer. I expect both to be let go.
* Shasby I believe has one more year of college left.
*Razin and Bouillon are both RFA's.
* I am not sure about Evan Lindsay and Jonathon Delisle. I don't think either one is under contract, but I am not 100% certain.
Any way you slice it, they seem pretty close to the 50 limit. They do have some wiggle room though, especially by letting guys like Delisle and Gratton walk, as well as say Ward and Razin. But its tight.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jun 13, 2002 9:39:14 GMT -5
I think that's mostly right.
One of Darby or Poulin will walk on July 1st. I seem to recall thinking it was the more useful of the two (Poulin) but I could be wrong.
I don't think Plekanec is signed. Savard would have another year to sign him (drafted 2001) and I don't recall any announcement. Same with Perozhogin.
You're right about Michaud.
We could use some help with Shasby (I think he's finished college)and a few others. It would be worth having a list. It would also be nice to know what the deal is with the 50 player limit -- i.e. is it cast in stone or are there exceptions. I'll get my brother (who reads the CBA on his way to work) to doublecheck that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 13, 2002 10:01:55 GMT -5
Plekanec signed not too long ago. www.rds.ca/cgi-bin/nouvelles?site=rdw&action=5&thread=58457&SPODIR=canadienHis Czech Senior team finished last in their league, so they were demoted down a league. I guess Savard figured it wouldn't do Plekanec much good to be playing against inferior competition than what he played against this year, so he signed him to bring him to the AHL. Shasby, according to my understanding, was only a junior last season, meaning he still has his senior year left in college. But I could be wrong on that. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jun 13, 2002 13:51:06 GMT -5
JV, what happened? why are you now a rookie?
Nice list. Hopefully some of the mediocrety will be removed this summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Jun 15, 2002 19:14:54 GMT -5
Sorry 'bout this folks, but it just felt wrong not having this thread on the first page. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jun 16, 2002 10:20:47 GMT -5
Well, THANK YOU ROGGY, the thread was about to die, but YOU HAD TO DO IT!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 16, 2002 13:53:57 GMT -5
Dyment, most obscure player on Hab's roster. Minnesota Wild, most obscure team in the league. Dyment + Wild = Biggest Post in HabsRus?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jun 16, 2002 14:45:17 GMT -5
Shasby was a junior last year- checked at Hockey's Future. Also Perreault I think is signed.
So, to recast JV's list (for us older types with limited computational ability) with all subsequent info and leaving out UFAs or RFAs that might not be resigned:
1. Hackett
2. Theo - RFA
3. Garon
4. Tarasov
5. Michaud
6. Brisebois
7. Dykhuis
8. Quintal
9. Souray
10. Rivet
11. Markov
12. Traverse
13. Robidas
14. Hainsey
15. Descoteaux
16. O'Dette
17. Jarventie
18. Audette
19. Petrov
20. Kilger
21. Koivu
22. Zednik
23. Bulis
24. Lindsay
25. Dackell
26. Juneau
27. Asham
28. Perreault
29. Gilmour - Option
30. Hossa
31. Ribiero
32. Chouinard
33. Odjik
34. Vertala
35. Marois
36. Larrivee
37. Balej
38. Thinel
39. Plekanec
---------------
40. Poulin
41. Darby - one of Poulin or Darby UFA?
---------------
42. Landry ? - not listed at Hockey's Future
43. Bertrand ? - not listed at Hockey's Future
44. Belanger ? - not listed at Hockey's Future
45. Ryder ? - 2 years in minors
46. Beauchemin ? - 2 years in minors
---------------
Fiset - UFA
E. Lindsay - not under contract - 2 years in minors
Bouillon - RFA
Razin - RFA
Berezin - RFA
Van Allen - UFA
Gratton - UFA
X. Delisle - UFA
J. Delisle - not under contract
Ward - not under contract
So assuming
- Theo is signed (Doh)
- Gilmour comes back
- one of Poulin or Darby is an UFA or Berezin is not signed
- 3 of Landry, Bertrand, Belanger, Ryder and Beauchemin are signed
the total of signed players would be 44. Some flexibilty then with 6 spots left to play with?
