|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 15, 2002 13:50:34 GMT -5
Man Zednik has been good this year...14 goals in 28 goals(he missed 2 games due to injuries)...a constant force...fun to watch...fast, gritty, aggressive, talented....... and he is clutch....3 goals against the Leafs, 3 goals against the Bruins and alot of other goals in big games agianst good teams... Nice job AS getting this guy. Danius who? Share your admiration for our best winger
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Dec 15, 2002 14:06:51 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300][/shadow]Thank goodness Thrrien was atleast smart enough to keep this guy on Saku's wing and wouldn't it be nice if all of a sudden this little surge by Kilger is more than just a short run. Could it be than Chad has found his hands Maybe he threw his gloves out and picked up a non-concrete pair instead. ;D WAY TO GO RICHARD Z.
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Dec 15, 2002 15:17:14 GMT -5
Easily Savard's best trade as Habs GM.
Both Zednik and Bulis have been playing great for the Habs this season and both look like fixtures for years to come. We will have to wait and see how the pick turns out, but Perezhogin certainly looks like a good one at this point and many see him as the Habs most talented forward prospect.
So Zed's scored what, something like 18 goals in his last 31 games? Not bad at all...
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 15, 2002 16:26:02 GMT -5
In the last 3 games he played in the playoffs...he scored 4...so yes that would be 18 goals in his last 31 games I just hope Zednik keeps his head up...too many times it's down and that is very scary...
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 15, 2002 18:04:34 GMT -5
Linden, Zubrus and a second for Zednick, Bulis and a first.
I'm not much for talking about winners and losers in trades, because both teams can win and both can lose. It's not a zero-sum game. Have the Habs benefitted from the trade in the short term and are they likely to continue to benefit in the longer term? Those are the real questions. The answer has to be an unqualified "yes" for the short term and a "very likley" for the longer term. Zednick is proving to be a legitimate first line player. While not top-tier, his combination of speed, attitude, finish and grit (which he brings night after night, incidentally) make him better than the vast majority of second line wingers and better than a lot of guys occupying spots on the top line around the league. Plus, he's still relatively young and has the kind of work ethic to suggest he'll only get better. Whether you say he's the player that Linden got us, or the one Zubrus got us, we've benefited. Because Linden was crushed by the expectations and his paycheque here, and was a useful player but not a scorer, and Zubrus of course was still in his embryonic sack.....
As for Bulis, he's a bit younger than Zednick but has found a temporary home on the third line. I say "temporary" because he's shown a combination of skating, passing and cycling skill (to go with a decent shot) that could put him on the second line as early as next year. At least, it's not out of the question by any means. A very sound defensive player (is this a new thing?) with offensive upside and a good work ethic, who can take face=offs when need be, and who is also a capable penalty killer. He's contributed in the short term since struggling last year with injuries and is likely to be a valuable piece to the puzzle when Hossa and Plekanec arrive. In fact, they may form a very decent second line some day in the not too distant future.
Perezhogin was the player selected with the upgraded pick, and all accounts are that he's going to be a pretty good if not a very good player.
At this point, I'd rate the trade an B+ on a tough scale. If Bulis is still chipping in next year and Perezhogin shows signs of being a legit prospect as a top 6 forward, the trade could edge it's way up to an A- or an A, in terms of how much the Habs have benefited in the short term and will benefit over the next 3 to 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 15, 2002 18:11:35 GMT -5
Excellent analysis JV.
The good thing is...Habs are happy, Linden is back where he belongs so he is happy and the Caps are probably happy getting Zubrus and a 1st rounder in last year's draft.
Bulis-Plekanec-Hossa...that could be a very interesting 2nd line down the road.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 15, 2002 18:42:55 GMT -5
Zednik is everything I would build my team with; fast, good size (good, in that he uses what he has), strong, hardworking - what more do you want?
