Wamsley01
-
Posts
5530 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wamsley01
-
-
my point was not that we could pick up a 40 goal scorer but that we need another 40 to 50 goals a year. That may come from 2 guys or 3 guys or 5 guys I don't care, we need more goals and wiz is not going to provide that at a reasonable rate.
40 goals can be made up in a season without considerable upgrades. Look at the Bruins.
2010 - 206 goals
2011 - 246 goals
Horton didn't bridge that gap. Horton provided 26, but Sturm had 22 last season.
Lucic went from 8 goals to 30. Marchand provided 21 rookie goals. The improvement came from within the same core.
There is no reason the Canadiens can't get bounce back seasons from Gomez and Gionta. There is nothing saying that Pacioretty can't continue what he was doing, etc etc.
The point that CC is making is why not be an elite defensive team? The Bruins didn't win the Cup on their offensive prowess. History will paint this team differently like it always does, but the Bruins won the Cup in 25 games, tied for the most in history. They won three game sevens, the most in the history of the game. They had fortune on their side and THAT is the new NHL.
You only get a limited window today. There is no sustained powerhouses. Even the Wings have only won 2 titles in the last 12 seasons and they have a good team EVERY year. You need fortune to smile on you. Bounces, health, peak performances from your best players, unexpected heroes etc.
If you have a chance to add Wisniewski and create the best defense in the league you do it. I would rather have a dominant defense and hope for goals by committee like the late 80s/early 90s Habs than add a couple of mediocre forwards for the same cost.
The Bruins just won a Cup doing this. There is no player out there that can create an elite offensive unit, but there are defenseman that when added to the core the Habs already have that will place them in the discussion of best defense in the NHL.
Add in Price and you have the Devils 2.0 (In reality the Canadiens 8.0 because the Devils are actually the Canadiens 7.0).
-
I just want to say I am glad we are stuck with Gomez's contract and not Luongo's! What? Another 10 years? They may as well trade Schnieder as they won't be able to keep both long term and nobody will give them much for the playoff sieve if anyone is interested at all. Pretty bad when you have to let the better of your two goalies go because you awarded someone a stupid contract.
That is knee jerk analysis. At the end of the day, a smart GM will take the large sample size and not the small sample size to make his judgements.
Now mind you, in the NHL goaltender stats are misleading so somebody with knowledge of the position should also video review his performance, so using his stats could lead you to the wrong decision. There will always be a GM who is willing to roll the dice on a guy who is always in the top 10 of goaltending stats whose goal might not immediately be to win the Stanley Cup, but to solidify his chance at a playoff position.
If Gomez got traded at that number, anybody can be dealt.
Vancouver should go with Schneider for the simple fact that he can provide replacement level performance for 25% of the price. Return this same team with an added impact player to replace Luongo's commitment and you have a better team.
-
They are a contender barring the loss of Markov and Wisniewski.
-
Luongo wasn't the Canucks' principal problem; the Boston defence was. Having said that, Luongo wasn't exactly the *answer* either.
If I'm Gillis, I do shop Loo around, but failing that, the Canucks had one other discernable weakness: the lack of any really battle-tested Cup veterans on the squad. Granted, Samuelsson was hurt, but they need to go out and get a couple of Hal Gills/Mark Recchis for next season. Their philosophy that 'it will come from within' is a bust.
If the Sedin's, Luongo, etc didn't learn their Cup lessons with losses to the Blackhawks and Ducks championship runs then they never will. The Bruins didn't win because of guys like Recchi, they won because they all committed to the system. If Recchi was so important, where was he when they choked a 3-0 lead last season.
The lack of repeat champs isn't all cap related. When you win a Cup, your desire to return is not as great as your desire to conquer your lifelong goal. The odds are long on the Canucks returning to the Final next season and winning. Two teams since 1970 have managed to lose in the FInal and return immediately and win the next season. They were lead by Crosby and Gretzky.
They lost because their best players didn't pull the freight. When you build your core around Luongo, Sedin, Sedin and Kesler and they get 2-3 points and your goaltender gives up 3+ goals per game, you don't win. I don't care if they had Recchi, Gill, Madden etc.
-
Gonna look at it from the bright side and say that we STILL are the last Canadian team to win it all. On the other hand I rather have the Bruins winning it over the Leafs but I rather have ANY OTHER TEAM in the leauge winning it over the Bruins. This is hard.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Bruin fans didn't do anything to deserve it, nothing more than we have done. Let them enjoy their moment.
