Neech

He just comes up with every conceivable trade so he manages to predict the ones that happen!

This is a very one-sided argument; I keep making points, you keep on saying the same thing. ONLY has four 60 game seasons? Can you guess how many more 60 game seasons that is more than Huet has? Alright, it's not worth pointing out all of them. Here is the point (and I hope you manage to respond to it directly): there is a difference between a 27-year-old rookie and a 19-year-old rookie. You can't compare their first four seasons. The 27-year-old is playing out those years IN HIS PRIME, while the rookie is still young and presumably learning. So that is why Huet's first four seasons are not at all comparable to Brodeur's, Roy's, Luongo's or even Price's. The young guy still has a ways to improve, but if Huet hasn't hit his ceiling at 32 then it's unlikely he'll get there. Kapiche? Oh but they do, you just have to do away with your little four seasons idea. So you have a fat ass? Alright then, my mistake, but you just managed to make it your soapbox and avoid the point. Let's take Uwe Krupp as our example then, he played his junior hockey in Germany and yet somehow was drafted at the age of 20. What snide retort do you have now, hhrrrmmmm? Alright, I just scrolled down and saw that Wamsley made these points already and you have all but capitulated, so I'll leave it at that.

Wow, maybe you should sleep on it another few nights. This is what, our fourth or fifth loss in 2008? We've been playing very well of late, but of course you jump on a single loss as the big indicator. We HAVE been beating the teams that we should beat, go back and review the schedule. It's funny how you say 'it keeps happening', do you say that after all of our wins as well? And by the way, this team didn't make the playoffs last year in case you forgot. So that's the main goal this year. You hypocritically say that we are 'not good enough to play tough, physically or mentally' and yet you seem to have lofty expectations of first place and the conference finals. Do you call out Carbo after all the wins as well? Seriously, get a grip. I agree that this week is a big test, but we've been saying the little line 'this is where we find out what we're really made of' for a while now. Every game is a test, and so far I've been pleased overall with how the Habs have responded. Winning this week would be awesome, but losing wouldn't be the end of the world. And I agree that the team overall is to blame for the loss, and the level of our play did drop significantly from the second period on, but it still wasn't all that bad. We were beaten, but it wasn't domination or a complete spanking. We had chances to get back in it, but Lundqvist was there when he was needed, Huet not so much (although he was decent).

Yeah, but now we're turning into the Americans. ) (not that there's anything wrong with that) I'd like to see a couple more Quebecois around here. But winning's the top thing of course.

The thing is is that I can't see Koivu becoming a defensive-minded player. He's already one of our poorer players in our own zone. I agree Koivu doesn't have that many more years left in the tank, but maybe he could have another season like last year's next year. Or maybe this is truly the beginning of the decline and he'll descend into mediocrity, who knows. We have him for one more year after this one, so we'll most likely find out, and that'll probably be it for him in Montreal after that (unless he resigns for little money to stay with us). Or maybe if our organization thinks that his level of play is going downhill then they'll try to trade him in the offseason to a contender.

Yeah, glad to hear it about O'byrne. He was really playing well at the time, but I'm not sure how long it will take him to readjust and get back into the rhythm of playing in the NHL. He may be done for this season with the Habs. And about the Kovalev hit, I never even say a replay that conclusively showed an elbow, not that there isn't one. But I guess it's safe to assume it must have been his elbow judging by Hollweg's reaction.

Yeah, they're comparable and that comparison isn't a stretch (although you could make a worthy comparison with many other teams which would illustrate a different point). What I said is that you stretched his meaning, by saying that such a Cup contender wouldn't miss the playoffs because of average goaltending, while what I took it to mean was that this team could contend for the Cup with good goaltending, but it also could miss the playoffs with a question mark in goal. But anyways, I hope your comparison is apt and that we do in fact have a young team comparable to the Sens of that era (and it looks like it could be), but that Price turns out to be the next Brodeur as well.

I agree that he has a ways to go, but he still has 14 goals this year with a hell of a lot of missed chances. I'd say in 2-3 years will when he'll truly become whatever player he's supposed to be (maybe a 30-40 goal a year guy), but next year we can expect some more improvement from him.

Alright, we'll throw in Locke and a 4th rounder.

