TruthMonger
-
Posts
110 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TruthMonger
-
-
I think people are forgetting the obvious here. Perezhogin is not that well hyped. The only people that thought/think he can be a future superstar is Habs scouting and fans.
Not entirely true. He's graduated from prospect status, but when hockeysfuture.com had him listed last year, he was the #1 prospect in the organization and was ranked an 8.5, which falls between:
9 - Elite forward / defenseman / goaltender -- possesses the potential for greatness, a perennial All-Star throughout his career. Think Joe Sakic, Jeremy Roenick, Niklas Lidstrom, Rob Blake, Dominik Hasek, Martin Brodeur.
8 - First line forward / No. 2 defenseman / No. 1 goaltender -- players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential. Think Patrik Elias, Keith Tkachuk, Mattias Ohlund, Adam Foote, Sean Burke, Olaf Kolzig.
Now, I'm not saying hockeysfuture is clairvoyant, but they spend more time immersed in hockey than I do, and if they say there's a possibility that he could develop into a player whose skill falls somewhere between Sakic and Elias, then I'm willing to give him another year or two to develop...
-
I'd say Allison should be at the top of that list ... his only Knock is his speed but like Riberio he can work on that.
Work on his speed? The man is 31 years old and generally accepted to be one of the slowest guys in the league. I doubt he's going to suddenly find some extra burst. He was -18 last year (2nd lowest on the team) and while the Laffs were under .500 in games he played, they were 13-1-2 in the ones he missed.
Ribeiro, at age 26, may actually benefit from his power skating classes but even that isn't clear yet.
-
I am beginning to wonder if BG is going to sign Dumont. Hearing all these rumours floating around makes one think that maybe there is some truth to it. As far as Marleau and Briere goes, I think that is just wishful thinking, because they would really upset the chemistry of the team with what you would have to give up to get them.
One thing I can't understand is, why would Washington take on Bonk's $2+million salary when they could go after someone like Dumont or Carter for the same amount of money. It just doesn't make any sense to me. For them to say, "Oh okay Bob we'll take your overpaid underachiever to relieve some of your cap space so you can improve your team."
Can anyone explain the logic of them taking on Bonk.
The only logic would be if guys like Carter or Dumont were only willing to look at multi-year deals but Washington felt they weren't worth multi-year deals. Since Bonk is going into his last year, his salary would help them reach the floor this season but would leave them with the flexibility to sign bigger free agents next summer. Not saying this is the case, but it is one explanation...
-
That is exactly right, he is a bonifide superstar
Briere had a great 48 game stretch last year, but I still have some trouble conferring "superstar" status on a guy who's only broken the 30-goal plateau once and has never exceeded 65 points in a season. For his career, he's actually only a 0.7 ppg player, which is better than Ribs (0.55) but worse than Koivu (0.81). Let him get in a couple of full seasons at the level at which he played during last year's half-season, and then start calling him a superstar.
-
Ryder for Gomez???
Works for me. That is, IF Ryder continues to stalwart us.
Stalwart is an adjective which means dependable and loyal. I'm thinking you meant to go the other way with that one...
-
I don'T think ryder wants a multi year contract...he would become a UFA at the end of next year
Are you sure? He'll be 27 this time next year. The CBA gives UFA status according to the following provision:
"in 2007-08, a player age 28 with four accrued seasons or with seven accrued seasons"
Next year, he'll have the 4 accrued seasons (since they credit the lockout year), but will fall short of the age limit (which drops to 27 for 2008-09). His time in the ECHL and AHL don't count towards the 7 years... Unless I understand this wrong, he's not unrestricted for another two seasons (including the upcoming one)...
-
My prediction: Ryder never makes it to arbitration. He signs a 2-year, $5 million contract.
-
unless for cap issues you use the average?
That's how it works.
-
No doubt that Gagne said " if Montreal ever makes him a RFA offer sheet, he hopes Philly will match." However with the ammount of cap room we have right now, 11 million if I am not mistaken we could possibly make him an offer that Boby Clarke could not match. I am not sure of where the flyers lie in cap room but I know it's not much. Also if the habs trade Aby it adds another 1.9 mil to our cap room. I think Gagne would come here and thrive here, it's just a matter of making the deal sweet enoough. I say offer him a 1 year 5 million dollar contract loaded with production bonuses.
