Athlétique.Canadien Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 According to some bizarre site (blog) called "Hockeybums": 38 year old Robert Lang may have been traded to the Montreal Canadiens for Picks. waiting for confirmation. Hockeybums blog - Lang a Canadien for picks? Hmmmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAK Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 :puke: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Ryder Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Chicago is not desperate to move a centre. Even a declining one. Kane and Toews are set to centre for the two first lines while Lang is the ideal third line for them. So this is BS for me, hopefully because Lang would eat the remaining cap space and lock the habs hands for a more meaninful move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 According to some bizarre site (blog) called "Hockeybums": Hockeybums blog - Lang a Canadien for picks? Hmmmm? this is the worst rumor i read since "Bertuzzi for Luongo". oh wait, this wasn't a rumor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Chicago is not desperate to move a centre. Even a declining one. Kane and Toews are set to centre for the two first lines while Lang is the ideal third line for them. So this is BS for me, hopefully because Lang would eat the remaining cap space and lock the habs hands for a more meaninful move. It doens't make that much sense to me either, although the Canadiens would probably be a better team with Robert Lang in the lineup (actually he could even become our best centre if he has a good season, and develops good chemistry with his wingers), but you can't ignore the fact that Bob Gainey loves to add veterans to his roster, Every single year, often when most people think he was done shopping, Gainey keeps adding veteran depth players like Smolinski, Kostopoulos, Brisebois, Sundstrom (never thought he would resign with MTL), Downey, Traverse (just to send him down, and trade for Niinimaa after), Jonhson, Dandeneault, Michael Leighton (trade deadline) ... So really, I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Gainey did indeed acquire Robert Lang this summer. If we do, I hope it's only after we are 100% sure that Mats Sundin won't be wearing a Habs jersey this year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 It doens't make that much sense to me either, although the Canadiens would probably be a better team with Robert Lang in the lineup (actually he could even become our best centre if he has a good season, and develops good chemistry with his wingers), but you can't ignore the fact that Bob Gainey loves to add veterans to his roster, Every single year, often when most people think he was done shopping, Gainey keeps adding veteran depth players like Smolinski, Kostopoulos, Brisebois, Sundstrom (never thought he would resign with MTL), Downey, Traverse (just to send him down, and trade for Niinimaa after), Jonhson, Dandeneault, Michael Leighton (trade deadline) ... So really, I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Gainey did indeed acquire Robert Lang this summer. If we do, I hope it's only after we are 100% sure that Mats Sundin won't be wearing a Habs jersey this year... Mathieu Biron, not Niinimaa. I have nothing else to add to the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Rumor has it Montreal is going to sign Shanahan, Glen Murray, Mats Sundin, Vincent Lecavalier, and Michael Jordan, Brett Farve to $1M each. And don't forget the renewal of Youippi's contract either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Rumor has it Montreal is going to sign Shanahan, Glen Murray, Mats Sundin, Vincent Lecavalier, and Michael Jordan, Brett Farve to $1M each. And don't forget the renewal of Youippi's contract either. You have just got to stop reading that eklund site man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Mathieu Biron, not Niinimaa. I have nothing else to add to the discussion. I meant that we acquired Traverse for depth (if I remember well Bouillon and Dandeneault were injured)... just to send him to the minors and instead trade for Niinimaa. ps. In the meantime, we had Hainsey and Beauchemin who were both not good enough for the Habs... and are now top 4 defensemen in the NHL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Rumor has it Montreal is going to sign Shanahan, Glen Murray, Mats Sundin, Vincent Lecavalier, and Michael Jordan, Brett Farve to $1M each. And don't forget the renewal of Youippi's contract either. Youppi's deal doesn't have to be renewed, he signed a lifetime adoption contract when he joined the team. (Why do I even know this?) As for the topic du jour, Lang makes a lot of sense to me provided the Habs know there's no chance with Sundin (I'm of this opinion myself because of the lengthy hesitation - I think he'll retire). If this is the case, best to be proactive, targeting a team that's over the cap is always a good place to start. If the Hawks truly want to go with the most overpaid goalie tandem in hockey, then there's only a handful of viable trade options. (From going through my league capsheet, Havlat, Lang, and Sopel appear to be the ones that Tallon would want to move first.) If the Habs can get him for a prospect and mid-pick, why not? He has just 1 year left at 4 mil, so there's no long term risk, and I think we could all agree he'd help the team. Would he be the best option? It's debatable, but in my mind, it'd be better than nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Sorry to disagree with you there KoZed, but there have been 3 players that have worn the number 13 in the Habs History, 2 of them were in the same season!!! 