I'll agree with that. TSN's goal seems to be to find the stupidest people with the most questionable track records to be the 'experts' and tell us ignorant folk all about the game. Egh, I don't know, that sounds like a case of 'in the good ole days.' Yeah, back then hockey players weren't multimillionaire superstars, but they were also in worse shape, less dedicated to the game year-round, slower, and less skilled. Plus, I'm sure that there were plenty of lazy farts in the league back then, but we only remember the great players. From what I see NHL players give close to 100% almost all of the time, probably the highest in pro sports besides football maybe, where everyone is going balls to the wall each play.

Ryder and Dandy for Hossa!!!!

Ryder has stunk this year plain and simple, you have to attribute some of Koivu and Higgins' poor play to having a dead-weight playing alongside them for a good chunk of the games. Even last year in a 30 goal season he often had very poor performances and has shown he is pretty useless besides the odd goal that he pots. He'll be overpriced to bring back as a UFA and not worth the gamble of having another year like this one. We have better players within the system to take his place (bring Chipchura back up and put Lats back with Koivu for instance), or we could look for a replacement via trade or free agency. I don't think Ryder figures in our long-term plans, he's not worth the cap space.

That's good news, the Sens have had great scouting for a while judging by the players they developed within the system.

No, I will not owe you stitches, get your own. Ok, here are the goalies that YOU mentioned in that initial post: Brodeur - no comparison with Huet, obviously Luongo - not much playoff success (although more than Huet), but also clearly in another league Khabibulin - has started many seasons, has won a Cup Dipietro - has started complete seasons and is currently better than Huet Vokoun - has started complete seasons, around Huet's level (I'd say V. is better) Kipprusof - has started complete seasons and has playoff success Giguere - has started complete seasons and has won a Cup Lundqvist - has started a complete season and more than Huet overall, has more playoff experience along with winning an Olympic Gold, is around Huet's level but I and most others would rate him better See how ALL of them have more experience than Huet, most of them both in starting complete seasons and in playoff experience. Germany isn't a hotbed of hockey, but Kolzig managed to get drafted young. Great talents manage to get noticed wherever they are. I'm not saying Huet isn't talented, he may just be a late-bloomer, but the fact that he was drafted late doesn't work to his defense here, at best it is irrelevant. Dude, listen to your defenses of him. "He didn't get to play because he wasn't the starter." Scott Clemmensen is nodding in agreement; the fact of the matter is that if he was good enough to be the starter then he would have started. He also would have made the leap to the NHL quicker if he was good enough. He would have been drafted sooner if he was good enough. Seriously, you have yet to prove why these facts work to his defense at ALL. We rate Huet's worth based on what he has DONE, not on which breaks he did or did not have. No, I don't think I'm reading out of context here. He said they could conceivably contend for the Cup, and implied that they wouldn't be able to with a question mark in goal (i.e. Price), and this might even keep them out of the playoffs. You stretched his meaning, in my opinion, by saying that a Cup contender won't miss the playoffs because of mediocre goaltending. I think he meant that this team could contend with good goaltending, but questionable goaltending could keep them from even making the playoffs. More like Calgary or maybe Colorado this year than Ottawa or Detroit. I think he used those teams more as examples of bad goaltending keeping back a good team than really comparing our team to theirs.

I agree. I have been on Koivu's back a lot this season, but KoZed is going over the top. My guess is he's a guy who has a scapegoat each year that he wants run out of town. We don't need to trade our captain, we're 4th in the conference.

You must be easily amused. Are you also fascinated by balls of yarn? But ALL of the goalies mentioned have done at least one of the two (I'll get to your little issue of years in the NHL). And it's really not all on the goalie if the team makes it to the playoffs, Luongo's way out of Huet's league but has only won one playoff series because of the teams he's been on. How did I forget his age? I said he was 32, was I forgetful? And it is irrelevant that Huet was drafted so late, except to show that he is not as talented as other goalies (or simply a late-bloomer). And these goalies ARE more proven than Huet whether or not it's his fault that he came into the league so late. Having years in the NHL under your belt = proven, period. Basically your whole point here is irrelevant; it doesn't matter that these other guys got a 'head start,' what matters is that they all have more NHL experience than him. And they're younger. No, the other goalies stats are not comparable to Huet's. They have had playoff success and full years of starting, he has not.

Yeah, this looks like it is a plan to get Price to play vs Toronto. Maybe against the Sens too. Halak really should have been given a start today, I feel bad for him getting the call up just to ride the pine. He's just a pawn in our future plans for Price.

I'm with Saks Avenue on this one. Koivu wasn't that bad today, and he's been good recently. He's hardly the primary target for blame for this loss (not that there really is one, it was a combination of bad plays).