Bulis ain't far behind (though he lacks a little bit of Zednik's tenacity) and Kilger is too. Common denominator? All big, strong, young, fast and hardworking players. It was such a good formula, I wonder why Savard deviated from it?
You are right Marc - its a trade that probably worked out well for everyone. The Caps didn't have much use for Zednik, and even less for Bulis, so losing them doesn't really hurt them, Zubrus was great for them last year, and is still ridiculously young (if we think of at what age Zednik is, and how long it has taken him to start busting out), Linden they flipped for a higher pick than the one they gave up and the Canucks got the guy they have always wanted, at half the salary.
Good deal all around.
Here's hoping both Zed and Saku have full season - career numbers for both, I would imagine...
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 15, 2002 22:42:52 GMT -5
BC, Savard may have deviated from what you stipulate as the formula because he simply couldn't get those kinds of players for Savage, the Czech what'sname and Asham. Everybody wants such players and probably won't give them up for non performing, soon to be UFAs and a minor talent such as Asham. (who, after all, did have a pretty good chance the year before last to establish himself and just didn't get it done, regressing, really, from his previous year). So he took some chances swapping problem players. - Audette hasn't worked, in my opinion because of the injury- no blame for Savard. - Berezin was a failure more because of the draft picks given up than anything else- attributable to AS. - Czerkawski has been a failure to date. Maybe AS looked at him as insurance for Audette, maybe he thought that he could be fit into the roster, maybe he just looked at it as Czerk having more talent than Asham. Whatever, it hasn't worked out and it is attributable to AS. So I don't think that there is any mystery to this: 1) any formula on individual players types (such as you refer to and we defined on this board for ourselves, and which I agree is a desirable ideal) has to fit into the articulated plan which is: a) get young talented players, speedy, big if possible; b) don't give up any of our really good prospects, unless the return is huge (like in the abortive Kovalchuk bid) in doing so; c) get into the playoffs while this talent is accumulated, developed and integrated into a team. This was a goal stated up front from the beginning and the plan presented to GG apparently started off with making the playoffs and improving each year to win the Division in 3 years. (hence Savard's aim always to get current NHL players back in trades for his cast offs). 2) other team's aren't always willing to give up Kilgers, Zedniks and Bulises for the Habs castoffs. As a friend of mine in the antiquarian book business told a customer when he asked how come a scare 18th century book cost so much, "these ain't banannas, you can't go to the supermarket and pick one up any day of the week." The Habs, therefore, will have to rely mainly on the draft for these types of players. I believe that this is also part of the plan and GG himself has referred to the necessity of relying mainly on the draft. 3) the chances on the established talented players AS has taken (aimed at getting the team into the playoffs now) when he was not able to get the talented, young, fast and big players have not panned out. (It should be noted that Berezin and Czerk fit part of the profile in being talented and fast with Czerk having decent size) So, in my opinion, AS has followed the plan put forward to GG and he has not deviated in any substantive sense when taking into account the realities that he has to operate in as a GM. His chances on Audette, Berezin and Czerkawski haven't panned out. One you cannot attribute to him; Berezina and Czerk you can. On these I think he's open to valid criticism, particularly when it comes to Czerk and the balance of the club. Personally, I think that AS has been a bit unlucky in going 0 for 3 in his chances. He has made some mistakes but I don't find his actions puzzling nor do I think that he has deviated from his plan. I remain confident that he would agree with "our formula" and if he could have gotten somebody in the Zednik/Bulis or even Kilger mold, for the guys he gave up, he would have. (Bearing in mind new players would also have to fit into the "improving the team now" part of the plan- no long term project players) They just weren't out there for what he was willing to give up. And I think that pretty well everybody here agrees that he shouldn't dip into the reservoir of what looks to be a really pomising talent pool unless he gets somebody pretty imposing back. That's my take on it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 15, 2002 22:48:53 GMT -5
HW...Zholtok had pretty close to the value Savage and Rucinsky had(zero)...remember Zholtok had like 1 goal up to December 20th of that season before we dealt him?
