Saku hates this winning streak. Ducks @ Bell Centre, 7:30PM

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

"this whole idea that habs management is dedicated to crushing young players is not borne out of any evidence"

no kidding.

never heard anyone ridiculously imply that there is "dedication" to not developing players. Just different opinions on 1. when certain players are deemed "ready" 2. Whether its best to go to the red wing way and leave them in the minors longer, or bring them up and let the developing continue at the nhl level. Both have worked throughout time and throughout the league. Thats why MB gets the big bucks though............it his call.

Worth noting however that Subban is the first Dman to come up through the habs ranks, that developed into a rock solid defense man. Last one being who? Markov? Drafted in 97? Before that Desjardins? Drafted in 87? I know since the turn of the century PK has been the only one that comes to mind.

Are they "dedicated to squashing young talent " ...of course not! Have they been inept at drafting and developing defenseman? Yes.

Both NB and JT are an opportunity to change that. Might explain why they are proceeding with apparent caution.

Well, if it's just a matter of choosing between two equally valid models of player development, then that's one thing. From what I can tell, there is a certain stridency among the critics of the Habs' approach, and that stridency is disconnected from the '6 of one, a half-dozen of the other' attitude you're expressing in this post. The Habs appear to have a policy of asking young players to earn their spot rather than having it being handed to them unconditionally on a platter, regardless of their play or their attitude. This approach has been working with some consistency during the MB era: Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Sekac, and even Bournival and Andrigetto have all been given ample ice time and usage as their play has dictated and have all developed, or are developing, just fine. The same is occurring with Beaulieu, who has quietly been moving up the depth chart of late. There really is no problem here. But you wouldn't know it from the fuming about Beaulieu and Tinordi. The indignation seems completely disproportionate to what's actually going on. That is what leads me to respond with rhetorical overstatement - it's a reaction to the chronically hyperbolic tone of the critique.

It's a bit like the arguments about Therrien. If it's simply a matter of saying that MT is not one of the small number of elite coaches in the league, then I couldn't agree more. But folks don't stop there - they go further an act as if Therrien is just a complete blithering moron whose firing would represent addition by subtraction no matter who we replaced him with. Again, it's all totally out of whack with the reality of a guy who has performed, by any objective measure, as a decent NHL coach.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I'm personally of the opinion that Therrien has little to do with the usage of Tinordi. It's Bergevin. If Bergevin was confident in Tinordi he would have sent Allen to the AHL. We saw the removal of Bourque and Moen and how it pretty much pushed Therrien's hand to use Sekac more. If Bergevin felt that way about Tinordi it'd be done. I expect Therrien to try and win with the lineup given while it's up to Bergevin to provide a winning lineup.

I don't particularly like the handling of Beaulieu and Tinordi but at the same time I don't think either is/was being ruined.

[Habs30/31]

Well, if it's just a matter of choosing between two equally valid models of player development, then that's one thing. From what I can tell, there is a certain stridency among the critics of the Habs' approach, and that stridency is disconnected from the '6 of one, a half-dozen of the other' attitude you're expressing in this post. The Habs appear to have a policy of asking young players to earn their spot rather than having it being handed to them unconditionally on a platter, regardless of their play or their attitude. This approach has been working with some consistency during the MB era: Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Sekac, and even Bournival and Andrigetto have all been given ample ice time and usage as their play has dictated and have all developed, or are developing, just fine. The same is occurring with Beaulieu, who has quietly been moving up the depth chart of late. There really is no problem here. But you wouldn't know it from the fuming about Beaulieu and Tinordi. The indignation seems completely disproportionate to what's actually going on. That is what leads me to respond with rhetorical overstatement - it's a reaction to the chronically hyperbolic tone of the critique.

It's a bit like the arguments about Therrien. If it's simply a matter of saying that MT is not one of the small number of elite coaches in the league, then I couldn't agree more. But folks don't stop there - they go further an act as if Therrien is just a complete blithering moron whose firing would represent addition by subtraction no matter who we replaced him with. Again, it's all totally out of whack with the reality of a guy who has performed, by any objective measure, as a decent NHL coach.

