Zowpeb
-
Posts
1108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Zowpeb
-
-
Depending on how they ask the question they can elicite the response they want...social statistics are often skewed by whichever group puts the data together. It's incredible how much stock people put into poorly done stats...
Asking: "what is your favorite sport to watch", is certianly not an indication that the NHL has lost fans...it means that people have not thought of hockey in a year and have become involved in watching other sports. Does that mean they will no longer watch hockey? Certainly not.
To be honest, I know plenty of people(mostly Leaf fans as I live in that area) who are moaning that they won't watch hockey anymore, but as soon as their team strings together 2 wins they'll be on the bandwagon.
Beware the stats you read and the people who are interpreting them. I even recall a stat that said over 90% of women have been abused in their relationships and it shocked me till I read that it defined abuse as everything from raising your voice in an argument to slamming a door when someone leaves...lol.
Mark Twain wrote: "There are only 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." In my opinion, stats are great BUT you need to look behind the data to the definitions and/or the questions asked to ensure it's validity.
[Edited on 2005/7/26 by Zowpeb]
-
Well, there is only 12 balls out of 48 balls to the teams with the highest odds. Which means there is only a 25% chance he goes to one of those teams...
There is a 41.7% chance he goes to teams with 2 balls.
There is a 33.3% chance he goes to a team with only 1 ball.
So I'll actually be a little surprised if one of Buffalo, Columbus, the NY Rangers or Pittsburgh actually get the 1st overall pick.
It's a stupid set up IMO...because at the end of the day the 4 worst teams(as per their system of analysis) actually have the worst shot at the pick vs. the other groupings of teams. Not only should those teams have the individually highest chance at the 1st overall pick, the "group" of teams with 3 balls should have the highest chance overall.
-
Since both Forsberg and Naslund will likely get MAX deals there is no way the Habs could afford them...nor should they even try to have both of them IMO.
Forsberg is a walking injury and while I love Naslund's game I think that we could find a better way to spend 15 million in the new CBA.
And yes I realise that you are working off a theory that Forsberg will accept less $$$ to play for a contender with Naslund.
This team has MAYBE $9 million to spend and about 4-5 roster spots to fill. While I think most of that money will be used on 2 players that still doesn't even come close to Naslund or Forsberg.
-
D-men I'd look at:
*Foote
*Zhitnik
Neidermeyer
Gonchar
*Zubov
Numminen
Wingers I'd look at:
*Kovalev
Palffy
*Demitra
Stillman
Carter
Mogilny
*Naslund
*Murray
Selanne
Kariya
Forsberg
*Shannahan
The guys with an asterisk next to their names are the guys I think would fit the best with out current team...assuming we're relatively similar to our last roster.
We need a d-man like Foote or Zhitnik.
I also think a winger with size would be ideal for Koivu's line...though I put an asterisk next to Demitra and Naslund because they're that damn good...lol. Of course, dollars is the limiting factor still with what we'll actually have to spend...
I could see Foote and Kovalev being feasible with our dollars...
-
I think I'm the only one who thinks we should play Bonk at LW on the 2nd line...lol
Zednik-Koivu-Kovalev
Bonk-Ribeiro-Ryder
Higgins-Bulis-Perezhogin
Begin-Plekanec-Ward
IMO, Dagenais should be gone...don't care where so long as it's not on the Habs.
Bonk brings a nice element of size and D to the 2nd line. The 3rd line is young but has loads of promise. Bulis can handle the role at C no problem and both Higgins and Zhog need to develop in the NHL. The 4th line is chalk full of grit, can bang, play strong D and still score some goals.
It also means only signing 1 guy(Kovalev) at forward and maintains a lot of chemistry that was built over the previous season. Which means more $$$ to sign a very good D-man. Rumour is that even a guy like Pronger will probably only get $4.5 - $5 million a year...with 1-2 releases we should have the money for a top D and a top forward.
-
Just curious about where everyone thinks we'll stand to start the season.
The new cap means much lower salaries for UFA's.
There apparently will also be a one time offer for GM's to release high salary contracts outright and not have their salary affect the salary cap.
Will we release anyone? Will we be positioned well to sign some UFA's within the cap structure?
Just curious what everyone thinks...
-
I join but I don't really have any time to draft...so if you're still short as the deadline approaches then I'll join.
I don't want to take the spot of someone who can be more active then me.
