Easy Ryder Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Jacques Martin is having a free card here but he is one of the worst bench coach i've seen. Montreal ended Colorado game with 7 players on the ice for that i give the benifit of the doubt but a 5-3 PP, Gionta comes back and Martin doesn't send anyone ?? Plekanel follows the game and jumps in. There are other second guessings around but Laraque in Calgary with 1:30 minutes to go, breaking Price streak after two hot games, stick with 4 line and 6 D, Moen on the first line, continuous line changes, and just my opinion a system that doesn't fit the players in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Well that didn't take too long. It's been 7 games people, relax. Thye have actually played pretty well in all but 1 game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The issue is not that we let guys get away as UFAs. Every team does that, and this has become another one of those silly red herrings that fans and media throw around, listing the guys we let go without mentioning the guys we added. It's a mug's game designed to make Gainey look stupid. No, the issue is partly that we failed to get much back for Souray and Komisarek - two guys on crappy teams who would have bagged HUGE returns - and also lost Beachemin, Ribeiro, Hainsey and Grabovski while getting little back. But the real point, as I repeat ad nauseum, is the absence of any elite talent developed from within. ANY franchise in that position is going to have to start resorting to patch-up jobs and overpaid UFAs after a while. This is the trap Gainey's fallen into. I dont completely disagree with what you are saying, you seem to be the closest I've seen posted yet. All the people complaining abot letting UFA's walk are a tad confused IMO. Sure, trade Souray, Striet, Komi, etc, then what? umm more draft picks they dont know how to use or develop, great idea peeps. Then it would be the GM who cried wolf every year. i.e. Bob sells the "this year we will compete", then at the trade deadline deal the players who were needed to compete with? Bob would most likely already been fired by now had he done that once, let alone twice or 3 times like everybody in hindsight says he should have done. After all the Habs would have won the Cup several times had Bob not traded away Souray, Striet, Komi, etc. Now think aboot Bobs trouble signing UFAs. Do you think Mara, Gill, Moen, etc would have signed with the Habs if they routinely shipped off all the would be UFAs at the trade deadline? The problem isnt letting UFAs walk at all. The real problem is Bob signing slightly better fillers than the 1's in Hamilton. Think aboot it: the Habs lost Grabs because of Smoke and Chips still isnt ready and is possibly ruined, Stewart still isnt ready because of Kosto, OB could be further along if not for Brisbois, Dandy took another AHLers spot so theres another prospects spot gone, etc. Basically all of Bobs filler signings should never have been done. Thats the problem, it leaves the prospects in the AHL to long and the end up rotting and not improving to there should have been potential. Now consider this: if the Habs are going to go with Price hell or high water and he doesnt look like a Stanley Cup goalie than why is Bob signing guys and selling the we will compete nonsense? As long as they are going with Price no matter what than as many prospects should be playing for the Habs as possible. Sure the team would be nowhere near as good, but thats how you build a perennial cup contender - by sucking for a few years and letting the prospects get NHL experience so when you do get to draft in the top 5 all of your previous draft picks have several years of NHL experience. Look at the Hawks and Blues. They started playing quite a few rookies, which led to them getting several great high picks (who werent NCAA and acould actually play right away), and the rookies they used to get the high picks now have several years NHL experience and are almost considered vets now. Its the fillers Bob keeps signing that's messing things up. Not failing to trade away would be UFAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) So maybe you would like to tell us who he should sign long term at cheap dollars this year? Metropolit? bergeron? henry? glumac? who for crying out loud. Last year he did not sign any one for a very good reason, you may not agree with it but it was his choice, i think he was right so quit beating this dead horse. There is nobody to sign right now. I'm not talking about right now, I'm talking about over the past 3 seasons. To answer your question...How about Carey Price??? As far as our system is concerned, our young guys need to be followed more closely. There must be a good reason why most of our prospects haven't panned out! Edited October 19, 2009 by Habsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I dont completely disagree with what you are saying, you seem to be the closest I've seen posted yet. All the people complaining abot letting UFA's walk are a tad confused IMO. Sure, trade Souray, Striet, Komi, etc, then what? umm more draft picks they dont know how to use or develop, great idea peeps. Then it would be the GM who cried wolf every year. i.e. Bob sells the "this year we will compete", then at the trade deadline deal the players who were needed to compete with? Bob would most likely already been fired by now had he done that once, let alone twice or 3 times like everybody in hindsight says he should have done. After all the Habs would have won the Cup several times had Bob not traded away Souray, Striet, Komi, etc. Now think aboot Bobs trouble signing UFAs. Do you think Mara, Gill, Moen, etc would have signed with the Habs if they routinely shipped off all the would be UFAs at the trade deadline? The problem isnt letting UFAs walk at all. The real problem is Bob signing slightly better fillers than the 1's in Hamilton. Think aboot it: the Habs lost Grabs because of Smoke and Chips still isnt ready and is possibly ruined, Stewart still isnt ready because of Kosto, OB could be further along if not for Brisbois, Dandy took another AHLers spot so theres another prospects spot gone, etc. Basically all of Bobs filler signings should never have been done. Thats the problem, it leaves the prospects in the AHL to long and the end up rotting and not improving to there should have been potential. Now consider this: if the Habs are going to go with Price hell or high water and he doesnt look like a Stanley Cup goalie than why is Bob signing guys and selling the we will compete nonsense? As long as they are going with Price no matter what than as many prospects should be playing for the Habs as possible. Sure the team would be nowhere near as good, but thats how you build a perennial cup contender - by sucking for a few years and letting the prospects get NHL experience so when you do get to draft in the top 5 all of your previous draft picks have several years of NHL experience. Look at the Hawks and Blues. They started playing quite a few rookies, which led to them getting several great high picks (who werent NCAA and acould actually play right away), and the rookies they used to get the high picks now have several years NHL experience and are almost considered vets now. Its the fillers Bob keeps signing that's messing things up. Not failing to trade away would be UFAs. An interesting perspective, but I tend to think it's wrong. Andrei Kostityn was brought up at age 20. Sergei, at age 20. Plekanec at 22. Higgins at 21. O'Byrne at 23. Stewart at 22. Pacioretty at 20. And do you honestly believe that Gainey would ship ot a young C like Grabovski just because he has Smolisnki signed to a one-year deal? Come on. In fact he gave Grabs a chance and Grabs alienated himself. (He should have been retained and mentored, but that's another story). So I don't think there is a pattern of Habs youth rotting away in Hamilton at all. The problem is that our young players players have turned out to be duds, pure and simple. Would Higgins have somehow become a star if he'd been brought up two years earlier? More likely: he is not star material and never was (or else, he needed much stronger mentoring within the system to help him become that). Why would having been brought up at age 21 instead of 22 ensured that Pleks scored more than 39 points last year? Would that have made him less of a flake? Why? Pacioretty - he'd be so much better if he'd been brought up at 19 instead of 20? With respect, your post seems to me to be an elaborate way of sustaining the mythical belief in the Habs' young talent. 'Oh, these guys suck, but if we had called them up when they were even LESS ready, they'd become stars!' This is a complicated exercise in denying the terrible truth: our system has been mediocre all along. Bringing up mediocre talent in a mediocre developmental organization wouldn't make a lick of difference - except that it *would* be more likely to destroy players forever (look at what almost happened with O'Byrne). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The problem is that our young players players have turned out to be duds, pure and simple. Unless they continue to do the "Ribeiro" and mature elsewhere. Montreal can't develop because the culture is too difficult for players to succeed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.