|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 17, 2007 19:41:55 GMT -5
His last name may be French-base, but I don't think he was raised in Quebec and I doubt he knows how to speak French. Who Bergy? The guy was born in Ancienne-Lorette, PQ. He actually barely speaks English ! |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 18, 2007 0:48:29 GMT -5
Teaches me not to bother researching. He was drafted out of the WHL, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by halihab on Jun 18, 2007 7:27:53 GMT -5
FWIW: Eklund has Marleau to the Habs as an (e4). Preissing as an (e2). If I am correct, an (e4) is highly probable according to his valuable sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 18, 2007 7:36:24 GMT -5
Teaches me not to bother researching. He was drafted out of the WHL, no? If you are talking about Marleau - he is from Saskatchewan & played junior in Seattle. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 18, 2007 7:56:00 GMT -5
FWIW: Eklund has Marleau to the Habs as an (e4). Preissing as an (e2). If I am correct, an (e4) is highly probable according to his valuable sources. E4 is that he's heard the rumour from 4 different sources. Some of his E4s that materialized: Hasek to Detroit, Belfour to Florida, Lindros to Dallas. One one hand, I think Marleau would work wonders with Kovalev. Good speed, a simple hover-around-the-net game and lightning quick soft hands. On the other hand, from the little I've seen of him he's a bit of a cerebral player that doesn't crash and bang like his stature could allow him to. Players like that are not always... well... appreciated to their full value in Montreal where the fireball, reckless, eyes popping game wins the heart. BTW, I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see Koivu head to San Jose in a Marleau deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 18, 2007 11:12:03 GMT -5
So what would a deal like this look like? Assuming the Sharks sign Drury, Marleau is in the last year of his contract at $4MM per year. His impending UFA status should dampen his trade value a bit.
Do we sign Ryder to a 1-year deal at $3MM and then trade him to San Jose along with a pick/prospect for Marleau? I would do that and take my chances on signing Marleau to a long term deal, but I'm not big on giving up a lot for a guy who could walk after next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 18, 2007 12:49:37 GMT -5
So what would a deal like this look like? Assuming the Sharks sign Drury, Marleau is in the last year of his contract at $4MM per year. His impending UFA status should dampen his trade value a bit. Do we sign Ryder to a 1-year deal at $3MM and then trade him to San Jose along with a pick/prospect for Marleau? I would do that and take my chances on signing Marleau to a long term deal, but I'm not big on giving up a lot for a guy who could walk after next season. I'm hearing Ryder is being talked about going to SJ ... pure rumour, but it is out there. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 18, 2007 13:24:32 GMT -5
Fun fact:
Marleau career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.69
Ryder career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.70
(okay, I've seen funnier I know)
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 18, 2007 13:39:13 GMT -5
It all hinges on San Jose signing Drury. If that happens then Marleau is clearly "in play" as I doubt San Jose would then sign Marleau to a long term deal with Thornton and Drury getting max contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jun 18, 2007 22:19:41 GMT -5
If the Drury to S.J. materializes then the Sharks won't have the cash for Koivu Doc.
I won't be shocked if koivu is moved THOUGH?... but Bob better be brining in two top notch centres if thats the case.
If Bob gets a Marleau type centre and some help on D I don't think Saku will go anywhere and that should help appease his frustrations.
With all these rumours floating around, giving the possibilities of a revamped team,were all in for another big disappointment when nothing of significance happens.
It's been like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown for so long around here you kinda expect to be disappointed.We''ll see?
Go Bob shock the Hab world!