-
Zednik-Koivu-Ryder
Bonk-Ribeiro-Perezhogin
Higgins-Bulis-Sundstrom
Plekanec-Begin-Ward
Markov-Brisebois
Souray-Komisarek
Bouillon-Rivet
I'd then try to sign Kovalev and then sign or trade for a top notch d-man for the left side.
That would then make:
Zednik-Koivu-Kovalev
Higgins-Ribeiro-Ryder
Bulis-Bonk-Perezhogin
Plekanec-Begin-Sundstrom
Ward/Hossa as the extra...
Markov-Brisebois
Souray-Komisarek
FA-Rivet
Bouillon
That would give us 3 really good D lines that we could cycle through nicely. We'd have real good scoring punch through our top 3 lines, solid size and lines 2-4 would all be strong defensively.
If salaries do get rolled back for next year, and a cap is in place around 42 million then we should be able to easily take on two impact type players and still be under the cap.
The year after that I think we'd see Kosty ready and he'd slide into the 3rd line with Bonk and Perezhogin...which would potentially be a crazy good line.
-
Simonus, you almost have to agree that this offer, from the owners, did allow for a basis of a more detailed negotiation rather then an outright rejection.
The players could easily have negotiated a period of lag time on the 3 teams above 42 million. They could have negotiated the percentage of league revenue and a lag period on this implementation as well. They could have negotiated a more open policy with the NHL on the numbers and what counts as revenue. Did they try to negotiate ANY of this? I doubt it...
Neither side is actually negotiating. They each make an offer and the other side rejects. There's no dialogue at all.
I agree that this does make it appear that the players don't believe their system will work. They KNOW there is a major problem and they KNOW their proposal wouldn't be an effective solution...if they did they could negotiate within this past owners proposal to make it work for both sides.
-
Help!
in The Lounge
Originally posted by Habsfan21I just want to know about the expierience in general, and about the type of work you recieve, etc.
I'm from NS, and have always wanted to go back. It really is a nice city.
It's real easy to party your education away...just be careful. If you've got to study then make sure you do it...but that doesn't mean you should be stuck studying all the time.
How much work you need to do really depends on you. I had a 20 hours/week part time job and partied for a minimum of 4 nights a week. Most of my friends went out 2-3 times a week at most...Which is probably why I finished with a B- average...LOL. Some people need to study more/less, I found a lot had to do with how you take notes in class. Learn how to take notes that are effective and NOT all encompassing. I often left class with 2-3 pages of notes while my friends had 5-6 pages...and couldn't figure out what to study come exam time.
A BIG part of the university experience is meeting people. You'll make friends that last a lifetime. I know guys that met their future wife there...though that wasn't too common(maybe 25 years ago it was I guess but not when I went).
I recommend staying in residence since it's easier to meet people and find people doing things all the time. Living there can interrupt your studying(partying, noise, bad roommate, etc) and if it does become good friends with a desk in the library. I also recommend joining and getting active in some of the clubs...Irish association, ski clubs, the association for your subject, etc...then try and get on it's board. It's a nice resume booster, let's you meet loads of people and the club will throw parties/events using the membership dues.
Get laid, get a decent degree and get drunk. Put that in any order you want...but you're paying a boatload for the degree so make sure you get that. LOL
I loved going to University and still wish I was back there...of course, WLU had/has some of the best looking women in the country attending it so that might have something to do with my missing it.
[Edited on 2005/2/1 by Zowpeb]
-
Help!
in The Lounge
Congrats.
Whaddaya want to know? Class/major questions? Career path questions? Partying questions? City of Halifax questions? Accomodation questions? Just asking what to do leaves a broad range to answer...LOL.
Halifax is a GREAT party town...you from there? Or just going for school?
Don't get too anxious about it all...just be laid back, take it as it comes and make friends. University isn't all that tough...don't get me wrong, you've gotta do your work(no one will push you, so you have to push yourself to work...). But it's not difficult to enjoy your time there...do your work, study hard and play harder...
-
Obviously Fanpuck...I understand very well why ESPN doesn't show these things.
The point I was making was this: you implied that you didn't know much about the Summit Series earlier. Despite the realisation that it was a Canadian/Russian event you still thought you'd know more about it, if it was more significant then the Miracle on Ice. The point I'm making here is that I'd be surprised if the Summit Series even made a headline in the US circa 1972.