There were(and are) plenty of Kilger's and Bulis's available out there for not much at all. Kids who were highly touted and have dissapointed in the first few years in the league.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 15, 2002 23:15:16 GMT -5
HW...Zholtok had pretty close to the value Savage and Rucinsky had(zero)...remember Zholtok had like 1 goal up to December 20th of that season before we dealt him? There were(and are) plenty of Kilger's and Bulis's available out there for not much at all. Kids who were highly touted and have dissapointed in the first few years in the league. Still, Zholtok was coming off a 26 goal season. I don't know about the league being awash in guys like Kilger and Bulis available for peanuts. The one example that keeps coming up is Malhotra. Who else are you thinking about? And you can't name a bunch of guys who weren't in fact moved, since their value remains unknown.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 15, 2002 23:33:00 GMT -5
Easy...
Druken was on waivers Ruutu is a healthy scratch 3/4 of the time in Vancouver Ric Jackman, the Leafs got him for almost nothing and he is now a solid d-man for them Josh Green was traded to NYR for a conditionnal pick a few days ago
That's off the top of my head. 3 of those guys were moved for not much at all.
All guys who were highly touted(except Ruutu, but they said he was a Finnish Barnaby), dissapointed and were available for almost nothing...
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 15, 2002 23:34:23 GMT -5
OK, Marc, I agree on Zholtok, and we got lucky on Kilger. After years of underperforming he has done relatively well with the Habs. As for Bulis he was the minor part of the trade, the key was Zednik. That Bulis has panned out so well has been a real bonus as far as I'm concerned. Even if that had not worked out for us the trade still would have worked because of how well Zednik is doing. He was the key, the trade would not have been made w/o Zednik. I'm not so sure, however, that the Kilgers and Bulis are that easy to come by. If they are, why the persistent rumours that Sather is trying to pry Kilger away from the Habs? Why hasn't he just gone out and picked an equivalent somebody else up? How come all the teams aren't just loaded up with well performing Bulis and Kilgers? The good teams have them but they're not giving them up and that's probably one of the reasons they're good. It's all too easy for members of this board, and fans in general, to sit back and say such well performing players are easily available. Projects, maybe, which leads into... You have to look at the overall context of the plan. Savard in his moves for Audette, Berezin and Czerkawski has obviously been looking for an impact, scoring, player for the "now" part of the plan. He's looking for a player that will help the team get into the playoffs, and go deeper into the playoffs, this year and next. That's really the thrust of my argument. That, if you want to understand Savard's moves, you should be looking at them in the overall context of the entire plan that is in place. I believe that when you do this his individual moves make much more sense. These moves may not have always panned out but I can understand why he made them and I believe that they in fact do fit into an overall plan. I dunno, maybe I'm just too laid back about what's going on, ol' geezer that I am.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 15, 2002 23:37:34 GMT -5
Well, I should be more clear when I say ''Bulis's and Kilger's are available for peanuts'' I am talking about highly touted kids( like Kilger and Bulis were ), who once they got in the league...didn't produce, organizations gave up on them and basically they were traded for nothing or just added to deals... I am not talking about what they have done with the Habs...just what they were before coming here
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 15, 2002 23:41:58 GMT -5
Marc, re your post on the players being available, two questions:
1) how would you have acquired them and what would your follow on roster moves have been to make room available for them? How would this have affected an already touchy dressing room situation?
2) given that AS is obviously looking for big impact players in his recent trades, how would these guys have fit into that context? How would these guys have substatively improved out team right away from what we now have, bearing in mind the answers to #1?
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 15, 2002 23:49:04 GMT -5
Marc, still catching up...puff...puff...to your posts. Tks for clarification, see my last questions. Not trying to be win any arguments, just trying to figure out how it all could be worked out.