Yes, we are all way off. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Habs30/31]

I'm personally of the opinion that Therrien has little to do with the usage of Tinordi. It's Bergevin. If Bergevin was confident in Tinordi he would have sent Allen to the AHL. We saw the removal of Bourque and Moen and how it pretty much pushed Therrien's hand to use Sekac more. If Bergevin felt that way about Tinordi it'd be done. I expect Therrien to try and win with the lineup given while it's up to Bergevin to provide a winning lineup.

I don't particularly like the handling of Beaulieu and Tinordi but at the same time I don't think either is/was being ruined.

Exactly. Neither are being "ruined" Some fans are watching closely is all. Some fans are tired of band aid defenseman that are castoffs from other clubs coming to montreal right before they head off to pasture. So who can blame them for itching to see two new defenseman (that have been in the organization for about eight years combined). New players also bring exciting hockey and anticipation of the whats to come. The habs blue line after all has basically sucked for a couple of decades.

[ICEWATER77]

OMG Don, are you really comparing dd, pleks, Gallagher and galchenyuk to two of the premier snipers in the league? wow, of course stamkos and kessel won't miss as many of the open nets!...that's why they're paid a king's ransom. let's face it, our weakness is on d. Your fav whipping boy, N8 the GR8 is looking good back there btw.

[Habs30/31]

OMG Don, are you really comparing dd, pleks, Gallagher and galchenyuk to two of the premier snipers in the league? wow, of course stamkos and kessel won't miss as many of the open nets!...that's why they're paid a king's ransom. let's face it, our weakness is on d. Your fav whipping boy, N8 the GR8 is looking good back there btw.

Yea according to don what ails the habs is not having the likes of stampkos and kessel in place of gally and chucky.............and heck while you are at it takes chicagos, pittsburg and bostons best players too. Thats what the habs need....................and a partridge in a pear tree.

[KoRP]

I'm personally of the opinion that Therrien has little to do with the usage of Tinordi. It's Bergevin. If Bergevin was confident in Tinordi he would have sent Allen to the AHL. We saw the removal of Bourque and Moen and how it pretty much pushed Therrien's hand to use Sekac more. If Bergevin felt that way about Tinordi it'd be done. I expect Therrien to try and win with the lineup given while it's up to Bergevin to provide a winning lineup.

I don't particularly like the handling of Beaulieu and Tinordi but at the same time I don't think either is/was being ruined.

Thanks for that, I think you are probably right. Also, I cannot argue Dbalr's point about Tinordi's play in the A.

Does make me wonder though, does MB consider salary cap/contract criteria and the long term costs of a Tinordi, and keep that cost down, or is it really truly all about readiness?

Tinordi needs waivers next year, then re-signed....

[Machine of Loving Grace]

If Tinordi had an amazing season he still wouldn't make $2m.

Beaulieu is likely to be up for the rest of the year and unless he breaks out scoring wise and turns into Anton Stralman he's also not hitting $2m.

If Bergevin wasn't playing youngsters who could perform just to keep costs down? Fire him now. He obviously isn't.

[ICEWATER77]

shrewd businessman, that MB..could it be a cap-management ploy?

[hab29RETIRED]

shrewd businessman, that MB..could it be a cap-management ploy?

Proper cap management would dictate playing Beaulieu and Tinordi and dumping Gilbert and Allen.

[Habs30/31]

Proper cap management would dictate playing Beaulieu and Tinordi and dumping Gilbert and Allen.

yes it would.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Yes, we are all way off. Thanks for clearing that up.