I don't really care if the US as a whole likes hockey or not...I don't care if they show headlines of Canadian hockey events either. My point is that you have no basis to claim Miracle is better then the Summit series game because you know nothing about the Summit series...and most Americans don't. So obviously US fans will be biased to say Miracle...and having a recent movie doesn't hurt that bias either. Canadian fans, on the other hand, have the ability to be more objective because we've seen both games, know the story of both games, etc. Like I've said, the Miracle on Ice was a great game and quite an event for US hockey...but it's not as big a moment in hockey as the Summit series.
[Edited on 2005/1/5 by Zowpeb]
-
Bah, Soviets are definitely NOT a dynasty to remember...who exactly did they play before 1972?? And after that they didn't "dominate" anymore anyways...
-
The movie sells because it's a human interest story about the US winning...I wouldn't confuse this with hockey interest in the US.
Sure, there is a strong hockey interest in the regions where it's always been strong, but I don't see that this win, in 1980, created any significant amount hockey fans. Like I said, hockey is below quite a large number of sport and gaming events in the US...events like dog shows, poker and arena football. I have no doubt that hockey will always be big in the Northeastern US...and some other pockets of the US.
A classic example of the US media and stories of Canadian hockey is the fact that on the ESPN.com front page there isn't even a mention of the World Junior Championships that Canada won last night. I guarantee you that if the US had won there would an article link and probably a picture. Instead they have nothing at all...not even an article link. Canada destroyed Russia last night and had one of the most dominating junior teams in the history of the tournament. They beat a team that taunted the US in the semi's...you'd think that this would have some sort of article that'd make the front page of North Americas largest sports media.
[Edited on 2005/1/5 by Zowpeb]
[Edited on 2005/1/5 by Zowpeb]
-
Yeah, it made Americans care so much about hockey it gets ratings of less then Arena football in the US...lol
It made some Americans care about hockey because they won...same as they'd care about Cricket if they won. A month later and I doubt anyone cared anymore...it's the nature of US media.
-
Originally posted by Fanpuck33
Of course I know that Canada sent amateurs to the Olympics, as did every nation until they changed the rules, since the Russians for years were sending "professional amateurs" each year.
The Olympics were so much more exciting and meaningful when amateurs played. Those guys really wanted to be there, and were doing it for the right reasons. Too many pro athletes could not care less about their countries, and only go if they feel like it.
I don't think you understand when I said we used to send club teams...I'm not talking amatuer all star teams like you get with the world juniors.
I mean something like the OHL's Kitchener Rangers...that type of team, no added players, not a combination of players to form a pseudo-all star team of minor league guys. Just a club team...lol. That's why the Russians dominated international hockey...no one cared.
Then came the 1972 Summit series. You really should watch the documentary...I'm willing to bet you'd have a different view.
I'd say you don't know much about it solely because you only get to see American media...it's common place that anything that isn't American will NEVER(or very rarely) get shown by US media...which is amusing to Canadians btw, since we get to see stuff from pretty much all over. Seriously, just take a look at ESPN's coverage of Canadian based teams in any sport...it's virtually non-existant...because it's not considered to be relevant to their viewership. How many nationally televised games do the Raptors have in the US? How many NHL games are shown in the US from Canadian arenas? How many Jays or Expos games were shown in the US? The coverage on these teams is crap from ESPN(and others), never in rumours, etc. I understand why US media is like this and I'm not judging it...I'm just saying this to point out why you don't really know about the Summit Series.
In the end, how much could the US Miracle on Ice have really had an impact? It's not like the US hockey market has made any ground since then...it's still big in the same markets it was before 1980 and not much anywhere else.
-
I don't know if you are aware of this Fanpuck but Canada used to send club teams to the Olympics and the various international tournaments. And not NHL club teams...so we're talking about essentially minor league teams.
So I think it's fair to say that until Canada started treating the Olympics and various international tourney's with a little more respect it's obvious the Russians would have dominated at that time.
That's why Canada was expected to blow the Russians out of the water at the 1972 Summit series...we were finally putting our best players on the ice together. Unfortunately, they were not in game shape to start, were caught off guard, etc...the fact that the Russians were as good as advertised(in Russia...lol) was a shock that put them on their heels. Then Canada headed to Russia and had to deal with a number of issues...calls kept coming all night, Eagleson was almost arrested mid-game, threats, etc.