Maybe you're right and some moves were/are there to be made. I guess I wonder about accumulating guys cause I think that we've "accumulated" enough. So far, AS' last three moves, for whatever reasons, haven't panned out. In my own view the next move should add real immediate value although I'm not sure how you figure this out as I'm sure that's what AS thought that he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 15, 2002 23:51:52 GMT -5
Easy... Druken was on waivers Ruutu is a healthy scratch 3/4 of the time in Vancouver Ric Jackman, the Leafs got him for almost nothing and he is now a solid d-man for them Josh Green was traded to NYR for a conditionnal pick a few days ago That's off the top of my head. 3 of those guys were moved for not much at all. All guys who were highly touted(except Ruutu, but they said he was a Finnish Barnaby), dissapointed and were available for almost nothing... Well, Marc, I'd take a flyer on maybe one of those guys at a time. There's no way on earth, however, that I'd add two or three guys like that if I were trying to keep this team in a playoff hunt (last year) and what I needed was scoring pop, which is what we needed. What was Savard supposed to do, add Druken, Kilger, Malhotra and Green and see how it worked? So you may be right about the availability of guys like this (though Ruutu and Druken are really marginal players and do not compare favorably with Bulis in terms of their skating ability at all) but the advisability of adding more than one or two at most is questionable, to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 16, 2002 0:30:26 GMT -5
Manny Malhotra for Martin Rucinsky.
Erik Rasmussen for Adam Mair and a 5th.
Heck, for that matter, Adam Mair and a 5th for Erik Rasmussen.
Lubos Bartecko for a 4th.
Bates Battaglia and a 4th for Mark Jansens.
Andreas Dackell for an 8th.
Andy Delmore for a 3rd.
Mark Eaton for a 3rd.
Stephane Robidas for a 7th.
Mike Grier for a 2nd and 3rd.
Jochen Hecht for 2 2nds.
Jan Havlac for Marek Malik.
I think I'll stop at the H's...
All of the above were, or are, young (relative in some cases), proven NHL players. Not projects, like Daigle or Grosek, not prospects like say Heisten and Pahlsson, not waiver wire rejects like Druken or Jason Blake, or Sylvain Blouin (he should be on waivers). Nor were they injury question marks, like say Boyd Deveraux, or Bryan Berard. They were all solid, proven NHLers, who could step into our team tomorrow, and not hurt it, with the added bonus that they still have upside. Little to no risk involved.
Thats not even counting the guys who may or may not have been available via a trade, like Ethan Moreau, Matt Bradley, Matt Cullen, and so on. Since they weren't actually traded, we don't know what their value may have been. But, 2 weeks ago, a decent offer probably would have pried Chad Kilger away from us.
There are lots of guys like that available. Just depends on whether or not you want to pay the price, and make room for them. Take Matt Bradley for example. Speedy, gritty, 4th liner. Do we want to give up a decent pick for a guy who may not be more than a 4th liner? We take a chance, in the hopes that he will improve (like Kilger, Bulis and Zednik), but even if he doesn't, he doesn't really hurt your team in the short term. Having Kilger, Bulis and Zednik in the lineup hasn't really cost us any games, even if they didn't improve their play. Having guys like Malhotra, Rasmussen, and Havlac wouldn't have hurt us either. Obviously the cost to obtain them has to be taken into consideration (I wouldn't be giving up a Hainsey for any of them), but as you can see, for the most part their trade cost isn't all that high. Like I said, that was just off the top of my head, and browsing through a list of names up until the H's.
