Jump to content

Habs pick up Halpern


Recommended Posts

Jagr's #68 was actually a nationalist reference: 1968 was the year the USSR annexed Czechoslovakia. It'd be like if someone was allowed to wear 9/11.

Guys who wear their birth years: it's cute at first, but really? Ditch 87, Crosby. I don't care how iconic it's become just because of you. Wearing a number because your birthday is 8/7/87 is just lame. Same with making your cap hit $8.7m.

#22 was Paul Mara's number last year. It could still be taken this year by a newbie. #25 should be snapped up as well (Jacques Lemaire). I like #28, too. Solid number (Eric Desjardins).

At the very least, numbers 8, 22, 25, 27, and 28 should be taken.

In order to create more american fans to the NHL the players are now wearing football numbers on their jersey's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW, rookie camp numbers courtesy of Habs Inside/Out

36: Alexander Avtsin

37: Gabriel Dumont

39: Peter Delmas (tryout)

42: Jarred Tinordi (unsigned prospect)

45: Ian Schultz

47: Brendon Nash

51: Aaron Palushaj

54: Dustin Walsh (unsigned prospect)

55: Hunter Bishop

56: Kyle Klubernatz

62: Frederic St. Denis

63: Andreas Engqvist

65: Robert Mayer

71: Louis Leblanc

73: Brendan Gallagher (unsigned prospect)

74: Morgan Ellis (unsigned prospect)

78: Sebastien Bisallion (tryout)

83: Jonathan Brunelle (tryout)

85: Marc-Antoine Desnoyers (tryout)

86: Joe Stejskal (unsigned prospect)

87: Nicolas Champion (tryout)

If anyone on the main team actually wants any of these numbers, I'm sure the Habs would give them up. But just a head's up.... if any of these guys are called up, that's what they're wearing. If you have an old Bouillon jersey, you can sew Palushaj's name on it! Or an old D'Agostini is now an Avtsin, Ryder=Gallagher, S. Kostitsyn=Ellis, Perezhogin=Tinordi. I really wouldn't put too much stock in the numbers given to unsigned guys, though. I think Robert Mayer had #35 last year, but Auld has since taken that, so he's now #65 apparently. And if Nicolas Champion is trying to emulate Crosby, he's going for Troy, not Sid: he's a goalie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, rookie camp numbers courtesy of Habs Inside/Out

36: Alexander Avtsin

37: Gabriel Dumont

39: Peter Delmas (tryout)

42: Jarred Tinordi (unsigned prospect)

45: Ian Schultz

47: Brendon Nash

51: Aaron Palushaj

54: Dustin Walsh (unsigned prospect)

55: Hunter Bishop

56: Kyle Klubernatz

62: Frederic St. Denis

63: Andreas Engqvist

65: Robert Mayer

71: Louis Leblanc

73: Brendan Gallagher (unsigned prospect)

74: Morgan Ellis (unsigned prospect)

78: Sebastien Bisallion (tryout)

83: Jonathan Brunelle (tryout)

85: Marc-Antoine Desnoyers (tryout)

86: Joe Stejskal (unsigned prospect)

87: Nicolas Champion (tryout)

If anyone on the main team actually wants any of these numbers, I'm sure the Habs would give them up. But just a head's up.... if any of these guys are called up, that's what they're wearing. If you have an old Bouillon jersey, you can sew Palushaj's name on it! Or an old D'Agostini is now an Avtsin, Ryder=Gallagher, S. Kostitsyn=Ellis, Perezhogin=Tinordi. I really wouldn't put too much stock in the numbers given to unsigned guys, though. I think Robert Mayer had #35 last year, but Auld has since taken that, so he's now #65 apparently. And if Nicolas Champion is trying to emulate Crosby, he's going for Troy, not Sid: he's a goalie.

Lots of talents this year IMO. It will very interesting to see who is going to impress the most.

BTW, I bought two tickets this week for the October 2 pre-season game against the New York Islanders, at Quebec City Colisée. That will be great!

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you ask me, all this number business is dumb. A number is a number. Saying 8 is a better number than 80 is like saying blue is a better color than red.