1912-13 #13 Lorenzo Bertrand & #13 Emile Marchildon 1921-22 #13 Edmond Bouchard there might even be a 4th in William (Billy) Boucher in the same year as Edmond Bouchard (1921-22), but twice 2 players wering number 13 in the same season seems a little far fetched even for me. My source is "La Glorieuse Histoire Des Canadiens" by Pierre Bruneau and Leandre Normand, the 2003 print (ISBN: 2-7619-1860-6) 1912-13 roster is on page: 58 1921-22 roster is on page: 90 I stand corrected... I think the big issue right now that stops Sundin from signing with Montreal is that the #13 is "bad luck" and was never wore in 100 86 yrs of Habs history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lang has been rumoured to be on the Habs' radar for a long time. That, of course, may be the inspiration for the rumour, if it's B.S.. But prima facie, it suggests that there's something to this. I don't know enough about Lang to speculate on how good an acquisition he'd be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I meant that we acquired Traverse for depth (if I remember well Bouillon and Dandeneault were injured)... just to send him to the minors and instead trade for Niinimaa. ps. In the meantime, we had Hainsey and Beauchemin who were both not good enough for the Habs... and are now top 4 defensemen in the NHL... hainsey is a top 4 defenceman WHen the hell did that happen? a little overrated there if you were to say ask me. He shows some good games and he shows some shiite games. Youppi's deal doesn't have to be renewed, he signed a lifetime adoption contract when he joined the team. (Why do I even know this?) and why does anyone care it was joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 hainsey is a top 4 defenceman WHen the hell did that happen? a little overrated there if you were to say ask me. He shows some good games and he shows some shiite games. and why does anyone care it was joke Well, joke or not, it's answered. As for Hainsey, whether he is legitimately or not, I think he was a top-4 in Columbus, and likely will be in Atlanta (and will be paid like one too...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 hainsey is a top 4 defenceman WHen the hell did that happen? a little overrated there if you were to say ask me. He shows some good games and he shows some shiite games. He sure as hell is more than a 3rd pairing guy, which is the lame excuse Columbus used for letting him go. He was their best all-around defenseman the last two years and they threw him to the curb and added "upgrades" such as Mike Commodore and Christian Backman. Commodore I love, but he doesn't know what the definition of offense is and Backman is just plain crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 He sure as hell is more than a 3rd pairing guy, which is the lame excuse Columbus used for letting him go. He was their best all-around defenseman the last two years and they threw him to the curb and added "upgrades" such as Mike Commodore and Christian Backman. Commodore I love, but he doesn't know what the definition of offense is and Backman is just plain crap. I agree that on some teams he is a top 4 def but not for instance the habs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) hainsey is a top 4 defenceman WHen the hell did that happen? a little overrated there if you were to say ask me. He shows some good games and he shows some shiite games. To add to Fanpuck33's comments, Ron Hainsey just came off consecutive 30+ points seasons, and has improved dramatically on all assets of his game. There were moments throughout the last two seasons were he was producing at a great pace. At this point, he seems to be the equivalent of what Brisebois used to be (second pairing powerplay specialist, but capable if doing more if asked to), however with still more untapped offensive upside. With a little more confidence and consistency, perhaps through good chemistry with a veteran like Ken Klee, he could be a great asset for Atlanta, and maybe even become a top 2 defenseman (depending on how Enstrom improves his overall game); I woudn't be surprised if he finished first or second for logged icetime. Point was: Gainey and the Canadiens prefered (re)signing Bouillon and Dandeneault, and they did not give a chance to Beauchemin and Hainsey, and now it looks like they were wrong in their evaluation as both these youngsters have quickly become better players. I agree that on some teams he is a top 4 def but not for instance the habs. He would have been for sure until recently, and still today I could see Hainsey having sucess with Hamrlik on the second pairing. Considering only Markov can be considered an offensive defenseman (with age Hamrlik has become more and more defensive), Hainsey would perhaps be a better option than Bouillon (moving O'Byrne with Gorges on the third pair). Edited August 7, 2008 by Fanpuck33 merged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Point was: Gainey and the Canadiens prefered (re)signing Bouillon and Dandeneault, and they did not give a chance to Beauchemin and Hainsey, and now it looks like they were wrong in their evaluation as both these youngsters have quickly become better players. He would have been for sure until recently, and still today I could see Hainsey having sucess with Hamrlik on the second pairing. Considering only Markov can be considered an offensive defenseman (with age Hamrlik has become more and more defensive), Hainsey would perhaps be a better option than Bouillon (moving O'Byrne with Gorges on the third pair). I'd say that is true about Hainsey (though you have to include Streit as one of the factors), but not Beauchemin. Quite frankly, it was kind of shocking that Beauchemin, a NHL veteran of 1 game, was claimed off waivers. It was only the unique circumstance of the NHL lockout that had him claimed. Gainey took a risk, and got burned. He liked Beauchemin, who by all reports in 2004, was set to make the team whenever hockey started up again as the 7th d-man or better. He was fairly well regarded at the time in Habs management, and Columbus saw an opporutnity to claim him when Montreal decided to try and put him in Hamilton for the duration of the lockout. Columbus claimed him, and then had him sign a seperate exclusive deal to play for their AHL team during the lockout, much like what Montreal had Begin and Ward do that year as well. Gainey