The Summit series was really a defining moment for hockey that introduced the Russians as the real deal and pitted North American hockey vs. the Russian game...whereas the Miracle on Ice was a great acheivement but not much more then that.
-
I didn't like Miracle...I thought it was pretty boring actually. It doesn't take away from the actual game, which was much better...but as movies go I can think of a number of better sports movies.
Sakiqc, I realise that Quebec is a "nation" in the cultural sense of the definition...however, it seems clear to me that the intent of the question was to find out which country has the best hockey team in the world. If the question was "who is the best soccer nation in the world", I don't think you'd see the Vichy french or the Catalonians of Spain using that to say they're the best. These "national" regions of countries do not have teams and therefore can't even make the comparison that they are the best as a result. The fact that Quebec city has that sign is a disgrace...it implies that Quebec city is the capital of a nation-state, and obviously Quebec is NOT a state. It's these little things that are a slap in the face to the confederation of Canada. But I don't want to get into a big argument on this...we'll save it for YIM...lol
Putting Roy was interesting...bringing in the butterfly technique for goalies. But, goalies have always been a real variable in games...that was nothing new. He did help re-invent the way goalies play and is a pioneer of the larger equipement...lol.
I agree on the refs.
Best international team...this Canadian WJ team is dominating(though it's not over yet...the Russians are very good too). In the viewpoint of dominating a tournament then I suppose they'd rank up there...but in terms of being "the best" team I'd think you'd need to pick a team not limited by age. In terms of talent the '87 Canadian team was unreal.
-
In the definitions I posted you'll notice notorious can also mean "generally known and talked of".
For example you could say: Mike Ricci has notoriously bad hair. In other words, everyone knows Mike Ricci has bad hair. Another example would be: Don Cherry is notorious for being out-spoken.
I can see why someone would think the US 1980 Olympic victory is a bigger deal...I just disagree.
The previous olympics were played with less then stellar competition from almost all countries. While people had seen the Soviet team they hadn't seen them play any competition. The Canadian team, with it's NHLers, was expected to destory the Soviet team. The fact that the Soviets were much better then anticipated was a real eye opener for the hockey world.
The issues with the games played in Russia, the NHLers having no time to prepare or get in shape, the politics of the era, and the fact that it was an 8 game series made it an incredibly intoxicating game. People literally stopped working and went out in the streets when Canada won...people were listening on radios at work, almost EVERYONE was watching. There is not a chance that the US had the same level of drama leading up to, or even during, their game. Yes, the Miracle on Ice was a great game and victory...but it was just that, a one game shocker. Canada had to play 8 games, 4 in Russia, have Eagleson almost get arrested mid-game by Russian police, etc...
I don't know if you've ever seen the documentary series on the 1972 Summit series but it's really good. I know they haven't gone and a crappy Hollywood movie out of it, but the documetary series will show you the level of enthusiasm that series had. They even show the Summit Series documentary on a loop at the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Christ, there are people that think Paul Henderson should be in the Hall of Fame for his goal...in an otherwise average career. Hearing the play by play of Henderson scoring that goal is etched in the minds of almost every Canadian...even the ones that weren't alive when it happened, like me...
[Edited on 2005/1/2 by Zowpeb]
-
1) Alan Eagleson is the former NHLPA boss who screwed a lot of the old players out of their pension money and spent time in jail as a result...one of the most hated men in the game really...
I picked Cherry because he is notorious for his often scandalous comments.
2) Notorious is defined as: having an exceedingly bad reputation; Known widely and usually unfavorably; generally known and talked of;
3) I don't really care about 3D recreations...to me it looked like a goal and I don't think there was any way to rule otherwise at the time. I don't really care one way or the other though.
4) I think the Canada vs USSR was a bigger moment because it was a series of games. It was also the first time anyone had seen the Russians play. Combine that with the fact that Canada was expected to dominate and didn't and I think you have the one of the most compelling games in the history of any sport. I think most Canadians, who were alive at the time, could tell you where they were when Henderson scored...I'm willing to bet most Americans are only aware that they won the game and little else. In no way do I want to take away from the US accomplishment because it was a great, and unexpected, win. I just think the Canada vs. USSR series as a whole created a more compelling game that was more widely appreciated.