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 19, 2007 6:11:24 GMT -5
Fun fact: Marleau career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.69 Ryder career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.70 (okay, I've seen funnier I know) Marleau career goals per game = 0.31 Ryder career goals per game = 0.35 But I like to get creative with stats. If you neglect this year for both players Marleau would be a career (-5), and Ryder would be a career (+5). This year was one of Marleau's best seasons in plus minus (+9 ... bringing him to a career +4), and Ryder's worst (-25 ... bringing him to a career -20). So I am not sold on Marleau's great defensive capabilities, but I am willing to try him since he is better (on paper) than anything we got .... but I wouldn't be surprised if he goes on the list of players who come here and lose their scoring touch. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 19, 2007 7:44:28 GMT -5
Fun fact: Marleau career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.69 Ryder career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.70 (okay, I've seen funnier I know) Contrary to many (most?) I think Ryder is a very good player. Yes I'm annoyed at his disappearing acts but nobody on this team can claim they haven't disappeared. Yes I'm annoyed at how painful it seems to be to get him signed every summer but there is 2 sides to the medal and it can't be entirely his fault (and not entirely Gainey's either , Skilly). The reason I'm thinking he could be traded is because our only real quality depth from which we can get some leverage in trade talks is in goal and on the wings. I'll leave goalies aside because there seem to be an endless supply of that around the league and unless we unload Price, the return won't be spectacular on Halak or Huet. On the wings, Higgins has been tagged by Gainey as a building block. Kovalev's salary makes him way less interesting for a good return, Latendresse is the power forward we've been waiting for years and the rest of them don't have much trade value because they're still wildly unproven. That leaves Ryder who's young, productive, up to now affordable and very close to free agency... I personally wouldn't mind seeing Ryder signed long term on this team but for the right deal I can see him moved and IMO, we need a top 2 center more than we need a winger. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 19, 2007 7:58:39 GMT -5
If the Drury to S.J. materializes then the Sharks won't have the cash for Koivu Doc. ...but if they get Koivu they don't need Drury. They get a high quality center signed at a very affordable salary for 2 more years which leaves them all kinds of room to shower Thornton with money and keep him long term. IMO Koivu is superior to Marleau and if I was Wilson I'd definitely push for that... Heck I'd sweeten the pot too to make sure it happens. Could you say no to: Marleau/Vlassic for Koivu ? But I'm with you that I'd much rather keep Koivu and have a Koivu/Marleau 1-2 punch. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 19, 2007 8:01:08 GMT -5
Fun fact: Marleau career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.69 Ryder career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.70 (okay, I've seen funnier I know) Contrary to many (most?) I think Ryder is a very good player. Yes I'm annoyed at his disappearing acts but nobody on this team can claim they haven't disappeared. Yes I'm annoyed at how painful it seems to be to get him signed every summer but there is 2 sides to the medal and it can't be entirely his fault (and not entirely Gainey's either , Skilly). The reason I'm thinking he could be traded is because our only real quality depth from which we can get some leverage in trade talks is in goal and on the wings. I'll leave goalies aside because there seem to be an endless supply of that around the league and unless we unload Price, the return won't be spectacular on Halak or Huet. On the wings, Higgins has been tagged by Gainey as a building block. Kovalev's salary makes him way less interesting for a good return, Latendresse is the power forward we've been waiting for years and the rest of them don't have much trade value because they're still wildly unproven. That leaves Ryder who's young, productive, up to now