Well, not really. Assuming 2 goalies, 7 dmen and 14 forwards with the Habs (is there a roster limit of 23 during the regular season?) that would appear to leave a "surplus" of signed players for the minors of:
- 2 goalies
- 5 dmen
- 9, possibly 11, forwards depending on whether Balej and Larrivee can play as overage juniors. I don't know the rules but Balej was 20 this February and Larrivee will be 20 in late August. That's out of the 44.
The problem is if the Habs are sharring an AHL club this up coming season it's already pretty tight, perhaps too tight, without adding another 6 contracts. That could mean quite a few players going to the ECHL. Or, if the the Habs can carry more than 23, a lot of players polishing the pines with the big club. Neither scenario is appealing.
I would like to see Ward get a chance in camp, Landry is handy to have as depth, and Razin looks like he may have potential and maybe even Ryder but where to put them all? If Komisarek is signed that just adds to the problem.
So it sure looks like Savard needs to make some moves. As I gather this sharing of an AHL team is to be only for the upcoming season perhaps this of necessity will be "the year of clearing out the deadwood" for want of a better term. Problem is, some younger guys, who just might develop into solid NHLers if given the time, might be washed out as well.
So after this little exercise count me in among those who want more room opened on the roster, if at all possible, by somehow moving or dropping Odjik, not resigning Brezin, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 16, 2002 15:54:53 GMT -5
40. Poulin 41. Darby - one of Poulin or Darby UFA? --------------- 42. Landry ? - not listed at Hockey's Future 43. Bertrand ? - not listed at Hockey's Future 44. Belanger ? - not listed at Hockey's Future 45. Ryder ? - 2 years in minors 46. Beauchemin ? - 2 years in minors --------------- Fiset - UFA E. Lindsay - not under contract - 2 years in minors Bouillon - RFA Razin - RFA Berezin - RFA Van Allen - UFA Gratton - UFA X. Delisle - UFA J. Delisle - not under contract Ward - not under contract You're writing this as if we were past July 1st. Every player you've named was under contract for the season, and their contracts expire on July 1st. Ward is still under contract with the Habs, whether they make him a qualifying offer for next season or not. The problem is, the total number of players is actually over 50 - we obviously don't have all the info we need to have to figure this out. And when looking at a guy like Dyment, you have to know that his contract had to be signed by June 1st (maybe I have the date wrong, but it's before July 1st!) - maybe we were already over the limit, and there was just no way to sign Dyment, at all. I wish I knew... I'm still annoyed at seeing the team forced to look at this situation.... it's partly Houle's fault, but also largely Savard's own making. If you constantly sign players to long-term deals, and never dump the odd contract, it'll come back to get you eventually. Berezin, Audette, Quintal, Dykhuis's extension, Traverse..... *sigh*. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jun 16, 2002 16:20:51 GMT -5
PTH:
I don't mind you taking Savard to task for acquiring and signing Berezin and Traverse, but for God's sake leave Quintal, Audette and Dykhuis out of it. Audette was a steal, for Rucinsky, and could easily be moved. Dykhuis is one of our two or three most dependable d-men, and Quintal added much-needed muscle and experience.
Second, Berezin hasn't been signed and may not be signed, so don't include him in your list of "long contracts" until it's done.