-
Who is the best player of all-time? Wayne Gretzky
Who is the individual talent of all-time? Mario Lemieux
What was the best dynasty of all-time? Montreal(late 70's)
Who is the best goalie of all-time? Patrick Roy
Who is the clutch performer of all-time? Mark Messier
Who is the most underrated player of all-time? Mike Gartner
Who is the greatest goal scorer of all-time? Wayne Gretzky...50 goals in 39 games...enough said.
What is the best hockey nation? Canada...I can't even begin to believe that Sakiqc put Quebec down for his nation...bleh. I don't even know how you could defend that answer...it's not like the "nation of Quebec" has a team.
Who is the greatest fighter of all-time? Bob Probert
Who is the greatest captain of all-time? Mark Messier
Which international team was the best? Canada '87
Where is the best hockey region? Montreal
Who is the most notorious on-ice villain? Claude Lemieux or Chris Nilan
Who is the most notorious personality? Don Cherry
Who is the greatest coach of all-time? Scotty Bowman without question...
Who is the best play-by-play man ever? Who cares...lol. I'll say Irvin...
Who is the best skater ever? Paul Coffey
Who is the greatest passer of all-time? Wayne Gretzky
Who is the most colourful player ever? tough call...probably a guy from the 70's like Clarke or someone...I'm forgetting names here. Schultz maybe...
Who is the best player NOT in the Hall Of Fame? Agree with Cam Neely...
Which team was the worst of all-time? Leafs every year.
Who is the greatest referee of all-time? None...they're all bastards.
Should Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal in 1999 have counted? No
What was the bigger moment? Canada's win over the USSR in 1972 or the US's gold medal victory in 1980? Canada in 1972...tough call though.
Which player has most changed the game? Tough call again, Plante or Orr. A number of other great stories...Doug Harvey and the 2 minute penalty changes, goalies coming out to play pucks thanks to Bower(if memory serves...correct me if I'm wrong), etc
What was the best Stanley Cup final ever? 1986 Habs...just 'cause I remember it so vividly with Roy...just a sentimental pick.
Where is the birthplace of hockey? Uh...somewhere near Montreal as I recall...how do these types of questions help fans initiate debate on the game?
When should expansion have stopped? At 24 teams...at most 26.
Which NHL leader has had the most impact? Again, pointless question...but I'll say Betteman and not for the better either.
Goal or no goal? Martin Gelains possible Cup winner in Game 6 2004? Goal.
Should visors be mandatory? Yes
Should the instigator rule be abolished? Yes
Should fighting be apart of the game? Yes
What's better? Two refs or one? One...
What is better? Wood or composite? Composite
Should tied games (regular season) end in a shootout? No. But yes in playoffs after one OT period.
Should the NHL adopt no-touch icing? Yes
Should the NHL contract? Yes
Major junior vs college: Which is better? Major Junior no question...
Ice size? NHL or international? International
Should the two-line pass be allowed? No
Should the NHL have more 4-on-4? No
Should goalies wear smaller equipment? YES
Are NHL players overpaid? YES
Is the NHL draft age too young at 18? No
Should there be a defensive defenseman award? Yes
More playoff teams than 16? No...and shorten 1st rounds down to 5 game series.
Suspensions based on intent or injury? Intent first, injury secondary. Both need to be accounted for but intent should be foremost.
Should the NHL be at the Olympics? No...Only under 21's should be allowed...this will allow the World Cup of Hockey to become a more legit tournament.
Goalies fair game outside crease? Yes
Should injury disclosure be mandatory? No
Who has hockey's most notorious hair? Another pointless question...Chris Simon
What is the best sweater number? 9 or 4? #9
White tape or black tape? Black...anything to help disguise the puck on your stick.
What is the ugliest 3rd jersey of all-time? Bruins
Who is the best anthem singer of all-time? Who the ###### cares?
What's better? Dark or white jerseys at home? White
What's better? Organ or taped music? music
Is it a good idea to pull the goalie? yes
Who is the best Sutter? Darryl
What is the best hockey movie of all-time? Slapshot
-
Wow...I'd do a LOT of things different.
1) Tag up offsides re-instated.
2) move the nets back to where they used to be
3) move the blue lines back a foot or two.
4) remove hard plastic pads from the shoulders and elbow pads, they cause injury...
5) penalties should be a full 2 minutes
6) refs would be held more accountable for poor calls
7) suspensions would be tougher and more evenly applied
8) remove the following teams: Florida, Anaheim, Carolina, Nashville
9) move Pittsburgh to Quebec OR Winnipeg
10) instate a rule that NO team is allowed to lose money for 3 years in a row without ownership losing the franchise
11) look into starting a World Club Cup where various league champs from some leagues play each other...like the champions league in soccer. Might take a few years before other leagues catch-up to the NHL but it could/will happen eventually.