affordable and very close to free agency... I personally wouldn't mind seeing Ryder signed long term on this team but for the right deal I can see him moved and IMO, we need a top 2 center more than we need a winger. This sitting on Ryder's contract doesn't go over well with me, Doc. I hope we do sign him; I mean, he's been our best goal scorer over the past few years. But, I'm getting the impression he might also be the object of trade talks behind the scene. If it is SJ, as Skilly suggests, then the Marleau-to-Montreal scenario has substance. But, the bottom line for me is goals scored. If Ryder does go the other way then we'll need to replace those goals especially when you think that Souray is probably gone as well. I don't want to start any fervor but I suspect it could be an interesting draft day come Friday. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Jun 19, 2007 10:13:41 GMT -5
His last name may be French-base, but I don't think he was raised in Quebec and I doubt he knows how to speak French. Marleau is from Saskatchewan ...and I believe he speaks a bit of french. THF |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 19, 2007 10:34:51 GMT -5
From that bastion of French, Courant Rapide . . . er . . . Swift Current. Sort of close to the French quarter, as the crow flies. I guess.  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 19, 2007 10:35:35 GMT -5
Fun fact: Marleau career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.69 Ryder career ppg (including playoffs) = 0.70 (okay, I've seen funnier I know) Contrary to many (most?) I think Ryder is a very good player. Yes I'm annoyed at his disappearing acts but nobody on this team can claim they haven't disappeared. Yes I'm annoyed at how painful it seems to be to get him signed every summer but there is 2 sides to the medal and it can't be entirely his fault (and not entirely Gainey's either , Skilly). The reason I'm thinking he could be traded is because our only real quality depth from which we can get some leverage in trade talks is in goal and on the wings. I'll leave goalies aside because there seem to be an endless supply of that around the league and unless we unload Price, the return won't be spectacular on Halak or Huet. On the wings, Higgins has been tagged by Gainey as a building block. Kovalev's salary makes him way less interesting for a good return, Latendresse is the power forward we've been waiting for years and the rest of them don't have much trade value because they're still wildly unproven. That leaves Ryder who's young, productive, up to now affordable and very close to free agency... I personally wouldn't mind seeing Ryder signed long term on this team but for the right deal I can see him moved and IMO, we need a top 2 center more than we need a winger. I totally agree with everything thing in this post .... thats all I have been saying all year: Ryder is our most tradeable commodity (after Souray, but that is gone now), and thats why we shuold look at trading him .. he is the only one who can fetch us a top 2 center or a top 2 d-man right now in this market. I was against trading him for perceptions about his character, or trading him because some felt he is a liability ... it was, IMO, the wrong reason and we got burned badly doing similar things in the past. I'd really like to think up a scenario where we keep Ryder and get Marleau .... because without Ryder we have little top 2 right wing talent. So we will be looking for a first line right winger to play with Koivu (assumming Higgins on left wing) and a top 2 left winger to play with Marleau (assuming Kovalev on right wing). Price is untouchable ... and after that we have only potential in the prospects. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 19, 2007 11:17:16 GMT -5
Higgins – Koivu – Kostitsyn
Latendresse - Marleau – Kovalev
Begin - Plekanec - Lathi
Chips - Lapierre - Ferland
Markov
UFA (please)
Komi
Streit
Dandenault
Bouillon
Gorges, Coté, O'byrne or Valentenko (2 of them)
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 19, 2007 11:50:48 GMT -5