They think they have the hammer, but when your team has 24 Cups and owned you for 85% of your existence, one Cup doesn't matter. I saw the same thing happen with the Red Sox. They thought when they won in 2004 that they had the hammer, then the Yankee fans started making t-shirts counting their rings, etc.
There is no hammer. Only stubborn individuals who will never give in. Today is their day, tomorrow may be ours.
-
I'm happy for Thomas, Recchi, Bergeron and most of all Claude Julien. The rest of them can go blow. And did anyone see Marchand banging the glass and taunting Canucks fans after that fourth goal? Sheesh, what a no-class human turd.
At the end of the day, though, you have to hand it to the Bruins. They were full value in terms of work ethic, determination, and most of all team D. As Habs fans, I think it's fair to note their track record of deliberately injuring or attempting to injure our players, and all the non-suspensions (the Raymond hit was a disagrace). But sour grapes are inappropriate. A lot of their fans posted on Habs boards after Game 7 in Round One to express their respect for our team's guts. Those guys got the breaks but they are a damned strong team - remember they played without their #1 C - and deserve to win. So does the city of Boston, a genuine hockey town, an Original Six franchise with long-suffering fans. Give 'em their due.
I may be overreacting, but I think the Canucks should start shopping Luongo around. At 32 he's not going to get better. And don't come back with his 'untradeable' contract. Some team desperate for goaltending will take him. There is no end to the stupidity of NHL GMs.
Wamsley, you are 100% right. I've been saying this all along. SIGN WIZ AND MARKOV AND WORRY ABOUT THE CAP LATER. That's a Cup-worthy D. And that's what counts.
Luongo came up really short in regards to his reputation. It is now three straight seasons where he has had the opportunity to raise his level and he has faltered every time.
He is big, but not very mobile and that was highlighted by the second goal (a goal that he said was an easy save for him after Game 5 mind you).
If they trade Schneider they are out of their mind. Cheap and essentially not much difference, if not better than Luongo. He has really dented his legacy with this series. If he never pulls out a Cup win, he will always be remembered for putting up huge stats on bad teams and not being able to step up in the playoffs. Fair or not, that is what is going to happen.
-
Can't argue with Thomas being an elite goaltender.. I would go back to Patrick Roy for the last time a goalie was so deserving of the MVP honors... take Thomas off this team and they don't win a round..
How can JS Giguere be not as deserving in 2003? The guy played on an 8 seed and came within one game of the title. Cam Ward? Do the Canes knock out the Habs without Ward? Pure hyperbole based on statistics alone.
-
Vancouver was coined a goalie graveyard by Burke, and it looks like Luongo is the latest to fall. It just took him longer. I don't think he's been abysmal, though; let's remember that he has had the worst offensive support of any goalie in Finals history. Not enough attention is being paid to the Bruins' defence, which has been absolutely sensational all series. Thomas will win the Conn Smythe, but ALL he has to do is make the first save. Incredible. And it's incredible to me that took these guys to game 7 OT. That D is just hermetic.
The bad news for us is that the Bruins, as far as I know, are not going to be any weaker next year, and they will have Cup experience and all the swagger and aura that goes with that. That's the scary thing. A lot of their core is young.
The good news is that the Habs gave them their toughest series. And that says something about our team.
Like I said, I don't blame goaltenders because I think they are mostly a product of their environment, but the best ones can give you a chance in games you don't deserve to win. Luongo didn't give them a chance in any game they were outplayed. When they were outplayed, he collapsed, their 4 losses will be all by more than 3 goals.
I still think they should have started Schneider, contract be damned.
As for the Bruins being young, it doesn't matter. You need fortune to win a Stanley Cup, they just used up a hell of a lot of that fortune in this run. Three OT wins against the Habs, three Game 7 wins. The Canucks losing half their team in the final and Kesler IS playing hurt. The Non-Chara suspension etc.
Everybody thought the Pens were on their way, they have won one round since then.
All this goes to show is that the Habs are a Cup contender RIGHT NOW! Gauthier should sign Wiz and Markov and figure things out later. Take a Colborne like prospect and get deadline help and go for it in 2012. This core is ready to take a shot now.
