shortcat1

Look at it this way... she has her foolishnesses and you do too. They can make for interesting situations in your relationship. Life won't be humdrum or boring... there's plusses in that. In a way, it's better that than having someone who's wholly uninterested in hockey (my wife). There'd be no connection there at all. You could enjoy teasing and ribbing each other (if you both have a sense of humour with each other). There you go... Grandpa's wisdom speaks to you.

Why did Calgary choose Daniel Tkaczuk and Vancouver choose Brad Ferrence in '97? Check the THN draft preview... they were rated way higher than Hossa(18), especially Ferrence (10) and Tkaczuk(5). In 1998, why did Vancouver choose Bryan Allen(4), the Rangers choose Manny Malhotra(7), Edmonton choose Michael Henrich(13), Calgary choose Rico Fata(6), Phoenix choose Patrick Desrocherx(14), LA choose Matthieu Biron(21)? They were ALL rated higher and some WAY higher than Gagné. As for Chouinard, he was described as a 'Jean Ratelle-type center, smooth and skilled'. If you know anything about what kind of player Ratelle was, any GM would drool to have Chouinard on his team. I could do the same for Iginla. I remember reading Iginla's description and 'potential'. It was good but somewhat iffy. Ryan was also rated higher than Iginla at the time. So, get real, get the full facts and get it right before you throw stones at someone else's efforts.

Bottom line, I hope that he does stay with Montreal. With the potentially new and offensive-minded league, he'll fit in much better (just like Hainsey). So, if they can keep him, go for it.

It's all a guessing game, in the end but... Streamer's list seems reasonable, just like TSN's. Not a whole lot of difference there anyways (we are talking only about the 1st five) so, I won't make any massive disagreements. I will wander into wonderland for a bit... I'll guess that BG would like to have Johnson and will offer a package for it. Starting with Anaheim, he'll state his obvious intention and reason (why not... Anaheim is in the other conference and would only meet Montreal once every couple of years). A possible package would be: 1) a switch of first picks 2) a 'growing' list of options + second pick, + Plekanec, + Hossa, + third pick, etc. but not ad nauseum or ad 'oblivium' If Anaheim says NO and picks Johnson (as many predict), well... good try. If Anaheim picks someone else (Ryan?) then try again with Carolina and Minnesota - same scenario. The biggest challenge here might be Carolina (same conference but different division, then again, they only meet four times a year). Hey, it's not quite a realistic draft preview but... hey, it could happen. Bottom line though, :ghg:

That's nasty. He's just a youngster. With the proper direction and support, he has the tools with which to build. Daigle was in Ottawa, still under the Montreal press's super-critical eye and the Ottawa press's (and fans) microscope expecting him to perform immediately. He lived something like what Wickenheiser had to go through in the early 80's. The near-second coming of God. For Wickenheiser, the new Jean Beliveau - a new hero for the team. If Wickenheiser had gone to Chicago and Denis Savard to Montreal, I wonder how things would have turned out for both players - very different, I bet. That kind of pressure does stuff to the majority of us - you too, I imagine. With Fleury being in Pittsburg, under less attention/less stress, being one of the group of talented prospects, he should grow to be alright.

Who said anything about icing a line of Higgins, Perezhogin and Plekanec? Of course they'd be best surrounded and taught by those with experience. Your suggested line combinations are fine. As to 'Is it your money?' I suppose I'm trying to look at it from a GM's point of view. He has to be responsible for many things among which is the most efficient way of icing a good team for the owner (to whom he's responsible, in the end). The New York Rangers/New York Yankees way of doing things is not a sure way of reaching the prize. So, what's the point of spend, spend, spend all you got just 'cause you got it to spend? I agree - .:ghg:

