Dyment traded to Wild

[habwest]

One further comment.

GMs can't always specify what kind of player they're going to get. For instance Savard might not have been able to get a "Malhotra type" player at the time in a trade, even if he'd have wanted to. An antiquairan book dealer I know once told a customer, when asked why a rare book cost so much, "well these ain't bananas you know". Same with hockey players, you just can't go to the supermarket and pick out that perfect banana when you're making a trade. You take what you can find. And Audette at the time was a player who Savard thought could provide the scoring punch that just might get them into the playoffs. That they made it without him certainly couldn't be foreseen and would likely have been easier otherwise.

Critics still have to face up to the fact that the pressure on Savard to make the playoffs, while the new talent is brought on stream, is enormous. That means the need for some guys who can score. I recollect an awful lot of people on this board lamenting the lack of scoring. Now he's criticised because he didn't get the "right kind" of scorer or something. And this changeover, as I've argued elsewhere, isn't likely to happen that fast. It will take a couple more years.

To be blunt this sounds a lot like know it alls complaining about something that they may not really know that much about. I mean it's real easy to criticize from the comfort of your easy chair or computer terminal when it's not your job on the line.

After a while it just gets tiresome.

Sheesh, give it a rest.

[JohnnyVerdun]

So you're anticipating - until we know what's up, I hate anticipating, it's too easy to get things wrong.

He (HW) wasn't reading a chrystal ball but only talking about guys who are likely to be let go, which seemed reasonable to me.

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.

That's just ridiculous. why should Savard be able to know who he can count on? Where's the historical record to support that lunacy? The opposite is true. What savard has to do is NOT take anything for granted. And in fact, that's why we had a good year: because he didn't count on Souray but went and got quintal; beause he didn't count on Ribeiro, Chouinard or Ward but signed Perreault, Dackell and Juneau. So if we'd sucked with these guys in the lineup (and with Souray and Koivu out) what would you have been screaming in November? What would you have been saying I wonder if Savard had made a leap of faith and Ribeiro, Ward, Asham and Descoteaux had floundered (which is likely)? I can tell you'd have been screaming for NHL talent. Because that's your nature.

And so now, after a playoff year, and to satisfy your penchant for criticism, this is what you're reduced to: you're down to "he may have gone a bit too far"? Well, that doesn't seem like the "serious problems" you refer to below. So which is it? Has Savard created "serious problems" or not?

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.

20/20 hindsight dressed up in the tone of the "reasonable man". Simpson cost us very little and provided a good back up for Odjick. If you don't think Audette's acquisition was a good move fo Rucinsky, well then that's just proof of your determination to criticize. And Quintal too. You want Razin or Descoteaux instead? Well, I'll wager you haven't seen either player on skates more than 4 times, but you'll still say that Quintal wasn't needed. Give me a break.

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.

Well that's a conveniently vague way out: "taken individually I can see the moves make sense, but I don't like the cumulative affect". And what's that affect? You can't tell us. Because you don't know. You don't know whether our roster was so squeezed we had to cut Dyment lose, but you still floated that as something that was "a concern" You don't know that Ribeiro and Chouinard and Ward are legit prospects who're being ruined because you've only seen one of them more than a handful of times. So what are the "serious problems"? You don't have an answer for that either: or at least, not one that doesn't depend on some suitably vague assertion that the young guys aren't "getting a shot". But then again, you get caught in the trap of urging ice time for guys you've hardly ever seen over the vets, when Savard has watched both carefully. Oh, but Savard has compromised his "flexibility", another claim so vague it's laughable. You don't even know what you mean and instead just hope that nobody asks the question you always beg: "what are you talking about?"

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?

This is typical, second-guessing nonsense. When the move was made the team was averaging less than two goals a game. Savard gets an opportunity to get a guy who can help, who is under contract at a reasonable price for 3 more years (and so is tradeable) and so he makes the move. He doesn't know for sure that it'll make the difference, but the reasonable view at that time was that we needed some pop and especially on the pp, but to you he should've accepted a third rounder for Rucinsky?

You have the heart and soul of a critic, but you don't have the 411 to back up your criticisms, the way I see it.