-
One thing I will say about Vancouver.. they never started running Thomas. You might think that was a mistake, but it is classy. Imagine if Thomas was playing against Boston.. once they were up a few goals or losing a game, thomas would be injured.
Thomas was pushing guys, slashing guy and just butt ended somebody and the Canucks did NOTHING.
-
How would you like to be the Canucks and on the hook for Luongo's contract for another decade?
I am not one to blame goaltenders, but elite goaltenders do not go down that meekly in the Stanley Cup Final.
His legacy has been destroyed for the media/fans. How good of a team does he need to play on to win a Cup?
Ouch...................................get out the butter Vancouver's TOAST!
Well at least we lost to the Cup champs
ONCE in regulation to the Cup champs.
-
I'm not a goalie expert, but shouldn't he be in butterfly right there? I mean, Bergeron might have picked the corner anyway, but Luongo didn't look set at all.
His puck tracking on that play was awful. You have to play with more urgency on a play like that, he didn't even move.
-
I think this is a fair analysis of the vicious circle that Luongo and the Canucks D fall into. It also explains why when Luongo DOES let in an early softie the Canucks get blown out: the team gets rattled, Loo's support goes erratic, he lets in more goals, etc..
The Bruins are in tough tonight. The overarching series pattern - home wins, road losses - works heavily in Vancouver's favour. You also have to think that the crowd is going to be out of its mind, which will increase the odds of the Canucks getting that ridiculously important First Goal as a result of sheer manic energy. And I just don't believe that, at the end of the day, Luongo is going to stink out the joint in what will be the defining game of his career. He's not a great goalie, but he's better than that. Remember, he was solid for Team Canada under similarly hysterical circumstances.
Look for the Canucks to come out and try to dominate physically in the early going. Whenever they've done that in these playoffs, they've won.
All that being said, Boston has been on balance the better team over 6 games if you factor in the man advantage...it would be an amazing feat for them, but you can argue that they're due to win in Lotusland.
Hell of a series. Should be a hell of a finale.
So much for them scoring first. Luongo needs to stop pucks like that in Game 7.
-
In this instance of Pouliot's worth, many fans seem ready to accept that him not being qualified and allowed to walk away for free is worth the cap space and roster spot gained.
With that I disagree wholeheartedly. He's worth more. I hope Gauthier feels the same.
It's funny, the fans who think he shouldn't be qualified are the same ones who will complain that we got nothing for him.
-
Spilled milk! Fair enough. The issue is less that we suck (we don't - in fact we are underrated) than whether our asset management has been all it could be. But no, this wasn't meant as yet another 'sky is falling'-type post. I've been pretty clear that I like our team as a whole and believe us to be fairly close to contending. Didn't mean to come off as whiny.
What I think is that the Habs have continued to produce a lot of NHL talent from the draft. It isn't always top level talent, but they are always rated highly when it comes to NHLers developed. With that being the case, how many of these guys can you keep and how amazing does an organization have to be to maximize on every single asset?
What did the Wings get for Avery? What did they get for Leino? What did they get for Kopecky? Kyle Quincey? They got a washed up Bertuzzi for Matthias.
Outside of Ribeiro and possibly Grabovski, I think the Habs have jettisoned most of the average assets and kept the right ones. I am always amazed that a franchise strong suit can be turned into a negative. If the mighty Red Wings can continually receive little in return for their depth assets, why is it that the Canadiens are inept for letting mediocre NHLers like Hainsey and O'Byrne walk. The jury is out on LAtendresse and Kostitsyn.
-
I never bought the 'awesome/terrible goalie performances' narrative for a second: both goalies are significantly dependent on team D, as indeed most goalies are. BUT, this is awesome analysis on its own terms - nicely done! Your breakdown of scoring chances is also very interesting, if only because it implies a very real chance for the Bruins in Game 7; after all, they're *bascially* even with Vancouver in chances at Rogers Arena and have dominated them in Boston. Those numbers spin a story of a Bruins edge in the overall series and only marginal home ice advantage for Van. That only holds if we incorporate the PP in the calculus, though.
Bizarre that a 5-on-5 machine like the Bruins has been outclassed at that category, while the powerhouse power-play of the Canucks has been rendered inert
??????It will be interesting if the referees offer up another zero penalty game seven like they did against Tampa who was dominating on the powerplay.