I've already got this topic in the prospects section but, having it here may garner a wider response. I know that, in the end, we're only armchair GMs, coaches, players, etc. but it is nice to fantasize, hypothesize and constructively criticize so here you are... I watched Bob Gainey on RDS yesterday. He said that there are two or three kids ready to make the jump to the Canadiens. I guess these would be Perezhogin, Higgins and probably Hainsey. That makes for quite a log-jam for places on the roster. I'm not even going to look at the 'who's on the way out' topic, just the 'who's on the way in'. I've never been a great fan of signing free agents (especially in the last system) as a way to fill a team. I suppose I look at the financial side of it. A LOT of money for what might be a good investment. Usually these free agents come in at the deadline just for a rush at the cup. For many teams, the Canadiens included, there's a sense of "What's the point?" You're just forking out a lot of cash for a possibility of a shot at the cup. Almost invariably this tactic doesn't work. You have to already have a solid shot at the cup and the 'hired gun' should be just an extra to help with the various intangibles of the playoffs. Also, I struggle with the idea that when there are prospects, why not bring them up and let them grow with the team. The management saw possibilities in them so develop those possibilities. Of course, the weakness here is that, if the prospects are not of the quality one needs (even for the long term), then the talent has to be gotten from somewhere else - that leaves only trades or free agents. It's a quandary. The reason for the timeliness of this topic is that the Canadiens have the 4th best prospect group in the league. Perezhogin, Kostitsyn, Higgins, Danis, Chypchura, Plekanec, Hainsey(?), Hossa(?), and the guy they're going to get this year (Johnson, I hope), etc. Also, there's positive talk about Mark Streit who's been described as being as good as (if not better than) Brian Rafalski. If the talent is there, why not grow it for the long term instead of buying shorter term (and financially riskier) fixes? For example, do we need Alex Kovalev - not really. Would he be good to have - sure, but at what cost?

I watched Bob Gainey on RDS yesterday. He said that there are two or three kids ready to make the jump to the Canadiens. I guess these would be Perezhogin, Higgins and probably Hainsey. That makes for quite a log-jam for places on the roster. I'm not even going to look at the 'who's on the way out' topic, just the 'who's on the way in'. I've never been a great fan of signing free agents (especially in the last system) as a way to fill a team. I suppose I look at the financial side of it. A LOT of money for what might be a good investment. Usually these free agents come in at the deadline just for a rush at the cup. For many teams, the Canadiens included, there's a sense of "What's the point?" You're just forking out a lot of cash for a possibility of a shot at the cup. Almost invariably this tactic doesn't work. You have to already have a solid shot at the cup and the 'hired gun' should be just an extra to help with the various intangibles of the playoffs. Also, I struggle with the idea that when there are prospects, why not bring them up and let them grow with the team. The management saw possibilities in them so develop those possibilities. Of course, the weakness here is that, if the prospects are not of the quality one needs (even for the long term), then the talent has to be gotten from somewhere else - that leaves only trades or free agents. It's a quandary. The reason for the timeliness of this topic is that the Canadiens have the 4th best prospect group in the league. Perezhogin, Kostitsyn, Higgins, Danis, Chypchura, Plekanec, Hainsey(?), Hossa(?), and the guy they're going to get this year (Johnson, I hope), etc. Also, there's positive talk about Mark Streit who's been described as being as good as (if not better than) Brian Rafalski. If the talent is there, why not grow it for the long term instead of buying shorter term (and financially riskier) fixes? For example, do we need Alex Kovalev - not really. Would he be good to have - sure, but at what cost?

I watched Bob Gainey on RDS yesterday and he said that there are two or three kids who look to be ready to move up. I wonder if Perezhogin will be one of them. I expect so... likely Higgins and Hainsey also. Danis will come up but that's only temporary - till Huet heals up.

Trade Plecanec for a shot at Bourdon? Good grief!!! He's only rated 11th on the TSN website and he's not even top 15th on McKeen's list. He won't go before 5th... no way! If Gainey's staff has him slated for their first choice, they'll get him, no problem.

After the CBA was accepted in principle, I was watching a sports news show on RDS. They did a mock draft lottery with the same 'chances' for each team. The team they picked is the same one that I predict will get Sydney Crosby.... CALGARY FLAMES (to the sorrow of the NHL mucky-mucks... and me too, by the way.) In some ways, it would probably be better for him to work in a small market like that. The INTENSE pressure that would be on him on a regular basis in teams like Toronto, Montreal, New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Detroit and other 'high profile' teams might make an Alexandre Daigle or Doug Wickenheiser out of him. (I always wonder how Denis Savard would have progressed under the intensely critical microscope of teams like that, especially Montreal at the time... would Wickenheiser have blossomed in Chicago??? We'll never know.