We have 11 million in cap room if we decide not to sign Ryder, Aebischer, or Perezhogin and decide not to replace them either. Realistically, unless we trade Aebi or Zed, we have at most 6 million in room. So you would suggest overpaying Gagne at $6 million so that Philly can't match, even though it'll cost us four 1st rounders and any future flexibility we may have?
-
I think people are forgetting that we are in the NEW NHL now, and it will be a lot more difficult to build a team through draft picks.
The opposite is true. The cap makes it more important to draft well. The reason Ottawa lost Chara was that he was eligible to become a free agent. Free agents are more expensive than internally developed players. So a policy of building through free agency only works if you supplement a couple of good pick-ups with lots of inexpensive home-grown talent. I agree that teams will not be able to hold onto their home-grown talent as long as they used to, which actually places an even greater emphasis on drafting well to keep the pipeline full. Seven years before free-agency is still a pretty good period to be able to hold on to players...
-
it is a myth to think that once you make the playoffs anyone has a real chance of being a true contender.
I respectfully disagree. While Edmonton may have been the only 8th seed to advance that far, Cup finalists in the previous 3 seasons included Calgary in 2004 (6th seed), Anaheim in 2003 (7th seed), and Carolina in 2002 (3rd seed from winning their division, but actually last in wins and points among all 16 playoff teams).
And my point wasn't even that underdogs have contended historically (though they clearly have). It's that the salary cap has begun and will continue to create NFL style parity that will allow more teams to compete in any given year. It's clear enough that top teams like Ottawa, Detroit, and New Jersey cannot afford to keep all of their free agents, and that many of these players have gone to "lesser" teams. If these teams make the playoffs, they will have a better chance of upsetting the top seeds than they did before the cap. I just hope Montreal is one of the teams to make the playoffs...
-
Right now the Habs are still developing a solid nucleus that will be the main ingedients in any championship drive. They are not a serious contender....... to think otherwise would have to be defined as wishful.
Not really. The cap will continue to push parity. Can you honestly say that last year's Habs couldn't compete with the Oilers, a team that had only two points more in the standings (and less wins)?
Are we favourites? No way. But any team that makes it into the playoffs can be considered a real contender. And I think we're good enough to make the playoffs.
-
people say we dont have room we have tuns our payroll is about 32 million roughly
By my count, with Ribs coming in at $1.9 million and Ryder now an expected $2.3, we'll be at about $39 million with our current roster filled out by Kost. Shanny would bring us to the cap, and require trading someone if we want a little flexibility...
-
What about 1990? Turner has had some quality years in the NHL.
Yeah...Turner was better than the bucket of bits, but lump him with any three others (with the exception of Koivu), and I'd still rather have Gagné.
-
Imagine 4 years without a 1st rounder for the Habs: no Higgins, no Kostitsyn, no Chipchura and no Price. Would you give all four of these kids for Gagne (or anyone out there)? I wouldnt.
I wouldn't trade those guys for Gagne, but the jury is still out on whether they'll out-value Ovechkin. But there have been stretches where losing some first rounders wouldn't have made a difference. Here are the picks from 1985-2000.
1985: Jose Charbonneau (12th overall)
1986: Mark Pederson (15th overall)
1987: Andrew Cassels (17th overall)
1988: Eric Charron (20th overall)
1989: Lindsay Vallis (13th overall)
1990: Turner Stevenson (12th overall)
1991: Brent Bilodeau (17th overall)
1992: David Wilkie (20th overall)
1993: Saku Koivu (21st overall)
1994: Brad Brown (18th overall)
1995: Terry Ryan (8th overall)
1996: Matt Higgins (18th overall)
1997: Jason Ward (11th overall)
1998: Eric Chouinard (16th overall)
1999: none
2000: Ron Hainsey (13th overall)
With the exception of 1993 and maybe 1987, I'd say we could have traded 12 first round picks for a bucket of sheep testicles and considered ourselves lucky to have pulled off such a sweet deal.
Even with our recent apparent success, the draft is still a crap-shoot. And I'm hoping that our future picks won't include many in the the top-10 (unless we get them through trades rather than bad seasons).
-
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=170315&hubname=nhl
Tis true.
I don't know, I'll admit I wasn't the biggest Arnott fan, but he would have been a good pickup at the relatively fair price of 4.5mil a year.
Looks increasingly like Gainey's choosing to stand pat.
I'm guessing that we would have offered that much money, but were probably looking to give a shorter deal than 5 years...