BTW, make that two broken vertebrae for the Bruins this season and zero man games lost for them.
-
The odd thing, though, is the near-total lack of offence that Vancouver has generated over the last four games (a grand total of four goals), including at home. That puts immense pressure on Luongo even if he's having a good night. And it's highly uncharacteristic of this team, which had the league's best offence all season. My faith in the Canucks' ability to win has been rooted in their possession of an extra gear - their ability to simply take over a game and overwhelm the opposition when they have to, rather akin to the Habs of the 1970s. We saw this, for instance, in the second OT against San Jose: Vancouver just turned it up and San Jose had no response. But in this series - maybe due to the loss of Hamhuis and an accumulation of injuries - that extra gear seems to have deserted them.
I think they'll win just because they've been so strong at home. Still, the way the team's main strength has evaporated, you do have to wonder if, just maybe, the Bruins can pull it out.
The Canucks aren't generating chances, but the Bruins aren't really either in Vancouver. This is exactly my point when it comes to judging SV%, goaltending, greatness from stats etc.
The storyline becomes "Luongo great at home, terrible on the road" OR "They have a chance because Luongo is great at home".
Luongo's magnificent Game 5 had FIVE even strength scoring chances and three PP chances for the Bruins.
http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/6/11/2168695/canucks-vs-bruins-scoring-chances-game-5
Thomas' brilliant performance faced ten even strength scoring chances, one on the power play.
That is not fantastic goaltending, it is stingy defense.
Now contrast the home numbers in the series versus the road numbers.
In Vancouver the scoring chances are (even strength in brackets)
BOSTON - 33 (22)
VANCOUVER - 37 (36)
In Boston the scoring chances are
BOSTON - 60 (39)
VANCOUVER - 40 (33)
Is there any shock to see why the Canucks goaltending numbers have gone through the roof in Boston. It isn't because Luongo plays well at home, it is because the Canucks have cut the chances in half when they have the final change. You can also see that Vancouver has been the better 5 on 5 team during the Finals and that the Bruins have been dependent upon the power play to create their chances.
Powerplay shots have been proven to be more dangerous than even strength shots. Every goaltender in the league has a dramatic drop in SV% when even strength is contrasted against power play.
So during the series the Canucks have generated 8 power play chances, the Bruins number is 32!!
Thomas has had to deal with barely over 1 power play chance per game whereas Luongo/Schneider are over 5 per game.
I don't think Luongo has been great, but the Canucks have hung him out to dry in Boston and have protected him well in Vancouver.
You want a storyline in Game 7? If Vancouver avoids the penalty box, they increase their chances to win significantly.
-
I agree that Luongo is erratic and that injuries are finally starting to sink in for the Canucks after smooth sailing over the first three rounds. However, the idea that the team and Luongo cannot bounce back from this dismal result is implausible. They bounced back forcefully in Game 5 AND Boston has yet to win in Vancouver; for whatever reason that last change is huge in this series. The Bruins certainly have a decent shot, but the smart money picks the patterns of the series to continue forward into the deciding game. Canucks in 7 (just as EA Sports predicted
)It's a coin flip in Game 7. It doesn't matter what teams are playing. In a one game sample size anything can occur.
I just don't think Luongo has been great in the games in Vancouver, what I think is that the Canucks have been able to control the matchups and the flow of the game.
The problem is when he is left to fend for himself, he can't channel a big time performance to give the Canucks a chance to win. Not a shutout, but keeping your team down 1 or 2-0, not 3-0 in 3 minutes. Goalies don't give up 8 goals because they sucked. The team in front of him is largely responsible for things like that, but it is the inconsistent positioning that drives me crazy. That Marchand goal was a great shot, but Luongo exposed way to much glove side and all coming off talking major smack about the winning goal in Game 5.
Five times he has been blown out in these playoffs. Five TIMES on the best team in the NHL. Schneider may not have the reputation that Luongo does, but I would go with him. The contract will force them to go with Luongo, but I would not want to go into a Game 7 with the fear that my goalie might not be able to stop a beach ball.
-
Meanwhile, Boston's luck with injuries has been amazing. Yeah, Horton is significant, but that's literally the only body they're down these playoffs. Their defensive depth hasn't been tested at all, aside from Chara's dehydration in Round 1. And it doesn't really matter, since I think Kampfer is okay and available by now after starting the playoffs injured.