Happy to help. You need it.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Well, if it's just a matter of choosing between two equally valid models of player development, then that's one thing. From what I can tell, there is a certain stridency among the critics of the Habs' approach, and that stridency is disconnected from the '6 of one, a half-dozen of the other' attitude you're expressing in this post. The Habs appear to have a policy of asking young players to earn their spot rather than having it being handed to them unconditionally on a platter, regardless of their play or their attitude. This approach has been working with some consistency during the MB era: Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Sekac, and even Bournival and Andrigetto have all been given ample ice time and usage as their play has dictated and have all developed, or are developing, just fine. The same is occurring with Beaulieu, who has quietly been moving up the depth chart of late. There really is no problem here. But you wouldn't know it from the fuming about Beaulieu and Tinordi. The indignation seems completely disproportionate to what's actually going on. That is what leads me to respond with rhetorical overstatement - it's a reaction to the chronically hyperbolic tone of the critique.

It's a bit like the arguments about Therrien. If it's simply a matter of saying that MT is not one of the small number of elite coaches in the league, then I couldn't agree more. But folks don't stop there - they go further an act as if Therrien is just a complete blithering moron whose firing would represent addition by subtraction no matter who we replaced him with. Again, it's all totally out of whack with the reality of a guy who has performed, by any objective measure, as a decent NHL coach.

Ask Drew Shore and Louis Leblanc how much being handed a roster spot helped their development.

[KoRP]

Well, I'm not saying hand someone a roster spot, all I'm saying is the criteria for some deserving to stay in the lineup is questionable, but alas it is a business, and I know nothing from the inside, and trust Bergevin's decision on Tinordi, hard to argue Dbalr's summation 'cause it makes sense in so many ways.

Drew who?

Louis is still a bust....

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Leblanc wasn't handed a roster spot. Leblanc made the roster when half the team was injured. I don't think he played poorly either. He just didn't play well enough to stay up. Geoffrion wasn't handed a spot either.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Obviously I am not of the school that says "hand rookies automatic roster spots irrespective of their play or attitude." That said, there's room for legitimate disagreement in terms of overall philosophy vis-à-vis young players. My point above was really just that there's an unwarranted stridency among critics of the Habs' present approach - especially given that the Habs have had a rather good track record of developing young talent over the past few seasons. This really doesn't warrant acting as though Bergevin and Therrien are total fools when it comes to handling youth. The empirical evidence strongly suggests that they are not.

Now, someone might prefer to see Tinordi being the #6 guy. But since, first, no one seems to be saying that getting heavy AHL duty is wrecking his development, and second, Tinordi defenders are usually very tempered in his defence - saying things along the lines of, "sure, he'd be mediocre, but so is Weaver" - we're ultimately talking about a marginal question. It just doesn't warrant angry denunciations of management. The issue of Bryan Allen is a red herring; Allen has played a grand total of five games with us and is likely to be a healthy scratch now that Beaulieu is making a strong case for being a regular. Let Tinordi continue to marinade, it's not going to hurt a thing.

[habs rule]

Obviously I am not of the school that says "hand rookies automatic roster spots irrespective of their play or attitude." That said, there's room for legitimate disagreement in terms of overall philosophy vis-à-vis young players. My point above was really just that there's an unwarranted stridency among critics of the Habs' present approach - especially given that the Habs have had a rather good track record of developing young talent over the past few seasons. This really doesn't warrant acting as though Bergevin and Therrien are total fools when it comes to handling youth. The empirical evidence strongly suggests that they are not.

Now, someone might prefer to see Tinordi being the #6 guy. But since, first, no one seems to be saying that getting heavy AHL duty is wrecking his development, and second, Tinordi defenders are usually very tempered in his defence - saying things along the lines of, "sure, he'd be mediocre, but so is Weaver" - we're ultimately talking about a marginal question. It just doesn't warrant angry denunciations of management. The issue of Bryan Allen is a red herring; Allen has played a grand total of five games with us and is likely to be a healthy scratch now that Beaulieu is making a strong case for being a regular. Let Tinordi continue to marinade, it's not going to hurt a thing.

Habs fans are an impatient lot. We think a guy will be a star get him going NOW. All we have to do is look at the first couple of years that Lafleur played, he was no superstar. Patience was needed.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

The Habs are a top team now. Teams that are at the top of the standings usually aren't inundated with prospects.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The Habs are a top team now. Teams that are at the top of the standings usually aren't inundated with prospects.

