Peter Puck

You say that what the government is doing is legal and therefore it is okay and should be kept secret. But by the same logic, what these newspapes did was legal and is therefore also okay, isn't it.

cmon smon You need to post the link to the SI site. After reliving 4 of the worst habs moments I want to read about the leafs and bruins,

The problem with this deal is that the Leafs won't know which Raycroft they got until some time in November. This means that they will be forced to sit pat with their 3 goalies until then. Each of these guys may only be a good backup. If none of them gets off to a good start the leafs will be behind the 8 ball 2 months into the season and they will be forced to trade for a new keeper. Thus having Raycroft a huge downside and only a little upside for the leafs. The leafs could be okay next year if all their gambles pay off. If on the other hand none do they could be competing for the worst team in the league.

"jetsniper" which will soon be available.

I like this pick. We could have got Sanguinetti and I would have been happy with that. But I like the stategy of taking a guy with a huge upside. He may not pan out but he might be a future star defenceman. With a pick like number 16 or 20 I really like taking a gamble.

Try http://www.nhl.com/draft/2006/round2.html

Good move. A 2nd round pick for moving down 4 spots. This is great.

I voted for Vishnevsky but I would be happy with Wishart. I don't want any of the others although I love Sanguinetti if he falls. I'm worried that we won't be able to move up nor down, that these 3 Dmen will be gone as well as the 8 top centres that are available. If that happens I don't think we will get much from the first round.

Okay, now this trade makes a lot more sense. I had thought it was a bit of a steal.

Here are my picks: 1. Niklas Lidstrom - Detroit Red Wings 2. Zdeno Chara - Ottawa Senators 3. Patrik Elias - New Jersey Devils 4. Joe Sakic - Colorado Avalanche 5. Jay McKee - Buffalo Sabres 6. Marc Savard - Atlanta Thrashers 7. Teemu Selanne - Anaheim Ducks 8. Kenny Jonsson - stays in Sweden 9. Rob Blake - Colorado Avalanche 10. Wade Redden - Ottawa Senators 11. Ed Jovanovski - Florida Panthers 12. Brendan Shanahan - Detroit Red Wings 13. Teppo Numminen - Buffalo Sabres 14. Jason Arnott - Dallas Stars 15. Bryan McCabe - Toronto Maple Leafs 16. Dwayne Roloson - Edmonton Oilers 17. Martin Gerber - Toronto Maple Leafs 18. Sergei Samsonov - Edmonton Oilers

ROFLMAO

Perhaps "evaluation" isn't the best word. What I mean is that I form an opinion about the poster, as a member of HW. Certain people consistently post clear intelligent and informative messages. Other people are wildly optimistic about the Habs future and or current situation. Others regularly become (slightly) abusive which I consider highly impolite and inappropriate here. Some people take things (or themselves) too seriously - although we are passionate about the Habs, what we post here is not really going to change anything. I make judgements based upon what people hacve written, including their grammar and spelling. For example, I read everything MONTREAL posts because he wrtes well, is well informed and doesn't go off on rants when someone disagrees with him. There are some others whose posts I may skip due to their previous record (not you shortcat1). I hope this makes clear what I mean by "evaluation".

I have to say that grammar and spelling do matter. Over time, as I read a member's posts, I develop an evaluation of the poster. This evaluation is mainly built on the points made and the topics addressed. However, the other information I have to form my evaluation is the spelling and grammar used. Of course, I try to make allowances for the fact that many people are using their second (or third) language. The fact remains, though, that we are all judged on our spelling and grammar whenever we write anything. There is naturally less emphasis placed on these in a computer posting than a letter. Postings are not intended to be a testament to one's knowledge of the English language but a certain level of care is just courtesy. I understand that people are typing quickly and off-the-cuff but when someone repeatedly makes the same simple mistakes they betray their unfamiliarity with the rules of grammar. Even if English is your second language you should try to improve it. I studied French for many years and still greatly appreciate it when someone points out that I don't understand some rule of syntax, grammar or spelling. If someone doesn't care about the errors in his posts that is perfectly fine. However, people should be aware that these errors play a part in everyone's evaluation of the poster. Okay, feel free to mock me for the spelling and/or grammar mistakes which I am sure are in the above diatribe.

TSN is reporting that Alain Vigneault is the new Vancouver head coach. I didn't think he did very well while he was with the Habs. We'll see what he has learned in the last 6 years.

Hockey's future has posted their preview of the Habs draft.