I was thinking that with Kesler limping all over the ice. That being said, I would be a hypocrite to mention luck considering the Habs won 10 straight OT games to win a Cup in 1993.
They were fortunate to beat the Habs and I still don't think they have a better team. To watch them win the Cup would irritate the hell out of me.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think Schneider is better than Luongo. I don't like to analyze an individuals testicular fortitude, but how many times is one guy going to meltdown in an important game. It's not even once or twice, we are starting to see a large sample size of these major meltdowns.
Let's just thank god it didn't happen during last years Olympic Final.
-
Trizzak makes a valid point about keeping cheap players with upside. The list of 'headcases' leaving the team, though, is a little disappointing. Three of those guys have gone on to have a quality NHL careers and the other one (Kostitsyn) shows every sign of emerging as a bona fide top-6 forward. (I predicted trouble in the case of Ribs and Grabs; I was surprised by Hainsey's turnaround and Kostitsyn's, although the jury's still out on that one). Of course, it's too simple to assume that those guys would have played for us - it depends on whose roster spot they'd have had to take. Nevertheless, the track record of dumping supposed headcases for marginal return, rather than patiently enduring their growth pains, is a bit discouraging. (Incidentally, you can add Lapierre and Latendresse to the list of young players dealt away while still in development, for what turned out to be poor returns. So: a #1A and 2nd-line C, a top-6 power forward, a #4-5 offensive defenceman, a 6'2 agitator who comes up big in the playoffs, and a talented top-6 winger. Yikes).
The difference between Pouliot and every other name on this list is that those guys tended to be punks: brash young bucks with an attitude of entitlement. This characteristic, of course, reflects inflated self-confidence, which, if properly channelled, can produce a winning mentality. I don't get the sense that Pouliot is this type of kid. Without pretending to have the faintest knowledge of the young man, he seems to me to be more of a Richer type...highly talented but prone to playing soft, then struggling as a result, then getting down on himself, then losing all self-confidence and basically being useless. (Yes, Richer was a better player; I'm just suggesting a similar cast of mind). I wonder if the Habs are enlightened enough, as an organization, to make counselling available to their players? Because I wouldn't fall down in shock to learn that Benny would benefit from something like that.
When did Hainsey become a headcase? They lost him on re-entry waivers when they had some injury problems after the lockout.
-
Boston is getting all of the bounces and the opposing team is getting none (where have I seen that before this playoffs.)
It doesn't matter. They have 6 goals in 6 games. The Canucks are lucky they are still playing.
The least amount of goals registered by a Stanley Cup champion since 1970 is 13 (Dallas 99). That includes all 4 game sweeps.
The Canucks look like a different team than they did all season. I think the injuries are mounting, Kesler looks nothing like the player
he was in the 2nd round.
-
Who's your pick for Game 7? What an implosion early on tonight.
How do you put up that type of effort with the chance to win the Cup? And after all that smack he talked after Game 5!
At least they don't have him locked up until he is 40+ at $5M+ per season.
Has a goaltender ever imploded this badly in a series and still have a shot at winning the Stanley Cup?
-
Yes, they're always that whiny. When I moved here, I was all set to take them onboard as my '(distant) second favourite' team. But I very quickly detected a real undertone of anger and bitterness in the fanbase - which I found weird, because most citites would have loved to have had that team. Then the Bertuzzi thing happened, and I could not believe all the fans rallying to that Neanderthal's side, acting as though HE was the victim, that Moore DESERVED it, that somehow the CANUCKS were the wronged party. Total disinterest in Moore's welfare, total hostility to a man who had just been robbed of his career. That, combined with the general corporate banality and dismal heritage of the franchise, put me off the team permanently.
Remember, this is the city that booed Team Canada on home ice in 1972 and spurred Phil Esposito to make his great postgame interview/speech.