[PTH]

HabWest said:

One further comment.

GMs can't always specify what kind of player they're going to get..... That they made it without him certainly couldn't be foreseen and would likely have been easier otherwise.

Savard still chose to go the Audette route, and he's the guy in charge of evaluating this team and he got a guy we didn't need, ultimately.

Critics still have to face up to the fact that the pressure on Savard to make the playoffs, while the new talent is brought on stream, is enormous. That means the need for some guys who can score. I recollect an awful lot of people on this board lamenting the lack of scoring.

First of all, most projections had the Habs well out of the playoffs, they seriously over-acheived, and as long as they were generally respectable and in the playoff hunt till the last stretch, the pressure wasn't going to be that bad.

To be blunt this sounds a lot like know it alls complaining about something that they may not really know that much about. I mean it's real easy to criticize from the comfort of your easy chair or computer terminal when it's not your job on the line.

After a while it just gets tiresome.

Sheesh, give it a rest.

OK, so you can't answer the arguments I've put up, that Savard's choices will lead to a massive turnover of key players over a short time span, with no replacements in any way close to being ready, but you still just want me to be quiet and just go away ? I can say my thoughts - or not. In both cases the situation remains the same. Not terrible, not horrific, but there is cause for concern.

[JohnnyVerdun]

PTH said:

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..

No. Savard will start depending on guys when they've shown themselves worthy. Your big list of 13 will be replaced one or two at a time., when it suits Savard. You don't know Berezin will be re-signed (I thought "anticipating" was a bad idea?). Gilmour and Berezin and Van Allen are all possibly gone before training camp opens, for God's sake. Two or three more between the opening of the season and the trade deadline and bingo, almost half of your "dirty dozen" are gone. Stop with the chicken little, the sky is falling routine.....it's just not convincing

[JohnnyVerdun]

PTH said:

OK, so you can't answer the arguments I've put up, that Savard's choices will lead to a massive turnover of key players over a short time span, with no replacements in any way close to being ready, but you still just want me to be quiet and just go away ? I can say my thoughts - or not. In both cases the situation remains the same. Not terrible, not horrific, but there is cause for concern.

Well, it's one or the other, pal, either you have "serious concerns" and argue that Savard has painted himself into a corner, or 'fess up to this being just vague apprehensions you have about the future. You can't suck and blow at once.

There's just no good reason to think that Savard will run into a wall where he's got to throw a half dozen or more raw rookies into the lineup in a short span of time. In fact, everything he's done suggests the opposite. It suggests that that is precisely what he'll use every brain cell to avoid. So far, he's done a very good job of sparing us the sight of too many bad prospects wearing the CH at once.

[JohnnyVerdun]

PTH said:

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.

You "ignore" the playoffs for player evaluation? When the stakes are highest and the competition the toughest? Okay....

"Other defencemen"? What other defencemen? Komisarek is two years away, in all likelihood. Traverse will eithr be picked up on waivers or thrown in to some deal, or boughty out. He is not a big problem. If Hainsey flys and markov develops, where's the problem? You move Dykhuis, or Quintal. No matter what you say, these guys can play in the NHL (dykhuis was +16 for God's sake) and can be moved. Since when is it a problem to have 8 blueliners who can play in the NHL? Since when is it a problem not to have to rely on a guy like Hainsey playing 20 minutes a night at age 22?

[PTH]

JohnnyVerdun said:

He (HW) wasn't reading a chrystal ball but only talking about guys who are likely to be let go, which seemed reasonable to me.

Agree that it's reasonable - I just think it makes things even harder to agree on, since there will always be some divergence of opinion.

That's just ridiculous. why should Savard be able to know who he can count on? Where's the historical record to support that lunacy? The opposite is true. What savard has to do is NOT take anything for granted.

His forte is supposed to be player evaluation, right ? So he shouldn't have to plan for every possible contingency of things going wrong.

What would you have been saying I wonder if Savard had made a leap of faith and Ribeiro, Ward, Asham and Descoteaux had floundered (which is likely)?