-
Truthmonger was also lacking a hyphen in "reread"... but I understood what he was saying.
Wow. I had no idea this would lead to a discussion. Good on you all.
"Reread" requires no hypen, though to use one is acceptable as well.
Peace.
Truthmonger
www.wager.ca
-
Yes, but learning some basic grammar like this helps people take you seriously on a board. When I see someone trying to make a point and they have a silly error like that, it makes me wonder about the validity of the whole post if the person can't even distinguish betwee "your" and "you're." It's a very simple thing and just adds respectability if you use them correctly.
I wholeheartedly agree. I find myself unable to continue reading some posts (though special consideration is given to those for whom English is not their first language), because I picture some 11-year-old kid wildly pounding out the first thing that comes to mind. If someone doesn't take the time to reread their post for coherence, grammar, or spelling, why should I take the time to read it?
I'm probably still a jerk for pointing it out, but having seen that mistake so often (or the other one that shows up a lot on this board: misspelling the name of the primary player that the post is about), I just had to poke a little fun. No harm intended...
-
yes your right.
your making an assumption.
Your means "belonging to you".
You're means "you are".
-
I'm not quite sure what the cap hit is when a contract is bought out in the NHL. There hasn't really been any signing bonuses in this league, as they were mainly designed to circumvent the caps in the other pro leagues. I know last year, they were given a percentage off the yearly average of the contract, as well as the contract not effecting the cap.
"Contracts can be bought out for two-thirds of the remaining value for players over the age of 26, and one-third of the remaining value for players under 26."
Presumably, these would be the amounts that count against the cap.
-
And as good as Huet has been, he's no Patrick Roy.
Here's something interesting I just noticed while looking over Roy's career stats. While his playoff performances were ridiculously strong, his worst two regular seasons (statistically speaking), were 1986 and 1993. In '86, his GAA was 3.35 and his save percentage was .875. In '93, his GAA was 3.2 and his % was .894.
-
I've never had as much fun watching hockey as back in '93, but let's not overestimate the quality of that team. Some very good components: Great goalie, solid D, and one good scoring line.
In the end, winning it took a miracle run of overtime wins made easier by the elimination of several strong teams before the Habs had to face them.
Here's the roster:
Jesse Belanger
Brian Bellows
Patrice Brisebois
Benoit Brunet
Guy Carbonneau
JJ Daigneault
Vincent Damphousse
Eric Desjardins
Gilbert Dionne
Paul DiPietro
Donald Dufresne
Todd Ewen
Kevin Haller
Sean Hill
Mike Keane
Stephan Lebeau
John LeClair
Gary Leeman
Kirk Muller
Lyle Odelein
Oleg Petrov
Andre Racicot
Rob Ramage
Mario Roberge
Ed Ronan
Patrick Roy
Denis Savard
Mathieu Schneider
Some good names in there, but a whole hell of a lot of filler (Dionne, Ramage, Ronan, Leeman, etc). All this to say...I don't think the current quality is that far off from that year. Our top line hasn't come close to what Bellows-Muller-Damphousse was able to achieve, but I think there's currently more talent through the other lines...
-
Higgins is really tough to gauge. We really only know two things, 1. he isn't an elite player, but 2. he's better than a 4th liner.
So he's somewhere in the middle there. 3rd line grinder? 1st line plug? Dependable 2nd liner
Who knows? He's a rookie, he hasn't fully defined himself. But I gotta say, I like the current definition.
Not that it necessarily counts for much, but prior to graduating from "prospect" status on hockeysfuture.com, they had Higgins listed as an 8, which is defined as the following:
8 - First line forward / No. 2 defenseman / No. 1 goaltender -- players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential. Think Patrik Elias, Keith Tkachuk, Mattias Ohlund, Adam Foote, Sean Burke, Olaf Kolzig.
-
Originally posted by Roo-AH! Roo-AH!
when he was the LEAGUE'S LEADING SCORER 2/3 of the way through the season
It was the 1996-97 season, and he was leading about 30 games in when he went down. He ended up playing 50 games after returning post-injury.
The Dreadfull Commercial Breaks
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted · Edited by TruthMonger
You can pause, rewind and fast forward the taped segment without affecting the ongoing recording of the live part. The PVR (at least Rogers') also gives any TV picture-in-picture capability.
It's a blast to watch the games in an hour and a bit, though you do lose some of the suspense that builds during time-outs and stoppages.