Obviously you're correct in purely rational terms. Numbers have no inherent value. We could also change the red line to paisley and make the refs dress in mascot outfits. What I'm suggesting is that if you have a sense of the history and traditions of the game, your preference will be for continuity with the practices that characterized that history, unless there's a good reason to change them. A great many of the things we do are 'arbitrary' in purely rational terms - we do them because that's our tradition, how we do things. And we come to value them for precisely that reason.

Having said that, it's obviously not an issue to go ballistic over one way or the other. It doesn't cut to the heart of the game in the way that, say, shootouts do for some people. Like I said before, it's more a matter of seemliness. It behooves the Habs in particular to be faithful to the traditions and mystique of the game, as they are its ultimate expression. Let the Nashvilles have the gaudy jerseys and the novelty acts. The Habs should always be old school. :hlogo:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously you're correct in purely rational terms. Numbers have no inherent value. We could also change the red line to paisley and make the refs dress in mascot outfits. What I'm suggesting is that if you have a sense of the history and traditions of the game, your preference will be for continuity with the practices that characterized that history, unless there's a good reason to change them. A great many of the things we do are 'arbitrary' in purely rational terms - we do them because that's our tradition, how we do things. And we come to value them for precisely that reason.

Having said that, it's obviously not an issue to go ballistic over one way or the other. It doesn't cut to the heart of the game in the way that, say, shootouts do for some people. Like I said before, it's more a matter of seemliness. It behooves the Habs in particular to be faithful to the traditions and mystique of the game, as they are its ultimate expression. Let the Nashvilles have the gaudy jerseys and the novelty acts. The Habs should always be old school. :hlogo:

27 is always 1987-92 Corson for me. People seem to remember the tail end of his career and not

the ass kicking point per game player from 1990. He is exactly the type of player the Habs could use right now.

He never maintained the scoring touch, but he was a pretty solid scoring winger for a 10 year period.

I agree on the crazy high numbers, I could do without.

I remember the first player to take a high number for political reasons was Klima who chose 85 because it was the year he defected.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 is always 1987-92 Corson for me. People seem to remember the tail end of his career and not

the ass kicking point per game player from 1990. He is exactly the type of player the Habs could use right now.

He never maintained the scoring touch, but he was a pretty solid scoring winger for a 10 year period.

I agree on the crazy high numbers, I could do without.

I remember the first player to take a high number for political reasons was Klima who chose 85 because it was the year he defected.

I would retire numbers like we do, but every fifty years I would move them to a wall of fame and put the numbers back into circulation. We already have honoured our past with players bearing the same number. This is all presupposed on the preposition that we are going to have Hall of Famers to honor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 is always 1987-92 Corson for me. People seem to remember the tail end of his career and not

the ass kicking point per game player from 1990. He is exactly the type of player the Habs could use right now.

He never maintained the scoring touch, but he was a pretty solid scoring winger for a 10 year period.

I agree on the crazy high numbers, I could do without.

I remember the first player to take a high number for political reasons was Klima who chose 85 because it was the year he defected.

Corson was a good player, although I recall a lot of hype predicting that he'd emerge as a truly elite, dominating power forward (never happened) and I suppose my attitude toward him was slightly coloured by disappointment as a result. I'll bet we can both agree, though, that trading him for Damphousse turned out to be a great bit of GMing by Serge Savard :hlogo:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Corson was a good player, although I recall a lot of hype predicting that he'd emerge as a truly elite, dominating power forward (never happened) and I suppose my attitude toward him was slightly coloured by disappointment as a result. I'll bet we can both agree, though, that trading him for Damphousse turned out to be a great bit of GMing by Serge Savard :hlogo:

I wasn't happy when they traded him at the time, but that was because I hated Damphousse with the Leafs.

After the 93 Cup I was happy with the deal.

Corson lived a hard lifestyle and had colitis which probably took away from the player he might have become.

Him and Richer were a dominant duo for 2-3 seasons.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't happy when they traded him at the time, but that was because I hated Damphousse with the Leafs.

After the 93 Cup I was happy with the deal.