Third, talking about Savard "getting himself into this situation" (I'm paraphrasing) when you admit you don't know how many guys we have under contract -- and therefore whether numbers were an issue at all where Dyment was concerned -- is just ridiculous. Do the homework if you like, put the definitive list together and show that there wasn't space, and then you can start blaming people for getting us into "this situation". Until then you can speculate if you like but you definitely can't be blaming anyone for a situation that you can't even say exists.... "I'm still annoyed at seeing the team forced to look at this situation.... it's partly Houle's fault, but also largely Savard's own making. If you constantly sign players to long-term deals, and never dump the odd contract, it'll come back to get you eventually. "
Since we're talking about rosters and contracts, these are not matters of opinion. You want to point the finger at Savard? Then do the homework first.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 16, 2002 17:12:30 GMT -5
PTH: I don't mind you taking Savard to task for acquiring and signing Berezin and Traverse, but for God's sake leave Quintal, Audette and Dykhuis out of it. Audette was a steal, for Rucinsky, and could easily be moved. Dykhuis is one of our two or three most dependable d-men, and Quintal added much-needed muscle and experience. ...... Since we're talking about rosters and contracts, these are not matters of opinion. You want to point the finger at Savard? Then do the homework first. The situation I'm not sure about is if the contract limit of 50 had any effect on the Dyment trade - if it didn't and it was just a hockey-based trade (ie - Savard didn't think he was worth keeping, then I'm fine with that). What I do mind is the definite trend towards getting older players signed long-term. Berezin hasn't been signed, thank God, but trading for him was a waste of an asset. Looking through some old threads, I found one where I said something along the lines of " Savage won't get us a player worth playing, so might as well get a draft pick instead" - and it turns out I was right. Now AS needs to 'fess up and dump Serguei. Traverse - I can live with making the mistake in getting the guy, it's the 3 year deal that gets to me. Quintal ? We gave up a 4th to get a guy we could have gotten off of waivers, who's still pretty well paid for a #6-7 guy at 1.7 million. I won't start liking his acquisition anytime soon. Audette - does this team really need another small, injury-prone, soft, scoring winger, signed to a long-term deal ? When you look at what Dallas got for Audette, you have to wonder if AS couldn't have gotten something more useful than Audette for the long-run, and not another 30+ winger to block the lineup for 3 more years. Especially a guy who was only happy to be coming here to be getting away from a system he disliked, rather than by choice. This is the same guy who chose NOT to come to MTL for $$$ reasons, after all. Dykhuis I've never liked, but I seem to be far from the only one to think this way. Most fans see him as the guy who should get moved aside for Hainsey to make it, but now we're probably stuck with him, whether we like it or not. Traverse, Lindsay, Juneau, Audette, Dykhuis, Odjick, Perreault, Brisebois, Quintal.... there's a trend here that annoys me, we're filling up the roster with old guys with long-term contracts, and losing flexibility, big time. When you consider that several others are nearly impossible to get value for or untradable, you realise this team has little to no flexibility. Maybe it's just at the NHL level, but given what I know about the minor-league situation, I think it applies to the whole team, too. I tend to see Traverse, Quintal, and Audette as being the big 3 mistakes, but all 3 moves could be justified in some way - but I don't think the whole situation with all these long-term players can be explained away so easily. I'm convinced we could have an equivalent team out there with a few less long-term deals, and more flexibility for the future. I'm not aware of all the contracts - I'm not even aware of everyone who's Habs property, but I do know that it seems to me that the Habs have too many players of fairly advanced age locked into contracts for several seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jun 16, 2002 21:02:37 GMT -5
PTH, I wasn't looking back at Dyment when I put up the updated list. I was looking to this fall.
As to signing Quintal, Traverse, Dykhuis and Brisebois to longer term contracts (or at least adding a year to Quintal's contract) I do think that we have to bear in mind that there were not a lot of certainties last summer respecting the defence when Savard made these decisions. Specifically:
- Souray had not established himself, was recovering from injury and the jury is still out;
- Rivet was coming back from an injury so there was uncertainty whether he would get back to where he was before the injury, let alone develop further;
- Markov was still unproven at the NHL level although many here, including myself, thought that he would make it;
- Robidas was coming off a good year but was he a flash in the pan (may well have been);
- Bouillon is a shrimp and will never be a serious NHL dman;
- Hainsey had proved zilch at the pro level including the minors. Given that dmen often take longer to develop it wasn't unrealistic to think that he might take a couple of years in the minors;
- Descouteaux had proven nothing in the NHL and actually seemed to regress this past season;
- Jarventie was an unproven quantity;
- Komisarek could easily take another two years from now, ie three years from when the new contracts were given to the vets, to reach the NHL.