To me, there is no risk involved. You give up things that have little to no value to the team (like Rucinsky, Savage, mid-round picks) and you pick up young, talented, fast guys, who don't hurt your team (even if they don't really help it) but who have potential for so much more. Seems like a win-win, no risk plan to me. Savard could not lose by acquiring Kilger for Zholtok - Kilger doesn't hurt, Zholtok doesn't help (much) and there is potential for more. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Savard's best trades have been when he follows this formula. They aren't iffy prospects, they can play in the NHL now, and they have room to improve. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 16, 2002 1:46:39 GMT -5
Grier is the best of the bunch, and the price in picks was significant. Not outrageous, but not advisable either, given that Grier's had his ups and downs and isn't that far from free agency, not to mention that this is reportedly a deep draft. So out of the rest, I'd say still say that adding two at most would have been in order. I would have gone for Bartecko, and maybe Battaglio, but again that hardly addresses the need for scoring punch in a playoff race. The fact that Berezin sucked is 20/20 hindsight, no matter what you may say about the guy, and of course it didn't help that Audette had already gone down for the season. So which two would you have added and how might that have helped us on the pp and scoring at even strength? Or is radio silence the order of the day?
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 16, 2002 1:50:32 GMT -5
And by the way, it's noteworthy that only one of those guys was moved for a pending UFA with a rep as a soft player, which is what we had to deal with in Savage and Rucinsky. Everyone else was moved for picks or picks and not terribly pricey talent. It's hard to compare two second round picks (Hecht) to Rucinsky or Savage.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 16, 2002 2:06:06 GMT -5
The question is, how many of those kinds of players can you have on your team? Do you make a lot of moves and shake up the roster, or do you try and get some youth, some experience, while retaining the core, and as best possible keep prime picks and prospects.
Where has Savard gone wrong? The 3rd for Berezin comes to mind, but getting a 4th in a supposedly better draft makes it easier to live with. Getting Kilger, Zednik, Bulis has been good for short and hopefully long term, and adding another player like that wouldn't have hurt, especially on defense where he has done little work there. (Unless Savard has long term plans for the 28 year old Traverse, who was 25ish when we got him, but I pray that's not the case).
If Savard said heck with the next few years, lets build this team from the bottome up, then I could see adding a lot of young players that would be on the cheap side to acquire. Plus we would be getting some low draft picks in some deep drafts. But, my thinking and hope is that Savard saw he had enough assets (starting in net) to add some key vets and a few young players to keep this team in the playoff hunt, while holding onto key prospects/picks.
So far so good. Yes we did lose, Asham, Robidas, Dyment, a 3rd, and 2 5th's 2 8th's, 1 7th. But the key prospects (Hainsey, Komisarek, Hossa, Balej, Higgins, Milroy, Pleks, Perezhogin) were held onto, while the prime picks (1st, 2nd, 3rd rounders) were kept expcept 1 3rd that was turned into a 4th, a minor and even deal in terms of picks. (just based on a 3rd in a weak draft vs a 4th in a not so weak draft).
Savard has over done it with the experienced vets, while coming up a tad short on the youth. But no way is anyone going to be perfect. He could have gone the other way, and we would be fighting the Sabers/Thrashers for last place with a much younger/cheaper team, and we would be talking about how great the draft is going to be this summer. But he bought time (at a hefty price) and hired old guns and castoffs to keep us in the hunt, while holding the core (players, prospects, picks), drafting in the middle of the pack (in terms of placing), bringing in revenue (playoffs, fans, more tv coverage) and tons of things for us fans to debate over.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 16, 2002 2:16:51 GMT -5
Grier is the best of the bunch, and the price in picks was significant. Not outrageous, but not advisable either, given that Grier's had his ups and downs and isn't that far from free agency, not to mention that this is reportedly a deep draft. So out of the rest, I'd say still say that adding two at most would have been in order. I would have gone for Bartecko, and maybe Battaglio, but again that hardly addresses the need for scoring punch in a playoff race. The fact that Berezin sucked is 20/20 hindsight, no matter what you may say about the guy, and of course it didn't help that Audette had already gone down for the season. So which two would you have added and how might that have helped us on the pp and scoring at even strength? Or is radio silence the order of the day? I like Hecht the best of that group. Grier and Havlac aren't bad either. Somethings not right about Havlac though. NYR, Phi, Van, Canes, 4 teams in how many years? I can't say about Bartecko, and Battalgia is ok, not a big fan of his. Maybe getting one or two would be a good ideal, but at what price, and who do we take off the roster? Blouin, Lindsay? Blouin at 500K does somthing not many Habs can do. Play very physical and drop the gloves. But losing him would not mean much. Lindsay, is a decent 4th liner, but somebodies got to go if a roster spot were to be opened.
