Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/26/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    If the NHL is determined that they want to play the rest of this regular season, id offer him a contract at league minimum til the end of the year. Habs arent making the playoffs and have 12 games left. Let him get to 1000
  2. 1 point
    If Buff is looking for a 1 year cheap, prove it deal, I'd take him as our third pair RD. Never hurts to have depth. And he's another great candidate to trade at the deadline for a high pick if he does rejuvenate his career with us. If he wants to get paid, then yes, he's gonna be too expensive to be our third pair D when we need to use those resources elsewhere.
  3. 1 point
    Is it possible that the announcement that the AHL season was cancelled may have a link to waiting to sign?
  4. 1 point
    Subban was the more dynamic blueliner and could take over a game in a way that Markov couldn't. But in terms of overall play, Markov was the more valuable of the two. He's someone that would be out there in all situations and made a lot of players that much better. Subban never really elevated the play of his partners the way Markov could.
  5. 1 point
    https://www.nhl.com/canadiens/news/canadiens-agree-to-terms-with-defenseman-alexander-romanov/c-316861758 TBD start depending if and when season continues, or 24 team playoff option or season canceled. And if he and others signed can play this season if comes to that. Either way he is Team bound.
  6. 1 point
    Loved Subban. Liked the Weber trade. The question was: Was Markov a better defenseman than Subban? I had to think for about 45 seconds, but I honestly think he was. If Markov were traded to pretty much any team in the league at Subban’s age, he would have been a #1 or at worst #1B. Subban’s tenure in Nashville, (more so his usage, not that he played bad) despite their stacked defense changed my perception of him slightly just because of his usage. His numbers this year were worse than could be expected as well. My last memory of Subban on the team, was a horribly boring season where the team performed terribly and he was the most relied upon player. All that being said and tied in with the last point, the Habs record with or without Markov is really the reason I’ve answered the way I have. He had an enormous impact for me the success of our team. While my opinion may seem harsh, it’s a comparison between Markov and Subban and Markov was great For the Habs. It’s so over used but it’s similar to Lidstrom. Subban may be flashier, but you’d probably want Lidstrom on your NHL team. Yes, Markov wasn’t quite Lidstrom, though on Detroit he would have been. In the end, it’s certainly possible that Subban was more talented, and Markov had a larger positive impact on his team but my answer goes to Markov.
  7. 1 point
    Pionk had to go to get Trouba. Mete will have to go to get #1 LD. That's how I see it.
  8. 1 point
    I can see a scenario where his spot is in jeopardy. In a perfect world, Montreal's left defence next season could be new guy, Chiarot, and Romanov as the top three. Kulak would probably hang around as the seventh defender in that instance for insurance purposes in a role similar to what he had at times this year. As some point, the expectation is that Bergevin will consolidate some of his assets to make a splash on the trade market. As a (soon-to-be) 22-year-old with 171 games of NHL experience under his belt, that might give him some value along with the prospect(s) and/or pick(s) to try to land a capable top-four LD. I'm also not sure how much they're going to want to commit to him as his ideal role whenever this retooling comes to an end is actually a lesser one than he has now. He's a top-four option on the Habs most nights now but ideally, he's on the third pairing at best if their prospects pan out. Are they going to want to pay top-four money to someone they likely envision as more of a 5/6 player down the road? I'm not sure they do.
  9. 1 point
    You'll be The Chicoutimi Pickle when I'm done with you! Markov was arguably the most important player on the Habs post 2005 lockout. It's not his fault his prime happened at the same time as Nicklas Lidstrom's. Honour the damn man!
  10. 1 point
    Let him have Andrei Markov night. He gets to come to the Bell centre, get a standing ovation. The team will give him some gifts. Play a highlight video. No banner in the rafters. No retired number. Seems a fair compromise. I mean they did it for Saku.