- Dykhuis had been the +/- leader on the team the previous year with a rating well into the +20s; in fact he was up fairly high in the overall NHL totals. This year he led the team with +16 while helping Brisebois rebound from an NHL worst -31 last year to a team second best +9.
- Traverse had had a pretty good season in 1999/00, being well up in the + category and getting an invite to play on Team Canada. Last year he played not badly in Boston and at times with the Habs.
- Quintal I wasn't thrilled about either but he contributed more than I'd thought he would.
Add to the foregoing the fact that "we'll play some of the kids even if we miss the playoffs in the next couple, three years" definitely wasn't an option to present in the Three Year Plan to Gillett and Boivin. The idea was to make the playoffs, not only to make George some money, but also to reestablish a winning tradition with the Habs and to restore the home ice advantage to the keg, ie something positive for the kids to come into so they learn how to win, not how to keep losing.
And lets not forget that old chestnut "NHL quality depth for an injury prone team" that practically everyone was crying out for after 2000/01.
So I think that, setting 20/20 hindsight aside, there were a number of good and valid reasons for what Savard did at the time with the signings on defence.
You can make similar arguments with the forwards.
- Audette, yea sure I would have preferred a scoring power forward or a young up and coming scorer but we weren't goning to get these guys with Rucinsky. And I think that Audette well turn out quite well for us over the next couple of years. He did score in the rough going in the playoffs with one bad arm. And we do need some proven scoring.
- Berezin, like JV said, ain't signed yet. I hope he's not or if he is that it's to trade him. But who knows, if he's signed to a one year deal he might just produce.
Sure I want to see some marginal players moved from the Habs to create opportunities for the likes of Asham, Hossa, maybe even Ward, IF they earn it. Move Odjik somehow, drop Berezin, Van Allen, even Lindsay or Darby or Poulin, if he's an UFA.
What concerns me the most for the upcoming season, now that I think about it, is the room at the minor league level. We still do not have enough good prospects ready to challenge for jobs on the Habs to move a lot of vets without causing a lot of problems. We need spots at the minor level to develop these prospects. That's where the real problem is. Moving good and productive vets out of the Habs now just to create more spots for new talent in the minors solves the wrong, or a non, problem and in so doing creates a bigger problem than the one you're trying to fix. The team still has to do well in the next couple of years while the younger talent develops.
What's needed next year and maybe the year after are minor league spots. So what I'd really like to see is the Habs dropping/moving a lot of these minor league guys.
So while it's real easy to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at Savard and to whine and say we're peeved, I think that you've got to admit that retooling the team, no the entire organization, on the fly while making the playoffs all the time and getting better each year is a pretty complicated and difficult job, being that no one can foresee the future.
