BTH Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Dagostini just scored his 10th of the season and Palushaj is still in hamilton. Halak is solid for the blues and Eller has been scratched for the last 3 games and doesn't seem to fill a role with this team. Latendresse was lighting it up with minnesota but Pouliot seems to be thrown from one line to the other. Pouliot, Eller and Palushaj are great players but they need to play with players that compliment their talent and abilities rather than keep switching them from the 1st line to the 2nd,3rd,4th or scratched from the game. This lack of chemistry goes back from the Carbo era and still lingers. All these players are capable and good but the magic is how you put the puzzle all together and make it work day in and day out. D'Agostini is 3 years older than Palushaj. Eller is 21. Halak is in his prime and I doubt you would call a Habs goalie "solid" if he was giving the performance he is giving for the Blues. Halak's stock has fallen a ton since the time Montreal traded him. People are seeing that he is just a good #1 goalie and not elite. Blues fans will tell you that he has been extremely inconsistent, making great saves but also regularly allowing weak goals. I want to see Eller and Pouliot in the top 3 lines also but Eller needs to earn his spot there. Last night he was given a chance on the first line and he didn't do much with it. If he doesn't jump on his opportunities, he'll stop getting them. I don't know about Palushaj, he's in Hamilton. Last I heard, he was doing great there. I haven't heard about him bouncing around lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I don't know about Palushaj, he's in Hamilton. Last I heard, he was doing great there. I haven't heard about him bouncing around lines. He has struggled this year, particularly lately. Hasn't been 100% healthy at times, apparently a healthy scratch for a couple of games as well. Still, he has 22 points in 30 games, but only 5 of those are goals. With Desharnais/Pacioretty gone, everyone needs to pick up the slack but he hasn't scored in over a month and has just 7 points in his last 17 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 He has struggled this year, particularly lately. Hasn't been 100% healthy at times, apparently a healthy scratch for a couple of games as well. Still, he has 22 points in 30 games, but only 5 of those are goals. With Desharnais/Pacioretty gone, everyone needs to pick up the slack but he hasn't scored in over a month and has just 7 points in his last 17 games. So then he started off with 15 points in his first 13 games. That's probably about when I heard of him last. The Bulldogs also lost Weber but they did get Festerling and Boyd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l.moustakas Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I know that we are not in the dressing room and we have little to base ourselves on to judge the character of a player. But come on, his (Ribeiro's) overall demeanor came off as very arrogant and his little fake injury in the series against Boston was not exactly sportsmanlike. It is perfectly valid for fans to have an impression of a player's character after watching hundreds of games and countless interviews involving said player. Anyway, I shouldn't say any more about this whole debate... I might just use it in ATB this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikohab Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I know that we are not in the dressing room and we have little to base ourselves on to judge the character of a player. But come on, his (Ribeiro's) overall demeanor came off as very arrogant and his little fake injury in the series against Boston was not exactly sportsmanlike. It is perfectly valid for fans to have an impression of a player's character after watching hundreds of games and countless interviews involving said player. Anyway, I shouldn't say any more about this whole debate... I might just use it in ATB this week. If I recall correctly Ribs was also allergic to the boards which made it sick to watch. I don't have a problem with Ribs leaving rather I always had a problem with Bob Gainey's inability to pull the trigger when Ribs and other players had a greater return. Although I greatly admire Bob I could just never agree to how melonchally he was with his timing. We could have gotten good draft picks for Souray,Komisarek and others instead we got tomatoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 We could have gotten good draft picks for Souray,Komisarek and others instead we got tomatoes. Don't forget the Habs were in a playoff run then too. It's easy to say in hindsight that you should have traded them but then you probably don't make the playoffs. Can't have it both ways usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Don't forget the Habs were in a playoff run then too. It's easy to say in hindsight that you should have traded them but then you probably don't make the playoffs. Can't have it both ways usually. This is an old topic, but one of my pet peeves. Let me add this,some of the guys that they let go for tomatoes would have been content with less had they been offered a contract in season, less than they were offered at end of season. Management should determine if a player is in their long term plans and trade them if they are not. You cripple your negotiating power if you intend to resign and let them go to free agency. Players are people, they like their future with some sense of direction as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l.moustakas Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Don't forget the Habs were in a playoff run then too. It's easy to say in hindsight that you should have traded them but then you probably don't make the playoffs. Can't have it both ways usually. Well, yes that is true. But at the time I was always a bit miffed at the notion of trading Rivet but not Souray, who as I recall were both impending UFAs. Imagine, we got Patch and Gorges for Rivet... what return would have Souray, in his prime, yielded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Well, yes that is true. But at the time I was always a bit miffed at the notion of trading Rivet but not Souray, who as I recall were both impending UFAs. Imagine, we got Patch and Gorges for Rivet... what return would have Souray, in his prime, yielded? Exactly. It has always been my arguement that if player X is so invaluable to your play-off run why doesn't he have value in the future, afterall he is the same player, his ability hasn't changed. The answer is his value is the same, what your willing to pay for that value may be changing. Therefore if money is the issue, why won't you negotiate when you have most leverage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Gainey simply decided that he didn't want Rivet with the Habs any longer. He did want to keep Souray, or was at least interested in retaining him. He offered him something like $4m or $4.5m a year after the Markov deal was finished. It wasn't simply a matter of "better get some assets for him before he bolts", it was a decision to try and sign both. It may not have been the right call, but it actually wasn't all about that playoff run. Gainey was interested in keeping Souray around. He wasn't interested in keeping Rivet. In 2009, Gainey committed early in the year to going for it with the group he had, with the Lang and Tanguay acquisitions. When it was all blowing up in his face, he essentially decided he'd go down with the ship, brought in Schneider for one last push, and took over as coach. There was no way he was missing the playoffs entirely in season 100 after all the work he had done to build the team to that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Gainey simply decided that he didn't want Rivet with the Habs any longer. He did want to keep Souray, or was at least interested in retaining him. He offered him something like $4m or $4.5m a year after the Markov deal was finished. It wasn't simply a matter of "better get some assets for him before he bolts", it was a decision to try and sign both. It may not have been the right call, but it actually wasn't all about that playoff run. Gainey was interested in keeping Souray around. He wasn't interested in keeping Rivet. In 2009, Gainey committed early in the year to going for it with the group he had, with the Lang and Tanguay acquisitions. When it was all blowing up in his face, he essentially decided he'd go down with the ship, brought in Schneider for one last push, and took over as coach. There was no way he was missing the playoffs entirely in season 100 after all the work he had done to build the team to that point. I don't believe Gainey offered Souray anything until he was entering free agency. He had policy not to negotiate in season. TOO LATE 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.