Hmm, do you really think Asham can't handle a larger role ? Do you really think Ward wouldn't have been able to handle Asham's limited ice time ? Do you really think Descoteaux/Razin would have been that big a downgrade on Quintal ? Even if they were, instead of giving up a 4th rounder and getting stuck with another long-term contract, why not get a cheaper body off waivers ? Why get locked up in a long-term contract for a guy who was a healthy scratch ?

And so now, after a playoff year, and to satisfy your penchant for criticism, this is what you're reduced to: you're down to "he may have gone a bit too far"? Well, that doesn't seem like the "serious problems" you refer to below. So which is it? Has Savard created "serious problems" or not?

[/b][/quote]
He hasn't traded away key assets or anything, but I do think he's made significant mistakes.

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.

20/20 hindsight dressed up in the tone of the "reasonable man".

In essence here, you're saying my point of view has changed depending on the results I saw - hindsight. Which means you're doubting my good faith - if you think I'm lying, don't bother responding, just ignore me like any self-respecting poster should do, if I'm lying.

[PTH]

Simpson cost us very little and provided a good back up for Odjick. If you don't think Audette's acquisition was a good move fo Rucinsky, well then that's just proof of your determination to criticize. And Quintal too. You want Razin or Descoteaux instead? Well, I'll wager you haven't seen either player on skates more than 4 times, but you'll still say that Quintal wasn't needed. Give me a break.

"Give me a break?" I'd like to see some rational arguments here, at some point. I gave you a potential situation with Asham replacing Simpson/Lindsay, and Ward taking over Asham's slot, yet you ignore it - maybe because it could have worked ?

Well that's a conveniently vague way out: "taken individually I can see the moves make sense, but I don't like the cumulative affect". And what's that affect? You can't tell us.

The effect is that over 2 years we'll be replacing 13 players, including most of our key guys. It means our defense will have to be changed wholesale and quickly, instead of taking the required time to break guys in. It means our RW will go from decent to nothing very soon, with Asham still raw, and Dackell, Odjick Petrov and Audette who will leave within 2-3 years. Who will be on our RW in 3 years ? We can't name a single guy who'll be there...

As to the single move vs whole sum of the moves, I'll put this simply: Quintal is OK, Dykhuis, Brisebois, and even Traverse's extensions, I could live with - but not all. Sign Brisebois and Dykhuis. Or Quintal and Dykhuis, or some other combination. Just not all 4 guys. We do need some stability, but Savard is pouring cement on this roster, and it'll be fixed in place for too long, and it'll hurt us when we need to replace 3-4 veteran defensemen over 2 seasons.

But then again, you get caught in the trap of urging ice time for guys you've hardly ever seen over the vets, when Savard has watched both carefully.

If we don't have any young guys who can play, then get some reclamation projects off waivers or as cheap UFA signings - why get locked into long-term deals if all we need is a temp fill-in ?

but to you he should've accepted a third rounder for Rucinsky?

If it was the best offer, why not ? I'm sure Savard could have gotten some kind of a Ribeiro-Bulis-Malhotra-Kilger type of reclamation project instead.
Regardless, right now I'd rather have a free roster spot and the possibility of adding a 3 million dollar contract to the roster than having Audette.

When Audette was acquired I didn't like the deal - but as soon as he got hurt, I knew I could never be vindicated, people only remember Audie's first few games on adrenalin... and anything bad that happens now it'll be because of his injury.

[PTH]

JohnnyVerdun said:

No. Savard will start depending on guys when they've shown themselves worthy. Your big list of 13 will be replaced one or two at a time., when it suits Savard. You don't know Berezin will be re-signed (I thought "anticipating" was a bad idea?). Gilmour and Berezin and Van Allen are all possibly gone before training camp opens, for God's sake. Two or three more between the opening of the season and the trade deadline and bingo, almost half of your "dirty dozen" are gone. Stop with the chicken little, the sky is falling routine.....it's just not convincing

Yup, I'm anticipating that Gilmour will want to come back and that Berezin will get a qualifying offer, both very possible events. If this happens, Savard could easily find himself facing a complex situation.

And replacing 1 or 2 at a time doesn't stop the fact that all 13 may very well need to be replaced with 2 seasons, which would mean that half the guys on the ice are rookies or sophomores. Ouch.