This isn't as true as it used to be in the past.

[Habs30/31]

Habs fans are an impatient lot. We think a guy will be a star get him going NOW. All we have to do is look at the first couple of years that Lafleur played, he was no superstar. Patience was needed.

True. But how many games did guy play in the minors? and how many stiffs were playing ahead of him?

know what you are saying but bad comparison

The Habs are a top team now. Teams that are at the top of the standings usually aren't inundated with prospects.

bruins have had three prospects on d make the team since they won the cup

[habs rule]

True. But how many games did guy play in the minors? and how many stiffs were playing ahead of him?

know what you are saying but bad comparison

Actually I went back and looked up the stats for his first 3 years.....

1971-1972 Canadiens 73 29 35 64 27 48 5 0 5 187 15.5 1972-1973 Canadiens 69 28 27 55 16 51 9 0 7 176 15.9 1973-1974 Canadiens 73 21 35 56 10 29 3 1 2 167 12.6

You are right it was a bad comparison cause if these guys had stats like he did they would be superstars. I forgot just how high the bar was set for Guy. 29,28,and 21 goals first 3 years is pretty good. After that of course we were talking 50+ goals per year.

[Habs30/31]

Actually I went back and looked up the stats for his first 3 years.....

1971-1972 Canadiens 73 29 35 64 27 48 5 0 5 187 15.5 1972-1973 Canadiens 69 28 27 55 16 51 9 0 7 176 15.9 1973-1974 Canadiens 73 21 35 56 10 29 3 1 2 167 12.6

You are right it was a bad comparison cause if these guys had stats like he did they would be superstars. I forgot just how high the bar was set for Guy. 29,28,and 21 goals first 3 years is pretty good. After that of course we were talking 50+ goals per year.

Ah the good ol seventies. Yes after his third season Guy took off the helmet. .............and the rest is history.

[Toronthab]

I'm personally of the opinion that Therrien has little to do with the usage of Tinordi. It's Bergevin. If Bergevin was confident in Tinordi he would have sent Allen to the AHL. We saw the removal of Bourque and Moen and how it pretty much pushed Therrien's hand to use Sekac more. If Bergevin felt that way about Tinordi it'd be done. I expect Therrien to try and win with the lineup given while it's up to Bergevin to provide a winning lineup.

I don't particularly like the handling of Beaulieu and Tinordi but at the same time I don't think either is/was being ruined.

I don't think for a moment anything but that everyone who is part of the management team from ownership through coach.. and who knows.. scouting input.. are all on the same page.

We seem to buy into the notion that when a Beaulieu or Tinordi is up for a bit.. sits and watches for a bit.. or back down for a bit.. that its' some kind of seat of the pants , willy nilly, ad hoc.. oh hell.. send him back kind of decision... rather like what we might do.

It simply can't be in any half sane organization. MB and MT keep a formal distinction because you don't want your career decider running the dressing room too. It's the same reason most companies don't have popular sales people doing collection calls on overdue accounts.

MB and MT would be constantly discussing the best strategies and moves going forward ...including being more than fair to underperforming players, and thereby establishing Montreal as a place where they want to win alright, and are moving towards it, but also as a place that isn't run by out of control reactionaries prone to forgetting their meds.

I think as CC is pointing out, Beaulieu is getting exactly the same solid, conditional reinforcing and positive message from everyone in management. I don't think that when he's sent down it's with an hysterical career's over rant playing in his head, but with a message that says,...You've been progressing really well. We really like your skating.. your puck movement.. your offensive alertness and your d, e, f, ..etc... But there are three things we want you to work on and your best place to work on them is not on centre stage.

Every link, in the executive - management chain is playing their string on the same violin.. and they're all playing the same song.

Maybe NB went out on an all-nighter in NY... and found himself in the AHL the next week.. Maybe it's to work on a second look before flipping passes under pressure in our end. . .

They know.

We just don't.

My question is whether the development process finds us with Tinordi this year or next. I'd like to see him up as I'm sure the decision makers do...when he's ready.