Higgins – Koivu – Kostitsyn Latendresse - Marleau – Kovalev Begin - Plekanec - Lathi Chips - Lapierre - Ferland Markov UFA (please) Komi Streit Dandenault Bouillon Gorges, Coté, O'byrne or Valentenko (2 of them) yikes!! The last two lines look extremely weak and now we expect Kosty to play first line duty when he didn't do much last year on any line he was on. Personally I'd like to see: Higgins-Koivu-Latendresse (the two that need the most protection and the two we can't afford to have injured need protection) Kosty (he is a natural left winger I think .. but we need someone else I think)?? - Marleau-Kovalev Johnson-Pleky-Begin Lappierre with two rookies or Dandenault Either way you scratch it, our depth on the wings isn't that great when we trade one to get the center we covet .... but how else do we get him? |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 19, 2007 12:15:07 GMT -5
Higgins – Koivu – Kostitsyn Latendresse - Marleau – Kovalev Begin - Plekanec - Lathi Chips - Lapierre - Ferland Markov UFA (please) Komi Streit Dandenault Bouillon Gorges, Coté, O'byrne or Valentenko (2 of them) yikes!! The last two lines look extremely weak and now we expect Kosty to play first line duty when he didn't do much last year on any line he was on. Personally I'd like to see: Higgins-Koivu-Latendresse (the two that need the most protection and the two we can't afford to have injured need protection) Kosty (he is a natural left winger I think .. but we need someone else I think)?? - Marleau-Kovalev Johnson-Pleky-Begin Lappierre with two rookies or Dandenault Either way you scratch it, our depth on the wings isn't that great when we trade one to get the center we covet .... but how else do we get him? You're right about the Lats and Kost's natural wings (but you inverted Begin and Johnson). Higgins – Koivu – Latendresse Kostitsyn - Marleau – Kovalev Begin - Plekanec - Lahti Chips - Lapierre - Ferland As you implied, Bob would have to be pretty bold to go with a lineup with quite a few question marks... but : - For the first time in years we would look pretty good down the middle. - I think our D is much more scarier in that sense and it needs immediate attention. My 5 cents basic recipe for success: Strenght at Goalie, then top 2 Ds, then top 3 Cs and then top 2 wingers (2x2) = contender. You can spice it up with a superstar or an agitator/energy guy for more flavor. So if you compare that universally approved recipe to the habs, they only really need a top 2 dman, while admitting Kosty is indeed a question mark. Side question: Was Lahti awarded a two-way contract? |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 19, 2007 12:51:52 GMT -5
yikes!! The last two lines look extremely weak and now we expect Kosty to play first line duty when he didn't do much last year on any line he was on. Personally I'd like to see: Higgins-Koivu-Latendresse (the two that need the most protection and the two we can't afford to have injured need protection) Kosty (he is a natural left winger I think .. but we need someone else I think)?? - Marleau-Kovalev Johnson-Pleky-Begin Lappierre with two rookies or Dandenault Either way you scratch it, our depth on the wings isn't that great when we trade one to get the center we covet .... but how else do we get him? You're right about the Lats and Kost's natural wings (but you inverted Begin and Johnson). Higgins – Koivu – Latendresse Kostitsyn - Marleau – Kovalev Begin - Plekanec - Lahti Chips - Lapierre - Ferland As you implied, Bob would have to be pretty bold to go with a lineup with quite a few question marks... but : - For the first time in years we would look pretty good down the middle. - I think our D is much more scarier in that sense and it needs immediate attention. My 5 cents basic recipe for success: Strenght at Goalie, then top 2 Ds, then top 3 Cs and then top 2 wingers (2x2) = contender. You can spice it up with a superstar or an agitator/energy guy for more flavor. So if you compare that universally approved recipe to the habs, they only really need a top 2 dman, while admitting Kosty is indeed a question mark. Side question: Was Lahti awarded a two-way contract? Just realized that we are totally forgetting Grabovsky! Maybe he can step it up in place of Kosty or Lahti? I know, I know, another question marks... |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 19, 2007 13:01:50 GMT -5
If the Ryder for Marleau scenario comes to fruition then I can see Gainey trying to keep Johnson to maintain veteran depth on the wings if he's still available.