Is it sure to happen ? Of course not. But he's now got an obstacle to avoid, an obstacle he could have lessened a lot with some slightly different decisions.

[PTH]

JohnnyVerdun said:

You "ignore" the playoffs for player evaluation? When the stakes are highest and the competition the toughest? Okay....

You forgot the "especially for veterans at the end of their careers" part. My thoughts on acquiring Quintal or Gilmour won't change much on their playoff performances, since this team wasn't even supposed to be there. But obviously when I see a young guy like Zednik doing well there, it increases my esteem of him.

"Other defencemen"? What other defencemen? Komisarek is two years away, in all likelihood. Traverse will eithr be picked up on waivers or thrown in to some deal, or boughty out. He is not a big problem. If Hainsey flys and markov develops, where's the problem? You move Dykhuis, or Quintal. No matter what you say, these guys can play in the NHL (dykhuis was +16 for God's sake) and can be moved. Since when is it a problem to have 8 blueliners who can play in the NHL? Since when is it a problem not to have to rely on a guy like Hainsey playing 20 minutes a night at age 22?

"Other defensemen" can be anyone else coming up the system - a guy like Popovic came out of nowhere in 1995, it's good to at least have the option to bring in a surprise rookie. As to Hainsey, yes it's nice not to have to depend on him too quickly, but it would be nice also if we could be sure he'd get enough ice time to ensure decent development.

[habwest]

Well PTH I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You don't think that I've met your arguments and I don't think that you've met mine. Neither one of us is going to change his mind. Maybe you will be proved right by developments. Or maybe I will be. Or maybe it will end up in between. Time will tell.

Anyway, everything's been said that can possibly be said. But if you want to keep at it feel free. I do after all have the choice of not reading this thread anymore which is what I'll probably do. Whatever, it's not worth turning this argument nasty, which I may have started with my last exasperated statement. I'm just getting weary about arguing that's all. That happens when you're older.

Cheers.

[PTH]

Agreed on agreeing to disagree. Let's leave it at that.

[JohnnyVerdun]

His forte is supposed to be player evaluation, right ? So he shouldn't have to plan for every possible contingency of things going wrong.

Every GM is faced with uncertainties at the outset of a season. Savard had a few before the minor wrinkle of having your captain and first line center diagnosed with cancer. These uncertainties included: Odjick, who'd missed 32 games the year before with a wrist problem; Souray, who besides being in his formative years as a big d-man had been injured and then operated on late in the summer; Rodbida, who some said was a lock to be among the top 6 d-men after a good year last year; and so on. To me, Savard did what any prudent GM would have done (and especially one without a lot of faith in 21 year olds on the farm: he acquired NHL depth. That's why we saw Dackell on the 3rd line instead of Asham or Ward, for example

Hmm, do you really think Asham can't handle a larger role ? Do you really think Ward wouldn't have been able to handle Asham's limited ice time ?

The point isn't whether Ward can handle Asham's 6 minutes every third game but whether it's best for the team now and in the future. Ward had a pretty solid campaign in Quebec and probably developed his game more there with 21 minutes a night than by playing 4 minutes every fourth line on the 4th line. Let me paraphrase you from an earlier post: "there's no surer way to ruin Ward than by putting him on the 4th line sporadically". Didn't you write something like that within the last two days? I think you did.

Do you really think Descoteaux/Razin would have been that big a downgrade on Quintal ?

Uhhh, YES. But I've only seen those guys play two or three times each. You never did tell us all how many times you've watched them play. Wonder why that is....

Even if they were, instead of giving up a 4th rounder and getting stuck with another long-term contract, why not get a cheaper body off waivers ?

Translation: Why not just check the waiver wire and get a big, tough experienced d-man for 1.6 million a year who can fight and who wants to be in Montreal and who's been playing way below his abilities for the last two years? Duhhhh, I don't know. Maybe there aren't that many of them? And again, Quintal is not 38 years old and neither is he that expensive. And do you seriously doubt that he could be moved?

He hasn't traded away key assets or anything, but I do think he's made significant mistakes.

