habzz22 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Watching Calgary/anaheim last night, i couldn't help but notice that Beauchemin was one of the best defencemen on the ice for either team. How did we let this guy get away??? :?- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Watching Calgary/anaheim last night, i couldn't help but notice that Beauchemin was one of the best defencemen on the ice for either team. How did we let this guy get away??? :?- Same way as Hainsey, signed away off waivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 spilled milk, gentleman, spilled milk...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I don't care so much about the loss of Beauchemin since he wouldn't really be a top 6 defenseman on the current roster. If anything, he could have prevented the signing of Dandeneault, thus saving us nearly a million in salary, but getting Dandeneault provided some proven NHL depth that Gainey probably wanted going into a new "era" for the league. Also, we shouldn't forget things didn't work so well for him in Montreal or Colombus, and only started looking this good when he got paired with the guy who won the Norris last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Also, we shouldn't forget things didn't work so well for him in Montreal or Columbus, and only started looking this good when he got paired with the guy who won the Norris last season. I wouldn't say that, he looked fairly strong in Columbus. I was disappointed to see him go in that deal. I'd have much prefered that they used Suchy in that deal, but oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Most of you would agree that Gainey is bringing in more goods than bads in the Habs's soup and that there is much to be said nowdays about some of the observable positive results of his fine influence over the team as the CH looked mighty fine while entering this year playoffs. Actual performances of a team is what its all about......if the CH can stirred some shitt in those playoffs while making some serious progress in the Eastern standing next season......any question marks we might have had will fade into insignificance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 The point is that Montreal's defensemen prospect cupboard is pretty bare right now, especially of guys who can step up in the next few years. There is nobody. Thats why losing Beauchemin and Hainsey hurts so much right now. Especially when you lose them for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombTHEice Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Hainsey got lots of chances here but it seemed like it was the wrong place for him. I'm sure Gainey wanted to trade this guy and not lose him for free - maybe there wasn't a good offer to consider, a player who could have helped the HABS in some way. As for Beauchemin - I think we lost him during the off-season (lockout season) via waivers if I'm not wrong? There was some kind of gentleman agreement that nobody picks a player from the waivers during that time but nonetheless the Jackets picked him up. Pretty stupid move for them anyways as they lost him to the Ducks later. Maybe this guy could have helped our team but what happened, happened and those 2 guys are playing somewhere else. In soccer it's normal that you lose great players for free and nobody is complaining about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Hainsey got lots of chances here but it seemed like it was the wrong place for him. I'm sure Gainey wanted to trade this guy and not lose him for free - maybe there wasn't a good offer to consider, a player who could have helped the HABS in some way. As for Beauchemin - I think we lost him during the off-season (lockout season) via waivers if I'm not wrong? There was some kind of gentleman agreement that nobody picks a player from the waivers during that time but nonetheless the Jackets picked him up. Pretty stupid move for them anyways as they lost him to the Ducks later. Maybe this guy could have helped our team but what happened, happened and those 2 guys are playing somewhere else. In soccer it's normal that you lose great players for free and nobody is complaining about it. I wouldn't say Hainsey got lots of chances. He got one decent chance where he got some decent ice-time, but still wasn't really allowed to show his strengths. Hainsey was first and foremost an offensive defenseman, and always had a few weaknesses in his defensive game. While I agree that the organization must work with this kind of player on improving his overall game, you MUST at least give him enough room so that he feels he can take chances in the offensive zone without being benched if he makes a mistake. In his case, it seems that it was zero-tolerance, and he was never able to grow as a player with the Canadiens. In other words, Montreal (although it was a different management team - the Houle era) should not have drafted a very offensive-minded defenseman if they were never going to give him the chance to be one. Today, I'm a little afraid that they will do the same to Andrei Kostsitsyn, who should have played in the NHL at least in the second half of this season instead of working on his defensive game in Hamilton. Hopefully for Hainsey, Colombus was far more patient, and it seems that he has improved a lot this season. I hope for him that things work out, and that he becomes the player he can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 ...In other words, Montreal (although it was a different management team - the Houle era) should not have drafted a very offensive-minded defenseman if they were never going to give him the chance to be one. Today, I'm a little afraid that they will do the same to Andrei Kostsitsyn, who should have played in the NHL at least in the second half of this season instead of working on his defensive game in Hamilton... For those of us who are old enough to remember - even Guy Lafluer was told by Pollock & Bowman early in his career that he had to work on his defensive game in order to play in the NHL. The game is played in both ends of the rink, and if you are a defensive liability then you're in trouble at this level. Gainey grew up learning the importance of both aspects of the game, and Habs players & prospects better get used to it if they want to play under this management regime! That approach is precisely why the Habs won 4 in a row in the 70's...