Buying out Bonk is not a good plan and I can't see Gainey doing it. The fact that we could spread the cost over 2 years is not really a good thing. We will probably have a better shot at the cup in 07-08 than in 06-07. Also, while we would save $800,000 (or $400,000 for each of 2 years) we would need to spend that savings on another player. I don't think we can get as good a player as Bonk for $800,000. While Bonk didn't produce many points last season he played very well defensively. He still has good upside. I also want to make another point about the cap. Saving money is only useful if we are actually going to spend our savings, Saving versus the cap is only relevant if we spend near the limit. If Gainey wants to get one or more expensive free agents and we start to bump up against the cap then by all means make trades or even buyouts to get us some space. But I not at all sure this is our plan. Many have suggested we should stand pat or only pick up one medium priced UFA. To me this seems more likely. If that is what he is planning then the cap and our cap space isn't very important. We just need enough space to have the freedom to pick up some palyers at the trade deadline. In summary, it seems to me many are overemphasing the cap at the expense of the more important question of how good players are and how much they will help us.

ROTFL

At the time Montreal and Edmonton aready had agreed that we would give up a 4th or 5th round pick in exchange for Julien. The arrangement was a 5th round pick unless Montreal made the playoffs (which we did) in which case it was a 4th round pick.

My point is, even if Arnott wants to come to Montreal, I don't see any reason why he would sign a contract before July 1. He obviously knows that he can come to Montreal if he wants. I don't see him signing with Dallas in order to come to us. If he wants to come to us, it makes more sense for him to wait and sign after July 1. That way he can see what all the offers are. Even if he has already decided he wants to come to Montreal, he is better off waiting until after July 1. That way he comes to a team that has more assets (not having traded anything to get him) and so his new team should do better next year. In summary, I think it is not impossible for him to be in Montreal next year but I don't see us trading for the right to sign him before July 1.

Bit why would Arnott want to sign before seeing what other teams are willing to offer. I could see it if he wanted to stay in Dallas...

Tony wanted to know whether Murray signed a two-way deal.

You missed Cherry's point. He was saying that the league wants to penalize tired players who shoot the puck into the crowd to get a breather and/or relieve pressure in their zone. Then he said that what has been happening is that the puck takes a small bounce and guys under no pressure and not tired end up putting the puck over the boards. He illustrated this with scenes of Campbell and Markov being penalized when they obviously weren't trying to stop play. He pointed out that these penalities were vital in determining the outcome of playoff series. Cherry is exacly right. While it is not always possible to tell when a player shoots the puck intentionally into the crowd it is often possible to see that it is entirely accidental. I still don't see why the league feels players should get an automatic 2 minute penalty for shooting the puck over the boards but not for going offside on a rush. Indeed, even if you intentionally commit an offside the only penalty is the faceoff being held in your own end. Why is that?

My worry is that if we keep both Aebisher and Huet then there is no room for Danis. In my opinion its better to keep Danis who has a big upside. I think Aebisher is a known quantity and we can get something for him if we sign and then trade him. If we keep both Aebisher and Huet I am pretty sure we will lose Danis for nothing.

No this is a bad rule. Taking discression away from the refs is a mistake. This rule leads to a 2 minute penalty for a simple mistake. In some situations (when already on the PK, when in overtime or late in a close game) this is a severe penalty. The punishment often badly outweighs the crime. For those who say that it keeps the game going I have to ask: Why don't we impose a 2 minute penalty for anything that leads to a stoppage (except possibly a goal?). Maybe going offside should be 2 minutes in the box: that would sure cut down on offsides. And what about all those palyer shooting pucks into the crowd in the offensive zone. To be fair it seems the penalty for mis-hitting a slapshot into the crowd should be 2 minutes. Or what about defensive players deflecting shots into the crowd? Perhaps goalie should not be allowed to cover the puck without taking a minor? In reality what happened was that sometimes players would shoot the puck over the glass to relieve pressure and that is bad for the game. To prevent this the league over reacted. They should just encourage refs to call 2 minutes when the refs feel it was done intentionally. Virtually every other penalty is up to the refs discression and this should be too. I do like the idea of preventing a team from making a change after it shoots the puck out of play. That is a small penalty and yet significant enough to discourage the stoppages.

Quite a few people have said that Streit won't be back next year. I'm going to go on record and say that he will be back. The only way I see him leaving is if he is thrown in as part of a trade. He had a decent rookie season and doesn't cost much. We don't have any prospects who can be counted on to step up and fill his spot. Even if we sign a big name Dman we will still need some depth. In that case he won't probably get many minutes but he will still be here. His last quarter season he was fine to good and I see no reason to get rid of him. I doubt Gainey and Carbonneau will either.