Yeah, you keep saying that. But you don't seem so sure of your case. One minute it's "serious mistakes" giving rise to "serious concerns" and the next you say stuff which suggests that it's not that big a deal, and lots of your comments have the ring of vaguely apprehended difficulties on the horizon, of situations that Savard "could find himself in"....It's not a compelling argument. In a recent post you retreated far enough to say that the "big mistakes" were Quintal, Audette and Simpson", which is 66% insupportable, because Simpson by definition can't be a big mistake (being the kind of waiver wire pick-up without long term committment that you were advocating above, and because he's already long gone). And Audette cannot be a "big mistake" either, because all we gave up for him was Marty and we now have a bona fide NHL scorer who could be traded with little difficulty. So now all you're left with is Quintal, about whom reasonable people can disagree (I give you the benefit of the doubt here).

In essence here, you're saying my point of view has changed depending on the results I saw - hindsight. Which means you're doubting my good faith.
[/quote]

Take it easy, dude. All I'm saying is that it's easy to look back and say about Audette that "we didn't need him" because he was injured and we made it anyway. That's not lying and I never accused you of lying. What I am saying, though, is that you have this propensity for looking at things (whether back in time or forward) and putting the worst possible spin on them. I'm all for examining worst-case scenarios, but to talk as though these things are realities is kind of weird....It's one thing to say "X could happen and wouldn't it be bad?" and quite another to say "Savard has done a,b and c and therefore you can count on X coming to pass"....To me, your complaints about Savard bear a striking resemblance (structurally and logically) to the latter formulation, and I just don't see it adding up that way. Are all these doom and gloom scenarios possible? Yes, because you really never can tell. But are they likely? Not really. Is it possible that the team will be forced to inject 12 or 13 young guys into the lineup over the next two years when they haven't had enough NHL ice time to get their legs? Yes. Is it likely? About as likely as me winning the nobel peace prize this calendar year...

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

We should have traded Dyment to Tampa Bay for Alexeev, Lecavalier, and TB's 1st round pick this year. Tampa Bay needs to stir up fan interest now and nobody stris up fan interest like Dynebt did. Just look at the number of posts on HabsRus.

[PTH]

I decided to agree to disagree with HabWest - now I'll give you the same offer. Regardless of whether you take it, I'll just going to briefly respond to your arguments one last time.

JohnnyVerdun said:

Every GM is faced with uncertainties at the outset of a season. Savard had a few before the minor wrinkle of having your captain and first line center diagnosed with cancer. These uncertainties included........

Yes, but every GM has to face some uncertainties, it doesn't mean you have to acquire guys on long-term contracts to deal with it.

..... That's why we saw Dackell on the 3rd line instead of Asham or Ward, for example

Given that Dackell is an RFA and isn't all that expensive, I like this move more as time goes on.

"there's no surer way to ruin Ward than by putting him on the 4th line sporadically". Didn't you write something like that within the last two days? I think you did.

I'm pretty sure I didn't - at this point any chance Ward gets is worthwhile, we're likely on the verge of dumping him anyhow...



[/quote]
Uhhh, YES. But I've only seen those guys play two or three times each. You never did tell us all how many times you've watched them play. Wonder why that is....[/quote] I've seen each of them 3-5 times, enough to see that they are decent as #6-7 guys who will be healthy scratches at times. Remember that Robidas and Bouillon are also ahead of them, after all...

Translation: Why not just check the waiver wire and get a big, tough experienced d-man for 1.6 million a year who can fight and who wants to be in Montreal and who's been playing way below his abilities for the last two years? Duhhhh, I don't know. Maybe there aren't that many of them?

I think you're vastly overrating Quintal here, I think we could have gotten a close equivalent off the waiver wire, one who wasn't locked up in a contract of close to 2 million US a year and at the end of his career.

And again, Quintal is not 38 years old and neither is he that expensive. And do you seriously doubt that he could be moved?

A guy who was a healthy scratch over the season, who's making close to 2 million and was on waivers a year ago.... I doubt he's got much value.

It's not a compelling argument.

Maybe I'm not phrasing things well, but I think I have a point.