Which is why I'm not too excited about Dyment or overall about Savard's performance. I think that, all in all, he's done quite well.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jun 16, 2002 23:00:43 GMT -5
I tend to see Traverse, Quintal, and Audette as being the big 3 mistakes, but all 3 moves could be justified in some way - but I don't think the whole situation with all these long-term players can be explained away so easily. I'm convinced we could have an equivalent team out there with a few less long-term deals, and more flexibility for the future. Quintal and Audette do not appear to me to have been mistakes at all, let alone big ones. Audette is a bona fide scoring threat. He's played great since he's been here and seems genuinely happy to be in Montreal. Assuming his arm continues to heal well, he will be easily tradeable if Savard decides he isn't needed. At the time the deal was made, we had a serious need of scoring touch with Koivu out of the lineup and with Savage sucking big time and waiting to be moved. Audette is a valuable right shooting sniper who got it done in the playoffs despite being less than 100%. A good move and, frankly, a great deal for Rucinsky, whose value was at an all-time low as the deadline approached. To me it's utterly irrelevant that Audette didn't click in Dallas, with a team that said "no thanks" to Brett Hull, a guy who wanted to come back, and playing for Hitchcock. Hitchcock is a fine coach, but he didn't get a whole lot out of Pierre Turgeon, either. And by the way, with Audette going down a week after arriving, the trade for Berezin made sense too, no matter how badly it has worked out since then. And last, Audette may be small, but he is not soft. As for Quintal, HabWest said it pretty clearly: we needed some weight on the blueline that we could count on. Souray was gone almost the whole season, and without Quintal we'd have been ridiculously small and soft on the blueline. Quintal is not overpaid by much and was one of our best d-men against Boston. In fact, he played better as the season wore on. He also likes being here, which is more than just a bonus....to me, it's a necessity. And last, Quintal is not our 6 or 7 d-man. He played number 2 or 3 like minutes in the playoffs. As for Dykhuis, anybody who complains about the length of his contract, the amount of money, or his play is just not paying attention. The guy has been very, very solid. He's 31 years old and is coming into his prime, not past it. He's durable, skates well, plays physical, keeps improving his positional play and he wants to be here. Enough said. As for "flexibility" for the future, this is a kind of elastic concept that I can't really get my head around. To me, we're right on schedule. One more year of developing the youth down on the farm and it'll start to produce. We may have two guys ready this year (Hainsey and Hossa) but next year there'll be more. It's next year and the year after that the bodies need to be cleared out, not this year. The only guys who need more NHL ice (for sure) are Asham and Hainsey, and Asham's already on the NHL roster. Hossa will probably benefit from one more year in the AHL. And don't even talk to me about Ward and Chouinard and Ribeiro....don't even get me started. It's because these guys are pretty much busts that we had to go out and sign some of the guys we signed. They're part of the problem, not the solution. I know we've been over this ground before, but to me, people who think that things would have been "just as good" going with the young guys in our system -- by going with Descoteaux instead of Quintal, with Ribeiro instead of Perreault, with Ward instead of Lindsay, with Jarventie instead of Dykhuis, with Belanger instead of Odjick, with Chouinard instead of Audette -- are just dreaming. Savard went and got people who (a) could play in the NHL; (b) were available at no or little cost in terms of picks or prospects; and (c) wanted to be in Montreal. These guys are doing an outstanding job of filling in the gap created by years of bad drafts piled one on top of the next. In two years or less (and in some cases a lot less) most or all of these guys will be gone: Gilmour, Odjick, Berezin, Quintal, Van Allen, Lindsay, Petrov, Juneau, Traverse, Robidas and Bouillon. At the same time, five or six more guys, at least, will be cleared out of our minor league system and replaced with players who have a legit shot at helping one day: The Ryders, Chouinards, Ribeiros and Descoteauxs will be replaced with more guys like Milroy, Perezhogin, Plekanec and Komisarek. It's already looking a lot better. "Flexibility" comes from having cards in your hand, and preferably not other GM's discards.... We don't need "flexibility", at least not in the way that you mean. We need to draft well, sit tight and wait. |
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Jun 16, 2002 23:21:22 GMT -5
Well, THANK YOU ROGGY, the thread was about to die, but YOU HAD TO DO IT!!! You're welcome. I'm like a doctor. A saw a dying patient and I brought it back to life. Look at it flourish now! BTW absolutely one of the all time best debates I've seen, ever. I'm in awe of the arguing power of PTH, Johnny and HabWest. Good jobs guys. Imagine, a huge thread like this and that BadCompany guy hasn't been in on it in 3 days. Just goes to show the extremely high quality of this board. BadCompany must be at his lawyers wondering if he can sue a movie studio for stealing his screen name. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 17, 2002 0:49:35 GMT -5
Or....he could be collecting royalties as we speak.  Hey guys...this has gone far off Chris Dyment. Can't we start a new thread...."Arguments no one will ever win, but keep us from utter boredom because the draft hasn't happened yet" ? Please? |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jun 17, 2002 1:20:07 GMT -5
Just one thought to add to your post JV. That is some of the vets that aren't contributing and the younger but not likely to make it players that seem to be "clogging" up the minor league system last year and some the upcoming year were largely signed by Houle, were they not?