What explains the panicky, whiny bitterness? As you say, Wamsley, teams like Buffalo and Toronto and Boston have had it at least as bad. Even Calgary had its second Cup arguably stolen from it by a waived goal, a catastrophe for which Vancouver has no parallel. I have two theories:
1. Vancouver is a city full of people who moved here from elsewhere, usually to make money and get ahead in life. It's what you might call an 'acquisitional' or 'aspirational' frontier city. These people do not relate to the language of heritage, love of place, rooted love for a city and (by extension) its team. While in the great hockey cities, the franchise is part of the community's story and in some way a reflection of its identity, in a city that has no story or identity that anyone cares about, the team is little more than a weird kind of consumer good : the fans demand gratification, and absent results they have nothing to fall back on. No history or identity: no 'working class city/team' culture like Buffalo; no 'long-battling, hard-fighting losers' like Boston; no '1967!!' and CBC hype machine like Toronto; no 'amazing heritage and flair' like Montreal. So, all they have is a sense of being ripped off somehow.
2. Maybe this is more plausible. Vancouver suffered 20 years of being a pretty rotten franchise, with zero star players and zero drafting, and one Cinderella run. OK. But then things got interesting. They drafted Linden and then Bure. They went to Game 7 of the 94 Finals and lost. The team then went crazy loading up on talent - Bure, Messier, Mogilny - and was supposed to dominate the league. Instead, they bombed: crashing, devastating, humiliating disappointment. They proceeded to recover and build another supposed powerhouse under Burke. The result? More crashing, devastating, humiliating disappointent. They then recovered and built a third supposed powerhouse under Gillis. The result? Crashing, devastating, humiliating defeats - twice - by Chicago and a near-death experience in Round One this season, along with an eerily similar two games in Boston.
It could be that that weird combination of, first, extended sheer suckage and second, repeatedly inflated hopes followed by crashing disappointments (94, Messier, Burke, the Chicago serieses) in rapid succession, has led to a unique fan psychology. I can't think offhand of another city that's endured that particular pattern. Even Ottawa only had to endure ONE basic edition of the team being held out as contenders only to watch them fail; they didn't rebuild over and over with the same result. Imagine how we'd feel as Habs fans if we went through the neurotic psychodrama of 2009 over and over. Yikes.
I like the sense of being ripped off somehow
That kills me.I don't know if the trauma of having a good team disappoint is a good excuse. They have made 3 trips to the Stanley Cup Final and two since the Habs last played in one.
Just because your team has 90+ points, it doesn't entitle you to championships. Sometimes a sports team perpetually leaves you at the alter and you just deal with it. I mean their worst playoff defeat is not even in the top 25% of stomach punch losses.
-
funny how other organizations do get their players to commit and by doing, are able to buy the UFA years from their players at cheaper rates and its funny how other teams are able to get their players to take home town discount as RFA. It's also no coincidence that those organizations are now the successful ones, rather then being the middle of the road team the habs have been for far too long. Chicago signed their 2 stars up front and 2 big dmen to long term commitments at a much more reasonable rates then they would cost if they hit UFA. Philly - Ditto, Detroit - Ditto, Vancouver - Ditto. Had Tallon not screwed up his RFA tendersheets at the deadline and bid against himself for Huet and Campbell, the hawks would have be the class of the league right now - perfect example of how tanking for so long at the death of a horrible owner can turn a franchise around. Had Philly not been so stupid and signed a real goalie three years ago, they would also have been a killer team in the playoffs given the guys the have locked up.
Successful organizations with a long-term view are cognizant of locking up their assets. These organizations make a commitment to the player and in return their players have taken less money then would have been available on the open market. If you sign your young prized assets, best case scenerio is you have guys signed at a discount from market rates. Worst case is that you proabably still have a movable asset - as long as you don't sign players to stupid Gomez/Redden/Drury/Horcoff kind of deals.
The habs continue with one year deals and IMO that puts more pressure on the player and serves as a distraction to both the player and the team. Then when we lose our guys to UFA's we end up trading our #2 picks to fill holes that wouldn't have been there (i.e. Streit), had they locked up guys before they hit UFA status. Right now we have an oppertunity with young guys like Subban/MaxPac/Price/Eller to have that closeness within the team and these guys may be willing to take less. You don't think Zetterberg/Datszyk/Holmstrom/Franzen couldn't have gotten more if they went to the open market?
With AK46, I think the situation was probably more the organization not wanting to offer him an increase - I'm basing this more on how little JM used AK46 on the PP, shifted him around the lineup for mistakes then most other non-performing front line players and had a guy who scored 2 PP goals all year and another scrub with no hands a regular fixture on the PP, as well as the flippant comments JM made when AK46 got off to a hot start. Instead of trying to be more apprecaitive of his play and being more positive in the media, was dismissive and commented that it is a contract year. I know if I made that kind of comment to one my high performing staff members, they'd be pretty pissed, so why would you expect a pro athelete to be any different???