In a recent post you retreated far enough to say that the "big mistakes" were Quintal, Audette and Simpson"

I wish you'd quoted from a post of mine, since I doubt I said that. Audette, Quintal and Traverse are my own "personnal" big three, who best represent the worrisome trend I've noticed.

....we now have a bona fide NHL scorer who could be traded with little difficulty.

Respond to BC on that one, Audette hasn't fetched much in quite a while.

That's not lying and I never accused you of lying.

It sure seemed like it though.

I'm all for examining worst-case scenarios, but to talk as though these things are realities is kind of weird....
...
Is it possible that the team will be forced to inject 12 or 13 young guys into the lineup over the next two years when they haven't had enough NHL ice time to get their legs? Yes. Is it likely? About as likely as me winning the nobel peace prize this calendar year..

[/quote]
If Gilmour comes back, then 12 of my 13 will be leaving in the said timeframe, assuming Savard does nothing else. In other words, he'll probably avoid the pitfall by making some moves, but he'll be forced to make moves in the meantime, and won't have the freedom to operate he should have.

It's kind of like a team locking itself up in a couple of huge contracts, or a team setting itself up for a fall - a GM might be able to get out of it, but he's contrained himself and lacks flexibility.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I just wish people would acknowledge that they understand my point, however invalid it may be.

[JohnnyVerdun]

PTH said:

I've seen each of them 3-5 times, enough to see that they are decent as #6-7 guys who will be healthy scratches at times.

But you weren't talking about Descoteaux or Razin filling a "6 or 7 spot" but taking Quintal's spot! The guy played huge minutes all year long. So what you must be suggesting is that, in retrospect, it would've been better to have one of Robidas or Markov or Bouillon play the minutes Quintal did and to have one of Razin or Descoteaux play the 6 or 7 spot, right? Well, what do you think of Robidas, Bouillon and Traverse? Not much, I gather

[Re Quintal] I think we could have gotten a close equivalent off the waiver wire, one who wasn't locked up in a contract of close to 2 million US a year and at the end of his career.

Names, PTH, give me names. Lumme? He was on the wire because his contract called for something like 3 million a year, and nobody would bite. Which, interestingly, is the reason that nobody went for Quintal when he hit the wire. Not because he couldn't help anybody, but only because he was overpriced. Ulanov? Wasn't available on waivers until December. But even then, big contract, stupid penalties, less capable than Quintal. Any others? Let me know. By taking 6 million (roughly) and spreading it out over 4 years instead of 3, Quintal's cost came down to something like 1.6 or 1.7 annually. So, who was available that was cheaper and as good or better, and not in December 2001 but in July?And since you have the benefit of hindsight, and of having seen Quintal play some pretty decent hockey down the stretch, I expect you to give Savard the benefit of that and so find someone about whom you can say "he'd have done as well or better".

A guy who was a healthy scratch over the season, who's making close to 2 million and was on waivers a year ago.... I doubt he's got much value.

But Quintal doesn't have to have "much value". All we gave up was a 4th rounder to get him. If we get a 5th or even a 6th for him next year or whenever Savard thinks we're over the hump, that's plenty. And the way he's been playing, including in the playoffs with a bad right arm, there's no doubt in my mind some team will give up a 6th rounder to get him and will take on 100% of his salary. He'd probably garner a 4th rounder right now and a lot of teams would consider it a bargain.

I wish you'd quoted from a post of mine, since I doubt I said that. Audette, Quintal and Traverse are my own "personnal" big three, who best represent the worrisome trend I've noticed.

Well, again, Traverse is hardly a "big mistake" at $650,000 a year. Disagree big time on Audette for reasons below and elsewhere and on Quintal for the reasons above

Respond to BC on that one, Audette hasn't fetched much in quite a while.

I don't know what BC has to do with this, but Audette was last moved at the deadline as a pending UFA after his 30+ goal season, so that doesn't tell you much? And again, we don't need to get much for Audette, especially since we didn't give up much to get him. Are you saying that (assuming his arm continues to heal) we couldn't trade him? Do you believe that?

If Gilmour comes back, then 12 of my 13 will be leaving in the said timeframe, assuming Savard does nothing else.