- Descoteaux
- Ryder
- Bouillon
- Poulin
- Robidas ?
- Ribiero ?
- Chouinard
- Marois
- Landry
- Bertrand
- Ryder
- Beauchemin
- J. Delisle
- X Delisle
That's 12, and maybe 13 or 14, although several likely won't be back this year... because Savard won't resign them. Even if the total is less, it's pretty difficult it seems to me to lay the blame for roster spot shortages, if there are really any, entirely or even mostly on Savard's shoulders.
It seems to me the real "culprit", if there really should be one, in the Dyment case is Houle and not Savard. Houle signed a lot of players that were marginal NHLers or never wases. Savard signed players that got us into the playoffs and will tide us over until the new blood has time to mature. On the last I'm being a little more conservative than JV, expecting the talent development to be a little more gradual and fewer to make the jump in 2003/04. I think it will be 2004/05 when the Habs really start to reap the benefit of the new talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jun 17, 2002 1:28:31 GMT -5
In response to 17 sure. My last few posts, and JV's and Bad Co etc, really haven't been about Dyment anyway- he's gone. They've addressed the broader talent development picture and how roster spots in the minors and on the Habs affect this. Plus what the Habs roster might, ought to?, look like next fall.
And of course this is related to the draft picks this year and how they will be brought along in the future and fit into the picture.
So if anybody can take the posts starting with JV's original list and start a new string with an appropriate subject heading that would be great. It will be good to have around after the draft as well, to keep us going between then and camp in 11 weeks.
As a matter of fact, once we get the players under contract list nailed down it ought to be kept updated somewhere as a basic reference tool for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 17, 2002 7:57:04 GMT -5
BadCompany must be at his lawyers wondering if he can sue a movie studio for stealing his screen name. That movie is like, exactly what my life is like. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 17, 2002 8:04:21 GMT -5
Or....he could be collecting royalties as we speak. I tried to get a HabsRus plug into the movie, but apparently that scene ended up on a cutting room floor. In the movie there is one scene where Anthony Hopkins - or "Fat Tony" as he insisted I call him - says "Don't shoot the bomb!" and Chris Rock - playing me - yells out, in sheer terror, "don't shoot me either!" Orginally, Chris Rock was supposed to shout out "Oh, I wish I was surfing the net reading HabsRus posts!" but apparently the producers felt that line "did not fit with the artistic flow of the original conceptual design", whatever that means. Sorry guys, I tried. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 17, 2002 9:58:25 GMT -5
Living in LA I'm trying to get Steven Speilberg to use the line, "If you think that's a bad deal, how about the trade of Dyment to the Minnesota Wild!" It might be used in a disaster movie.  (tongue in cheek) as Richard Gere said. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jun 17, 2002 10:07:33 GMT -5
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! This has gone beyond belief! I can't even read what PTH and JV are saying because this is the umpteenth time they have debated this AND it's all clustered up together.