|
|
|
Post by saku on Dec 16, 2002 10:17:54 GMT -5
Zednik has beeen truly something else since last year's playoffs. I mean he had 8 points in 4 games vs B's (4gls and 4 assists), now that's pretty impressive. He just has that fire under his ass now and theres no looking back baby! I'm glad he's on a line with Sak and they are nasty toghether.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 16, 2002 10:32:10 GMT -5
1) how would you have acquired them and what would your follow on roster moves have been to make room available for them? How would this have affected an already touchy dressing room situation? Woah...I forgot to say I was thiking about gettting these kind of guys in 2000-01 or during the 2001 off-season....before AS acquired all those veterans...not now edit: just saw the examples BC gave...that is what I am talking about
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 16, 2002 10:34:51 GMT -5
Zednik has beeen truly something else since last year's playoffs. I mean he had 8 points in 4 games vs B's (4gls and 4 assists), now that's pretty impressive. He just has that fire under his ass now and theres no looking back baby! I'm glad he's on a line with Sak and they are nasty toghether. this is a Zednik thread? LOL Go Zed Go!
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 16, 2002 11:07:17 GMT -5
Woah...I forgot to say I was thiking about gettting these kind of guys in 2000-01 or during the 2001 off-season....before AS acquired all those veterans...not now edit: just saw the examples BC gave...that is what I am talking about Only a handful of these guys would have been available during the off-season, first of all, and there's no reason to think that many of them, if any, would've been available for pending ufas like Savage and Rucinsky. So would you have been prepared to hang on to those two, perhaps until the deadline, and to add guys by moving picks and/or guys like Asham or Ward? It seems to me that you guys are just throwing out a list of guys who became available without considering whether they could've been had for a guy like Savage or a guy like Rucinsky. Malhotra's the only one. All these guys might have been available for Asham and a 4th, or two thirds, or whatever, but it's doubtful that the teams moving Hecht and Bartecko and Battaglia were looking for something other than what they in fact got in return: youth and picks, almost exclusively. Do you understand what I'm saying? The complaint seems to be that Savard should have converted our two UFAs into youth instead of trying to obtain NHL scoring ability (which is an odd position to begin with, unless you play in a rotisserie league), but Malhotra is the only one who was obtained for a player like the two described. Is that a coincidence? Or is it the case that the teams with these kind of young players -- all of whom have some value -- didn't want to take back an underperforming, ageing, pending UFA but were determined to get back picks and/or reasonably priced depth players? It certainly looks like the latter to me.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 16, 2002 11:39:09 GMT -5
Yes I understand and I've got to say is the point is moot since it's in the past...
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 16, 2002 12:13:47 GMT -5
Yes I understand and I've got to say is the point is moot since it's in the past... Everything we ever discuss about what Savard or anybody else has done is by definition "moot". The question is whether somebody saying (as you have) that "we should have done this" or "we could have done that" is really fair in the circumstances. If you say "these guys were available" and suggest that they ought to have been pursued, it's fair to ask whether they were available for what we had to give, or what we were prepared to pay, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 16, 2002 12:21:17 GMT -5
Well, HabWest’s original point was that guys like Kilger, Zednik and Bulis – i.e. the big, fast, young, hardworking player – were not readily available. As you can see by my list, lots of these guys ARE available, with varying degrees of price. I didn’t want to get into a debate over which player from the list I would have added, as the list is by no means exhaustive (I stopped at H after all) and that wasn’t the point anyways.