And why wouldn't Savard do "something else"? And by the way, Gilmour is probably not coming back, number one, and your 12 or 13 have contracts that expire in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (Audette, Quintal, Brisebois). So isn't it over 3 years, really?

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I just wish people would acknowledge that they understand my point...

If I didn't understand what you were saying I would ask you to explain. I understand what you're saying, but I just think it's unfairly pessimistic, that's all. Like, if everything goes wrong, and Audette's arm doesn't heal, or if it does heal but he sucks, and Quintal's game goes into the tank, and Savard signs Berezin to a 4 year, 14 million dollar contract and Sergei still sucks, and Brisebois returns to his year 2000 form, and Dykhuis is minus 25 next year, and so forth, yeah, of course, Savard will look like a moron. He won't be able to move any of these guys and the situation will suck. But while one or two of these things may happen, perhaps even in quick succession, it's very, very unlikely they'll all happen and that Savard will be in a position where he doesn't want any of these guys on the ice and where he can't trade any of them.....Where, in other words, he really is stuck and can't get out.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

What is the record for the longest thread on HabsRus?
What is the record for the longest thread about a nobody going to a nothing team?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Linhart is a defensman to replace Dyment as the most obscure defenseman.
If Hudler stars for Detroit this year and Therrien is still with the Hab's in October, the only parade on St. Catherine St. will be the burning of St. Savard.
Higgins is OK but I'm not impressed. Savard better prove his picks and now!

[PTH]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Linhart is a defensman to replace Dyment as the most obscure defenseman.
If Hudler stars for Detroit this year and Therrien is still with the Hab's in October, the only parade on St. Catherine St. will be the burning of St. Savard.
Higgins is OK but I'm not impressed. Savard better prove his picks and now!

Linhart is a 2nd round pick, not very obscure. Mostly obscure just from most draft previews, who just focus on the 1st round picks, and local kids.

I don't think Pierre Dorion needs to see his picks make it quickly to keep his job, but I do think he needs to have some picks of his make it soon enough.

Let's keep in mind that Savard is now GM, and no longer chief scout. He probably was consulted on the Higgins decision, but he probably never saw much of the guy.

The only year that AS was really involved in scouting was 2000-2001, so Komisarek, Milroy and Perezhogin are the guys AS's scouting reputaton lies on in MTL, no more, no less.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I still hold Savard responsible. The coach is responsible for the play of the players even if he doesn't lace up his skates. The GM is responsible for the performance of his scouts. They are his employees and he shares the responsibility for their recommendations. The busk stops there.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Doc_Holliday said:

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.

I've never seen the Montreal Canadiens roster less clogged. To get a roster spot you have to beat out mediocre ageing veterans (lots of 30 somethings) or AHL prospects (not a #1 pick among them). When Cournoyer and Henri Richard made the team, they beat out great veterans just to get a spot on the bench. Only a goaltender prospect has to face a logjam.

[MPLABBE]

Are we trying to beat a record by letting this thread go on like this?

[Bobs_HABit]

Just so this won't die. The 5th we received from Minnesota in the Dyment deal was packaged with our own 4th for Calgary's 4th so that we could select Lambert. All of you in Savard's corner better hope Dyment doesn't make the NHL for any significant time.

[PTH]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I've never seen the Montreal Canadiens roster less clogged. To get a roster spot you have to beat out mediocre ageing veterans (lots of 30 somethings) or AHL prospects (not a #1 pick among them). When Cournoyer and Henri Richard made the team, they beat out great veterans just to get a spot on the bench. Only a goaltender prospect has to face a logjam.

Hmm, a young RW has to beat out multi-million dollar contracts for Petrov, Chow, Odjick and Audette, along with a guy like Dackell who'll be looking at a cool million, too. To make it, a kid then needs to be CLEARLY a better player, and even then he has no garantees.

At most positions, a slot might be available, but the guy you could beat out for a slot (because of his not having a massive contract) is often one of the top guys at his position on the team - the mediocre guys have long-term big-money contracts, and other than trying to smack the coach or giving reporters the finger, they aren't going anywhere.

[MPLABBE]

so the Dyment thread is still alive...