  11. 1 point
    For the record, I'm with you in preferring a highly restrictive set of criteria - only all-time greats should be in there. Names that give you goosebumps: Orr, Gretzky, Hull, Beliveau, Lafleur, and in today's era, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid, Price, Kotkaniemi, etc
  12. 1 point
    1) Julien: He adapts his style to the players on the team, being formerly known as a defensive coach, but has the current team playing a style that emphasizes puck possession. That adaptability is important to me in a coach. He's not perfect, but he's the best of the bunch. 2) Martin: Another coach who put in place a style that maximized his team's ability to win games, playing a system to limit scoring chances in the middle of the ice. 3) Gainey: Didn't get much chance to put a system in place as he took over teams mid-season and you can't really do that. However, it is clear that he steadied the teams on an emotional level and raised the level of their play during the time he took over. 4) Carbo: Had the team playing an uptempo style in 2008. Loses points for the way it fell apart. Also loses points for the fact that after leaving the Habs he failed miserably in Chicoutimi and nearly got a Canada U-18 team relegated, which shows his terrible coaching. 5) Therrien: Forced the players to adapt to and play his style and system even when it wasn't the best system for the talent on the team. Not Ranked) Cunneyworth: Was put in an unfair situation. Never stood a chance. Impossible to assess his job performance given the circumstances.
  13. 1 point
    My list has a clear drop off between 8 and 9. The two swedes are in the top 8. Lundell is not, his skating is poor. That can be improved but why take him ahead of guys who have the same skill level and already skate much better. Take whichever one of the top 8 is left from my list Tier 1: lafreniere Tier 2: 2 and 3 Tier 3: 4-8 Tier 4: 9-12 https://Lastwordonhockey.com/2020-nhl-entry-draft-headquarters
  14. 1 point
    The Under 18 is always a huge tournament that leads to movement in the european prospects IMO. Especially kids who play in men's leagues predominantly. You can see some 17 year old who is getting 5 minutes a game in the top Swedish league or something and how much can you learn about them? Much easier to see what they do against their peers. That said, the scouts have seen them at the 4-nations or 5-nations and the Hlinka, and the Under 17 WHC, so you still have data on them, but yes the U18 would have helped some of these players. Players who have been hurt much of the year like Justin Barron and Hendrix Lapierre also could have used a stretch run and playoffs to show their stuff. but I think most Canadian and American junior players who play a ton of games have already been scouted. You don't want to use too short a sample size in scouting either. We've all seen the NHL player who looks great for 10 games and shitty for 40.... we can get the same thing in draftees, so you don't want to overrate a short stretch where we have great play.
  15. 1 point
    A good (translated) interview with Demchenko: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sport-express.ru%2Fhockey%2Fnhl%2Freviews%2Fintervyu-vratarya-vasiliya-demchenko-o-perehode-iz-magnitki-v-monreal-1667072%2F
  16. 1 point
    I really started to get into hockey once I hit high school. Our gym class was street hockey in the fall, indoor hockey in the winter (with some volleyball), and street hockey in the spring (with some softball). Each time, you got to choose which sport you wanted to play, and I remember tossing my stick in the pile and the gym teacher throwing them to each side to pick up teams. Funny story, my brother in law is from Cornwall, and used to go to Royals games. He gave me a Doug Gilmour signed stick about a year or two after Gilmour had played for the Royals and he played for the Blues (I think). I broke it at school during a game. I didn't think much of it until I really started watching hockey more. Flash forward to 2001, and Gillete had just bought the Habs and they were doing training camp in Vail, CO. I went up to watch, and was standing along the glass while they were on the ice in a fairly empty rink. Jeff Hackett was flipping pucks against the glass where I was standing and chuckling, soon a couple of other guys joined in. That's when I finally noticed a guy standing next to me, I looked over and smiled, he looked at me and smiled. It was Gilmour. I told him the story of using his Royals stick and he offered to sign one for me. I've never been much for autographs or collectibles, so I politely declined and was just happy to be talking with him. I met a few other guys that afternoon when they went mountain biking, all in all a neat experience as the players were pretty relaxed as there wasn't a throng of people following them everywhere. I remember the Cup in '86, the playoffs the following years, but definitely have fond memories of '93. Still have all of my ticket stubs, and I went to every single game in Montreal that playoff year. I had a boss (worked at Radio Shack at the time while I was in college) that would get on the phone lines with me while at work, trying to call through to the box office every time the next round went on sale. First few games, I got standing room only tickets, but from the 2nd round on, I got good seats in the whites. The euphoria of that season has stuck with me forever, and even when the Habs when another Cup, I don't think I'll have that youthful excitement. Just a special time in my life that year. It was also fun to go to a D1 NCAA hockey school (Clarkson), there were a few future NHLers there at the time, Craig Conroy, Todd Marchant, Todd White. So for me, it's not a player or two that sucked me in. Hockey was just what I grew up in. I do, however, still wear #21.
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...