It all just gets back to that team building exercise I am a proponent of. I am not saying I am right – lots of GMs just grab as much skill as they can – but I am more in favor of adopting a certain look for a team, and then building with that look in mind. My team, and this has never been anything more than personal opinion, would have more Zedniks, Bulis’, and Kilgers on it, than Czerkawskis, Berezins, Savages or Audettes.
What can I say? I don’t like those guys. Never have. If Audette doesn’t score, he is useless. Ditto for Czerkawski, or Berezin. A guy like Manny Malhotra, or Chad Kilger for that matter, can still be useful, even if they aren’t scoring. Sure, the likelihood of them winning a game all by themselves is practically nil (unlike with say Audette, who can get hot) but in the long run, I would take their (relatively) more consistent and versatile play. Kilger may score 10 less goals, but how many does he prevent by better defensive/physical play? By playing different positions, or roles? By being a good team player? How many games does an Audette or Czerkawski cost us, by being totally useless on the ice when they are cold? Either by not backchecking, or handicapping their coach, who can’t use his full lineup because he can’t risk having them on the ice (never mind the disruption in the dressing room)? Sure, my team would be a lunch pail gang, but by getting them relatively youngish, there is the chance they could break out (as Zednik is doing, as Bulis might do).
We made the playoffs last year without Audette and Czerkawski, and if we make it this year, it will in all likelihood not be because of Audette and Czerkawski. I want the 40 goal scorer as much as the next guy, but in my mind, gambling that a 30+ year old “potential” 30 goal scorer will regain (or find) his scoring touch, after one or two, or three disappointing seasons, is throwing good money after bad. Czerkawski was coming off of a 22 goal season, and has a reputation for being soft and weak defensively. Audette is injury prone, has a reputation for being difficult to work with, and was also soft and weak defensively. Plus, he has averaged about 21 goals a season for the last 8 years, going all the way back to the lockout (only once, with Atlanta, did he break 30). Rucinsky has actually outscored him over that time period. Berezin, even while scoring all those goals, was still weak defensively, and a liability. Toronto fans warned us that he would score the most unsatisfying goals you have ever seen, as did Islander fans with regards to Czerkawski (“he gets a lot of empty netters” is I think what they said).
Savage, Berezin, Audette, Czerkawski – is there any difference between them? “Potential” 30 goal scorers, on the decline, expensive, and aging. Weak in their own zone, useless when not scoring, with reputations for going into long slumps. Just didn’t appeal to me. Give me more Richard Zedniks any day of the week (this is a Richard Zednik appreciation thread, after all).
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 16, 2002 12:36:44 GMT -5
Everybody would prefer to have Zednick over Audette. And if you don't have an immediate and pressing need for offensive help, you'd always choose a cheaper and younger guy with upside like Barteko over a more expensive guy whose one-deimensional. I don't like any of the listed softies any more than you do, but I understand why Savard got them (event though he's lost twice badly on these gambles with Berezin and Audette) and I don't accept that the kind of players that fit better in a rebuilding model over the longer term (such as Hecht, Bartecko and Battaglia) could have been obtained for the likes of Savage and Rucinsky. The teams involved just would have said "no thanks". Malhotra is the lone example, and he has less offensive upside than either Hecht or Bartecko; all the others were moved for decent picks and/or cheaper but serviceable guys with upside. So I think the question is a fair one: Does anybody really think that guys like Bartecko, Hecht and so on could have been obtained in deals which included the two guys Savard felt he had to move? And if so, could they have reasonably been expected to help offensively in the playoff run and the playoffs? The fact that the team made it without the contributions of Berezin or Audette doesn't figure in this, because when the deals were made the Habs main problem was scoring. I haven't heard anybody say that last February we needed anything as much as we needed a right-handed sniper. It was just that glaring.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 16, 2002 12:48:00 GMT -5
*sigh*...
I know where this thread is going...another kids vs veterans debate
|
|