Lastly, if the habs signed AK46 for $4m-$4.25M 4 years and he scores 25 goals/year and brings his physical game I'd be satisfied - to me that is the worst case scenerio for AK46, as he has become a much more complete player and I really don't get the hate for him by some on this forum. How many people were complaining about Gionta and Cammy when they weren't producing and seemed to be in neutral for parts of the season (Cammy in particular?) How many were demanding they be moved. Gomez and Cammy have taken as many bonehead penalties as AK46 has and made a lot of just dumb plays during the stretches that they struggled (in Gomez's case that was most of the season).
Anyway, I really think that he is going to break out to be a 30-35 goal scorer, in which case you would have gotten a bargain, now we'll probably see another guy walk away for nothing.
Is it just me? Or is this full of confirmation bias.
Crediting Chicago for one thing and then glossing over a MASSIVE screwup. Crediting Philly and then glossing over the fact that they don't have a goalie.
Why do I think that if Montreal had locked in young players that they would get raped for tiny things like failing to tender offer sheets or acquiring a competent goaltender.
You are also projecting scenarios with zero information. Maybe Meehan and Kostitsyn were asking for $5M per to buy up their UFA seasons, maybe Gauthier offered what you thought would be the right deal and AK rejected it. You don't buy up UFA season cheaply. If Kostitsyn hits the UFA market next season after an average AK46 season I can guarantee you his bottom floor is $4M. So why the hell would he take that guarantee when it is barely better than his potential UFA salary floor. UFA inflates worth.
If the Habs had done with Price what the Hawks did with Toews and Kane in February 2009 (let's go low, so 5 years @ 4M) they would have paid $4M per for his awful 2010 and paid $8M for the 2011-2012 season. Instead they paid $6.5M and not $12M for those same 3 seasons. After next season if Price gets a 5 year $5M deal (a $2.25M raise) it will cost the Habs $31M for 8 years, in your scenario he would cost somewhere between $35 over the same 8 seasons if he signed for a $1M raise after year 5.
They control him for his RFA years and they control his salary inflation. That was the benefit of the lockout. It allows the Habs to survive overinflated UFA paychecks that Gionta and Cammalleri were awarded, let alone Gomez.
Locking up players like Toews and Kane for 2 extra UFA years is not cost effective and I don't understand why teams do it. It is monkey see, monkey do.
-
I will ba amazed if Vancouver starts Schneider. That team has made Luongo an absolute defining centrepiece. For them to start Schneider is to humiliate Luongo and invite all sorts of problems going forward, possibly even in the dressing room. The only way Schneider starts is if Luongo gets pulled again tonight IMHO.
But they already did. In round one. They rolled the dice on those problems moving forward and because the result was favourable it seems to have been swept under the rug.
I don't understand the difference now. When the season was on the line in round one they ditched Luongo in almost the exact same circumstance.
BTW. C.C is Vancouver always this effin whiney?
There are articles popping up all over the place about their tortured history.
I don't see it. When contrasted to franchises like Boston, Toronto, Buffalo, San Jose, St. Louis, Ottawa etc. their burden of disappointment is nothing. Jesus, they are bringing up the Neely trade. IT WAS 25 YEARS AGO!! Why aren't they mentioning the fact that they acquired Luongo for essentially Trevor Linden and Alex Auld while getting to keep Bertuzzi's prime. They picked up Markus Naslund for Alex Stojanov.
Shut up and enjoy being two wins away from the Cup. Pathetic self loathing. NO, I don't feel sorry for you Vancouver.
Permanent Rumour Thread
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
Definitely. Create an identity and stick to it.
The problem is the knee jerk reaction. If the Devils switched jerseys with the Habs from 1995 to 2004 the fans would have complained along the whole way even thought they won three Stanley Cups. They would complain about the lack of offense, they would complain about Brodeur during off seasons and they would complain when they went out early to inferior teams. There is a consistency and familiarity that goes into building a team and a game plan.
One day the Habs will return to that model, maybe Emelin and Weber are better than we think and Gauthier expects them to bridge that gap. Remember, Streit was viewed as a non-factor entering 2008 and Subban was expected to be a 6th defenseman last season.