MAKE IT STOP!!!!!! Spiro!!!!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Jun 17, 2002 10:37:03 GMT -5
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! This has gone beyond belief! I can't even read what PTH and JV are saying because this is the umpteenth time they have debated this AND it's all clustered up together. MAKE IT STOP!!!!!! Spiro!!!! ;D LOL, if you dislike the thread that much, you could choose not to read it...just a thought.  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 17, 2002 22:37:36 GMT -5
PTH, I wasn't looking back at Dyment when I put up the updated list. I was looking to this fall.. So you're anticipating - until we know what's up, I hate anticipating, it's too easy to get things wrong. . Savard as a GM should be able to anticipate what will happen, and who he can count on, and who should be dumped. I'm not saying he should have made completely different solutions, just that he may have gone a bit too far in signing guys to fill up the roster, and in acquiring ever more players for the current roster. I agree on winning, which is why I've always been for Perreault and Gilmour and Juneau's signings, since they were key parts to the team, but it's the Audette's and the Quintal's and the Simpson's I wonder about. I agree there was a need for some moves - it's the sum of it all I disagree with, not so much each individual move. Someone else could see things like me overall, but focus on other veterans - ie, no single deal was all that terrible, but the sum of it all shows some serious problems. . Nope, no way we could get a young guy like Malhotra for Rucinsky - no way. And no way we could make the playoffs without Audette, right ? Sometimes you have to give some kids some real ice time - giving Ward 4th line ice time at best is a sure-fire way to make sure he never makes it. . The players who come up through the system don't need to be Hainsey's and Hossa's - sometimes an Asham or a Tucker will make it, and these guys need to be given a chance at some point. And not replacing Van Allen every 3d game... |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 17, 2002 22:59:12 GMT -5
Quintal and Audette do not appear to me to have been mistakes at all, let alone big ones. . Like I said, you can justify any single move - it's the sum of it all I dislike. The playoffs were gravy, so I ignore them in player evaluation for now, especially for veterans at the end of their careers. I actually like Quintal - but I dislike seeing the Habs having Brisebois, Quintal, Dykhuis and Traverse signed for 2 more seasons or more. It's sure to cost us later on, when Markov, Souray, Rivet, Hainsey and any other defenseman can't get ice time, or if we have highly paid vets sitting. This is just player evaluation - and we disagree. To me Dykhuis is average at best, and contributes nothing special, other than brain cramps. [/quote] As for "flexibility" for the future, this is a kind of elastic concept that I can't really get my head around. To me, we're right on schedule. One more year of developing the youth down on the farm and it'll start to produce. We may have two guys ready this year (Hainsey and Hossa) but next year there'll be more. It's next year and the year after that the bodies need to be cleared out, not this year. [/quote] Fine - but the problem is that we'll be clearing out massive amounts of players in a very short time span. Looking at who will be leaving this team between the summer of 2003 and summer 2005 (and given their ages, the guys I'm looking at will be looking at retirement - or be UFAs and looking for raises) we get a huge list: Juneau, Gilmour, Audette, Perreault, Dykhuis, Brisebois, Quintal, Petrov, Berezin (assuming he's re-signed for 1 season), Lindsay, Odjick, Traverse and Hackett. That's 13 players leaving in a 2 year span, and some pretty important players at that. We can have all the youth you want in the minors, you can't bring up 13 guys in 2 years and not suffer for it. Do we have a choice though, given that we want to ice a decent team now ? Well, I think we could be easing the future by giving some kids chances now. Not in key roles, but in the minor positions where players don't make a huge difference, and when needed in 2 years they'll be ready for bigger roles. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 17, 2002 22:59:27 GMT -5
How about if we had Descoteaux and Razin fighting to keep Quintal's slot, Asham playing in Simpson/Lindsay's slot, and Ward getting the spot vacated by Asham ? Given Asham's ice time, it's not as if Ward could have really hurt this team. Dykhuis could simply have been let go once we knew we could keep Brisebois - all depending on if we have Quintal at #6. Instead of Audette, we could have gotten a Malhotra-type caliber player for Rosie and played him instead of Van Allen.... I'm not advocating a major youth movement, but at least a small one to avoid having to get 4 UFAs a year when even improved drafting won't be sufficient to keep us stocked.
And giving chances to B-level prospects means we can let them go with a lot more confidence than we would had we never seen what they could do.
Remember Conroy, Campbell and many others ? They should at least have gotten a shot...
Well, Savard is now going to be forced to depend on these kids faster and in bigger numbers than he should. If ever their development lags just a bit, we're in trouble. In the meantime, they'll all be waiting it out together, whatever their development level might be, waiting for those 13 to step out..
|
|
|
|
Post by Gord on Jun 18, 2002 7:41:55 GMT -5
PTH, I would counter a few of your points in this way:
Arguing that we could have gotten Malhotra for Rucinsky assumes that New York would still have made that trade to an Eastern Conference rival fighting for the same playoff spot, instead of a Western team they weren't likely to see again in the season. Not likely.