Corson lived a hard lifestyle and had colitis which probably took away from the player he might have become.

Him and Richer were a dominant duo for 2-3 seasons.

I remember the debate around that trade quite well. It seemed especially polarized between anglophones (who opposed the trade of Corson + Gilchrist) and francophones (who of course loved it). I recall one French guy specifically calling up the English sports show and arguing that Damphousse was an elite offensive talent and that those other guys were merely good players, and that when you get a chance to acquire the former, you do it. He turned out to be completely right. A good lesson there. Just as French Canadians tend to overrate francophone players and are maybe too generous toward talented mediocrities like Kovalev, I think English Canadians have a certain cultural tendency to over-value physical/lunch-bucket hockey players, over offensively gifted ones. Some part of us just loves the plumber. But ultimately there's no substitute for sheer talent.

Richer was the most infuriating Habs player of my lifetime IMHO. An absolutely sublime talent capable of dominating games and, indeed, entire seasons, he lacked the will and desire to do so, preferring instead to carve out a comfortable little career as a middle-of-the-pack second liner. He could have been Guy Lafleur; he chose to be Martin Ruscinsky. This was frustrating enough on the first go-around, but then to have that idiot Houle trade Lyle Odelein, our only physical defenceman and dressing-room leader, for this bozo - and to have this trade be praised by the dumb-ass French media - was more than I could take. Unsurprisingly, Richer put in a couple of mediocre seasons before being shipped out of town, while Odelein went on to be his usual rock on the blueline for NJ. I remember the French media expressing puzzlement that it should be so. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. :angry:

If I had to sum it up, I'd say the anglo response to the Damphousse deal illustrates the Anglo pathology of overrating grinders over talent, while the francophone response to the Richer deal exemplifies the francophone pathology of celebrating sheer talent/frenchness over substance.

Not that I'm generalizing ^_^

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember the debate around that trade quite well. It seemed especially polarized between anglophones (who opposed the trade of Corson + Gilchrist) and francophones (who of course loved it). I recall one French guy specifically calling up the English sports show and arguing that Damphousse was an elite offensive talent and that those other guys were merely good players, and that when you get a chance to acquire the former, you do it. He turned out to be completely right. A good lesson there. Just as French Canadians tend to overrate francophone players and are maybe too generous toward talented mediocrities like Kovalev, I think English Canadians have a certain cultural tendency to over-value physical/lunch-bucket hockey players, over offensively gifted ones. Some part of us just loves the plumber. But ultimately there's no substitute for sheer talent.

Richer was the most infuriating Habs player of my lifetime IMHO. An absolutely sublime talent capable of dominating games and, indeed, entire seasons, he lacked the will and desire to do so, preferring instead to carve out a comfortable little career as a middle-of-the-pack second liner. He could have been Guy Lafleur; he chose to be Martin Ruscinsky. This was frustrating enough on the first go-around, but then to have that idiot Houle trade Lyle Odelein, our only physical defenceman and dressing-room leader, for this bozo - and to have this trade be praised by the dumb-ass French media - was more than I could take. Unsurprisingly, Richer put in a couple of mediocre seasons before being shipped out of town, while Odelein went on to be his usual rock on the blueline for NJ. I remember the French media expressing puzzlement that it should be so. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. :angry:

If I had to sum it up, I'd say the anglo response to the Damphousse deal illustrates the Anglo pathology of overrating grinders over talent, while the francophone response to the Richer deal exemplifies the francophone pathology of celebrating sheer talent/frenchness over substance.

Not that I'm generalizing ^_^

Like I said, if Damphousse had played for the Oilers for his whole career I might have been stung a little because I liked Corson, but the trade would not have ignited the irrational hatred I had for the player based on his affiliation with the Maple Leafs.

I have learned to ignore personal bias when evaluating a trade, but in 1992 I was not there.

Richer was one of those players that you wanted on the ice when you needed a goal. You knew that he could create something out of nothing, that he could unleash a cannon or blaze down a wing or muscle his way to the net at any time. He was a sight to behold when he wanted to play. I remember the frustration, but still fondly remember the nights when he dominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, we've since learned that Richer battled with chronic depression his entire career, which probably explains some of the frustration.

