The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Are you the same guy that bad mouthed Plekanec and Eller when they first showed up. I see somebody is going after Murray as well as Drewiske today. How about we give these guys a chance to play for a year or so before we decide what their future might be. What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Drewskie's a weird case - a permanent black ace, who the team appears reluctant to use in any situation under any, ever. What's odd is not this lack of faith in his abilities, but this keeping him around on the big club rather than assigning him to Hamilton despite that fact that he obviously has absolutely zero role, now or in the future, with the big league team. Can't recall the last time I've seen that. Uh, correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Drewskie has been hurt since training camp. I think if healthy he would be our 7th defenseman ahead of NB. I would say that he has a very limited role, but a role when healthy...until a more attractive option presents itself to Bergevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Drewskie's a weird case - a permanent black ace, who the team appears reluctant to use in any situation under any circumstances, ever. What's odd is not this lack of faith in his abilities, but this keeping him around on the big club rather than assigning him to Hamilton despite that fact that he obviously has absolutely zero role, now or in the future, with the big league team. He's cheaper than most youngsters on their entry-level contracts, that's why he stays up (and why he'd be claimed if he were to be waived). It's a money thing (plus they'd rather have Drewiske sit and a youngster play in Hamilton instead of the opposite). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGC21 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Just read that the practice lines in Winnipeg were: Galchenyuk - Plekanec - Gallagher Pacioretty - Eller - Gionta Bourque - Desharnais - Prust Moen - Bournival - Briere White Wow, Briere is now on the 4th line! I think Therrien isn't going to put up with passengers so this is a message to Danny. I still think Desharnais needs to sit in the press box for a few games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Are you sure that is the 4th line?? I see two top lines and two 4th lines. Just read that the practice lines in Winnipeg were: Galchenyuk - Plekanec - Gallagher Pacioretty - Eller - Gionta Bourque - Desharnais - Prust Moen - Bournival - Briere White Wow, Briere is now on the 4th line! I think Therrien isn't going to put up with passengers so this is a message to Danny. I still think Desharnais needs to sit in the press box for a few games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Are you sure that is the 4th line?? I see two top lines and two 4th lines. But that's a bit unfair to Prust and Bourque...those guys are legitimate 3rd liners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 But that's a bit unfair to Prust and Bourque...those guys are legitimate 3rd liners. yeah, but given the way DD is playing, it's a fourth line. Personally, I'd rather have Bournival centre Bourque and Briere. The kid created some chances and showed he has good wheels. Putting him with guys that SHOULD be able to finish could create a viable third line. On a GOOD team, Prust is the perfect fourth liner. I'd rather sit DD for a few games and have Prust-White-Moen together as a create havoc line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 yeah, but given the way DD is playing, it's a fourth line. Personally, I'd rather have Bournival centre Bourque and Briere. The kid created some chances and showed he has good wheels. Putting him with guys that SHOULD be able to finish could create a viable third line. On a GOOD team, Prust is the perfect fourth liner. I'd rather sit DD for a few games and have Prust-White-Moen together as a create havoc line. We are a good team. Face it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Are you the same guy that bad mouthed Plekanec and Eller when they first showed up. I see somebody is going after Murray as well as Drewiske today. How about we give these guys a chance to play for a year or so before we decide what their future might be. I am talking about "he has obviously got zero roll now or in the future"--- Your Quote CC in reference to Drewiske. Everybody has to come in somewhere. I don't know particullarly where his potential goes, but he was resigned, thereby affording him a chance. The reference to Plekanec and Eller was to remind you that both had little value in the minds of many when they began their careers in Montreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 yeah, but given the way DD is playing, it's a fourth line. Personally, I'd rather have Bournival centre Bourque and Briere. The kid created some chances and showed he has good wheels. Putting him with guys that SHOULD be able to finish could create a viable third line. On a GOOD team, Prust is the perfect fourth liner. I'd rather sit DD for a few games and have Prust-White-Moen together as a create havoc line. DD absolutely should be benched for a couple games. He's such a one dimensional player that if he isn't producing points, there is no need for him in the line up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 We are a good team. Face it.We are a work in progress with help needed on defence. Wins against two horrible teams and having your goalie standing in your head do not make a good team.For the first time in a long time we have 7 very good young players and Markov and a couple of additional good veterans. Until we win some solid games against top teams, I'd say we are an average to, above average team. I really think we still need a top 3 dman, Emelin back and need to do something about DD, to be considered a good team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 We are a work in progress with help needed on defence. Wins against two horrible teams and having your goalie standing in your head do not make a good team. For the first time in a long time we have 7 very good young players and Markov and a couple of additional good veterans. Until we win some solid games against top teams, I'd say we are an average to, above average team. I really think we still need a top 3 dman, Emelin back and need to do something about DD, to be considered a good team. Damn. Didn't know there were only 3 good teams in the whole league. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Montreal has one of the best one two D-scoring punches in the league. I only say "one of" because I can't think of anyone that has two offensive blueliners better than Subban and Markov. They proved this last season by being #1 and #4 in all D scoring in the league. The next best offensive D duo? Cody Franson and Dion Phaneuf at #8 and #10. This season Markov only has two points but hey, sample size. We are certainly in no rush for an offensive top three D. A defensive top three D? Maybe. Subban is clearly an all-star on both sides and Markov is wildly inconsistent due to his injuries on his defensive play. Gorges and Emelin are more second pairing guys. If the team improved on the third pairing I think we're better than above average. I think my issue with people saying we need another top three D is that unless you're patient with Beaulieu to develop into that, you'll have to be prepared to pay for a Jay Bouwmeester type. Do you really want to put that much of our cap on the D? This is why I still press for patience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I missed a few games, but on paper, stats and rankings Habs look darn good, especially 2-1 on West Coast, so far. Diaz seems to be doing quite well, nice to see Beaulieu got a game in, Markov must be playing very well, he is playing lots and numbers look good. Many are very worried he will get worn down, but am sure coachs also factor that in to long season success. Too bad 48-51 still on everyone's shit list, but still very very early in season and Habs offense/PP is scoring at top of league rate, so no big deal at moment, if team was 1-4 then maybe be more an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I am talking about "he has obviously got zero roll now or in the future"--- Your Quote CC in reference to Drewiske. Everybody has to come in somewhere. I don't know particullarly where his potential goes, but he was resigned, thereby affording him a chance. The reference to Plekanec and Eller was to remind you that both had little value in the minds of many when they began their careers in Montreal. First of all, I don't recall ever saying that either Plekanec of Eller had "little value." The former (if I remember right) I expected to become a smart, fast third-line C in the mould of Guy Carbonneau; the latter I consistently said was very hard to peg, with the potential to become anything from a 60-point C to Jan Bulis. Only in fanboy land does this constitute slagging. As for Drewiske, I wasn't commenting at all on his actual potential; I haven't seen him play enough to have any idea about his potential - and that was really my point, that this guy tends to sit, even when the Habs have a need for a defenceman with size (as in last year's playoffs). My suggestion was that the Habs themselves don't seem to believe in him as more than a black ace, and that it's weird, under those circumstances, to keep him with the big club. But hey, if you want to see this 28-year-old borderline NHLer as future Norris material, be my guest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 First of all, I don't recall ever saying that either Plekanec of Eller had "little value." The former (if I remember right) I expected to become a smart, fast third-line C in the mould of Guy Carbonneau; the latter I consistently said was very hard to peg, with the potential to become anything from a 60-point C to Jan Bulis. Only in fanboy land does this constitute slagging. As for Drewiske, I wasn't commenting at all on his actual potential; I haven't seen him play enough to have any idea about his potential - and that was really my point, that this guy tends to sit, even when the Habs have a need for a defenceman with size (as in last year's playoffs). My suggestion was that the Habs themselves don't seem to believe in him as more than a black ace, and that it's weird, under those circumstances, to keep him with the big club. But hey, if you want to see this 28-year-old borderline NHLer as future Norris material, be my guest. Obviously you are not reading me any better than I am reading you. All I am saying is that before we declare somebody as a non factor, let him have a chance. That goes for anybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Obviously you are not reading me any better than I am reading you. All I am saying is that before we declare somebody as a non factor, let him have a chance. That goes for anybody. Right. I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that the TEAM seems to have relegated Drewiske to the status of a semi-permanent black ace, and that I find that odd. That's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Right. I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that the TEAM seems to have relegated Drewiske to the status of a semi-permanent black ace, and that I find that odd. That's it. I am good with that, but I believe he is hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I am good with that, but I believe he is hurt. Right now, he is hurt (and will miss more time than anticipated). I wonder if that will inevitably force them to try and find a short-term stopgap off the waiver wire (since now no one's coming back for a few more weeks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGC21 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 If the Oilers are indeed shopping Yakupov, should Montreal make an offer? I can't imagine they would want draft picks back since they've compiled a ton over the years; they're probably looking for 2 top prospects or a solid veteran and a top prospect. What do y'all think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I don't want Yakupov. Not looking like he would fit in Therrien's game plan (or in any game plan, I'd say). They would probably want Beaulieu AND Tinordi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 If the Oilers are indeed shopping Yakupov, should Montreal make an offer? I can't imagine they would want draft picks back since they've compiled a ton over the years; they're probably looking for 2 top prospects or a solid veteran and a top prospect. What do y'all think? I think they'd move him for a goalie. If not a goalie, then probably an established d-man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I think they'd move him for a goalie. If not a goalie, then probably an established d-man. i think that goalie is Miller. Seems to me Edmonton and Buffalo match up good, both are struggling and both have some pretty nice assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 And with Eberle, Hall, RNH and Gagner, they could so easily have picked Murray... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 i think that goalie is Miller. Seems to me Edmonton and Buffalo match up good, both are struggling and both have some pretty nice assets. Edmonton is on Miller's no-trade list and is a pending UFA. That's not worth moving Yakupov for (unless they get him to accept a deal to Edmonton and an extension). Miller to Edmonton would be a good fit though if they could sign him. And with Eberle, Hall, RNH and Gagner, they could so easily have picked Murray... One of the insiders (I think McKenzie) said last week or so that a lot of their scouts wanted Murray. Someone above them intervened. https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/386716521780609024 https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/386717253430833152 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.