I might even look at Mark Recchi if he has somethng left in the tank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 19, 2007 13:07:07 GMT -5
If the Ryder for Marleau scenario comes to fruition then I can see Gainey trying to keep Johnson to maintain veteran depth on the wings if he's still available. I might even look at Mark Recchi if he has somethng left in the tank. I was hoping Gainey would re-sign Johnson, BH. He still has a lot to contribute experience wise. Cheers. BTW, what's the mood in Beantown now that Julien is on board? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 19, 2007 13:43:03 GMT -5
Higgins – Koivu – Kostitsyn Latendresse - Marleau – Kovalev Begin - Plekanec - Lathi Chips - Lapierre - Ferland Markov UFA (please) Komi Streit Dandenault Bouillon Gorges, Coté, O'byrne or Valentenko (2 of them) My version would be: Higgins - Koivu - Latendresse Kostsisyn - Marleau - Kovalev Begin - Lapierre - Chipchura Ferland - Plekanec - Streit Markov - Komisarek Bouillon - UFA Dandeneault - O'Byrne Gorges |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 19, 2007 13:48:11 GMT -5
If the Ryder for Marleau scenario comes to fruition then I can see Gainey trying to keep Johnson to maintain veteran depth on the wings if he's still available. I might even look at Mark Recchi if he has somethng left in the tank. I was hoping Gainey would re-sign Johnson, BH. He still has a lot to contribute experience wise. Cheers. BTW, what's the mood in Beantown now that Julien is on board? Sadly, I'd be suprised if you could find 10 people who have an opinion either way. The lack of relevancy of the Bruins in Boston right now is truly staggering. It's a shame. As much as I hated them during the 1970s/80s, I'm actually pulling for them to get back to contention. That said, the general mood in the media was that Mike Milbury would be a better fit and I agree with that. Claude Julien has zero personality, he's been fired twice in the past 3 years, and has no connection to the franchise. Milbury would have been a risky choice but the B's desperately need something to sell to the fans. He was successful in his short stint as coach in the late 80s before he left for NY, and if he was hired you would have seen endless footage of him and Terry O'Reilly back in the glory days jumping into the stands at MSG. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Jun 20, 2007 10:03:01 GMT -5
Still from Eklund:
There is more talk that Marleau could be moved to a team in the East. The four leading candidates are Montreal (e4), the NY Islanders (e3), the Devils (e2), and Boston (e2)...but as a source told me "It is in Montreal's court to be certain. They (the Habs) are trying to get something done prior to the Draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 20, 2007 10:06:00 GMT -5
Still from Eklund: There is more talk that Marleau could be moved to a team in the East. The four leading candidates are Montreal (e4), the NY Islanders (e3), the Devils (e2), and Boston (e2)...but as a source told me "It is in Montreal's court to be certain. They (the Habs) are trying to get something done prior to the Draft.Have to ask, HS, but what is the "E" factor at the end of each destination? Thanks. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 20, 2007 10:49:33 GMT -5
There's almost too much talk about this, which makes me think it won't happen but it makes a ton of sense for the parties involved. SJ signs Drury to give them a proven playoff performer, and then trades Marleau who would be redundant at this point and a year away from being a free agent for Ryder who is also a year away from free agency. They basically lose Marleau and get Drury and Ryder, while Montreal gets the long coveted 2nd centre with size.
The problem of course would be the matter of signing Marleau long term. I can certainly see him coming to Montreal and seeing how things go before signing a long tem deal. We would certainly be better with Marleau next year but the thought of him walking at the end of the year makes this look like a short term fix. Still it's a very Gainey-like move - don't swing for the fences, don't spend too much, leave your options open, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Jun 20, 2007 11:01:32 GMT -5
Still from Eklund: There is more talk that Marleau could be moved to a team in the East. The four leading candidates are Montreal (e4), the NY Islanders (e3), the Devils (e2), and Boston (e2)...but as a source told me "It is in Montreal's court to be certain. They (the Habs) are trying to get something done prior to the Draft.Have to ask, HS, but what is the "E" factor at the end of each destination? Thanks. Cheers.
The E-System was devised with the intelligent hockey fan in mind as a way for Eklund to give subtle clues to rumors that are posted, as well as gauge the likelihood of a rumor turning into an actual trade or free agent signing.
E1 - This is a rumor that comes from a single reliable source not in any way directly connected to the players or teams involved.
E2 - This rumor is simply more than one reliable sources not in any way directly connected to the players or teams involved and not connected to each other. It does not have to equate to two E1’s. It could be several E1’s.
E3 - This rumor comes from a single source with ties somehow to the players or teams involved.
E4 - This rumor comes from more than one source with ties to the players or teams involved.
E5 - This rumor comes from source telling Eklund the deal is 100% done and just has not been announced yet. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 20, 2007 11:11:39 GMT -5
There's almost too much talk about this, which makes me think it won't happen Exactly. Since when do we know any of BG's moves in advance? |
|