12) Instate a Salary Cap...with a minimum and maximum payroll limit. Increase revenue sharing. With more teams having an even share of revenue and limited in their payroll spending the league will have a greater level of parity. I don't agree with whoever said teams can fall off: prime examples are the New England Patriots and LA Lakers!!! They were/are cap dynasties.
13) I agree with a shootout after 1 full period of OT in the playoffs...but not regular season.
14) Shorten the season to about 70 games
15) Make rosters 3-4 players smaller...thus removing 4th lines like we used to have.
Another thing I've bandied about that is much more drastic.
I'd start looking into league formats for hockey similar to soccer in Europe. A 1st division, 2nd division and 3rd division league...teams can be relegated to a lower tier league if they are among the 3 worst in their division. Say the top 20 teams in the NHL are division 1, division 2 is made up of the worst 10 from NHL and top 10 from AHL/IHL, division 3 is the rest of the AHL and IHL. It would require a merger of the various leagues under one governing body. It would also force teams to spend money wisely, develop players better, etc. It would also require a complete overhall of how we draft, acquire and develop through the minors. Probably too drastic to accomplish but it would solve a number of issues with owner stupidity IMO. This could also lead to a closer affiliation with a European league that could be set up similarily and would be across a number of countries(Russia, Sweden, Finland, etc) It would mean a larger more wealthy league in Europe that would have a high level of talent and could lead to club tournaments that would generate a higher level of interest in the sport.
[Edited on 2004/12/31 by Zowpeb]
-
Latest estimates from this quake are at 60,000+ with a number of people saying it will end up over 100,000...
That's not even taking into account all the people that will end up getting various diseases associated with this disaster.
It's really f'd up. I can't even begin to imagine what it would've been like being even near this...
-
Yeah, I read some of those in the Sun today.
The problem I have with a luxury tax is this: the Yankees have to pay 30,000,000 approx. in tax...that's about 1,100,000 per team. For them to have to pay 30,000,000 in tax they were about an extra 75 million in payroll over the cap(correct me if I'm wrong here...). That's about 5 highly impactful players(assuming 15 million a year types). So at the end of the day the Yanks could sign 5 guys, similar in value to a Beltran or Schilling, and give every team in the league a million bucks to sign a crap player. How is this a system that truly works??
Also keep in mind that the Yanks also have to pay a tonne of money for the revenue sharing plan...which you wouldn't see in hockey.
Even if you were to triple the penalty clauses in the luxury tax the Yanks are still WAY ahead. Even if you suppose they have a budget, and they do though they still have room, they'll still be signing 3-4 of those impact players while paying only a few million to the other teams. It slows them down a little but doesn't offer enough of a disincentive for them to spend the money over the tax limit.
I know baseball salaries dropped on average BUT we can easily see this year that this trend is quickly being reversed. Christ, Eric Milton just signed a 3 year $25.5 million deal...that's 8.5 million a year for a guy who had an ERA of 4.75 and has never been a high end starter. There's been loads of these types of signings this off-season.
[Edited on 2004/12/28 by Zowpeb]
Until now it's a monumental disapointment..
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
Holy crap!
Please, do everyone a favour and NEVER, EVER, post a trade proposal again...lol.
If this team gives up what are probably it's 2 best young prospects for an INCREDIBLY overrated(by Montreal fans/media) C then I may in fact drive to Montreal and pimp slap Bob Gainey...
As for the pick...please folks, Price will be in the NHL MUCH sooner then 5/6 years. If he was a 4th round pick or later then I'd say it may take 4+ years. The kid is the top goalie prospect in the draft and while he's 17 now he's turning 18 and will likely be in the NHL by 21 at the latest...jmho. He's a savvy pick by Gainey and Savard...Theodore won't be around in a few years and we'll have a top shelf talent waiting to take his spot cheaply, and it also allows us to deal Theodore for a similarly talented, and priced, forward/d-man in a couple years. In the new CBA you gotta believe that goalies like this will have even more value...
Right now, we gotta target one of Hamrlik or Zhitnik(my preferance) and a top shelf forward...I like Satan actually. I'll be shocked if we spend more then those guys would cost.