Well you're getting ahead of yourself saying 'if the Habs are a Cup contender,' which next year they certainly are not UNLESS they get stellar goaltending. MAYBE we could survive with average goaltending, I guess we're doing it now, but we certainly won't get 100 points with average goaltending and we won't go anywhere in the playoffs with it either. That's where your comparison with Ottawa and Detroit fails, those teams were good enough to overcome it and get postseason results, whereas we aren't. Not this season, not the next. No, good Sir, it is you who is funny. For starters, you ignored my comment on the playoff success of the aforementioned goalies. But the main problem with your little comparison of the first four seasons of these players is that you forget that Huet is 32 at the end of his first four seasons and has yet to accomplish either durable starting or postseason success. It's one thing not to play many games when you're up and coming in your 20s, but Huet's next contract may very well be his last. Not to mention the fact that these goalies are all better than Huet. Honestly, Huet had that one half-season of excellence and since has been an average to good goalie, around 10th to 15th in the league. And when Huet is anywhere near as good as Hasek was throughout his career, then you can say that his lack of durability is forgivable.

i wouldn't go so far as to say Gorges was our best player tonight, because he made a few cafouillages in our zone in an otherwise solid performance. But I was really impressed with the way he stood up for lil Kosty and then Koivu, he's a good team guy. If I had to choose our best player tonight I'd probably say Markov.

Oh well, we lost, maybe this will take the people on this board down a notch from their crack-induced fantasies about how far this team has come (yep, I love throwing around the crack references). It sucked to blow a lead like that, but we weren't dominated or anything. The tide of the game turned, but we were still in it and it just took a few mistakes to sink our ship. Lundqvist made 3 or 4 game-saving stops, Huet made none. We had some golden opportunities that if we could have buried we would have won. Plekanec had a good game, Kovalev was a off today. I don't see why Carbo split them up and put Kovy with Koivu, as both were not going that great. Koivu wasn't good, but he wasn't bad either, just kind of ordinary. He got stuff happening in the offensive zone, but in our end he is kind of a liability. Higgins was decent. The Quebecois line was strong tonight, Lapierre and Latendresse make a good combo for controlling the puck on the boards. Huet was ordinary, let in a softie, and didn't step up to help us. Our defense wasn't anything special, although Markov had a pretty good game. It's only one game, and I like how this team has responded after a poor performance. Let's see how they fare this week, it'll be tough with the divisional games. The highlight was lil Kosty's shootout goal, that was awesome. You could tell he was really happy but trying not to show it too much, and the team was really happy for him. But then he passed up a wide open shot in the slot on a breakaway, he still needs to grow a bit more confidence in his shot.

Whoa, you are getting ahead of yourself bringing out the Ottawa and Detroit comparisons. We're nowhere near where they have been, being near the top of their conference for a decade or more. This team will not be a Stanley Cup contender without stellar goaltending, but I agree with you that that is most likely going to come from Price. Sorry, I didn't mean to question the infallible KoZed. I disagree with his rankings, Huet would be in the third group of goalies. Every single goalie that you named is much more proven than Huet, they have either had several successful seasons starting the whole way through (which Huet has never done), or had playoff success (which Huet has never done). If Huet was on another team you'd classify him something like Leclaire or Backstrom, but it's hard to look past the home-town bias.

Let's see if we can break the pattern against this team. I'd also like to see Halak get a start. My prediction: 3-2 win Goals: Smolinski, Higgins, Markov

I'd say Valentenko has a shot at playing a bit in the NHL next year if we get hit with injuries, but it's only the year after that he'd be seriously considered for a roster spot. Carle I guess would go in the same category as Valentenko, although for some reason I see Valentenko as having more of an upside. D'Agostini, I dunno if he'll ever be an impact guy in the NHL, but who knows. Emelin sounds like he has raw potential, but we don't even know if he'll come over at all, and afterwords he'd need a few developmental years. And so the list goes on. We really can't rate any of these guys in our core at this point, they're nowhere near their projected potential, which they may never reach. Maybe in a couple of years we'll be able to look at some of them as our 'future core.'

Yeah, Pednault can be pretty dumb, and between the two of them they have some strange mannerisms of speech that you don't hear very often. But sometimes they can be funny when they start to laugh for no reason at all. And I agree about the posters with their names, but it's just a cheap way of getting on TV and everyone knows it. I'm sure it strokes their ego nicely.