Habs30/31 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 It's mind boggling to me how many people forget that Sekac had teams which could have slotted him in the top six immediately (Carolina comes to mind) interested in his services. If he wanted immediate NHL minutes he could have had them. He chose Montreal, which had the best record out of the teams seriously interested in him (most analysts thought he was going to Philadelphia or Vancouver, the Canucks another team where he could have made top six) and had the biggest logjam of forwards. He went to the team which had the highest risk of sending him back to the AHL. All of those signs point to a player that knew he wasn't going to have it easy. And people assume he's going to take the easy route and just leave if not given minutes? The kid's dad is frustrated. He's frustrated. And they both have good reason to be. Sekac has played well enough to be in this lineup. He played better than Weise, who inexplicably got top minutes on the DD/Patches line. He played better than Moen. He played better than Malhotra offensively. He played better than Eller and Bourque by far. The only guys you could argue he didn't play over were Pacioretty, Plekanec, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Pacioretty, Desharnais and Parenteau. That still should have meant a spot for him in the roster. But Therrien benched him and rode Bourque in the hopes he'd break out of a slump. It didn't work and Sekac is now back in the lineup. And the only reason anyone is giving him heck is because they think he's just going to bolt to Europe. It's bloody silly. When Blake Wheeler refused to report to Phoenix, everyone applauded him. When Sekac reports, plays, gets benched and might be bummed out about it? It's good riddance, get the hell out foreigner. Well i dont know who was saying get the hell out........many hab fans, including this one wanted him back in the line up asap. Wondered aloud why he was scratched in the first place. Personally unless his play drops off big time, I keep him ahead of Moen, Bournival, Bourque, ....none of those three would i play ahead of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 sounds like you kinda like him now, don..it's ok to be wrong once in awhile bud I haven't slagged him, I simply argued he should start in AHL, even if for just 5-10games. And with the depth on Habs of vet forwards, don't you think he would of been better off playing games consistently since early Oct? What does a month in AHL mean to a 10-15 year career, hasn't ever hurt any player one bit (cept scaring Nygren in Murdertown Hamilton). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I haven't slagged him, I simply argued he should start in AHL, even if for just 5-10games. And with the depth on Habs of vet forwards, don't you think he would of been better off playing games consistently since early Oct? What does a month in AHL mean to a 10-15 year career, hasn't ever hurt any player one bit (cept scaring Nygren in Murdertown Hamilton). It wouldn't hurt him to play in the ahl, It would hurt the Montreal Canadiens. This kid has real talent been playing against men over there for a while. We need him to play. Bourque had his shot he is gone. long live Sekach. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Am I the only one who thinks this guy is going to be a really good player for us really soon if not right now?? he's been arguably our best forward over the last 6 periods.... I think the reason he chose montreal is that he's oozing with confidence... constantly mixing up in practice with subban and the bigger guns of this team. he is a talent, he knows it, the team knows it and he believes he can make the habs and be an impact..... pretty bold if you ask me choosing the habs over other teams with less depth. am i comfortable with MT and MB giving bourque a fair shake to start the season in the line up and letting him fail before dumping him after a good playoff?? i think so... am i ok with giving a warrior like moen a chance back in the line up and with something to prove after a bad spell of injuries over bournival? i think so. BUT, for the habs organization to make such a statement with bourque about their ambition and willingness to make the right decisions in order to move forward with this team and make them stronger... speaks volumes about the great things this club has been achieving.... They believe in Sekac right now and i think i do to. there was something i see in him during pre season that i still see in him thus far as well as live in buffalo..... this kid has talent to go with his amazing attitude, dedication and belief in himself...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 i also recall during preseason thinking out loud that he was our most dangerous looking forward in each game he played but had no points to show for it... it looks like we are seeing more of that guy lately and more often... could the points finally start coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 It wouldn't hurt him to play in the ahl, It would hurt the Montreal Canadiens. This kid has real talent been playing against men over there for a while. We need him to play. Bourque had his shot he is gone. long live Sekach. For sure kid has skill and tantalizing size/speed/hands. But, he will go through a slump and how he (& MT/MB) deal with that will be interesting. Don't say I want (or ever wanted) Rene to play over him, but MB must give direction on whether or not he can put Bourque in pressbox for every game; if MB has plans to try and trade him for "Bag o Pucks" and retain some salary, or take some underachieving guy whose contract runs out this year. Like I said before, would be very small minority of HabFans who will miss Rene and are not excited to see how good this Sekac is. Habs need frickin offense...period and if Sekac can bury 15 or so, would be a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 For sure kid has skill and tantalizing size/speed/hands. But, he will go through a slump and how he (& MT/MB) deal with that will be interesting. Don't say I want (or ever wanted) Rene to play over him, but MB must give direction on