Also, regarding the turnover of players and 13 being high in two years, I don't think that's the case at all. A core stays pretty much the same over that span, but that many players in two years is perfectly normal.
Look at even a successful team like Colorado two years ago. In two years, they've shed: Fleury, Lemieux, Deadmarsh, Kamensky, Ozolinsh, Lefebvre, Donovan, Miller, Gusarov, Hunter, Podein, Odgers, Klemm, Russell, Rychel, Dingman, Billington.. That's seventeen players in two years.
Or how about the Leafs. In two years: Berezin, Derek King, Korolev, Johnson, Perreault, Sullivan, Berard, Modin, Cote, Karpotsev, Warriner, Markov, Tremblay, Kris King, McAllister, Healy. Another 16. I'd say we're right on pace, and that this sort of turnover is perfectly normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 18, 2002 8:39:45 GMT -5
PTH, I would counter a few of your points in this way: Arguing that we could have gotten Malhotra for Rucinsky assumes that New York would still have made that trade to an Eastern Conference rival fighting for the same playoff spot, instead of a Western team they weren't likely to see again in the season. Not likely. Also, regarding the turnover of players and 13 being high in two years, I don't think that's the case at all. A core stays pretty much the same over that span, but that many players in two years is perfectly normal. Look at even a successful team like Colorado two years ago. In two years, they've shed: Fleury, Lemieux, Deadmarsh, Kamensky, Ozolinsh, Lefebvre, Donovan, Miller, Gusarov, Hunter, Podein, Odgers, Klemm, Russell, Rychel, Dingman, Billington.. That's seventeen players in two years. Or how about the Leafs. In two years: Berezin, Derek King, Korolev, Johnson, Perreault, Sullivan, Berard, Modin, Cote, Karpotsev, Warriner, Markov, Tremblay, Kris King, McAllister, Healy. Another 16. I'd say we're right on pace, and that this sort of turnover is perfectly normal. I think PTH meant a Malhotra "type" player, not necessarily Malhotra himself. Personally, I really don't understand why people seem so opposed to this concept. In my opinion, Savard's best moves have been the Kilger, Zednick and Bulis acquisitions, though in all fairness the Dackell acquisition was pretty brilliant as well. Regardless, what every single one of those moves did was trade away a veteran player for a younger, NHL-established player. Nobody said we should have gone for long-shot prospects or picks, but getting guys who can play in the NHL right now, and who still have upside? What's wrong with that? Did anybody know Kilger, Zednik or Bulis before they came to Montreal? Who contributed more to the season, those three or Audette? As PTH pointed out, in the end the team didn't need Audette to make the playoffs. Perhaps next year he will score 30 goals, and Montreal will cruise into the second season. But I remain sceptical. Since the lockout year (remember that? it was 7 years ago) Audette has averaged 20 goals a season. Over that same time frame he has missed an average of 26 games per season. JV keeps saying we can trade him for something useful later on, but how do you figure that? Audette has been traded four times in his career: * For Martin Rucinsky, who has apparently become the worst hockey player in the history of the universe, according to many Hab fans * For Kamil Piros (yes, THAT Kamil Piros) and a 4th rounder, after Audette had scored 32 goals * With Frantisek Kaberle for Kelly Buchberger and Nelson Emerson (Buchberger and Emerson had an average age of I think 103 at the time) * for a 2nd rounder (going on 5 years ago) How much are we expecting to get for Audette, should we decide to trade him? As for the list of players, Colorado and Toronto were not necessarily giving up core players. Of the Colorado list, Fleury was a top-six player, but was only there for a month and a half. Kamensky, Ozolinsh and Lemieux, and maybe Deadmarch were also core players, but the rest were fringe. If you look at PTH's list, you will see 5 of our top 7 forwards (Gilmour, Audette, Petrov, Juneau, Perrault) and our top 3 defencemen (Brisebois, Quintal and Dykhuis). That's a high turnover at the top. |
|
(tongue in cheek) as Richard Gere said.