didn't think any NHL team would claim a guy like Beauchemin on the last day before the lockout. He was wrong. It wasn't an error in talent evaluation, it was an error in judging his peers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 People are forgetting that Beauchemin came to camp overweight and was somewhat lazy. The club told him to get it in gear. He didn't and was waived. Columbus became annoyed with him as well and subsequently decided to try Fedorov instead and traded Beauchemin to the Ducks. Brian Burke and the Ducks brass told him to smarten up. He finally listened. I'm pointing this out to clarify that we shouldn't lay full blame on Gainey. I certainly wouldn't want my team to be more accepting to issues that demonstarte a player as lazy. The fact that he got his act together and now shines doesn't ease the sting of us losing him. However, it's NOT as if Gainey saw the excellent player in him and decided to drop him for no particular logical reason. When the decision was made from our perspective (at the time) - it was the correct one. It doesn't look correct now but we must remember the circumstances that truly led to his being waived. Moi 2 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I didn't really mean for my comment to lead to this discussion about Gainey not keeping Hainsey and Beauchemin. All I meant originally is that I woudn't be surprised that Bob Gainey would go after an aging centre like Robert Lang considering he seems to prefer adding veterans to every position instead of giving a position to a kid before training camp even begins (somewhat of a gamble). If Sundin doesn't sign with us, it makes sense to most of us that Chipchura should be given every chance to suceeed as our 3rd line centre, but Gainey would then most likely try to add a veteran like he did last year with Smolinski (regardless of what Gainey said about Chipchura). As an example, I mentionned the acquisition of Traverse... and then the trade for Niinimaa. With Mark Streit improving significantly by the end of the previous season, we only needed a reserve 7th defenseman for 2-3 weeks until Francis Bouillon could return to action. So instead of giving that role to either Ryan O'Byrne (I actually made a mistake since Hainsey and Beauchemin were both gone the year before), Jancevski, or any defenseman that did pretty well at camp, Gainey acquired two marginal veterans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 every good GMs make mistakes, what makes some GMs better than the others is that their good shots far outbalance their bad shots. Just like Gainey (and his team). For every one bad shot, I could think of at least two good shots... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAK Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) every good GMs make mistakes, what makes some GMs better than the others is that their good shots far outbalance their bad shots. Considering the Niinima-Ribeiro SNAFU I can't wait to see what kind of deal Gainey is going to pull to even it out. Edited August 8, 2008 by marky_and_komi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAKS-AVENUE Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) Considering the Niinima-Ribeiro SNAFU I can't wait to see what kind of deal Gainey is going to pull to even it out. Let's just say that Theo has an amazing season this year and leads the Caps to the cup final or the conference finals. Do we then consider the Theo-Abby trade a SNAFU. I will never judge Gainey on those trades even if the players end up becoming hall of famers. At the time of those trades it was obvious Ribs and Theo had to go......bottom line. And guess what? there weren't any takers. Besides, if Ribs was still in Montreal making 5 million the fans would be burning down the city and using his salary as an excuse on why we can't afford Mats Sundin. Would that have been a Gainey SNAFU? Oh my, what a tangled web weave......... I consider the Ribs move brilliant!!!!! Edited August 8, 2008 by SAKS-AVENUE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) I don't mind the Riberio trade as much as others do or seem to. The reason is I suspect there may have been an incident. One minute Riberio is awesome in a preseason game against the Sens and right after the game he is traded. The fly by night trade had the stink of a problematic Riberio written all over it. Having said that, I should underscore that there is no rumour to support this. No news or link or even evidence. I just "suspect" that something occured based on the way the trade unfolded. If there is one thing I've concluded about BOb is that he doesn't build teams, he builds family. Everytime anything has gone wrong with a player who disrupts this, there have been team consequences. Samsonov comes to mind. He's a perfect example of a GM who builds family but makes a mistake by bringing in a problem. If we believe in the rumour that Huet was the one in trouble and O'Byrne saved him at the nightclub, then we can conclude that once again a certain player presented problems and was subsequently traded. That's a tough call since the Huet rumour that he was caught with a woman is just that - rumour. Did Huet get oral sex in the nightclub. Were pics taken of him getting one? Is it true that O'Byrne stole the phone to erase the pics? Who knows? In Ribeiro's case and the way the trade just happened suddenly makes me wonder if BOb didn't have appropriate dance (GM's) partners and the best he could do (and do it quickly) was to secure a depth D in Niinimma. I honestly believe that Ribeiro did something that made it absolutely necessary to move him FAST! Maybe Kovy or Koivu or another player said, "either he goes or I go". Please understand. All of this is theory and I base it on the way the whole scenario played out. Edited August 8, 2008 by Athlétique.Canadien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seb Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Where is Janne Niniimaa nowadays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.