whether or not he can put Bourque in pressbox for every game; if MB has plans to try and trade him for "Bag o Pucks" and retain some salary, or take some underachieving guy whose contract runs out this year. Like I said before, would be very small minority of HabFans who will miss Rene and are not excited to see how good this Sekac is. Habs need frickin offense...period and if Sekac can bury 15 or so, would be a bonus. so what if he goes through a slump. who doesn't? kid was ripped out of the line up for no good reason. now even though he watched from the press box while the habs slumped.....he is out scoring DD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Sekac looks awesome now. Let's see how he looks after 40 games. Rookies traditionally have trouble putting together a complete season. That said, he's older than the average rookie and has substantial pro experience, so maybe he can handle it. As for his being "ripped out of the lineup for now good reason" by that old debbil Therrien, maybe Bourque was being shopped around and dressed for that reason. It's not rocket science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 For sure kid has skill and tantalizing size/speed/hands. But, he will go through a slump and how he (& MT/MB) deal with that will be interesting. Don't say I want (or ever wanted) Rene to play over him, but MB must give direction on whether or not he can put Bourque in pressbox for every game; if MB has plans to try and trade him for "Bag o Pucks" and retain some salary, or take some underachieving guy whose contract runs out this year. Like I said before, would be very small minority of HabFans who will miss Rene and are not excited to see how good this Sekac is. Habs need frickin offense...period and if Sekac can bury 15 or so, would be a bonus. Yes the kid will go through slumps in his career. Rene (drive me nuts) Dourque has been in a slump for 3+ years now in the regular season. H e has never gotten 20 POINTS in any year. That is pathetic. I would take Sekach having a slump for a month with no problem after Rene. I am pretty high on this guy right now and time will tell but he can't be any worse, at least he comes to play every night. Rene used to forget what he was doing, he thought it was public skate time at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Yes the kid will go through slumps in his career. Rene (drive me nuts) Dourque has been in a slump for 3+ years now in the regular season. H e has never gotten 20 POINTS in any year. That is pathetic. I would take Sekach having a slump for a month with no problem after Rene. I am pretty high on this guy right now and time will tell but he can't be any worse, at least he comes to play every night. Rene used to forget what he was doing, he thought it was public skate time at home. No question. It is almost impossible for Sekac to be worse than Dourque, who was literally a gigantic turd sitting on the ice; so we come out ahead, or at worst even, no matter what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Price (no relation) Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 No question. It is almost impossible for Sekac to be worse than Dourque, who was literally a gigantic turd sitting on the ice; so we come out ahead, or at worst even, no matter what happens. I do not think that word means what you think it means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I do not think that word means what you think it means. Literal/Figurative, I think we get the point and don't hear any one missing Rene yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Price (no relation) Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Literal/Figurative, I think we get the point and don't hear any one missing Rene yet. Oh, true. (But... literal is the opposite of figurative! it's a pet peeve of mine!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Oh, true. (But... literal is the opposite of figurative! it's a pet peeve of mine!) I don't think we have to many english majors on here. it's just for fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Saying that Bourque is literally a turd is a rhetorical move, hyperbole used for emphasis. The "real" intention is to analogize Bourque with a turd, or (more properly) to use the poetic device of metaphor ("Bourque is a turd" really standing in for the formally proper statement that "Bourque has the worth and repugnance of a turd"). By deploying the term "literally" in this context, what the speaker or writer is doing is symbolically repudiating the metaphorical intent - declaring that Bourque is so bad he does not only bring to mind a turd, he is a turd. Since everyone understands that this is hyperbole, just as everyone understands that the phrase "Bourque is a turd" is intended metaphorically - none of us actually thinks the speaker means to inform us that Bourque is physically made up of excrement - it is a perfectly admissible rhetorical move. To reject the use of "literally" here is analogous to rejecting the "Bourque is a turd" statement, which is equally untrue, and equally rhetorical; but the intended meaning of which is equally clear. Both statements are in fact permissible. All of which is that there's a time and a place for grammatical pedantry, and this isn't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Price (no relation) Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Saying that Bourque is literally a turd is a rhetorical move, hyperbole used for emphasis. The "real" intention is to analogize Bourque with a turd, or (more properly) to use the poetic device of metaphor ("Bourque is a turd" really standing in for the formally proper statement that "Bourque has the worth and repugnance of a turd"). By deploying the term "literally" in this context, what the speaker or writer is doing is symbolically repudiating the metaphorical intent - declaring that Bourque is so bad he does not only bring to mind a turd, he is a turd. Since everyone understands that this is hyperbole, just as everyone understands that the phrase "Bourque is a turd" is intended metaphorically - none of us actually thinks the speaker means to inform us that Bourque is physically made up of excrement - it is a perfectly admissible rhetorical move. To reject the use of "literally" here is analogous to rejecting the "Bourque is a turd" statement, which is equally untrue, but the intended meaning of which is equally clear. Both statements are in fact permissible. All of which is that there's a time and a place for grammatical pedantry, and this isn't one of them. Yeah yeah. Sorry. I had just read an article about some ridiculous dictionary adding "Figuratively" as one of its definitions for "Literally" due to common (mis)usage. My tolerance for such things is low! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Jeff, u have been B!tch slapped! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehab Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Just so we all agree Bork is a Turd. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Saying that Bourque is literally a turd is a rhetorical move, hyperbole used for emphasis. The "real" intention is to analogize Bourque with a turd, or (more properly) to use the poetic device of metaphor ("Bourque is a turd" really standing in for the formally proper statement that "Bourque has the worth and repugnance of a turd"). By deploying the term "literally" in this context, what the speaker or writer is doing is symbolically repudiating the metaphorical intent - declaring that Bourque is so bad he does not only bring to mind a turd, he is a turd. Since everyone understands that this is hyperbole, just as everyone understands that the phrase "Bourque is a turd" is intended metaphorically - none of us actually thinks the speaker means to inform us that Bourque is physically made up of excrement - it is a perfectly admissible rhetorical move. To reject the use of "literally" here is analogous to rejecting the "Bourque is a turd" statement, which is equally untrue, and equally rhetorical; but the intended meaning of which is equally clear. Both statements are in fact permissible. All of which is that there's a time and a place for grammatical pedantry, and this isn't one of them. William Strunk, is that you? Yeah yeah. Sorry. I had just read an article about some ridiculous dictionary adding "Figuratively" as one of its definitions for "Literally" due to common (mis)usage. My tolerance for such things is low! Language evolves in that way. The conventions of grammar revolve around our usage, not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 ok forget what I said about no english major's but it still just for fun. Just so we all agree Bork is a Turd. Right? yup an expensive Turd but a Turd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 ok forget what I said about no english major's but it still just for fun. yup an expensive Turd but a Turd. More a Shitwolf than turd I think? He looks like a GM's dream player; big fast skating power winger, but really, he is only in it for fame and $$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Why is everyone bad monthlong turds, by comparing Bourque to them? Saying that Bourque is literally a turd is a rhetorical move, hyperbole used for emphasis. The "real" intention is to analogize Bourque with a turd, or (more properly) to use the poetic device of metaphor ("Bourque is a turd" really standing in for the formally proper statement that "Bourque has the worth and repugnance of a turd"). By deploying the term "literally" in this context, what the speaker or writer is doing is symbolically repudiating the metaphorical intent - declaring that Bourque is so bad he does not only bring to mind a turd, he is a turd. Since everyone understands that this is hyperbole, just as everyone understands that the phrase "Bourque is a turd" is intended metaphorically - none of us actually thinks the speaker means to inform us that Bourque is physically made up of excrement - it is a perfectly admissible rhetorical move. To reject the use of "literally" here is analogous to rejecting the "Bourque is a turd" statement, which is equally untrue, and equally rhetorical; but the intended meaning of which is equally clear. Both statements are in fact permissible. All of which is that there's a time and a place for grammatical pedantry, and this isn't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Why is everyone bad monthlong turds, by comparing Bourque to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronthab Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Am I the only one who thinks this guy is going to be a really good player for us really soon if not right now?? he's been arguably our best forward over the last 6 periods.... I think the reason he chose montreal is that he's oozing with confidence... constantly mixing up in practice with subban and the bigger guns of this team. he is a talent, he knows it, the team knows it and he believes he can make the habs and be an impact..... pretty bold if you ask me choosing the habs over other teams with less depth. am i comfortable with MT and MB giving bourque a fair shake to start the season in the line up and letting him fail before dumping him after a good playoff?? i think so... am i ok with giving a warrior like moen a chance back in the line up and with something to prove after a bad spell of injuries over bournival? i think so. BUT, for the habs organization to make such a statement with bourque about their ambition and willingness to make the right decisions in order to move forward with this team and make them stronger... speaks volumes about the great things this club has been achieving.... They believe in Sekac right now and i think i do to. there was something i see in him during pre season that i still see in him thus far as well as live in buffalo..... this kid has talent to go with his amazing attitude, dedication and belief in himself...... Well said HoM. He sure looks like the real deal to me, and I don't think there's much doubt about that in the brain trust. I'm not much of a judge but he impresses the hell out of me. I think we've got a lot of good stuff happenin' on this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 and that was prior to MB shipping omen out for gonchar... 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.