Heh...I'd forgotten about that. It certainly humanizes Richer's on-ice erraticism but does nothing to relieve the aggravation of having had to endure Houle's numb-skulled re-acquisition of the guy. :rolleyes: Oh well. Water under the bridge. Still...anyone who saw Richer in full, magisterial flight during the 1989-90 season can only shake their heads at what could have been; Wamsley's account of what he could do when he was on is completely right, and I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say 'the next Guy Lafleur.' The happier story is that we turned him into Kirk Muller, who, next to Patrick Roy, was the single biggest reason we won the Cup in 1993. So all the frustration paid off in the end.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh...I'd forgotten about that. It certainly humanizes Richer's on-ice erraticism but does nothing to relieve the aggravation of having had to endure Houle's numb-skulled re-acquisition of the guy. :rolleyes: Oh well. Water under the bridge. Still...anyone who saw Richer in full, magisterial flight during the 1989-90 season can only shake their heads at what could have been; Wamsley's account of what he could do when he was on is completely right, and I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say 'the next Guy Lafleur.' The happier story is that we turned him into Kirk Muller, who, next to Patrick Roy, was the single biggest reason we won the Cup in 1993. So all the frustration paid off in the end.

I think Richer missed the boat by 10 years. He would have excelled in today"s game. Do we all remember a fellow named Pierre Larouche who also was let go despite being in the 50 goal club as well as Richer. I believe they ended up bring them both back. Don't figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we gave alot when we traded Richer and Lemieux but at least we got Kirk the captain Muller. As for Damphousse we gave away Corson and Gilchrist which wasn't too shabby. The trade I hated most was sending Kirk Muller and Matt Schneider to N.Y for a softy like Turgeon and Malakov who often lacked passion. it's just my opinion !

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know we gave alot when we traded Richer and Lemieux but at least we got Kirk the captain Muller. As for Damphousse we gave away Corson and Gilchrist which wasn't too shabby. The trade I hated most was sending Kirk Muller and Matt Schneider to N.Y for a softy like Turgeon and Malakov who often lacked passion. it's just my opinion !

Muller fell off the cliff when he left Montreal though.

He went from being almost a PPG player and a first line center to a 25 point 3rd line center.

It was a good deal, Turgeon just couldn't handle the media/fan pressure. With Muller's precipitous decline,

the deal was essentially Turgeon and Malakhov for Schneider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know we gave alot when we traded Richer and Lemieux but at least we got Kirk the captain Muller. As for Damphousse we gave away Corson and Gilchrist which wasn't too shabby. The trade I hated most was sending Kirk Muller and Matt Schneider to N.Y for a softy like Turgeon and Malakov who often lacked passion. it's just my opinion !

Well, you might be overlooking the fact that Muller was done as a top-6 forward by that point. Muller had a weird career in that for the first half of it, he was an elite all-around C. By the time he hit 30, he had for some reason lost a step and mutated into the bottom-6 grinder they knew in Toronto and elsewhere. I agree that Schneider was a lot to give up, but the bottom line is that in that deal we traded a #3 C for a legitimate #1C, and traded a top-2 defenceman for a top-4 defenceman. So I think it was another good trade by Savard. Indeed, when you consider that Savard left us with a team that had Damphousse, a young and superstar-calibre Koivu, and Pierre Turgeon at C - not to mention Roy in nets and a bunch of other good players - you realize what a strong hand he bequeathed his successor. Unofrtunately his successor was a moron and soon dispatched Turgeon in exchange for an older Corson a few years later. ARRRGH. But don't get me started. :hlogo:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know we gave alot when we traded Richer and Lemieux but at least we got Kirk the captain Muller. As for Damphousse we gave away Corson and Gilchrist which wasn't too shabby. The trade I hated most was sending Kirk Muller and Matt Schneider to N.Y for a softy like Turgeon and Malakov who often lacked passion. it's just my opinion !

That trade doesn't hold a candle to the Savard/ Chelios debaucle; orchestrated by your current owners Darryl and Darryl Molson.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...