It's a good world where I don't run les glorieux.

[habs rule]

I don't think for a moment anything but that everyone who is part of the management team from ownership through coach.. and who knows.. scouting input.. are all on the same page.

We seem to buy into the notion that when a Beaulieu or Tinordi is up for a bit.. sits and watches for a bit.. or back down for a bit.. that its' some kind of seat of the pants , willy nilly, ad hoc.. oh hell.. send him back kind of decision... rather like what we might do.

It simply can't be in any half sane organization. MB and MT keep a formal distinction because you don't want your career decider running the dressing room too. It's the same reason most companies don't have popular sales people doing collection calls on overdue accounts.

MB and MT would be constantly discussing the best strategies and moves going forward ...including being more than fair to underperforming players, and thereby establishing Montreal as a place where they want to win alright, and are moving towards it, but also as a place that isn't run by out of control reactionaries prone to forgetting their meds.

I think as CC is pointing out, Beaulieu is getting exactly the same solid, conditional reinforcing and positive message from everyone in management. I don't think that when he's sent down it's with an hysterical career's over rant playing in his head, but with a message that says,...You've been progressing really well. We really like your skating.. your puck movement.. your offensive alertness and your d, e, f, ..etc... But there are three things we want you to work on and your best place to work on them is not on centre stage.

Every link, in the executive - management chain is playing their string on the same violin.. and they're all playing the same song.

Maybe NB went out on an all-nighter in NY... and found himself in the AHL the next week.. Maybe it's to work on a second look before flipping passes under pressure in our end. . .

They know.

We just don't.

My question is whether the development process finds us with Tinordi this year or next. I'd like to see him up as I'm sure the decision makers do...when he's ready.

It's a good world where I don't run les glorieux.

Well written THab and well thought out. I hope that Le Genius and MB are on the same page, however MB does have the final say on personnel moves. Le Genius and just about every other coach out there is paid to win NOW. So when given the choice of playing a rookie who will make mistakes, as opposed to playing the veteran, Le Genius will often choose the vet. It is a harsh world and you are a losing streak away from being unemployed. So the GM has to be aware of this and make personnel moves for the long term rather than the short term. MOLG is exactly right in his post. It does mean that MB and Le Genius have a lot of confidence and trust in each other. And I believe they do. MB is in charge of short term and long term asset management, Le Genius is in charge of winning the next game with the talent he is given. I think Tinordi will be coming up for good in the month of so. MB is also the GM of The Dogs, so he has to keep a close eye on what is happening there. I don't know if any of this makes sense but it is just my opinion.

[Toronthab]

Well written THab and well thought out. I hope that Le Genius and MB are on the same page, however MB does have the final say on personnel moves. Le Genius and just about every other coach out there is paid to win NOW. So when given the choice of playing a rookie who will make mistakes, as opposed to playing the veteran, Le Genius will often choose the vet. It is a harsh world and you are a losing streak away from being unemployed. So the GM has to be aware of this and make personnel moves for the long term rather than the short term. MOLG is exactly right in his post. It does mean that MB and Le Genius have a lot of confidence and trust in each other. And I believe they do. MB is in charge of short term and long term asset management, Le Genius is in charge of winning the next game with the talent he is given. I think Tinordi will be coming up for good in the month of so. MB is also the GM of The Dogs, so he has to keep a close eye on what is happening there. I don't know if any of this makes sense but it is just my opinion.

You always make sense and it's true that the Coach's job is to deal the hand he's given, but the GM knows the variables. If Joe Clunk is brought on board to be played, then nobody is shocked if things go clunk. Sure GM's are going to burn the coach rather than themselves typically if the natives are demanding a human torch ceremony, but I think there is usually a lot of unanimity on what's going on at all levels.

Good guess on Tinordi I think. I've liked a lot of what I've seen though my eye is not as good as some of the commentators here. But I'd bet a buck, or at least a rabbit that he's up and larnin' before too long, though I'd want to hear what Brian had to say about that before I gamble the whole hare.