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 For those of us who are old enough to remember - even Guy Lafluer was told by Pollock & Bowman early in his career that he had to work on his defensive game in order to play in the NHL. The game is played in both ends of the rink, and if you are a defensive liability then you're in trouble at this level. Gainey grew up learning the importance of both aspects of the game, and Habs players & prospects better get used to it if they want to play under this management regime! That approach is precisely why the Habs won 4 in a row in the 70's...... Like I said, I too agree that an organization has to work with these highly skilled offensive types so that they at least don't become a liability for the team. However, I also think that they should also work with them so that they continue to improve their offensive game as well, which in turn will help them gain the more confidence, and thus make it easier to work on the other aspects. I really doubt that the coaching staff in Hamilton has been working with Kostsityn on his speed, puck handling, creativity, ... but rather just on how to dump the puck, and on how to not take any chances. This organization seems to forget that playing a good 2-way game also involves being productive in the offensive zone. I said that too before: I'm a 100% certain that a guy like Svatos would have never had the season he was having if he had been drafted by Montreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Like I said, I too agree that an organization has to work with these highly skilled offensive types so that they at least don't become a liability for the team. However, I also think that they should also work with them so that they continue to improve their offensive game as well, which in turn will help them gain the more confidence, and thus make it easier to work on the other aspects. I really doubt that the coaching staff in Hamilton has been working with Kostsityn on his speed, puck handling, creativity, ... but rather just on how to dump the puck, and on how to not take any chances. This organization seems to forget that playing a good 2-way game also involves being productive in the offensive zone. I said that too before: I'm a 100% certain that a guy like Svatos would have never had the season he was having if he had been drafted by Montreal. Wasn't the problem with Hainsey as much attitude as anything else? For the entire time he was in the Montreal system, you never heard a good thing about him from any quarter. Maybe he's matured in Columbus, or maybe he'll flame out in a year or two as often happens with talented, bad-attitude players; or maybe the 'attitude' issue was exagerrated. Nonetheless, if he was a punk, I can't blame the organization for devaluing him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Wasn't the problem with Hainsey as much attitude as anything else? For the entire time he was in the Montreal system, you never heard a good thing about him from any quarter. Maybe he's matured in Columbus, or maybe he'll flame out in a year or two as often happens with talented, bad-attitude players; or maybe the 'attitude' issue was exagerrated. Nonetheless, if he was a punk, I can't blame the organization for devaluing him. that crazy columbus nightlife will be the end of him (actually not a half-bad berg) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iron Lung Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Ron Hainsey.... Tom Poti anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Like I said, I too agree that an organization has to work with these highly skilled offensive types so that they at least don't become a liability for the team. However, I also think that they should also work with them so that they continue to improve their offensive game as well, which in turn will help them gain the more confidence, and thus make it easier to work on the other aspects. I really doubt that the coaching staff in Hamilton has been working with Kostsityn on his speed, puck handling, creativity, ... but rather just on how to dump the puck, and on how to not take any chances. This organization seems to forget that playing a good 2-way game also involves being productive in the offensive zone. I said that too before: I'm a 100% certain that a guy like Svatos would have never had the season he was having if he had been drafted by Montreal. How do you know what the coaching staff in Hamilton was teaching him over the course of the season? He got a lot more ice time in Hamilton than he would have got in Montreal, and the best/only way to get better is playing regularly. And defensive play in the nuetral zone forward is vital to creating offense. If he is all offense and no defense, then he can become a liability that will be taken advantage of in crucial game situations. He's in Hamilton for a purpose - his game needs some work. I think guys like Carbonneau, Jarvis & Gainey know a players NHL calibre strengths and weaknesses better than any of us ever will. As far as Svatos goes, well if my aunt had balls....... How do you know that he would have been a write off in Montreal - do you have a crystal ball that I can use for a while? I want to check my stocks.... People spend far too much time comparing A to B. It isn't relative as he isn't part of the Habs organization? If a player has the skills of a Svatos then they will end up playing sooner than later. If the player is not ready yet then they better improve their game, or they'll just end up riding the buses somewhere. Lots of players in lots of different organizations may have very different results! The good ones and the complete players rarely have that problem. 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.