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

PTH said:

Hmm, a young RW has to beat out multi-million dollar contracts for Petrov, Chow, Odjick and Audette, along with a guy like Dackell who'll be looking at a cool million, too. To make it, a kid then needs to be CLEARLY a better player, and even then he has no garantees.

At most positions, a slot might be available, but the guy you could beat out for a slot (because of his not having a massive contract) is often one of the top guys at his position on the team - the mediocre guys have long-term big-money contracts, and other than trying to smack the coach or giving reporters the finger, they aren't going anywhere.

Petrov, a small ageing veteran who never has and never will set the league on fire with a 30 goal season and never impressed as a defensive forward or power forward.
Audette, a thirtysomething whose best years are behind him. He wouldn't be a big guy on a midget B team.
Dackell, did I mention ageing and slowing down. He scores fewer goals than a fullback on a soccer team.
Odjick, an ageing veteran with limited skills who fights like Tyson's mother and is almost out of a job without a replacement. He did play well considering his limited skills and talent.
Chow, a player who couldn't score 25 goals with Yashin feeding him, and he won't have a Yashin this year. His production is going down as his age goes up.
Yes, a player has to impress to make the team, but this isn't exactly a herculean task. You don't have to beat out Steve Shutt, Houle, Lafleur, Richard, Moore, Geoffreon, Beliveau, Lemaire, or Mahovlich.
The thread is alive.

[PTH]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Petrov, a small ageing veteran who never has and never will set the league on fire with a 30 goal season and never impressed as a defensive forward or power forward.
Audette, a thirtysomething whose best years are behind him. He wouldn't be a big guy on a midget B team.
Dackell, did I mention ageing and slowing down. He scores fewer goals than a fullback on a soccer team.
Odjick, an ageing veteran with limited skills who fights like Tyson's mother and is almost out of a job without a replacement. He did play well considering his limited skills and talent.
Chow, a player who couldn't score 25 goals with Yashin feeding him, and he won't have a Yashin this year. His production is going down as his age goes up.
Yes, a player has to impress to make the team, but this isn't exactly a herculean task. You don't have to beat out Steve Shutt, Houle, Lafleur, Richard, Moore, Geoffreon, Beliveau, Lemaire, or Mahovlich.
The thread is alive.

Don't look at the players, look at the contracts.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Look at the contracts???

If you can't play better than someone who is younger, faster, bigger, stronger, more talented, and earning less it doesn't matter about the contract. You're history, especially if you're from the Houle era.

[PTH]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Look at the contracts???

If you can't play better than someone who is younger, faster, bigger, stronger, more talented, and earning less it doesn't matter about the contract. You're history, especially if you're from the Houle era.

Contracts rule in this era, more than anything else. A player just needs to get one big pay-day, and from then on all he has to do is play well enough so that his team is willing to keep on making qualifying offers at his present salary rather than lose him as a UFA.

Say Ward, or Milroy, or Perezhogin, has a terrific training camp, and clearly beats out Donald Audette to play on a top 2 line. Say Chow has done well enough to play on the other top 2 line, and Dackell, Odjick and Petrov (assuming Dackell is re-signed) are doing well too, what do you think will happen ?

Do you really think Audette will be banished to the stands with his 3 year, 9 million dollar contract, because he's not getting it done as well as a cheap kid ? Of course not. The kid will get a few games, and unless he's really a dominant player, he'll wind up in the stands soon enough.

Same on defense... the guys Hainsey or Komisarek might hope to win slots from are the guys least likely to really do badly - Markov and Rivet. Brisebois, Quintal and Dykhuis would have to be particularly awful to lose their slots, simply because of their contracts.

And by the time Théodore is signed, doesn't matter how he plays, he'll be the go-to guy - Garon could outplay him, he might earn the odd extra start, but unless Theo looks like an AHLer out there he'll be given every chance to succeed.

This league is dominated by contracts.... once you have a big-league contract, you're practically garanteed to be on the roster, unless you suck to the point that even casual fans realise how bad you are. And even then, sometimes your GM or coach will give you even more rope to hang yourself with (think Traverse... )

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

If Milroy has a terrific training camp, he's in and Audette is on the block. No matter what mistake a GM has made on a contract, if a player sucks, he's gone.